The flexibility is to fix some of the issues I had designing the AT-SE leg, along with the AT-AT, which looks brilliant but actually can't turn...
Hmmm but the AT-ATs were physical models animated in stop motion, surely there would be some flexibility in those joints that wasn't accounted for in the CG model? It can be seen in the film (min 8:34):
you see that mentioned a lot, but if you just allow the foot to rotate at that seam, turning is easily accomplished.
its not like your knee's turneither, they only bend one way too.
No, it's not *quite* as simple as rotating at the seam, since there's a bracing strut that connects the footpad under the seam to the shin segment, and the articulations for those attachments do not allow for easy x-y plane rotation. It *can* if you fudge the footpad connector to be a ball-in-socket stype, but I haven't seen a great studio model shot of the foot to say for sure it was designed as such. The footpad is also typically depicted as being a solid object, rather than rotating at the seam, which makes sense as that horizontal seam immediately under the top edge of the bottom footpad is hardly an obvious point for x-y rotation.
This is quite apart from the problem with the feet not being able to be next to each other because of the toe-pads . I love the AT-AT, but it requires some fudging to make work completely.
And my leg:
1) doesn't turn at the knee, but rather at the hip and the two components of the footpad. I'll point out that your knee doesn't do much in the way of x-y rotation either
2) does turn more than one way (though not at the same joint) - the lower leg can adduct and abduct above the y-z rotation at the knee, and the entire leg assembly can do so at the hip.
there's not great evidence for it, aside from the line scribed around the cone, and the "cannon" cross section books dont show it that way. its just how i see it in my head. if you let this be a rotational seam it would solve some problems. Copy of 01.08.07_14.atat5.jpg
there's not great evidence for it, aside from the line scribed around the cone, and the "cannon" cross section books dont show it that way. its just how i see it in my head: letting the bottom half of the foot rotate would solve some problems.
It's one way of dealing with xy rotation, and the way I eventually decided to handle the AT-SE, but I think it'd be easier in the case of the AT-AT to deal with it at the central attachments of each leg pair to the drive train under the walker. Less obtrusive and more intuitive than splitting the footpad.
Also, if you look at the video clip above, there's not an obvious scribe line there on the smaller model used for the stop-motion. You might see it on the bigger one better?
Liking the direction you're going with this with horizontal rotation at the leg attachment to the main body, and a six legger eh? So much for my light to medium Walker theory, this is going to be a monster.
I'd say no to a footpad rotational joint, some form of rotational apparatus just under the body on an AT-AT is suggested in the movie shots and that concept art up there to provide turning ability. Plus, would the foot rotating alone really give you turning ability if the rest of the leg isn't doing any turning of its own?
Indeed, that upper (thigh?) ring joint in particular looks quite weak and exposed. I'm guessing that part will be shielded by armour plating dropped down from the lower part of the main body? These legs look great in this configuration, can't wait to see the rest of it.
Liking the direction you're going with this with horizontal rotation at the leg attachment to the main body, and a six legger eh? So much for my light to medium Walker theory, this is going to be a monster.
Well it could be, but if it is Ansel's leg design has deviated quite a lot from the original. Think it is more likely that he's doing a design of his own, but who knows?
Well it could be, but if it is Ansel's leg design has deviated quite a lot from the original. Think it is more likely that he's doing a design of his own, but who knows?
Nice work, so from this can we gather that the front (head) section is articulated with some form of neck? And with the head mounting a pair of legs the combination of head articulation and horizontal rotational mounts for the legs will form the basis for your solution to the AT-AT Walker can't really turn corners conundrum?
Nice work, so from this can we gather that the front (head) section is articulated with some form of neck? And with the head mounting a pair of legs the combination of head articulation and horizontal rotational mounts for the legs will form the basis for your solution to the AT-AT Walker can't really turn corners conundrum?
Looking forward to seeing this fully fleshed out.
Yes the front and aft sections will articulate within the chassis, but not to a huge extent. The walker can turn without it because the legs can do x-y rotation at the hip and at the ankle, but because it's so large I thought a monolithic body wouldn't quite look right, and would really impair the turning radius/speed.
Yes the front and aft sections will articulate within the chassis, but not to a huge extent. The walker can turn without it because the legs can do x-y rotation at the hip and at the ankle, but because it's so large I thought a monolithic body wouldn't quite look right, and would really impair the turning radius/speed.
Cool, can't wait to see this thing animated, sounds like the walk cycle of this thing should be something really interesting.
I don't like it when names go that way, always sounds too fan generated, if you look at the Walker class names from the movies they are all pretty practical and matter of fact sounding, basically they do what it says on the tin, without the added guff of Obliterator or Annihilator or anything like that. All-Terrain Armoured Transport, All-Terrain Scout-Transport, All-Terrain Tactical Enforcer, etc is the style of Walker class names. Figure out what the battlefield function of the walker is and then come up with a practical name based around that.
Posts
its not like your knee's turneither, they only bend one way too.
Hmmm but the AT-ATs were physical models animated in stop motion, surely there would be some flexibility in those joints that wasn't accounted for in the CG model? It can be seen in the film (min 8:34):
[video=youtube_share;WASr5-mS238]
Also:
No, it's not *quite* as simple as rotating at the seam, since there's a bracing strut that connects the footpad under the seam to the shin segment, and the articulations for those attachments do not allow for easy x-y plane rotation. It *can* if you fudge the footpad connector to be a ball-in-socket stype, but I haven't seen a great studio model shot of the foot to say for sure it was designed as such. The footpad is also typically depicted as being a solid object, rather than rotating at the seam, which makes sense as that horizontal seam immediately under the top edge of the bottom footpad is hardly an obvious point for x-y rotation.
This is quite apart from the problem with the feet not being able to be next to each other because of the toe-pads
And my leg:
1) doesn't turn at the knee, but rather at the hip and the two components of the footpad. I'll point out that your knee doesn't do much in the way of x-y rotation either
2) does turn more than one way (though not at the same joint) - the lower leg can adduct and abduct above the y-z rotation at the knee, and the entire leg assembly can do so at the hip.
Copy of 01.08.07_14.atat5.jpg
It's one way of dealing with xy rotation, and the way I eventually decided to handle the AT-SE, but I think it'd be easier in the case of the AT-AT to deal with it at the central attachments of each leg pair to the drive train under the walker. Less obtrusive and more intuitive than splitting the footpad.
Also, if you look at the video clip above, there's not an obvious scribe line there on the smaller model used for the stop-motion. You might see it on the bigger one better?
I'd say no to a footpad rotational joint, some form of rotational apparatus just under the body on an AT-AT is suggested in the movie shots and that concept art up there to provide turning ability. Plus, would the foot rotating alone really give you turning ability if the rest of the leg isn't doing any turning of its own?
:thumb:
As I said... maybe the AT-SHBW. :argh:
Well it could be, but if it is Ansel's leg design has deviated quite a lot from the original. Think it is more likely that he's doing a design of his own, but who knows?
He knows!
Deliberately no closeups of detail yet because it can all change with the overall configuration.
Have you thought of maybe putting one really big gun up on the top?
So it's a fusion of the AT-SHBW and an AT-AT Conceptart.
Nice work there. :thumb:
Looking forward to seeing this fully fleshed out.
Sort of. When was the big walker named AT-SHBW (and what does it stand for)?
Yes the front and aft sections will articulate within the chassis, but not to a huge extent. The walker can turn without it because the legs can do x-y rotation at the hip and at the ankle, but because it's so large I thought a monolithic body wouldn't quite look right, and would really impair the turning radius/speed.
Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it?
Cool, can't wait to see this thing animated, sounds like the walk cycle of this thing should be something really interesting.
Or then there's AT-TC (All-Terrain Tactical Command) Walker?
Heh, Ansel, you should start a competition to name your new walker.