Cavegod UCS AT-AT Instructions | "Walker Assault"

[Jim]

5 hours ago, danielwerner said:

This is wonderful news! This is THE most accurate AT-AT but it could use some freshening up when it comes to sturdiness and updated parts. I’m hyped! :)

Same here! This means that I will actually finish (and restart) the build at some point.

[Cjd223]

A quick update for everyone:

The redesigned legs have just been completed in compliance with @EdBorg's design. The only things remaining are corrections/mods to the body, and part substitutions for a less expensive build. I also have yet to start the base design, that will be completed after the AT-AT portions are complete.

Almost there. If I had to put a date on it, the new manual should be ready to go within a few weeks, and then a test build/video/review conducted by myself should take an additional week or two. My hopes are to get it distributed to everyone who previously purchased the original manual some time between the end of July and the middle of August.

[Jim]

Great work!

I really appreciate the effort on this arduous task. May the Force be with you   

[gottabekd]

i've always admired this model but never thought to undertake it due to the concerns I had heard expressed when building, the amount of alters required, I didn't feel confident enough that I would  be able to make it work.  If a revised instruction is coming out, which not only includes amazing fixes/adjustments to make it sturdier, but also a revised parts list which takes into consideration rarity and leans towards more affordable options, consider me sold! very excited for this and following intently!

[Redbird11]

Can’t wait to see the adjustments, appreciate all the hard work Christian!

[Cjd223]

Some great news! The body has been completed, which means a bulk of the remaster is now complete. There is not a whole lot left to do besides verifying the parts list with the manual, stitching together pages, and a few graphic design things to put into place. But the hard parts are done! After this I'm going to design the base, do a quick test build, and get the manual ready for an official release. Reminder: If you previously purchased the manual you will receive the updated copy for free.

I couldn't help myself and had to check out how the modifications and part substitutions worked out. After checking the bricklink data for the current model and updated version, I managed to drop the price point to around 16 cents per piece! Given that the rate at what the new UCS Star Destroyer is priced at 14.6 cents per piece, I'm happy with the price result.

For those keeping track, this would shave ~$450 off the current parts list!

[Jim]

Again, great work! I am so excited about this reinvigoration. A while ago I stored the AT-AT feet in a bin, with the idea that I would finish this beast some day. This day is getting closer and closer.

I am probably the last person who could get most of the original parts for a "reasonable" price. I'm happy to see other people will be able to build this bad boy too.

[Bandit778]

@Cjd223 when this is all finished is there any chance of there being a comparison sheet against the old parts list?

I ask as I've been slowly obtaining the parts for this (from the Rebrickable parts list) and it would be handy to know what extra bits I need on top of the original parts list.

[Jim]

1 hour ago, Bandit778 said:

@Cjd223 when this is all finished is there any chance of there being a comparison sheet against the old parts list?

I ask as I've been slowly obtaining the parts for this (from the Rebrickable parts list) and it would be handy to know what extra bits I need on top of the original parts list.

That would indeed be very handy!

[Cjd223]

4 hours ago, Bandit778 said:

@Cjd223 when this is all finished is there any chance of there being a comparison sheet against the old parts list?

I ask as I've been slowly obtaining the parts for this (from the Rebrickable parts list) and it would be handy to know what extra bits I need on top of the original parts list.

This is an interesting idea for sure. I can look into different options for this, right off the bat I can think of;

1) Using a rebrickable account to log the bricks you already have. The site will then look at the updated parts list and give you a list for everything that you're missing.

2) Using a Bricklink wanted list with the updated parts list in the "Have" column. This would accomplish the same thing as the first option, but would be directly on bricklink vs rebrickable.

I'm not sure there is a way to automatically give out the list of what's changed because everyone with partially filled inventories has a different set of pieces. It would probably be most efficient to log the parts you have directly in a Rebrickable account or a Bricklink inventory. This is kind of a pain I understand (currently having sorted and logged over 21,000 pieces so far of my own inventory), but I'm not sure there is an immediate workaround for it. If something else comes to mind I'll throw the idea out there.

[Jim]

15 minutes ago, Cjd223 said:

I'm not sure there is a way to automatically give out the list of what's changed because everyone with partially filled inventories has a different set of pieces. 

It's independent of one's inventory. The question is to have a list of parts which are not in the original AT-AT part list (if I am not mistaken). This has nothing to do with inventories.

If you want to use tools to calculate the difference, you could create an empty/new inventory, add the "old parts" and compare it to the new part list.

[Cjd223]

3 minutes ago, Jim said:

It's independent of one's inventory. The question is to have a list of parts which are not in the original AT-AT part list (if I am not mistaken). This has nothing to do with inventories.

If you want to use tools to calculate the difference, you could create an empty/new inventory, add the "old parts" and compare it to the new part list.

This would work for the parts that have been added, but it wouldn't show which parts were subtracted or modified to a different piece or color.

For example 3794b has been replaced with 15573, this method would show the "X" amount of 15573 were added that you need to buy, but if you had 3794b for the current build, it would not translate properly.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Cjd223

[Jim]

28 minutes ago, Cjd223 said:

This would work for the parts that have been added, but it wouldn't show which parts were subtracted or modified to a different piece or color.

For example 3794b has been replaced with 15573, this method would show the "X" amount of 15573 were added that you need to buy, but if you had 3794b for the current build, it would not translate properly.

I get what you mean. Different molds of the same part.

Either way, I thinkit would be helpful to see the difference. And yes, that would take some manual inspection, but it could be helpful nonetheless.

But if we have two part lists, we could probably do it ourselves.

[manglegrat]

If you have the old and new parts lists available in Rebrickable then you can export them both to Brickstock BSX files, then load them both up in Brickstock and - with the window for the one you want to be the primary selected - select the "Subtract items" option from the Edit menu, and select the secondary file from the "Items from an already open document" list.

This will show you the differences. It has pictures, too.  There's also a "Difference mode" option in the View menu to expand the columns to show original (Qty Orig), new (Qty diff) and difference (Qty) values. You can sort the data by any column in the grid, though sorting by Qty descending is a good start point for this purpose.

So if you make the new parts list the primary one and do it, the items with positive Qty numbers are items you have in that list but not the secondary one - so, additional parts you'll need to get if you already have everything in the secondary (old) parts list. The negatives are extras that you won't need any more.

You'll need to manually figure out colour swaps and variants, though you can also sort by part number to try to group those pairs of parts together. One of each pair should be a positive, the other a negative.

I've been using this technique (I'm using private custom lists in Rebrickable, but MOC parts lists are identical for this purpose) to track deltas between versions of my B5 design as I refine it. Hope this tip helps someone out! 

Edited July 9, 2020 by manglegrat

[Jim]

Just now, manglegrat said:

I've been using this technique 

Great, I'm glad you can help out! 

[Theo van Vroenhoven]

Why not simply use the Compare functionality of Rebrickable itself?

https://rebrickable.com/sets/compare/slow/?1-set=MOC-4042

 

[Jim]

35 minutes ago, Theo van Vroenhoven said:

Why not simply use the Compare functionality of Rebrickable itself?

https://rebrickable.com/sets/compare/slow/?1-set=MOC-4042

Easy does it. Great suggestion.

[Cjd223]

7 hours ago, Theo van Vroenhoven said:

Why not simply use the Compare functionality of Rebrickable itself?

https://rebrickable.com/sets/compare/slow/?1-set=MOC-4042

 

Ingenious. Says they're 74.9% shared parts, makes it very easy to do additional comparisons as well. Thank you!

[Theo van Vroenhoven]

8 minutes ago, Cjd223 said:

Ingenious. Says they're 74.9% shared parts, makes it very easy to do additional comparisons as well. Thank you!

You are welcome!
I use this feature a lot and find it quite handy! By doing some color or mold substitutions you can probably increase this percentage.
If you would be so kind to make your Custom List for the new version 'Visible to other users' and share the URL everybody can do the comparison and start BrickLinking! ;-)

[manglegrat]

7 hours ago, Theo van Vroenhoven said:

Why not simply use the Compare functionality of Rebrickable itself?

https://rebrickable.com/sets/compare/slow/?1-set=MOC-4042

Ha! Awesome, and super easy too! I had no idea that existed.  It even works on custom lists, too.

I think I prefer using the Brickstock UI for sorting and slicing & dicing the information though, rather than just the visual comparison...

[Cjd223]

1 hour ago, Theo van Vroenhoven said:

You are welcome!
I use this feature a lot and find it quite handy! By doing some color or mold substitutions you can probably increase this percentage.
If you would be so kind to make your Custom List for the new version 'Visible to other users' and share the URL everybody can do the comparison and start BrickLinking! ;-)

I still have to do some checks with the manual and bricklink to make sure the parts list is good to go, but once it is I will gladly make it public!

[Bandit778]

15 hours ago, Theo van Vroenhoven said:

Why not simply use the Compare functionality of Rebrickable itself?

https://rebrickable.com/sets/compare/slow/?1-set=MOC-4042

 

I wasn't sure if the original MOC page was going to be updated or if a new page was going to be assigned for the updated version hence the reason I asked. If the original page was just updated there would be no second build page to compare it to.

If a new page is going to be created then that's a bonus and that will make it a hell of lot easier to decipher what's what. 

[Cjd223]

6 hours ago, Bandit778 said:

I wasn't sure if the original MOC page was going to be updated or if a new page was going to be assigned for the updated version hence the reason I asked. If the original page was just updated there would be no second build page to compare it to.

If a new page is going to be created then that's a bonus and that will make it a hell of lot easier to decipher what's what. 

I have not decided whether or not I was going to post a new page or if I would simply update the current one. The current one has a lot of useful comments, but ones that refer to certain aspects of the build for modification may not be relevant anymore and I wouldn't want to confuse anyone looking at it for the first time.

If I do decide to just update the current one, I would have a public list with the original bricks on rebrickable as well.

[Cjd223]

For those of you who have built the AT-AT with a stud stand:

Do you still use the tires in the feet? The tires are an unavoidable expensive part and I was wondering if perhaps using the stud base eliminates their need or not.

[Jim]

17 minutes ago, Cjd223 said:

For those of you who have built the AT-AT with a stud stand:

Do you still use the tires in the feet? The tires are an unavoidable expensive part and I was wondering if perhaps using the stud base eliminates their need or not.

I have not built it with a stand, but having a studded base will cancel the need for those tires (if you ask me).