Jerac
-
Posts
497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by Jerac
-
Generally I scale to any element I can get right first. For example I know a TIE cockpit windshield part is 6-wide so I scale everything to this cockpit diameter using Sariel's scaling tool. I never scale to metres because there exists no good data on dimensions of Star Wars vehicles (official does not mean good by any means!). And then even if there was, the minifig is awfully out of proportions and properly scaled ship would probably not fit a minifig inside. When I was building standard TIE fighters, I made the sphere to be roughly 8.5 studs in diameter and scaled everything to match this dimension. Here it was the cockpit piece with the coning assembly, and in the A-wing I was scaling to the engines' diameter.
-
Dkred is known for this, but I'd leave it as it is. This is a rugged-looking transport ship. I would even swap some LBG to old gray to make patched look. Good call with jumper plates. They're good for such situations where you want detacheable modules, because of assymmetrical grip strength (double on the bottom, and single on top). There are even 2x2 jumpers with even higher difference in strengths.
-
As someone who designs instructions I can tell you that it is hell of a job to get everything right without any errors. LEGO modelling software, in general, is absurdly, totally awful. It feels like every program family has its own parts database and they're - obviously - not compatible. And it almost by design cannot be. You see, there are plenty of variants of pieces BrickLink does not differentiate, but since they are different pieces, when modelling, you have separate part models with separate indices. I don't have any exact part for example right now, but imagine something on bricklink with ID of 1234 would appear as 1234a, 1234b and - because why not - 9876, in ldraw-family programs. As far as I know, you always have to fix it eventually. I have had plenty of errors initially with just ~700pcs tie fighter. They are all fixed by now, but boy did it cause headache... I made prototypes in LDD and then ported to mlcad; what I did not expect was sheer amount of parts existing in LDD but not in mlcad and vice versa. Since it seems Cavegod and Cjd223 too fell into the "ldd-mlcad compatibility trap", I can fully understand how a 12k+ parts model has some errors. If you buy even the most expensive car it is bound to have those little tiny production glitches too. The proper course of action is to notify the designer/author about the mistake, they will happily help you with resolving it and fix the instructions. As for rare parts this is another thing I still wonder how to tackle. You can have either a "perfect" model with rare parts, or a compromise using cheaper ones. Which one would you have sitting on your desk? I bet the perfect one...
-
Clips and pneumatic T-pieces; the attachment points for these "gap fillers" is actually quite far back into the build. This was perhaps the very first thing I have designed for this ship and boy did it cause problems... :D So the weird hulls' diameter? 8-wide would be much simplier, right? And it would! Except I couldn't get these "fillers" to work with 8-wide so instead of doing something else with them I just adjusted entire ship's hulls' width... so total dimensions of this model were determined by a combination of one 1x2 slope, one clip, one 1x2 plate and one T-piece.
-
I like the new underside a lot; it is huge improvement. I guess these exposed 2x3 plates are for stand attachment?
-
Thanks! About 1450. Nothing particularly rare, but plenty of duplicates... a total of 200 of 1x2 and 1x1 alone, for example.
-
Next TIE craft in the line! The Bomber is one of my favourite designs in the lineup. Interceptor is nice, the standard T/F is somewhat boring and featureless, but the bomber is visibly a workhorse of the fleet. It is heavy, rugged and pragmatic as possible, with no regard placed when it comes to its look. In the end you get a ship which is totally distinct and what is rare in Star Wars world, assymetric. Who wouldn't like such a design? What was surprising for me was how heavy the ship is compared to other TIEs. It uses almost twice the part count to the standard T/F, and yet it is similar in size. The build was fun but not super challenging, there were just few complex areas: coning shape of the hulls' fronts and bottoms, engines, bomb bay, center hull joiner, having the hulls proper diameter.... okay, perhaps this is few things to consider :D Lets get to that which matters - the design! I hope you like it as much as I did the design! ...and there is a video, too! :D The ship is a commisioned build and as such, has instructions available! https://www.brickvault.toys/collections/all
-
Yeah the X-Wing and A-Wing are mostly right but Y-wing is sort of meh. It just needs to be bigger and more proportionate. Also in the X-Wing I'd lengthten the nose by one stud and perhaps add a plate to its rear, so wings don't extend past its back so much. This plus obviously swap a grey plate under the black cheese slope for a red one ;)
-
Watch out, you are headed for a disaster! Seriously and honestly. You are modelling your ship in a software which does not handle shadows well (to be honest, I know no lego modelling software which does this right). What looks very nice on these screens will have *VERY* nasty gaps in real life, because how lighting works. I strongly recommend prototyping some of the ship in bricks (for example the dome area where angled sections touch).
-
[MOC] UCS Jedi starfighter Eta-2 Actis class (INSTRUCTIONS)
Jerac replied to thire5's topic in LEGO Star Wars
Apparently the ship is supposed to have a boxy protrusion on the bottom side to fit the droid: -
Looks super good! Two questions: - do all the pieces exist in these colours and are reasonably easy to get? It is a common pitfall for digital building. - would it be possible to make bottom side smooth as detailed as well? It seems there is plenty of space inside to reverse building direction. This would really take this model from very good to awesome!
-
Not sure which one you mean... that gap on the horizontal spokes? It is a compromise of simplicity, looks and durabilty. You can try adding tiles in the gaps (it was indended to have tiles there), but I found out the connection the panel make is a bit insecure and because the gap is nice, straight and smooth, I left it there. All in all though, since some people mention this, I might update it in the future. For now though I focus on next models in the line. Without gaps this time, other than required ones!
-
Hi, Brickvault guys made a quick bricklink check and it came out to be in range of 80$ + shipping. I'd expect it to be in 70-90 range, the Special Forces one closer to 90 and standard - 70. SF has much more pieces.
-
Only the Special Forces one is a two-seater. The standard one has a spacier, one-man cockpit. It is also a little bit more durable construction-wise, because it can have a stronger connection in the back. Other upgrades Special Forces get are these powerbank rings mear the panels, bigger antenna, bigger guns, a turret under the cockpit, bigger engines and red decal on the side.
-
Thanks!
-
When I have had the basic TIE Fighter done I knew I also had the First Order design done, after all, it is only a matter of simple redesign and adding an antenna, right? Not right, as I have realised. First tricky question is: How many new TIE craft were introduced in the Force Awakens movie, hmm? The obvious hotrodesque red striped two-seater ship which Poe and yet-to-be-named-Finn use to escape? Like this? ..obvious... but wait: ...whaaaaaat? So yeah, there are, in fact, TWO new TIE fighters. And believe me, there are plenty of differences between old and new ships. What was meant to be a simple recoloring job and generating new instructions with few clicks, ended up being month-and-half job to do. I still believe it was worth it, though, what do you think? Much like original ships these two are commisioned builds as well and as such, have instructions available at BrickVault's website: https://www.brickvault.toys/ ...and also like before, a little movie showcasing the ships' quirks and features was produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JxQnjlg_tc&t=252s Cheers!
-
They're all attached to a 1x5 thick liftarm.
-
Great! Your update is really a significant level up. Now in fact I don't care about engines being too wide or any other flaws, as the model just flows together so nicely. Good job! Now you need to make a little fleet of these, I think. EDIT: very cheap possible improvement idea: swap side 1x4 tiles to 1x3, leaving last stud open. This will make the hull be more cone-shaped.
-
I absolutely do not feel offended! Sorry if you thought so. I just mentioned this particular MOC is a little too far in modifying pieces to my liking, but this does not mean I am offended or anything.
-
I like how it looks in the end, but amount of cutting of pieces required is a bit.... high. Beauty of LEGO lies in the fact we have to work around medium's limitations. If you cut pieces, you move one tier up, to custom models. So while your model is relally nice, your competition now is this:
-
I guess it is a joke, much like they also deliberately made TIE ships' cockpit to sphere diameter ratio undoable in small scale in LEGO... ;p
-
...so it will be me who is not with line with the others. Oh well :D I don't like it. This is a nifty little build by itself, but it can be done much better by using rounded pieces or cheese slopes. These ships were very definitely tubes with slightly rectangular bomb chute attached. The body is actually shorter or about the same length as the chute. Their engines don't stick out that much, and wings are really slim and narrow. With such a small build there are dozens of iterations possible in quick succession and I strongly recommend going through few more.
-
Actually it seems the AT-AT is way too small. For minifigs, the front visor should be at least 8 studs wide if not 10, hm... I sense some size discrepancy within the movies themselves! I am not surprised by the size of the Ghost, at all. It is supposed to be - at least - as big as the Millennium Falcon, and anybody trying to design a livable spaceship with interior knows how big the final design will be. Btw it seems it needs fourth leg in the rear, is it rear-heavy?
-
If I may recommend something, swap out front red 1x2 tiles to 2x2. It will give it both proper total length and properly narrow front edge.
-
The TIE Bomber is not ideal for producing now because it will not share any part of the design with these two TIEs I already have. Its hulls' diameter is actually smaller than diameter of T/F sphere. I am a huge fan of T/B design, but in general theory of project management, it is worth to make easy and high-gain things first, then hard with high-gain, then easy with low gain and finally - if you still have to continue - hard with low gain. T/B falls into second category, but there are plenty of designs - like First Order TIE or TIE Defender - which will reuse a lot of design (even though instructions will most likely be 100% different). Still... if I had to rate my favourite TIEs, T/B would be second only to the Interceptor, so it will definitely happen! EDIT: as for the TIE Avenger. You mean the one from Lucasarts X-Wing and Tie Fighter game series? The one with slightly flattened sphere and in general looking like a little beefier TIE Interceptor? If yes good news, I like this one, but it is a rare ship and not many people know it.