Jump to content

Kristof

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,248

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Kristof

  1. Kristof
    Does it drive nice? It looks to me like that size that might actually perform some nice motion unlike the big lego PF powered models.
  2. Kristof
    Whenever something reminds me of scenes like this one, I have to ask again how can these prequel haters actually mean it! Fantastic :D
  3. Kristof
    ^ I personally kinda like brown, but as I said before, it needs to be broken down a bit with some accents. Even if the real thing doesn't really feature some evident color features. On another thought, tan works really nice with dark tan accents and it gives reasonably accurate look, plus there is a nice contrast between tan craft and brown MTTs coming out of it! :D
  4. Kristof
    I wonder how many young kids desire for cloud city based playset enough to make their parents or grandparents pull $350 for it. Or how many currently teen lego fans that still enjoy minifig play and have enough savings...? Correct me if I am wrong but most people that adore cloud city scenes would be AFOLs by now? And eventhough I am sure many adults will still like this set as is, I have a strong feeling that something more visually appealing would be much better. Because this looks just ugly... On the box art, it looks like flying piece of broken structure that was supposed to be on the ground. Yes, it may have nice rooms, nice figures or whatever, but it just doesn't look like anything close to cloud city on display! The first thing I see when I look at the box art is the exposed unsightly back side of tan corner panel piece, and the rest of the thing is built in similar fashion. The only way to enjoy it visually is to be a minifig, which can be approximated by actually playing with the minifig. But then it's back to my question - do the target customer group really want to do that? Personally, as mentioned above, I would much rather have a display model with just a few interior rooms.
  5. Kristof
    ^Thats cool. Nice work!
  6. Kristof
    ^ I agree that 1x1 under the binoculars make them stick out too much. Thats why I suggested the 1x2 jumper instead, so sou can bring them uo to the front edge and let the wider front of the lenses have room to overhang.
  7. Kristof
    Quite impressive! I like that its scaled to be able to land the micro Krenic shuttle. The bacta Vader is excellent as well. Btw curiosity won't let me pass the question what is in the cool looking booklet?
  8. Kristof
    I like the suggestion of the door opening and the overall shape, though I think the ends of the wingtips would benefit from more roundness. Also I would 100% try to avoid the 'illegal' or rather partial connection of the binocular pieces on the 2x2 jumpers. Just use 1x2 jumper and 1x2 place beneath and let the binoculars overhang to the front :) Would look good and would be correct. EDIT: the micro AATs are cool :D one piece but its beyond doubt what it is. Also I wouldn't fear of breaking the colorscheme a bit. having it uniform brown, though maybe most accurate when it comes to averaged color coverage on the real prop, makes for rather plain look. On scaled down models its sometimes beneficial to magnify some little color features just to bring the diversity to the surfaces.
  9. Kristof
    I remember trying it quite recently... I mean when I first physically built Venator 3 years ago Bottom line, it's not good approach for two main reasons: Venator belly is all studs facing down. There is few tiles, meaning smooth flats, but a lot of studs and greebles facing down. And between two of us, that's not the best surface when it comes to resting nicely on top of some slopes. It has a nasty habit of sliding around and being all... insecure. Venator belly has compound angles. The hull plates have two directions in which they slope... There is a complicated taper geometry... ...It is not flat And unless you want to display it crooked, tilted, panned or whatever result you get by placing it on the cradle that is somewhat level, the only good way of dealing with it is to angle the cradle to accommodate for these tapers. And that means turning it from something very unstable in essentially a slide :D A little heavier steps in the proximity of such contraption and your Venator is 'de-standed'. There is, to my knowledge, no good way how to connect anything to it to the good effect. I mean yeah, sure, i could invert some brick (technic brick per say) on the top of the stand to connect it to the studs, but then upon removal, chances are you will remove the piece from the bottom of the ship upon lifting it from the stand. Plus the compound angles I talk about above don't help with this either. To be little constructive here, The best solution I came up with so far is using the bottom hangar bay as a 'socket' and equip the stand with some matching insert. Then again its not a standardized opening, but there might be a reasonably secure way using the technic 2L rubber liftarms. I don't love it but it is the best and least obstructing solution I found so far. Now I just have to figure out how to elegantly build up the stand so Venator rests level and it might pass my strict quality requirements Fingers crossed!
  10. Kristof
    ^ Yeah, I can imagine the lack of stand bothers me more than most people interested in building the model :D Still, I consider it a necessity to include it. It's actually non trivial to make a good secure but non obstructing stand for the Venator. Unlike many (all?) bigger renditions, it doesn't have any way to run some fixed pylons through the bottom of the hull - in the end it's designed to be swooshed around and there are no real connection points on the bottom.
  11. Kristof
    Still quite a bit left to fine tune on the instructions. Mainly Finish all the steps and call outs. I changed the structure of the sub-models which messed up some progress I had before. There is a few steps to change and a lot of cosmetic things, like model alignment on page etc... Figure out few things that are not natively supported in the stud.io instruction maker - the build requires you to rotate and connect some parts that are attached in previous steps. That's usually a difficult issue to solve when making custom instructions. Other software may have more or less tedious methods to solve this, but stud.io has nothing even remotely simple. It occurs to me that I might have to use a different model for each orientation of these parts and then merge the instructions with a fake step in between. Few issues that bother me or hold me back Missing part in stud.io library (new type of screwdriver with wide head) - I am currently using the older outdated part as a placeholder but it's really bothering my ocd I just ordered last batch of new parts that I introduced to the model during this last design overhaul (featuring besides others the famous 2x2 triangular tile and the sequel trilogy stormtrooper shield!) so i need to wait till they arrive to be able to proof build the model, although there are no real structural changes that I haven't tested yet. It will me more of a sanity check for the instructions than checking of the design works. I still haven't designed a reasonable stand! I hate myself for making that an issue but it just feels wrong to release this without a stand. And then making the crude ugly stand is something I can't swallow, so I am trying to come up with something elegant... well, I hope I can manage to do it quick :D Any stand experts over there, feel free to give me hints! Meanwhile enjoy the quick look at the currently last instruction step :D Thanks for keeping up with me! MIDI Scale Venator Star Destroyer instruction - last step by Krištof Pučejdl, on Flickr
  12. Kristof
    Yeah, so far the few people I asked respond this way to the idea. I'll see :) Maybe something like 'pay what you want as long as its well over $*fortune*$' Or 'pay what you want but I'll let everyone know what a cheap *** you are'
  13. Kristof
    ^ That's uneasy to decide, the more that I have never offered any instructions for sale. I am debating whether to set a price or letting people decide the amount of the 'donation'... I am confident the model is really good, I will make sure to proof build it again according to the instructions to avoid any gotchas and make sure the building experience is great, so I am not offering some half baked piece of crap :D Still, money is not worth the same for everyone and maybe I would be happier if an extra person gets the chance to enjoy the model without necessarily paying some substantial amount, while other people may freely decide to donate more since they can afford it...? I don't know. I have had this discussion earlier with someone else offering instructions for sale and I haven't come to and easy conclusion. Let me know if you guys have some opinions :D
  14. Kristof
    I know I know... but I am only 3 years too late, right? Some building instructions in progress by Krištof Pučejdl, on Flickr
  15. Kristof
    Hey, that's quite impressive! Such shape must be quite a challenge to put together. Nicely done!
  16. Kristof
    No doubt that the cockpit is the toughest nut to crack on this beauty. I dont think with current piece assortment there is a 100% perfect way to do it. Ithink I might like your attempt bettr than Aniosso far, its a tough call. Nice progress, I am glad you scaled it to 4wide dome R4, would have been quite a miss not to do that. Good luck finishing it ;)
  17. Kristof
    Very nice. Keep going and you might be the one that makes me like this destroyer design :D So far I wasn't overly impressed (movie, pictures) but I totally love your build!
  18. Kristof
    Took me around 5 seconds to see the Vader :D
  19. Kristof
    Funny that you talk about the odd design. I used to dislike this one the most, with the interceptor being my favourite. such a cool look with the long evil pronged panels. Meanwhile the TA looked like something someones grandma would drive... Though as I aged (yes, I am reeeeeallly old now) I actually came to like the advanced more and more... and more, so now I actually like it the best. (Jeez, that grandma joke may have some truth in it :D ) I like its chubbiness, it actually makes me feel this would be the most practical design for fast and agile ship, wich relatively low tensor of inertia for the most agility. I like that the cockpit is at the front rather than offset to the back so the majority of the peripheral view is obstructed by long pronged panels, as it is in other, unnnamed fighters. All in all, it's just cool. Oh and you have a nice model by the way!
  20. Kristof
    Looks like Lepin to me...
  21. Kristof
    I am not even that huge of a ship fan, but i could easily spend days looking at this. My goodness...
  22. Kristof
    Is it RC? Custom LEDs? Can I get the instructions for free? And the parts to actually build it? Thanks!
  23. Kristof
    Finally someone who actually share pictures of the progress :D . It's so much cooler to see than just read comments!!
  24. Kristof
    ^^^ I am not the biggest fan of part fadeout. It makes some sense but it is unlike Lego manuals and that is what I am used to. I think it depends much more on making each building step plausible, so there is not to many pieces added at once that would create some confusion. It actually takes a good skill to lay out building steps to feel good. I think that people can't really appreciate that enough until they try to make instructions for complex model themselves.
  25. Kristof
    I like the building style. Great choice to use curved slopes for the mouth, it completes the perfect facial expression and it looks amazingly slick given that its the only visible 'special' piece use on the otherwise 'rectangular' brick sculpture. I wish you browse through SW waters more often :D
×
×
  • Create New...