PlaymoFriends
General => Brainstorming For Playmobil => Topic started by: Sir Pleamo on August 25, 2011, 10:33:09
-
Often people want Geobra to bring back Steck (and some do this very often, don't they, Giorginetto? :lol: :lol: :lol:), some even say there should even be a new "Construction System", I am surly not one of those, as you all know I am a Sys-X fanatic (you might know my 3d-sysX-project (http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=5760.msg135848#msg135848)), but yes there is a reason why so many people are talking about hots and nots concerning the possibility of construction sets in the PM-universe. Since some time Geobra has nearly NO construction System at all. Most of the newer sets are even not System X but something in between nothing... This breaks the hearts of all builders! (So yes, maybe one day I will be as frustrated as Giorginetto, but saying "Bring back System X). So I have started this new topic to try to show that
(a) there is no need for a totally new construction system
(b) there is no need to bring back Steck
(c) therefor it is a must to develop System X in more detail and make it available to more themes
Why? You might question that, because what is left then is System X and (it's a pity but) this System seems not to be as popular as e:g: Steck for other than modern themes. That this do not hold even today is really true and can be easily shown with some designs by some users (as I always try to show in mine too). There is so much creativity in this system and nearly none design is in principle impossible. But yes, I said in principal, because yes there is a real lack in System X within some kind of parts, especially those in which Steck is strong. So this thread now is maybe what was cachalotes first idea when he started "System X designer wanted (http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=5760.0)".
In this sense I just try to show and discuss with you, how in my opinion Sys-X should be supported by Geobra to create a really allround but perfect system for all kind of builders, customizers, collectors but also kids ;D...
-
A major plus of the Steck-System is, that it holds parts, that have never made for Sys-X but are a must for medivel but also fruitfull in all time lines (maybe not stoneage), namely framework parts for those cute framework houses.
I nearly dream everyday about Geobra will release one day nice versions for System X, but yet they have not done it….
As you know I have tried to create such houses with existing parts already (look at these very first pics of my „Port Pleamo“, which will be presentated soon in a different thread, of course), but still I am dreaming of more…
-
…so I started to design my versions. The shown pics are only first sketchy ideas but they should be sufficient to show, that Geobra have only to produce a VERY LITTLE new parts but the possibilities would be nearly endless.
-
Some of these possibillities are shown in these examples which maybe could be transformed to real sets by Geobra. Maybe a new era of civilian medival buildings could rise up with such parts…
-
(b) there is no need to bring back Steck
george will have a heart attack if he sees that :lol: :lol: :lol: i belive steck is the best system for playmobil building especially with castles ,and it must be improved more!!!!
the problem with systemx are the annoying holes ...
-
george will have a heart attack if he sees that :lol: :lol: :lol:
This might be, so we should declare that this thread contains dangerous content, shouldn't we?
But back to the issue... I'm very sorry that you have not got my point, maybe I was not clear in what I had in mind! I really had not in mind to discuss which Ssystem is the best here (there are a lot of threads doing so... and none is really coming to a conclusion... so here I wanted do do a different approach, but you are right I have do more words on what my reasoning was...
i belive steck is the best system for playmobil building especially with castles ,and it must be improved more!!!!
Yes you are right AT THE MOMENT, and that's the main reason why I want to develop SysX! ??? Sounds strange?
In my opinion there can be no serious discussion if someone says that Steck is in principal the best construction system (the same is true for the opposite). Me too once was a "Stecker", I really hated Sys-X in the beginning but now all my Steck-parts are in some boxes probably never to be used in future. Why? I guess everyone that really have had a close contact to Sys-X (and I do not mean having one or two sets) have to realize the superb and elegant possibilities of this system. Yes, I know about all the difficulties of SysX and alll the arguments for or against it (or vice versa).
I guess our way should not be to tell Geobra "forget all your work of the last decades and bring back what you have droped for some reasons!" but to look forward and improve the (for a global construction) best system ever made by them with all what was good within Steck.
For short: the whole issue is an issue of part design! The system is only a second step... so if they will bring back Steck, really nothing is won, because then they have to do nearly the same part design to integrate all the possibilities of SysX into Steck, otherwise where would be the advantage expect for some collectors? So why not thinking about the more fruitfull system instead of accepting the major disadvantages of Steck (Yes, it's a nice System, but it is much more limited than SysX ever could be).
the problem with systemx are the annoying holes ...
...now we comes closer to what we should think about... what are the problems to be solved within this approach? and yes, you are right the holes are a problem, but not as serious as it is discussed so often! Even now there are a lot of possibilities NOT to have these holes, but again, here all begins: This is a question of part design, not a problem in principal!
Soon I wanted to present you my opinion and solutions to that point, too! So yes I want to underline your point but do not share your conclusion....
-
Sir Pleamo, I am not that familiar with System X, so I really should keep my mouth shut. I think I have given away all the bits and pieces that I acquired through buying lots on eBay.
The houses and buildings that you have created are very clever and beautiful. In this sense I can see the flexibility of the System X parts as opposed to Steck. I enjoy building, but really hate taking a hack saw or dremel to Steck parts in order to make them fit. I look forward to learning more. Thanks for this thread.
Joe
-
The houses and buildings that you have created are very clever and beautiful
yes i'll second that !!!! :)
personally i judje from the playmobil sets i've seen ,many customs with systemx are truly magnificent , but almost all of the playmobil sets with system x are ugly with exception the 3019 first fairy tale castle . all the steck sets are great and easy to play (i remember when i was a kid the system x buildings all the time stuff where falling out while playing with it ) why playmobil stopped the steck system does anyone know? :hmm:
-
SP,
A wonderful thread showing the possibilities of Sys X with a few more parts from PM! It is great that you are focusing on this aspect of building...let's get beyond the competition between multiple buldling systems and see what can be done with a few more parts for Sys X. (I agree that it has a lot of promise, and that is why I have been stockpiling the building parts.) In the end, it does not matter which system you prefer because no one really cares.
So let's help SP with ideas for which pieces are needed the most for Sys X and quit whining about which system is best. I am a relative newbie and am already very tired of reading about why one system is better than the other. We each make our own choice, and should be mature enough to follow a discussion of either one without cheering for our favorites.
So if all you can eat and breathe is Steck, please post your comments on another thread. And let SP share his ideas. I know these are harsh words, but this is his thread on Sys X. Phew! Thanks, Pgal
-
I agree 110% that System X could be developed into a great construction system, thank you for your efforts to work on this issue. We haven't had many great buildings in a while (still hoping for a grist mill for the poor medieval peasants to grind their flour.. and a nice thatched house)
I think the biggest "problem" with system x has been that there is currently no reliable mechanism for getting the parts you need to finish a project.
An online DS Parts ordering section would do wonders for solving this (think ordering online from the factories in Europe and when PM USA for example gets their next shipment... there is a DS box pre-labeled and packed for you in which you actually get ALL the parts you ordered... confirmation of price and availability instant online BUT would have to be only for large orders to make it feasible... $150 plus, with small orders handled the same way as now).
Making parts available in moderately toned neutral colors would also help, as would classic look medieval buildings as that seems to be a major sticking point for steckers (myself included).
BUT I love the system x church and would definitely have more had it been grey or even all the same color... too much contrast in a lot of the prepared sets makes it hard to really get into the system...
All things considered there are aspects of all the building systems, including the clip system too while we are at it that I like... but I'd like to see more developments as shown in the previously posted pictures and have "boring" non-printed people whose accessories can be changed easily, like the old days when a cowboy could be a knight, then a pirate, or even a spaceman with a few part changes... not forever assigned to his fate in the factory :'( But I digress...
-
I'm totally with you Sir Pleamo! I think the main reason system x has not been more popular with collectors is the aesthetics of it.... mostly plain white walls, rather than the variety of framework walls, stone walls, wood plank walls that are available with steck. If system x were more developed in more pleasing colors and textures, it would open up so many possibilities for creating structures other than just modern ones. I will say there is some signs of movement in that direction, with the 5302 having clapboard-looking walls, and the 4857 summer house, which I see you used parts from, having beautiful stone walls, plus the lovely trellis. I'd like to see more in this direction, and incorporating older themes. Your design for a sys x framework wall is brilliant!
-
Any system can be bad or good, it all depends on how you implement it. If no parts are supplied or the variety is poor no system will ever be considered good.
-
I came to the conclusion some time ago tha I love bith steck and system x! Both have many possibilities and capabilities! and lets face it both are playmobil :love:
Magnificent designs Sir Pleamo! Looking forward to the rest of your project!!!
-
Sir Pleamo, I think that System-X is a FANTASTIC building system :love:! It's only drawback is the lack of castle and framework pieces, and you've shown that those problems can be easily be solved :wow:!
Ace :brownhair:
-
while playmobil does involve some assembly, my guess is the intent was not to really market it as a building toy (i.e. lego, megabloks, duplo, kinex, etc...). They only come unassembled for packaging and perhaps savings on assembly costs. Steck lent itself to the release of different castle sets using the same moulds just in different combinations.
If Playmobil really played up the whole building aspect, they would be able to add extra appeal to their toys as also a building toy as steck lends itself easily as an interchangeable building piece from which you can create many custom designs. They might likewise do the same with system x. But as we know, some system x parts leave little or no room for customizing. The 3268 castle, for example, can be expanded with extra walls and towers, but cannot be built upwards (vertically) in different configurations.
Playmobil should explore the whole building toy concept further. I mean, it pretty much already is a building toy....perhaps they just don't realize it yet.
-
Maybe Geobra wants exactly that, to avoid that PM is seen as a "building toy".
-
Maybe Geobra wants exactly that, to avoid that PM is seen as a "building toy".
why not? whether they know it or not their main competition is probably legos. Most stores I know stock the playmobil next to the legos. Most people I know mistake playmobil for lego. Lego itself seems to even mirror playmobil's themes (at the exact same time Playmobil releases them, coincidentally). Even lego has expanded....once they just produced the lego bricks that could be built into anything; now they produce pre-moulded parts that just happen to have lego ports that allow them to be built onto regular lego bricks (like system x). Most of the toy's shape is already moulded into place while you simply add lego parts on top of it on some of their sets now.
Playmobil can expand its market likewise, but from the opposite side of the spectrum: starting out as premoulded sets, it can incorporate the idea of buildability into it.
It wouldn't take much, other than a marketing shift. As far as steck goes, they already have the parts to do it. System x can also be adapted in future sets. Wider market base would result. Better sales.
Happier collectors and kids alike.
I don't see a downside to it. I don't even see an added cost to the company, as I said, the parts already exist. They wouldn't have to develop anything new, other than an added marketing angle.
They could sell sets. They can sell building parts (add-ons) in generic form. (I know they already sell steck add on parts, but they're made to form specific buildings and such....better if they sell add-on steck that can be formed into anything....much like sets of train tracks which can be configured in any way the buyer wants)
-
Market identity.
Lego is the archetype of a building toy world round, so Geobra may not want that their product be confused with Lego. Obviously I'm just thinking out loud here, but the corporate world is a strange place, where not always the rain falls down, if you catch my meaning.
-
I wouldn't call playmobil a building toy. I think we would all be playing with legos if we just wanted a building system. Most of us choose playmobil instead because klickys are so much cooler and more appealing than little yellow lego dudes. So IMO playmobil is not primarily a buiding toy, but rather the main focus is the people, and everything else is secondary... we are building worlds for the little people, as opposed to lego which provides little people as an afterthought to stick in the worlds you build.
However this doesn't mean that geobra couldn't put a little more thought into having a consistent and effective (and more aesthetically pleasing than lego ;)) building system. System x is so incredibly versatile, and has so many possibilities. With just a little more thought put into it and some "prettier" parts, it could be an absolutely fantastic system.
-
BB: Very well stated! I agree, Pgal!
-
Magnificent designs Sir Pleamo! Looking forward to the rest of your project!!!
I'll second that!! :o :rock: :)9 :clap:
I also agree now that System-X offers many possibilities, which you mostly discovered SirPleaymo and are teaching us!
-
Wow! All of you are posting so quickly, and most of what you post are serious points… So I have to hurry to reply to all of you! I am quite glad that this thread seems to hold some relevance to you, so THANK YOU, maybe in keeping this brilliant discussion on, we will get some interesting results in the end!
I just try to catch all the points that you have made, because there are a lot and even now it turns out that there are some aspects, that I had not realized yet. Let us try to sort what issues are mentioned. When I get you all right we could make three main topics:
1. Steck vs. SysX
2. Analysing and designing SysX
2.1 Possibilities and impossibilities of SysX - Designing
2.2 Developing and improving SysX
3. PM politics
3.1 Construction toy or not
3.2 SysX set design by Geobra
3.3 DS and marketing
1. Steck vs. SysX
As I have mentioned already (and some second me), I do not want to talk about this issue any longer… use Steck or leave it, love SysX or leave it, that’s not the focus of this thread!
2. Analysing and designing SysX
2.1 Possibilities and impossibilities of SysX - Designing
[…] But as we know, some system x parts leave little or no room for customizing. The 3268 castle, for example, can be expanded with extra walls and towers, but cannot be built upwards (vertically) in different configurations.
Sorry BlackPearl2006, I can not follow your two points. As I already have mentioned, I know really a huge number of System X parts, but I really know a very (very, very) little amount of parts which are limited or which leave little or no room for customizing. Maybe you could give an example of these parts…
Especially your example do not hold. I have attached a very quick version of building vertically for castle designs… (believe me, less than 5 minutes thinking about your problem… if you like this kind of solution will be a different story…).
But you are right in showing us, that SysX is only strong if we get a feeling for how it works… in the beginning of my 3D project I was thinking of walls, columns, conectors etc. It turns out that I was wrong… at this stage of my SysX knowledge I am thinking in 90/30, 60/120, 60/165, light grey not speceled… what I want to say is, I have realized that nearly all categories that we know from Steck are no longer true in SysX! There is no top side, no bottom, no left no right… there are only size, number of conecting holes and colour, the rest is imagination!
I also agree now that System-X offers many possibilities, which you mostly discovered SirPleaymo and are teaching us!
Very kind words, Hadoque, so if I made some discoveries and you want to hear them… Yes, I would love to join something like a „System X – Workshop“-thread. In fact I had in mind not only to start a thread form y Port Pleamo but also a „behind the scene – making of“-thread. I mentioned that, because my Port ist he result of nearly all what I might have „discovered“ within System X…
Playmobil should explore the whole building toy concept further. I mean, it pretty much already is a building toy....perhaps they just don't realize it yet.
So if they do not do it, let’s do it for them!
2.2 Developing and improving SysX
Very interesting, this was my first and main idea for this thread but it seems it gets to be a minor point in the discussion by now. But I guess we will get very deep into this issue again soon. But yes, BB has made a real point by talking about colours and aesthetics… we will keep this point in mind!
I think the main reason system x has not been more popular with collectors is the aesthetics of it.... mostly plain white walls, rather than the variety of framework walls, stone walls, wood plank walls that are available with steck. If system x were more developed in more pleasing colors and textures, it would open up so many possibilities for creating structures other than just modern ones.
My wants, wishes and forthcoming ideas (yes, the framework gable is just one of a lot „new designed parts“ that I want to discuss with you) in this aspect are some development in solutions for roofs and gables (ONE MAJOR WEAKNESS OF SYSX at the moment!), the hole-problem (don’t even think I was not talking about SysX!), terrain and rock integration… and many more…
3. PM politics
…but what was very surprisingly for me but very clear in its importance, was what Baron Marshall mentioned:
I think the biggest "problem" with system x has been that there is currently no reliable mechanism for getting the parts you need to finish a project. […]
Making parts available in moderately toned neutral colors would also help, as would classic look medieval buildings as that seems to be a major sticking point for steckers (myself included).
So yes we have to talk about PM politics too!
Yes, if it is a problem to get the parts that has to be a major issue. The aspect that Steck-sets are much easier for customizing NOT because Steck is best, but because the different parts you will need to build a SysX construction are in fact not to get by having one or two System X sets! That’s so very true! I was so ignorant because I live in the PM-paradise Germany and nearly every week I get a delivery from Geobra with hundert and hundret parts via DS, nearly every part I need! You are right, if this would not be any longer, I would get really serious problems with SysX! So we have to talk about SysX set design on the one hand and DS and marketing on the other! Yes, I have to repeat it, you are so right in pointing out this fact! Both aspects (3.2 SysX set design by Geobra and 3.3 DS and marketing) we should discuss in more detail and should take some contact to Geobra (maybe via PCC or in other forms).
3.1Construction toy or not
Maybe Geobra wants exactly that, to avoid that PM is seen as a "building toy".
That’s exactly what Geobra is saying: They don’t want tob e a construction toy! But I guess we all second the formulations of BB, me too do not think that PM itself is a construction toy BUT SysX gives us some constructive possibilities! These possiblilities I have worked out systematically in my 3D-Library project (yes, if you want or not, this just happens when you remodel over 500 parts – it is hard to believe but THEY ARE ALL IN MY HEAD AND THEY DO CONSTRUCTIONS THERE EVEN WHEN I AM SLEEPING… so HELP ME!!!!!)) and this analysis are still ongoing. (Compare Socrates white paper and the respond to it)
There is so much more I want to add but I guess this post is even know badly long… so sorry
-
Absolutely incredible work Sir Pleamo. I'm with you on Sys-X. We currently have some small Sys-X sets (PlaymoDB List - Your Set List (http://playmodb.org/cgi-bin/your_set_list.pl?setlist=3285,3288,5775,5783;title=Your%20Set%20List) )and the only limitation I can see is that I simply don't have enough parts to get very creative.
The only drwback I can see is the holes which while annoying for most people don't bother me in the least.
-
SP: Nice summary and synthesis of what has been said!
Many of us think in terms of what Sys X parts can I combine to do what, so my Klickies can do something specific there. Example: my girls'garage band....I needed a garage. So I pulled a barn/farm building that was an add on I found at the FL FP, and my make believe garage is done. I don't have enough roof parts to build this from my parts collection. So roofs are a real weakness at this point with Sys X, Pgal
-
:thanks: thank you so much for this system-x "help" sir pleamo.
:love: like you i prefer it to steck.
:'( i am so sad that playmobil seems to be going in such a non-buildable path lately.
turning everything easy and quick to assemble is just what their competition is doing for so many years.
if "building" is something that disappears from the playmobil concept maybe there will be nothing to separate them from other (cheaper) toy-makers.
they will regret it in the future - i have no doubts on that.
i still feel that hans beck was the only one who understood this.
he must be rolling over in his grave (a free translation from the portuguese expression "dar voltas na campa") when he sees the new tunning car with sound.
sometimes i feel that maybe i am just getting old and "closed" to the new design trends playmobil is offering.
but, after some thought, i don't think this is the case.
the newer so-much-easier-and-simpler-even-a-very-stupid-child-with-little-or-no-help-from-his-very-stupid-parent is a wrong concept.
playmobil is a "special" toy - if it looses its buildable capabilities it will kill some of its wonder.
and system-x should be turned into its full potential.
like you so well demonstrate with the medieval add-on frames (although their orientation could be a little better from a purely engineering pojnt of view) there is nothing )or almost nothing) that can't be achieved with system-x.
the medievel houses were up untill now a steck-system feud.
;) not any longer, it seems.
-
I wouldn't call playmobil a building toy. I think we would all be playing with legos if we just wanted a building system. Most of us choose playmobil instead because klickys are so much cooler and more appealing than little yellow lego dudes. So IMO playmobil is not primarily a buiding toy, but rather the main focus is the people, and everything else is secondary... we are building worlds for the little people, as opposed to lego which provides little people as an afterthought to stick in the worlds you build.
:giggle: I am laughing only because we have had this very discussion so many times before. Different aspects of Playmobil appeal to different people. Many Playmobil fans are also LEGO fans. Personally, I prefer the non-klicky aspects of Playmobil - in fact, at the risk of causing mass spit-takes, (http://www.gifsoup.com/view/2432570/spit-take.html) I will tell you that I don't like klickys very much at all and certainly not as much as I like the buildings and all of those fantastic little details (such as individual feathers for the American Indians that are to die for.) Until they started producing klickys with different facial expressions I could barely stand those relentlessly smiling faces - now that they hang with a more diverse group, expression-wise, I am better able to tolerate these "Candides" of the toy world.
If there truly are people who think that those "little yellow dudes" are not so cool, I advise you to check out this amazing animation, one of my all-time faves: A Wasted Journey. (http://www.oblongpictures.com/2003/08/star-wars-a-wasted-journey/) The film-maker, Chris Salt, also has a whole bunch of other great LEGO animations on his website. :wow:
-
I did not intend to start a debate over whether klickys or lego men are cooler, as that is not the purpose of this topic. Sorry about that, Sir Pleamo.
I was simply stating that even if they do not want to look at building as their main focus, which it arguably is not, they could still make it a strong secondary focus.
-
NOTE: Skip if you are a PM purist: (Hahaha! Loved "A Wasted Journey" on YouTube! So did over 314,000 others! Thanks for the link!!!
Please don't ever underestimate the attraction of the unbelievable wide range of minifigs one can make with L. Billions of possibilities due to all of the heads, hair, hats, torsos, hip/legs, arms and accessories. I have built over 20,000 different gals, and adore them. And less than 100 of my gals have yellow skin tones.)
The reason I build Sys X buildings is to house my collection of Klickies. And it is fine if some folks don't care for Klickies....I am still turned off by the old, plainer ones. If you search the 480 or so "female Klickies" on PlaymoDB, you will see how the newer ones bring the old girls to life. The new facial expressions and hair make a huge difference.
Klicky Issues: Now if we could just buy those heads and hair and plain as well as printed torsos, arms and legs, it would be so much easier to build custom Klickies. Last week I submitted a US DS order just for PM hair....guess what, PM does not sell hair by itself! Aaarggh!
And it is so difficult to dissemble the darn figures. Why not make them all easy to take apart like the new PM collectibles? The kids and babies, too. Keep the fixed version for gifts to very young children and give the rest of us a different version that comes apart. The choking problem has never prevented L from selling very small parts in the US.
Sys X issues: So let's keep discussing how to develop Sys X (how about calling it SX?) so that we can more easily buy those parts needed to customize our buildings. While we discuss what new parts are needed to replicate older castle and Victorian designs, please don't forget that we also need specific parts for those of us who prefer Frank Lloyd Wright (check out the Guggenheim in NYC) or other modern designers' work. In the larger school building, we got a glimpse of what can be done with curves and large clear windows; we need lots of options as to curves and clear windows.
It would wonderful to be able to easily build SX Moorish type buildings like those so well maintained in Spain...how about some sets along that design because the arches are so flexible and are found in many architectural styles. Ten sizes/styles of arches would make life much easier as a builder. Same for roof-top minarets, etc..
Thanks for the SX discussions because PM needs to retain its buildability to keep us adult fans and provide children with a way to develop their imagination. Cheers, Pgal :wave:
-
I did not intend to start a debate over whether klickys or lego men are cooler, as that is not the purpose of this topic. Sorry about that, Sir Pleamo.
I was simply stating that even if they do not want to look at building as their main focus, which it arguably is not, they could still make it a strong secondary focus.
No debate started. My main point (on the topic) was simply that Playmobil is, indeed, a building system in the opinion of many fans. Playmobil used to promote the building system aspect but have moved away from that focus in recent years. I like the idea of expanding SystemX as a building system. But I also think that there should be a few new Steck pieces (like a gray 4-way connector) and the ability to order replacement pieces.
-
I did not intend to start a debate over whether klickys or lego men are cooler, as that is not the purpose of this topic. Sorry about that, Sir Pleamo.
I was simply stating that even if they do not want to look at building as their main focus, which it arguably is not, they could still make it a strong secondary focus.
You are right, BB, please let us concentrate on the SysX – topic, surly we have to look at some sideeffects but let us not discuss about Klickies or LEGO… but just one word in that contect: I have realized, that some people like LEGO but still object SysX because of some holes… that’s a really strange position, isn’t it? (Just a retorical question, no need to discuss it…)
No debate started. My main point (on the topic) was simply that Playmobil is, indeed, a building system in the opinion of many fans. Playmobil used to promote the building system aspect but have moved away from that focus in recent years. I like the idea of expanding SystemX as a building system. But I also think that there should be a few new Steck pieces (like a gray 4-way connector) and the ability to order replacement pieces.
You are right, many people see PM as a construction toy, but as you have mentioned: Geobra has moved away from that focus! So it is a historical debate what would be if they still focused on it.
Sys X issues: So let's keep discussing how to develop Sys X (how about calling it SX?) so that we can more easily buy those parts needed to customize our buildings.
Right! So again that’s set design (see below) and DS-problems (an important but minor point in the sense of set design issue like discussed below.
While we discuss what new parts are needed to replicate older castle and Victorian designs, please don't forget that we also need specific parts for those of us who prefer Frank Lloyd Wright (check out the Guggenheim in NYC) or other modern designers' work. In the larger school building, we got a glimpse of what can be done with curves and large clear windows; we need lots of options as to curves and clear windows.
Keep it low! You are so right, there are many nice architecture which is not possible at the moment (Sydney Opera, Eifel-Tower, …) but I guess we should do one step to another. I guess (and that’s for what I want to advocate), the best is to see PM what it is and how Geobra want it to have: first and simply a toy! In my oppinion there are some very realistic chances to influence the set/ part design at Geobra if and only if we talk their language, not just spill out our dreams, of which we know that they are not possible in short times… Believe me, I am totally with you, but if I would tell you of what parts I am dreaming… no it is irrational to think Geobra will follow…
In my view (Set design and PM politics aside) a very big and first step would be to, to integrate SysX in every play theme adequately and to be able to rebuilt all sets that was made by PM which were not SysX. In short, first SysX has to be the standard system in all set design and themes. From this point of view I have started first to remodel all possibilities of the older Steck framework parts. That’s not enough? I am not sure if we can see the result from today, because, after just remodelling the Steck to SysX I have realized that solely this will bring much more possibilities that the original Steck parts have had. So, yes I am a great fan of designing new parts, but again, let’s try to get a maximum out of a minimum of changes. I really do not want to have just nice ideas in some thread that will be forgotten in let’s say half a year! No, I really want to have realistic (that means small stepped) solutions that we can and will present to Geobra (we or just me, if no one will follow).
It would wonderful to be able to easily build SX Moorish type buildings like those so well maintained in Spain...how about some sets along that design because the arches are so flexible and are found in many architectural styles. Ten sizes/styles of arches would make life much easier as a builder. Same for roof-top minarets, etc..
Yes, here is another realistic point, and yes, I second you! It does not matter whether it should be Moorish or not, but curved parts and arches are some very serious aspects for the future.
But for all what is said until now, let’s have a closer look to the set design by Geobra. I guess we can make some very interesting observations. Often when a new catalogue or a new set is released, I am thinking “Why they kill SysX with their new boxes?”. There are so many sets that are very nice in concept but it is a pity how they NOT integrate them in SysX (e.g. 5139, 4294, etc). Even those that are SysX are often not very fruitful by having more and more highly specific and very large parts (e.g. 5120, 4826, nearly all castle sets especially 4865, 4866, 4835, 4836, etc.). All these sets are very nice but of only a minor value from a “builders view”. But if you have a closer look you will always find one or two PURLY SysX sets with a lot of HIGHLY USEFULL parts (the latest example will be 5119 and in some aspects 5302, with 5142 I am not sure, I have not seen the partlist of it…). That is, thinking about the construction toy issue, what we should accept (and for me I can say I can). Those set will stay just a minority in their program, but anyway, SysX is going forward! I guess here is our chance! Only some new parts here and there in some sets (even if the whole set will be mainly non SysX as mentioned above), that is what we should achieve!
For children and ordinary collectors (and most important for Geobra) nothing will change, but there will be some, even if only a very small amount, of important new let’s call them “key-parts” (in my view the presented framework parts would be such type of parts.). Once there is only one part of this type in only one set IT IS AVAILABLE! Surely, now the DS-issue is of most importance, but that will be a very minor problem compared to the EXISTANCE of a part!
-
SP: A wonderful approach!!! Love your ideas; we must work on a focus on just a few steps of this at once. Cheers, Pgal :wave:
-
Generally system x is so very square.
That problem needed to be addressed.
I guess they did so with the new snap together cr@p.
When the profits are looked at with such minimal amount of plastic pieces I doubt they'll want to lose these profits.
-
Yes, but if they just made the new snap-together pieces more compatible with sysx, everyone would be happy. Rather than have a building where it is part of a baseplate, make it where it could stand on its own and become a part of a system x building, with places for sysx plugs to hook to it.
-
Generally system x is so very square.
That problem needed to be addressed.
That is another real issue, but this is a puzzle which is not as simple to solve like it first seems, I guess. SysX is really a system not just a name, what I want to say is, SysX is so fruitful because there are so clear standards. All is based on 15x15x15mm units, where some multiplications of that unit are made to the base of all the system, e.g. especially 90mm (6 units). These strict standards lead to the interchange ability of all the parts. The reason why some sets are not as useful as others is often because parts of these sets break the standards! So there are some strict limits in which the “square” aspect could be handled. In principle there are two strategies, but before getting deeper into this, I would like to respond to the “snap-together” parts.
I guess they did so with the new snap together cr@p.
Absolutely right! But in my opinion Geobra do not solve the problem but try to circumnavigate it. Yes, they do what ever they want to do by leaving SysX-standars and produce these “snap-together parts”. BUT I think there are much more problems with this way as BB says:
Yes, but if they just made the new snap-together pieces more compatible with sysx, everyone would be happy. Rather than have a building where it is part of a baseplate, make it where it could stand on its own and become a part of a system x building, with places for sysx plugs to hook to it.
These parts make the sets unique but so PM do not produce easy solution for their own set development. These snap-parts are so highly specific and not sysX-standard that they are really useless in most customizing but also in ongoing set design (why Geobra does not realize this?). In this context I just want you to present another “self-made” design. I already have mentioned the term “key parts”, but a better term should be “key shape”. If there are some “shapes” made in standard, they can be integrated in nearly every new set development only by changing colour and/ or texture. Maybe you get my point by the example of my D90-wall section. It could be used as towers (e.g. castles, fairytale-sets, etc.) but also in modern building (like finance building, etc.), in space….
The point is simply offering Geobra solutions that are easy, simple but useful because they care about the SysX standards.
-
SP: These round pieces look wonderful...we could do lots of neat things with them. Thanks for the designs, Pgal!
-
Sir Pleamo, those glass curving walls are excellent :love:! Let's hope that Playmobil likes this idea and releases it soon :prays:!
Ace :brownhair:
-
[Playmobil should explore the whole building toy concept further. I mean, it pretty much already is a building toy....perhaps they just don't realize it yet.
[/quote]
Ageed!
-
Bah, am having trouble with quotes. A fantastic thread sir Pleamo...you have wonderful ideas.
I like the idea of being able to build different buildings from Playmobil pieces. I also dont see this as building with lego. Playmobil pieces have far more realism than lego to me. It would be a wonderful way of expanding the possibilities of Plymobil if such a strategy was used.
-
Hi! I confess I haven't read EVERY post, so here's my comment and my question, excuse me if this already have been said.
To me both systems are great but Steck has the aesthetic advantage of being nicer looking. What bothers me about system x is the horrible holes, it is the closest PM have been to looking like L360 >:( (and lets face it... to place every little connector, whatever the color is, is unberable!!)
Beside the introduction of new pieces, btw your desings are amazing!!!!, is there any idea to cover the holes? beside the obvious that would be a piece, very much like a conector, but with the external face flat and the color of each element or wall? :)
-
For some reason the Sys X holes don't bother me at all. I think we need to get beyond the "hole" problem and see what new pieces would make Sys X take off even more.
But for those who are bothered by the holes, the Grande Mansion 5302 has gorgeous trim pieces that cover both vertical and horizontal holes. If these were available in various lengths, this should not be much of a problem any more. And with a couple more horizontal vine extension pieces that could attach to existing vertical vine structures, one could cover many of the holes.
The curved and round pieces are where the some of biggest problems seem to lie, and SP has come up with some wonderful solutions in both solid and glassed versions. These pieces in a rock finish could also be huge winners.
I can't wait to see what new roof pieces that are easier to join could do for adding wings to our buildings at more than just a 90 degree angle. And French doors that are mostly windows with small frames on the outside. New window designs hold so many possibilities.
This is a great discussion of Sys X, and we are ready for more! Pgal :wave:
-
Hi! I confess I haven't read EVERY post, so here's my comment and my question, excuse me if this already have been said.
To me both systems are great but Steck has the aesthetic advantage of being nicer looking. What bothers me about system x is the horrible holes, it is the closest PM have been to looking like L360 >:( (and lets face it... to place every little connector, whatever the color is, is unberable!!)
Beside the introduction of new pieces, btw your desings are amazing!!!!, is there any idea to cover the holes? beside the obvious that would be a piece, very much like a conector, but with the external face flat and the color of each element or wall? :)
Nice to have you here! ...but, yes, I guess you should read the rest... because all your points were already mentioned (mentioned but not solved... so yes we have do discuss them soon!).
It is really hard for me, because all of you are so FAST! I have made some reasoning about (I guess) every aspect concerning SysX so yes I want and will offer my solutions to all the mentioned topics, but to make it serious, we need some time for each of those issues. I want to suggest to hold in for a minute and "solve" all problems step by step. Because of already have started the topic of "Curves and squares" with some ideas and examples maybe we should stay here for a while until we feel we are through. After that we can go forward to the very next issues. My suggestion would be:
1. Curves and squares – How to swing SysX
2. Hole or not hole - that's the question
3. Aesthetics – Colours, textures, appearance
4. Framework, roofs, gables, Windows, etc. – What kind of parts are missing?
5. Non-genuine or rule breaking SysX parts
After that we can do some brainstorming about how to support Geobra with their set designs by having their politics in mind.
An important topic also is the mentioned international DS problems. I would like to discuss this too, but it is in some aspect off-topic, so I would prefer to keep this point for the farer future.
Please object or if you prefer other ways, also add if there is something missing…
If there is no objection to this roadmap, I would like to continue with the “Curves and Squares” topic because here we can also get a deep insight about how to understand the “standards” how I called them, in other words “the SysX Theory” (Sorry for my technical kind of writing, maybe some of you don’t like this style but to excuse me, in real life I am a scientist with focus on theoretical philosophy and logics… ).
But even if I have suggested this roadmap, let me say just one word to the hole-issue:
I totally second playmogal:
For some reason the Sys X holes don't bother me at all. I think we need to get beyond the "hole" problem and see what new pieces would make Sys X take off even more.
But for those who are bothered by the holes, the Grande Mansion 5302 has gorgeous trim pieces that cover both vertical and horizontal holes. If these were available in various lengths, this should not be much of a problem any more. And with a couple more horizontal vine extension pieces that could attach to existing vertical vine structures, one could cover many of the holes.
Yes, the holes are a problem, but it is only in very few situations a real or serious problem, I have never understood, why people come to that topic so often again… I mean there are so less situation, where you are not able to cover them… Just one quick example (this construction I had already published in an earlier version at cachalote’s thread (http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=5760.msg127629#msg127629)). Please count all holes and tell me if they bother you!? (some of them are hidden too, when the building is integrated in my Port, but I have not made too much pics of it until know.)
Yes, I am with you! But let us come to the details in some time… First you are right by saying:
The curved and round pieces are where the some of biggest problems seem to lie, and SP has come up with some wonderful solutions in both solid and glassed versions. These pieces in a rock finish could also be huge winners.
[...]
This is a great discussion of Sys X, and we are ready for more! Pgal :wave:
Okay, let’s do it!
-
Honestly, the only issue with System X that I can see are the holes - though they don't bother me, I understand why some people will frown about them. And of course, the assembly is a bit more troublesome, because of the attaching structures (X pegs), but that's it. Texture, appearance, colors, type of parts, etc, are all about what Geobra wants the system to be or not to be.
-
or what the customers want the system to be or not be. ;D
-
I don't know about that, since Steck is very popular but Geobra basically axed it.
-
Honestly, the only issue with System X that I can see are the holes -
;)
-
Yes, but if they just made the new snap-together pieces more compatible with sysx, everyone would be happy. Rather than have a building where it is part of a baseplate, make it where it could stand on its own and become a part of a system x building, with places for sysx plugs to hook to it.
I'm fairly new to the system X buildings (I've only bought a few small houses recently). So could someone explain the difference between system X and the snap-together pieces mentioned earlier? :-[
I've seen some huge and marvellous system-X buildings on the LuxPlaymoDays exhibition yesterday. And although they looked amazing, just like the designs I saw in this thread, I wouldn't give an arm and a leg to own one of them. Which I would do for some of the custom steck buildings I saw.
I agree it's because of number 3: Aesthetics. Steck is over all more detailed and 'richer' I think. So if Playmobil is looking to improve system X, I guess they would have to invest in richer system-X pieces to make all of us steck-lovers happy :) And I don't think they'll do that, because it's more expensive to produce.
-
Thank you so very much, SirPleamo for promoting this topic so impressively! :D
You buildings are just beautiful and it is amazing to see them not only in CAD but also in reality! :love:
My impression is that right now the people in charge at Playmobil are not convinced that they can reach the kids with Playmobil as a construction toy. Maybe they are right, tendencies might go that way.
But, to be fair, that is their job! ::)
On the other hand, we have our own interest. And if we succeed to convince them that they could make both, a construction approach and a mass market compatible system, we are fine off. :)
After all, Lego also did collectors editions that are not going into mass market but are designed especially for fans and collectors. So, this is the edge we have to head for.
I still believe there would be the chance that Playmobil one day IS becoming a construction toy, though!
:rock:
So let us continue working on this mission! :)
best,
socrates
-
THE HOLES
2 solutions for the "holes" that came up on may 25 - http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=4623.15.
:wow: martin millner's simply and cleverly suggested that the holes could be used to add some "decoration" to the buildings: thin texturized covers with 2/3/4 hole spans, greenery, carpets.
:wow: indianna geniously suggested plugs for the holes in a soft plastic.
THE LOOKS
:) system-x can be made much better.
but even in the past playmobil was able to produce very good system-x buildings that don't have that mix of failing figurative-abstract image that everyone hates.
consider the 2nd big pirate island 3938 - http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=4690.0 - not to mention the beautiful harbour buildings 3112 and 5827.
TIME CONSUMING
:hmm: if geobra really feels speed is od the essence they can start to sell complete mounted sets as an alternative.
maybe by direct comparison they could have a true vision of what people prefer.
it's that easy.
but what i see all around is a different trend - "slow" is having a huge come-back.
the success of "slow" food, "meditation" exercises and even golf (that is sometimes called the "biggest" sport in the world) practices are only 3 examples.
maybe the problem is on how you want to sell things.
;) there is a portuguese saying that goes more or less like this - all donkeys can be made to eat straw, it's just a question of knowing how you can give it to them.
-
FINALLY read this... I love Sir Pleamo's buildings :love:
Everyone probably knows I LOVE assembly system (ok, you call it Steck..), and mostly hate System X. Except for the dark invaders :love:.
At the time we bought ALL the sets, our first reaction to that first System X castle was to go to ebay and buy a few assembly castles.
However, I find myself changing my opinion on System X, mostly thanks to Sir Pleamo.
System X has, IMO, 4 + 1 major problems.
First, the holes. Both me and my sister find them ugly and unnatural (an opinion NOT shared by all the docs in our playkingdoms, who see they'll never be out of a job!). They make the buildings look unfinished.
The second problem is the cheap look the thing has. The System X castle looks (and feels) like a cheap plastic toy. Not playmobil. However, that is probably a matter of color, and quite easily fixed.
The third is a matter of design - most sets have half a house. No roof, no walls... makes it look kinda stupid. But if we had the parts available, it could also be fixed.
Finally, there's the JOY of putting HUNDREDS of those stupid little things in the holes. It is NOT fun, it's time consuming and boring. A side effect of this is when taking the building down to put it away, those stupid little pieces have a mind of their own, regarding on which "wall" (or whatever) they remain with, making it harder to box everything. This I see no way around. BUT... it does allow a versatility not found anywhere near assembly system. So, it can easily be seen as a trade off. After all, on the other side of this we have those clip ons. And NOBODY wants that, right?
The +1 problem is this...
what I want to say is, I have realized that nearly all categories that w know from Steck are no longer true in SysX! There is no top side, no bottom, no left no right... there are only size, number of conecting holes and colour, the rest is imagination!
But that is MY problem, and not the system's, me thinks. AGES ago, I discussed the System X vs Assembly System, and Richard told me (and I agreed!) the major point I saw for system X (how versatile it is) was really not an advantage, since we can't make head or tails of it!
Now I think that WE need to adjust our perception of it... May not be easy... but if this old dog can learn that new trick... who knows..
I guess Sir Pleamo is correct in thinking we're not gonna get Assembly back. And it's stupid to have a bunch of incompatible systems anyways. And those clip ons are ridiculous. They really don't seem to like money. By making it impossible to expand those awesome looking tower/castle, they limit their own sales... is that reasonable?!
So I think our best bet is indeed to turn to System X (AGH). With different colors and new parts, it could probably be a great system. Ok, we'd still have to put hundreds of little pieces in place. We'd still have to adjust our thinking to be able to actually build anything with it, but after we did, the possibilities are virtually endless, something that is not true with Assembly.
IMO, the holes need fixing though. I don't know how, but (at least for me) it is a must to make acceptable buildings.
-
Tahra,
Well written!
Problem of the holes in SysX:
This has been addressed many times and can be viewed as an opportunity as well....it allows one to add all kinds of trim to SysX buildings. Just look closely at the new mansion 5302 trim...lovely? Now if it just came in many sizes and colors, many of us would be happy campers.
Adding horizontal vines that attach to vertical vines also livens up the place as does an arbor like that found in the Summer House.
And with a little imagination, PM could produce all kinds of trim pieces that could totally change the look of SysX...small circles or squares in various lengths, cool sconce light fixtures, brick or tile-looking pieces in different lengths, etc. Also signs of all kinds fit those holes, which is great for commercial buildings.
Glad to see you consider SysX; it is an additional building set. This thread is not designed to discuss Steck; merely a place to come up with ideas about SysX, which SP has done so marvelously.
Cheers, Pgal :wave:
-
Well, for holes in the walls, a vine or signs or whatever might do, but on the floor, only a flat cover would fix that, and I have no idea how you'd get it back out. To me, it's a VERY serious fault.
And my wallet is not too happy about my second thoughts on System X... These days we don't consider buying anything big in system X. If that changes........ well...
-
You can always make your own wood- or tile-look floor covers to cover the floors of a sysx building. Many people do this in victorian steck houses anyway just for the sake of realism. Why not do it in a sysx house?
-
Buying the System x parts/ items on ebay sounds good to me , measn you leave all the aged steck castel pieces for the old collectors like me !!!! Sounds good to me !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can always make your own wood- or tile-look floor covers to cover the floors of a sysx building. Many people do this in victorian steck houses anyway just for the sake of realism. Why not do it in a sysx house?
Well, I'm not saying it can't be done, but we buy a building, it should be usable as is, not need some messing with.. With assembly buildings they are great as is (and with the plus that instructions are almost optional, since you know what each part is... though, as I said, that can be a plus for System X, once you learn to see the system X parts in the proper way, as Sir Pleamo explained, something I think I'm far from mastering).
-
Dear all,
Lets keep on topic here, which is actually Sir Pleamo's work on System X development.
If you need to elaborate one issues of differences between system X and steck or between new playmobil and old playmobil productions please continue your discussions here: http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=8960.0
Thank you for your understanding and your consideration.
-
:) thank you so much for editing this thread wolf knight.
:) i am so happy you decided to join us sir pleamo.
-
Thanks a lot WoT, for splitting the thread! The emotionality that came in this debate has shown me that we are talking here about a real issue! So let us try to keep on topic!
We can know return to our debate and our aim to thinking about and develop SysX. First I have to say, that I am so glad that all of you are so productively! And since cachalote and Socrates has joined, I have no doubt that something like a result-presentation will be send to Geobra one day! Thanks, good to have you here! And since some get more and more thinking about if SysX was not as bad as they thought, I feel encouraged, that we are on the right way!
Yes, I have realized, that the hole issue is very prominently mentioned by all of you (thanks tahra for your very clear comments! Btw, great to have you here and one day you will love SysX too, ;) ) and I think it will be the best to discuss it soon, but first let me finish the “Curves and Squares”-issue shortly. After that we should really come to the wholes! Promised!
Curves and Squares – How to swing SysX continue
The already presented half-circle-part (D90 tower – see above) aside, the problem to make Sys X less „square“ is not as trivial as it first appears, it is really a pity, but that it is really not the case. All that are familiar with geometrics, math, or logics will see quickly, that there is nearly no angular which could be used easily. Why, you might ask, it must be quite simple to make connectors with nearly every angular! Yes, that is true and indeed this could be done in different sets (e.g. 5302 new dollhouse) but the use of this parts will be very very very limited. The simple reason is, that the job is not done with making walls connectable in any angular, because the end of this story are at the base plates. It is very hard to find a possibility to integrate those “special angular in a construction (guess why the new dollhouse has a one-part base plate, or in other words try to enlarge its base plate,… mmmh a little bit frustrating, ‘cos impossible!).You don’t believe it? Take a paper and a pen and try around a little bit, if you come to a solution without having lots and lots of highly specific parts, let it me know!
So that’s not the way I prefer, meaning the result would only be very special parts to use in very special situations and/ or sets (that is really a bad thing about the dollhouse, so nice looking parts with so little use!). Is it impossible to overcome this problem? No, of course not, the only issue is care about the standard again! Only a 45° angular will do the job and this would be far enough to realize great constructions.
The pics show the ONLY TWO key shapes that are in need to solve the problem – namely one new type of connectors (pic 1) and one new wall (pic 2, the example shows a solid wall and a window). The base plates are already available. The next two pics show how these parts are working together with all the standard parts. So again, we only need these two parts and the System will reach a level of highly interesting constructions and will go far beyond Steck ever has been.
-
Thanks a lot WoT, for splitting the thread! The emotionality that came in this debate has shown me that we are talking here about a real issue! So let us try to keep on topic!
We can know return to our debate and our aim to thinking about and develop SysX. First I have to say, that I am so glad that all of you are so productively! And since cachalote and Socrates has joined, I have no doubt that something like a result-presentation will be send to Geobra one day! Thanks, good to have you here! And since some get more and more thinking about if SysX was not as bad as they thought, I feel encouraged, that we are on the right way!
Yes, I have realized, that the hole issue is very prominently mentioned by all of you (thanks tahra for your very clear comments! Btw, great to have you here and one day you will love SysX too, ;) ) and I think it will be the best to discuss it soon, but first let me finish the “Curves and Squares”-issue shortly. After that we should really come to the wholes! Promised!
Curves and Squares – How to swing SysX continue
The already presented half-circle-part (D90 tower – see above) aside, the problem to make Sys X less „square“ is not as trivial as it first appears, it is really a pity, but that it is really not the case. All that are familiar with geometrics, math, or logics will see quickly, that there is nearly no angular which could be used easily. Why, you might ask, it must be quite simple to make connectors with nearly every angular! Yes, that is true and indeed this could be done in different sets (e.g. 5302 new dollhouse) but the use of this parts will be very very very limited. The simple reason is, that the job is not done with making walls connectable in any angular, because the end of this story are at the base plates. It is very hard to find a possibility to integrate those “special angular in a construction (guess why the new dollhouse has a one-part base plate, or in other words try to enlarge its base plate,… mmmh a little bit frustrating, ‘cos impossible!).You don’t believe it? Take a paper and a pen and try around a little bit, if you come to a solution without having lots and lots of highly specific parts, let it me know!
So that’s not the way I prefer, meaning the result would only be very special parts to use in very special situations and/ or sets (that is really a bad thing about the dollhouse, so nice looking parts with so little use!). Is it impossible to overcome this problem? No, of course not, the only issue is care about the standard again! Only a 45° angular will do the job and this would be far enough to realize great constructions.
The pics show the ONLY TWO key shapes that are in need to solve the problem – namely one new type of connectors (pic 1) and one new wall (pic 2, the example shows a solid wall and a window). The base plates are already available. The next two pics show how these parts are working together with all the standard parts. So again, we only need these two parts and the System will reach a level of highly interesting constructions and will go far beyond Steck ever has been.
Sir Pleamo, forgive my ignorance here, but do you work for Geobra? I only ask because all the hard work and thought that go into your designs.....will they simply remain fantasy for us to drool over? Or do you have any direct ability to somehow get Geobra to actually manufacture these pieces? I am just amazed at how much work you have put into these designs and can't imagine anyone doing so without the promise of seeing these designs come to fruition.
Your designs are awesome, btw!!!!!
-
Btw, great to have you here and one day you will love SysX too, ;)
You all want to ruin me, that's what it is!
I am just amazed at how much work you have put into these designs and can't imagine anyone doing so without the promise of seeing these designs come to fruition.
Your designs are awesome, btw!!!!!
Ditto.. You apparently could solve all the problems of system X! Well, still waiting for a "hole solution" ;)
-
interlude
Sir Pleamo, forgive my ignorance here, but do you work for Geobra? I only ask because all the hard work and thought that go into your designs.....
Yes I do, in my dreams, but only in my dreams... every morning when I wake up I have to realize that I don't have that job... :-[
will they simply remain fantasy for us to drool over? Or do you have any direct ability to somehow get Geobra to actually manufacture these pieces? I am just amazed at how much work you have put into these designs and can't imagine anyone doing so without the promise of seeing these designs come to fruition.
...but here I am not dreaming but try to be very realistic: I do not know, if all, some or just one of these ideas will become reality, but I do know enough to understand that at Geobra also only persons are working, and I do know that ideas can convince persons. That is the reason why I am doing this stuff! ...and that is the reason why I want (maybe sometimes too harsh) to keep our focus on that topic. I really think, if we could present something which is really "ready to combat", there will be a realistic change to influence Geobras development (as you can see, now they ask us what we want to have in the DS, so this here will be only a little step beyond...). That is also the reason why I want to keep Geobras politics in mind while thinking about our issue, cos we should work WITH them not against them to be succsessful!
And, yes, this is something like my style of the PM-hobby, after getting in contact with all the SysX parts so deeply (3D-project) I was really thinking a lot about it and I have all those "standards" already in my computer.... so this thread here is something like a "side effect" of this project...
...anyway, I should stay on topic too ;D !
You apparently could solve all the problems of system X! Well, still waiting for a "hole solution" ;)
So yes, we should discuss the holes now... I will come up with a little summary about that issue soon...
-
Sp: Lovely diagonal posts!!! I wondered about this issue while building my 5302 Grande Mansion....how to use diagonals to add on or build a shape other than the standard non square/rectangular boxes. The baseplate and roof pieces need to be modular so that we can design our own footprint and put a roof on it.
Staying with 45 degree angles is a wonderful idea, too, for starters. Your designs are first class. Thanks for doing this, Pgal!
-
Yes I do, in my dreams, but only in my dreams... every morning when I wake up I have to realize that I don't have that job... :-[
You can always sent you resume and pictures of your lovely work and tell them you are passionate about playmobil, all these are enough reasons to consider seriously employing you !
BAck to topic, look forward to any solution ref the holes i personally dont like at all ! :)
-
Those diagonal poles are amazing, Sir Pleamo :o! Thanks so much for sharing them with us!
Ace :brownhair:
-
Yes, that one simple piece would open up a whole new world of possibilities! :wow: :wow: :wow:
-
a sign of life…
Most of you must have realized, that I have not posted anything since weeks and months… Some of you might have thought, that I just skipped my hobby… but do you really think so after all that oil, that I have put in the fire?
Of course not! But what the hell have I done all that time?
Well, as some of you already know, there is a simple and short answer: The birth of our daughter (our second child)… all parents will know how hard it is keeping your hobby AND being a good father/mother… but not participating here personally does not mean that I have not worked on… I am quite proud to tell you that the next version of my 3D-Library is released now, namly version 2.9 which includes nearly 600 parts with over 100 totally new ones and about 20 fixed parts.
Some special parts aside, this package comes mainly with a huge number of smaller parts like signs, fences, posts and all that stuff. Really usefull to "complete" your constructions and ideas.
You do not know what I am talking about? Click cachalote's thread here to get more details (and the history of this project) (http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=5760.msg187951#msg187951)
The procedure is the same as every time: The passwords and download links are available via PM to me! I hope you will enjoy this new release and make a lot of use of it!
And also the same as always: Ask me what and when ever you want, I will be happy to answer all questions, problems, ideas or notes…
In terms of this threat, this above means, that I soon will come back to the issue here and continue this kind of project, too! So, stay tuned!
-
Glad to hear it, Sir Pleamo!!!
-
:wave: I too have been away from the forum for many months and I'm trying to catch up with a few things. One of the most important to me was Sir Pleamo's excellent 3D work, that I have just recently had the time to try. I've just read all of this thread and although it's been quiet for a long time I think it's well worth reminding other members about.
First of all a huge big thank you and well done to Sir P. for his excellent and time consuming work on his project that we can all benefit from. I'm hoping to do more design work now I've got the hang of it with sketch up. Mainly as I don't own many of the parts myself it makes it so much easier than trying to guess what it would look like.
So how can we help? There doesn't seam to be much progress with the collectors club. Is there anyone who still talks to Geobra? Could we send a petion / letter of support highlighting the possible benefits of including more sys x parts in new sets.
I would have thought it would be easier to create basic parts that can be used over and over again than to designing from scratch a new "clip" building for every new theme. For instance the pirate island lighthouse, if it was made from a part like Sir P's curved wall then the same part could be used for the fairy tale castle, knights castle and as Sir P says modern structures.
(I'm sorry I can't remember who brought these points up)
It was mentioned that sys x could be called a building toy like lego but Geobra doesn't want to go that way. Yet Geobra must recognise that collectors do want to extend their buildings as they do extention sets for the fire station, police headquarters, palace new hotel etc. So there must be a market for it otherwise 1) they wouldn't release the add ons and 2) the big buildings would be made from more "clip" parts.
How can we help support this idea to convince Geobra that is better to go with sys x than clip? Could we ask for more extensions in the new DS range when they consult us? Could we suggest a general add on pack with just one type of part in it that can be used for all these buildings. eg a floor pack or a wall pack, smaller sets with just new windows in?
Again we need to convince Geobra that their spares department could be as big as the preboxed toys if they would let it.
I'm sure most parents when considering buying toys go for things that will last - that means a good range of toys and extras in a theme, so their children wont get bored. Kids like to collect things so give them more expansions to their buildings and they'll buy more furniture sets, more klickies to go in them etc.
I've just had an idea while writing this! Would it help if we all sent them a design based on one of our favourite sets but slightly customised nothing too fancy but to show how we would like to extend or combine their buildings. something simple the average family could build themselves if they had the parts. (wasn't that mentioned as part of the collectors club a sharing of designs?)
Everyone has mentioned a problem with the holes. I often cover mine with rugs. The trouble is if you fill it in with another flat top clip how do you get it out if you change your mind. It's got to have a small hole in it so you can prise it out. The 5302 mansion has blank plates that fit into the standard wall column - the connector that's 2 x 3 holes along the flat side. These or a shorter version could be used on some of the wall joints. There's also several flat end plates used in the shop sets that clip onto the end of walls to cover up the holes. They don't bother me too much as I like the flexibility of the system.
Well that's all I've got to say for now, I'm off to beg for some more parts.
-
I agree with everything you say, Emma. It's dissappointing to see a beautiful new set with great customizing potential, only to find out that it's clip system and there's no way to re-purpose the parts. :( I believe that the reason geobra is going this direction is because of complaints from parents. Sadly, a lot of parents do not have the time or inclination to put sets together that have lots of little system x parts. I know I've heard numerous parents complain about this in toy stores.
However, I think that rather than change to a clip system, playmobil needs to adjust their marketing a bit. Silly as it may seem, seeing smiling, happy, beautiful families working as a team to build playmobil sets on TV commercials and in catalog and online pictures might alter some parents' viewpoint.... rather than thinking of the chore of putting the set together for their kids, they might imagine the joy of putting it together with their kids.
-
Yeah your right there Bonnie, I always had more fun building things as a kid than I did playing with the end result ( I was a lego fan!)
Geobra have gone part way with the building extensions they just need to market it more. Maybe they'll listen to the fans some time if the club ever gets going!
-
A steck castle extension set would be more than welcomed :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:. God i would buy lots :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I am back!
I think I do not have to tell you what life can be with two little children, a renovation of our whole home, really hard times at work…
So I do not want to bore you… so yes, here we go!
This post will be some kind of off-topic, too, but I guess after such a long time you may forgive me to mention a lot of what IS somehow related with this topic.
First of all I have to say that is a really funny thing, isn’t it? Emma posted a great “article” exactly the day I was going to “rejoin” PF too…. Strange things happens all the time!
So to all of you: Thanks staying with this project!
One of the most important to me was Sir Pleamo's excellent 3D work, that I have just recently had the time to try. I've just read all of this thread and although it's been quiet for a long time I think it's well worth reminding other members about.
I really feel honoured by your words, Emma!
First of all a huge big thank you and well done to Sir P. for his excellent and time consuming work on his project that we can all benefit from. I'm hoping to do more design work now I've got the hang of it with sketch up. Mainly as I don't own many of the parts myself it makes it so much easier than trying to guess what it would look like.
Yes, I hope so too! Please try out all the parts, you really have the creativity to show what might be possible with this System X and this project! And it is nice to hear that you have tried a little bit, because after all that time, now it begins that I get a real feedback (some have sent me amazing projects done with my Library! Great!). This is and was the encouragement to go on… but also to make some steps back.
1) In taking the personal feedback very seriously, I started to rebuilt all (yes ALL) done parts in a new “userfriendly” way. Now there is a Grid integrated so that it is very easy to adjust all the parts right (even those parts, that were very hard to place right in earlier versions). There will be a real big new version come let’s say until autumn which will put the workflow (not the parts) to a new level. Nearly everyone than will be able to use it than easily (even those, that do not know how to spell SketchUp).
-
2) I always was very frustrated not to have included non-SysX-parts, because my dream is to create a database for the whole diorama plannings. So I am really glad to give you some first impressions on what will come within this release: For the first time STECK will be included!
-
...more STECK...
-
But both points leads directly to what Emma wrote:
So how can we help? There doesn't seam to be much progress with the collectors club. Is there anyone who still talks to Geobra? Could we send a petion / letter of support highlighting the possible benefits of including more sys x parts in new sets.
Thank you Emma! Thank you so much! At no time I wanted someone to force supporting what only I found a nice project, but that is exactly what all my personal dreams were about: I really need HELP WITH THIS PROJECT! First it was a small idea on my computer just for personal use and slowly but checkless it seems to become useful for more and more Playmofriends! And maybe some have realized by now what my intensions are. Let us try to make a big thing, WE ALL TOGETHER! So we are directly back in line of this thread: Yes, at the end of this debate I am going to present the results in a highly professional presentation to Geobra. In my opinion we really have a chance to influence production and design if (and only if) we can present a sound concept which is not in conflict within Geobra’s politics but underline the value for us AND them.
So yes, I need all of you in two aspects:
(1) First in threads like this one, in constructive discussions about this issue to get some fruitful but realistic solutions and
(2) within the 3D-Project. I really try my best to keep this work ongoing, but yes, hard but true, that’s somehow too big for one person alone. So everyone that is willing to support me in this manner might sent me a PM, there is so much to do (not only SketchUp-design, beleave me there is something for every skill…)
How can we help support this idea to convince Geobra that is better to go with sys x than clip? Could we ask for more extensions in the new DS range when they consult us? Could we suggest a general add on pack with just one type of part in it that can be used for all these buildings. eg a floor pack or a wall pack, smaller sets with just new windows in?
[…]
I've just had an idea while writing this! Would it help if we all sent them a design based on one of our favourite sets but slightly customised nothing too fancy but to show how we would like to extend or combine their buildings. something simple the average family could build themselves if they had the parts. (wasn't that mentioned as part of the collectors club a sharing of designs?)
Great ideas! In my opinion that is one major point we should go for: Part-extension sets via DS (as we all know for anything else there are such sets, e.g. traffic signs, fences, etc.). And second a major goal should be to show WHICH parts we need, therefore your idea with personal “most wanted” will be great, but I guess it would be more powerful not to sent a lot of mails but one professional bundle of ideas. So I think (as I tried to figure it out above), we have the potential to create our own staff, we do not need to wait for some vague PCC (which in the ends comes only for Facebook???). So again, contact me, so we can create a team of persons for preparing these presentations. Are you with me or do you think of other ways?
-
Everyone has mentioned a problem with the holes. I often cover mine with rugs. The trouble is if you fill it in with another flat top clip how do you get it out if you change your mind. It's got to have a small hole in it so you can prise it out. The 5302 mansion has blank plates that fit into the standard wall column - the connector that's 2 x 3 holes along the flat side. These or a shorter version could be used on some of the wall joints. There's also several flat end plates used in the shop sets that clip onto the end of walls to cover up the holes. They don't bother me too much as I like the flexibility of the system.
Well that's all I've got to say for now, I'm off to beg for some more parts.
Okay next post will be about the holes… OMG, I hues I have said this a thousand times… the simple problem is, there is so much to say but so little time… I will try my best!
-
You are incredible. :)
-
Sir Pleamo this all so amazing !!!! i am soooooo interested to use this software for my next steck castle design which is going to be far far bigger than my current KRULL castle. I would love one day to be able to use this awesome software and design the entire next castle
i really hope that Playmobil acknowledges your amazing work :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:
-
:love: I love your work it's amazing!
Some brillant ideas in how to help out. I think your right a collective effort would help with this. I know we're all busy with our own projects as well as normal life but could everyone who wants to use your excellent work create a project to share with Geobra? This could well take months but I think we would all have fun showing new possibilities, what do you all think?
-
Nice designs, mate!
-
Great work and good suggestions!
Maybe the program could be used to design a good DS steck set that includes some of the most wanted items.
-
I have a lot of reading to do in this tread but one thing did come to mind that many collectors usually do not take into account. This is the simple and frustrating part of patent laws. Geobra loves to maintain total and I can not stress the word TOTAL enough on its designs. Steck parts must have a design patent but it is typically good for 20 years. When did stecks hit the market? SystemX might have the same fate. Business wise you have to be carefull to produce a product that is easily and legally copied. I think we are in that area for stecks. Other companies could produce it but the market is too small to justify it for now. If Geobra was to heavily reproduce it then it may arouse the other greedy plastic companies to take notice. Its a fine line as Geobra allready owns the molds so they can produce it cheaper but you do not want to over produce it so others take notice. I think this is why we only see a few sets a year of classic sets.
You can see other examples of this if you look to other companies, lego in particular. They lost their patent and now there are dozens of companies making the bricks. Lego invested heavily, just prior to the loss, into licencing. I think this is the main reason for the companies survival today. Lego had a great company reputation for quality similar to Geobra and brand loyalty but they needed something to rely on when anybody today can make a brick. I even have an x client who made thousands of them in his factory, legally.
Sir Playmo your design program is amazingly beautiful, thank you for taking the time to make it :wow:
-
Maybe you are right, Rasputin, but I think (in terms of our final goal to influence PM design) this might be something that will assist our arguments. If we, the collectors, need and/ or want new parts (or the older ones that are no longer available), maybe some will not care about were they are from, so we and our wishes therefore would support such tendencies of other third-party-products. BUT if Geobra will support us, if they take our wishes seriously, I guess none of us would go for other sources than original PM! So thank you very much for your statement, it is sound and we should keep it in mind but turn it positively for us in the said sense, or am I wrong?
OMG... I did it again... I am afraid this post was NOT about holes!
-
Maybe you are right, Rasputin, but I think (in terms of our final goal to influence PM design) this might be something that will assist our arguments. If we, the collectors, need and/ or want new parts (or the older ones that are no longer available), maybe some will not care about were they are from, so we and our wishes therefore would support such tendencies of other third-party-products. BUT if Geobra will support us, if they take our wishes seriously, I guess none of us would go for other sources than original PM! So thank you very much for your statement, it is sound and we should keep it in mind but turn it positively for us in the said sense, or am I wrong?
OMG... I did it again... I am afraid this post was NOT about holes!
well I am not too sure Geobra would be very willing to discuss beyond the board room what patents they have and have lost due to time. They probably would like to maintain the image as having total controll over its past products. I do feel if one is to approach any company you should understand every element that goes into the decisions that are made. It is not as simple as saying "I want X back because it was so great and it sold well" Even popular products are abandoned due to one not being able to exercise a patent, which is basically stopping other people from making it.
You can let geobra know that I have 3 local injection molders willing to turn out basic parts. The complicated parts are a bit of a challenge unless you have the most modern machines so those will have to wait ;D Then there is always China and its factories. Quality is all about oversight so one in theory could produce a wall piece for example as good or even better than the original. Plastic ingredients are ever improving and if the end goal is not to sell to children one could skip a lot of red tape. I am sure they would not even care if the patents were still in effect :shhhh: if you do not "sell" them you can make them :toot: :hehe:
If you are able to turn basic negatives into a strength then yes your argument will gain traction.
With the recent add-on voting I view Geobra as taking notice of its collector base.
just for the record I love both steck and SystemX but I dislike the clip system. The clip system is fast and looks decent, it to me just stifles creativity beyond the obvious. I have lots of all
-
Well indeed, I take your point seriously but still thinking this might be an internal issue of Geobra but this should not discourage us in trying to formulate our imagination what PM COULD be like.
It is not as simple as saying "I want X back because it was so great and it sold well"
If you read my statements in all related threads (and you are right, that is in difference to a lot of other posts) I have always said that I do not like these "Bring back X" debates or the "X is the best"-issues, this is rubbish, right! So yes, I definitely second you in that point. But exactly that is the reason why I try to go such a different way, and that e.g. is a part of the story why I prefer a highly professional presentation towards Geobra rather than some loose ideas or simple "bring-back" issues. In other words, I definitely want to integrate such points like yours in this ongoing process but to make our suggestions more sound, not to throw in the towel. I really would like to have you on board for such "unorthodoxal" points of view, this could be a real enrichment!
-
I've just reread the whole thread.... I'm totally convinced Sys-X has superb possibilities, and as your buildings reflect, Sir Pleaymo, and creations from others like f.e. Kenc's cathedral, extremely beautiful historical buldings can be created! And not just buildings, I've seen Vauban's space-work/stories including Sys-X spacecraft and such and that is really cool too.
After seeing your designs, I started dreaming of building one day many buildings myself with Sys-X for my favourite Renaissance-era world... But it would be so time consuming to order at DS all the necessary different parts from all those different sets, as I'm rather focused on klicky-customizing and that already absorbs most of my Playmobil-time... If I were to get into Sys-X customizing as well, I'd need a 2nd life :lol:
What was said about Sys-X not being popular with parents, I thinkt that is true. Life is hectic and no one has time, so I fear for the fate of Playmobil's building-system(s), unless a shift in company-strategy would be made and some more focus would be addressed by the company towards adult-fans/collectors/builders.
You can let geobra know that I have 3 local injection molders willing to turn out basic parts.
...
if you do not "sell" them you can make them :toot: :hehe:
Which will be finally indentified in 2027 as being the major reason for the start of mass migration of Playmobil-collectors from Europe to the US, George included. ;D
-
Well, meanwhile all of you should have realized, that I am not a "daily poster" :-[ ...but before blaming me for not keeping the line let me try to excuse the long break with presenting you WHAT I have done for so long and WHY I really had no time for anything else.... We just finished Library 3.0 and WOW! this version has left any older version LIGHTYEARS behind! Surely it would be a pleasure for me if you will have a look on this Playmo3D Project (http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/index.php?topic=11811.0)!
(and if you are not interested in the Library, in other words, this work is done now for a while, maybe I will post more often again now... ;)