Subject:
|
Re: Lego AT-AT (secrets revealed)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Dec 2000 22:40:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1083 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, David Eaton writes:
> Um.. I'm not really arguing that an AT-AT not done to my exacting
> specifications wouldn't be cool or neat or anything, I was just clarifying
> my position.
> Actually, throughout this message it seems I've offended you or something,
> or perhaps you thought I was insulting your walking model by saying it's not
> absoloutly perfect and canon. Sorry if I insinuated anything like that.
I'm not offended or insulted. But, you made some pretty disparaging remarks
about making a walking AT-AT. Then, you clarified this by saying that you
meant a fully operational one, with neatly hidden actuators and a detailed
interior, would be impossible. Well... Yes... Probably... But isn't that
asking a bit much in the first place? It seems a bit extravagant to ask for
that, when no-one's even managed to make a decent round foot yet. If it
came across as a counter-attack it's because I can't be bothered to put
smileys in every time I'm trying for irony.
> ....I started actually examining the problems involved and
> calculating exactly what I'd demand in an AT-AT walking mechanism for my
> model... ...And after examining the problems involved, I pretty much
> convinced myself that I couldn't do what I wanted, and that it may in fact
> be impossible.
You set yourself some pretty high standards. Start simple. Try out a few
joints, and make some shortcuts. I built six different leg mechanisms for
my latest one - the last two ideas got as far as a walking front pair and
half the body frame - and each time as I was taking them apart I thought
"this is impossible. I'll never get it to work". Anyway, for someone so
stuck on the accuracy of the thing - how did those 'other' troops ever get
into your photos?
(and don't make me type a smiley here. Oh for God's sake... ':)
> It was never my intent to say that a wonderful AT-AT model with some
> comprimises on authenticity and looks in exchange for functionality couldn't
> exist. And as such, I'm not trying to attack you. Actually, I think your
> model is really cool. And were it my goal to make a walking AT-AT, I'd try
> and copy it. Actually, I may anyway, since it really does intreuge me.
Well, thanks. you said so before. My brother and his mate were impressed
by my first one simply because it walked. I thought it looked rubbish. The
second one was better, but after taking it along to two Lego fests and
seeing some other amazing models, I realised I should be doing a lot better.
I'm a long way off having enough bricks to even try and get close to Shaun
Sullivan's amazing award-winning full scale AT-AT (or even your own), but so
long as mine could walk I figured I'd have something worth showing. But,
for that I had to better the DSDK's walking mechanism too. What I've got
_looks_ like it's walking in an authentic manner, which is the best I could
hope for with my current parts stock.
> ...As for the method, that's exactly how the makers of ESB designed the
> AT-AT's walking mechanism. They closely studied large animals, most notably
> elephants, walking slowly.
It's more interesting to watch how they change their sequence over a range
of speeds. Horses have half a dozen different modes. Note that the AT-AT
has four forward facing (backward bending) knees, like an elephant.
Technically its knees could bend either way (there are no kneecaps to
restrict it), but it only uses a backward-bend in its motion. Most other
quadropeds have backward facing knees for the rear legs (horses for
example), usually to help movement at speed. The really heavy dinosaurs
though had backward facing knees at the front, and forward-facing at the
rear. This let the front (shorter) leg bend up and reach out further, to
keep pace with the larger rear legs, and at the same time let the legs on
one side get closer without the animal kicking itself. This would probably
work better for a walking transport - better for clearing obstacles - but
would look very weird to most people.
> > ...you have to position three of the legs so that they balance on their
> > own, then you can raise the redundant one.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean here-- basically the idea I was trying to
> suggest is that the three feet down will balance the weight on their own
> when the lifting leg is raised...
Yes, they will if they're well spaced, and you're right that the body being
carried forward (as all four legs keep moving) will shift the weight around.
What I meant was, bending a knee is not the way to go about shifting the
weight any further. Either it's balanced on three legs or it isn't.
Shortening one of those three won't affect the weight distribution. Either
your model will tilt that way, giving you a lurching walk, or you'll lift
that other foot off the ground and your AT-AT will no longer be stable.
Jason Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego AT-AT (secrets revealed)
|
| (...) Thinking about this, I realise I'm talking rubbish. The elephant's front legs actually have reversed knees, like I was describing for large dinosaurs. It just kept the front legs straight when walking briskly in the footage (hoho) I was (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego AT-AT (secrets revealed)
|
| (...) Um.. I'm not really arguing that an AT-AT not done to my exacting specifications wouldn't be cool or neat or anything, I was just clarifying my position. Actually, throughout this message it seems I've offended you or something, or perhaps you (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
