Developing System X - or "Don't bring back Steck..."

[playmogal]

SP: A wonderful approach!!! Love your ideas; we must work on a focus on just a few steps of this at once. Cheers, Pgal

[Wesley Myers]

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.   

[bonniebeth]

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.

[Sir Pleamo]

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.

[playmogal]

SP: These round pieces look wonderful...we could do lots of neat things with them. Thanks for the designs, Pgal!

[Ace]

Sir Pleamo, those glass curving walls are excellent  ! Let's hope that Playmobil likes this idea and releases it soon  !
Ace

[Lindama]

[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!

[Lindama]

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.

[tonguello]

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? 

[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.

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