gaut1202
-
Content Count
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About gaut1202
- Birthday 02/12/1999
Recent Profile Visitors
1153 profile views
-
[MOD] UCS Slave 1 (anti-droop/bend when on stand)
gaut1202 replied to ArchieNov's topic in LEGO Star Wars
Well if it happens for others, there is no reason it won't happen to you, in more or less big proportions => But you can try some MODs described in this topic, if you have some parts to make MOCs and a bit of time, try an even better modification described previously by Anio. -
[MOD] UCS Slave 1 (anti-droop/bend when on stand)
gaut1202 replied to ArchieNov's topic in LEGO Star Wars
+1 to both of you above. I thought that the sidepanels were slipping downwards because of they connexion to the tail, but in fact, it is the whole structure that is slipping, which is finally the same problem. It means that the structure is not adapted to the tail, surently the most beautiful part of the set. When I first saw this picture, I reckoned that the structure was well thought : But there is an obvious problem : both arms on each side pointing upwards are not in a conventional direction. Ok, it's not a problem. But there is room for play, with the fact that technic beams are used and that the tail is pulling everything downwards. -
[MOD] UCS Slave 1 (anti-droop/bend when on stand)
gaut1202 replied to ArchieNov's topic in LEGO Star Wars
Really a huge gap, which is very surprising for an official model. But I don't understand one thing : is the connexion between the tail and the body already forcing right after the finshed build with the ball joints and clip connexions ? They are for sure angles which are out of the Lego system. If it does, how could it be validated in the production process ? Ball joints offer many possibilities, but can they be considered as usable when linked to heavy elements, such as the tail here ? I never used these kind of parts. And last but not least, was this gap really noticed during the design process ? If yes, what were the solutions you could offer to solve it ? I'm pretty sure that with the variety of tests and TLC expectations you were praising, you could have anticipated it. And it shouldn't be taken as a sad fact. To me, it means that TLC doesn't care about quality, and sells unfinished, botched products. The worse is that it's not the only model to suffer from design problems, and we can only hope to encounter as many exceptions as already seen in the past in the future. And I didn't even mentioned the #10221, made by the guy who designed the #10215 and #10240, which are both excellent sets. So where does the responsability in a design process of both TLC and the designer begins or ends ? Nevertheless, there are still very good, well thought, simple and clever models. I'm only looking forward to seeing these kinds of sets to be still produced :) . -
Hi Dan, love it, simple yet cute, good job ! You had the perfect piece for the eye, and the head is well designed, with nice curves. The round wings for the body match perfectly. For R2 : couldn't you design a new head for it ? It's too blocky and the eye is far too small, I would rather prefer a more cartoon, recognisable one. I took a look at your Flickr and was glad to see that you have continued to produce excellent work, amazing architecture MOCs and others, your Wall E is adorable. Sad not to be able to discuss about them on another forum, but that's another topic ;) . What's your next MOC ? Brick on !
-
Ok, it do look much better but with the central collar less (only the for- and backward parts), it could become even better, and you could than use plates to control the width. I can understand for the tiles on the top, but not on the bottom of the body and on the legs. It's not really smoothly incorporated there. Which explains the alvailbility of colours and the LBG version, to be more affordable than an other version .
-
Hi Dan, Nice MOC, cool that you managed to get a 3PO for your R2. You built it at scale and the final result is quite interesting, good job ! Despite of that, three points : - As Beaver said for the hands, robot arms (exo force) could be much better, there are alvaible in gold and silver for both versions. - The head is too big, too long. 1 stud less longer would be better. You just have too many details there. For example, the jumper creates a caricatual nose. - Why did you decide not to show studs ? Because of the tiles on the torso, it seems too blocky. Still, the articultions give to the MOC a lot of playability, which was I think your first goal to match with R2, and you rendered a lot of areas really well ;) .
-
Version 2 looks definetly better. You only have to use trans black cheese slopes and not to use plates on the top of the windscreen to hold it : than this cockpit will be perfect !
-
Amaizing MOC of course, detailed and with good ideas. Great work on the reactors ! Trying to improve the cockpit with a SNOT version should be the best way to get a better one. Maybe you'll have to make few scale adjustments, but if you manage to build the right cockpit you wont regret it. What about using the #10212 windscreen with a SNOT armature for the sides ? Do not hesitate to show your trials with other pieces here. Also, not a fan of the wings to make a dark red curve, but an intelligent compromise. A SNOT with arches coud, at this scale, be useful.
-
In fact, TennorPenny, the color scheme plays a big role for little city MOCs. It's even more eye catching to have a colored version. But the color choice was decided by the Citroën 2CV green Charleston scheme from my uncles car, translated in LEGO colors. Yes Headbrick, I agree, but to me it was more important to have a strong and detailed 2CV than one with a mimifig, but weaker. You might can manage to put one I inside, but than or with a higher roof, or without seat or with a deeper seat position. Thanks a lot for sharing Cunctator ! It's not exactly the same, but looks great too ;) !
-
Thanks Henrik :) . Your MOC was a good size indication with the wheels and the jumper making the 5th plate with rail. At the time you built yours, a lot of the pieces I used were not alvaible too. No problem Alex ;) .
-
Thanks again ! HeadBrick, here is a comparison between my actual, NanoCs and my previous front axle building technique. You can see that the two first vehicles can roll. The first one thanks to the round tiles 1x1 and the second thanks to the gaps. The last version might look better, but can't roll on the ground because the 1x1 tiles block the wheels. I did not wanted NanoCs gaps, so I came to the version without gaps with 1x1 round tiles. Yes, the car is kind of playable, even though you can't put a minfigure in it : not high enough. Still, it remains swooshable and detailed . I really wanted to use the 4x6 roof. If you need a minifig, than MisterZumbis roof is a good solution. I uploaded a new LDD file on my Bricksafe, a white version, without the Charleston colour scheme if you don't need it.
-
Thanks Guys for your comments ! Glad you like it ! Alex 54, do not hesitate to pm me or to post here later if you manage to build my version. Antp, I paint pieces only when they are not producted by LEGO. The painted pieces are in official LEGO colours. Also, I wanted this 2CV to have the same colors as the one from my uncle, it was originally built for him. It's a pleasure for me to share the files, if you can use them than it is even better ;) !
-
Hello all, I present you here an old car you can easily see in France, my version of the famous Citroën 2CV. I saw those ones, which inspired my version on some points : MisterZumbi : Henrik Hoexbroe : and NanoC : I wanted mine to be playable, without illegal builds, accurate and strong. So here it is : 11.7 cm long, 4 cm large and 5 cm high. The dark and light green pieces are painted ones. On some pieces, you can see that I could have paint them better ... There is a beautiful contrast between the dark and light green and the grey and transparent elements. It can roll on the floor without problems thanks to the 1x1 round tiles, that don't block the front wheels. With details such as lights, an interior or rear-view mirrors, it is kind of realistic. Technically, it is quite simple, there are only three SNOTs, here is an LDD screen of one of them : An LDD file and PDF instructions are alvaible on my Bricksafe gallery. There you will also find bigger photos. This MOC was basically build for my uncle, who also has a 2CV, but a real one, with the same color sheme. It's going to be his christmas present ! As always, comments, remarks and suggestion are welcome .
-
It's sure that this model looks amaizing. But it is as amazing than impossible to build in real bricks. - The bionicle connection between the legs and the cabin would not support the weight of the cabin. - Using a 3L Technic cross axle for the feet will not hold the positions of the legs straight. Everithing would fall. So if someone wants to rebuild it : Without a holder/stand, There are no chance to have the same modell. Still, your version shows a lot of interesting building possibilities. The main problem is that you gave the detail of a collector scale into a smaller, "playable" close to minifigure scale. At such a scale, the model has to be playable, to be able to adopt a few positions, for example. It's possible with your MOC, but here the legs would not be capable to move corectly. In facts, for every step, too many pieces would fall from the model. There is a too big contrast. Great work, but it remains what it is : an LDD model, not tested in real conditions.
-
[MOC] All Terrain Dewbacked Transporter (Techlug contest 12)
gaut1202 replied to gaut1202's topic in LEGO Star Wars
Thanks guys for your answers ! ZBLJ, on Techlug other said te same, but I think my MOC does not have the main caracteristics of a dog, I would have build my walker really differently if I had liked to make it looking like a dog. But in some positions, I can understand what you mean. WarSquirrel, thanks for your comment, seems that my goal is partielly reached.