[MOC] [WIP] The Command of the AT-AT

[pittpenguin123]

Outlandish and weird. It is taller than it is longer, a shorter neck, the heavy laser cannons have been emplaced on the cheeks, and that protruding yellow armoring on the body, etc. It would be reasonably if it is a predecessor, but as it mentions in the text that the AT-DP (introduced in "Rebels") coexists in the same universe with this AT-AT, so why would this walker de-evolve from the model featured in "Rebels," or evolve in ESB yet to only de-evolve with a longer neck (as that is its most critical weak point of the walker)? I feel that these eccentric changes to the design is all unwarranted, as I assume the timeline is not so far off from The Battle of Hoth, though it might make more since if it is a different version of the AT-AT, since it is after all designated "AT-ACT."

Alot of those leaked pages had random filler put in. Maybe thats why it mentions AT-DP

[Xyrate]

New to this forum but so excited about your build. I have really been looking for a good MOC AT-AT that uses more modern parts (seems easier to get if trying to rebuild). Can't wait to see the final product!

[Forresto]

What I dont understand about the AT-ACT is that the original AT-AT is one the most iconic vehicle in Star Wars. Its supposed to be the peake of Imperial Military Power up there with the Star Destroyer. Its sortve like if all the Star Destroyers were replaced with a weird variant instead of the original design in the movie. The movie could be amazing but personally I find it a questionable design still. I believe there will be a good reason for it!

Your next build after this one eh? (I kid)

[pittpenguin123]

What I dont understand about the AT-ACT is that the original AT-AT is one the most iconic vehicle in Star Wars. Its supposed to be the peake of Imperial Military Power up there with the Star Destroyer. Its sortve like if all the Star Destroyers were replaced with a weird variant instead of the original design in the movie. The movie could be amazing but personally I find it a questionable design still. I believe there will be a good reason for it!

Your next build after this one eh? (I kid)

they arnt replaced. They are old models. The iconic ones replace these ones

[michaelozzie]

they arnt replaced. They are old models. The iconic ones replace these ones

Maybe not so much old ones but a variant in the AT series. Think of WWII and the amount of different bombers used by the allies or the numbers of tanks like the German Tiger, Panther and King Tiger. I don't see why you would have just one version of a big walker in use by a military the size of the Empire.

There also appears to be quite a larger side door now than on the original AT-AT. Maybe the C in AT-ACT does stand for carrier and there is a surprise onboard?

[Forresto]

True, good point about the ww2 bombers I guess I never thought of the Imperials that way but it makes sense.

Here's a wild theory based on what Michael said, as this might have been your own thought originally. The AT-AT is already an infantry transport so why increase the height unless what they're transporting is larger. What if the AT-ACT is carrying AT-STs? The doors open and the AT-STs hop out. I mean AT-STs have long legs so maybe they're designed with shock braces or something. Wouldn't be to far out considering they didn't have the tech to show us something like that in the eighties so it doesn't necessarily contradict what we know.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Forresto

[anothergol]

Maybe not so much old ones but a variant in the AT series. Think of WWII and the amount of different bombers used by the allies or the numbers of tanks like the German Tiger, Panther and King Tiger. I don't see why you would have just one version of a big walker in use by a military the size of the Empire.

True that each country had different tanks, but (I believe) most were improvements on the previous ones, based on feedback from the field. Only when it's war time, things evolve faster. And with old versions still to be found on the warfield along with the newer ones.

IMHO what makes this AT-ACT less believable is that it seems structurally too different. Different attachments would have been more belieavable.

But IMHO its worst sin is that it looks less cool.

[pittpenguin123]

I remember kenner making a AT-AT with a big gun on its back. What if the door opens up to a giant gun turret? Wouldn't be the first time something was based off kenners toys

[Ber Teh Unicern]

Wow. Incredible. I'm speechless, and it's not even done! I'm very impressed! Could you send an lxf. when you're done? Also, maybe the AT-ACT was an older walker before the AT-AT, but the AT-AT took over and the Empire is just trying to get rid of them.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Ber Teh Unicern

[phaelon]

... Could you send an lxf. when you're done?

Please re-read the original post...

... However, bear in mind that I will not be giving out any form of direction that will describe or depict how it is built—I appreciate that this is understood in advance of your comments.

[Ber Teh Unicern]

The lxf. doesn't work.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

Please re-read the original post...

Thanks phaelon for helping out. Though I have had a change of heart and I am all for contributing to this community, and will make the files available once the model is finish—whenever that will be!

Edited June 20, 2016 by LiLmeFromDaFuture

[phaelon]

Thanks phaelon for helping out. Though I have had a change of heart and I am all for contributing to this community, and will make the files available once the model is finish—whenever that will be!

Well that certainly changes the tone of this thread for me. Up until this point I've been admiring from afar. Knowing that at some point you intend to organize and release your work is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for that!

You might consider updating your original post to reflect this new philanthropic position of yours. :)

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

Well that certainly changes the tone of this thread for me. Up until this point I've been admiring from afar. Knowing that at some point you intend to organize and release your work is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for that!

You might consider updating your original post to reflect this new philanthropic position of yours. :)

Ah right! So much discussion has been buzzing in hear I hardly ever look back at my original post—thanks!

[Tracytron]

Can you make sure it's motorised and make it minifig compatible?

[Tracytron]

On 02/01/2016 at 5:37 AM, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

It has been a while since I posted updates on my progress. I wanted to completely finish the new design of the legs, but I guess any progress is worth to be shown.

So, lately I have been redesigning the design of the legs completely from scratch. Most significantly, a reinforced structure has been introduced tremendously by the use of brackets. Additionally, less studs are present on the legs, which brings more fineness to the subtle details, and results in a better representation.

Accurate to the source material, the dishes (or according to the cross section guide "Service access covers") are closer to edges by the use of pneumatic T-bars. However the old style of this element may be required because the bulge of the new style merges into the double convex slope in the program.

Here is some up close perspectives on the details of the leg:

Leg bent at at generous 45º angle:

Here you can see that with the larger feet the legs are proportioned better unlike with the smaller ones (which its toes were too small and the longer ones now would make it look weird).

And lastly a size comparison with a special guest (my WIP MF-Scale AT-ST walker):

DID YOU MAKE THAT AT-ST TOO?!?!?!?!?!

On 24/10/2015 at 6:15 PM, michaelozzie said:

I really like the look of this build so far. The light blue panels on the side of the body are something I have wanted to see on an AT-AT. My only concern is the front viewport looks too narrow but whether that's from the angle of the photos?

Also thanks to Rebels we have a new AT-AT design to MOC

Yaaaaaaay....

Edited October 4, 2016 by Tracytron

[pittpenguin123]

3 hours ago, Tracytron said:

Can you make sure it's motorised 

That would be impossible with how big this thing is.

[kibosh]

Great work!  Not sure if I missed it, but could you post a picture of how you are articulating the knees?

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

3 hours ago, Tracytron said:

Can you make sure it's motorised and make it minifig compatible?

 

40 minutes ago, pittpenguin123 said:

That would be impossible with how big this thing is.

As pittpenguin123 mentioned, it would probably be impossible for locomotion, especially considering how difficult it would be to integrate such a system in very thin legs.  However, a motorized head is possible as dmaclego has proved.

I will also endeavor to make it minifig compatible.  That will certainly help along with the design process, as I will have to design the structure around the interior.

 

Lastly, I did indeed design that AT-ST, and you can view the final product here: LINK

6 minutes ago, kibosh said:

Great work!  Not sure if I missed it, but could you post a picture of how you are articulating the knees?

Does this help?

[kibosh]

1 hour ago, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

Does this help?

It does.  Thank you!

Have you done any test builds yet to see how structurally sound this bad boy might be?

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

25 minutes ago, kibosh said:

It does.  Thank you!

Have you done any test builds yet to see how structurally sound this bad boy might be?

Indeed, and to increase the stability, notice on the image that Mixel ball-joints have been implemented to support the single ratcheted joint.  More so, I will be implementing  into the top leg portion to reduce wobbling and swaying as the walker stands on its own four legs.

[kibosh]

2 hours ago, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

Indeed, and to increase the stability, notice on the image that Mixel ball-joints have been implemented to support the single ratcheted joint.  More so, I will be implementing  into the top leg portion to reduce wobbling and swaying as the walker stands on its own four legs.

I noticed those.  It looks like they would prevent the knee from straitening out fully going one direction.  I assume they add friction when bending the other direction until the ball pops out of the joint.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

14 minutes ago, kibosh said:

I noticed those.  It looks like they would prevent the knee from straitening out fully going one direction.  I assume they add friction when bending the other direction until the ball pops out of the joint.

Actually, they are to fix the knee in place.  A single ratcheted joint was inefficient to keep the top-heavy legs stable, and I could not integrate another joint (as I wished) to reduce wobble, for how thin the legs are.  Another thing is that the ratcheted joint is very limited in positions, and what is seen on the image was the least amount of adjustment I could make.  It greatly complicated things…  I either had the option to position all legs with bent knees or all with legs straight…  I ultimately decided to have all legs bent, and the Mixel joints fixing the leg in place will prevent any chance for the immense weight of the walker to collapse at the knees.

[kibosh]

13 minutes ago, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

Actually, they are to fix the knee in place.  A single ratcheted joint was inefficient to keep the top-heavy legs stable, and I could not integrate another joint (as I wished) to reduce wobble, for how thin the legs are.  Another thing is that the ratcheted joint is very limited in positions, and what is seen on the image was the least amount of adjustment I could make.  It greatly complicated things…  I either had the option to position all legs with bent knees or all with legs straight…  I ultimately decided to have all legs bent, and the Mixel joints fixing the leg in place will prevent any chance for the immense weight of the walker to collapse at the knees.

Got it.  So the knee is not fully posable.  I agree with posing your AT-AT with bent knees.  It will look more natural.

[Tracytron]

19 hours ago, pittpenguin123 said:

That would be impossible with how big this thing is.

What if it was like a custom/third party motor? Would that work?

18 hours ago, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

 

As pittpenguin123 mentioned, it would probably be impossible for locomotion, especially considering how difficult it would be to integrate such a system in very thin legs.  However, a motorized head is possible as dmaclego has proved.

I will also endeavor to make it minifig compatible.  That will certainly help along with the design process, as I will have to design the structure around the interior.

 

Lastly, I did indeed design that AT-ST, and you can view the final product here: LINK

Does this help?

When I said could you motorise it I wasn't including the knees I just meant at the hips. Also something that I'm not actually ASKING you to integrate but if you see such an opportunity to integrate it it would be a pretty nice addition.  They show you how it actually works in this video here so you could probably be able to replicate it (ONCE AGAIN IM NOT ACTUALLY ASKING YOU TO THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION) 

I TAKE NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER FOR THIS MOC

 

 

EDIT: well this is one of my biggest brain farts ever...; I'm talking about the side missile launchers

Edited October 5, 2016 by Tracytron