Jump to content

NathanR

Eurobricks Knights
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    658

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by NathanR

  1. NathanR
    @DugaldIC, @Didumos69, I'm not sure how applicable this is in my case, because you're working with beams only, but I've got to say wow... that geometry, those connections... it's just mind-blowing. I'm going to have to spend a lot of time rereading that other thread and really thinking about everything you're doing! I did consider building with Pythagorean quadruples at first, but they just gave me a headache (not just the maths, but figuring out the 3D rotations in LDD). In the end I "cheated" by having it taper in one direction only, and stepped in the other. On the long side, each new layer is set back one extra brick, while the short sides then become angled plains - the truss-structure there is just made up of 3,4,5 triangles. The design is actually :"in-system", on the long edge the two lower layers slope inwards at 22.6 degrees, with every 14th pinhole lining up. The other triangles on the long side are set a couple of plates lower, and need something like a 15.01L beam for the connection, hence my use of 2L axles and axle connectors to build the strut, so it can "stretch" a little. If you're thinking it looks perfect, wondering what the problem is... it's too tall! I need to shave two bricks worth of height off that second layer. Otherwise, there's no way to get the tower's arms lining up with the right bits of the rocket. Well, there are two triangles needed really, but I think only one has to be structural. The outer triangle (the corner of the tower) should be around 22.6 degrees, the other triangle (for the truss structure) should be something like 50 degrees. I'm not so fussy on the truss structure, just so long as the tower is well supported.
  2. NathanR
    Wow, this is awesome! I loved the game and always wanted some Lego models from it. I would also love to have an LDD file, is there one available?
  3. NathanR
    Hi, I could use some help working out which triangles built from a mix of technic beams and bricks are actually valid (or at least, not going to damage or strain the parts when they're assembled). For example, if you stack a load of 1x16 technic bricks, then attach a beam at an angle of about 22.6 degrees, every 14th pin hole on the beam lines up with a pin hole in a brick. Are there any other "magic angles" where the rotated beam's pin holes line back up with the grid? And if so, how can you calculate what they are, since 6 vertical bricks = a beam of 7 pin holes, and this seems to throw Pythagoras' law? I'm also interested in calculating more "unusual" triangles - for instance, what if the stack of bricks includes one or two plates, or what if the bricks change to 1x1 technic bricks (i.e. pin holes with a half stud offset). Is there a list of valid triangles, or a way to calculate what will work? And what are the tolerances before such a triangle starts popping the bricks apart? My specific use case is in a scale model of the launch pad for the Apollo moon rocket, one of the lower levels has to be 8 bricks and 2 plates high (plus or preferably minus 1-2 plates), and I'm looking for an angled beam that will produce the sloping side. Unfortunately, it can't be under too much strain, as a ~1m tall tower will sit on top and need a reasonably solid foundation. I'm going crazy with trial and error in LDD and a few rough prototypes in real life - could some kind soul give me some advice?
  4. NathanR
    And now I'm double posting, but right now I'm basically screaming in frustration. It's proving impossible to put the swing-arms on the right tower levels and get them lining up with the right bits of the rocket. The bottom arm is in the correct place - the base of it should line up with deck 5, and also line up with the bottom of the black stipe on the rocket. The top of the topmost arm should line up with the top of the black stripe on the rocket. It turns out that my fancy sloping sides linking Layer 1 and Layer 2 are perfectly in system, but shift the entire tower two bricks too high (not just one brick as I'd originally thought). So I need to redesign that section. The red sloped beam shown here needs to shrink from 13M to 11M (10M would be better but there is no such beam). Only snag is, there is no connection that is strictly "in system". The best I can see is this: But if you look closely, the pin holes don't quite line up. Is this close enough? Would it work if I used an axle instead of a pin? It would be a disaster if the red beam pulled the blue brick downwards, it would causes the deck to pop upwards slightly and weaken the attachment of the next 17 levels. Are there any better ways of designing this?
  5. NathanR
    Thanks! You know it took me a few minutes to realise why 2019 was special... I figured out the connection for the S1C inter-tank swing-arm (the bottom one), I had to build a 1x4 wall inside the tower to give enough support, and a couple of 3L pins with a 1L beam (pin connector?) narrowly missing the angled support strut. It looks a little clunky for the back, but I'll have to use this same pattern all the way up to give a strong enough connection for the remaining arms. Also, a pretty neat solution to transition two horizontal pin connections into a vertical axle - combining 48989 Pin Connector Perpendicular 3L with 4 Pins with two 15100 technic pin with pin hole, and locked together with a pair of 11214 Technic axle pin with 1L axle: I've added in the rocket to try and gauge where to put the swing arms: Firstly, this was not a good idea for my poor computer, which is struggling to handle such a complex scene - the entire model is currently on 3500 pieces, with a further ~1900 for the rocket. Another 700 pieces are expected for the railing details on various decks. Swing arms, detailing fuel lines and the crane on the top should add at least another 1000 parts. Unfortunately, after working out where all the connection points should go to attach the arms up the tower, I've discovered a horrible mistake. The top 17 decks are formed from nearly identical subassemblies. The total tower is five bricks short of what it should be. I could just plonk an extra deck on top, but that would be cheating, so now I have to go rebuild the tower and add an extra plate to each level. And then redo all the connection points, and re-assess where the arms have to clip in.
  6. NathanR
    Wow, beautiful!
  7. NathanR
    Possibly... that's how I got the parts for 42009. Cost is definitely spiralling out of control though, I added in the railings for each deck of the tower - 480 1x1 clips, 240 1x2 grille tiles, something like 60GBP for these parts alone. I've started work on the swing arms now, and a very old design decision has come back to haunt me. I moved the Apollo rocket one stud closer to the tower, so that the base could use a a 10-wide baseplate instead of a 9-wide plate. Unfortunately, the rocket is now too close for me to the able to use the 2x2x10 girder (95347) as the main bulk of the arm - the arm hits the rocket every time you try and move it. So I've had to come up with a brick built version: It's a little bit crude but I'm not sure how I could build it any better The other problem is the two vertical beams behind the hinge. There is only one pin holding each beam in place at the bottom, and another at the top (out of shot). I'd like a couple more connections for strength, but I don't see any way to build them in. The pivot point sits two beams away from the main structure, cannot be slid left or right or it will collide with the main superstructure, Ideally I'd need a 3x3 plus-sign shaped technic beam, but they don't exist and I don't see how to make one out of existing pieces. Also, if I extend the vertical beams up the tower to allow the other swing arms to be attached, the pin holes stop lining up with the higher decks. Ultimately, the entire swing arm assembly (large bulky, and critical for the model) could be held on to the tower by just 5 pins over a height of about 3 feet.This just isn't going to work... Any technic experts got some suggestions?
  8. NathanR
    But one can't afford it... My budget was only £300, any more I'll have to split the cost with next year or skip some upcoming Lego sets. I will have to see what the final design comes out like...
  9. NathanR
    Thanks! I did consider more technic, but those bricks are really expensive and I wasn't sure how to lock them into the outer walls. Curiously, the most expensive part is the 1x12 grey bricks making up the outer wall. Large panels would be a lot cheaper, but then the they wouldn't lock the base plates together. A new update - the tower is rising... First three floors are done. The second floor sits about one brick too high, but I had to do this - the sides slope inwards at 22.6 degrees, so the 14th hole of a technic beam will exactly line up with a stack 11 bricks high. What I'm really proud of, is the way all the triangle support structures on the sides are legitimate connections. One or two are pushing the tolerance of Lego bricks, but it all fits together without straining the parts. On the MLP, you can also see the tail service masts and (I think) a generator , which I've temporarily borrowed from the whatsuptoday LUT design. I'll be trying ti replace these at some point (some hard to get parts). Estimated cost now stands at 270GBP. Next up will be the rest of the tower - 15 identical decks, topped off with a crane. Just to give an idea of scale: The grey plates sticking out of the tower are reference points - the lower one lines up with the 1x2 grille pieces on the SII-C, and the upper one lines up with the top of the Command Module. So I've kind of recovered from that extra brick height in the base.
  10. NathanR
    It's a fabulous model, unfortunately a lot of the parts are rare, long out-of-production, or simply don't exist in the required colours. I've been working on my own LUT for the last 6 months (WIP thread here), though there hasn't been much interest.
  11. NathanR
    I may have found a solution! I was looking at the 40174 Iconic Chess Set, which builds the board from four 16x16 plates. The plates had a border of 1x12 bricks, and the seam was closed by a 2x10 central spar. I've duplicated that technique here: Can't help feeling that this is overkill and I could hollow out some of the supports and get the cost down. Bricklink says this bit alone will set me back ~175GBP or 200EUR, which is double what I was hoping, I may end up stuck with this as a digital MOC. Also can't help feeling that it still won't be rigid enough to stop the top and bottom sets of plates popping off. LDD file is available here in the unlikely event anyone want to take a look at it. The next version will include the launch tower itself, I just need to figure out how best to build the 14x14 floors given the limited selection of large red plates available.
  12. NathanR
    I think some of those sellers got the parts from the original UCS falcon and have ben trying to sell them for years. Since the new UCS falcon got released, new sellers have been listing them at more reasonable prices. Wow, that was a good bargain...
  13. NathanR
    Damn, I was too slow. Seems to be out of stock (bricks and pieces) or not listed (Pick a Brick) in the UK
  14. NathanR
    Well, I'm still tinkering away with this. Starting to regret ever starting it to be honest. I've gone through several drafts of the MLP, I can only build small sections at a time due to a lack of pieces, and pretty much everything I do falls apart far too easily. My latest and greatest version (mostly because I can't test it!) features a base made of a three plate thick sandwich. Unfortunately, the bricklink best price (not counting the walls) is ~70GBP, I'm beginning to think I'll never be able to afford the bricks to build this in real life. Any ideas how I could reduce the number of plates in the bottom three layers? The interior will be sealed up, it doesn't need to look nice, it just has to be fairly rigid. LDD file is here if anyone is interested: https://www.bricksafe.com/files/NathanR/real-space/apollo-lut/V2_MLP_Draft.lxf
  15. NathanR
    Oooh, I'm envious. That looks fabulous! Did you make the decals on the shuttle as well? That is a neat solution. I've heard of those thin clips, but never seen one in real life.
  16. NathanR
    I stand corrected! It seems it was included in that set! I didn't know the set number, but if you type 2000413 into the Lego customer service for missing bricks, it does indeed list the lattice (though naturally, it's out of stock right now )
  17. NathanR
    Interesting... so how many have actually been made? I would guess no more than 10,000.
  18. NathanR
    Looks nice though...
  19. NathanR
    Lego customer service appears to have confirmed that only 5000 of each have been made. I guess that means these are US exclusives and won't appear anywhere else: https://www.thebrickfan.com/lego-classic-walmart-60th-anniversary-sets-limited-to-5000-each/
  20. NathanR
    Wow, that is fantastic!
  21. NathanR
    Been toying with some designs in computer, but nothing is holding together well in real life. Part of the problem is that I don't have many bricks to hand for testing (a pile of 2x6 bricks, a pair of 16x16 plates, etc) and the larger plates can flex a lot. I've tried stacking a plate, a row of bricks round the edge, then an identical plate on top, that worked really well. But when I tried to extend it to include an additional plate to the side, and added a seam, everything started popping off at the slightest flex. An additional plate below the whole assembly to cover the seam didn't give much added strength, Even a wall of interlocking 2x6 bricks seemed to pop apart a little too easily... I'm starting to wonder if my pieces could have shrunk or something. I swear the Lego bricks I had 20 years ago had much better sticking power. Or have I just completely lost it when it comes to Lego design?
  22. NathanR
    Storing Lego has been a great worry to me lately. You said your bricks weren't dusty and grimy, so I guess that means they were just loose in a box? I guess that's what has saved them. Your wife's set had been stored in "the kind of bags you'd use to store food in the refrigerator", do you know what kind of plastic the bags were made of? Have the plastic bags gone yellow with age at all? Many food-freezer bags are made from an acidic plastic, which won't affect food being stored for a few weeks but can be dangerous longer-term. For example, PVC (polyvinyl-chloride) plastic bags tend to break down over time and release hydrogen chloride (better known as hydrochloric acid). If the bags are completely air-tight, there is no way for the gas to escape, so it slowly builds up and attacks whatever is being stored. I'm not sure how badly this affects Lego bricks, but I've been finding that 6 months in a freezer food bag leaves my Lego bricks feeling a little sticky.
  23. NathanR
    Ah, I had misunderstood your plan, I see now. Stick with 56145, that's still in current production (2998 hasn't been made since 1999, and then only in white). Those ladders can be attached to (say) a 2x4 plate, e.g. as done in 10249 Winter Village toy shop. All you would need to do is get some studs pointing downwards on the base of the drill section.
  24. NathanR
    No, no, no, with something like this you can't build from the top down. The main chassis has caterpillar tracks wrapped around four wheels, and Lego don't give you many options for building something like this. You could use this x939, x1681, or a full caterpillar drive from chain links such as 3873 or 57518. x939 would be tricky to add a fourth wheel, and it is very small, the mole drill section would have to be 4 studs across. x1681 is better (is this what you meant by the wheels used on star destroyers?), which would put the drill at 5 or possibly 6 studs wide. I would go for 57518, which are 4 to 5 studs wide, and would give you an 8 to 10 stud wide mole. Once you have the actual size defined, then you can start on the drill section. There's so much detailing on this part that it almost ceases to be a cylinder, so you could build it studs-up, using inverted slopes for the base (e.g. this or this) and then this plate with rail for the sliding mechanism.
  25. NathanR
    Instructions would be nice to have, but the designer admitted on his ideas post that some bricks were not available in the correct colours. Also, the fuel tank is built out of dark orange 4x4 quarter cylinders, which only appeared in the long-retired Shuttle Adventure/Expedition sets, so the price would be astronomic. That said, I would dearly love to build my own copy of the Orbiter. The split rudder on the tail fin...
×
×
  • Create New...