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
    ^Huh... being curious how is this related to the topic?
  2. Kristof
    ^And then it's just a little step to walking RC AT-AT :D :D This is great solution but I think it's overly complicated for the purpose here and mounting all these 8 tooth grars would be very intricate here (if not impossible). 24 tooth gear would do the same job here, whereas the job is not to drive the joint but to provide an axle connecrtion between the leg and some angle-locking 'gearbox' in the body part of the joint.
  3. Kristof
    You have the feet fixed to the base right? At least somehow to prevent them slipping? If that's the case, then one axe is sufiicient since there is really no torque in that joint - the axle only holds the weight so the only foce comes from above. Though as far as I was concerned, LilMe aims for his version to actually stand on these legs, without directly fixing the feet (at least he never mentioned such option). So, depends on how big friction will the base provide, there could be some decent torque in the shoulder joints, especially if the legs are angeled further apart. And then I really believe that single axle would struglle a lot. Anyway I wonder how this single axle connection is executed in your case - do youu use just pin hole on leg/body or are there axle cross holes on both parts? If it's the second case, how you you manage to align the axle holes to make for desired leg angle?
  4. Kristof
    Very cool! I wonder, do you only machine these on some kind of lathe? Or could you probably add some details that aren't all the way around (i.e. slots paralel with the hilt axis)?
  5. Kristof
    Curious for the picutres as well :) Can you try uploading them somewhere (flickr,...) and shrowing us a link? That's the safest way if you're not sure how to display them directly. Anyway, using attachment is not really good method (also not recommended since it comsumes forum's server storage).
  6. Kristof
    Clutch gear won't really help you. it allows the aye to slip-rotate (the feeling is like there is some soft-friction based rarchet inside) after reaching certain torque (not very high one) so it basically means it doesn't lock anything. In your application, even small force applied to the end of the leg would easily create bigger torque than threshold one. The idea with 24 tooth gear inside the turntable is good though, just use normal gear (not this clutch gear. If you reverse the turntable and fix this gear to the body, you end up with locked connection and 24 options for the leg angle. I think that could work.
  7. Kristof
    No, rotation about turn axis should be smooth (at least as smooth as previous versions). The stiffnes is in wobble and overal play between top and bottom part. It's simply more solid, at least due to reviews I read on technic forums.
  8. Kristof
    There is no ratchet in the turntables by default. But you can lock them by coupling with gear that has some hard lock on it's shaft. Or to use wormgear on the outer gear ring, yet to figure out the gearbox could be tricky in this one. I have only have personal experience with type 2 but I heard type 3 is really rigid, thus would fit your needs. Type 1 has an advantage for non technic constructions and maybe you could figure out some clever way to attach it resulting in very good hold, yet it's probably harder to get in good condition and I'd assume it's also less stiff.
  9. Kristof
    As for the design - splendid. Way better then the previous design. From technical point - I'd be very afraid about this shoulder joint. I'm sure you expoerimented with this worm-gearbox in real so you know it allows for quite decent play so in straight down position, the structure (with four legs atached) will rock back and forth. You'll need all these legs to be bent in shoulders so there is the weight pushing the leg in one direction. This probably is what you want to have anyway, but still that play could make it less stable, not even talking about fine tuning the angle since you have no acces to the worm gear shaft. Second - that short single technic axle is all you have to rest the upper structure on (well, four of them to be correct). Not really worried about plastic - that should carry on fine. But since theres no way how to prevent such axle from pulling out the shoulkder hub (I assume you used axle with stop so it's at least fixed in the leg part), this will be dangerously unstable in side to side wobble. Not even talking about axle flex, which is considerable and will make both of mentioned effects even worse. All in all, I this this setup is highly unlikely to work out well. If you insist on optional angle in shoulder joint, I think you may consider using some turntables in this joint, although I don't see much space for that. But you proved to be excellent builder mind so you may come up with something :)
  10. Kristof
    ^ Well my rough estimation is that these big custom AT-ATs (which are supposed to be minifig scale) are about twice as tall as playset versions. So the size I'm proposing would be somewhere between these two. Perhaps even a bit closer to the playset - the percentage I threw in was also more of a guess :)
  11. Kristof
    Thanks a lot! My engineering studies keep me off my Lego passion these days (weeks to be precise). Term is comming to it's end, exam period on it's way and I feel the days are twice as short as it should be :) This madness will hopefully be over in like 3 weeks and then I move on, at least that's the plan.
  12. Kristof
    I guess that gap is just missing plates - nothing permanent. Anyway, I think it's a bit expandable question for two reasons. Furst, 2% difference won't really affect the appearence, second it's quite hard to eyball the proportions so the best would be direct compare with studio model legs (measuring distances and check lowe/upper part ratios). Also that missing shoulder joint makes the correct guess even harder. The only difference I see is that different bar length detail, due to which I'd go for longer version, but really... no big deal here. Otherwise I really like the shape and taper. Well done!
  13. Kristof
    Valid points everyone. I have to admit that the sheer size of these models (dmac, cavegod, LaChupacabra...) is one of the reasons I don't really want to build such thing. I mean, of course I do - in theory - but with all the consecutive problems regarding the size (where to put it, how to move it...), I simply don't classify that as a reasonable project to think about in terms of realization. So I can say, however the size makes huge impression and allows precise detailing, it's also big negative (to go besides price and part availability as these are main obstacles at least for me). And it's not just AT-AT. Many custom UCS-labeled models have this negative aspect of size for me (Thire5/Anio's Venator for instance). Earlier I was nothing but fa of huge models. 'The bigger, the better' applied for me, especially regarding big SW ships and vehicles. By the time though, being more and more exposed to this 'dark side' of big size, I found great interest in smaller models. Small enough to be easily managable and affordable but without lacking some key details. Therefore, if there is something like ideal scale of lego model for me, it should allow both these conditions to be fulfilled. (The first pioneers in these efforts of mine are my Venator and Invisible Hand, where I'm really satisfied with both size and detail) The reason why am I having this speech is that I think it's wrong to expect any UCS model to be huge. I think UCS label should only declare that the model is aimed on experienced builders, mainly for display with most focus on detal and accuracy, whereas any possible playability or functions have lower priority. Of course as I mentioned above, sometimes it's inevitable to increase the size to reach desired level of detail, or just to reach some decent model size if the subject is smaller (Obi-Wan SF). Finally I'm getting to the point - I believe there could very well be an UCS AT-AT set, but the size would have to be much smaller than all these giants. I think about 150% of playset scale could work. To be mentioned that I tried to start such project several times and always failed on some fundamental things, mostly regarding fixed size of some parts which was either to big or to small for selected scale. I'm sure though that experienced designer would overcome these issues. Perhaps with the help of new parts, as much as it's somewhat cheaty - sometimes a gamechanger is necessary to achieve certain goals (i.e. imagine some dedicated ankle pieces for at-at ). I'm well aware though that this viewpoint of mine may not be inherent to the majority. People may think UCS sets should be substantially bigger and that's their own valid truth.
  14. Kristof
    I say go for that blue stripe :) I like it. By the way with this pace, it seems you have plenty of time letting it fade out on the sun :D
  15. Kristof
    ^ "All future PF will be compatible with the new platform introduced with WeDo 2.0." This is the important line I guess - It basically says yes, there will be new PF in the future that will be compatible with WeDo 2.0. platform - which suggest the connectors will be the same, hence different from current PF.
  16. Kristof
    I agree with Jang in all points. This really is designed with rare level of care. I wish this applied to all new SW sets. The only flaw are these stickers. especially these three (!!) stickers for the canopy are huge drawback. Still this is so far the only TFA set I'm really tempted to get, not only as a minifig source.
  17. Kristof
    Well I wish they made some more feature version for adult technic builders - this 2 connector thing looks just barely enough for educational purposes on elementary schools doesn't it? Also being quite big, this is hardly to compete with SBrick as it is. Also the connectors are a big question for me - what's wrong with the classic PF ones? I only see positives (easy stacking, fixing in brick built constructions...) and besides that, it's something very typical for Lego. NXT connectors and wires look like ethernet thus rather ugly :)
  18. Kristof
    People are being sooo overly confident selling their 'custom model' instructions these days... Forgive me but as I see it, you basically just re-colored existing model along with several minimalistic modifications. Selling LDD file you didn't even bother creating some real and good looking instructions. And the fact that some key pieces to your model are not existing in given colors, that's just last straw If you presented this as just a digital mod, I'd have probably just passed it or maybe even stopped to say it looks quite interesting. In this case, however, you get my thumb down
  19. Kristof
    ^ Ahhh, I knew I saw this trashy design before, just couldn't recall where. Well this seems like helpless case though!
  20. Kristof
    I won't go detailed about my opinion on this model - sufficient to say that I think it's really not good. What bothers me though is the fact you attempt to sell building instructions for this on your BrickLink store which you shamelessly promote in your profile! Not only that it's not allowed to market the instructions for models you submit on Lego Ideas (read the House of Rules) but I also highly question your 'professional design'! All of this is your business but at least in my eyes this sort of compromites you as a member of the community - selling on BrickLink is no longer just some frivolous fun and although I highly doubt someone would actually buy your products, I suggest you to reconsider running such store to prevent possible issues with dissatisfied customers.
  21. Kristof
    I wasn't really impressed by the initial pic from ldd but seing it in real, I kinda like it :) The overal impression is really good given the scale.
  22. Kristof
    JaHawk, I'm quite sure you'r worries are unfounded, First to expect the set released just over 3 months ago to go retired is a bit awkward but well let's say you got such feeling - ever since there are 'retiring soon' tags on the sets which are to be retired soon, you can easily prove it wrong :) 'Temporarily out of stock' note doesn't suggest retirement on it's own. On your defend though, I also noticed a lack of supply for (not just) this set lately but there are obvious reasons for that to happen - most likely the production wasn't big enough to cover a big demand so e-shops and toy stores are waiting for next batch to be prepared and shipped. Some re-sellers already try to sell the set for inflated price to kinda abuse this temporare lack of supply :P
  23. Kristof
    Wow, I knew you were talented but I didn't fully perceived your skills nevertheless! These microbuilds are fantastic. So much of a resemblance with their bigger versions. Whole street looks incredibly lovely - something I'd gladly display on my shelf.
  24. Kristof
    Ball joint geometry is tricky but it would be quite pro to work it out :) And I think such dedicated model deserves no less than pro solutions!
  25. Kristof
    That's really good point. It would be another step up in accuracy if this detail was porperly captured. I didn't really focused on this before therefore that constant offcet used on most mocs didn't bother me but now as you point it out, it seems surprisingly clear that the botoms of these panels almost meet in one point.
×
×
  • Create New...