[MOC] Yet another UCS AT-AT

[dmaclego]

Thank you very much, guys.

I look forward to seeing more updates

Well, hopefully you won't have to wait too long :) . The AT-AT sets the final height of the landing platform - now that I have it done, I can start building the terrain under main supports (need it 9 bricks higher). And then... I think I have most of the parts necessary to finish the platform, including the costly light plates.

But before I start all that, I must build a chest to store the AT-AT (before my Wife gets really angry ;) ) and to transport it safely in the future. Today I bought plywood just for this purpose, so it's a matter of days, I hope :) .

Oh, and returning to the technique I used for platform's main supports: it's the only one that allows full control over the diameter of pillars and allows almost perfectly round shape. Unlike the most popular method utilising rounded panels 4x4, which are waaaay too small. I think I presented this solution quite a few years ago and expected it to be widely used by castle builders by now (for round castle towers) but I guess it is just too slopes-consuming and not so many builders wish to spend years collecting parts for their creations - like I do ;) .

[anothergol]

the motorization of the imperial shuttle is amazing btw

Are you manually selecting each pass? Mindstorms would do wonders here.

[dmaclego]

Are you manually selecting each pass?

Yes. I prefer having full manual contol. I guess I'm old fashioned and strongly believe in deep idiocy of small electronic devices - like Mindstorms bricks :) . And any glitch in software or hardware would cost me dearly, since the shuttle elevation mechanism, for instance, would easily crush the model and half of the landing platform if not shut off in time. Another reason is purely economical - why spend money on expensive electronics I don't trust anyway?

What I think about though (on those rare occasions when I don't think about finishing the landing platform ;) ) is a kind of Mindstorms-controlled, Star Wars - stylised mechanical arm to flip the switches. But knowing myself.... This idea may spend many years shelved :) .

[Schneeds]

I can't decide which is more amazing; the AT-AT or the shuttle. Either way, you Sir, are a master.

[icemann]

I haven't posted in long while..but this gorgeous monster,... OMG... I have to say...ONE OF THE BEST AT-ATs ever yet!!

u make a grown man cry wth such a beauty!! =)

[anothergol]

Yes. I prefer having full manual contol. I guess I'm old fashioned and strongly believe in deep idiocy of small electronic devices - like Mindstorms bricks :) . And any glitch in software or hardware would cost me dearly, since the shuttle elevation mechanism, for instance, would easily crush the model and half of the landing platform if not shut off in time. Another reason is purely economical - why spend money on expensive electronics I don't trust anyway?

What I think about though (on those rare occasions when I don't think about finishing the landing platform ;) ) is a kind of Mindstorms-controlled, Star Wars - stylised mechanical arm to flip the switches. But knowing myself.... This idea may spend many years shelved :) .

Well I was actually thinking of those 2 factors too, I know I'd rather trust a machine-timed activation (that would also allow for smoothing, for more natural motion), than myself, -especially- when there's a risk of going wrong. I've only played with the first Mindstorms incarnation (bought an EV3 recently but haven't unboxed it yet), and it seemed accurate. A light detector would even ensure that it stops when it gets close to the base.

Even cost-wise, it's true that Mindstorms is overexpensive, but so is Power Functions IMHO, when you add things up. The only big downside is that both aren't even compatible, and Mindstorms doesn't seem to have lights :( (which is a sin, because it would have been perfect for lights gently dimming up)

Edited November 24, 2015 by anothergol

[dmaclego]

Thank you very much, Schneeds & icemann. I'm glad you like my work.

overexpensive, but so is Power Functions IMHO

That is why, if memory serves me well, there are only 3 PF motors in the entire Endor Project :) . The rest are old geared 9V motors and I have plenty of them, which is the most cost-effective solution. The same goes to 9V lights / wires / pole reversers - they are expensive but not as much as PF lights and extension wires. And the good ol' train transformer / regulator does a fine job dimming the lights ;) . I kind of like the fact that certain parts of my project are so old school, remaining hidden under all these bluish grays and modern parts.

[Jourianbax]

Wow! amazing build! Well done!

[kris kelvin]

I`m a little bit late dmac but have to say this.

Just incredible MOC my friend :)

[BigEl]

Absolutely fantastic looking. You can tell how popular the good ol AT-AT is by how many breathtaking MOCs are out there.

This is definitely one of them

[Commander Colt]

Definitely one of the most overdone MOCs out there, but for very good reason, just look at the results when it is done well!

[dmaclego]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Breathtaking... Nice. But at the moment my work on Endor Project is mostly skin-taking ;) . Skin on my fingers I mean. I'm well on my way turning 64 kg of green bricks into Endor landscape. Wish me luck! And patience! And new skin on my fingers ;) .

[phaelon]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Breathtaking... Nice. But at the moment my work on Endor Project is mostly skin-taking ;) . Skin on my fingers I mean. I'm well on my way turning 64 kg of green bricks into Endor landscape. Wish me luck! And patience! And new skin on my fingers ;) .

When I start putting my Anio Venator build together I'm going to attempt using surgical gloves: 1) to keep my fingers from drying out, and 2) to keep fingerprints off the pieces. I'll let you know how that works out. :)

I'm hoping that some day when you are satisfied with your design, you will take the time to share your experience with us on a technical level. I know you guys are building these MOCs from a lot of trial and error, but I have to say that a LOT of us would pay good money for some LDD / LDraw files. Many of us DREAM of doing this kind of thing, but don't have the eye / patience / surplus to engineer such beautiful creations.

This SPECIFIC scene of the Lamda on platform with AT-AT docked alongside and the shield generator in the forest is one of the few diaromas I really want to create, when I can find the space. The engineering you've put into this build is staggering, and even though I'm not worried about motorizing everything, the lighting is something I have an interest in replicating. Even your Endor trees are a sight to behold! Great work!!!

[phaelon]

I thought I would follow up my previous post with an apology. I was reading something BrickDoctor posted over 4 years ago, conveying some of the mentality of a lego modeler. Essentially he said that half the fun of this hobby is reverse engineering something that someone else has done, whether that is another lego project, or a real life example. Asking them for instructions or lists should be at their discretion, as it takes an enormous amount of extra labor that is not always part of the creative process. I need to learn to respect that, and if someone has not posted their files, not to harass them to do so.

I'm so excited to see all this work, and I want to replicate all of it, because I lack the creativity that some of you seem to have. But I should also follow the example you have set, that if I truly want to do something, I need to get my hands dirty. Just please keep doing what you do, as it inspires people like myself to keep trying.

Edited January 7, 2016 by phaelon

[dmaclego]

Phaelon, first of all - thank you for your interest in my model and all the kind words.

There is absolutely no need for you to feel guilty of "harassment" :) . When people ask me about building instructions, I feel flattered, not harassed - because it means they actually think I've done a decent job.

But it is also true, that creating instructions is a painstaking endeavor and definitely less exciting than creating new models. It's not that I don't like to share or don't like to earn ;) . It's just that it takes so much time!

However, there is still hope. Sometimes I get stuck with my Endor Project (when, for instance, I can't obtain another thousand of ultra-rare bricks ;) ) and then, as I consider not-building a total waste of time, I launch my faithful MLCad and start fiddling with a behemoth like AT-AT... Or I get bribed by someone who really, really wants these instructions ;) . These things happen, but at this very moment - I'm running ahead with my Endor Project.

Thanks again and good luck with your building,

dmac

[anothergol]

I have a question btw. Everyone wants a large AT-AT, proven by Cavegod's one being voted for (I did as well). The reason Lego didn't make an UCS AT-AT yet can't be only linked to the insane amount of parts, as Lego has already released nearly as big. I believe Lego's problem must be related to durability & safety.

So, considering an UCS AT-AT would target adults, do you think it would even be possible for Lego to make a "proper" UCS AT-AT that would pass all of their rules, without any dirty hack, and still look cool? (I'm mostly talking about the ankles & neck areas)

[dmaclego]

In my opinion, the amount of parts is irrelevant. I don't know the exact numbers, but UCS Millennium Falcon sold out easily and - being basically a huge pile of fairly standard bricks and plates - it must have been great for LEGO Group in purely business terms. Durability and safety are paramount here. With all due respect to Cavegod and other builders (including me ;) ), our AT-ATs are nightmares in terms of assembly process and durability. You need four hands to assembly mine, for instance (I'm talking about attaching the legs and head to the body). This is way, way beyond LEGO standards. Then you have a plethora of "illegal" building techniques, which are just not accepted by the LEGO Group (I won't even start on that but believe me that LEGO designers must stick to very rigid rules, one of them being as ridiculous as "expose at least some studs whenever you can, because this is LEGO and LEGO is all about studs"). About stability: remember UCS Imperial Shuttle 10212 and how some builders criticized the detachable landing gear? Well, as I have proven, you can have a retractable landing gear but then the model is BARELY standing (and only if you hold your breath ;) ) . So they went for detachable landing gear and I don't blame them; it's the right thing to do if you don't want people sue you for selling a toy that won't stand on its own . But you can't do it with the AT-AT because its proportions make it simply impossible. Or you can do it but severely compromising the aesthetics and that's not what UCS series is about. I wouldn't take such risk.

But then - what do I know about running a big business? ;)

[BigEl]

I have a question btw. Everyone wants a large AT-AT, proven by Cavegod's one being voted for (I did as well). The reason Lego didn't make an UCS AT-AT yet can't be only linked to the insane amount of parts, as Lego has already released nearly as big. I believe Lego's problem must be related to durability & safety.

So, considering an UCS AT-AT would target adults, do you think it would even be possible for Lego to make a "proper" UCS AT-AT that would pass all of their rules, without any dirty hack, and still look cool? (I'm mostly talking about the ankles & neck areas)

Good Question. As dmaclego already pointed out the main problem that probably will prevent an official Lego UCS AT-AT forever is the durability. I dont know exactly how heavy cavegods AT-AT or this AT-AT is, but I guess it is so heavy that they are extremely unstable both in terms of just standing on the 4 feet as well as the weight on the plastic construction itself. So the general design of the AT-AT as a Walker probably prevents any potential for an official UCS.

[All in the Reflexes]

Have Lego ever made any sets that have some form of internal structure or stand that ISNT lego itself? To be honest as awesome as this and cavegod's models are, if i built it i'd be constantly keeping on eye on it to make sure it didnt fall on me and send me to A&E I couldnt see Lego making this without some stand of some sort to keep it stable and that would probably need upwards of 500 pieces itself!

[Kristof]

Valid points everyone.

I have to admit that the sheer size of these models (dmac, cavegod, LaChupacabra...) is one of the reasons I don't really want to build such thing. I mean, of course I do - in theory - but with all the consecutive problems regarding the size (where to put it, how to move it...), I simply don't classify that as a reasonable project to think about in terms of realization. So I can say, however the size makes huge impression and allows precise detailing, it's also big negative (to go besides price and part availability as these are main obstacles at least for me).

And it's not just AT-AT. Many custom UCS-labeled models have this negative aspect of size for me (Thire5/Anio's Venator for instance). Earlier I was nothing but fa of huge models. 'The bigger, the better' applied for me, especially regarding big SW ships and vehicles. By the time though, being more and more exposed to this 'dark side' of big size, I found great interest in smaller models. Small enough to be easily managable and affordable but without lacking some key details. Therefore, if there is something like ideal scale of lego model for me, it should allow both these conditions to be fulfilled. (The first pioneers in these efforts of mine are my Venator and Invisible Hand, where I'm really satisfied with both size and detail)

The reason why am I having this speech is that I think it's wrong to expect any UCS model to be huge. I think UCS label should only declare that the model is aimed on experienced builders, mainly for display with most focus on detal and accuracy, whereas any possible playability or functions have lower priority. Of course as I mentioned above, sometimes it's inevitable to increase the size to reach desired level of detail, or just to reach some decent model size if the subject is smaller (Obi-Wan SF).

Finally I'm getting to the point - I believe there could very well be an UCS AT-AT set, but the size would have to be much smaller than all these giants. I think about 150% of playset scale could work. To be mentioned that I tried to start such project several times and always failed on some fundamental things, mostly regarding fixed size of some parts which was either to big or to small for selected scale. I'm sure though that experienced designer would overcome these issues. Perhaps with the help of new parts, as much as it's somewhat cheaty - sometimes a gamechanger is necessary to achieve certain goals (i.e. imagine some dedicated ankle pieces for at-at ).

I'm well aware though that this viewpoint of mine may not be inherent to the majority. People may think UCS sets should be substantially bigger and that's their own valid truth.

[Schneeds]

I tend to agree with you on the size. These models are incredible, but I don't know if it would even be viable for me if I had instructions.

I'm curious to see Lilmefromdafuture's smaller AT-AT versions, which he said he actually likes better. That could be a perfect compromise.

[dmaclego]

it's wrong to expect any UCS model to be huge

Agreed. I can even imagine a very good UCS AT-AT not much bigger than regular sets. However, a temptation of minifig scale is strong with this one :) .

BigEl: my model weighs 7 kg. But it's not about the weight or clutch power of the bricks, it's about proportions: a slab of concrete would be equally unstable, being so tall and with a center of gravity placed so high.

[phaelon]

Phaelon, first of all - thank you for your interest in my model and all the kind words.

There is absolutely no need for you to feel guilty of "harassment" :) . When people ask me about building instructions, I feel flattered, not harassed - because it means they actually think I've done a decent job.

Thank you for letting me off the hook dmac. :) I am going to change my approach to all of this to one of patience and learning as I watch your progress, mistakes, and rebuilds. In the end it will make me a much more successful builder.

And definitely take my enthusiasm as flattery, even if I'm not one of the master builders on here.

...but at this very moment - I'm running ahead with my Endor Project.

Oh by all means don't stop when you're in the zone. I can't wait to see more updates.

...

I think UCS label should only declare that the model is aimed on experienced builders, mainly for display with most focus on detal and accuracy, whereas any possible playability or functions have lower priority.

I have not considered this before. To me UCS meant accuracy AND size. But since I own and have built every UCS set that LEGO produced, I can certainly attest that size has an impact on durability depending on the design. Having ordered all my pieces for Anio's Venator, I can definitely see the appeal of going smaller for budget purposes as well.

...

I'm well aware though that this viewpoint of mine may not be inherent to the majority. People may think UCS sets should be substantially bigger and that's their own valid truth.

After thinking about your post, I tend to agree with your definition of UCS - that it should be a lable applied to highly accurate designs of a reasonable size or larger. Even Anio admits that bigger does not necessarily guarantee more accuracy. What I have seen is that unless there are geometry issues, like the SSD, bigger mainly increases structural issues and build costs after a certain point, without substantial improvements to detail. I'm going to take a closer look at your Venator and Invisible Hand designs, because creating large fleet battles is only possible at that scale anyway.

Thanks for the insight!

Edited January 8, 2016 by phaelon

[BigEl]

Valid points everyone.

I have to admit that the sheer size of these models (dmac, cavegod, LaChupacabra...) is one of the reasons I don't really want to build such thing. I mean, of course I do - in theory - but with all the consecutive problems regarding the size (where to put it, how to move it...), I simply don't classify that as a reasonable project to think about in terms of realization. So I can say, however the size makes huge impression and allows precise detailing, it's also big negative (to go besides price and part availability as these are main obstacles at least for me).

And it's not just AT-AT. Many custom UCS-labeled models have this negative aspect of size for me (Thire5/Anio's Venator for instance). Earlier I was nothing but fa of huge models. 'The bigger, the better' applied for me, especially regarding big SW ships and vehicles. By the time though, being more and more exposed to this 'dark side' of big size, I found great interest in smaller models. Small enough to be easily managable and affordable but without lacking some key details. Therefore, if there is something like ideal scale of lego model for me, it should allow both these conditions to be fulfilled. (The first pioneers in these efforts of mine are my Venator and Invisible Hand, where I'm really satisfied with both size and detail)

The reason why am I having this speech is that I think it's wrong to expect any UCS model to be huge. I think UCS label should only declare that the model is aimed on experienced builders, mainly for display with most focus on detal and accuracy, whereas any possible playability or functions have lower priority. Of course as I mentioned above, sometimes it's inevitable to increase the size to reach desired level of detail, or just to reach some decent model size if the subject is smaller (Obi-Wan SF).

Finally I'm getting to the point - I believe there could very well be an UCS AT-AT set, but the size would have to be much smaller than all these giants. I think about 150% of playset scale could work. To be mentioned that I tried to start such project several times and always failed on some fundamental things, mostly regarding fixed size of some parts which was either to big or to small for selected scale. I'm sure though that experienced designer would overcome these issues. Perhaps with the help of new parts, as much as it's somewhat cheaty - sometimes a gamechanger is necessary to achieve certain goals (i.e. imagine some dedicated ankle pieces for at-at ).

I'm well aware though that this viewpoint of mine may not be inherent to the majority. People may think UCS sets should be substantially bigger and that's their own valid truth.

Absolutely agree with you. When I looked at pictures, Dioramas etc. I always would be a the-bigger-the-better person, but actually having several SW Lego Sets again and getting a feel for Lego again, I tend to like Mid-Scale Models/ Models with 2000 pieces max. more than giant versions that take several 1000 pieces (Of course depends on the original/real model size and the scale). For example I think the UCS Model that just has the perfect size for me is the UCS Slave 1 I bought when I returned to Lego after more than a decade. Its big, but not gigantic and at the same time the design is just amazing and worht of a collector/display label.

Like you I dont even think that bigger automatically means better detailed. As I build several Lego SW Sets again and modding nearly all of them more or less, it feels like it absolutely comes down to the specific design. Even to the point where design aspects are not 100% accurate but instead are designed with Lego in a way, that they hint towards fine/real details or shapes (Greebling is the best example, since its impossible to get 100% accurate but still gets the effect done). The real big advantage of smaller scales/models however is the higher stability/durability they seem to have most the time, and thats not just for a playability reason but very much for the display quality as well (Looking at bending problems that get worse over time and really can hurt the visual apperance).

Edited January 8, 2016 by BigEl

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

I'm curious to see Lilmefromdafuture's smaller AT-AT versions, which he said he actually likes better. That could be a perfect compromise.

Well Schneeds, that might have been before I completely redesigned the legs of my more MF-scaled walker—now they are impressively sturdy; especially the ankles. Though I am indeed fond of smaller version for several reasons of its scale…

For its scale:

• It is highly articulated
  

• Highly sturdy
  

• Highly detailed
  

• And highly studless
  

Though I still have quite a load of work ahead before it is finish, such as the infrastructure, neck, and roof, I believe it will have a probable piece count around 3000 pieces, but it might be less than that. Additionally, it is an expert design but it is significantly less sophisticated than my MF-scale version. Lastly it is not much larger than the size of LEGO's most recent product but by 12.7 centimeters/5 inches more in height, for example. However, the unfortunate side of walker is that it lacks playset features like opening hatches and interior, though I too (despite never actually owning any) have regarded UCS designed sets for its high level of accuracy to details and largeness than the possibilities of playset features.