___

haha, very nice and original concept - I like it

Hi there Well, here I am again after a quite long time, ehm kind of resurrection of the topic, but the thing is that after I really build this MOC (actually it was the first MOC I designed that I really built) I found several problems, misconceptions and stuff (you know: LDD do not support real world physics yet... ;) ), therefore I did some readjustments and remakings, so the actual design changed in a way + I also added some new functionalities that were not thought about in the original design (cos when I built it I have realized the back mobile part looks really cute and it may be nice to have it somehow separable from the front "tall" part with the small craft + I also return to initial design of canopy for the small craft sitting at the top of the front wheeled part, namely the CS canopy #4474 as it allows me more depth for the minifig inside and also enabled changing the craft design to somewhat more natural look comparing to previous version)...so here are the renders (as I already dismantled it again for other tests of my other MOCs :-D ) //...rendered just small picture for quick result, higher quality renders may come later

Thanx a lot for your support! It's OK cos as I've said before - and I see you've noticed - this looked almost like the only one acceptable option for me being not used by LEGO (of course - no one uses reversed helemts, right? )...and as there is no actual optipn to design my own and implement into LDD...you know the rest. But on the other hand I have to admit I really do like it after a while in the end...

I am second that...I was just going to post new question when I hit this one which is exactly I have problem with (part #53992 is narrow at one end and no brick/wheel in LDD library seem to fit there which is a big problem, cos on the bigger side of the track wheel #56145 fits very fine). So I hope LDD team will repair this (and maybe they could also make this caterpillar track being "bendable" like hoses to be able set them to wheels into triangular shape, like 2 wheeles down + 1 wheel up and so on)... Exactly

PERFECT WORK... :thumbup: BTW I wonder how many bricks you actually have in your arsenal for building these unbelievable things + where do you have them stored (like in some mega big shelves or something)???

nice

Exactly, sir - my words.

Gee, perfect...almost for the first time I have to admit there is someone who - from my point of view - fully understood "old school" LEGO space building design concepts: airyness, lightness, few bricks, nice design, good playability...BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO (so now I know I am not the only one who's thinking is somewhat different from most of the MOC-ers, haha) :thumbup: :thumbup: Actually the only thing I do not like much is just the transaprent color used - light blue, except that as I said above simply excellent little gem! BTW: is it "real stuff" or some superrealistic render??? Cos it looks so beautiful to eyes...

nice

Haha, thanx a lot...well, now as you say it I see it too, oh boy oh boy where is Reply when we need her?

Thanx...in the first stages of inventing this I was also playing with the idea that the back vehicle part would even rotate in the joint part at its top but then I decided not to as it could introduce some not pleasant side effect when playing with (vehicle could unintentionally rotate to sides etc.)... As for the helmet: well I was looking for something original and I come up with this reversed rebel helmet which to me looked and still looks interesting although not perfect, I did not want to use some existing and used combination on the minifig as I was trying to come up with my own subtheme...if there were an option to design my own helmet I definitely would but there is no such option as you may know therefore this seemed to be one of the few pssibilities I had. BTW: wasn't there such very similar helmet concept in SW itself? I mean those operating the big laser on DeathStar, those black guys...hm? Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there So, I am trying to increase the glossiness of the model's bricks by adding this code to one of my "*_base_plane.inc" files (in LDD2Povray) but it seems it has absolutely no effect at all whatsoever (does anyone know why?): object { ldd_model texture { finish { brilliance 0.5 roughness 1 reflection { 0.1 } } } } What is the right solution to this, please? EDIT: Sorry, it actually works...I just forgot to REPLACE .inc file in render, gee!

Yea, of course I do...what is happening here is called debating and arguing. + How can you expect someone to be quiet when you put out new round of debate, CP??? CP, see, no one needs to saying anything cos everyone who is not blind and is able argue for his own (it is: not saying something just because he wants to deffend someone's work...which happen quite often) saying freely what he sees and think for himself without fear of being blamed here for "attacking/being rude" can see the difference clearly, CP, just as you've said before "no set is perfect...almost never". I agree with the "some level of differences" - sure you are absolutely right, but that is still no argument against what I said or even better: it does not change anything important from my point: if we want to being like subtheme then we need to look like that...if it has just resemblance there is name for it, it is called "neo-", quite easy, isn't it? So summarizing my thoughts and arguments for the last time here having it said all in one sentence (as we are still repeating the same things over and over without real factual evidence, like the stuff with arrow: pointing in different direction? arrow pointing forward as dirrection of the small-ship flight, there is no arrow pointing upwards as you know and the logic is still applied etc etc etc...sure, they could also turn the arrow to the right or left but the logic would be still there, so they simply chosen "stright dirrection of the arrow" which is more in the overall feeling of sets "forward" design flow....arrow pointing to the side would be more visually distracting the "design feeling flow" I guess, who knows? ): your model is really fine and as I said I ilke it + also its name is super BUT for reasons I said earlier I would not call it Blacktron, if anything then neo-B if you want, that is all, folks, and if you still do not understand my lame english (you know, it is not my native language so it may be that I used some phrases that are not exactly the one that'd be used by some english speaking person, yea) then I am really sorry and "chilling out"...HOWGH Oh, please, don't be that silly, c'mon! Reason why it was so "lame", said in another way "not quantum of bricks everywhere, more airy, economic and childish" was also because of the fact that in those time primary task was PLAYABILITY whereas most MOC better said all including this CP nice work is mostly if not only about DESIGN. See: child needs to be able "putting his fingers in/inside the model, moving and playing inside it therefore those old designs were so airy - besides the economic part of each set, of course. Now tell me: how could child play/see inside those bulky ones? just think about it for a sec...hm? See? OK... Well, design is fine and very important but as soon as it is the primary part of the LEGO model the concept is somehow not quite good. And from there we finally getting to the conclusion: when I look at the LEGO model I primarily looking for the playability, not design, so if we take MOC as pure design concepts then it is all very fine and you can forget what I said up to now about it, BUT if we are talking about MOC from the playability point of view then my opinion is: sorry, no way! Leaving you now with the hope that someone could really think about what I said a bit harder, not just sliding the surface of it all (sorry CP that the post that was about your really nice model I have turned somehow into argumenting about MOC, subtheme designs and stuff...sorry ) P.S.: in case anyone would still be wanting to debate about this with me you are welcome to PM me as I am closing this post now and for the reason I will not see your reactions to my post(s)...so there will be no reaction to this from me here anymore, guys. Anyway, enjoy this great model of CP...ciao.

Very nice Fabuland avatar you have there...wall-RUS

Haha, very interesting concept...oh, those "englishmans", I'll tell ya!

Mole is always a mole...even if he has a driller instead of the nose - beware! = nice build although I do not remember "Thunderbirds", but in those times we have here something similar called "Ustredni vybor KSC" I guess.

Unbelievable beautiful scene you've made + so authentic...even Repley looks more authentic than in reality, gee! :laugh:

Really nice, aren't you Riddley...ehm, Riddley Scott???

I know that: I made me my own scripts...ehm, edited ldd_*_base_plane.inc file(s) where I defined almost all that is deffinable so I have set it for respective set(s) and can be reused later if I need to...also lights and such so I do not need to bother setting them everytime my set change (as I quite often using different settings for different models...even form different views of the same model) The only problem is that as you've said if I want edit directly things about the bricks in model it needs to be done in .pov which I do not want to as it is rewritten every time I need to rerender something which basically happens all the time so that way I would lose it all after first rerender... + I do not want to change/redefine texture of ldd_model, just change/increase bricks "odlesky" (sorry do not know the english word and as you are slovak as me... ), therefore I write just finish{} part alone...but I did not try it yet so maybe you are right and there needs to be also texture{} part... .

As I do not like mechs and stuff very much as whole I will ask something else: your renders are superb, organic, fluid and all..one simple big WOW! :thumbup: :thumbup: So logically the question is: as I see you definitely didn't do it in LDD nor MLCad, cos they cannot do those bends of legs and arms of minifigs etc., and you probably also did not render it using POV-Ray because of the background and baseplane seamless gradient...so can you tell us all (OK, namely myself ) in what SW exactly did you do all of this, please? PLEASE just do not tell me that it was made in Blender or I jump out of the window (...in the basement )...

Although the film was total catastrophy I could hardly watch it till the end ...your model is fantastic,,I really like it + the render from bottom-front looks beautiful,really!

Although not original at all (now I do not mean it as attack, just saying that anyone who really know original LEGO space sets will recognize those originals immediately in most of your work - I always prefer ones own creation before copying something and only changing bits here and there, sorry) I actually like some of them, OK.

nice

...not only the knees need to say BTW isn't the backwall in the first two scenes reflecting too much? In what SW did you rendered it?