Jump to content

anothergol

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,596

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by anothergol

  1. anothergol
    Another option, which doesn't expose technic holes, and doesn't use ball cups. So that makes 3 options to choose from.
  2. anothergol
    But do you even need ratchet up there? The only reason I can imagine the legs moving apart, would be the feet sliding on a too smooth surface. Talking about this, I don't know if you have room in the part that sits on the foot's arch, but if you have a possible sliding problem there, there is a x2 axle rubber connector that might help.
  3. anothergol
    I'd say that compared to the movie pic (where it's also quite probable that the crew didn't care as much as we do about the scale), it looks pretty much in scale, possibly on the small side but certainly not too big.
  4. anothergol
    This is an alternate solution: Pros: -allows for a better angle than the other system can reach -makes lower leg look even thinner Cons: -ball part only attached by 1 axle (does it sound safe?) -less good color scheme -still requires the DBG ball cup part to be attached by 1 1.5L pin (pic shows axle but it won't work), but it might be less of a problem here
  5. anothergol
    But the pin+stud is shorter, no? Ideally I'd pick the pin+stud because it will fit the part solidly, right now it wobbles. But I don't know about the tension - I'd assume that the stud gives pressure in all directions, & thus the stress on that hole (only 2 of them, since it's only one hole per leg), will be spread in all directions. BUT I also imagine that the stud itself pressures the part, while the 1.5L pin does not. The 1.5L pin however will apply pressure on one side of the hole, I don't know if that matters. I can't imagine it breaking, but there will be the weight of the whole thing on those 2 half-beam holes alone, it doesn't sound that safe. There's also the ball join 50923 which features 2 axle holes, however it's not really the right part to use here. There will be quite some weight on the little ball cup as well, as the other attachment is a floaty axle. However for that part it would be possible to use this good old (I was surprised to see it gone when I went back to Lego) part, to force an angle using the axle: I don't really know the angle of the weight vector on the legs, the head will push forwards & downwards.
  6. anothergol
    So are Lego designers told "this season we've produced a lot of this part, try to use it"? & does this also mean that if a very old part isn't produced anymore, it doesn't *necessarily* mean that the mold has been retired, and it could as well reappear? It's also scary btw, because it means that those colored technic axles that popped up this year are probably there to replace the others - time to stock old axles! Interesting.. I thought the green spacemen was purely because it was "the missing color" for classic space guys
  7. anothergol
    computing from this pic, it would be around 23m http://www.fiastarta.com/SideStuff/Luke.jpg *however*, in Bandai's AT-ST kit there is a Chewie, and it's exactly the same height as the Lego wookie. Yet, it (& thus the AT-ST) looks SO not in scale with Lego, showing that the height isn't a good factor to compare both. I'd say a normal person looks up to 1.5x a minifig, and the size of the head is probably a better thing to compare. Just like a giant or a midget don't look like people at different scales, because they have more or less the same head.
  8. anothergol
    yeah probably I'm not worried about damaging the part, it's just that it's something "Lego wouldn't do" - or maybe they would, it seems not uncommon in Technic sets to bend stuff like that. The question is also whether it should be a 1.5L pin, or a pin+stud, which would be sturdier (but harder to unassemble)
  9. anothergol
    Thanks I've built a test leg, I think it will hold the body well enough. I wasn't sure because there's no friction involved, the ball socket holds it. By luck I had some of them, the bottom one appears to be rare & costy, but I have a box of that green racing car that I hadn't built yet. Only risky part is that the big ball part attached to the foot, is attached to the socket one by a 1.5L pin (the last hole of both parts is a pin, no axle), which means that you have to "open" that expensive part to insert it. It seems flexible enough, though, and changing it for a 3L axle with side bushes would ruin it. Yeah but I quickly realized that I wouldn't repose it, anyway. The lower leg is also not posable on Bandai's model (which works as both a model kit and a toy, kinda), and it seems fine. The new design doesn't forbid changing the angle, though, but it's a bit limited (due to collision between parts) and requires moving parts around. In fact, it might even be possible to attach the ball socket part to a friction rod (or even piston) attached to the leg.
  10. anothergol
    Now that I've assembled a Bandai AT-ST snapkit (which is amazingly good), I can check the AT-ST's metrics precisely. My version wasn't too far off, and where it is, I already knew. But now I've planned a version 2, focusing on fixing the scale (but not the details, where I still went freestyle). What has changed: -the whole legs, especially the lower section which wasn't that off sizewise, but looked very off, because of the joint. No more joint, which wasn't that necessary anyway, so it's less posable, and even exposes more Technic stuff, but it's thinner & looks better IMHO. I liked the shovels for the bar thing in the back, but now it has to look technic, because that part now has a function (forcing the angle) -length of the head +1 stud, I already knew it was off. Not even sure it looks better at the correct size, I kinda liked the old one. -body +1 stud. It should also be larger in the front, but considering that the inter-leg bars are too big, and can't be smaller, it's not bad for the overall look that the body spares room. -the joint for the head moved up inside the head, and got a friction extender. That's how the snapkit is articulated, and it makes a lot more sense & will fix the weighting problem. -many details, like the front gun having the correct aspect
  11. anothergol
    Interesting.. For the small popular sets that are produced in massive amounts, does it even matter for Lego that a part hasn't been made in a specific color yet? I mean, those sets are produced on the fly, no?
  12. anothergol
    amazing
  13. anothergol
    really well made
  14. anothergol
    What budget is he talking of? Lego imposes one in advance?
  15. anothergol
    Looking at models & blueprints, I see both in them. I don't think it really matters anyway, only someone who has built one will ever know/notice.
  16. anothergol
    Well I find it way way easier to design in the LDD. Imagine having to replace THAT brick inside a massive intricate build. Especially a Technic one.. which usually requires following the manual in reverse to unassemble. And Lego certainly doesn't have "plenty of time". Plenty of people, I don't know, they certainly can. But having 10 designers on the same set wouldn't make it progress 10x faster, in the contrary. Toy companies must react quick, especially with new licenses, Lego most likely didn't have plenty of time with the new SW sets. Additionally, a CAD allows to check for collisions/part stress that may not be apparent when you build, since plastic bends.
  17. anothergol
    but 150% is already the correct "minifig scale", no? It should indeed be 150% in scale, however detailing it would probably make it 200% or 300% heavier, I believe. -this said-, an UCS AT-AT wouldn't be designed for kids, and Lego wouldn't need the crazy amount of technic beams to make it rock solid. It should go from very strong at the bottom to very light at the top.
  18. anothergol
    of course it's a render, it's like 1000% obvious. & I wouldn't say a good one, because it's too perfect - I don't even think it was made to pass as real.
  19. anothergol
    Yes but it's not so much about the color itself than the contrast, that specific panel standing out. I gathered pictures from actual movie props, as I was making a micro-scale one, & in the ones that I found (ranging from cartboard cutout for distant ones to detailed models), the weathering & color is pretty much uniform. edit: ah, this one apparently https://www.flickr.c...dbush/489039488 ..but I'm not seeing it in the movie. In fact, I see one with one of the panels in a different shades, but it's not the same panel :) (maybe on Endor? If anyone knows where one is visible)
  20. anothergol
    I have seen that blueish panel on some reference pics btw, but is it really to be seen anywhere in the movie?
  21. anothergol
    I have a question btw. Everyone wants a large AT-AT, proven by Cavegod's one being voted for (I did as well). The reason Lego didn't make an UCS AT-AT yet can't be only linked to the insane amount of parts, as Lego has already released nearly as big. I believe Lego's problem must be related to durability & safety. So, considering an UCS AT-AT would target adults, do you think it would even be possible for Lego to make a "proper" UCS AT-AT that would pass all of their rules, without any dirty hack, and still look cool? (I'm mostly talking about the ankles & neck areas)
  22. anothergol
    I believe that the correct color for that panel would be LBG, and then all the rest should be old gray.. but that's not really something you can do. Perhaps just inverting that scheme would work as well, only that panel in old gray. (slight misalignments like in stud-inverted places can too produce different shades) Painting is certainly less of a sin, as Lego itself sometimes provides plain stickers that are purely there to change the color of part of a tile. However it's the same deal as with glue, IMHO if you do it once, you can do it for any other problem part, it won't make any difference.
  23. anothergol
    Why is it unlikely? It's a lot faster to design (or at least prototype) in the LDD, & time is money. Plus, their marketing clearly uses 3D models (like, this is clearly 3D http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/01/LEGO-Simpsons-House-4.jpg), thus they would need to "build physically" AND then port it to 3D. And that's most likely not without the help of a dedicated tool, because that would be crazy.
  24. anothergol
    I was more wondering about the solidity, as I don't see friction in the system. Wouldn't the weight of the ship fold the system up?
  25. anothergol
    wow, it surprisingly looks great in both modes
×
×
  • Create New...