LiLmeFromDaFuture

NEW UCS AT-AT TEASED!!!!!

Recommended Posts

It doesn’t look like the one iv’e seen thats coming later this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow thats very good! I love the eye slit and rear plate's greebling especially.

The proportions look great. This is excreptionally done, good work!!

Also I have some choice words for you about that tease but its better left unsaid :tongue: :wink:

On that note was that entirely a joke or is there actually a rumor of a UCS AT-AT this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Wow thats very good! I love the eye slit and rear plate's greebling especially.

The proportions look great. This is excreptionally done, good work!!

Also I have some choice words for you about that tease but its better left unsaid :tongue: :wink:

On that note was that entirely a joke or is there actually a rumor of a UCS AT-AT this year?

Probably April Fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cavegod said:

It doesn’t look like the one iv’e seen thats coming later this year?

Sounds exciting!

 

53 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Wow thats very good! I love the eye slit and rear plate's greebling especially.

The proportions look great. This is excreptionally done, good work!!

Also I have some choice words for you about that tease but its better left unsaid :tongue: :wink:

On that note was that entirely a joke or is there actually a rumor of a UCS AT-AT this year?

I have not heard anything about an AT-AT from Lego.  I can wait contently for an official reveal, not so much like others :wink:  So knowing the community's desire for one makes the appropriate opportunity far too good to pass exploiting it :grin:  But hey! I did misspeak once, this is a new UCS AT-AT (mine) being teased; I cannot control the interpretation of others' though :laugh:

Glad you like the walker, though I actually have yet to finish designing it (if you can tell)!  The proportions you speak of I did not achieve deliberately, but I am amazed how well the proportions turned out despite my otherwise directed priorities!  

 

4 minutes ago, TheGeneralMoe said:

Probably April Fools.

Yes, a mediocre one at best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this just another thread from an excitable April Fools pranker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Robianco said:

Is this just another thread from an excitable April Fools pranker?

Minus @cavegod maybe being serious? Tough to tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cmon boys ( @cavegod ), I am a simple creature. Don't confuse me here :D

Stunning, LilMe. I am surprised how much different everything is compared to last WIPs I recall. Thats a lot of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krisandkris12 said:

Stunning, LilMe. I am surprised how much different everything is compared to last WIPs I recall. Thats a lot of work.

1

That one, as it progressed with constant updates, actually turned out to scale larger than the minifigure-scale I desired to achieve originally.  Once realizing this, I started completely from scratch; even what you see now changed drastically and developed from its early iterations…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For real it looks great. The bottom pieces connecting the legs look a bit too fat, but the rest is fantastic. I especially like the greyish-blue used for extra flavour in there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RogueRecon said:

For real it looks great. The bottom pieces connecting the legs look a bit too fat, but the rest is fantastic. I especially like the greyish-blue used for extra flavour in there. 

Yes, those are its trouble areas, but trying to lose density might inadvertently diminish its definition gains :wink:

A splash of sand blue makes juicy blends with monotone grays—delishous! latest?cb=20100131114128

Edited by LiLmeFromDaFuture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

Yes, those are its trouble areas, but trying to lose density might inadvertently diminish its definition gains :wink:

A splash of sand blue makes juicy blends with monotone grays—delishous! latest?cb=20100131114128

If instructions come out, I’m gonna probably just find my own way to make the connector pieces skinnier. Rest of the model is too good to pass up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RogueRecon said:

If instructions come out, I’m gonna probably just find my own way to make the connector pieces skinnier. Rest of the model is too good to pass up :)

Much more to this AT-AT remains to see its reveal, than what presently meets the eye; if this impresses, what will soon come should no doubt enthrall anticipation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you published these pics while your model is still a WIP because, if you don't mind,  there's something I'd like to show you - to make your model even better. Please, take a look at the picture below.

 

41159675482_56b1dc11c5_o.jpg

 

Upper part is your model, of course, lower part is the original studio model. It's all about the proportions: red line vs blue line. Your "cam" part is much chubbier than the original. Like 33% chubbier, to be more specific. And it shows, I'm afraid. And not only mathematics is against you in this - it's also about the aesthetics: you chose to make your "cam" nice and curvy, while in the original it's all straight lines, rounded only at the ends.

I truly hope you'll find some time and patience to correct this, adding another strong point to your otherwise very nice model.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/04/2018 at 11:18 AM, dmaclego said:

Upper part is your model, of course, lower part is the original studio model. It's all about the proportions: red line vs blue line. Your "cam" part is much chubbier than the original. Like 33% chubbier, to be more specific. And it shows, I'm afraid. And not only mathematics is against you in this - it's also about the aesthetics: you chose to make your "cam" nice and curvy, while in the original it's all straight lines, rounded only at the ends.

I truly hope you'll find some time and patience to correct this, adding another strong point to your otherwise very nice model.

 

I agree with this. I like the design but it's the first thing that struck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ +1
The overal coolness was enough to get me blindfolded (well thats exaggeration :D) and distracted from possibly slightly lacking details, but you guys are totally right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2 April 2018 at 7:29 PM, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

Much more to this AT-AT remains to see its reveal, than what presently meets the eye; if this impresses, what will soon come should no doubt enthrall anticipation!

is it RC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@dmaclego @anothergol @krisandkris12

Trust me when I say, I did not, in the least bit, intend for it to turn out this unsightly, but the predicament seems completely unavoidable in the grand scheme of things.  By this I mean, the "cam part" functions more so as an extension of the walker's framework than a manifest to its accuracy; the curved, slope elements merely enable, somewhat as it may be, a more graceful appearance, than an otherwise clunky chunk it would look.  Despite its roundness, glaringly obvious to overlook, it will hardly elicit like honest opinions when compared to other aspects alongside its oddness :look:

Though not to excuse it completely from its faults, just after redirected to my attention, I promptly began changing it, in a strong effort to proportion it better.  Though then fresh with motivation at the beginning of this endeavor, I felt pleased with how well the changes progressed smoothly in my favor, but too soon it turned obvious it simply would not work.  The underlying issue developed at the connection point to the leg.  The leg connects to the “cam” via a small Technic turntable that fittingly rests as far up as possible, right under the build-work that makes up the rounded top of the leg; unsuitably unable to fit any higher.   Big deal.  Why does this beg to be mentioned?  Well, simply put, once corrected, the leg then stood over the cam just a peek!  Glaringly obvious to overlook, and to restate, the turntable cannot sit any higher, save for the leg made taller, which ideally I would not opt for.

 

3 hours ago, Arkeeos said:

is it RC?

No.  Not such impressive to that degree! :grin: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Whoa, let me grab my Oxford Dictionary and see you in couple hours after I read through your post :D

...after couple hours:

Haha more often than not, your posts are like a lecture of English for me. Anyway, after several cycles of drastic simplifications, I guess it says that there are technical limitations and requirements that sort of drive the design of these cams and make the bulkiness unavoidable, whereas the payoff in this case is a better pose-ability...? Well, fair enough :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like the huge round parts connecting the legs to the chassis. 

I think they could be a smudge smaller but its a fine trade off for stability.

How many inches tall is yours? I'm trying to scale it next to Raskolnikov's in my mind and off the bat yours doesn't seem all that taller.

Edited by Forresto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@krisandkris12 :laugh: Well, ironically, I wanted to explain the situation thoroughly and plain as so not to sound like I'm coming from a position of obstinacy, though I might have done the exact opposite!  Much has changed besides outward appearances, since the last time I shared an update.  Perhaps the most dramatic change regarding this project has taken place in my building style; it has seriously evolved since when I started back in 2012, and from the results, I believe it has for the better.

16 hours ago, krisandkris12 said:

whereas the payoff in this case is a better pose-ability...? Well, fair enough :)

1

Yes, to an extent.  It could otherwise stand as if in a stride, though the turntables main role establishes a more than adequate connection to the legs, as opposed to bearing the weight of the walker on a single pin or axle.

 

13 hours ago, Forresto said:

I actually like the huge round parts connecting the legs to the chassis. 

I think they could be a smudge smaller but its a fine trade off for stability.

How many inches tall is yours? I'm trying to scale it next to Raskolnikov's in my mind and off the bat yours doesn't seem all that taller.

3

About 3" taller: 20.5"/52cm.

Edited by LiLmeFromDaFuture

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.