42114 - 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler

[1gor]

44 minutes ago, mpj said:

Main problem of tires here is that the rim is too big compared to the external diameter of the tire. There is too much yellow and too few black.

Yes, it was perfect opportunity to introduce bigger tire with industrial pattern (not tractor tire) to fit 56 rim

...or to make like @jorgeopesiin his MOCs or like @agrof posted

[Andman]

1 hour ago, agrof said:

They could at least do a simple visual trick for this purpose, just like I did here: black tire, black rim, and yellow dish. But they didn't...

I still can not make myself comfortable with the proportions of this set... compared of the real thing, basically everything is off - but the cab and handrails are just ridiculous.

I fully agree on both points. But I assume the designer is aware of that and it is just not possible due to restrictions of parts and design. I remember some discussions about the control+ maybe being the the issue.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

[Gimmick]

Maybe the trough(? "Mulde" in German) and the cabin are just 3 studs too high.

And maybe the thought process was: If we use large LAs, we have to connect them that way -> and we do not want stickers over multiple parts -> we need panels on top -> cabin is now too small -> increase cabin height :D

[Maaboo the Witch]

41 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

Maybe the trough(? "Mulde" in German) and the cabin are just 3 studs too high.

The term is usually "dump bed" in English. 

The cab is way too high, but like you say that's likely due to the height of the dump bed. Surely some effort could have gone into making it look a little less square, though. Some slanted flex hoses would work.

[Dylan M]

B-model please... 

 

we didn't saw the back of the box yet

Edited April 30, 2020 by Dylan M

[Andman]

Hm, I can't really argue against the cristism. Especially the direct comparison between the tyres... It would have been such a low effort to create at least the illusion of small rims. But in the end I must admit that the visual issues won't influence my decision too much, if I buy it or not. What I'm interested in, is technical solutions which copy the original as much as possible and the playability. Playability already come for me with minus, because of the app controller. I just can't get used to it. I like physical controllers much more. I know that there are 3rd solutions, which work very well. But it is still 3rd party.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Andman
typo

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, Dylan M said:

B-model please... 

 

we didn't saw the back of the yet

Not happening.

[AVCampos]

Why not happening? So far, presence of B-models in licensed sets has been a crapshoot, so for this set I'm not placing any bets.

[Andman]

Just now, AVCampos said:

Why not happening? So far, presence of B-models in licensed sets has been a crapshoot, so for this set I'm not placing any bets.

Because of control+. Not only do they need designers to make first the a model and afterwards the b model, but they now also need to develop new app profiles for the a model and b model. It wouldn't surprise me if it is just a capacity and time problem. Wasn't it mentioned at several places here?

[Bartybum]

It doesn't look much like the A60H, but it's still a very clean design, which I appreciate. It looks like a mini articulated hauler. In any case, there's enough parts in the set that fixing the proportions should be easy.

[Gimmick]

35 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

The term is usually "dump bed" in English. 

The cab is way too high, but like you say that's likely due to the height of the dump bed. Surely some effort could have gone into making it look a little less square, though. Some slanted flex hoses would work.

Thank you.

If you change the cabin and dump bed by one or two studs in an image editing software it looks better (I have no image editing skills and will not show my horrible result).

But at least it seems to be made of pure technic parts. Not perfect for design, but I like and appreciate that.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Gimmick

[pleegwat]

I don't like the way the lower end of the LA is mounted, but I must admit I can't come up with an alternative offhand.

[Jundis]

10 hours ago, Gimmick said:

If you change the cabin and dump bed by one or two studs in an image editing software it looks better

Thanks to the comparing pic from @Ngoc Nguyen , I think the reason they used a higher dump bed maybe is the following: To get the Volvo logo in the correct length, they needed to use a 5x11 panel instead of the better suited 3x11. Therefor the whole think gets higher.

The reason for the bigger cabin imho is to fit the control+ battery box behind it.

[TeamThrifty]

The issue is the bonnet is too low - the top of the cab isn't far off, it just looks tall due to the low bonnet. I don't think its a control+ issue, higher bonnet would give more space.

Anyway, i'll still buy it because its still a pretty good technic set. Never seen a perfect one yet, maybe never will, and i am glass half full.... so i'll buy and i'll enjoy it!!

 

[Gimmick]

10 hours ago, Jundis said:

Thanks to the comparing pic from @Ngoc Nguyen , I think the reason they used a higher dump bed maybe is the following: To get the Volvo logo in the correct length, they needed to use a 5x11 panel instead of the better suited 3x11. Therefor the whole think gets higher.

The reason for the bigger cabin imho is to fit the control+ battery box behind it.

As said earlier: I think they fitted the cabin height to the dump bed. Sticker problem -> panel solution -> fit cabin to keep relative proportions. Sound like an easy to fix thing for me. Tbh I don't care about the "handrails" and for me wrong colored rims and one or two studs in height are no reason to tear the model to pieces... maybe it's nicely build on the technical side (and maybe it's a 42070 in yellow :X)

[1gor]

Actually tires IMHO look to be to small for dump bed...and (typical) LEGO tire limitations caused this problem

[Dylan M]

is this Markus Build...? 

So i'll buy it...?

[Maaboo the Witch]

11 minutes ago, Dylan M said:

is this Markus Build...? 

So i'll buy it...?

I'm thinking Uwe.

[Dylan M]

48 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

I'm thinking Uwe.

Oh really? I'm basing on the interview of Markus he said that he is done on 2020 "flagship "? And currently working on 2021 flagship model 

...don't know if i get it right ?

[msk6003]

Just now, Dylan M said:

2020 "flagship "?

Or that will be lambo

[Dylan M]

Markus is for Construction Vehicle 

that his expertise...

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 hour ago, Dylan M said:

Markus is for Construction Vehicle 

that his expertise...

He's also done planes and helicopters. In his bio on the Technic site, he even said that his favourite kind of subject is "all that flies".

[Dylan M]

33 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

He's also done planes and helicopters. In his bio on the Technic site, he even said that his favourite kind of subject is "all that flies".

What i mean is for Average model that MK made how many of them is Construction Vehicle and many of them is Flagship 

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, Dylan M said:

What i mean is for Average model that MK made how many of them is Construction Vehicle and many of them is Flagship 

Four of Markus's flagships (8421, 8275, 42009 and 42043) are construction vehicles. Technically, 42055 and 42100 are mining equipment and 8110 is a multipurpose vehicle. He's also done 8294, 8265, 8053, 42004 and 42028. That's only five regular construction-based sets.

Compare that to Alfred Pedersen's output on the construction front: 8283, 8295, 8264, 8052, 42032 and 42097, some of which are 1H flagships. Yes, that's slightly less than Markus when factoring in flagships, but the gap isn't that large. Plus Alfred hasn't done many aircraft, so I'd say he's nearly as much a specialist in construction vehicles as Markus appears to be.