LiLmeFromDaFuture

[MOC] [WIP] The Command of the AT-AT

Recommended Posts

12/05/2015 update

Greetings everyone, it's been a long while since I posted any updates. Lately, I have been at a stuck point, and frustrated with not accomplishing much on this MF scale AT-AT or even on the smaller one, I momentarily put off and neglected time spent on my LEGOs and LDD and use those hours otherwise to play Halo 5: Guardians on my Xbox One. Well, after dmaclego introduced his walker, which I do not think I would have seen so soon if it was not shared here for inspiration, (since I also have not been exploring the forums so often as lately), I realized how inconsistent the "studdyness" of the legs was with the rest of my walker, and his, as well as other around here :wink:, inspired me to improve and even completely redesign the legs.

These revisions has brought other things in this area to focus; significantly I notice some design flaws in the feet. Surprisingly, I discover some minor inaccuracies despite it supposing to be the perfect representation in LEGO as for details are concerned. Most importantly the arched ankle was too thin and narrow compared to my references. This considered, I took to LDD, and after having built my latest version of the footpad, I immediately ditched the white brick, arch and implemented a brick-built version, that was refined from an earlier version, which was around when I first designed the foot, that was lifted from the design of cavegod's UCS AT-AT. Brackets were of great help to make the new arches sturdier than before and connect to the cylinder in an efficient manner. Afterwards, the new arch gained two studs in length than originally being 12 (which was also the diameter of the footpad).

This complicated things, since the feet were already perfectly shaped circles, but with the new, sturdier, cooler looking arches, the feet looked terribly awkward being a stud short on each side for the length of the arch. It was my only option to redesign the feet larger to compliment the longer arch and the robustness it portrays. So then, I completely redesigned the construction of the foot as well, but based on the structure of another foot to a smaller, simpler AT-AT walker (which I have mentioned I have been designing too). In the end the foot rounded out like a perfect circle and it looks mightier than before, as well the new arch.

22902309814_af0c1d9b74_c.jpg

23530577125_3fc51b084c_c.jpg

23504487066_d2ee473eb7_c.jpg

Comparison with smaller AT-AT foot and older MF scale foot.

23422087992_fb3e5752a3_c.jpg

22903473663_d0055a3b17_c.jpg

23448132111_be45fdfabf_c.jpg

New version leaves behind a larger footprint, which is very pleasing ; )

Comment what think so far with this recent progress—it is much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good.

So the top of the arch, with the weight on it, is only holding to the 2 semi-arch parts by 1 stud? You could maybe run axles through the semi-arches, as afterall those 2 1x1 plates will be covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same concern about the archs. Not sure wtether axles would help though. How about this? A bit bigger step above that 2x2 slope brick but nice arch contour remains, while the top is much sturdier :)

23538362735_4606c717b4.jpg

And one more question - the size is considerably bigger now, not less than Cavegods - will it be in scale with your head and rest of the body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good.

So the top of the arch, with the weight on it, is only holding to the 2 semi-arch parts by 1 stud? You could maybe run axles through the semi-arches, as afterall those 2 1x1 plates will be covered.

Thank you.

There is a 1 x 2 modified brick with studs on one side, but you are correct suggesting that will not be enough to support the top heaviness. I actually tested its resilience under my hand, and it did began to split from that area. Axles could work, but I will be peeved about it not connecting to anywhere, unless there is a axle connector inserted in one of the various molds that I never known of. However, running axles, or long rigid 3mm D. hoses through one of the designs I have for the legs, will no doubt make it structurally secured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same concern about the archs. Not sure wtether axles would help though. How about this? A bit bigger step above that 2x2 slope brick but nice arch contour remains, while the top is much sturdier :)

That will actually work :sweet:. Yes, I haven't considered doing this before, since the it was significantly steeper, but that would actually make the thickness of the upper part uniform with that of the lower part, because that was an issue for the leg sliding with the differing thickness—thank you.

And one more question - the size is considerably bigger now, not less than Cavegods - will it be in scale with your head and rest of the body?

I just went to drdavewatword's blog on building the UCS AT-AT, at the point when he began the build with the legs and feet, and notice mine and the UCS AT-AT feet were both about 14 studs in length/width (mine just being more of a perfect circle :D). I am not really concerned about this being out scale with other parts because what I am now endeavoring to represent is the exaggeratedly skinny legs and heavily emphasized feet of the AT-AT walker portrayed in these schematics:

478218a201_70763601_o2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, still I think it's a bit to bulky. The bottom part overlaps the beveled ring to much. Maybe I'm just being to clever haha :laugh:. I couldn't resist not to try and flesh something out in ldd, have a look:

23516386296_db0f1ed155.jpg

I didn't implement the 'fingers' and whole inside of the bottom part is rather unfinished but that's more or less just about filling with bricks and plates. The arch is 2 plates tighter and the bottom ankle joints aren't sticking out that much (also each side has a bit different finish, I couldn't choose the better, both look imperfect). Therefore I could reduce the diameter of the bottom part by one stud. I know it's not much but at least for me it looks less bulky. Plus more roundish when looking from top. Following pics show some internal bits in case you wanted to give it a try.

22915372613_2fe984b35c.jpg

23516387496_508b5c607c.jpg

22914215694_b9f8f98365.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2 x 2 tile to cover up the studs does make it significantly bulky. Before, I had a 30165.jpg in place of the 2 x 2 brick on each side of the arch, to give a false perception of the arch being rounder than it actually is, but that part is obviously too rare and not that demanding to buy 8 of them. When I first made the feet I had a design for the arch that was similar to yours (just not as sturdier), but I was not fond at all with how the 2 x 4 curved, slope broke the continuity of the curvature with the 2 x 2 round tile…

22917381763_e0f949e946_n.jpg

I like curvature of the redesigned foot with it still being about 12 studs in diameter, but I guess I am peeved about not all sides (with exception to the side for the yaw strut) are identical with each other :tongue:.

Can you show how you designed the sides for the cylinder; it looks better than what I have now but I cannot tell how it is built?

Thank you for your support!

Edited by LiLmeFromDaFuture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@krisandkris12

Never mind explaining the construction of the cylinder, I just realized the 3043.jpg part that you used. I like this design better—so thanks! The only concern is the availability in LBG—this will call for spray painting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a good eye :) I forgot to uncover that more. I can send you lfx file if you want but it seems you can extract it from pics pretty well.

Sorry about that rare part, I was only checking existence, not availability. Well before you grab paint can, consider substitution for these two:

http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=3049c#T=S&C=86&O={"color":86}

http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?id=67959#T=S&C=86&O={"color":86}

Both common. Each would only hold on one knob but that shouldnt be an issue. And by the way that diagonal line adds a nice texture to that part.

Anyway, rather than this section (which I put together without super care), I wanted to adress that wider, bottom cylinder. I understand your note about assymetrical side but hey, cylinder has no sides so why always seek for 'four side' symetry :laugh:. Maybe I could come up with something better if I tried for longer time, this was some quick brainstorming which was mainly supposed to give you some push so you design better version :wink:. And to be honest, I really like your original version with these steps. I know that these aren't supposed to be there but it looks damn good in my uppinion.

Main message above all is the size. I'm afraid that if you stick with your bigger feet, you end up with rather funny looking legs. But it's just my guess, maybe it will be fine :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice textures indeed :sweet: I guess before I was more concerned about covering a lot of area with less bricks so that there would be less seems or bevels between the elements—but thanks for the Idea!

As for the footpad since there is not one piece, two halves, or four quarters to make up a cylinder-like structure that is perfectly identical from almost every angle, it was in my best reasoning to make each side parallel to the other.

You did a fantastic work recreating the foot—I began to question if I ever uploaded the file :grin: Your quick work proves your support and I appreciate it!

The looks of LDD can be deceiving—everything looks better outside the digital world you know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, still I think it's a bit to bulky. The bottom part overlaps the beveled ring to much. Maybe I'm just being to clever haha :laugh:. I couldn't resist not to try and flesh something out in ldd, have a look:

23516386296_db0f1ed155.jpg

yeah that looks pretty solid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of all I am designing a model of the leg that will be sturdy and articulated (it will be able bend at a maximum of 45 degrees!), and the surprise is I will upload it here, so it can be freely available to the community!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legs that are sturdy, highly detailed, and slender, yet not jointed?…

22944844723_1d7c0f54e3_o.png

23545852566_3f91a63230_o.png

23463376692_01133bf314_o.png

… Or legs that are sturdy, highly detailed, and articulated (to a maximum of 45º), yet thicker?

23545852626_3a8c8326c4_o.png

23489489121_c90bf78c70_o.png

23203970219_da7ca04633_o.png

23545852686_f1ddfcc184_o.png

Please weigh in and explain your opinion : )

Edited by LiLmeFromDaFuture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thicker. I don't know if the "real" legs are really THAT thin, but even if they are, the thin ones look way too weird. Sometimes you've got to move away from movie props that are made.. for a few shots in a movie, and aren't necessarily well thought.

I don't know where those schematics come from, but I've never seen such thin legs in 3D models or in the movie - could be an illusion of course, as we never see an AT-AT from the front, but in any case, thin looks too weird.

Do you need the inv radar btw? I would replace it by a brick-built "screw" detail - unless it's a printed inv radar that you'll be using.

Also, are the toes designed to be a little angled downwards on a flat surface?

Edited by anothergol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the thinness of the ATAT legs, I was heavily criticized because my ATAT legs were skinny, but if you check the blueprints, THEY are skinny.

However, if you want the knees to bend, it is better if they are (at least) 2 studs wide, and I would even build them 3 studs wide. Your ATAT will be enormous and heavy, and if you want the legs to bend, the joints must be very strong (unless you use glue, of course) and with 2 technic joints per joint, the ATAT will stand without collapsing for sure.

Just like the standard 4483 LEGO ATAT, double the technic joints on knees and hips and the vehicle will be stable.

Best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the thinness of the ATAT legs, I was heavily criticized because my ATAT legs were skinny, but if you check the blueprints, THEY are skinny.

yeah but is that blueprint accurate?

They don't look silly-thin here, but of course it's hard to say, it's a bit angled. Also, they never appear ultrathin in 3D models in games - where they would have no reason to have to be thicker.

open-uri20150608-27674-11z5d4b_10df7727.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1200%2C674

I don't think that doubling the joints is really required btw, at least not for some poses. Those are very (too IMHO) strong afterall, and they only have to hold roughly 1/4 of the weight each.

Edited by anothergol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thicker.

I agree. They should be two studs thick. Take a look at the film model - the legs are much thicker than the tear-shaped parts connecting them to the hull.

Besides, with one stud thick legs the model would be extremely hard to assemble. I'm not saying your AT-AT would not stand on such thin legs (because I guess it could), but assembling it would be a feat. Unless, of course, you have a very, very, very strong glue ;) .

About radars on the knees - I had the printed ones on mine for a long time but changed my mind just before the final photoshoot. Reasons: 1) they are out of scale, 2) the print is somewhat crude (fat lines and big splashes of dark paint do not look good with fine lines that divide bricks/plates), 3) they make the knees too thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright fellows, thanks for giving you opinions.

Thicker. I don't know if the "real" legs are really THAT thin, but even if they are, the thin ones look way too weird. Sometimes you've got to move away from movie props that are made.. for a few shots in a movie, and aren't necessarily well thought.

I don't know where those schematics come from, but I've never seen such thin legs in 3D models or in the movie - could be an illusion of course, as we never see an AT-AT from the front, but in any case, thin looks too weird.

Yeah I was trying bring appealing emphasize on the brace, arch and foot, as opposed to having a continuous, almost seamlessly, flow from brace to the leg, and also being the same thickness as the arch. I thought about making the brace one stud thicker, but that might conflict with the size of the cylinder structure atop the footpad. Lastly, I too have not seen any other reference of the AT-AT with legs in that fashion.

Do you need the inv radar btw? I would replace it by a brick-built "screw" detail - unless it's a printed inv radar that you'll be using.

Yes, I intend to use printed dishes to brake the monotony of LBG, but perhaps it bulges out—especially on the slender legs. I did not want to do brick built ones since it brake the circular delineation, unless I could find a way to use flexible bars in an efficient way. I did want to use the same patterned round 8 x 8 tile that thire5/Martin Latta used on his AT-ATs, but I couldn't find the decorated part or even a sticker on Bricklink.

14338654045_0fe34fd23c_c.jpgStar Wars: Battle of Hoth by Martin Latta, on Flickr

Also, are the toes designed to be a little angled downwards on a flat surface?

In fact they will—just like on the previous version I had before I made it bigger, but I have boat studs attached to them so they don't fall off so easy, which prevents that. Though once I build the new feet will just remove them if they are a issue.

Concerning the thinness of the ATAT legs, I was heavily criticized because my ATAT legs were skinny, but if you check the blueprints, THEY are skinny.

However, if you want the knees to bend, it is better if they are (at least) 2 studs wide, and I would even build them 3 studs wide. Your ATAT will be enormous and heavy, and if you want the legs to bend, the joints must be very strong (unless you use glue, of course) and with 2 technic joints per joint, the ATAT will stand without collapsing for sure.

Just like the standard 4483 LEGO ATAT, double the technic joints on knees and hips and the vehicle will be stable.

Best regards.

Indeed it seems like two stud thickness is a current requirement, unless the Technic pin holes of the hinge joint are sideways in my case.

My AT-AT will be exceedingly empty, and since I will be still using my gearbox system, issues with weight will not be an issue. Besides, not all legs will be bent when posed, at least one, at most two.

I agree. They should be two studs thick. Take a look at the film model - the legs are much thicker than the tear-shaped parts connecting them to the hull.

Besides, with one stud thick legs the model would be extremely hard to assemble. I'm not saying your AT-AT would not stand on such thin legs (because I guess it could), but assembling it would be a feat. Unless, of course, you have a very, very, very strong glue ;) .

I had long rigid hoses going through the length of the legs, as well some through the width. The problem, perhaps would be how difficult is it to stick them through modified bricks with studs on their sides.

About radars on the knees - I had the printed ones on mine for a long time but changed my mind just before the final photoshoot. Reasons: 1) they are out of scale, 2) the print is somewhat crude (fat lines and big splashes of dark paint do not look good with fine lines that divide bricks/plates), 3) they make the knees too thick.

Yes, I wonder about one of your photos why one side was different from the other, but I liked the idea of using those decorated flags, yet I didn't like that it made look less circular from certain angles. The prints on the dishes are really inaccurate, but I have an idea with clips and hoses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I couldn't find the decorated part or even a sticker on Bricklink.

I had been looking for services that do custom water-slide decals btw, but there aren't many. Apparently the best is to use now retired ALPS printers, which were designed to print white as well.

Several links of such services (or people) here, but many dead links:

http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/decals.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the legs for a minifig scale walker should be two studs thick. What type of hinge are you using for the bend? I'm very interested in implementing that design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.