![[Image: 3939p91.png]](http://media.peeron.com/ldraw/images/1/3x/3939p91.png)
Classic Space Thread
(2018-02-20, 7:37)Steffen Wrote: ah, nice! spotted some minor errors in this model:
(2018-02-20, 7:37)Steffen Wrote: landing pad baseplate has wrong pattern IMHO, should probably be this
http://peeron.com/inv/sets/928-1?showpic=6544
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...099p07.dat
(2018-02-20, 7:37)Steffen Wrote: We both share the love for this set!
(2018-02-21, 23:50)Steffen Wrote: (It also shows clearly the proper landing pad baseplate.)
(2019-08-26, 2:39)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Updated to add minifig, rover, and robot. Also fixed some part misalignment, reorganized the file, and added some missing patterned bricks.Hi Orion
(2020-11-21, 14:53)Jeremie Guillaume Wrote: No error I know of, but a remark: I had to make the 4593 levers go beyond their less-than-90-degrees rotation limit, which I'm aware of. This is conform (among others) with the pictures on the original instructions, and necessary to permit the Minifig to handle them. I imagine that, on the real thing, the levers have to be bended slighty (even if it's not obvious on pictures I've seen).
(2020-12-04, 20:13)Jeremie Guillaume Wrote: Hello,
Set 6824 "Space Dart I" is coming... But, may I ask a (novice?) question, for which I found no clear answer yet: for minifigs hips and legs, which parts should be used ? I mean, could I still use 3815/3816/3817, or do I have to use the newer 3815b/3816b/3817b ? Since as I understood, the former will be obsoleted in the short term (as seen in this thread), the latter being the preferred one to be used instead from now on ?
In fact I used the newest parts in my first three models, which I thought was best, but I admit that I'm really not satisfied with the slope on the back of the legs - especially when the minifig is sitting - while I think the old parts would be quite acceptable...
I've seen the particular way Willy (Tschager) addressed this in his recent models (for example for sets 6844 and 6980); minifigs look slighty better like that, but this lets me quite perplex since, in that case, the studs underneath don't align correctly with the stud holes of the minifig legs...
So, in short... is there a "best way" to modelize a sitting minifig legs ?
(2020-12-04, 21:07)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Everytime I see this question I ask myself, - Did we make a horrible mistake redesigning the legs?
(2020-12-19, 21:45)Jeremie Guillaume Wrote: Hello,
While browsing the OMR for classic space models, I discovered a few glitches:
May I propose the following fixed versions of the files (only the minimal needed changes were made):
- 6929 - Star Fleet Voyager.mpd
The 3937 and 3938 hinge parts of the cockpit hatch are not correctly snapped together (the hatch is 2 LDU too high).
- 6844 - Seismologic Vehicle.mpd
The tyres of the trailer wheels aren't correctly aligned with axle (too high by 4 LDU).
- 6825 - Cosmic Comet.mpd
The gun (part 4360) is missing, while (AFAIK, seen on rebrickable.com) the 88072 part is incorrect for the year - 1985 - of the model, and 4623 should be used instead.
Finally, when searching for "6980" in the OMR, two files are found for the Galaxy Commander set; with slightly different names, but strictly identical contents.
(2021-01-23, 16:48)Jeremie Guillaume Wrote: Hello,
Set 6846 "Tri-Star Voyager"
Reported as OMR compliant by MPDCenter.
Note: for the transparent red "lights" at the rear of the sled, I used the 3070b tiles parts which are listed by the majority of sites including peeron.com. Some other sites though (such as rebrickable.com) list the 3024 plate part, but in that latter case the extra stud makes the rotation of the the locking arms in full vertical position, as shown on the original box, impossible. Furthermore, one picture in the instructions shows a 3024, while others seem to show 3070b's (no stud is visible anymore). I was uncertain about which part to use, and eventually chose the 3070b which I think is the right one; anyway, any confirmation / information / opinion about this issue is appreciated
(2021-01-23, 17:17)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Here's a couple views I pulled off Google images. It's clearly 3024.