With the other “discussions” that have been raging in another topic, I though I would start an alternative discussion on what people think the most critical aspect of Technic modeling is? From the other debate, it has been stated that scale and proportion are very near and dear to the hearts of some builders and others feel function trumps form, or if it has the functionality of said object, then it can be called that object.

I’m not to keen on ensuring every part of a model is to scale, or that my proportions are not totally out of whack, but I try and keep things looking relevant to each other.  You can either say, my tires are the right size and the model is too tall, or my model is just the right size, but my tires are a little small. Which matters more? Is having the right size tire for the actual height of the model really make that much difference? Especially since we have no control over the tire offerings from TLG?

Or do you say, it looks close enough, the tires are a little small or the model is a little tall or a little of both, but it looks cool, and it represents a real world object, so I am going to call it good?

So what aspects of Technic modeling do you consider to be the most important? Is if functionality and how well it imitates the functions of a real world object? Is it proportion and scale, it has to really conform to the original object dimensions as close as possible? Or is it some other subjective or unmeasurable quality that you strive for when making MOCs? Or is it simply having fun building models without glue and paint?

Would really like to hear from the crowd what aspects of Technic modeling they feel are the most important.

 

For me, being an avid scale scale modeler as another one of my hobbies, obtaining external dimensions is the first main goal for my MOCs, second would be functionality, depending on the significance of the functionality to the unique identity to the subject I am building can influence the importance of that versus the exterior. I believe there are many cases where the medium limits the functionality and external appearance, so some compromises must be made to accommodate those flaws. As of more recent years, I prefer to mitigate this effect, as this has been improved by having more funding to explore other options.

As I currently would view a tolerance within a couple studs for good renditions of a subject, given with smaller scales, this isn't always avoidable due to the internals of the model and the fixed/bulky constraints we have for the power functions system.

I think the best answer to this is: Depends. I think everyone sets their own goals, and any goals are fine.

Personally, I tend to prioritize functions if I'm building something new, such as my theme park ride, and start focusing slightly more on looks wnen I'm building something I've done before several times, such as a car or a crane. I also focus more on functions if the functions are original, and tend to focus a bit more on looks when the functions are more straightforward. Or I focus more on functions when I build something that is rare on the forums, and focus more on looks when building something more common.

I do try to find a compromise between functions and looks though, so that both are at least decent. I'm not good enough a builder to make both great ;) I do like to bring something new with every model though, even if it's just a color scheme, or a single interesting function, or a new scale/size, etc.

But in the end, I think functions are what define Technic, so functions should be the main attraction. And for them, I prefer effectivity over realism. For me, if it works and is original, I care little whether it works the same way it would in reality.

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by Erik Leppen
Many typos. I hate typing on mobile

To enjoy building what you like to the best of your ability and learn from others.

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by Doug72

1. Looks

(and proportions based on chosen scale)

 

2. Functionality

(and characteristical parts like axles, drivetrain...should look and perform as close to original as possible with LEGO parts...)

My goals are:

1 - Main functions of the base vehicle.

2 - Extreme hardness.

3 - Almost exact proportions, I allow myself one or two studs if they are essential for the goal 1 or 2.

My goals make my MOCs difficult and fun for me and indestructible and playable for my children.

I'm from the "old school" of Technics and my heart from a 10 year old in me with the Lego set 8860 still beats loudly..  Is it a Volkswagen or a Porsche.. who knows!!!   It's the tech part I still thrive from!! 

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by sirslayer

1. How much red wine I can drink during the build

2. How much Sicilian food I can eat during the build

3. How much fun I can get out of the whole experience

 

12 minutes ago, suffocation said:

1. How much red wine I can drink during the build

2. How much Sicilian food I can eat during the build

3. How much fun I can get out of the whole experience

 

That is most original post

    

@Bublehead I hope you don't mind for posting this!!  

 

Interesting...

 

I admire builders who build replica's on scale, I'd never have the patience to figure all of the size dimensions out.

I'm way to inpatient and someone has already designed that, and designing for me is half the fun! 

I like to exploit the fact that I am not bound by the restraints of real world designers.
For instance: my rollercoaster and ultimate bulldozer are both WAY to expensive and complex to maintain in the real world,  

I tend to have a basic idea, and let my imagination run wild as I build.
I came up with my last project like "oeh!, an ultimate zombie truck would be cool",  and as I was building the 6X6 drivetrain I could not decide if a wedge nose was best or a big saw at the front.
And then I decided both. As I was building the wedge nose/saw my brain went like "wouldn't it be cool if ik had a multi purpose arm for construction?.... oeh! and blades on the side and..." 
This process basically continues until the MOC gets to big or heavy or I run out parts

Visual appearance is very secondary to functions and play ability for me so I only focus on looks at the end of the build.

@I_Igor, agreed, this made me laugh... I also enjoy a little recreational inebriation when I build sometimes. To stay on topic, however, I will answer my own thread with what matters to me.... and the answer starts with a quote from 

52 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Depends

The most important aspect of Technic building is function comes first. Form comes second and relation to real world third when building a model that functions like the real world object. I would use the BWE as an example... this is nowhere near the right scale, but it’s functions are dead on when compared to the real world machine. It rotates, it excavates, it moves the dirt to the the truck, it can move, it can rotate. It can lock the exit conveyor or sync with slew. It’s form comes next, in that it looks like the machine it represents, and thirdly, it matches an exact real world BWE which it is sadly undersized to represent. So this fits that mindset.

Now if we move to let’s say the Chiron, here it was Form came first, since it has to LOOK like the real car, and then they squeezed in some functions to make it a Technic model and not just a Race theme licensed set like the Ferraris of the past. They did an ok job with most of it, knocked it out of the park on the rear end, and made the transmission interesting by introducing the wave catch piece. If my goal is a replica of an existing object, form has to outweigh function, and function would come actually last after you have met all the form of the body, the features of the real world car, and finally the function of the running gear.

So the answer is it depends on what my goal is when I start.  I built my big moc using function as my guide, form as my second, and real world equivalency as third.  There is no real world duplicate of my amusement ride, but there is an amusement ride that it was based on.  So it had to function as the real ride does. And it does that well. All the other features are my added fantasy because I wanted the ride to be able to be set up by a one armed man-  so everything had to be motor driven or powered.

This is my usual approach to Technic modeling... it’s why I liked the RTC flagship this year. It has functionality, looks, and matches a real world machine well enough. It also sticks to the single motor, multi function gearbox mantra that makes Technic sets, especially flagship sets, what I enjoy building. As a matter of fact, non motorized Technic sets are the last sets I usually buy from a specific years sets, or mid year selections. I have more PF battery boxes than I know what to do with... that’s another reason I used 2 in my moc.  

 

I would like to argue on the side of @Bublehead, if you want something that looks spot on, then either look at the Scale Modelling Forum, or buy an Architecture or Creator set. Technic is all about functions. It was literally made so that builders could incorporate real life FUNCTIONS into a LEGO model. And LEGO models are made to resemble real life counterparts, not be a perfect scale model. Otherwise, go pick up a die cast model of whatever.

So I would say Technic is about:

1. Functions

2. Looks

3. Authenticity

@Magical Duck  Amen!!

 

 

To me it is very important to enjoy what I am building, sometimes it's proper scale other times it's correct functions, nothing is chiselled in stone, for me as far as building goes just have fun damn-it. Quite frankly I could care less what anyone else thinks of it but it is cool when you can actually impress someone else. 

Having said that I do think if you post a moc and call it by a specific name it should bear at least a slight resemblance to what it is supposed to be and you should welcome criticism to improve it since that is the obvious goal. I think sometimes some people are a bit thin skinned though and take it as an insult if you don't like what they have done. Seems like they just want thier ego stroked and they seem to strive only for recognition. I blame it all on the way society is now, like making the kids play football but not keeping score, don't want to hurt the losers feelings.

 

Edited August 25, 20186 yr by Johnny1360

13 minutes ago, Johnny1360 said:

Having said that I do think if you post a moc and call it by a specific name it should bear at least a slight resemblance to what it is supposed to be and you should welcome criticism to improve it since that is the obvious goal.

Granted, a critic can't say that "literally every proportion is off" and that you are "bending the fabric of reality".

In general, personal enjoyment is key obviously.

I think it really depends on what your aim is. If you’re building for aesthetics then I think the most important thing is proportions and shaping. This is where sets like 42056 and 42083 haven’t quite hit the bar for me.

If you’re building for functionality, then the answer is obviously numerous reliably working functions.

That being said, proportions do also play a big part in a functional build. If I build a truck I want something that resembles the real life thing proportionally. I do have a penchant for presentation and neat MOC aesthetics.

All in all I’d say it can’t be boiled down to one thing overall.

@Johnny1360 @Magical Duck Aw man guys do you have to... Bublehead made this thread to get away from that

Edited August 25, 20186 yr by Bartybum

1 minute ago, Magical Duck said:

Granted, a critic can't say that "literally every proportion is off" and that you are "bending the fabric of reality".

I think you can, if it's bad say it. Otherwise you will be basically saying if you don't have something good to add don't post anything which pretty much means you are censoring posts to only allow praise, sorry but that is not how the world works at least not the one I live in. 

24 minutes ago, Johnny1360 said:

I think you can, if it's bad say it. Otherwise you will be basically saying if you don't have something good to add don't post anything which pretty much means you are censoring posts to only allow praise, sorry but that is not how the world works at least not the one I live in. 

That's no reason to be harsh. The whole point of Eurobricks is to provide a positive and constructive environment- which means some criticism is necessary. That does not mean that we accuse others of "bending reality".

Edit: Sorry @Bartybum I should've backed off

Edited August 25, 20186 yr by Magical Duck

16 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

 

@Johnny1360 @Magical Duck Aw man guys do you have to... Bublehead made this thread to get away from that

Ah okay of course you are right, I apologize to everyone. I think now I will just log out for a couple of weeks, seems I can't say anything agreeable anymore and that's not why I am here. 

Guys, don’t shut down, just ease back a little... yes I started this thread to civilize the conversation, so just do that an we are good. You have a right to say what is most important for you about Technic building.  Say it and leave it.  Accept others take, agree to disagree... but respect each other, ok? That’s all I am looking for here. Your take on what’s important to YOU.  If you want to debate the subject, go back to the original thread please, so the rest of us can learn what others opinions are on the matter and discuss it without the drama. Thanks.

5 hours ago, Johnny1360 said:

I think now I will just log out for a couple of weeks, seems I can't say anything agreeable anymore and that's not why I am here. 

I'm not sure if you're being serious or just trying to bring up Buble. Either way relax dude.

Milan Reindl stated that size is often key. Starting with the tyres is the best way to begin; that gives you the scale of what you want to build.

1. Fun

2. Functions

3. Fundamentally doing something different from sitting behind the computer

15 hours ago, Doug72 said:

and learn from others.

And what happens when someone is trying to tell what is wrong with the model? ;)