Midi AT-AT

[M<0><0<DSWIM]

By invite, please check out my midi-scale AT-AT. You can see more pics on Mocpages.

Here's a pic of the side:

[lightningtiger]

Sorry to point this out first, but your links don't work....I had to copy and paste to search, but I found your creation......2005 eh ?.....you waited a long time to post it here !

But I'm impressed - it's excellent AT-AT, I feel it's all in proportion.....but how good are the hinge plates - they don't get to loose do they ?

AWESOME work.......we'll need the 'Brickdoctor', amoung others to cast their eyes over this too !

May the Sith brick be with you !

[M<0><0<DSWIM]

Sorry to point this out first, but your links don't work....I had to copy and paste to search, but I found your creation......2005 eh ?.....you waited a long time to post it here !

But I'm impressed - it's excellent AT-AT, I feel it's all in proportion.....but how good are the hinge plates - they don't get to loose do they ?

AWESOME work.......we'll need the 'Brickdoctor', amoung others to cast their eyes over this too !

May the Sith brick be with you !

Thanks, man! I got the link to work finally. Actually, I built this a few months ago. The date in my camera is off. The hinges are solid and this thing "was" very sturdy. Oh, and the Doc already saw and commented on this and I got his blessing:)

[BrickArtist]

Nice. This is a great rendition of the AT-AT. Some of it's a little disproportionate, like the back slope on the body should be a tiny bit longer than the one on the other side. There should be one point where the legs are only attached to the feet by 4 beams, and the center is not connected to the feet. See this pic. Also, you may want to push those 3 1x1 trans red tiles out by 1 plate thickness(A grey 1x3 should do the trick ). Overall fantastic work, I'll be along to look at your AT-TE shortly. Those are all tiny flaws, that are barely noticeable, and I'm not sure how accurate you going for. Looks like you've got a thing for midi-MOCs, eh?

[Brickdoctor]

Like I said, great job, Mood, and welcome to EB.

I'll leave any dimensional criticisms alone for now (and I don't spot any major ones), because we have a member who's a total expert at that kinda stuff who should be along shortly...

[BrickArtist]

Like I said, great job, Mood, and welcome to EB.

I'll leave any dimensional criticisms alone for now (and I don't spot any major ones), because we have a member who's a total expert at that kinda stuff who should be along shortly...

We need to write a imperial fallenangel march, so that we can introduce him don't we? before you feel the full power of dark fallenangel side!

[Brickdoctor]

We need to write a imperial fallenangel march, so that we can introduce him don't we? before you feel the full power of dark fallenangel side!

That we do.

But don't forget, accuracy isn't everything. Just you wait 'til the day I build an X-wing - with SNOT wings just so I can drive him crazy. And because I love the look SNOT wings. Even if they're too thick in some instances. But mostly just to drive fallenangel nuts.

[XimenaPaulina]

Great rendition of the AT-AT in midi-scale Mood, looks quite accurate to me. Well done, and thanks for sharing this to EB!

[M<0><0<DSWIM]

Nice. This is a great rendition of the AT-AT. Some of it's a little disproportionate, like the back slope on the body should be a tiny bit longer than the one on the other side. There should be one point where the legs are only attached to the feet by 4 beams, and the center is not connected to the feet. See this pic. Also, you may want to push those 3 1x1 trans red tiles out by 1 plate thickness(A grey 1x3 should do the trick ). Overall fantastic work, I'll be along to look at your AT-TE shortly. Those are all tiny flaws, that are barely noticeable, and I'm not sure how accurate you going for. Looks like you've got a thing for midi-MOCs, eh?

Thanks! If you check out the other pics on Mocpages, you'll see I did make the back-end plates a stud longer than the front. I know that the feet have a gap where the joint connects, but for stability's sake, I had to make a solid connection. I don't agree about the cockpit, though, but thanks for the comments:) I added a pic of the side view.

Edited January 29, 2011 by M<0><0<DSWIM

[filospinato]

Very cool! :thumbup:

[BrickArtist]

Thanks! If you check out the other pics on Mocpages, you'll see I did make the back-end plates a stud longer than the front. I know that the feet have a gap where the joint connects, but for stability's sake, I had to make a solid connection. I don't agree about the cockpit, though, but thanks for the comments:) I added a pic of the side view.

Ahh, now I see about the back.

I'd recommend trans see-through for the feet, for stability.

This pick shows the front pretty well. I see there is an overlap, but it appears that the slopes go out, and then back in. But to every man his own!

[BrickArtist]

That we do.

But don't forget, accuracy isn't everything. Just you wait 'til the day I build an X-wing - with SNOT wings just so I can drive him crazy. And because I love the look SNOT wings. Even if they're too thick in some instances. But mostly just to drive fallenangel nuts.

Well SNOT is a bittersweet, like plates. Wrong thickness, but more detail can be captured. I to love SNOT. And color transitions, like on the arc170, look much better with SNOT.

[M<0><0<DSWIM]

Ahh, now I see about the back.

I'd recommend trans see-through for the feet, for stability.

This pick shows the front pretty well. I see there is an overlap, but it appears that the slopes go out, and then back in. But to every man his own!

Thanks, man! I never thought about trans parts for the feet, but I'll consider that the next time I try a new version of this (which I'll probably do).

[Fallenangel]

Okay, this was funny at first but now it's just annoying. Can we please stop with the ostracizing?

But don't forget, accuracy isn't everything. Just you wait 'til the day I build an X-wing - with SNOT wings just so I can drive him crazy. And because I love the look SNOT wings. Even if they're too thick in some instances. But mostly just to drive fallenangel nuts.

I would approve of SNOT wings provided the MOC was in 1/24 scale, so build me a studio scale UCS X-wing with SNOT and see if I go nuts...

Well SNOT is a bittersweet, like plates. Wrong thickness, but more detail can be captured. I to love SNOT. And color transitions, like on the arc170, look much better with SNOT.

I would disagree with you on the color transitions - if they're at an angle, it's next to impossible to capture them accurately with SNOT (e. g. squadron markings on an X-wing's wings); at least with stacked plates you can use the wing plates to include such details without having holes in the structure.

[Brickdoctor]

Okay, this was funny at first but now it's just annoying. Can we please stop with the ostracizing?

Sorry.

Anyways, back to the MOC. We can talk SNOT T-65s over PM if you want.

[Fallenangel]

Back to the MOC...

I understand that in such a small scale there are limitations as to what can and can't be done with LEGO, and taking that into account I'm impressed at all the angles you've managed to pull off and the details you've managed to include. On the other hand, I think it would prove quite frustrating to make a model look dimensionally accurate at this scale...

The first thing I noticed is that this feels a bit like 8129; the troop section just doesn't seem long enough. And as brickartist pointed out the rearmost segment of the troop section should be significantly longer than the 'shoulders'.

The head could be longer as well. It looks a bit fat at this point.

The chin-mounted laser cannons should be longer than the medium blasters, though I'm not sure how much longer.

The little flap that hangs down from the middle segment of the troop section extends too far down, according to this picture.

If what brickartist pointed out were tiny flaws I'd say these are somewhat bigger flaws...

[Ceroknight]

It looks really good, lots of detail for a midi scale

[dr_spock]

Looks good.

[Stardusty]

It looks really nice.

Keep brickin'.

[BrickArtist]

I would disagree with you on the color transitions - if they're at an angle, it's next to impossible to capture them accurately with SNOT (e. g. squadron markings on an X-wing's wings); at least with stacked plates you can use the wing plates to include such details without having holes in the structure.

Sorry Fallen

Anyways, the point I was making was, for instance, the Arc-170 fighter. The wing makes a transition from white to Dk. Red. You see with plates, A piece would have to overlap the two, causing a discoloration. With SNOT you can just change the color of the bricks.

And with plates you can't get rid of studs. Everyone has their preference I guess

[Masked Builder]

Looks good! I do think the legs are a bit on the skinny side. (Though they were that way on the real one)

[Fallenangel]

Sorry Fallen

Anyways, the point I was making was, for instance, the Arc-170 fighter. The wing makes a transition from white to Dk. Red. You see with plates, A piece would have to overlap the two, causing a discoloration.

Not if it's in UCS scale. And in such a scale, SNOT wings would be bulky and are bound to fall apart unless you were to reinforce it with Technic beams - which gives rise to the issue of discoloration due to overlap.

Besides, with the relatively limited choice of sloped bricks you get it would be difficult to capture the angle of the wings accurately (as the wrong angle will result in the model looking weird). On the other hand, these offer a much wider range of possible angles for platebuilt solutions. When you are constructing something with a lot of strange angles such as, say, an AT-TE, it would come in quite useful (I only wish I had more of them...)

[Praiter Yed]

Nice Midi AT-AT. The mix of greys gives the 'weathered' look.