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
    I still don't see where are these 'ultimate series' expectations come from :) Would that even make sense for Technic line to develop some serie like that? What do you expect for such models to be? Bigger? In premium packaging? higher complexity and accuracy? Some unique elements? More difficult to build? Except for the premium packaging, I think that todays biggest sets already offer most of these attributes. It doesn't sound likely to me that LEGO would be able to raise the bar far enough to create a reasonably 'more ultimate' models that would really stand out - for me, the Porsche is a nice evolution of late technic cars. It has some nice extra touches and maybe some extra accuracy but rather than being a new standard for some 'ultimate' series, I see this as one time additional effort on rather standalone exclusive set. EDIT: I just found the quote that suggests the 'series' of Porsche-like mode. So I see now where does this come from :) Sorry
  2. Kristof
    I really don't think there will be another similar supercar released anytime soon... Such expensive and big sets don't make good 'collectible series' while not many people would keep buying similar models of such cost. I don't know where the hints on technic UCS does really come from (other than few mentions that this particular Porsche model is 'ultimate', which I wouldn't take as clear hint). For me, e.g. Arocs is quite ultimate, probably more than Porsche appears to be.
  3. Kristof
    Really? That set was rather an experiment, focused mainly on playing, plus it was released in the era of similar 'stick-operated' sets (Hockey...). I'm not saying it was great but unlike this Hoth disaster, you see some effort and thought behind. Also for rather smaller set, it is more 'acceptable' to step aside, especially when its for the seek of inovation.
  4. Kristof
    I'm thinking how easily could this be quite well accepted big playset if only several decisions have been made right in TLG: 1) Peeling off the UCS mark (along with omitting the UCS hype in announcement so everyone expected just a regular playset) 2) Calling it Hoth Echo Base (so the lack of imperial assault wouldn't be that striking) 3) Setting the price at $200 maximum (perhaps with help removing Wampas cave or some extra Ion canon...) In such presence, I think the customer feedback would be slight disapointment at its worst. Like: 'Ummm alright, big Hoth playset, mostly revamps but who cares, ion cannon -not the prettiest but hey, at least we have one...- shield generator, finally! And 2K bricks for $200, not the worst deal in the world!' Though, all these decisions have been made wrong and we have a (justified) hate hype instead. My honest opinion is that there is no possible satifactory 'UCS Assault on Hoth' set. I simply can't imagine what would it (or should it) look like. If this set was to meet UCS standards, it would require UCS squality AT-AT (at least one) and UCS quality Echo Base plus about ten pounds of white bricks to make up for all the required snow. Maybe I'm just missing something and there is a possible form for such set... but I doubt. For me it is the same chimaera as e.g. UCS Battle of Coruscant set (minifig scaled) or... actually any UCS set that represents some full scale 'battle'.
  5. Kristof
    ^ That gondola is trully nice but brick build one certainly looks nicer :D
  6. Kristof
    Punch me... I swear I went through the posts like 4 times before asking again :D How could I miss... thanks very much though! WIP pics are great. It really is great to see how things went along. The 'Minifig oriented stuff' is what I like the most! Yet the lack of minifigs and budget restricts me from that. But I'm slowly collecting 'seemingly useful' parts so hopefully I'll be able to build something eventually. Good luck with your other new MOC's. If I had to suggest one, it would be the Venator of course :D
  7. Kristof
    ^ Personally, I'd prefer Raskolnikov to continue in his massive scale dimension :) I have neither the skills, nor the budget (more importantly) to execute such thing and it's great that someone utilize both! The ability to ad valuable interior (not just some silly small room where minifig can barely stand) is just fantastic and it only works when your ship is kinda massive. And frankly, this is whole another level from what I build. Next to this, I (once again) feel like nobody :D @Raskolnikov, sorry for bothering but my initial question might have been overlooked, yet it still makes me wonder - do you have any WIP pics of the construction or some 'diray' like remarks throughout the design and build process?
  8. Kristof
    Frankly, there is just one big downside of this MOC - it makes all other ISDs look inferior What an incredible job on that interior - I didn't think it was possible to build something like this. Holly **** it even has a hangars. By any chance, have you documented the designing and building process? I'd be extremely interested in some WIP shots and remarks!
  9. Kristof
    Thanks! I admire your building style - everything looks somewhat clean. Not simple but not excessively complex. Nice.
  10. Kristof
    Fantastic. The lifting mechanism looks neat. Must be quite some force to lift it with such small leverage!
  11. Kristof
    ^ Thanks for the pic! It really is quite interesting, more than what the first look suggests :)
  12. Kristof
    I'm curious how the side panels are attached. There seem to be several 'L' shapet liftarms going in angles, yet I can't figure out the geometry.
  13. Kristof
    ^ Should you be offended by someone asking for moderation, especially since similar request came from multiple members? Although I'd choose slightly moderated way to say it, I agree with JDL and I understand his feelings. Nobody force me to explore these threads, that's correct. What bothers me though is searching for non-pointless threads within this flood of similar (and often trashy to be honest) threads. Clarity of the forum page suffers from this and eventhough some of the microbuilds can be nice, I feel that certain people started topics only to exhibit themselves, trying to repeat the one time joke. Of course no fix line can be drawn but to certain extent, reasonable man can distinguish 'valuable' tiny MOC from poor (repeated) joke attempt.
  14. Kristof
    First post by JDL was fun.. yet this is really just the same joke over and over isn't it?
  15. Kristof
    Oh, I was hoping for the teardrop hubs :D the leg is beautiful... but we kinda knew it was and there wasn't much doubt about it's great construction. Well, one step at the time - I know Bricklinking is lazy process :D Good luck, hopefully you test the crucial parts soon enough!
  16. Kristof
    Haha, very nice. I think respective Lego designer will have hard time not copying your version once he get's the task to execute this one :D I wouldn't complain though.
  17. Kristof
    Very nice! I only wish you embedded the pictures so viewing them is more comfortable. The model itself is perfect.
  18. Kristof
    Jeez... Rather than rebuilding, I'll just cut it with my razor saw... Why am I not surprised? I have never been a big fan of this savage guy, nor the other one from Tested. I somehwat wish they stand away from Lego as much as possible
  19. Kristof
    Yep, hopefully
  20. Kristof
    ^ Oh, I see Well then just any efforts to make the joint 'easily adjustable' are pointless aren't they?
  21. Kristof
    Oh, I thought you were talking this type. Now the other gear, doesn't it have the same problems with being inserted into assembled turntable as the newer type does? I thought that was why you wanted to use the crown gear.
  22. Kristof
    The old style crown gear has even weaker structure. I can imagine really big flex in it's axle, especially when bigger torque is applied I just got an idea though - since it's so tricky to grip the turntable using the inner teeth, why not to try it from outside? You could maybe reverse the turntable and mount the gear rack 4 so it just grips the outside teeth. I didn't try it but maybe it would be worth a shot :) Anyway, I think you really won't get the image until you build some prototypes and test the rigidity in real. It's just my experience that LDD is super misleading in this. Something looks fancy and super well interconected but in real build there are aspects like slack in the parts (technic half pin makes for very loose connection for example), small gaps between technic and system parts (given by smaller width of technic parts) and these things eventually spoil the stiffness.
  23. Kristof
    To be completely honest - I doubt there is a (kragle free) way to make this happen eventually. Even with big design sacrifices, this double turntable thing is probably to high stakes :( Also it's good time to recall what was the original porpose of this whole endeavor - the poseability. Well, even if this is stiff enough by some miracle, posing it requires almost complete disassembly. There is nothing like easy manipulation with these joints. LilMe, you have some excellent design ideas and almost golden hands for details and finishing touches. But to me it seems you build from outside - which is lethal way to go with a monstrous build like this. From your LDD file it really looks like you build the outer shell with its perfect shaping and faces and then you somehow wedge the technic parts into. And honestly, the way you had the turntables fixed was far, far from being rigid. I mean like ...zero chance. I don't say that building some technic frame that is self supporting and then just stick on the faceplates is correct - in this case neither of these options works exclusively (especially with your high accuracy requirements) and ou basically need to combine the two. Which is tough... Especially embedding these turntables rigidly into mostly even stud sized frame is hard (maybe switching to odd style would help? ...I don't know. I tried it very fast and could ot come up with anything useful). Given how difficult this task is, Tommy did a great job. If nothing else, his version may be worth a try. I checked his design and I only suggest several changes which I made in the file HERE. To conclude nevertheless, I have to repeat what I started with - maybe this whole pursuit is pointless. And be sure that I'm the guy who usually is optimistic and supportive for ambitious ideas. Trying to reach such perfection in both accuracy and functionality seems to be a bigger bite than one can chew.
  24. Kristof
    ^ Correct. I tried to build this chassis and eventhough magnets seem to align very well, whole bottom rests a bit wobbly there. Mainly because it is one big 'shell' that is only held there by several magnets. If magnets work in pair with some locked hinge points, everything is much better. Mixel joints are of course slick method but by far not the easiest to do right. Considering the level of expertise we are talking here, I suggested rubber elements as the most forgiving and user freindly way :)
  25. Kristof
    ^ That's very questionable investment. For the price, magnet solution doesn't even work as flawlessly as you might expect. Placed and fixed properly (which is easy), rubber bands will give you even better result with a fraction of cost. The only drawback (besides somewhat trickier assembly) is reduced fanciness and yet that is hardly ever to bother you since it's just the insides of the ship :)
×
×
  • Create New...