CP5670 Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) (click for more pictures) A Blacktron all-terrain assault vehicle. It has 4-wheel steering with a sliding midsection, similar to 6895, and 8 flashing lights (running off a Lifelites eLite Advanced 2 module), with the trans-red rod near the boxes on top switching between the 25 different flashing patterns. Armaments include four side-mounted cannons and a missile platform with two Blacktron Tiger missiles and four smaller spring-loaded missiles. Edited August 30, 2014 by CP5670 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zerobricks Posted August 22, 2014 That looks really classy! Love the wheel hubs and the light effects. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj_jynx Posted August 22, 2014 Another amazing build CP! Agreed, with Zblj, the lighting effects really make it come alive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange Leader Posted August 22, 2014 I saw some while ago a video from a LEGO exhibition featuring your MOC. The lightning effect was astounishing to see! I want to look into lifelites now! Digging the whole thing here; awesome cockpit and missle launcher. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Damn! That thing's a behemoth! The light effects put this build over the top. Very cool. Edited August 22, 2014 by Colossus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grum64 Posted August 22, 2014 OMG! That's awesome! Really nice use of colours Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Macsen Wledig Posted August 22, 2014 Nice - Blacktron rules! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CP5670 Posted August 22, 2014 Thanks everyone. This was the first time I used the custom light products, and I would highly recommend them in general. The lights look great in the dark, and are much cheaper and easier to place in tight spots than the official 9V or PF lights. There are a couple of different light vendors out there, but I like Lifelites for their relatively low prices and wide range of products. The lights are designed to fit inside the small holes in headlight bricks, Technic pins, etc. and make you think about a lot of pieces differently when building, since only a few pieces have these holes. By the way, if the pictures aren't showing up, just try refreshing in a few minutes. Brickshelf has been having issues the whole week and is frequently going down for short periods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CP5670 Posted August 30, 2014 Thanks. Brickshelf is finally back up, in case anyone was having trouble with the links earlier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady K Posted August 30, 2014 Awesome build! I really like the design, functional and intimidating! I'll echo others on the lights really brining it to life. This inspires me to give Lifelites a try. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
___ Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Beautiful model...just those bulky tyres - if they were changed for some tyres of the "back then" era the overall feeling would be even better...I would say this is more neo Blacktron (giving its bulkyness...meaning less 'airy' cos all old ones was typical for their lightness and airyness of some kind + those tyres) - color combi is right and exact, but after all complete set looks authentic, very good work! P.S.: I am not trying to sound/be rude or something (as it seems I am always the only one having any real disagreements or factual comments whereall others just hypes how perfect everything is ), just being somewhat constructive on the matter, hope you do understand my points as I have almost all original space sets here at home having huge space complex and being whole life NCS/CS MOC-er myself, so I can really see those differences instantly... + also now as I noticed it I'd like to ask: does the front part (driver/pilot cabin/canopy) detaches from the model somehow? Cos you used that black tile with yellow arrow at the top which would typically mean something in that part of the model can be detached from the build, or can be bended to some point in some direction...to my knowledge all those bricks with arrows were always used with some kind of internal logic, not just because it looks nice there...just being curious cos of course it is OK if you used it "just like that" anyway. Edited August 31, 2014 by bublible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aland1916 Posted August 31, 2014 Great truck, very nice! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CP5670 Posted August 31, 2014 Beautiful model...just those bulky tyres - if they were changed for some tyres of the "back then" era the overall feeling would be even better...I would say this is more neo Blacktron (giving its bulkyness...meaning less 'airy' cos all old ones was typical for their lightness and airyness of some kind + those tyres) - color combi is right and exact, but after all complete set looks authentic, very good work! P.S.: I am not trying to sound/be rude or something (as it seems I am always the only one having any real disagreements or factual comments whereall others just hypes how perfect everything is ), just being somewhat constructive on the matter, hope you do understand my points as I have almost all original space sets here at home having huge space complex and being whole life NCS/CS MOC-er myself, so I can really see those differences instantly... + also now as I noticed it I'd like to ask: does the front part (driver/pilot cabin/canopy) detaches from the model somehow? Cos you used that black tile with yellow arrow at the top which would typically mean something in that part of the model can be detached from the build, or can be bended to some point in some direction...to my knowledge all those bricks with arrows were always used with some kind of internal logic, not just because it looks nice there...just being curious cos of course it is OK if you used it "just like that" anyway. No worries, I certainly appreciate suggestions like this. In fact, they are often more helpful than just saying that the model is perfect, which is rarely the case. By old tires, are you referring to the plastic ones in space sets or the hard foam tires in old Technic sets? I just happened to have these 68.8x24 wheels on hand, and designed the rest of the MOC around them. The wheels and windscreens usually determine the look and scale of any Lego vehicle. You do bring up a good point though that the Blacktron sets are generally thin and sleek, and this chunky look is more in line with Blacktron II. The front doesn't come off. I did in fact want to have that, but the Lifelites lights cannot be unplugged that easily. The arrows are just decorations. Some sets like 6954 used them that way, instead of indicating a function. Now that I think about it though, the front one means "enter cab here" and the ones in the back could mean "missiles come out of here." I think of them as guides for the minifigs, rather than the human. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
___ Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) No worries, I certainly appreciate suggestions like this. In fact, they are often more helpful than just saying that the model is perfect, which is rarely the case. Being happy hearing that...so I am deffinitely not the only one here who knows self reflection and critical thinking...I am glad we understand each other on this, thanx. By old tires, are you referring to the plastic ones in space sets or the hard foam tires in old Technic sets? No, I meant those those medium sized ones as seen in #6941 or in grey CS set #6952, they are "3634, Tire 17 x 43", this one: I just happened to have these 68.8x24 wheels on hand, and designed the rest of the MOC around them. Yes, that is pretty understandable and I thought something like that may be the reason. The wheels and windscreens usually determine the look and scale of any Lego vehicle. You do bring up a good point though that the Blacktron sets are generally thin and sleek, and this chunky look is more in line with Blacktron II. Right, and not just B1 but most, better said ALL OLD DESIGNS share this airy and thin "economic feature" (it does not matter why it was so, it simply needs to be done like that to look like it, HOWGH!)...and I personally think it had to be much of a genius to make a really good set with some bricks limit than make some huge "monster" stuff with all the brick one can think of: for the old designs one need really good imagination, thinking about used bricks and mainly abstraction that is so hard to find in nowadays concepts I saw all around (except some great noticable exceptions, of course ). And that is automatically the first thing that structs me when I see someones "CS" or any other old subtheme MOC: gee, do not they see and realize that those bulky big MOC will NEVER be seen as part of those subs simply because of the design/bricks used? Like if you would dress up into some cat costume and absolutely seriously saying that you are some real cat... :grin: BTW: I'd say that your design - nevermind B1 color combi - mostly remind me of Earth Defense HQ from Allien Conquest subtheme, not B2 (cos as mentioned above B2 also holds that old design principles of light airyness), what do you think about it? The front doesn't come off. I did in fact want to have that, but the Lifelites lights cannot be unplugged that easily. The arrows are just decorations. Some sets like 6954 used them that way, instead of indicating a function. Well, I am sorry to inform you but in that set it indicates that those two small rockets sitting right behind the "arrowy" tiles are detachable... ...so, you are mistaken on this one. Now that I think about it though, the front one means "enter cab here" and the ones in the back could mean "missiles come out of here." I think of them as guides for the minifigs, rather than the human. OK, no problem...maybe if the canopy could open (I think it should, shouldn't it? How do you get to the minifig inside? How he comes out in the case of fire - don't you have a soul letting him burn alive??? :grin: ) then it could mean: "BEWARE this canopy opens up this way!" Edited September 1, 2014 by bublible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CP5670 Posted September 1, 2014 Most of the sets back then were pretty "conservative" with regards to parts usage. That was probably due to price limits and constraints the designers had to follow, rather than any conscious design choice. Today, you see more sets where the designers put in more effort into adding details and features, and at a higher price. If Blacktron and the other space themes had come out today, they would probably look quite different just because of this. I actually stick pretty close to the old themes with my MOCs, and try to aim for a mix of modern techniques and a more classic look instead of going all out with SNOT and fine details. On the other hand, I usually don't try to make the models look as if they were official sets from that era and designed under the same price limitations. They're more like models that I would have liked to see back then as a kid. For the 6954 arrows, I guess you could explain them that way, but they're not that close to those hover chair things and are facing the wrong direction. It's not as clear as 6941 for example, where they obviously point to the detachable wing piece. The arrow tiles generally look good on a variety of sci-fi models, even just as decoration. It's a pity we don't get them anymore in today's sets. If the Arcturus gets blown up by Space Police, the guy can probably climb out the front, as long as it wasn't a direct hit from the front. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
___ Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Most of the sets back then were pretty "conservative" with regards to parts usage. That was probably due to price limits and constraints the designers had to follow, rather than any conscious design choice. Today, you see more sets where the designers put in more effort into adding details and features, and at a higher price. If Blacktron and the other space themes had come out today, they would probably look quite different just because of this. I actually stick pretty close to the old themes with my MOCs, and try to aim for a mix of modern techniques and a more classic look instead of going all out with SNOT and fine details. On the other hand, I usually don't try to make the models look as if they were official sets from that era and designed under the same price limitations. They're more like models that I would have liked to see back then as a kid. Once again: what your comment changed on the 'principle' alone I said before? Absolutely nothing at all: it is OK when you see it like that - no problem with that vision, BUT nevermind the reason why it was done so (I think the same as you = economic reasons, quite obvious I guess) it sill applies that you have to obey those design principles to look like CS or any of those older "economic" era and be considered as such...there is no "maybe", "if" etc., cos then you can also say LEGO is basically "ice mountain", because IF it was not in reality, MAYBE it would retransforms itself somehow into that "ice mountain", haha - nothing like that, past things are set as they are so if you want look the same you need to make it the same way... For the 6954 arrows, I guess you could explain them that way, but they're not that close to those hover chair things and are facing the wrong direction. It's not as clear as 6941 for example, where they obviously point to the detachable wing piece. The arrow tiles generally look good on a variety of sci-fi models, even just as decoration. It's a pity we don't get them anymore in today's sets. Not true: it simply means there is something that can be detached regardles direction of the arrow...and to my knowledge in LEGO Space there was not a once these kind of bricks would be used without any strict logic, just like that, never ever. And in #6954 you are still refering to, they are NEXT BEFORE THE HOVERS (I personally own this model so I can make pics if you want): how closer they can be? The point is they are really there for a reason...but you are right that we are not LEGO designers and we can use basically what we want and where we want althought I do not do it like that, I rather using "logic of the signs" just like they did in those times, sorry. If the Arcturus gets blown up by Space Police, the guy can probably climb out the front, as long as it wasn't a direct hit from the front. Fine, but what if it just burns from inside during morning coffee session...then he is lost? :grin: BTW I do not know if it is your creation or you took it from somewhere else but I really like very very much the name you gave to your model: Arcturus...sounds great reminding me some of Erich von Daniken's "worlds" and thoughts, perfect! Edited September 2, 2014 by bublible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CP5670 Posted September 3, 2014 You seem to be getting pretty worked up. Just chill out, this is all about having fun. it sill applies that you have to obey those design principles to look like CS or any of those older "economic" era and be considered as such...there is no "maybe", "if" etc., Who says? Taking this logic to the extreme, only the original sets are truly authentic, and any MOC is by definition not part of the original themes. You have to allow for some level of differences from the original models. To my knowledge in LEGO Space there was not a once these kind of bricks would be used without any strict logic, just like that, never ever. And in #6954 you are still refering to, they are NEXT BEFORE THE HOVERS (I personally own this model so I can make pics if you want): how closer they can be? I have that set too and they don't look very close to me, especially since they are pointing in the other direction. I'll admit that they usually do correspond to something, but not always. Another exception is 6931, especially the arrows on the wings. BTW I do not know if it is your creation or you took it from somewhere else but I really like very very much the name you gave to your model: Arcturus...sounds great reminding me some of Erich von Daniken's "worlds" and thoughts, perfect! Thanks. It's actually the name of a star. I picked it since there is a star/sun in the Blacktron logo and couldn't find anyone else using it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whitswj Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) / Edited December 3, 2021 by whitswj Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spirit Posted September 3, 2014 What they said. It's funny because the originals actually look lame compared to this one. It feels more "Blacktron-ish" than the original Blacktrons. xD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
___ Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) You seem to be getting pretty worked up. Just chill out, this is all about having fun. Yea, of course I do...what is happening here is called debating and arguing. + How can you expect someone to be quiet when you put out new round of debate, CP??? Who says? Taking this logic to the extreme, only the original sets are truly authentic, and any MOC is by definition not part of the original themes. You have to allow for some level of differences from the original models. CP, see, no one needs to saying anything cos everyone who is not blind and is able argue for his own (it is: not saying something just because he wants to deffend someone's work...which happen quite often) saying freely what he sees and think for himself without fear of being blamed here for "attacking/being rude" can see the difference clearly, CP, just as you've said before "no set is perfect...almost never". I agree with the "some level of differences" - sure you are absolutely right, but that is still no argument against what I said or even better: it does not change anything important from my point: if we want to being like subtheme then we need to look like that...if it has just resemblance there is name for it, it is called "neo-", quite easy, isn't it? So summarizing my thoughts and arguments for the last time here having it said all in one sentence (as we are still repeating the same things over and over without real factual evidence, like the stuff with arrow: pointing in different direction? arrow pointing forward as dirrection of the small-ship flight, there is no arrow pointing upwards as you know and the logic is still applied etc etc etc...sure, they could also turn the arrow to the right or left but the logic would be still there, so they simply chosen "stright dirrection of the arrow" which is more in the overall feeling of sets "forward" design flow....arrow pointing to the side would be more visually distracting the "design feeling flow" I guess, who knows? ): your model is really fine and as I said I ilke it + also its name is super BUT for reasons I said earlier I would not call it Blacktron, if anything then neo-B if you want, that is all, folks, and if you still do not understand my lame english (you know, it is not my native language so it may be that I used some phrases that are not exactly the one that'd be used by some english speaking person, yea) then I am really sorry and "chilling out"...HOWGH What they said. It's funny because the originals actually look lame compared to this one. It feels more "Blacktron-ish" than the original Blacktrons. xD Oh, please, don't be that silly, c'mon! Reason why it was so "lame", said in another way "not quantum of bricks everywhere, more airy, economic and childish" was also because of the fact that in those time primary task was PLAYABILITY whereas most MOC better said all including this CP nice work is mostly if not only about DESIGN. See: child needs to be able "putting his fingers in/inside the model, moving and playing inside it therefore those old designs were so airy - besides the economic part of each set, of course. Now tell me: how could child play/see inside those bulky ones? just think about it for a sec...hm? See? OK... Well, design is fine and very important but as soon as it is the primary part of the LEGO model the concept is somehow not quite good. And from there we finally getting to the conclusion: when I look at the LEGO model I primarily looking for the playability, not design, so if we take MOC as pure design concepts then it is all very fine and you can forget what I said up to now about it, BUT if we are talking about MOC from the playability point of view then my opinion is: sorry, no way! Leaving you now with the hope that someone could really think about what I said a bit harder, not just sliding the surface of it all (sorry CP that the post that was about your really nice model I have turned somehow into argumenting about MOC, subtheme designs and stuff...sorry ) P.S.: in case anyone would still be wanting to debate about this with me you are welcome to PM me as I am closing this post now and for the reason I will not see your reactions to my post(s)...so there will be no reaction to this from me here anymore, guys. Anyway, enjoy this great model of CP...ciao. Edited September 6, 2014 by bublible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spirit Posted September 6, 2014 Just because the old ones had a reason to look lame doesn't mean they looked good. And this one looks playable enough to me. It has wheels, a steering system, you can open the cockpit in 3 places and I guess there's a way to detach those missiles. Many official sets lack on the cockpit & steering sides, so there's really nothing to complain about here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites