Opinion on Status of SBrick

[nerdsforprez]

Agreed!

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117666&hl=

But I also agree with @moz....... although this is fine and dandy as a means of personal fun.... when it comes to a Lego competition one should stay within the confines of Lego.

[knotian]

BOY---- DID I START SUMPTIN!!! :classic:

I appreciate all the views. I believe I have my answer.

Ed

[nerdsforprez]

Dang it..... we wanted to keep debating.... :laugh: all joking aside.....glad you have an answer.....

[Blakbird]

The amount of non-LEGO that is acceptable in a model is a purely personal decision, therefore no one else's opinion makes the slightest difference. Do whatever you like!

[Dafgek81]

The amount of non-LEGO that is acceptable in a model is a purely personal decision, therefore no one else's opinion makes the slightest difference. Do whatever you like!

Amen to that

[aol000xw]

You don't see "non purists" jumping on every MOC that is just Lego

However on non pure MOCs I am used to see some negativity from "Keep Lego Pure" Internet Warriors

[DrJB]

Not sure I 'agree' with the 'obsession' about purist/legal. To me, your lego parts are yours to do whatever you want to, cut them, glue them, paint them .. or even use third-party add-ons. As for entering contests, them not allowing 3rd party add-ons is simply to ensure the field is 'even' and the contest is fair.

[Andy D]

Not sure I 'agree' with the 'obsession' about purist/legal. To me, your lego parts are yours to do whatever you want to, cut them, glue them, paint them .. or even use third-party add-ons. As for entering contests, them not allowing 3rd party add-ons is simply to ensure the field is 'even' and the contest is fair.

Exactly!

This horse is now deceased and beaten.

Happy New Year,

Andy D

[allanp]

Well, obviously it's wrong to try to tell someone "oh, you shouldn't use third party parts, you should only use 100% Lego elements in your builds!" but to be honest, I've not seen anyone say that to anyone. I have not seen anyone trying to tell someone else how to enjoy their hobby. A lot of people here seem to be complaining about something that isn't happening, at least so rarely that I can't remember a single case of it, so isn't that a straw man argument? What I have seen is people saying something like "yeah it's cool, but I personally don't find it as impressive as a MOC built with 100% Lego." That's not the same as trying to tell other people how to enjoy their hobby, that's just having an opinion (one that I don't always agree with but that's not my point). Isn't it slightly hypocritical to bang on about the non existent problem of people telling other people how to enjoy their own personal hobby whilst at the same time telling people how they should be forming their own personal opinion? Besides, from the way the original question was asked, referring to judging MOCs, it kinda sounded like it was asking about MOCs for competition, for which it's pretty much agreed that unless specifically allowed otherwise it should be 100% Lego.

Edited December 30, 2015 by allanp

[L3gonut]

I think it's cool to stay within restrictions, as for myselve I'm not as good as many good builders, however I think it is cool to find a third party solution when the options at hand don't give the endsolution and a thirdparty will.

It's all about the end product and staying within boundaries as much as possible should IMHO always be persuid especially concerning contest there are the rules. other than than that, It's not called a MOC for nothing..

EDIT;

I saw some third party solututions that made 8043 work well..

Edited December 30, 2015 by L3gonut

[allanp]

I think it's cool to stay within restrictions, as for myselve I'm not as good as many good builders, however I think it is cool to find a third party solution when the options at hand don't give the endsolution and a thirdparty will.

It's all about the end product and staying within boundaries as much as possible should IMHO always be persuid especially concerning contest there are the rules. other than than that, It's not called a MOC for nothing..

EDIT;

I saw some third party solututions that made 8043 work well..

very true, I have edited my last post.

[aol000xw]

Well, obviously it's wrong to try to tell someone "oh, you shouldn't use third party parts, you should only use 100% Lego elements in your builds!" but to be honest, I've not seen anyone say that to anyone. I have not seen anyone trying to tell someone else how to enjoy their hobby. A lot of people here seem to be complaining about something that isn't happening, at least so rarely that I can't remember a single case of it, so isn't that a straw man argument? What I have seen is people saying something like "yeah it's cool, but I personally don't find it as impressive as a MOC built with 100% Lego." That's not the same as trying to tell other people how to enjoy their hobby, that's just having an opinion (one that I don't always agree with but that's not my point). Isn't it slightly hypocritical to bang on about the non existent problem of people telling other people how to enjoy their own personal hobby whilst at the same time telling people how they should be forming their own personal opinion? Besides, from the way the original question was asked, referring to judging MOCs, it kinda sounded like it was asking about MOCs for competition, for which it's pretty much agreed that unless specifically allowed otherwise it should be 100% Lego.

You are deciding to qualify the fact as a problem instead of for example a lack of tact, I am not sure how it qualifies, but what I can say is that I have seen both examples you put in quotes and even some "just quit Lego". So your classification of "non existent" id' say is plainly wrong.

On the other hand one can tell people to be tolerant or intolerant, and while both acts are the same, they are not equal. Yo could say its hypocritical of course, but sometimes is easy to tell right from wrong.

I also don't like this type of comment "yeah it's cool, but I personally don't find it as impressive as a MOC built with 100% Lego." Isn't better in that case just to no say anything at all? Because all I see is a statement that does not compliment, help or give constructive criticism. It is just letting clear a point of view while dismissing the work of someone else, for no reason at all. Or is it absolutely necessary for someone who says anything like that to let his opinion be heard above any other consideration? And that not only applies to purism. Single line posts like that aren't that uncommon.

I think this thread derailed pretty soon, but by then the OP had figured an answer from all the comments.

Edited December 31, 2015 by aol000xw

[allanp]

but what I can say is that I have seen both examples you put in quotes and even some "just quit Lego". So your classification of "non existent" id' say is plainly wrong.

Oh really? I haven't seen that. In that case I stand corrected.

I also don't like this type of comment "yeah it's cool, but I personally don't find it as impressive as a MOC built with 100% Lego." Isn't better in that case just to no say anything at all?

I agree, I don't like that kind of comment either but in a way it is constructive as it clearly states the reason behind said disapproval. It's not just saying "just quit Lego" which is just plain cruel and wrong. Whilst I don't agree with it, I think people should be free to say it as long as there is some constructive element to it.

[Lipko]

The "urge" to express the "not impressive as 100% Lego" feelings usually come (at least for me) when so much praise can be seen about something that's using non-Lego for solving the hardest problems.

[Billant]

I still feel my creations are purist, because the SBrick allows better controls, and more from one unit. But the pieces you use to make the creations are exactly the same, just easier to bring to life. But I still like the challenge of doing so with the standard Lego IR controller.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Billant

[Epic Technic]

I find this discussion a bit silly because of course if a creation uses a Sbrick it isn't 100% LEGO. Therefore, by TLG's standards, it is not 'legal'.

Does it really matter if you use it? No, it doesn't because you are the one building it. You choose.

And to the people saying that by using the Sbrick, you are cheating and have no ideas, well you can't even accept a solution to a major issue with the PF system , this make you not have as many ideas.

[Bricksonwheels]

Another angle on the stupid purist discussion again. If you can improve your work with fresh and innovative solutions, than go ahead, its your built! Sometimes Lego does not offer what I need to make a model more realistic.

Example: I am currently working with Brickstuff LED systems in my new locomotive. Why? Lego PF LEDs are simply not good enough for this application. So... limit my creativity and detail obsession ....no way! The PF LEDs and its wires are far too big, and creating realisitic effects (like ditch lights) is impossible. Lego's solution is not really suitable for the many lights on the train, and then I am not even talking about getting the wires out of sight.

Another example: On Lego events our group runs demos with multiple RC vehicles. Keeping the channels free with the limited Lego channels availlable is simply not possible. The SBrick is a perfect solution to run a bigger bunch of vehicles at the same time.

[Edwin Korstanje]

I am totaly agree with B.O.W and also currently experimenting with SBricks for a new building ship.

[andrewganschow]

If I can figure out to upload a picture I'll show you all a project that my engineering teacher made, it combines technic, and Meccano. I'm not sure what it is though.

[2LegoOrNot2Lego...]

Another example: On Lego events our group runs demos with multiple RC vehicles. Keeping the channels free with the limited Lego channels availlable is simply not possible. The SBrick is a perfect solution to run a bigger bunch of vehicles at the same time.

So true, no other way to put it!!! I absolutely agree with you my friend...

[grum64]

I have just been on the smart brick forums and the amount of trouble people are having with firmware and other issues, I don't think its worth the hassle

After one year the android application is still not working correctly...

I've been had Sbricks for almost 12 months and haven't had any problems with them or the Android app.

Jake & George play with my Ultimate 42009 every chance the get and the Sbricks/App have always performed perfectly.

I can't fault them.

Edited January 5, 2016 by grum64

[Jay Psi]

I have just been on the smart brick forums and the amount of trouble people are having with firmware and other issues, I don't think its worth the hassle

I've been had Sbricks for almost 12 months and haven't had any problems with them or the Android app.

Jake & George play with my Ultimate 42009 every chance the get and the Sbricks/App have always performed perfectly.

I can't fault them.

And herein lies the problem, there seems to be no middle ground with the user experience of SBrick on Android - it's either flawless or broken. Mine's been exchanged and still doesn't sync with the app properly, while the SBrick I gave to my brother has had zero issues in nine months of use. The kicker? We're using exactly the same phone!

[grum64]

I had trouble using the Sbricks with my iPad but that was my fault as I didn't know the iPad 2 wasn't Bluetooth 4.0 enabled.

I've since been using my Galaxy S3 and Note 3 and on both it's worked flawlesly.