131 replies to this topic

[Anio]

You talk too much about things you don't know...
And this is pretty irritating. :o

Yet another example :
"6 studs high is fine, but only 5 studs wide at the top"

He, smarty pants, don't you think that a given height (6L) with given wings impose the width of the roof ?
As far as I know, wing 2x6 does not exist yet (which would have made a 7 stud wide roof).


edit : it would be fine if this topic could avoid locking.
I have to post the instruction here, in the future. :p

Edited by Anio, 23 April 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[Fuppylodders]

Anio, drop the name calling, I'm not here to throw school child insults around.

Those 6 stud high wedges don't stop you adding more plate width in between them. Those 6 stud high wedges are fine, they are a good basis to work from. I am saying they themselves do not stop you adding more than just 3 studs width of plates in between, a 4th or 5th stud could be implemented.

[StoutFiles]

This is a fantastic MOC, but when multiple UCS AT-AT's have already been built, you will get nitpicking.  Don't be offended Anio.

[Anio]

Fuppylodders, on 23 April 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Those 6 stud high wedges don't stop you adding more plate width in between them.

It does, precisely. Cause the base is wide enough.

Fuppylodders, on 23 April 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Those 6 stud high wedges are fine, they are a good basis to work from.

No, they are not.
But there is no other choice possible. Compelled to use them.

[Erdbeereis]

Anio and Fuppylodders, Cavegod, and anyone else involved, I have had enough of the name calling and insults. I have removed your image Anio, as that is frankly unnecessary.

I would like you to both accept that you do not agree on this issue and simply drop it. I think that we can all agree that this is a nice-looking MOC. Resorting to a flame war of whether it is "worthy of being UCS" or not is in my opinion petty and will just cause further trouble. Let's all calm down. Future posts on this topic must avoid insults, or else there will be consequences.

Thank you.

[Fuppylodders]

Cavegod isn't involved, I must apologise for bringing him into it if my mention of his name in a previous post, has brought him into this.

I also apologise for offending you Anio. It was not my intention to, but I clearly have.

Edited by Fuppylodders, 23 April 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Erdbeereis]

Fuppylodders, on 23 April 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Cavegod isn't involved, I must apologise for bringing him into it if my mention of his name in a previous post, has brought him into this.

I also apologise for offending you Anio. It was not my intention to, but I clearly have.

I would say his rose colored glasses comment was also a bit unnecessary. That's why I included him. He was certainly not completely involved, though.

I appreciate you apologizing. That is very considerate of you, and I hope Anio will reciprocate.

[cavegod]

I was just being honest and if that results in consequences then so be it!

[Brickus]

I think this is worthy of being classified as a UCS set, look at 10221, it's an official set and it is nowhere near accurate if you look at it from the bottom, and that's because the builder had to compromise on the structure for stability of the set.

[markus1984]

hi,

I'm still relatively new at the lego scene,
so I do not understand this excitement here?
I`am still tinkering on an AT AT and must say that is harder to build that you think.

I like this AT-AT MOC.

Think it's a shame, if someone spent a lot of time
and will be criticized so!

But that's just my opinion i have to.
Everyone should do what he thinks is right

I work with an inet translater and apologized me for my english  

greetings
markus

[Anio]

Hi fellows,

I updated the model. I guess it is enough accurate now...














Features :
- interior in the body, in the head, and in the snowspeeder
- hinge on each shoulders and each knees. hinge in 2 directions on each ankle
- removable roofs on the head, the body and the snowspeeder.

[Wedge09]

One words: Ooooooooo  

Magnificent work  

[Mr Man]

This has just brought on a massive urge to go and watch ESB now Anio.
I love what you did with the leavers on the feet .

On another note, you have the same laptop as me .

[DFOL]

Wow, the AT-AT and the Snowspeeder look amazing Anio! I absolutely love how detailed both models are, fantastic job! I have just one little nitpick: i am kinda missing the slot for the cockpit window on the AT-AT.

[Anio]

DFOL, on 30 August 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Wow, the AT-AT and the Snowspeeder look amazing Anio! I absolutely love how detailed both models are, fantastic job! I have just one little nitpick: i am kinda missing the slot for the cockpit window on the AT-AT.

It's too small. I can not do it.

The model is only made out of 2600 parts, you know.

[Masked Builder]

Whoa, I definitely like the neck more now. It just seems much better.

[DFOL]

Anio, on 30 August 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

It's too small. I can not do it.

The model is only made out of 2600 parts, you know.

How about a construction similar to the 10178 Motorized AT-AT? The designers did manage to work in something that looks like a window slot on a system scale AT-AT set, but i don't know if the appearance of that construction is refined enough for your model.

Only 2600 parts? That's quite a modest amount for such a large scale UCS model like this, that keeps it in a reasonably affordable price range. You should consider putting this up on Cuusoo. If it makes it through the voting and selection process and goes into production, it would probably retail for what, about 300 dollar/euro i reckon?

[lefty]

Looks very nice, the details are fun to look at as opposed to cluttered. Some parts look a bit inaccurate at least as far as scale goes (guns, neck, legs) but I don't have a picture of an "actual" at-at in front of me to compare. Doesn't make it look any less good.

[Anio]

DFOL, on 31 August 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

Only 2600 parts? That's quite a modest amount for such a large scale UCS model like this, that keeps it in a reasonably affordable price range. You should consider putting this up on Cuusoo. If it makes it through the voting and selection process and goes into production, it would probably retail for what, about 300 dollar/euro i reckon?

Cuusoo doesn't deserve to have my models.

lefty, on 31 August 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

inaccurate [...] neck, legs

You are welcome to show me an UCS AT-AT with better looking legs and neck.

Good luck !  

[wokajablocka]

Man, so much nit picking . Get over it and just enjoy the build for what it is. If anyone would like to reproduce the build and then change what they don't like I feel they can comment on inaccuracies then and only then. Anio you builds are fantastic and I don't think some people realise who much time an effort goes into building MOC of this scale.

To me it looks quite accurate but I have a thing or two that I would change but I will keep them to my self.

BTW I cant even really tell that you made any changes to the original build. I can see the technic ball replacing the technic click hinge on the legs. What else did you change?

[lefty]

Anio, on 31 August 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Cuusoo doesn't deserve to have my models.


You are welcome to show me an UCS AT-AT with better looking legs and neck.

Good luck !  

Well, since you asked;

Here's guybrush's UCS from several years ago that, while not perfect, at least attempts to capture some of the neck details.

And here's another, also one I remember from a while back that, though simple and also inaccurate, captures well the size ratio between head/neck/body and legs. Which, by the way, is the issue I had with your model. The legs (and neck) look nice, but compared to the rest of the model the legs look skinny and the neck looks fat. I understand why you built the legs you did as you detailed in your original post, and that's fine.

All I gave in my post was my opinion. I said the model looked good other than a few parts that seemed "off", but it was nothing more than aesthetics. I don't know why you feel it necessary to respond in a way that could be considered rude and condescending.

[Anio]

lefty, on 31 August 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

Here's guybrush's UCS from several years ago that, while not perfect, at least attempts to capture some of the neck details.

And here's another, also one I remember from a while back that, though simple and also inaccurate, captures well the size ratio between head/neck/body and legs. Which, by the way, is the issue I had with your model. The legs (and neck) look nice, but compared to the rest of the model the legs look skinny and the neck looks fat. I understand why you built the legs you did as you detailed in your original post, and that's fine.

I guess we do not have the same definition of "good looking".
I think the #2903 wheel greatly reproduce the grooves we can see on the real model. Actually, so much better than any brick built neck.

lefty, on 31 August 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

All I gave in my post was my opinion. I said the model looked good other than a few parts that seemed "off", but it was nothing more than aesthetics. I don't know why you feel it necessary to respond in a way that could be considered rude and condescending.

Drats ! I Forgot the trololol !

haha

[lefty]

Anio, on 31 August 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

I guess we do not have the same definition of "good looking".
I think the #2903 wheel greatly reproduce the grooves we can see on the real model. Actually, so much better than any brick built neck.


Drats ! I Forgot the trololol !

haha

Grooves? I wasn't talking about grooves. These parts are the details absent, and to reiterate it looks too fat compared to the head. And again, I understand why you chose to do the neck that way and it's ok. It doesn't matter if it's perfect or not.

I suppose repeating internet fad drivel makes everything ok.

[Anio]

lefty, on 31 August 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Grooves? I wasn't talking about grooves. These parts are the details absent, and to reiterate it looks too fat compared to the head. And again, I understand why you chose to do the neck that way and it's ok. It doesn't matter if it's perfect or not.

You are right. I did not includ that detail.

But have an overall look at the neck.

Actually, what is an AT-AT neck ?
In the right order, it have to be :
- first a round tube
- then, with grooves outside, on the whole length
- then, eventually, the detail you are talking about.

So yes, I had to do compromise regarding that detail. And I really think that it is the good compromise.
Because, overall, the neck look so much better than a brick built neck.

And I may add that my neck is made out of... 5 parts !
And it is not fragile. ;)

[Brickadeer]

I find it looks way better now    The changes appear to be subtle; not sure about that. But the features of the original model that immediately caught my attention and where labeled as "awkward" or "outstanding" do no longer exist.