BTW the last slide says "Play Well". That's what you get when you tranlate "Leg Godt" from Danish. Which is where you get Lego from.
It takes age and experience to develop a taste for making things that are loose and cheap but through creativity of design still somehow manage to do the job.
I seriously wonder how much of engineering and architecture progress humanity made exactly because there is a generation that grew up with toys like Lego.
Most interesting was the description of the Audi kit that changed their testing process.
Edit: if you read through the posted documents of the "Legal vs Illegal" ways of putting bricks together, some of them have description of why it's considered illegal.
"Both ends of a Technic hole are larger than the diameter in the middle. Until it ‘snaps’ into place, the half-peg is in compression and could be permanently damaged over time. Also, by not being locked into place, the element can easily pop out during play."
Edit2: actually, now when I read it again, it does seem to be a document for official LEGO designers (from LEGO designer Jamie Berard) about how to NOT design the sets. Sorry for the confusion.
They all do. The slides are "animations" displayed on sequences of slides. As far as I noticed, every illegal technique had an explanation of why.
One thing that the presentation only slightly addresses is the standards for overall structural integrity. Official sets seemed to favor a very "light" building style (to make constructions simpler? to save on materials?) that had a reasonably sturdy base (so the set can be picked up without collapsing) but which were vulnerable to lateral attacks or dropping (which would shatter stacked stud-based connections). My experience was that you could typically make models much stronger by adding vertical/diagonal braces via technic pieces.
Using all the bricks in the suitcase would also be a requirement, so larger projects, e.g. that Saturn 5 rocket would be a skilled use of available resources, the limits on the design being the black and white bricks for the actual rocket with the obligatory lunar rover able to be made in another colour, e.g. yellow. A randomly coloured Saturn 5 would not fly.
I also think that there should be an occasional worrying project from a child's creativity. For instance, if the news has some story of military exuberance then a child really should be modelling whatever it is, in this day and age something like a Predator drone would fit the bill. Political statements from ten year old kids in LEGO art remind the parents of what their world has become.
Feng Shui is also another rule. This has to be innately learned and understood. This is how to learn what design is, by experimenting and refining one's LEGO craft. Taste is a vague thing and if you can build tasteful LEGO models then that sets you up in life for being able to think for yourself in other domains and do better than the instructions on the back of the box.
The lessons learned apply to the web, if you can create fantastic LEGO models and have the taste to get the rules of what goes mechanically as well as regarding unofficial colour and Feng Shui rules then there is no reason why you can't create beauty online in a world where everyone else is serving up div soup, copying from the instructions.
(A standard brick is 3 tall, in this calculus)
* half the height of a plate.
* the distance between the edge of the brick and the edge of the stud (half the distance between studs)
* one third the diameter of studs
* the height of the studs, except for the LEGO logo (which means that in some cases hollow or recessed studs are very helpful, because an illegal connection can become legal with hollow studs; https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=8586... is a very useful element in some intricate builds).
* the difference between the base and the top of the headlight brick https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4070
* the thickness of angle brackets such as https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=109...
The LEGO system is great and everything makes a lot more sense once you figure out that the height of 1 brick and 2 plates is the same as the width of 2 bricks. For example I made a car where the sides are built "front to back" and attached sideways to the chassis (https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-7455/bonzinip/awd-champions...).
In addition, the inside diameter of hollow studs is
the same as the diameter of clips and minifigure hands, and the same as the inside diameter of Technic pegs. There are a lot of newer parts that use this "secondary" system, but the basic measurements were established in the 70s. See http://www.newelementary.com/2016/12/bravo-three-one-eight.h... for more information.
Is it broader, like to mean using a brick in such a way that normally the studs would be on top but now they're in a different position? Or something like that, e.g., not just in the overall aesthetic?
I admittedly don't really know all of the terminology. My kid has recently gotten old enough for LEGO, so I'm starting to learn more (or relearn what I knew as a kid myself maybe).
But these rules are really for Lego's internal use - I can understand the company wanting to make sure that kits it sells work properly in isolation, but obviously they can't control the other kits it will be mixed with. Maybe this means that they should have considered more possible combinations when designing those particular parts?
The ⊥ shape is apparently illegal because "because the
receiving brick has smaller dimensions than the one being connected to it."
I always thought that was intentionally possible.
The plastic they use used to be very good but more recent mixes are actually not all that good, they turn brittle after just a few months outside of the packaging. Especially 1x1's will spontaneously cracked when they have been connected to a stud at the bottom.
Counterfeit blocks aren't really counterfeit either, Lego itself is a counterfeit product, it was an idea taken from a UK company.
Unless you want to keep two separate organization systems and never cross build, I had to say thank you, write a nice card, and then donate it.
I understand Lego seems expensive and that might have something to do with the sticker price dictated by the appeal the blocks have to the buyers and also quality control the company has in place to make sure everything is durable and fits perfectly. I have 30 year old blocks and new ones and everything snaps together predictably and tightly. I also haven't noticed any of the bricks get brittle over time. I fully expect my grandchildren to keep playing with the blocks I played with as a child.
The fact that blocks are getting constant use over many, many years makes them actually very cheap compared to other toys that frequently get broken in hours or days and get quickly forgotten. My kids 3 and 5 spend large part of their time playing Lego which makes me not regret the hefty price of the blocks.
The sticker price is bad way of deciding whether the toy is cheap or expensive. Is $1000 toy that will be constant source of enjoyment and creative education over many years (and possibly your grandchildren) an expensive one compared to $30 toy that will offer no educational value, will only make loud repetitive noises and get broken in couple of hours and quickly forgotten? I don't think so.
There are other formats of blocks that are much cheaper and do not purport to be Lego-interchangeable. Just use those if you are concerned with costs.
Nearly all of Lego's patents have expired across the world, and as of today it is perfectly legal for companies to release competing products that are compatible with Lego's interlocking brick system.
There are many manufacturers releasing compatible bricks, most famous of which (at least in the west) is Mega Brands, a Canadian company, known for MegaBloks and Mega Construx. More recently quite a few Chinese companies have popped up such as Lepin and Oxford.
Today, most of Lego's legal battles involve companies stealing the designs of Lego sets (as in, the full set design, brick for brick) and re-releasing them, the primary culprit being Lepin. Oxford primarilly release their own designs and therefore are left alone.
Your quality arguments do hold some merit though, as the design process of both the set and element design that Lego goes through is unmatched. However at least in the quality department, Chinese brands are coming close. They however have the benefit of Lego doing all the design for them in the first place.
They bought the company later in an attempt to whitewash all this sordid history.
They're compatible enough so that they can be connected with lego pieces, but incompatible enough so that they shouldn't be connected with lego pieces. So we keep all the off-brand bricks in a separate boxes to avoid intermixing; you make a whole thingy only from lego bricks and a different thingy only from not-lego bricks.
CAD is a different beast to game engines.
There was even a shareware version called Pro/Desktop.
The shareware tool Pro/Desktop was incredibly light. There’s some misconception here that PCs couldn’t draw a few hundred polygons as recently as the early noughties.
Looking at LEGO specific software and tools like LeoCAD, which originated in the late nineties, they appear to have been able to render bricks just fine. I’m left with the impression that the images used were done so with an artistic intent.