50 minutes ago, M_longer said:

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

Then the "teacher" should learn how to communicate, because when it comes to teaching, form is just as important as content.

On 8/24/2018 at 11:34 PM, Bublehead said:

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?

All of it and none of it at the same time. It's really the combination of everything and I think the discussions of what people consider desirable Technic sets speak volumes. Nobody would buy the most elaborate, finessed mechanics if they look totally crap. Conversely, nobody who's really into Technic would probably ever consider poorly engineered items even if they look quite realistic. I could endlessly cite examples for all of these cases including many commercially offered MOCs. As far as creating genuine custom builds for one's own pleasure is concerned, I also aim to accomodate all those aspects. Just building a clunky pile of connected liftarms with clicking gerars and calling it a GBC or whatever doesn't satisfy me. I need something that is rooted in reality and in my opinion that's also like in genuine mechanical engineering: To build something that works, but is also robust and compact, so it could exist in the real world as a product. All of that of course within the limitations imposed by Technic being what it is, but that's another pleasureable challenge in itself.

Mylenium

Edited August 26, 20186 yr by Mylenium
Fixed some bad grammar

Enjoying the build and having fun with it, don't forget the beer. 

I usually read that people build and drink but I can't, I feel that I lost concentration with only one drink.

@Mylenium, this is similar to my approach, a model has to function flawlessly and be within the bounds of believability in form, even if there is no real machine to compare it to directly.  I felt I had done a pretty good job of making exactly what I set about to make, I enjoyed it, I enjoyed the challenge, and I enjoyed the resulting model to the point that it will sit on my shelf and never be taken apart. That’s a statement in itself seeing the amount of $$$ wrapped up in Technic parts it represents. The list of donor sets to build it was 2 Claas tractors, 2 Arocs trucks, 3 telehandlers, a hovercraft, a BWE, plus more than several BL orders for rare parts like 16L and 32L axles, 3x11 red panels, 7x3 curved black panels, the more than 150 different other panels for the cars, platform, ticket booth and Porta Potty, the giant sign, plus custom stickers, etc...   This is a hobby of passion and obsession.

About drinking; since I drive some 100+ miles every day I do not drink (only sometimes 0.5 of vodka at Christmas and new year's time) I do not have need or enjoyment while doing anything and the same is with LEGO. What I forgot to add it is very important for me that chassis is robust as possible so I prefer using frames 5 x 7 and 11 X 5 as much as possible.

1. Fun

2. Functions

3. Pleasing to me. 

4. Has a real world analog, doesn't matter

Andy D

Lego is all about making 'models'. And to me 'model' means: Simplification of a system (or thing) that brings about one or more aspects of that system's (or thing's) nature. Models allow us to zoom in on certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. So it's all about what exactly do you want to tell with your model.

That being said, to me 1.) reliability and 2.) recognizability are key. 1.) Both static stuctures and technical functions need to be reliable. No parts falling off, no functions that only work under specific conditions, no displacements caused by normal use. 2.) A model does not need to be a replica of a real vehicle or machine, but I do want a model to be recognizable as a specific kind of system, for example a supercar, a telehandler, etc.

11 hours ago, Didumos69 said:

That being said, to me 1.) reliability and 2.) recognizability are key. 1.) Both static stuctures and technical functions need to be reliable. No parts falling off, no functions that only work under specific conditions, no displacements caused by normal use. 2.) A model does not need to be a replica of a real vehicle or machine, but I do want a model to be recognizable as a specific kind of system...

This is what I was trying to say, this is how I view Technic models, except for me function trumps form.

Andy D