42099 - 4x4 X-treme Off-Roader

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, allanp said:

The rear axle doesn't tilt. The front axle extends all the way back to the rear axle so that turntable you are seeing at the rear axle is the rear support for the front axle. You wouldn't want both axles to be able to tilt freely because the whole vehicle would just flop over to one side or the other.

Good point.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Maaboo35

[MangaNOID]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

The rear axle doesn't tilt. The front axle extends all the way back to the rear axle so that turntable you are seeing at the rear axle is the rear support for the front axle

mmm, that might be right after looking closer. 

[Kaanere]

3 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

 

I still don't get why this set doesn't get proper suspensions like 9398.

I guess that they didn't want to make exactly the same suspension as in many previous sets, so they changed it up a bit.

[Bartybum]

36 minutes ago, Kaanere said:

I guess that they didn't want to make exactly the same suspension as in many previous sets, so they changed it up a bit.

The last live axle set was 42069 Extreme Adventure, and we've had three independent suspension cars since then: 42077 Rally Car, 42083 Bugatti Chiron and 42096 Porsche.

Plus, 9398 came out in 2012, so it's a bit late to play the "exactly the same" card at this point. It's well past time we got a new live axle set with ball socket frames and (imo) long shocks, and this set absolutely should have been the one. It's pretty much the sole reason I'm not gonna buy it

Edited June 8, 2019 by Bartybum

[Touc4nx]

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

It's well past time we got a new live axle set with ball socket frames and (imo) long shocks, and this set absolutely should have been the one.

I totally agree with you.
 When I first saw the name of the set, I was waiting for Big Shock absorbers. However, as the are not there I won't buy this set.

[Bartybum]

30 minutes ago, Touc4nx said:

I totally agree with you.
 When I first saw the name of the set, I was waiting for Big Shock absorbers. However, as the are not there I won't buy this set.

All of me really hopes they’ll make a comeback in a future set, say a trophy truck, which would require large suspension travel.

[kbalage]

15 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

If there's nothing new in this set besides the motors and the BBox, I'd love to see a mod with plain old PF components to make this thing futureproof.

Nothing prevents you to swap the motors with their PF counterparts (maybe the Servo placement can be tricky due to the different for factor, we'll see) and run it with the fantastic futureproof infrared connection. I seriously don't understand this whole concern about the app control not being futureproof. You can run Commodore 64 programs on a smartphone nowadays, how difficult will it be in 10 years time to port an open platform to a recent device? 

Personally I don't like the touch interface but that's got nothing to do with the future. I prefer physical controls, and if Lego will not give us a proper remote with proportional joysticks and buttons I will happily use Brickcontroller 2 and a gamepad that works flawlessly with Powered Up and also a bunch of other platforms.

[Jim]

15 hours ago, kbalage said:

Nothing prevents you to swap the motors with their PF counterparts (maybe the Servo placement can be tricky due to the different for factor, we'll see) and run it with the fantastic futureproof infrared connection. I seriously don't understand this whole concern about the app control not being futureproof. You can run Commodore 64 programs on a smartphone nowadays, how difficult will it be in 10 years time to port an open platform to a recent device? 

I also think there's no need to be concerned about it.

15 hours ago, kbalage said:

Personally I don't like the touch interface but that's got nothing to do with the future. I prefer physical controls, and if Lego will not give us a proper remote with proportional joysticks and buttons I will happily use Brickcontroller 2 and a gamepad that works flawlessly with Powered Up and also a bunch of other platforms.

I assume there will be some sort of physical remote coming in the future. Produced by TLG, or third party.

Maybe this has been discussed; I haven't been reading up on the all the PU components, but will the train remote be able to control the Control+ unit?

[jorgeopesi]

I do not see the problem if I do not like what Lego does I will continue using the old power functions.

[Maaboo the Witch]

13 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

I do not see the problem if I do not like what Lego does I will continue using the old power functions.

Time to stock up. Bricklink here I come...

[AVCampos]

Didn't I also see all this panic in 2007, when PF replaced 9V? People saying PF sucked, and that they were going to buy everything 9V while it lasted?

[Jim]

17 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

Didn't I also see all this panic in 2007, when PF replaced 9V? People saying PF sucked, and that they were going to buy everything 9V while it lasted?

Exactly what I was thinking.

[M_longer]

16 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

Didn't I also see all this panic in 2007, when PF replaced 9V? People saying PF sucked, and that they were going to buy everything 9V while it lasted?

Situtation was different. PF was something really new, a remote control finaly came to LEGO Technic. Only thing that bothered people fro years was usage of IR, instead of BT.
Control + offers that BT connection, but also adds some more functions, found only in Mindstorms.
My problem with those parts is that new motors will come with lots of unneeded functions, like telemetry. And I do not need a motor that can work as a servo, showing me how many times it turned, and being much more pricey (that's a prediction after comparing PUp prices with PF), when only thing I need is pure torque from XL motor.

[Robin_IV]

I am also disappointed that it has no long shock absorbers. But I will not put the decision of buying it or not on the fact that the crawler has no 9,5L Shock absorbers. I have no problems to modify the car or redesign it completely. It will anyway last not long assembled because I want to test the PUP- Motors with a faster transmission on the wheels for a racing buggy purpose. Because now thanks to the app you can start slowly with the rpm and speed up slower it is possible to put a gear ratio between.

[jorgeopesi]

1 hour ago, M_longer said:

when only thing I need is pure torque from XL motor.

Amen to that. They are like having a phone with lots of functions you never use and you always pay.

[Void_S]

18 hours ago, M_longer said:

My problem with those parts is that new motors will come with lots of unneeded functions, like telemetry. And I do not need a motor that can work as a servo, showing me how many times it turned, and being much more pricey (that's a prediction after comparing PUp prices with PF), when only thing I need is pure torque from XL motor.

Well, in the "general use" yes, but personally I'd enjoy a possibility to see, let's say the load or speed difference between the motors (read: axles) when passing trial's obstacles. Off course, it depends on how much this "nice addition" costs...
Plus, auto speed decreasing of a slipping axle... Traction control, ESP - all that in a child's toy. Ah, dreams... 

Probably, the main point here that this model is not a clear "off-road best performer" but still capable crawler that is, first of all, a proof of concept of new PU features.

[Maaboo the Witch]

You'd think that some of the unique or ultra rare orange parts from 42088 would make a reappearance here, but none of them seem to have done so.

[Jim]

20 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

You'd think that some of the unique or ultra rare orange parts from 42088 would make a reappearance here, but none of them seem to have done so.

I don't see any reason, unless TLG had no choice. Seems like wishful thinking 

Edit: Point taken

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, Jim said:

I don't see any reason, unless TLG had no choice. Seems like wishful thinking 

It just seems a bit pointless to re-release a set, giving the newer model unique parts when they're not going to be used elsewhere. Unless TLG used those parts to justify people buying the re-release. I'm starting to suspect that that's the case... 

[kbalage]

On 6/9/2019 at 12:57 PM, Jim said:

Maybe this has been discussed; I haven't been reading up on the all the PU components, but will the train remote be able to control the Control+ unit?

Since it is only a question of the software/firmware I'm sure the support will come, although probably not for the launch of the product. The devs need to find an easy and convenient way to assign the controls of the remote to the different hub outputs and also to assign multiple outputs to single control elements.

The train remote however will only offer bang-bang control, I don't think a train-style speed stepping method would make any sense for a car.

[Jim]

7 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

It just seems a bit pointless to re-release a set, giving the newer model unique parts when they're not going to be used elsewhere. Unless TLG used those parts to justify people buying the re-release. I'm starting to suspect that that's the case... 

Ahhh my bad, I see what you mean. Yeah, that does seem strange.

[AVCampos]

5 minutes ago, kbalage said:

The train remote however will only offer bang-bang control, I don't think a train-style speed stepping method would make any sense for a car.

Maybe the remote's buttons could be used like playing a racing game with a keyboard: keeping the button pressed makes the car gradually accelerate/brake/turn, and letting go of the button makes it gradually return to zero speed/angle.

[kbalage]

3 hours ago, AVCampos said:

Maybe the remote's buttons could be used like playing a racing game with a keyboard: keeping the button pressed makes the car gradually accelerate/brake/turn, and letting go of the button makes it gradually return to zero speed/angle.

That's an interesting concept, I guess it would work with slower vehicles. Same setup for the steering or that'd remain bang-bang control? Anyway I can raise this with the dev guys during our next workgroup session, I'm interested in their opinion.

[Mestari]

On 6/7/2019 at 9:53 PM, Maaboo35 said:

It's getting a pretty mixed reception over there. Looks like @Mestari and I are united on the no B-model subject, and a few others have raised the issue of this set being futureproof. In that it's likely not.

Sorry for the late reply. 

Yes, no B model is a gripe I have with this and few other newer big technic models from recent past.

Licenced sets in particular are affected, but when the same can be seen in regular sets, this starts to worry. Looks like the new norm now is that it is equally probable to have and not have a B model in a big set. If it has one, frequently it is just a modification of an A model.

Feels bad...

[jorgeopesi]

31 minutes ago, Mestari said:

Sorry for the late reply. 

Yes, no B model is a gripe I have with this and few other newer big technic models from recent past.

Licenced sets in particular are affected, but when the same can be seen in regular sets, this starts to worry. Looks like the new norm now is that it is equally probable to have and not have a B model in a big set. If it has one, frequently it is just a modification of an A model.

Feels bad...

More fun for the C model builders or in this case B model ones.

Edited June 11, 2019 by jorgeopesi