[MOC] UCS AT-AT

[wokajablocka]

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).

After building a little over the last year I can really appreciate the time and effort people put into builds. In most cases with me part consrtaints force you to redesign parts of my mocs therefor maybe making it less detailed. There is a lot of skill in shrinking mocs down, with the right part selection and some ingenuity people make very accurate looking mocs, look at Legostiens minis for example. Sometimes it's hard to tell how much effort has gone into mocs but when I view them I try and appreciate what they have done and in your case with the AT-AT I can see some really effort in making it articulated, reasonably accurate for that scale. I just don't think people really knows what is put into making something like this.

[Brewc]

Looks great!

[The Blue Brick]

Amazing work. I love that snowspeeder.

[Gory51]

I still love every detail on this. I am new and have a lot to look up to, but I really am impressed here. There would be not one complaint in my house if I had that standing in my lounge :)

Great Job.:)

[lego envy]

( Shania Twain voice ) says, that don't impress me much...

Edited April 23, 2012 by lego envy

[Erdbeereis]

( Shania Twain voice ) says, that don't impress me much...

If you're going to criticize something, at least make it constructive.

Consider this your first and final warning.

[Dustin]

WOAH!

That's awesome! Great job.

[Ceroknight]

Brilliant work!

Love how it fits a bunch of snowtroopers as well

Snowspeeder looks great too!

[lego envy]

If you're going to criticize something, at least make it constructive.

Consider this your first and final warning.

OK THANKS,but since when does everybody have something constructive to say?

Edited April 23, 2012 by lego envy

[Anio]

OK THANKS,but since when does everybody have something constructive to say?

Since EB members are supposed to be more than 12 years old.

[Brickadeer]

OK THANKS,but since when does everybody have something constructive to say?

Erdbeereis didn't say that everybody has something constructive to say.

Praise, for example, isn't constructive. The point is that it doesn't have to be: Anio is informed that the guy in question likes his build, which informs Anio's action to the extent that nothing has to be changed.

You, on the other hand, simply expressed that you don't like Anio's build. That's not critics, but a simple rant: Anio is informed that you would like to have something changed, but his action is not informed, that means he doesn't know in which way his build could be changed in order to remove the aspects you don't like.

In other words: you didn't give him the opportunity to evaluate the causes of your dislike and to change his build - if he finds that what you say is true or at least appropriate.

[Fuppylodders]

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

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.

More generally, I do not make mistake regarding the size to adopt.

Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on such a nice build. It overall looks aesthetically pleasing. I am impressed the hip joint is articulated as well, kudos on that! *edit/forgot* Secondly, that snowspeeder is brilliantly small, it is done really well especially for its size, which I think is a good accurate representation!

But please do not take this the wrong way, I feel your thoughts to the AT-AT being as detail accurate as possible for its 'size' being correct, is in fact, incorrect.

I feel largely inclined to side on Aeroeza's opinions about your AT-AT.

While perfect for a higher detailed system scaled set, does not meet what I would believe to be UCS detail.

Firstly, blatantly jumping out at me is the side armour plates. In the central body armour plate, I see you used the 6x4 tiled pieces with a few studs around the edge to represent the loading bay doors. If these are used to represent the loading bay doors and the hatches, why do you have 2 of them in the upper center armour panel, where there is only supposed to be one escape hatch?

You then have the 'ladder steps' just to the right of them. They simply do not go as far up as you have made them to. They only go up to the top of the loading bay doors, or, just below half the body height. For something that is so detailed compared to other 'UCS' AT-ATs, I feel that is a hugely visible mistake to make on something which is supposed to be focused on detail and getting detail correct.

The atmosphere intake slope (and the one on opposite side) isn't really matched in scale to the rest of it. They are too small.

There are random bits of 1x2 tile with grill and lever on the rear side armour plate which don't accurately represent any particular detail but are just added for 'random feel' of detail.

The head I feel is far off being close in detail to an AT-AT head. It just has 2 sides, a top, a front, and an underneath to it. There isn't really anything that shouts it is detailed to be an AT-AT head, other than having the same guns on it, and the viewing port. The front of the head is just far too thin/narrow. It needs to be wider. The detail on the head is far too minimal and not closely related. The hump on the top is just 1 tile tall. The hump on an actual AT-AT is more prominent than any other detail on it, but on yours, it just feels as though it is more of the 'random detailing' because it is the same thickness as the rest of your random detailing(1 plate/tile width tall), it is not actually prominent at all.

I feel as though any form of detailing for the underside of the head has been totally ignored. The chin gun mountings are huge circular mounts/laser battery cells. I see none of that (in any circular form).

The side guns have greebling which look nice, but just don't look detailed close enough to the real thing. They are only a little bit too long, as they do come out further than the head as they should, but using the 2x cone brick pieces make the tips look far too big than they should be. It should remain close to the size of bar they are pushed onto. So perhaps a 1 1/2 tecnic pin would be better suited. The same goes for the targeting rangefinder on top of the side guns. They also have a cone brick on them which makes it far bigger than it should be on the head.

On the top rear panel on the 'real' AT-AT there is an awful lot of greebling on roughly 1/4 of it ( http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/kg_at-at_-041.jpg ). This has not even been attempted This part has a lot of potential and especially at your scale/previous proven ability.

''I did the whole interior in the body. I tried to be as accurate as possible. I did some redesign, though.''

That is a complete redesign.

You either are being as accurate as possible, or you are not. You can't be accurately different!

I feel as overall, (not including the legs, they are fine) you are just meeting the standard basic shape, and not putting effort into making this as detailed as you claim it to be. I do not feel it is anywhere near good enough in detail to be called UCS

I quote what Cavegod said, "I'd suggest you start again from the legs up". The neck pieces are looking good so keep them

I feel that due to your thinking of 'big isn't better', it has severely hindered an authentically felt 'highly detailed UCS'. In this case, small isn't better either. Making it to be your 'small' while meeting an optimized piece count has actually compromised its priority of detailing for accuracy, as well as the lack of detail effort in the first place.

I'm sorry if this sounds too harsh or blunt, is just meant as constructive critisism, without sugar coating it.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[Siegfried]

OK THANKS,but since when does everybody have something constructive to say?

...and so the tale of lego envy comes to a close.

[Ishv-viss-j]

Erdbeereis didn't say that everybody has something constructive to say.

Praise, for example, isn't constructive. The point is that it doesn't have to be: Anio is informed that the guy in question likes his build, which informs Anio's action to the extent that nothing has to be changed.

You, on the other hand, simply expressed that you don't like Anio's build. That's not critics, but a simple rant: Anio is informed that you would like to have something changed, but his action is not informed, that means he doesn't know in which way his build could be changed in order to remove the aspects you don't like.

In other words: you didn't give him the opportunity to evaluate the causes of your dislike and to change his build - if he finds that what you say is true or at least appropriate.

Ah, what memories.

To expand on what you said in the first part of your post, I see two kinds of praise – useful and pointless. I’ve always felt that praise is welcomed on LEGO forums so long as there’s some specificity and sincerity on the part of the person giving it. While every MOC has its good and bad points, no MOCer is perfect, and vague, generic praise like “Awesome!” and “Love it!” don’t help that MOCer at all. What’s more, you can write “Awesome!” or “Love it!” in maybe two seconds without even having to look at that creation, which comes across to me as being disrespectful of that MOCer’s efforts.

On the other hand, comments such as “I like the way you ____” or “Really good job on the ____” actually tell the MOCer what he or she did ‘right’ and become useful feedback.

I once saw a kid at the library who was frantically typing “cool” as a comment on every single post made on her wall. ‘What an incredibly stupid thing to do’, I thought. ‘She should at least read the posts and make a relevant comment.’

Lastly, I feel that one of the benefits of sharing a creation on a LEGO forum is being able to receive feedback from people who understand the building process and the kinds of efforts needed to achieve such a build. I’m sure that if Piratedave84 had chosen to post this creation on Flickr rather than Eurobricks he would have received “Awesome!”-type comments there as well. Those aren’t unique to LEGO sites. Posts like the one Fuppylodders made above, on the other hand, are part of what makes Eurobricks special for sharing creations.

There was a good discussion on this a while back, which can be found here.

[Erdbeereis]

OK THANKS,but since when does everybody have something constructive to say?

Let's have a chat.

Ishv-viss-j, you have explained it pretty well.

[Anio]

Firstly, blatantly jumping out at me is the side armour plates. In the central body armour plate, I see you used the 6x4 tiled pieces with a few studs around the edge to represent the loading bay doors. If these are used to represent the loading bay doors and the hatches, why do you have 2 of them in the upper center armour panel, where there is only supposed to be one escape hatch?

You then have the 'ladder steps' just to the right of them. They simply do not go as far up as you have made them to. They only go up to the top of the loading bay doors, or, just below half the body height. For something that is so detailed compared to other 'UCS' AT-ATs, I feel that is a hugely visible mistake to make on something which is supposed to be focused on detail and getting detail correct.

The 4x6 tiles give a very good balance between studded and tiled surface. So, this part is very convenient to "play" with the textures.

I do not care of the bay doors which can not be opened in anyway on a MOC of that size. And please, don't tell me official models have bay doors. -_-'

That kind of bay doors is not decent for a UCS model.

With that observation, it becomes more important to focus on the overall look of the side panel in the whole MOC.

The atmosphere intake slope (and the one on opposite side) isn't really matched in scale to the rest of it. They are too small.

There are random bits of 1x2 tile with grill and lever on the rear side armour plate which don't accurately represent any particular detail but are just added for 'random feel' of detail.

They represent the spirit of what you can see on the real model.

To be honnest, I'm getting borred that everytime I present a MOC, I have to explains to Star Wars geeks that a Lego MOCer is not a model maker.

The head I feel is far off being close in detail to an AT-AT head. It just has 2 sides, a top, a front, and an underneath to it. There isn't really anything that shouts it is detailed to be an AT-AT head, other than having the same guns on it, and the viewing port. The front of the head is just far too thin/narrow. It needs to be wider. The detail on the head is far too minimal and not closely related. The hump on the top is just 1 tile tall. The hump on an actual AT-AT is more prominent than any other detail on it, but on yours, it just feels as though it is more of the 'random detailing' because it is the same thickness as the rest of your random detailing(1 plate/tile width tall), it is not actually prominent at all.

About the hump on the roof : if I make it 1 plate thicker, the "stair syndrome" appears. And this is terrible on any MOC (excepted sculptures).

More generally, I challenge anyone to do

- a head of the same size (6 studs height + DBG chassis)

- which is hinged with the neck

- in which 3 minifigs can fit in (2 of them have to be able to seat)

- with some control screens

- with the roof that can be easily removed to access the interior

- and of course with no illegal build.

Take you bricks (it is not a problem if you do not have the right colors), and have a try. For fun. ;)

I feel as though any form of detailing for the underside of the head has been totally ignored. The chin gun mountings are huge circular mounts/laser battery cells. I see none of that (in any circular form).

Again, including the big round parts there would have been ugly.

But again, you can try that when you do the head (if you try ! ). :p

The side guns have greebling which look nice, but just don't look detailed close enough to the real thing. They are only a little bit too long, as they do come out further than the head as they should, but using the 2x cone brick pieces make the tips look far too big than they should be. It should remain close to the size of bar they are pushed onto. So perhaps a 1 1/2 tecnic pin would be better suited. The same goes for the targeting rangefinder on top of the side guns. They also have a cone brick on them which makes it far bigger than it should be on the head.

Regarding the cones, they aim at reproducing the nozzle. So no, Technic pin would not work here.

For the other things you explained :

"To be honnest, I'm getting borred that everytime I present a MOC, I have to explains to Star Wars geeks that a Lego MOCer is not a model maker. "

On the top rear panel on the 'real' AT-AT there is an awful lot of greebling on roughly 1/4 of it ( http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/kg_at-at_-041.jpg ). This has not even been attempted This part has a lot of potential and especially at your scale/previous proven ability.

C'mon guy ! Where did you get that crapy pic ?

Back to the MOC itself. Adding greebs there would add a an extra thickness which is not welcome.

More generally, it does not look very good when greebs protrude on the surface where they are located. The best thing is to incorporate then in the surface where they are. And sadly, this is not possible here because of the 4x9 plates which are absolutely necessary to bring the right angle.

''I did the whole interior in the body. I tried to be as accurate as possible. I did some redesign, though.''

That is a complete redesign.

You either are being as accurate as possible, or you are not. You can't be accurately different!

And this is where you are totally wrong mate.

If someone wants to explain...

I'm kind of tired to explain that kind of thing. Moreoever in English, which is pretty hard for me given that it is more like a concept.

I feel as overall, (not including the legs, they are fine) you are just meeting the standard basic shape, and not putting effort into making this as detailed as you claim it to be. I do not feel it is anywhere near good enough in detail to be called UCS

Nothing to say about that. You think it is not good enough to be UCS.

I think it well deserve the UCS label. :)

Fine.

I feel that due to your thinking of 'big isn't better', it has severely hindered an authentically felt 'highly detailed UCS'. In this case, small isn't better either. Making it to be your 'small' while meeting an optimized piece count has actually compromised its priority of detailing for accuracy, as well as the lack of detail effort in the first place.

Disagreed of course.

Though, I have to specify that my models are not meant to be only accurate. Wanting accuracy is fine, but not enough for me.

I want my build to be strong, optimised, no illegal build. I always want a good balance between tiles and studs, as well as the use of some right pieces at the right place.

For example, my AT-AT MUST have the SW printed dishes on the leg. From that point, one of the question is : "How do I proceed then ?"

Accuracy is only one of the part of a MOC. At least regarding my MOCs.

Eventually, very few of what you say is acceptable IMO. The major criticism I totally accept (and you didn't mention...) is the "hips/shoulders" which may be too long. My goal was too make big shoulder for the vehicle to seem to have big "muscles".

To sum up,

You seem to know a lot about Star Wars vehicle. Probably more than I will ever know.

But trust me, regarding the Lego MOCs and what a built involve, much to learn you still have.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Anio

[cavegod]

Anio

Rose tinted glasses, rose tinted glasses.....

Take em off and look at it with clear vision and you will see the error of your ways.

[Mr Man]

I really like it . I initially though that the legs where too long for the size of the body, but looking at the other pics they look fine. I like the interior, the bley does look nice. The snowspeeder is a good touch as well.

[Darth Dino]

Hi

unfortunately i feel people do more disagree with Anio himself and his way how he presents and defenses his spectacular UCS MOCs more then the MOCs itself.

Please keep in mind he is (like me and many others here around) not a native english speaker. Beside this his MOCs (all of them) are very good. This one too. There might be tons of changes that in the eye of the beholder will add more preciseness or more detail. But who cares? I think most people who "critizise" his MOCs are mostly doining that because Anio presents them as "perfect" (in his definition).

Guys, he spents lot of time for those MOCs they are his babies ;) And they are beatuful ones :)

Please all dont be rude - and Anio, keep Mocing and posting here.

Dino

Edited April 23, 2012 by Darth Dino

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

This is my favorite imperial weapon and this great MOC looks like the real one in the movie!

SUPERB WORK!

The UCS display card is a great touch!!!

[Fuppylodders]

The 4x6 tiles give a very good balance between studded and tiled surface. So, this part is very convenient to "play" with the textures.

I do not care of the bay doors which can not be opened in anyway on a MOC of that size. And please, don't tell me official models have bay doors. -_-'

That kind of bay doors is not decent for a UCS model.

With that observation, it becomes more important to focus on the overall look of the side panel in the whole MOC.

They represent the spirit of what you can see on the real model.

On the 'real model' my overall look is there are a handful of parallel vents, and one big bay door and 3 escape hatches. That is what anyone sees when they look at it. Going by your 'overall representation', you have put a ladder over half way up to the model which doesn't go anywhere. If you are using those 6x4 plates as texture players, then that is fine because they do work really well like that, but you are now adding in detail using the 1x2 grills where detail is not and so detracting from what you yourself are trying to portray. Just because something can not be opened/moved does not mean it should be totally disregarded and have other random bits of 'detail' added in its place. It can be represented very easily by other means, instead.

To be honnest, I'm getting borred that everytime I present a MOC, I have to explains to Star Wars geeks that a Lego MOCer is not a model maker.

Firstly, I am not a Star Wars geek, no much more than you probably are, you probably know more about it than I do. However I have studied in much detail the AT-AT from various sources to make my own UCS AT-AT. A Lego MOCer is not a model maker, nope, I totally agree and that there are compromises to be made. But a UCS MOCer is most certainly someone that attempts to get correct detailing because UCS isn't just about the size, but detail too. You have missed/ignored/changed detail that is very easily simple to adapt/change/add which would portray very strong features of something which should be portrayed on a UCS version. Now if it was a system set, Id say you did a brilliant job, crack open the wine!

About the hump on the roof : if I make it 1 plate thicker, the "stair syndrome" appears. And this is terrible on any MOC (excepted sculptures).

More generally, I challenge anyone to do

- a head of the same size (6 studs height + DBG chassis)

- which is hinged with the neck

- in which 3 minifigs can fit in (2 of them have to be able to seat)

- with some control screens

- with the roof that can be easily removed to access the interior

- and of course with no illegal build.

Take you bricks (it is not a problem if you do not have the right colors), and have a try. For fun. ;)

in all fairness, I feel the body and head are, if anything slightly too small for the legs and so limiting yourself to the 6 stud high head is already forcibly creating an issue. Especially when you are making it with pure flat plates with no other angles to represent the curvature of the head whatsoever. Of course then you will have problems, but accept that it will not be very representative then and state this, instead of stating it is very accurate. 6 studs high is fine, but only 5 studs wide at the top? You are almost working with a square shaped head with the flair to the bottom, not a retangular shape with a flare that it should be, if doing something classed as 'UCS'.

As for the hump, I can't fix what your stubbornness isn't allowing you to be more flexible with. Only you are giving yourself that problem, which is limiting you to only have a (overall) rectangular shaped head. Heck, even this part here would at least represent something, and not be out of proportion to your current head. if not, then I'm sure these would work well instead: this or even these or finally these with a tile behind it and then another of this behind that

Again, including the big round parts there would have been ugly.

But again, you can try that when you do the head (if you try ! ). :p

That almost feels like elitist arrogance there...

Here is my current progress of my own UCS AT-AT.. Here is a more complete view of my current progress on it so far in LDD, which includes head, legs, body, belly sides, interior, all at minifig scale. It is not complete as I hit a wall with something and as I have no money to fund its real life progress I am working on another LDD project while this takes a back seat for the time being. But I have at least attempted to address every part of detail that is significant to represent something for a UCS version. No it isn't perfect, but I've made the attempt to accurately represent many things. No illegal builds, and it is minifig scale. Reference that I used was h here . That is very closely accurate (but also wrong in some places which I addressed on my own AT-AT) to the film version.

You can compare each of our versions and see which resembles it more. Mine is not perfect by no means, but I have run out of money to go further due to redundancy and there are a few things I am still looking to address on it to make it more accurate (example my forward legs are currently too far forward but I know I can move them back by removing one of the connecting 6x6 clear technic brick things or shortening the engine block itself).

Regarding the cones, they aim at reproducing the nozzle. So no, Technic pin would not work here.

Technic pins easily work, not all nozzles are cone shaped. Your chin guns are fine, the nozzle on it also works well. But the side guns and the range finder look too big with the 'cone nozzles'.

For the other things you explained :

"To be honnest, I'm getting borred that everytime I present a MOC, I have to explains to Star Wars geeks that a Lego MOCer is not a model maker. "

C'mon guy ! Where did you get that crapy pic ?

From the studio model. ie, the thing you are apparently trying to represent in Lego.

Back to the MOC itself. Adding greebs there would add a an extra thickness which is not welcome.

More generally, it does not look very good when greebs protrude on the surface where they are located. The best thing is to incorporate then in the surface where they are. And sadly, this is not possible here because of the 4x9 plates which are absolutely necessary to bring the right angle.

Are they in the way of the very rear 4x6 plate that is at the very back? Surely it is possible to simply just remove that plate, add a couple of fixings underneath so you can now work with the greebles at the same level as the top plate rather than on top of the plate?

And this is where you are totally wrong mate.

If someone could please explain to me how it is possible to represent the real model by totally changing the layout of the interior and accept it as an accurate representation, please do tell me, in all seriousness. I am also bearing in mind you are only attempting to work in the center section of the troop bay(fair enough, I have no concern there), not the forward or rear, so I am not on about those areas, just the center.

If someone wants to explain...

I'm kind of tired to explain that kind of thing. Moreoever in English, which is pretty hard for me given that it is more like a concept.

Nothing to say about that. You think it is not good enough to be UCS.

I think it well deserve the UCS label. :)

Fine.

I think it deserves a good system set label. It is lacking too much detail to be considered (in my opinion) a UCS.

Disagreed of course.

Though, I have to specify that my models are not meant to be only accurate. Wanting accuracy is fine, but not enough for me.

I want my build to be strong, optimised, no illegal build. I always want a good balance between tiles and studs, as well as the use of some right pieces at the right place.

For example, my AT-AT MUST have the SW printed dishes on the leg. From that point, one of the question is : "How do I proceed then ?"

Accuracy is only one of the part of a MOC. At least regarding my MOCs.

I understand about strong build, with accuracy, balance between tiles and studs. Nothing wrong with mixing tiles and studs, as you said, it creates a good play on the texture. It just seems that it is like anything you came across, you just accepted it as impossible to do so just stuck some random thing there... (or nothing at all) and moved on to the next piece.

You mentioned the printed dishes, I have nothing against that, you achieved that result very well. The rest above the legs though, is just like, 'it looks brilliant if you twist your head left and right while blinking and waving your hand in front of your face and glance at it' kinda thing.

Eventually, very few of what you say is acceptable IMO. The major criticism I totally accept (and you didn't mention...) is the "hips/shoulders" which may be too long. My goal was too make big shoulder for the vehicle to seem to have big "muscles".

I didn't mention it because someone already had mentioned that criticism so there was no point repeating it. I have also come across the problem of my front legs being too far forward on my version, but I am willing to address this issue when I come to make it, I already know how to fix it.

To sum up,

You seem to know a lot about Star Wars vehicle. Probably more than I will ever know.

Highly doubt that, I just researched the AT-AT as extensively as I could while designing my own UCS version, and have attempted to get as much correct detail as possible, and when coming across problems, I try to address them, not see them as impossibilities that are fine to leave regardless however much they look wrong.

But trust me, regarding the Lego MOCs and what a built involve, much to learn you still have.

I most certainly do have much to learn, a HUGE amount in fact, but I am not totally ignorant as it appears you believe me to be. But I think you also need to learn about flexibility of solving issues when it comes to making something UCS size, then posting it on a forum which is asking for criticism and not accepting it. It is also about compromises. Cavegod's AT-AT was so huge, and brilliantly detailed and flawless on the outside, yet the inside he didn't even attempt to do the interior (other than the head) because he compromised that the support strength was better to have than throw too much detail inside it as well. My compromises are my head might not be perfectly 'square shape' free, but I have done my best attempt to show the curves. I have also compromised on the fact that I will have 1 illegal build (I think it is classed as an illegal build) to show the increase in angle upwards where the front section of the body meets the middle section of the body because it is a detail I feel often missed out that I would like to show.

I responded in red inside the quoted text from you.

At the end of the day, this is your MOC.

But this is my constructive criticism for which are things I feel are incorrect/could easily be represented/changed or whatever, which it appears you do not like to hear any of...

And my opinion won't change because no matter how much I twist my head left and right while blinking and waving my hands in front of my eyes, I can still see a lot of things that could do with addressing.

*edit* @Darth Dino

I'm not going to lie and not criticise, but instead post 'awesome job dude!' just to boost ego for the wrong reasons or because I don't want to hurt his feelings or because it is his baby. I genuinely feel there are things wrong with this that are major design flaws, not simple minuscule things. When making a simple moc, that's fine. But when classing it as UCS, you now set yourself a much higher barrier of detail to achieve. I am not being rude by constructively critising.

If I post a moc, I will take all the criticism I can to not only better myself, but better the model itself. The criticism isn't thrown about for the sake of it, people usually criticise for reasons.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[Erdbeereis]

Guys, you are getting close to crossing the line. Constructive criticism is fine, but at a certain point, it's better to just accept that you might have differing opinions. If Anio is happy with his MOC, then I say good for him.

[Anio]

Sorry, I don't read anymore that kind geek post:

Just read two line in the end. I saw the word "compromise".

I know what compromise is.

Compromise is the necessity to find the best way to build between :

- accuracy

- good lego looking (which is defintely totally different from accuracy)

- stability of the model

- strength of the MOC

- playability (not much for this MOC, except the roof of the snowspeeder, and the removable panels)

- no illegal connection (and for me, no old parts too)

- part count used (and in some extent, ref count used)

- using the good parts at the right place (SW printed dishes, and no other dish)

- include some absolutely necessary features (hinges on the ankles, knees, hips and neck for an AT-AT, for example)

- in some extent, modularity (I can remove the leg easily for example ; they are only put on an axle with stop (the stop is inside) ; some for the head)

- depending on the MOC, including minifigs.

Most criticaster take only accuracy into account.

All MOCer take accuracy into account. Many (didn't say "Most") of them take stability of the model into account. Some of them take strength of the build into account. Very few of them take the other parameters into account.

I do.

End of story bro.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Erdbeereis
Removed image

[marshal_banana]

I really like it! But well, it's hard to stand out with an AT AT, there are already about 5 really good MOCs around. (That's actually why I didn't build one my selves) This is really good work, I don't understand the hate here!

[Fuppylodders]

**edited out**

@Marshal_Banana

I'm not hating it, I'm only pointing out things I feel could be improved. I don't know when pointing out more than 1 improvement became such a crime

Edited April 23, 2012 by Fuppylodders