dmaclego

Yes. I prefer having full manual contol. I guess I'm old fashioned and strongly believe in deep idiocy of small electronic devices - like Mindstorms bricks :) . And any glitch in software or hardware would cost me dearly, since the shuttle elevation mechanism, for instance, would easily crush the model and half of the landing platform if not shut off in time. Another reason is purely economical - why spend money on expensive electronics I don't trust anyway? What I think about though (on those rare occasions when I don't think about finishing the landing platform ;) ) is a kind of Mindstorms-controlled, Star Wars - stylised mechanical arm to flip the switches. But knowing myself.... This idea may spend many years shelved :) .

Thank you very much, guys. Well, hopefully you won't have to wait too long :) . The AT-AT sets the final height of the landing platform - now that I have it done, I can start building the terrain under main supports (need it 9 bricks higher). And then... I think I have most of the parts necessary to finish the platform, including the costly light plates. But before I start all that, I must build a chest to store the AT-AT (before my Wife gets really angry ;) ) and to transport it safely in the future. Today I bought plywood just for this purpose, so it's a matter of days, I hope :) . Oh, and returning to the technique I used for platform's main supports: it's the only one that allows full control over the diameter of pillars and allows almost perfectly round shape. Unlike the most popular method utilising rounded panels 4x4, which are waaaay too small. I think I presented this solution quite a few years ago and expected it to be widely used by castle builders by now (for round castle towers) but I guess it is just too slopes-consuming and not so many builders wish to spend years collecting parts for their creations - like I do ;) .

Well, for the reason I described in my previous post, I don't think I have any better pictures of the interior than the three I've already published: Only about half of the thigh is reinforced with a long liftarm, hidden under tiles. The rest of the leg is more or less regular brick-on-brick build, which is delicate but has one advantage: huge mass of the hull is pressing the bricks together. So as long as you don't push or pull the model, it will stand on it's own safely. Of course, my model is not particularly stable - and it cannot be, being so tall and having the center of the mass positioned near the top. What makes moving head possible is that it is a glacially slow movement :) . I didn't try but I suppose if it were any faster, the model might collapse.

Thank you all. Indeed, bricklinking this model would be a pain - logistically and financially - but what is crucial is the fact that I don't plan to create MLCad plans for this one. It would be a staggering effort; I just don't have that much time. Well, I have some, of course, but they are useless, because it usually goes according to this scheme of events: 1) Wow, I built a great mechanism! I must take a photo! 2) Oh crap, nice photo, but I can't build a hull around this mechanism - it's too big! Gotta start all over. 3) Wow, new version of the mechanism is even better! I must build a hull around it immediately to make sure it fits! 4) Yes, it fits! I must take a photo! It's dumb but in the end all I get are photos of rejected mechanisms and photos of hull with good mechanisms hidden inside :) . But if I ever do an overhaul of Lambda 3.0 or start building Lambda 4.0, I'll try to be smarter.

Sure, there are several ways of fixing the arches to the foot but I just wanted more control: strong friction AND (at least theoretical) possibility of posing the foot (like tilting it slightly on a sqashed Ewok ;) ) . In the end it turned out unnecessary but I kept it because it's more true to the original than a fixed foot. And about the sideways movement: yes, there is some, since i did not fix to the floor of the hull those big "droplet" shaped parts that connect legs to the body. "Droplets" in my model could - again theoretically - move up and down as in the film. But the side effect of this (and of the model's huge weight) is that my AT-AT is somewhat "loose in the hips". Thus the importance of solid ankles. I motorized the head because it is clearly seen moving in "Jedi", when the walker halts at the platform. And I motorized guns... just for kicks :D .

Thanks again. And thanks for the third time for you just found a typo in my description :) . I meant bar 3L, of course, and the advantage it has over pins and axles is that when shoved inside a pneumatic hose, it sits very tightly and it was crucial to minimize the sideways movement. About bending legs - my model has only one purpose: it's supposed to stand next to the Endor landing platform. So I asked myself a question: what is the optimal static position for the AT-AT? Standing on four vertical, straight legs means problems with braking and resuming march, very unnatural position. One leg in the air means less stability. Bent legs mean huge pressure on knee joints. So the only logical solution - if I were AT-AT's designer - would be to stop the machine mid-stride, on straight legs. And that's what i did.

Thank you very much, guys. Very much so. Obviously, the film models were much more "aged" but I could not achieve this effect on all LEGO parts and decided that my Endor AT-AT is slightly newer than those from Hoth and only has stains under those vents (old gray headlight bricks). I'm glad you like the effect.

Hello, fellow Eurobricks members, I'v recently finished another step of my ultra-long term Endor Project - a minifig scale AT-AT model. Cute little herd by Maciej Szymański, on Flickr More photos of the model: https://www.flickr.c...157659614931935 More photos of the entire Endor Project: https://www.flickr.c...157629127778577 The story is long and boring - beginning with my Lambda Shuttle model being used as prototype for UCS 10212 set - but if you have any questions, I'll gladly answer. And since the first question (about my AT-AT) has already been posed by anothergol in another thread, here is a pic with description: https://www.flickr.c...57659614931935/ Enjoy!

Nope. As I said, I would only use glue before a long exhibition, just in case. Right now, there is not a droplet of glue in this model. Thanks for you kind opinion, by the way, but let's not steal this thread from our host :) .

First of all: hello everyone, I'm new here though not really new to the hobby :) . Now, this is an interesting sub-topic. I'd say there are more than two categories (glue and non-glue builders ;) ) . The important factor, in my opinion, is WHY or WHEN you glue your model. If you do it because otherwise it would not stand on it's own, then your model is in totally different league than others. I'm not saying it's worse (or better), just that it should not be compared with non-glue MOCs because it's not fair. On the other hand, I'm building a big AT-AT as well and it does stand on its own (even though it contains various mechanisms and weighs some 7 kg) but I will not hesitate to use glue before I take it to an exhibition. Our events sometimes last a month or two and I'm not going to take such risk, when all it takes to topple such a fragile model is one decent kick on table's leg... Anyway, LiLmeFromDaFuture, don't worry about your model being frowned upon - it's just different, not inferior. Master builders glue models they create for Legolands (not to mention putting steel frames inside). Set designers glue models before they present them to assessment commitees. It is all a matter of purpose. Regards, dmac

1... 2... 3... mic testing ;) profile2 by Maciej Szymański, on Flickr