Revell At-At WIP... finishing up!

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Hagoth

Sr Member
That is great background insight Wayne. Looks like models 1 and 3 have the same cheek gun configurations in the film. Number 2 is too far away to tell. I think you are right that parts were replaced later on resulting in the three different configurations you posted before. So pick one and go with it?

Per our conversation before. at some point you have to call "Close enough, good enough" and move forward. But all this close up investigation is really quite fun as it fills in possibilities and opens up more questions. Never ask the question and you'll never hear the answer.

...and I would not be surprised if the cheek guns in RotJ got put on switched sides. The shot of them missing above would give cause for such a situation. Especially if the other side is missing as well.
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Hagoth

Sr Member
Ok, friends here is the link to the thread intended to develop a fully articulated large scale AT-AT. Now there is a chance that Starks build thread here can reach completion with the production of an award winning snow base. :p


I expect the stop motion simulation adventure to go on for a long time. In fact I'm already late for dinner. Time to go eat!
 

starks

Well-Known Member
I think that's correct anamorphicWayne for the RotJ walker that someone simply botched which way the guns went on. Hagoth has the right idea with shielding the cheek guns from Ewok attack haha.... dangerous little care bears that they are.

So playing with leg configurations. Im thinking the diorama will copy this shot here, the speeder just starting to come around with the tow cable.
Why do speeders have a harpoon and tow cable anyway?? Are there space whales?
IzqzEc2.png


So this is At-At 1? I wish I had some better reference of that model for painting.

I'm thinking the legs want to be something like this?
cx6FCoU.jpg

so4K37m.jpg

TBfBVOj.jpg

VSx5VTk.jpg


Let me know your thoughts!

Cheers,
Josh
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

modelerdave

Active Member
Why do speeders have a harpoon and tow cable anyway?? Are there space whales?

Hey this is one of those rabbit holes it never makes sense to go down when it comes to Star Wars. I mean, why build walking vehicles at all when you have cheap anti-gravity? There are remotes floating everywhere, and even Luke's POS landspeeder just hangs in the air when it's off. Or at least if you want a walking machine to be intimidating, at least give it anti-grav as a safety backup. Though considering the Empire's complete lack of regard for things like rails I guess that might be asking too much.

And why do energy weapons have recoil? :p

The questions never end...
 

starks

Well-Known Member
Hey this is one of those rabbit holes it never makes sense to go down when it comes to Star Wars. I mean, why build walking vehicles at all when you have cheap anti-gravity? There are remotes floating everywhere, and even Luke's POS landspeeder just hangs in the air when it's off. Or at least if you want a walking machine to be intimidating, at least give it anti-grav as a safety backup. Though considering the Empire's complete lack of regard for things like rails I guess that might be asking too much.

And why do energy weapons have recoil? :p

The questions never end...
Some very good points there! I wondered the same thing about anti gravity vehicles. Apparently the armour plating on the walkers is too heavy for anti- grav haha.
I suppose being attacked by a few floating tanks would have looked nowhere near as impressive on screen. At-Ft, all terrain floating transports... not quite the same ring to it :p

Cheers,
Josh
 

Hagoth

Sr Member
Hey this is one of those rabbit holes it never makes sense to go down when it comes to Star Wars. I mean, why build walking vehicles at all when you have cheap anti-gravity? There are remotes floating everywhere, and even Luke's POS landspeeder just hangs in the air when it's off. Or at least if you want a walking machine to be intimidating, at least give it anti-grav as a safety backup. Though considering the Empire's complete lack of regard for things like rails I guess that might be asking too much.

And why do energy weapons have recoil? :p

The questions never end...
Recoil in energy weapons. Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. Not only do they have recoil but they have to load an energy casing into the big guns on the star destroyers (Episode 3 battle) and eject spent shells after they fire. What kind of energy weapons are these?

Additionally apparently there is not enough room or power for enough anti-gravity elements in an AT-AT for the weight of the armor and still carry a decent amount of troops and equipment. Then again a StarDestroyer is huge but maybe not as heavily armored for its volume or there is a big enough reactor to generate the necessary power? Shields seem to be lighter and smaller so why not put shields on an AT-AT? Could it then not pass through the the Rebel shield to take down the power generator without dropping its own? ....and I think this rabbit hole has taken us to wonder land. As in I wonder...

How do you trip a floating AT-AT? Clock it with a cable between two speeders?

Ah, the fun of exploring a galaxy far far away.

...and here we are trying to apply real world physics to it. :p
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

starks

Well-Known Member
So in reality, for the most simplistic of reasons ...and nothing to do directly with the operation of things in a galaxy far far away. This kind of reason is the best one of all. It simply looks cool and strikes a fancy. :cool:

I think the design elements are what worked so well for Star Wars.
They were clever in what they produced. People are used to seeing weapons/ cannons recoil so by incorporating that motion things are perceptionally realistic .

The same can be said for dressing the blasters. Real life weapons, dressed to look a bit different. But the shapes are already known and established and look convincing as compared to a 60s style sci fi ray gun.

Cheers,
Josh
 

Hagoth

Sr Member
I think the design elements are what worked so well for Star Wars.
They were clever in what they produced. People are used to seeing weapons/ cannons recoil so by incorporating that motion things are perceptionally realistic .

The same can be said for dressing the blasters. Real life weapons, dressed to look a bit different. But the shapes are already known and established and look convincing as compared to a 60s style sci fi ray gun.

Cheers,
Josh
So true! Even the dogfights were patterned after WWII fighter motions for much the same reason. X-Wings peeling off in a dive to attack the Death Star carried a familiar feel with the action. Snow speeders paired up as wing men employing familiar ground attack maneuvers on the AT-AT's. Very clever indeed what was produced and it carries it's own even today.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

starks

Well-Known Member
Just a small update here.
Starting on the Retro SF speeder. It's a nicely detailed kit and offers a lot of scope for building various versions of the studio models. It will require quite an amount of cleaning up however. looking forward to having this built and putting the lipstick on both models.
GTKekyC.jpg

qQ0DNTt.jpg

Cheers,
Josh

Edit. Now with the exception of the build and a file suited to a working leg mechanism to suit this kit any new information I discover I'm going to move over to Hagoth's thread Fully articulated 24" tall AT-AT adventure
 

starks

Well-Known Member
Starks. Thank you for the inspiration.

View attachment 1466528
I quickly assembled the Bandai At-At and gonna use it as reference for final touch up on the details for the Revell. Not gonna hijack this post but thank you for inspiring others. Cheers.

You're more than welcome to post your work here. And that's a great compliment... especially considering it was your fantastic work that inspired me! If I was looking for more than a static model on a display I would have definitely gone to the further effort of making the hips articulate for a turn as you did a great job of that. Your model shows what can be corrected and achieved. I really look forward to seeing your work finished!

For anyone that has not seen Juns' amazing blog

Cheers,
Josh
 

Jun Austria

Active Member
Thanks Starks for the kind words. It was Baloo from this board that kick start the idea.


Just to share...

IMG-20210613-WA0001.jpg

Revell foot next to a 1/72 scale figure. With the 1/144 Bandai At-At on the right.

IMG-20210613-WA0000.jpg

Using the scale. The Bandai foot is 4.5 meters in diameter. Revell foot is around 60mm. So I'm getting scale of 1/75 for the Revell. Revell claims it's 1/53. That is so way off. Just sharing.
 
Last edited:

starks

Well-Known Member
Thanks Starks for the kind words. It was Baloo from this board that kick start the idea.


Just to share...

View attachment 1466707
Revell foot next to a 1/72 scale figure. With the 1/144 Bandai At-At on the right.

View attachment 1466709
Using the scale. The Bandai foot is 4.5 meters in diameter. Revell foot is around 60mm. So I'm getting scale of 1/75 for the Revell. Revell claims it's 1/53. That is so way off. Just sharing.
Ahhh we were guessing around 1/72 for the Revell so I guess we were pretty close! There is no way a figure at 1/53 would fit in that head.
Even at 1/75 this is not a small model. Its sitting here on the table, watching me while awaiting paint. And it's large enough to make a serious presence.
Cheers,
Josh
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top