131 replies to this topic

[Anio]

EDIT :
Professional building instruction available here : http://www.eurobrick...25#entry1547610
You can email me at setechnic@gmail.com
/EDIT


edit :

Some pics on my flickR :

And on my Brickshelf : http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=501880





And the video :



/edit


Hello everyone,


My latest project is complete. So, it is time to present it here.



I was thinking on this project for more or less 2 years.
I really started to work on it in February 2012.

I began to do the legs because the where IMO the most tricky part. There are several features I wanted to achieve with these legs :
- not thick but as thin as possible
- use of SW printed dish (6L and 4L)
- hinged legs (on the knees, but also on the "hips")
- good round shape on the "hips"

I finally succeeded to include all of that. And it was not an easy task.
I designed the legs with real bricks.
The feet are the same than those on the AT-TE( ).

Actually, I think that the feet of a real AT-AT are VERY ugly. So, I really wanted to make them a bit different from how they were supposed to be. I added some details on them, and made them just a little bigger. It make the whole vehicle more impressive IMO. And inconsciouly, the legs appears to be thinner.



Using 6L dishes on the "hips" defines the size of the model. And I knew that this size was the correct size to include minifgs later. :)

To design the chassis, I mainly used LDD. It had to be strong, with a Technic structure (studful and studless).



Here, you can only see the studless part. The studful chassis parts are actually higher. Studful parts are used to make the floor strong.
Given that I pulled my Executor appart ( http://www.eurobrick...showtopic=45924 ), I had a lot of gray parts. So, I progessed quickly.

Then, I did the panel of the boby.



That was pretty easy. Well... not that easy. But not that hard.  
Indeed, there are few constraints involved in the panel, both regarding the build (only plates) and the stifness (not much weight involved).
The only tricky part can be to find the way to attach the panels. Cause sometime, the angle is pretty uncommon.

And then, I did the head. That was hard. Cause the shape has to be accurate (that's the minimum for an UCS), it had to be hinged on the neck, and I also wanted to includ minifigs (2 pilots + Veers). There was very little room to includ the minifigs. But in the end, it works ! :)
I know that the angle on the "face" is not perfect. But to make a 6 stud high head, I don't have much choice. I'm compelled to use the 3x6 wings. :/
Well, it is not such a big deal.



And I kept the best for the end. ^^
I did the whole interior in the body. I tried to be as accurate as possible. I did some redesign, though.
I put only 1 ladder on 1 side, instead of 2 on the real model. That way, I have seats nearly all around the floors. It think it is better that way.
There is also no passage between the neck and the body. Indeed, that would have removed seats again. And I did not want that. So, I redesigned the interior for it to look as good as possible for a Lego model.
I think the sand blue work pretty well here.



The side panels are attach with 4 studs each. The top panels (on the body but also on the head) just lay on other Lego bricks. It's enough.


Then, I thought that it could be very fun to put a small snowspeeder next to the AT-AT.

I experienced some difficulties to make it small enough for it to fit well with the AT-AT.
The main thing I wanted for it was that minifigs could seat in it. It also had  to have a decent amount of details for the size.

That was my first version :




It was good, but too big. Way too big. The wings are 19 studs long. The ship is also too wide for the AT-AT.

I tried to make it smaller :



And



I tried a different approach for the cockpit on LDD. And I finally made it.
It is small enough (well, this time I can not make it smaller !), and 1 minifig can seat in it.
Yes, only 1 (or 2 without helmet). That is what I call "compromise".
1 minifig for such a small Snowspeeder is still good IMO.




You may find the roof odd because it is curved. That was definitely what I thought too at the beginning. With the time, I get used to it. And this fun shape on the roof is now ok for me on a cute snowspeeder. ^^
Moreover, the windscreen is made out of only 3 parts (2 trans-black, 1 white), so it is strong and easily removable. :)
It is attached with 4 studs.
The model stands very well on the 2 trans-clear supports.

I must say that I really like this small snowspeeder. It is cute and fairly detailled.  


And the last thing, the UCS display card :



HD sticker : http://www.brickshel...T12/sticker.jpg



In the end, about 3,000 parts and 9 minifigs.
Professionnal instruction will be done. One day...


Thanks for reading.

Edited by Anio, 20 March 2013 - 10:53 PM.

[legotrader]

Fantastic job.  Great sets from a great scene in a great movie!

[Ishv-viss-j]

Can't say I'm a fan of the shrunken troop section, but the legs don't look bad at all. More on this later.

Which height did you use? 15m, 22.6m, or 25m?

3x3 wedges at the front of the snowspeeder in the manner of Dibal's might look better as well.

Edited by Ishv-viss-j, 21 April 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[Gory51]

I am in awe. This is truly beautiful man. I would love to have that standing in my room, seriously.

Well done on an excellent creation there

[Anio]

Ishv-viss-j, on 21 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Can't say I'm a fan of the shrunken troop section

Only 4 snowtroopers you mean ?
I do not need more than 4 soldiers. My goal is to reproduce the "spirit" of the model.
1 commander, 2 pilots, 1 officer. And some snowtroopers. I don't need 20 snowtroopers.

Ishv-viss-j, on 21 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Which height did you use? 15m, 22.6m, or 25m?

None of these.
I used photo from the net and plans to get some features (overall proportions, how the interior is done, some details, etc).
But for the size of the body, the legs etc, I just use my feeling.

I built, and then I wonder "Does it look good ?".
If the answer is yes for me, it is ok. I go to the next step and keep on building.
Designing a good Lego model doesn't mandatory mean doing a 100% accurate MOC or using the dimensions we can find on the net (moreover, these dimensions are very variable from a website to another)

Ishv-viss-j, on 21 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

3x3 wedges at the front of the snowspeeder in the manner of Dibal's might look better as well.

?

[Ishv-viss-j]

Anio, on 21 April 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Only 4 snowtroopers you mean ?

No, I was referring to the fact that the walker's 'carapace' looks too small for its legs and head. In the screencap I embedded you can see that the rear of the troop section extends well beyond the hips. It should be wider as well.

Anio, on 21 April 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

?

Like this:



Full gallery here.

[Anio]

Ishv-viss-j, on 21 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

No, I was referring to the fact that the walker's 'carapace' looks too small for its legs and head. In the screencap I embedded you can see that the rear of the troop section extends well beyond the hips. It should be wider as well.

Oh yeah, you are right. :)
That was my feeling, you see.  

And to be more specific, it is not the carapace which is too small, but the hips that are too long. ^^
My plan was indeed to make the hips longer for the model to have big and strong "shoulder" (well, shoulder on the hips   ; but you get my point).
With big shoulder, I think the model looks mightier. ^^

I think this pic explains what I mean :

Ishv-viss-j, on 21 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Like this:



Full gallery here.

Sorry, but the way it is build is kind of ugly and weak. I don't build my MOC that way. :s
Moreover, this is way too big for my little snowspeeder.

Edited by Anio, 21 April 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[Ishv-viss-j]

Anio, on 21 April 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

And to be more specific, it is not the carapace which is too small, but the hips that are too long. ^^
My plan was indeed to make the hips longer for the model to have big and strong "shoulder" (well, shoulder on the hips   ; but you get my point).
With big shoulder, I think the model looks mightier. ^^

Well, I have no choice but to respect that decision then. It seemed awkward at first, but from that angle I can see what you were aiming for.

[Dapper-D2]

You took some nice creative liberties and it paid off! The legs are the best part IMO! Another great model. Kudos!

[Darth Yogi]

This looks awesome.  I really like how you added space for minifigs, it adds a lot to the build.  The whole thing looks so clean, especially the parts for the neck are perfect.  The snowspeeder is also awesome, and great for its size.

Great job

[cavegod]

Well, it looks ok but is no where near your usual standard of building it looks more like a kids built it to be honest, your other mocs are far more accurate and have lots more detail than this one, I'd suggest you start again from the legs up.

[Anio]

cavegod, on 21 April 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Well, it looks ok but is no where near your usual standard of building it looks more like a kids built it to be honest, your other mocs are far more accurate and have lots more detail than this one, I'd suggest you start again from the legs up.

xD

Is this some kind of trolling  or just jealousy ?

Edited by Anio, 21 April 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[cavegod]

Anio, on 21 April 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

xD

Is it some kind of trolling  or just jealousy ?

Just an honest opinion,

The body looks too small and the head just looks wrong somehow, i do like the legs though and if you could pivot the ankles...

[Lobot]

Everything is up to your usual (excellent) standard Anio, apart from the feet!  I'm not sure about them at all, but perhaps they'll grow on me.

I really like the detailing on the rear of the body, it's amongst the best that I've seen for an AT-AT    

Please put me down for a copy of the instructions when they're ready!

[Brickadeer]

I like it, and I'm not really worried about the feet.

There are two things, that immediately caught my attention, though:

For my personal taste,

- the "shoulders" and "hips" are too close to the front/rear end of the body, though,
- and the lower cannons seem to be too long.

[Wayno]

Thats amazing work!  

[Remus_Lupin]

Love it. As a non-owner of an AT-AT, I dream of a future official UCS model. I've often wondered how feasible it'd be without a ludicrous piece-count, but you've shown that it is quite realistic.

Chalk me down as another one who'll be keeping an eye out for instructions  

[Shawn]

I think that this looks spot on.

See this schematic from the web.

I think that the head looks perfect.

http://2.bp.blogspot...er_c.jpg<br />

Edited by Shawn, 22 April 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Aeroeza]

Well done Anio!

This is a very impressive 'monster' (and you've been quiet of late so it's great to see at last what you've been up to)!

I assume it's O.K to say this so please understand my comments are more observational rather than critical. I am a pedant for detail and proportion when it comes to modelling material such as this (that's my burden ) and such an approach may not really apply to this most recent MOC of yours. You clearly set yourself tough goals and achieve them admirably, however, had you called your work the 'Ultimate System AT AT' then I'd have posted 'awesome stuff' and simply, unquestionably loved it! But as you want me to view your work as a UCS then I find it too far removed from ILM source material for my own personal preferences...

It is undoubtedly fantastic work and I applaud you for pushing the medium to this level of detail with such a manageable piece count! It's just that (as you might say) the end result 'feels' more system to me than what I've come to appreciate of UCS builds over the years.

Regardless of my observations, thank you for continuing to share your work and as always I look forward to your next project. Remember, I'd be a very happy man indeed if I had your talent and patience with Lego

[hench]

Awesome!

[Anio]

cavegod, on 21 April 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

pivot the ankles...

I did not said that in the first post.
But they can pivot of course.

Brickadeer, on 21 April 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

There are two things, that immediately caught my attention, though:

For my personal taste,

- the "shoulders" and "hips" are too close to the front/rear end of the body, though,
- and the lower cannons seem to be too long.

The cannons have a similar length to what I've seen on the Internet.

Remus_Lupin, on 22 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Love it. As a non-owner of an AT-AT, I dream of a future official UCS model. I've often wondered how feasible it'd be without a ludicrous piece-count, but you've shown that it is quite realistic.

Chalk me down as another one who'll be keeping an eye out for instructions  

Be sure I will post a message here when the instruction is complete. ;)

As for the piece count, I ALWAYS design my MOCs for it the piece-count to be as optimised as possible.
When I see that my Executor has 3100 parts, it is very possible that my AT-AT has finally rather 2,400 parts than 3,000 parts.

Aeroeza, on 22 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

It is undoubtedly fantastic work and I applaud you for pushing the medium to this level of detail with such a manageable piece count! It's just that (as you might say) the end result 'feels' more system to me than what I've come to appreciate of UCS builds over the years.

You are wrong. ;)
As I said, doing a model which as small as possible IS one of my goal. This is a very important thing to optimise the build.
A build pointlessly big is, de facto, not optimised.

My AT-AT is 46 cm tall if I remember correctly.
And I think it does not need to be bigger to do a good UCS.
Never forget that UCS is a matter of details, not size.

Look at all the UCS AT-AT you can find on the Internet. They are maybe a little more accurate, especially on the head (I couldn't change the angle 3x6) and the hips (I voluntaraly made them different). But the are definitely not more detailled.

Again, my goal is to make the model as small as possible, just like official Lego sets.
And for that purpose, I think the size of my model is perfect.


PS : for fun, let me remind you that 10221 is exactly as long as my own Executor. 124 cm.
More generally, I do not make mistake regarding the size to adopt.

Edited by Anio, 22 April 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[JackJonespaw]

Nice job, Anio! I really like this UCS. The snowspeeder is quite well done, and I like the way you included the inside of the AT-AT.

[Aeroeza]

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

You are wrong. ;)

Of course I am! I have more money than sense when it comes to Lego!!!  

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

As I said, doing a model which as small as possible IS one of my goal. This is a very important thing to optimise the build.

...but not necessarily in accurately representing it as a sculpture! There's only so much Lego can achieve in any given scale but the smaller a MOC is the more likely a build could suffer in terms of details and proportional accuracy. Of course given you are trying to also optimize the build in order to best reflect a possible commercial Lego release then your model may be a more realistic prediction of things to come than other MOCS out there...

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

A build pointlessly big is, de facto, not optimised.

... a build designed for a particular scale can be optimized for that particular scale. I'm not sure this makes a larger AT AT than yours 'pointless' by any margin nor any less efficient. Merely 'pointless' given your particular terms of reference (or possibly 'pointless' only as a commercial release).

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

My AT-AT is 46 cm tall if I remember correctly.
And I think it does not need to be bigger to do a good UCS.

I think you've done wonders with the size you've chosen and I agree that 'big' does not necessarily equate to 'beautiful'.

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Never forget that UCS is a matter of details, not size.

Your build may be 'optimized' but to me given what I find pleasing in UCS MOCs, (that is detail and proportional accuracy) then this efficiency at the scale you have chosen comes at a cost I'd rather not see in a possible commercial UCS AT AT. Again I have more money than sense when it comes to Lego...

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Look at all the UCS AT-AT you can find on the Internet. They are maybe a little more accurate, especially on the head (I couldn't change the angle 3x6) and the hips (I voluntaraly made them different). But the are definitely not more detailled.

This is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Larger UCS' of AT-ATs exist which are proportionally more accurate. Of course whether-or-not I find these more pleasing to the eye is irrelevant given your stated goals and artistic license...

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Again, my goal is to make the model as small as possible, just like official Lego sets.
And for that purpose, I think the size of my model is perfect.

And you've succeeded admirably!!! It's just that it looks more 'system' to me than reflecting the tradition of a 'grand' UCS such as 10030 or 10179.

Anio, on 22 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

PS : for fun, let me remind you that 10221 is exactly as long as my own Executor. 124 cm.
More generally, I do not make mistake regarding the size to adopt.

Well, if you made a mistake with this one then I guess you'd only have a 50% batting average!   But in all seriousness I do appreciate what you've achieved in creating this model. You really have shown what is possible with a commercially realistic number of bricks and let's face it, the damn thing is still standing and it has an interior just to top it off!

Kudos to you Anio!  

[wokajablocka]

This is so cool, I want to build one. I can see from what everyone is saying that it's not super detailed but so much more that TLG version have us. IMO it's detailed enough to be added to your UCS masterpeices. I love 3 in the cockpit good job and accurate, speeder still looks a little big but well done on getting it that small and still getting a minifig in there. Legs and feet look cool and it's nice that whole thing has good articulation. What will we see next?

[Anio]

Aeroeza, on 22 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I'm not sure this makes a larger AT AT than yours 'pointless'

Not the AT-AT itself. Just its "big size".
Big size is pointless.

More generally, I'm hardly impressed by very big MOCs. Especially when, after a short analysis, I can see that the same model can be made in a much smaller version (what is hard is to built small, not big).