| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Dave Johann writes:
> In lugnet.build.mecha, Andrew Todd Amacher writes:
> <Big Snip>
> > If anything worthwhile develops from this thread, perhaps it should be
> > a discussion of individual values in Lego mecha design. For example, do you
> > want your mecha to just look good or do you want it to have a degree of play
> > value? Can your mecha stand and hold a variety of poses? Do you consider
> > yourself as a Lego artist or a toy/model designer? What are your preferred
> > hinge elements-friction pins, clipping elements, ball & socket joints, click
> > hinges,etc.? Do you ask yourself if your mecha would be viable as an
> > official Lego model. What construction techniques do you consider
> > legitimate? I'd really like to see such an exchange of perspectives.
> >
> > Later,
> > Todd
> > http://sil-psyche.0catch.com
>
> Fair enough, Todd! I'll take a stab at this one.
>
> My initial designs were based heavily on Colin's leg designs using friction pins
> for joint tech. While these designs were successful for me initally, they soon
> became a stepping stone to larger, more stable designs. Click hinges provided
> some slight improvements, but had drawbacks as well-they wore out if not doubled
> up. That effectively made the hinge 2 x 5 in size-to bulky for many mecha.
> Ultimately, I've had most of my successes using ball and socket joints, much
> like you have. Their advantages far outweigh their drawbacks. There is still a
> major drawback to them, however-they can't support monstrous amounts of weight.
> This brings me to the strongest of all joint parts-gears. They support
> unbelievable amounts of weight, simple axles hold them on, and they can be made
> into relatively small joint systems compared to the other choices out there.
> Here's the listing of what I use and the pros and cons of using them:
>
> Friction pins
> Pros: cheap, effective joints for small (10 inch tall) mecha. Easy to acquire.
> Can make a joint as small as 2 x 1.
> Cons: Not terribly strong when many joints are involved. Has a tendency to cause
> a 'ragdoll' effect.
>
> Plate hinges
> Pros: effective 1 x 4/2 x 2 hinge. Supports small mecha well as shoulder joints.
> Cons: has a tendency to fold under pressure. Tends to be overpriced compared to
> other joint options. Better than brick hinges
>
> Brick Hinges
> Pros: effective 1 x 4/2 x 2 hinge. Supports small mecha well as shoulder joints.
> Cons: wears out quickly. Not terribly effective in multiples compared to other
> hinge types. Worse than plate hinges.
>
> Click hinges
> Pros: strong 1 x 5 (or larger) hinge. Supports small and medium mecha well.
> Supports large mecha if used in multiples. Allows for unusual angles to build
> off of. Allows for both vertical and horizontal hinges where other hinge types
> fail.
> Cons: wears out quickly IF not doubled up (2 x 5 instead of 1 x 5).
>
> Ball/socket
> Pros: allows for more degrees of flexibility that any other hinge. The small
> ball part is more versatile than any other hinge type.
> Cons: bulkier than any other type of hinge assuming that more than just the ball
> part is used. The larger arm parts are all locked at odd angles. Parts wear out
> quickly under normal use and require 'doubling up' in order to ensure strength.
Good point. They are too weak not be doubled up in large mecha and that
technique limits the flexability- especially in the arms.
>
> Gears/gear boxes
> Pros: commonly available. Allows for large mecha creation by locking joints in
> place. Can support enormous amounts of weight without breaking.
> Cons: takes time to create effective joints. Not as versatile as ball socket or
> click hinge. Complex in nature to build with (most of the time).
Plus , they're rather costly to acquire. Furthermore,(and I hope Brian
Cooper takes no offense to this observation because I love his work) the
time it takes to pose the limbs on a gear box-based mecha is counteractive
to playabilty.
>
> There are other types of joints that I have't touched on (bendy arms for
> example) that I'll let others with more experience using them take a stab at.
>
> Like Todd, I'd love to hear any comments or questions about these (or other)
> gear types.
>
> -Dave
BTW, If anyone else has got the Ogel Shark Sub(set#4793) as I have they hve
probably notice how incredibly strong the shoulder and arm elements are. If
LEGO would fashion 1 or 2 proper brick-based complements to these socket
bricks, I believe most of our large mecha joint needs would be solved.
Later,
Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Mecha Joint Tech
|
| (...) Yes but they're scale models, not toys. (I have to keep reminding myself of this ;-) Actually once you go with gears, a non-geared joint just isn't as much fun, not as realistic, though technically a real mecha wouldn't use gears, more like (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-02, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: Mecha Joint Tech
|
| (...) Something they should (and probably won't) release immediately is an accessory pack of just the hinges with friction pins on either end -- no arm lengths! They probably can't do anything smaller than the 2x2x2 socket element based on the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-02, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: Mecha Joint Tech
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Yes, I have been playing with those for about a week now. In some ways, I am very pleased by the design of these new click elements; in other ways, I am as frustrated by them as I was with the throwbot ball sockets. perhaps a 1x2 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Mecha Joint Tech
|
| In lugnet.build.mecha, Andrew Todd Amacher writes: <Big Snip> (...) My initial designs were based heavily on Colin's leg designs using friction pins for joint tech. While these designs were successful for me initally, they soon became a stepping (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jan-02, to lugnet.build.mecha)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
