Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LordsofMedieval

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm just going to chime in and say that I'm not a huge fan of the font. Does it enrage me? No. But it's not... it's just not a very nice looking text. That's all.
  2. I, for one, appreciate the potent irony of an artistic triumph in replicating an engineering disaster. It's like this conflict of good/Lego/creator vs Musk/Tesla/LI batteries.
  3. LordsofMedieval

    <moc> NYC 4-8-2 Million Dollar Rexall Train

    Thanks mate. And I wasn't trying to be harsh in any way - just explain why I did the things the way I did. I frankly don't like compromise when it comes to these models (and am totally open to suggestion as to improvements). But with these freaking streamlined engines... heh... it seems every time I'm having to split the baby in two on multiple issues. With the beak shape in particular, it bothers me immensely that I can't somehow scallop in the lower portion like it is on the real thing. But the moment I start introducing the necessary angles, the eye is drawn to it for all the wrong reasons.
  4. LordsofMedieval

    <moc> NYC 4-8-2 Million Dollar Rexall Train

    I don't think there's any way to effectively accomplish the beak, but I'll take another look at it. The problem with Lego contours is that you rapidly arrive at a point where you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. While I may be able to make a more beak-like shape for the base of the nose, it will almost certainly introduce seams, breaks and steps in the shape... which the prototype doesn't have, either. At that juncture, is it worth sacrificing smoothness for something that might be technically closer to the real thing in another way? As for changes with the side panels, the short answer is: no. I can't lower them without lowering the shroud to the rear of drivers and the front - both of which would compromise the function of the lead and trailing bogies. The heavyness at the front is specifically due to wanting to accomplish something like the original while still allowing the bogie to swivel (and take the paneling with it). I also really wanted to include that curving 'indent' under the cylinders where it bows inwards to meet the beak. The only way I could see to do that was with 2x3 slope pieces, but they needed space for mounting, and that meant pushing the overall beginning of the upslope rearwards.
  5. LordsofMedieval

    <moc> Union Pacific MT-1 4-8-2 #7002 '49er'

    Naw, those are way too big (and I think I read that their pin holes are in a bad place, or something?). I'd just use custom 3d printed ones like most folks on here.
  6. LordsofMedieval

    <moc> NYC 4-8-2 Million Dollar Rexall Train

    Eh. I have nothing better to do. I have Covid; I'm in quarantine. Here it is lengthened. I think this is closer?
  7. LordsofMedieval

    <moc> NYC 4-8-2 Million Dollar Rexall Train

    Here's the length thing illustrated slightly (and also embarrassing insight into how anal I am with these things): So, on the all the photos, each red line is the same length as its counterpart: they measure the distance from the 'start' of the square portion of the cab to the end of the rear driver, then again from the end of the rear driver to however far it gets on the third driver. As you can see, on this model (though not others :/) and the real thing, the length from the cab to the back of the rear driver is to juusssssssst past the axle of the third driver. On the model, it's on the other side - barely less than 1 stud. Considering that the wheels themselves are precisely to scale, I'm inclined to lengthen it one stud based on this evidence. Thoughts?
  8. LordsofMedieval

    <moc> NYC 4-8-2 Million Dollar Rexall Train

    I experimented with that briefly, but the long and short is that the 2x3 wedge plate cannot be mounted without interfering with the driver/running gear. The 2x4 was a compromise :/. *Edit* NM, I got it. I dunno. I personally think the problem somehow relates to the wheels looking so small. I don't know why they look small, but they do. And they definitely don't on the real engine. Another weird bit about this engine is the front, which - again, to me - looks more angled in the photographs I've found than the model. But, when lined up on the best side-on references I possess, the angle I've got is within a degree or so of being correct. Overall, I am really satisfied with the thing, though.
  9. I need the community's help with this one. My eyes are telling that the locomotive is too short by about 1 stud - specifically in the area between the end of the last driving wheel and the front of the cab. However, measurements involving every model I could find (most, unfortunately, unshrouded, though that shouldn't make a difference since the cab was not lengthened) indicate that I have things right as they are. Part of the problem would, at first glance, appear to be that the driving wheels are too small. However, the inverted standard drivers are actually exactly 69" in the scale I am working in - a perfect match for the real thing. So, in this case, especially, using the wheels as a baseline to determine proportions should be rock-solid. Yet, here I am with nagging doubts. So... am I just seeing ghosts? Or is the engine really a stud short? A number of blue and white stickers would be necessary to fix the trim here and there. Also, the entire front pilot (with the blue shrouding) free-pivots, so I believe the model would have no issue negotiating most larger-radius Lego tracks. Funnily enough, I lack any photo reference for the rear off the tender, so I had to take an educated guess on that one :/. I'm not sure a picture of the back actually exists, but I spent about an hour scouring the web last night just in case. Lastly, yes, there are two gaps at the front of the engine - I don't think there's any legal solution to filling them. When I build it, I'm going to just create some custom pieces to shove in there.
  10. LordsofMedieval

    [MOC] F-4C & F-4J 'Phantom II' Fighter Jet Pair

    I like the Navy one better simply because it makes all the great contours and lines stand out more.
  11. LordsofMedieval

    [MOC] Mandalorian's N-1 Starfighter

    Supremely better than the original.
  12. LordsofMedieval

    Fondor Haulcraft - where’s the MOCS?

    This has bern kind of thread-derailing (my fault [and I don't just mean the above quote, but my stuff too]), so I'll leave off on any further debate here. Sorry to the OP for the distraction.
  13. LordsofMedieval

    Fondor Haulcraft - where’s the MOCS?

    In a galaxy of hundreds of trillions, where moon-sized battle stations and capital ships can literally obliterate the population of entire worlds; where space combat and hyperspeed has existed for thousands of years, nobody ever... ever considered jumping to lightspeed to destroy their enemy? I mean, you can't argue that people didn't employ self sacrifice, because Arvel Crynyd did it. And every piece of canon information that we possess declares that the deed was voluntary - he was on a one-way trip of his own accord. You can like the new movies - nobody is telling you what to or not enjoy. But I'm never going to do anything but roll my eyes at this particular plot hole. Because it was glaring. And Poe's 'okay, all better' statement was like slapping a bandaid on a missing limb.
  14. LordsofMedieval

    Fondor Haulcraft - where’s the MOCS?

    Poe - I think? (I haven't watched the movie after The Last Jedi bloodied my fandom so bad) - actually says it was a "one in a million" chance in Rise of Skywalker. That was one of JJ's "outs" for Rian Johnson's many, many unsolvable lore issues introduced in TLJ. This isn't in anyway exonerate JJ "somehow, Palpatine returned" Abrams... merely acknowledging that he was left with a mess, and that was his explanation to solve the riddle as to why all capital ships aren't simply kamikaze'd by drone-flown vessels with hyperdrives. Ultimately, the issue here is fairly simple: well-written fantasy respects its own rules, and doesn't do things simply because they look neat - especially if those things would cause all kinds of continuity issues that past and future content will have to explain. There are thousands of easy (some smart; some stupid) explanations you could provide to someone asking why the ships in Star Wars didn't do the Holdo Maneuver... until we saw the Holdo Maneuver performed on what appeared to be a whim. And then, suddenly, there was the cat, not only out of the bag but fixing itself a sandwich while hissing.
  15. LordsofMedieval

    Fondor Haulcraft - where’s the MOCS?

    I still think this falls under the "rule of cool," which seems to govern everything the mouse owns of late. On the flip side of the coin, the base design of the ship is really neat - kind of a squished Falcon. And @azanderk's initial work on that cockpit is freaking inspired MOCing. Very impressed.