|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
obxcrew wrote:GreenLead wrote:As promised, some CAD mockups in Pro/Desktop! Nice work! I like how the design can be changed if different pieces are used. Thanks! And with some modification, the Javelin AT can be depicted as well. Disassembled, the parts would fit nicely in a TLC Crate (as used for the Boom Box).
 LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 116
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
GreenLead wrote:Delta Force wrote:And If some one can make a sling for this I can add it for my 1993 75th Army Ranger (Black Hawk Down) Hmm...I'll have to ask MMCB if he can fix something up for us... Off the top of my head, my new weapons strap would probably work. Being elastic it should stretch far enough to fit that. If not, I can easily make a larger version. See, easy ;) MMCB
MMCB Custom Minifig Cloth Accessoriesmmcblego@gmail.comMMCB Custom Minifig Cloth AccessoriesMMCB Custom Minifigs Gallery
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
Thats sounds great, MMCB! Just wondering, would the flat strap with formed into a ring on both ends work?
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 116
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
There would be a twist in the strap because you'd be changing the orientation of it, but yeah, I can't see why it wouldn't work. MMCB
MMCB Custom Minifig Cloth Accessoriesmmcblego@gmail.comMMCB Custom Minifig Cloth AccessoriesMMCB Custom Minifigs Gallery
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
mmcb wrote:There would be a twist in the strap because you'd be changing the orientation of it, but yeah, I can't see why it wouldn't work. It wouldn't be that noticable anyway - besides, that's what it's probably like on the original. Okay, having read in detail manly_man_14's two-halves suggestion, which one does everyone prefer - that or TLC pin joiner with custom muzzle, trigger and venturi?
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 9/16/2007
Posts: 981
Location: Norfolk, VA, USA
|
GreenLead wrote:Okay, having read in detail manly_man_14's two-halves suggestion, which one does everyone prefer - that or TLC pin joiner with custom muzzle, trigger and venturi? I, personally, like your idea better - I'm a huge fan of being able to make different weapons using different configurations of parts.
"People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?" "Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it, but that's the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice."
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
Another argument against the two halves approach - the halves would require a core-cavity configuration, ableit a less-pronounced one. What does everyone think now?
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 11/9/2007
Posts: 530
Location: The small town of Merlin, Oregon
|
GreenLead wrote:Another argument against the two halves approach - the halves would require a core-cavity configuration, ableit a less-pronounced one.
What does everyone think now? I like the whole idea, realy. I also agree with obxcrew, it would be great to customize it in different forms. About the core-cavity, I think Will (or badger) said that he could not do core-cavity right now, or is that a different type of mold?
You're good Kid, real good, but as long as I'm around you'll always be second best, shee?
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
hobo4ever wrote:About the core-cavity, I think Will (or badger) said that he could not do core-cavity right now, or is that a different type of mold? Core-cavity is different from the cavity-cavity system currently used. While Will has stated in the WWII British soldier thread the possibility of using the core-cavity system in a smaller mold to prototype the Brodie helmet, as far as I know, there hasn't been further info about this. Not to continually blow my own horn, but if you have a look at the muzzle, trigger adapter and venturi parts, you might notice they are actually hollow, and the hole goes right through. However, they are shallow enough to be molded using Will's current cavity-cavity system. After all, think of those parts as somewhat...hang on...what's the word... mutated rings.
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 10/1/2008
Posts: 10
Location: new york
|
that would be great for some modern marines trying to take down an enemy tank or chopper not to mention it would scare the brick out of most minis
[MOD - When posting here, please utilize proper grammar, such as capitalization and punctuation. Thanks. - obxcrew]
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
With the new WWII Bazooka prototype announced, I realised that, since Will appears to be going for solid launch tube constructions, maybe the M136 AT4 could be of a similar size, but with a different muzzle and venturi design. What do you guys say?
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 978
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
GreenLead wrote:What do you guys say? I say that's a darned good idea. However, the AT4 doesn't have a handle (I don't think). How would the fig hold it?
 "Time to let 'Ol Painless out of the bag!"
|
|
Rank: Specialist
Joined: 8/28/2008
Posts: 202
Location: Atlantis, Pegasus Galaxy
|
I would love to see an AT4 rocket, it would go great with the Bazooka.
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we will hang seprately." :Benjamin Franklin "Do HardThings"
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
Brickfan93 wrote:the AT4 doesn't have a handle (I don't think). How would the fig hold it? Ref image.You're right - it doesn't have an actual grip. But I suppose adding a minifig-compatible one on wouldn't detract from the overall profile. :)
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Specialist
Joined: 4/20/2008
Posts: 152
Location: Right behind you...
|
Well, there you go guys. Prototyped :-P Will, you amaze me.
A Company, 6th Platoon, 3rd Squad My Forum-Please join! LEGO-Imitated, never equalled.
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
xmrsmoothx wrote:Well, there you go guys. Prototyped :-P Will, you amaze me. I would have to disagree here. The bazooka prototype is a WWII design with rounded muzzles and a plain launch tube, whereas the thoroughly-modern AT4 has octagonal muzzles and back venturi, as well as more detail on the launch tube. As such, I still think the AT4 deserves to part of the future line-up as its own accessory, rather than subsituted by another design.
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Specialist
Joined: 4/20/2008
Posts: 152
Location: Right behind you...
|
Eh. I think it's good enough.
A Company, 6th Platoon, 3rd Squad My Forum-Please join! LEGO-Imitated, never equalled.
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 978
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
GreenLead wrote:The bazooka prototype is a WWII design with rounded muzzles and a plain launch tube, whereas the thoroughly-modern AT4 has octagonal muzzles and back venturi, as well as more detail on the launch tube.
As such, I still think the AT4 deserves to part of the future line-up as its own accessory, rather than subsituted by another design. I agree. However, I'm rather undecided as to the grip. Obviously, it's Will's decision, but I don't know about how a handle would look. I suppose that it would have to have one, or else a fig couldn't hold it. Here's an idea, though, although not a very good one: Perhaps a monopod with the "jaws" wide enough to fit around the launch tube?
"Time to let 'Ol Painless out of the bag!"
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 190
Location: Kiwiland
|
Brickfan93 wrote:However, I'm rather undecided as to the grip. Obviously, it's Will's decision, but I don't know about how a handle would look. I suppose that it would have to have one, or else a fig couldn't hold it.
Here's an idea, though, although not a very good one: Perhaps a monopod with the "jaws" wide enough to fit around the launch tube? I feel that it may be a unitasker - something that serves only one purpose. The standard BA monopod is designed to fit a variety of weapons, whereas the large monopod suggested would only be useful for the AT4. But still, good idea. Here's a ref pic for those who are wondering how the AT4 is held.  Note that the Swedish soldier here fires the AT4 with her right hand, by pushing the trigger on the top of the tube. She holds onto a fold-out front handle with her left hand. So I believe for all intents and purposes, a potential BA AT4 should have a simple fixed handle - not only does it look authentic, it also permits flexibility when arming a AT specialist minifig.
LS DoD appointed Technical Advisor to 2nd Infantry Division's "A" Company and his Flickr
|
|
Rank: Elite Commando
Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 978
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
Angry women and rocket launchers . . . time to hide. Folded out front handle? I didn't know that existed. I held an AT4 once and it didn't have one. Guess it was either removed or folded away. *smacks forehead* I knew they held something, but I thought it was just where the strap met the barrel. However, a quick flick around Google told me what I needed to know:  I agree that a handle (since I now know that it exists) would be an essential detail. I wonder how many of the exterior details could be reproduced? EDIT: I'm still not sure what's happening in this AT4 picture . . .
"Time to let 'Ol Painless out of the bag!"
|
|
|
Guest |
