3 ms·

So he said that he misrepresented how good the MMX was in order to make good content. Apparently, it was still too unreliable to actually be usable. So for the

by luplex 3y ago

So he said that he misrepresented how good the MMX was in order to make good content. Apparently, it was still too unreliable to actually be usable. So for the MM3, he decided to do more engineering and less good content. His videos are less interesting since, and contain less music.

whstl 3y ago
At one time the problem was that he wanted to tour with the machine, so it had to withstand transportation. But in some recent videos he mentions how the form factor and the goal of "looking cool" was more important than reliability. IMO the problem he is not really picking a consistent direction. Either make it road-worthy or make it look like a steampunk Rube Goldberg contraption. Or better: make two machines. But making a single machine that is both reliable and Rube-Goldberg-esque is be 10x more difficult than making two machines.
- boxed 3y ago
  There's always the third option: first make a simple machine that works but looks crap, and then gradually upgrade the aesthetics of the worst looking part until it's "cool enough". Or, in Software development terms: Make it work, make it right, make it [cool]
  - whstl 3y ago
    I explained it elsewhere, but the "looking cool" part is not just about aesthetics in the superficial sense. It's about the fact he wants to use marbles to trigger electro-acoustic instruments, and he wants to have some features that kinda suck, such as the "marble elevator". He could keep the mechanical sequencer and trigger instruments using hammers. That would make this project more feasible. But then he wouldn't have the marbles... Honestly all the problems here are centred around the "marbles" constraint :/ But your point stands: he could lower the scope and actually finish something.
- wodenokoto 3y ago
  Well, it has to be reliant enough to be able to take on tour, but cool enough to be worthy of taking on tour. That’s a hard balance.

by luplex 3y ago

whstl 3y ago

At one time the problem was that he wanted to tour with the machine, so it had to withstand transportation. But in some recent videos he mentions how the form factor and the goal of "looking cool" was more important than reliability. IMO the problem he is not really picking a consistent direction. Either make it road-worthy or make it look like a steampunk Rube Goldberg contraption. Or better: make two machines. But making a single machine that is both reliable and Rube-Goldberg-esque is be 10x more difficult than making two machines.

boxed 3y ago
There's always the third option: first make a simple machine that works but looks crap, and then gradually upgrade the aesthetics of the worst looking part until it's "cool enough". Or, in Software development terms: Make it work, make it right, make it [cool]
- whstl 3y ago
  I explained it elsewhere, but the "looking cool" part is not just about aesthetics in the superficial sense. It's about the fact he wants to use marbles to trigger electro-acoustic instruments, and he wants to have some features that kinda suck, such as the "marble elevator". He could keep the mechanical sequencer and trigger instruments using hammers. That would make this project more feasible. But then he wouldn't have the marbles... Honestly all the problems here are centred around the "marbles" constraint :/ But your point stands: he could lower the scope and actually finish something.
wodenokoto 3y ago
Well, it has to be reliant enough to be able to take on tour, but cool enough to be worthy of taking on tour. That’s a hard balance.