Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'modified'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Frontpage, Forum Information and General LEGO Discussion
    • Guest Section - PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU REGISTER!
    • Frontpage News
    • Forum Information and Help
    • General LEGO Discussion
    • The Embassy
  • Themes
    • LEGO Licensed
    • LEGO Star Wars
    • LEGO Historic Themes
    • LEGO Action and Adventure Themes
    • LEGO Pirates
    • LEGO Sci-Fi
    • LEGO Town
    • LEGO Train Tech
    • LEGO Technic, Mindstorms & Model Team
    • LEGO Scale Modeling
    • LEGO Action Figures
    • Special LEGO Themes
  • Special Interests
    • Minifig Customisation Workshop
    • LEGO Digital Designer and other digital tools
    • Brick Flicks & Comics
    • LEGO Mafia and Role-Play Games
    • LEGO Media and Gaming
  • Eurobricks Community
    • Hello! My name is...
    • LEGO Events and User Groups
    • Buy, Sell, Trade and Finds
    • Community
    • Culture & Multimedia

Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Country


Special Tags 1


Special Tags 2


Special Tags 3


Special Tags 4


Special Tags 5


Special Tags 6


Country flag

Found 6 results

  1. Presenting the 8258-B Crawler, Designed and built as an entry for the 'Crawlify your set' contest [AMS1] I'm a huge fan of b-models in general, but the 8258-B has always been one of my favourites due to great looks and an easy to modify. Or so I thought... In the end, I reckon about 85% of the chassis has been custom built. There are two L motors situated just below the cabin. One powers the front axle, one powers the rear. Both axles have differentials because, being independently powered, loss of traction is a lot less likely and it saves my poor pieces from becoming mangled. Because the 8258-B is rather small (read: narrow) I had a lot of trouble designing a front axle that could house a servo motor without limiting the range of suspension travel. Eventually I gave up and ended up modifying this axle to accommodate a differential (well deserved credit to the amazing @Madoca 1977). However with that said, I have made sure the bodywork stays almost 100% true to the original. The only alteration I had to made was to the rear wheelarches to make room for the balloon tyres: Original wheelarch Modified wheelarch: Also, the front winch kept scraping on obstacles I was trying to climb over so I switched this out for a bullbar, however the two are easily interchangeable. Anyways, here's a video of this thing in action. As always, please let me know what you think. Whether it's praise, criticism or telling me off for building ANOTHER red and black model (I have other colours, I swear!!), I'd love to hear it. More images can be found in this bricksafe folder. Enjoy =)
  2. I have finally completed it! Only issue is that eyes looks a little cross-eyed, but hey different posture from red and green. Picture is at bricklink forum https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=972034 (100k limit here is too small) Bricklink post also has details on parts changes if you wanted dragon in same design.
  3. Here a video of my modified modulars, all together in one layout.
  4. More pictures >>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/114035403@N02/sets/72157649391483317/ This modified T-47 has both laser cannons moved to the starboard side, which are fed by a large battery on the port-side weapons hardpoint. It has been fitted with an acceptable shield generator, and is well faster than the rebel "Snowspeeder" variants due to its use of light alloys and smaller airframe. The thrust nozzles have been bolstered with blast cones for extra maneuverability at high altitudes, and the exhaust grate shows signs of fouling. Slightly slower than the aformentioned T-47 "Snowspeeders" used at the battle of Hoth, this T-47 has an extended airframe, and twin-linked overcharged E-Web blasters on the weapons hardpoints, as well as a weak shield generator. Same as the last, he thrust nozzles have been bolstered with blast cones for extra maneuverability at high altitudes, and the exhaust grate shows signs of fouling.
  5. I picked up my new B-Wing a few days ago, and after building it I was left a little underwhelmed. The overall design of the model is OK, given its size, but there was something about it that really bugged me,,, The wings. They seem out of proportion to me, too large for the scale of the ship, and it makes the final model look rather spindly. I've already modified mine to reduce the size of the stabiliser wings, and to let them sit closer to the body when folded. However, this is what I have planned (if I have the necessary parts that is): After making an LDD model of the B-Wing using the official build instructions, I've been having a bit of a tinker with the ship, and I think I've made a few improvements. Modified B-Wing .lxf file Changes... Shortened the s-foils. Redesigned the wing-tip cannons (and got rid of those irritating missile shooters). Shortened the main wing and gave it a straight edge, mimicking the UCS version. Moved the weapons pod a little higher up to make it look a little more sturdy. Altered the lower wing mounting points so that the wing is now aligned with the axis of the ship. Bulked out the body in a few places, and filled the void behind the engines. Things to do... Thicken the 'neck' where the cockpit joins the rest of the ship. Increase the size and move further forward the flare between the cockpit and the two cylinders, to match the flare on the main wing. I'm a loooooooooong way off from making anything as impressive as Jerac's Chimaera, but we all have to start somewhere .
  6. I have been thinking about making functional mini-models with technic, but even 3L u-joints are too long for very small models, so I wanted one in 2L. This is my crude prototype for a 2L universal joint: To attach normally through technic liftarms and bricks, it would also need axles in 2.5L, 3.5L, etc., and a 1L axle for attaching them back to back. It would not be for heavy-duty models because of its weaker 1/2 stud connection, but I think it might be a good idea for low-torque applications. Please feel free to add your opinions and criticism!