[MOC - WIP] another AT-ST

[anothergol]

I have it standing next to my UCS and 7657 (2007) and you know what, it gives the UCS a good run for its money from the accuracy and sheer awesomeness perspective. I swear I can see a blush of embarrassment on 7657's cheeks...

Normally it won't fall over if you picked new ball-joint parts. The trick is to pose (with the head detached) the inter-leg bars right first, as those have the high-friction extenders, they won't move. Then pose the thighs right. Then connect the head, and place the whole thing on the ground and pivot it front/back until you align with the center of gravity. The friction in the feet joints hardly matters, as long as the center of gravity is well aligned, the whole weight on them will be vertical, and it's not gonna move unless you knock it. Well, mine hasn't fallen by itself yet. But yeah, posing it right takes a lot of time, definitely not something you wanna do all the time.

The head's joint is probably the real problem, as it's gonna want to fall forwards if you wanna tilt it too far. There I could have used a high-friction extender, but it'd require a rework of the body.

Can we see pictures?

Edited November 4, 2015 by anothergol

[manglegrat]

Normally it won't fall over if you picked new ball-joint parts. The trick is to pose (with the head detached) the inter-leg bars right first, as those have the high-friction extenders, they won't move. Then pose the thighs right. Then connect the head, and place the whole thing on the ground and pivot it front/back until you align with the center of gravity. The friction in the feet joints hardly matters, as long as the center of gravity is well aligned, the whole weight on them will be vertical, and it's not gonna move unless you knock it. Well, mine hasn't fallen by itself yet. But yeah, posing it right takes a lot of time, definitely not something you wanna do all the time.

I was a lot more careful today when moving it around and re-posing it (admittedly I'm not going for a very dynamic pose) and you know, with your tips it was a lot more manageable. Not a single fumble, drop, head-flop or part-fall-off!

And yeah, it's definitely stable enough to stand on its own - may not need that stand, after all! Actually, I found the UCS more annoying when I was moving it for the pics, below - the legs on that are much floppier.

The head's joint is probably the real problem, as it's gonna want to fall forwards if you wanna tilt it too far. There I could have used a high-friction extender, but it'd require a rework of the body.

Yeah, I noticed that! Had a few head-flops before I got the angle of the body right.

Can we see pictures?

Ask and (with any luck) ye shall receive - though apologies for the amateur-hour setting:

The Walker Family Portrait

Profile & leg comparison shot. I prefer the proportions your design by far - the UCS legs feel too short compared to yours. Maybe it's more of an Endor spec model vs. your more Hoth-like one. 7657 is definitely the runt of the litter.

OK, who let the dog out?! It's always looking for a belly-rub...

Edited November 5, 2015 by manglegrat

[anothergol]

looks all nice!

You're supposed to lower the shovels at the back until they reach the lower legs for the angle you picked, though.

(btw as I wrote, I've already modified some parts, but they're not in my LXF project yet)

[manglegrat]

looks all nice!

You're supposed to lower the shovels at the back until they reach the lower legs for the angle you picked, though.

(btw as I wrote, I've already modified some parts, but they're not in my LXF project yet)

Oops, yeah - good catch. I initially had everything in the right place but forgot to clean up that area and realign everything when moving it around and re-posing it.

Actually, on reflection I'm thinking the "ankle" angle in the pose above should really be a little more stretched out - which would bring the shovels and ankle spur closer together naturally, anyway. I'll probably try a more dynamic pose soon...

[EdmanZA]

I really enjoyed building this. Posing takes a bit of work and a few dropped heads, but once you get it right you can do some cool things.

You also get some pretty interesting poses when you accidentally knock it off the shelf...

[anothergol]

funny :)

yeah ideally the head's joint could be reworked not only to use an extender, but also to have it higher in-between the body & the head, so that it pivots around a higher point. I don't know where the joint really is in the "real" one - possibly right in the middle of the black rubber-like cover.

[Frazeur]

Great detail for the scale!

[anothergol]

Now that I've assembled a Bandai AT-ST snapkit (which is amazingly good), I can check the AT-ST's metrics precisely. My version wasn't too far off, and where it is, I already knew. But now I've planned a version 2, focusing on fixing the scale (but not the details, where I still went freestyle).

What has changed:

-the whole legs, especially the lower section which wasn't that off sizewise, but looked very off, because of the joint. No more joint, which wasn't that necessary anyway, so it's less posable, and even exposes more Technic stuff, but it's thinner & looks better IMHO. I liked the shovels for the bar thing in the back, but now it has to look technic, because that part now has a function (forcing the angle)

-length of the head +1 stud, I already knew it was off. Not even sure it looks better at the correct size, I kinda liked the old one.

-body +1 stud. It should also be larger in the front, but considering that the inter-leg bars are too big, and can't be smaller, it's not bad for the overall look that the body spares room.

-the joint for the head moved up inside the head, and got a friction extender. That's how the snapkit is articulated, and it makes a lot more sense & will fix the weighting problem.

-many details, like the front gun having the correct aspect

Edited January 9, 2016 by anothergol

[Frike]

Wow this looks incredible! By far one of the best (if not thit off best AT-ST's I've seen)! The proportions looks a bit off from some angles it seems but the amount of detail (and an interior for two figures!!) more than makes up for that. Absolutely amazing, I wish I could make one of my own! :P

[Calanon]

The changes look good! I do personally prefer the more posable one for that reason alone though. Unfortunately, the last few pieces for mine haven't arrived yet so I can't finish it until April.

Wow this looks incredible! By far one of the best (if not thit off best AT-ST's I've seen)! The proportions looks a bit off from some angles it seems but the amount of detail (and an interior for two figures!!) more than makes up for that. Absolutely amazing, I wish I could make one of my own! :P

You can.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

I absolutely love the new leg design —I actually have some of those towball socket parts! 150% better aesthetically. I could care less if it loses a few points of articulation. The head looks great longer. I guess the only thing I can think of negatively is that there is so much DBG

I think I have to see if I could implement that new design for the lower leg on my AT-ST—that is just how impressed I am with it

Edited January 9, 2016 by LiLmeFromDaFuture

[anothergol]

I absolutely love the new leg design —I actually have some of those towball socket parts! 150% better aesthetically. I could care less if it loses a few points of articulation. The head looks great longer. I guess the only thing I can think of negatively is that there is so much DBG

I think I have to see if I could implement that new design for the lower leg on my AT-ST—that is just how impressed I am with it

Thanks

I've built a test leg, I think it will hold the body well enough. I wasn't sure because there's no friction involved, the ball socket holds it. By luck I had some of them, the bottom one appears to be rare & costy, but I have a box of that green racing car that I hadn't built yet.

Only risky part is that the big ball part attached to the foot, is attached to the socket one by a 1.5L pin (the last hole of both parts is a pin, no axle), which means that you have to "open" that expensive part to insert it. It seems flexible enough, though, and changing it for a 3L axle with side bushes would ruin it.

The changes look good! I do personally prefer the more posable one for that reason alone though.

Yeah but I quickly realized that I wouldn't repose it, anyway. The lower leg is also not posable on Bandai's model (which works as both a model kit and a toy, kinda), and it seems fine.

The new design doesn't forbid changing the angle, though, but it's a bit limited (due to collision between parts) and requires moving parts around.

In fact, it might even be possible to attach the ball socket part to a friction rod (or even piston) attached to the leg.

Edited January 10, 2016 by anothergol

[atlas]

New version is a beauty.

[EdmanZA]

Only risky part is that the big ball part attached to the foot, is attached to the socket one by a 1.5L pin (the last hole of both parts is a pin, no axle), which means that you have to "open" that expensive part to insert it. It seems flexible enough, though, and changing it for a 3L axle with side bushes would ruin it.

If you're worried about damaging the part, might it be possible to replace the pin with a 2L axle? Theoretically, it could fall out, but I reckon as soon as there's load on it, friction will keep it in place.

[La Chupacabra]

Great legs!

[anothergol]

If you're worried about damaging the part, might it be possible to replace the pin with a 2L axle? Theoretically, it could fall out, but I reckon as soon as there's load on it, friction will keep it in place.

yeah probably

I'm not worried about damaging the part, it's just that it's something "Lego wouldn't do" - or maybe they would, it seems not uncommon in Technic sets to bend stuff like that.

The question is also whether it should be a 1.5L pin, or a pin+stud, which would be sturdier (but harder to unassemble)

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

I believe it is not as bad using the 1.5L pin, since their will be less tension from prying it apart at the ends, but also it has those slits on the technic holes which makes it easier to fit that part over the pins.

[anothergol]

But the pin+stud is shorter, no?

Ideally I'd pick the pin+stud because it will fit the part solidly, right now it wobbles. But I don't know about the tension - I'd assume that the stud gives pressure in all directions, & thus the stress on that hole (only 2 of them, since it's only one hole per leg), will be spread in all directions. BUT I also imagine that the stud itself pressures the part, while the 1.5L pin does not.

The 1.5L pin however will apply pressure on one side of the hole, I don't know if that matters.

I can't imagine it breaking, but there will be the weight of the whole thing on those 2 half-beam holes alone, it doesn't sound that safe.

There's also the ball join 50923 which features 2 axle holes, however it's not really the right part to use here.

There will be quite some weight on the little ball cup as well, as the other attachment is a floaty axle.

However for that part it would be possible to use this good old (I was surprised to see it gone when I went back to Lego) part, to force an angle using the axle:

I don't really know the angle of the weight vector on the legs, the head will push forwards & downwards.

Edited January 10, 2016 by anothergol

[anothergol]

This is an alternate solution:

Pros:

-allows for a better angle than the other system can reach

-makes lower leg look even thinner

Cons:

-ball part only attached by 1 axle (does it sound safe?)

-less good color scheme

-still requires the DBG ball cup part to be attached by 1 1.5L pin (pic shows axle but it won't work), but it might be less of a problem here

Edited January 10, 2016 by anothergol

[anothergol]

Another option, which doesn't expose technic holes, and doesn't use ball cups. So that makes 3 options to choose from.

[phaelon]

I like the elegant look of the second leg, but is the third option more stable? Either way, I prefer those two over the first one.

[PaulPrime]

Option three for me. Every update increase the awesomeness of your creation. Can't wait for the definitive version.

[anothergol]

I like the elegant look of the second leg, but is the third option more stable? Either way, I prefer those two over the first one.

One and three have theorical problems, that may or may not become practical ones. And I've found fixes for both, but they involve rare parts or parts in old gray. Namely, the absurdly expensive in LBG or the good old which would force me to use old gray.

Option 2 is technically clean, one could argue about the angled connector supporting the weight, but I believe it's ok.

The reason I'd go for the clean solution is that there's usually something wrong going from LDD to reality, when everything was planned correctly. So I'd rather start with existing doubts. I now know that the whole thing stands up, and the head won't be an issue anymore. But it stands up because the legs are all beams, while with axles alone, I don't know.

When I tried to design a cheap display stand for

, I tried to make it very sturdy in the LDD, and it ended up so wobbly & weak, because of the upper part that was made of axles.

Here the axles are covered, that should make them stronger, and the middle leg also reinforces them with plates.

Option three for me. Every update increase the awesomeness of your creation. Can't wait for the definitive version.

Thanks

It was supposed to be defnitive but well.. it can always be improved

Edited January 10, 2016 by anothergol

[ecmo47]

Arrrrggg...Stop making improvements! I still trying to complete the original model!

[manglegrat]

-the joint for the head moved up inside the head, and got a friction extender. That's how the snapkit is articulated, and it makes a lot more sense & will fix the weighting problem.

Ahah! Flipping the fixed end of the neck joint to be at the bottom and the pivot point to be at the top (no more floppy-head!) is one of those genius ideas that just seems so right when you hear it. Brilliant.

Thanks for continuing to evolve this great MOC.