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

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

@anothergol

Interesting, though I thought I saw a Bricklink store that specializes in custom stickers, but I might be confusing that with ChromeBricks

@jhaelego

Two studs thick, that's what I am beginning to realize. Anyway, the hinge joint use is the renowned, high friction, Technic rotation joint disk that is 3m thick.

[Fuppylodders]

@anothergol

Interesting, though I thought I saw a Bricklink store that specializes in custom stickers, but I might be confusing that with ChromeBricks

@jhaelego

Two studs thick, that's what I am beginning to realize. Anyway, the hinge joint use is the renowned, high friction, Technic rotation joint disk that is 3m thick.

2 Studs thick seems a good choice.

And there is a reason why 2 of those per joint are used on anything near the proper size of a minifig/UCS sized AT-AT if the legs are designed to be flexible. One simply will not be enough, especially if yours is going to be Cavegod's sized...

Torque reaction renders a single one pretty useless due to the point of the weight being applied at the distance away from the joint making them easy to rotate compared to simply rotating one in your hands and thinking 'this is pretty stiff, it should do'. If you undo hub nut on a car wheel, do you use a stumpy wrench or a long handled one to make it easier?

something to think about

Edited December 7, 2015 by Fuppylodders

[anothergol]

And there is a reason why 2 of those per joint are used on anything near the proper size of a minifig/UCS sized AT-AT if the legs are designed to be flexible. One simply will not be enough, especially if yours is going to be Cavegod's sized...

Torque reaction renders a single one pretty useless due to the point of the weight being applied at the distance away from the joint making them easy to rotate compared to simply rotating one in your hands and thinking 'this is pretty stiff, it should do'. If you undo hub nut on a car wheel, do you use a stumpy wrench or a long handled one to make it easier?

something to think about

Well, Lego used 2 per leg on the AT-DP and frankly, there was absolutely no reason to do that. Well, I can imagine Lego did have a reason, but it's more to have single beams sandwiched in-between the 2 rotation joints, because a beam on just 1 side might not be kid-proof. But they could as well have used 2 beams on each side and the rotation joint in-between.

The thing is that the AT-AT doesn't bend its legs that much, if it was stretching its legs then yes I'd say that it might require 2. But with the typical walking pose of an AT-AT, the weight vector shouldn't be far from vertical.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

2 Studs thick seems a good choice.

And there is a reason why 2 of those per joint are used on anything near the proper size of a minifig/UCS sized AT-AT if the legs are designed to be flexible. One simply will not be enough, especially if yours is going to be Cavegod's sized...

Torque reaction renders a single one pretty useless due to the point of the weight being applied at the distance away from the joint making them easy to rotate compared to simply rotating one in your hands and thinking 'this is pretty stiff, it should do'. If you undo hub nut on a car wheel, do you use a stumpy wrench or a long handled one to make it easier?

something to think about

Yeah I see what you mean with how one is more prone to yielding to gravity when it has extra weight, as opposed to using multiple joints, as I experienced that overtime with the "studdy" and glued joints legs. Before I retired them, the walker seem to stand fine even with one or two bent, even though each had only one joint.

But I do enjoy fidgeting with stiff joints and the sounds they make, though the only way to add another joint is to increase the thickness of the legs to three studs. However I could have kept the same thickness and have two joints if there was a version of those hinge parts where the connector holes were sideways than how they are traditionally.

Edited December 7, 2015 by LiLmeFromDaFuture

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

Here is an idea for the details of the knee:

Share what is your opinion on it.

[Kristof]

That joint detail looks interesting. Not sure about how well will it look on the thing, probably the only way to find out is to try, yet it's really original.

Regarding your previous photo, I'll repeat myself - keep these foot bottoms (these are perfect scale and the look is great), combine with new arches and 2 stud thick legs.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

The feet are virtually the same in appearance, except there is no seamless transition to the rounded brick corners and no stepped pattern. Though the bottom line is that the new arch is two studs longer than 12 stud diameter of the four rounded brick corners.

[jhaelego]

Do you have any pics of the internals of the knee joint I asked about earlier? I love all the work you're doing for this.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

Do you have any pics of the internals of the knee joint I asked about earlier? I love all the work you're doing for this.

Thanks—I mentioned earlier that I would upload the file at some point.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

Here is my design for the old feet for anyone who is interested. Also, real recently, I went the extra mile, and revised this version with an improved structure (the one on the left).

*File Removed*

Edited April 13, 2016 by LiLmeFromDaFuture

[anothergol]

Your AT-AT will be around 50 bricks tall, right?

I was randomly considering doing a nano-fig ("trophee") scaled AT-AT or ST, and for those it's easy, they're 1/4 scaled minifigs.

But then if we consider that minifigs aren't any realistic and can be considered very fat or very short, the scale can go from 1/35 to 1/60 ( ).

What I didn't know however is that the scale of the AT-AT itself is rather vague as well, ranging from 15m officially up to 25m (http://www.suave.net/~dave/atat.cgi?version=ref).

Which means, with these 2 unknowns, that a "minifig-scaled" AT-AT could really range from 25cm to 75cm tall, which is crazy.

50cm is right in the middle (linearly speaking), so you probably made a good choice.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

@ anothergol

Yes it should be round there, since the last time I had it standing on all four legs, yet it might be considerably above that since I revised the legs and the feet, which might bring into the 25m scale range.

I also found this answer useful for determining the scale in LEGO: (Link)

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

*I replace the file of the original footpad design with one that includes the arch and cylinder (which those two components are based on krisandkris12's design)*

Edited December 17, 2015 by LiLmeFromDaFuture

[anothergol]

I also found this answer useful for determining the scale in LEGO: (Link)

Yeah but doing it purely based on the height isn't really ideal, as it would mean that minifigs are very, abnormally wide & fat, and then it's troubles to fit them in normal seats, which is why they don't fit in cars.

But of course minifigs aren't supposed to be midgets either, so the truth is more likely in-between. I'd say minifigs are 1m50-tall people, maybe?

[Fuppylodders]

Yeah but doing it purely based on the height isn't really ideal, as it would mean that minifigs are very, abnormally wide & fat, and then it's troubles to fit them in normal seats, which is why they don't fit in cars.

But of course minifigs aren't supposed to be midgets either, so the truth is more likely in-between. I'd say minifigs are 1m50-tall people, maybe?

This is where our artistic licence comes into it. It is just impossible to have it exactly the correct scale with the minifig as it will look weird in one size or another, not to mention as stated, there is discrepancies with regards to the official height so you work in between, finally going with what 'looks right' to the eye.

[anothergol]

Thank you for the suggestions. I am fond of the idea for the backwards facing binoculars. I most likely will fashion them in that position to fill the gap, while still portraying, at least, a shallow recess—just going to need a lot them in LBG.

If you remember my LDD screenshot on page 1, beware that those nasty binoculars (never understood them, they never like to fit on a stud) won't work like on the screenshot.

Well, it's more a case of sloppy molding than the LDD being wrong, as they're too big by a tiny fraction of a mm, not enough to be a technical problem, but enough to be visible.

The first example with a minifig cape however works pretty well, I'm using on my mini AT-AT (not as panel slots, though).

[Kristof]

^I use both of these components a lot on my mocs and I found that these binoculasŕs differ batch by batch. Some of them fit nicely on stud and can be placed like this. Some tend to fall off easily and can't compress enough, making the top line of bricks impossible to squeze on. Since that I always order tons of those with my orders so I can select the good ones wherever I need them,

[anothergol]

really? I have many, I just tested 10 of them at random (& random colors), all of them were lifting the parts very slightly. Again, not enough for the parts not to hold together, but the little gap is always there, here.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

I see what you both mean. However I thought about using these as another alternative: to cover up the open 1 x 1 plate space from behind.

[Kristof]

really? I have many, I just tested 10 of them at random (& random colors), all of them were lifting the parts very slightly. Again, not enough for the parts not to hold together, but the little gap is always there, here.

Well you'r right. there is, hair thin but yes. Sometimes i'ts bigger and sometimes it's nearly imperceptible but especially with longer LBG plates around it's really there. I used these in much mor euneven greebling areas and there the better pieces were fitting sufficiently - therefore my impression that it's flawles.

[anothergol]

I see what you both mean. However I thought about using these as another alternative: to cover up the open 1 x 1 plate space from behind.

how exactly?

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

how exactly?

Generally like this, but I will have to check if I can do this for each slot:

[Kristof]

^ This seems fine. By the way you're still not about using older light gray plates beneath these holes? I thing that's more than great feature :)

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

^ I have been thinking about it recently since I am in the mode of redesigning some parts, so we will see.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

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):