42124 Off-Road Buggy

[zux]

4 hours ago, TechnicRCRacer said:

The 3- hole design has been available in white since 2004. I still don’t understand why they changed to the new version because the axle hole length was reduced and makes it difficult to build compact suspensions.

More holes > less plastic used > $$ gains. On more serious note, 6 hole design looks little better than of 3 hole.

[Zerobricks]

8 hours ago, TechnicRCRacer said:

The 3- hole design has been available in white since 2004. I still don’t understand why they changed to the new version because the axle hole length was reduced and makes it difficult to build compact suspensions.

I think that was done for the bigger 56mm wheels 76023 Tumbler which needed additonal connection points for the double wheels and than the mold for the smaller wheels followed same style.

[JonathanM]

There's a City version of this too, complete with 'tilt to steer'.

https://learningexpressgifts.com/products/race-buggy-transporter-v39-city-great-vehicles-60288?_pos=56&_sid=ec975132a&_ss=r

Edited December 6, 2020 by JonathanM

[msk6003]

https://bricksafe.com/pages/msk6003/

I upload my reverse engineering file here. sorry for late upload.

I cut 11x15 frame and use it here. it's perfactly fit.

.io file is uploaded with this version.

[Valkyx]

Have you guys seen this:

 

[1gor]

Yes.....few days ago...

[kbalage]

Here's my detailed building review of the set. I think the buggy itself is great, a much more balanced setup than the Rally car, but the Control+ profile is lazy, does not have user friendly control with the joystick and the extra "features" are totally useless.

 

[JintaiZ]

18 minutes ago, kbalage said:

Here's my detailed building review of the set. I think the buggy itself is great, a much more balanced setup than the Rally car, but the Control+ profile is lazy, does not have user friendly control with the joystick and the extra "features" are totally useless.

 

Great review! It actually has 374 pieces instead of 347. 

[kbalage]

2 minutes ago, JintaiZ said:

Great review! It actually has 374 pieces instead of 347. 

Thanks! I nailed it in the video, only had to correct the description :) 

[u118224]

I know PF is going, going gone, but this buggy would be better with PF. I didn’t watch the review so maybe that point was raised. I would get frustrated using C+ on, say, something like 42065 for example.

[msk6003]

YES I AM RIGHT! 15L DOUBLE CROSS BEAM!!!!!!!!!!!

[1gor]

12 minutes ago, msk6003 said:

YES I AM RIGHT! 15L DOUBLE CROSS BEAM!!!!!!!!!!!

[kbalage]

1 hour ago, u118224 said:

I know PF is going, going gone, but this buggy would be better with PF. I didn’t watch the review so maybe that point was raised. I would get frustrated using C+ on, say, something like 42065 for example.

I'm wondering, what would be the advantage of PF here? IR range would be limited so no real chance to run it outdoors, no proportional control and the PF battery box would be a pain to integrate unlike the hub. It'd be a bit more powerful but that's all.

[u118224]

13 minutes ago, kbalage said:

I'm wondering, what would be the advantage of PF here? IR range would be limited so no real chance to run it outdoors, no proportional control and the PF battery box would be a pain to integrate unlike the hub. It'd be a bit more powerful but that's all.

Fair question. My grandson mostly uses his 42065 in the house but has used it outdoors without any trouble. I, however, have had trouble with PF outdoors so I agree that's an issue. I have a 42099 and find C+ frustrating to use on my phone, I can't imagine using it on something faster.  PF is/was instantaneous in response to inputs, C+ not always so much. I've built several Mocs with SBrick and have no issues with that interface. Just my .02.

[kbalage]

@u118224 SBrick is not official so LEGO would not offer that for sure, if you wish something to be released with PF than it'd be the good old IR :) Personally I had no issues with Powered Up components so far regarding lag or anything. I prefer physical controls so the PU remote is an option (although it lacks proportional control), or BrickController2 is a solid alternative that can be used with a game controller.

[Kostq]

 

12 hours ago, u118224 said:

Fair question. My grandson mostly uses his 42065 in the house but has used it outdoors without any trouble. I, however, have had trouble with PF outdoors so I agree that's an issue. I have a 42099 and find C+ frustrating to use on my phone, I can't imagine using it on something faster.  PF is/was instantaneous in response to inputs, C+ not always so much. I've built several Mocs with SBrick and have no issues with that interface. Just my .02.

Just use BrickController and a ps4 joypad for play with the 42099. It's amazing. I've bought myself a PS4 controller just for this. AND you get proportional control and it's cosy and nice as a physical controller.

Solo IR controllers are so tiny. I've joined two IR controllers on the same channel just to have a better grip. And yes, I know I can build myself stuff around them, they still aren't comfy enough.

[ScT]

Having had this set built now for a few days, i find that the set itself is nice enough - i like the motor whine, and i feel transported back to younger days with slow RC model cars running in the 27MHz band, haha.

 

However, the Control+ profile is absolute crap. A joystick to control this model was a horrible mistake. Even worse - it's on the left thumb... I could've probably handled it on the right thumb. Atrocious.

I can't comfortably let my son (4yrs) play with it on the spare Tablet, because he constantly smashes it into walls. Something that was not an issue with the 42099 model, as it at least had two controls - steering + throttle. Guess i need to use the other app to build something a bit more friendly - but then i think i'd lose the sounds that he loves so much? Hmm...

[Bartybum]

I wonder which galaxy brain decided that the core play functions had to be compromised to shoehorn some megablock fart buttons. I get that there are humans putting in effort behind the scenes but come on, since 42114 they've continued to drop the ball so hard with C+ profiles that it's unbelievable. In ways that are so trivially simple to fix too, I might add.

Given that it's almost guaranteed that TLG ran focus test groups with children, I cannot accept that kids preferred what was provided (unless I'm having a Skinner episode). There just have to be structural communication issues going on across the relevant departments if the profiles make me bang my head on the wall.

How hard can it be to make something that makes sense? This buggy's control profile should have been a regular two-channel controller layout, with the sound buttons thrown around the sides or the middle.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Bartybum

[kbalage]

If you want to build a control profile in the Powered Up app that actually makes sense, here's a step by step tutorial:

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

Given that it's almost guaranteed that TLG ran focus test groups with children, I cannot accept that kids preferred what was provided (unless I'm having a Skinner episode).

It's the children who are wrong!

[ScT]

1 hour ago, kbalage said:

If you want to build a control profile in the Powered Up app that actually makes sense, here's a step by step tutorial:

 

Thankyou for this!

I would love if there were scaling features and perhaps a way to "lock" the profile so it can't be edited unless a passcode is given, or similar. This might make it all playable though!

[Bartybum]

@kbalage Is there a way to add trim modules to PU? I feel like it's customary for RC controllers to have trim, and it's a big bummer that TLG didn't add one

[kbalage]

@Bartybum sure, you can add buttons to adjust the logical 0 position. It is planned to be covered in one of the following tutorials.

[Bartybum]

Just now, kbalage said:

@Bartybum sure, you can add buttons to adjust the logical 0 position. It is planned to be covered in one of the following tutorials.

Bless, thank you!

[msk6003]

If maximum steering angle set to 30' and set driver motor to inverted, this set can work with brickcontroller 2.

And this is much better than that trash touch one jostick control.