AT-AT build and up-detailing....

[DNALOR]

The head looks great..
What would happen when you scale it up?..

I wanted to do that but was afraid that it would look not good.

[Ohnhai]

Originally Posted by DNALOR

The head looks great..
What would happen when you scale it up?..

I wanted to do that but was afraid that it would look not good.

I wouldn't scale it up . Id scratch build a studio scale

[ARMORMAN]

All SF papercraft models are vector based, so upscaling would not cause a loss of detail.

[Ohnhai]

Originally Posted by ARMORMAN

All SF papercraft models are vector based, so upscaling would not cause a loss of detail.

In not questioning the quality of the Imagery. Just the accuracy.

[DNALOR]

Yip...at the moment i'm working on the snowspeeder from
http://www.paper-replika.com/index.p...&Itemid=202089

he looks great..
but at the moment i have reconstructed the cockpit, the underside, the backside incl under breakingflaps.
And there is also something wrong with the breakingflaps and engine/guns on top.

all the rest looks nice :-)

When it's small you get away with a lot of small errors..but when the size becomes bigger....the errors grow even harder :-(

But that is the fun of building :-)

[Ohnhai]

possibly the trickiest part of this yet



..... now with the right image

[imcold]

Great detailing, again!

[Neptune]

I often have to wonder about those who complain about directions, or "Adequate Directions." I could see if you paid for the kit, but hey... The price was right wasn't it? I got this stuff a lot about directions, so I started asking people what they wanted and the type of directions that people wanted was virtually as different as the people that replied. So, I started making step by step, photographic directions and even making movies showing the build. I think this type of thing spans language and makes things perfectly clear. Still someone complained...??? I got to where I quit even putting out models, due to the complaints. I figured that if I took the time to create, or develope a model for free, that I shouldn't have people hold my feet to the fire for the directions, lack there of, or the type and style. Your build seems to be coming along nicely and you don't seem to be having problems with it. You seem to be figuring things out quite nicely, so I don't understand the dissertation on the directions, especially since that model wasn't even available for some time and since the model was made by someone who's first language is not English....???

Originally Posted by Ohnhai

The primary problem is the lack of solid instructions. Unless my instructions are incomplete, they seem to consist of one sheet that has a side on illustration and the different components are numbered and that's about it except for an exploded diagram of the foot.

This lack of adequate documentation lead to a misunderstanding as to how the components of the body fitted together. Inparticular the front and rear pannels. They have coloured flaps on them without any tabs. I had mistakenly assumed they folded back and glued onto the outside of the body. The AT-AT has quite a few parts that fold over an edge so I assumed this was a fair call. But my test fitting and subsequent build highlighted that either this was an extremely tight fit or I had done something wrong. I decided to start on a custom build, and that means reference and a 3ds Max build.

So I collected a lot of reference from a studio model and realised quite quickly that rather than glueing onto the outside they folded the other way and then glued to the inside of the upper body to allow the front and end plates to sit inboard slightly.

I actually cut tabs on these parts second time around and glued them flat to the edging pieces. This gave me a larger surface that would sit against the inside of the upper body..

It can also be unclear wether you need to valley or mountain fold certain edges in places, so watch out for that. Again is is down to a lack of solid instructions...

I also found that it was worth the effort to reinforce the body pannels with about two thicknesses of what ever stock you are using to add strength and stiffness to th e model. For me this came about by the greebling but I made the conscious decision to strengthen the floor of the body (do this at the very least). Lastly for the body I cut and glued in two tabbed tents of card that stood up behind the front and end pannels to hold them at their just-off-upright angles while assembling and also as the front panel was glued to its support this should help support the extra weight of the head.. (may yet have to add ballast to the feet)

Haven't got to the legs yet but I would lay odds that it would pay huge dividends to structurally reinforce them internally. I'm planning on gluing zig-zagged cross bracing into the internal box sections of the upper and lower legs..

But other than that it's the piss poor/non-existent instructions that let this kit down.

I'm about to make a few new parts for the underside of the head because the given design is rather weak in that area.

[Ohnhai]

Originally Posted by Neptune

I often have to wonder about those who complain about directions, or "Adequate Directions." I could see if you paid for the kit, but hey... The price was right wasn't it? I got this stuff a lot about directions, so I started asking people what they wanted and the type of directions that people wanted was virtually as different as the people that replied. So, I started making step by step, photographic directions and even making movies showing the build. I think this type of thing spans language and makes things perfectly clear. Still someone complained...??? I got to where I quit even putting out models, due to the complaints. I figured that if I took the time to create, or develope a model for free, that I shouldn't have people hold my feet to the fire for the directions, lack there of, or the type and style. Your build seems to be coming along nicely and you don't seem to be having problems with it. You seem to be figuring things out quite nicely, so I don't understand the dissertation on the directions, especially since that model wasn't even available for some time and since the model was made by someone who's first language is not English....???

Even if the model in question was free, I truly cannot understand the mentality of someone who takes the time to design and layout, test build, modify, re-build, (over several iterations) and eventually release a fine model, who then doesn’t take the time and trouble to produce a decent set of instructions to accompany said model.

If you want people to get the most out of your model then surely it is your duty to give them all the help you can, no?
Some have said the Falcon’s instructions are poor but even they had a shed –load more information in them than what comes with the AT-AT. Stage by stage, with photos and a basic description of the components added. Basic, yes, but adequate.

I have a reasonably high tolerance (as evidenced by the Falcon’s instructions) so when I say the instructions were a little lacking I feel it’s not an idle complaint. I’m not asking to have my hand held though each and every operation just that I have enough information to understand how a component is folded and how it attaches to the next . And it is in this basic requirement that the AT-AT fails.

[ARMORMAN]

Funny thing is, I built the same model "out of the box" with no problem years ago...