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
    Even if you didn't like prequell movies (which I don't really understand ), there are ton's of great vehicles and spaceships that are definitely worth recreating in lego. Thus I think you should break your rule, regardless my models But thanks, it's pleasing to hear that my creations might change such determined mind. I'll try to make the ships available for you - it might take some time but it will be done eventually.
  2. Kristof
    Ever since I explored your models through Jutlandia (being featured ob BB) I title you the best lego ship builder. I have never seen other model with the same or higher amount of detail, especially regarding hull shaping. Extremely well done :)
  3. Kristof
    ^perspective forms the view quite a lot. Pics taken from the front would suggest the mandibles are way to large, yet I think that top view (which is the most relevant) would reveal it's not that much off. 6x2 arch doesn't give correct angle for the mandibles anyway - these old wedges with 7x3 angle are much better. UCS model 'cheats' a bit by going wider with the side greebling (toeards the hull) so the result looks quite good. What concerns me more is the thickness (height) of the mandibles here. It's quite bulky.
  4. Kristof
    Good job. Much better now!
  5. Kristof
    Thank you guys! I hear this quite commonly and I understand it pretty much. Venator is the no.1 here. It was also way more difficult and intricate to design (and build). Though I suggest you (all) to wait for pictures of both crafts together - I personally love it and think it would be shame only to have one of the pair:) I also re-designed some parts of the invisible hand during real build so it looks even more accurate now and(I hope) a bit less trivial next to Venator.
  6. Kristof
    First I intended to wait until I can take better photos but several people asked me for pic so here is one :) Both ships are actually completed - propper info comming... soon I hope.
  7. Kristof
    Yet another thread called 'yet another...'. Maybe a good time for having new afol abbreviation? :D Just kidding. Perhaps trying to do jokes to fill the void because I can't describe how blown away I am with this. Even the AT-AT standalone was incredible but now seing your whole project... unbelievable. That Lambada shuttle... c'mon, I had no idea about that one before! This dwarfes most cool and huge projects I have seen before and certainly all my poor attempts for lego creations :D Good luck on making more progress and I wish TLG will take inspiration another time (atatstyle) :D
  8. Kristof
    ^Hmm, my guess for the ankles would be that they rest on fix pivot point, yet that one is offset a bit more forward/backward depending on which way the leg goes. I'm still very curious (and not yet convinced about it's function) how your ankle will work with the body on. These technic connectors which hold the arch seem so insecure... :D
  9. Kristof
    ^Well, my solution leaves studs on every side, at least that was intended :) I was dealing with this when trying to build a SHIP for Shiptember 2014. EVentually I had to abandon the project, because of both lack of time and bricks. I have to mention though that my pillar was only 70 studs long. Still I think it would hold it's stiffness being extended to 90 studs. By the way, I don't see physical reason why would your complex method of different offsets give more rigidity than simple shifting these two bricks in the middle by 8 studs, leaving both sides the same. I maybe see what your intention was but really I doubt you you get any extra stiffness from this. As I see it, your version only results in irregular and problematic ends. Also instead of sandwitching that combination of 2x8's and 1x8's, you could use stacks of two 4x4's placed on every connection place. That would save some weight, costs (maybe) and these developed gaps (4x4x2/3) could be filled with some brackets so you could attach plates on the sides more easily.
  10. Kristof
    Your mandibles seem way to thick (vertically) to me. Also the hull plates should lay more flat. So far it's forming to steep dish, making the irregularity between flat sections and edges more visible.
  11. Kristof
    Wow, this is truly fascinating. I have never seen technic spaceship of this size and the gyro makes it even cooler. Good luck on your further progress!
  12. Kristof
    What is the limit in terms of height and thickness of your spine? Anyway, first thing I'd change is the offset - you always get the least bend by offseting technic bricks by half of it's length. Speaking of different approaches, I once tried using 2 layers of 4x12 plates (offset of 6) put vertically on each side of rather minimalistic technic brick structure, using these as connection. This came up extremely stiff in up/down bending test, way better than stacked technic bricks. Torque was a whole different story but that could be solved by reinforcing the inside structure of such spine. I didn't try that yet though. Lack of technic bricks :)
  13. Kristof
    Nice. Ambitious project, I cross my fingers for you to succeed. One thing - you really can't expect this to be swooshable (hard to imagine swinging around 15 kg ship, even if the shape was more swoosh-friendly, which this totally isn't ). Still you need to make your spine as rigid as possible. It has to withstand both bending forces and torque. And as far as my experience go, two 'layers' of technic bricks won't be sufficient. Or it will but you end up with dozens of stands and it will be tricky to pick up the model.
  14. Kristof
    That final pic looks promising. Scaling down the bodywork from UCS MF seems to be a good approach. I think you should shift these rear circle openings on mandibles more towards the sides. One stud shift should give you the right position.
  15. Kristof
    Nice to see that someone built this great model which I'm a big fan of. Paint0r did great job here, I wish his project had more supports. Your build looks great, I like these dark blue bits here and there. The only thing I dhink is not accurate are these dark bluish gray areas on the 'sides' of the core ship. There is nothing like it in real, the ship was always vastly uniform gray. I believe it would look better if you swapped the color to LBG there. One thing I woder is how rigid the model is. We had some discussion on that topic with Paint0r and I told him my concerns, yet he assured me the round 'spine' is sufficiently stiff. Is that the case? Or does it tend to bending or falling apart when lifted by hand?
  16. Kristof
    Congratz to winners and a great tribute to all contestants!
  17. Kristof
    I tried 6 of those balloon ones and it easily stands 5 kg load without noticeable squishing so I think you are good to go :)
  18. Kristof
    ^ That sounds like a funny game but as you note, any creator set is good for such purpose. This Serious Play something doesn't even have any instructions you could use for it. Still maybe if it was $200, I could possibly imagine someone buying it for similar purposes. With this price tag though... weird investment, even for companies that could easily afford that.
  19. Kristof
    In general I'm missing some explanation on the real purpose for these Serious Play sets. For me it all looks like overpriced mixture of bricks that were left over in stocks. Or even worse that someone carefully chose them to achieve the less useful and sense giving set... I really wonder how is that supposed to enhance someones business performance :D
  20. Kristof
    Hey wow! I always loved ropeway contraption since I was a child and went skiing in the Alps with my parents and I thought of building one with lego many times. I even attempted back then but with childish approach and no real skills :D Now I already know such project is far beyond my resources and abilities. Great to see though that someone is capable of building such thing! It's amazing how perfectly it works. The only improvement I could see is making it longer so there is one more pillar on the path. But obviously room might be your enemy there. Otherwise it's flawless :) Good luck finishing it!
  21. Kristof
    I'm not sure where did Mike use macaroni pieces but check this, looking good enough in my opinion. To be said though that on real Falcon, these rings are actually only slightly coned, very slightly, so making them 'barellwise' isn't that big oddity and I think you could go for it. Anyway, I'm glad you are attempting for this model, I was huge fan of Mike's try, though very disapointed of not seing the finished product. I thought about re-creating that myself but so far I feel somehow shy to start such project :) Good luck with yours, hopefully being another inspiration for myself!
  22. Kristof
    Agreed with GoldVillage (and his a bit sarcastic yet valid remark). I'm surprised how many people actually accept the idea that those sets could be possibly called Technic... I don't see one single reason why. For me these are conclusively typical examples Lego City construction site sets. Using several technic pieces here and there is rather common in most System sets nowdays, still nobody comes to claim that i.e. some SW sets should belong to Technic product line. Therefore I think that this whole thread is a bit weird and out of place and that it should have been moved into Lego Town forum in the first place. Otherwise it means that you can start threads about whichever set saying 'Hey, this set is so cool it could almost belong into Technic don't you think?'
  23. Kristof
    I'm missing the point of this thread. No matter how well designed, these sets clearly belong to lego City line, fitting there with every aspect (parts selection, ease of build, minifig playsets). The very fact that these are all construction machines doesn't imply it has anything to do with Technic... There are more Technic elements in some Ninjago sets :P Anyway, this section isn't propper place for discussing such sets, at least I think so.
  24. Kristof
    1:10 16:6 12:4 9:3 6:2 17:1 No.1 was instant choice for me but for the others it was hard to decide. Many good entries I would love to rate higher. Anyway, Congratz to all participants and good luck!
  25. Kristof
    ^Alright. Though you may consider being more specific next time - Not only you'd make your opinion more comprehensive and valuable for the others but also prevent clashes and misunderstandings like this one :)
×
×
  • Create New...