Classic Space


Classic Space
#1
[Image: 3939p91.png]

Classic Space Thread
Reply
928 - Galaxy Explorer
#2
(This model is an error-corrected version of this post by widetent on eurobricks.com.
I of course kept his/her authorship and !HISTORY in the file.)

[Image: 928-ldview.png][Image: 928-povray.jpg]

LDR:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Steffe...ce/928.ldr

Errors (like missing stickers etc.):
EDIT: the initial version of this post (LDR and images) still contained glitches; I corrected these by EDIT:
front slope used wrong space logo size, 1x1 round studs corrected to hollow studs version, changed 1x2 plates with handles
Reply
RE: 928 - Galaxy Explorer
#3
Since you installed the AIOI you'll find the "holy grail" in your C:\Users\<user>\Documents\LDraw\Models\Space folder, where it sits since the very beginning of my version of the AIOI, say 2012.

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#4
928 - Galaxy Explorer

   


.mpd   928 - Galaxy Explorer.mpd (Size: 22.41 KB / Downloads: 28) (OMR compliant)
Known errors: None
Done with: MLCad 3.4
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#5
ah, nice! spotted some minor errors in this model:

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

the trans-yellow bricks 1x4 and 1x6 should be without understuds I think

the black minifig tool "Spanner/Screwdriver" is missing

parts 3942b should be 3942a instead: http://peeron.com/inv/sets/928-1?showpic=6544

_________________

while checking this, I also spotted errors in my post above, corrected them with EDIT, see there


We both share the love for this set!
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#6
(2018-02-20, 7:37)Steffen Wrote: ah, nice! spotted some minor errors in this model:

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up.

(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

Before you submit another variant to the PT this should be further discussed. I remember long discussion about the different versions when I submitted them for review and remember also a brickshelf folder showing them - but I cannot find it anymore. However I kept pics of them in my project folder:

                       
.png   0306-Comparison.png (Size: 311.47 KB / Downloads: 709)

(2018-02-20, 7:37)Steffen Wrote: We both share the love for this set!

The love of my life. Sorry 75192-lovers but this is the biggest set ever:

[Image: giant928.jpg]

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#7
(2018-02-20, 10:58)Willy Tschager Wrote:
(2018-02-20, 7:37)Steffen Wrote: ah, nice! spotted some minor errors in this model:

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up.

Fixed where?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#9
(2018-02-20, 21:02)Travis Cobbs Wrote:
(2018-02-20, 10:58)Willy Tschager Wrote: Fixed, thanks for the heads-up.

Fixed where?

Now it should work.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#8
> Before you submit another variant to the PT

I don't want/need to. Just this only one
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...099p07.dat
was missing.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#10
Here is
Rufus' Classic Space Restoration Project
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.p...n-project/

A thread I loved to read.
Maybe you do, too.

(It also shows clearly the proper landing pad baseplate.)
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#11
(2018-02-21, 23:50)Steffen Wrote: (It also shows clearly the proper landing pad baseplate.)

I just checked the two MISBs of 928 I have and both come with the orange variant of the baseplate - so Rufus is clearly wrong on this.

Nonetheless I found orange as well a yellow variants of:

http://peeron.com/inv/parts/6099px2

among the some 50+ spaceplates I own.

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
6931 - FX Star Patroller
#12
   
6931 - FX Star Patroller
OMR Compliant
Missing: Nothing


Attached Files
.mpd   6931 - FX Star Patroller.mpd (Size: 47.9 KB / Downloads: 21)
Reply
RE: 6931 - FX Star Patroller
#20
(2019-01-08, 5:02)Orion Pobursky Wrote: 6931 - FX Star Patroller
OMR Compliant
Missing: Nothing

Updated to add minifig, rover, and robot. Also fixed some part misalignment, reorganized the file, and added some missing patterned bricks.
Reply
RE: 6931 - FX Star Patroller
#21
(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

In the file there is no rover, minifig and robot. ?

In der Datei gibt es keinen Rover, keine Minifigur und keinen Roboter. ?
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: 6931 - FX Star Patroller
#22
(2019-09-04, 18:33)Johann Eisner Wrote: Hi Orion

In the file there is no rover, minifig and robot. ?

In der Datei gibt es keinen Rover, keine Minifigur und keinen Roboter. ?

This should now be fixed.
Reply
RE: 6931 - FX Star Patroller
#23
(2019-09-04, 20:33)Orion Pobursky Wrote: This should now be fixed.
Thanks.!
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#13
926 - Command Centre

   


.mpd   926 - Command Centre.mpd (Size: 15.05 KB / Downloads: 19) (OMR compliant)
Known errors: None
Done with: MLCad 3.4
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#14
6901 - Mobile Lab

   


.mpd   6901 - Mobile Lab.mpd (Size: 12.53 KB / Downloads: 14)
(OMR compliant)
Known errors: None
Done with: MLCad 3.4
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#15
6821 - Shovel Buggy

   


.mpd   6821 - Shovel Buggy.mpd (Size: 4 KB / Downloads: 16) (OMR compliant)

Known errors: None
Done with: MLCad 3.4
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#16
6890 - Cosmic Cruiser

   


.mpd   6890 - Cosmic Cruiser.mpd (Size: 7.7 KB / Downloads: 18) (OMR compliant)

Known errors: None
Done with: MLCad 3.4
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#17
6880 - Surface Explorer

   

.mpd   6880 - Surface Explorer.mpd (Size: 10.04 KB / Downloads: 17) (OMR compliant)

Known errors: None
Done with: LDCad 1.6c
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#18
6844 - Seismologic Vehicle

   


.mpd   6844 - Seismologic Vehicle.mpd (Size: 3.82 KB / Downloads: 16) (OMR compliant)

Known errors: None
Done with: LDCad 1.6c
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#19
6950 - Mobile Rocket Transport

   


.mpd   6950 - Mobile Rocket Transport.mpd (Size: 14.92 KB / Downloads: 19) (OMR compliant)

Known errors: None
Done with: LDCad 1.6c
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#24
6980 - Galaxy Commander

   

.mpd   6980 - Galaxy Commander.mpd (Size: 293.42 KB / Downloads: 20) (OMR compliant)
Known errors: None
Done with: LDCad 1.6c
Reply
RE: Classic Space 6808 - Galaxy Trekkor
#25
6808 - Galaxy Trekkor

   

.mpd   6808 - Galaxy Trekkor.mpd (Size: 14.64 KB / Downloads: 12)

File OMR compliant
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#26
6807 - Space Sledge with Astronaut and Robot
(That's the BL name; technically, this set is untitled as it was just the "bonus" set in a 3-pack.)

A surprisingly difficult little build, because of the need to match the rotation of the control sticks with the spaceman's arms (a problem documented in this thread, for those following along). And speaking of control sticks, I've assembled them in what may be an irregular fashion, because of the issue discussed here.

EDIT: Added a Stud.io render of the model (note that I've used the not-yet-official updated part for the robot's arms in this render, though not in the MPD file).

   
   

.mpd   6807-1 - Space Sledge with Astronaut and Robot - Main model.mpd (Size: 3.24 KB / Downloads: 12)

OMR compliant: Yes
Errors: none
Done with: LDCad 1.6c
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#27
Hello everybody,

That's many years I know about the Ldraw community, and I recently passed some time playing with and discovering the great features of LDCad - among others - for my greatest pleasure.

I made several sets from the Classic Space collection, mainly some which are not in the OMR yet.

For example, here is the 1558 set. Do you think it could be added to the OMR collection ?

   


.mpd   1558 - Mobile Command Trailer.mpd (Size: 6.01 KB / Downloads: 6)

File is OMR compliant, as reported by mpdcenter.

No error I know of...

Comments welcome Smile

EDIT: 2020-11-21, uploaded a slighty modified version with a better orientation of stud logos for 5 bricks
EDIT 2: 2020-12-12, replaced 3815b/3816b/3817b parts by 3815/3816/3817
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#28
Great job and modelization, looks very good Wink


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#29
Oh, thanks for the rendering! I imagine you used Stud.io for this ? Those I made with POV-Ray don't look so good !
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#30
Hello,

Here is another little model I made, set no 6820 "Starfire I".

   


.mpd   6820 - Starfire I.mpd (Size: 3 KB / Downloads: 1)


MPDCenter reports the file to be OMR compliant.

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).

EDIT: 2020-12-12, replaced 3815b/3816b/3817b parts by 3815/3816/3817
EDIT 2: 2021-04-03, fixed an infinitesimal glitch
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#31
(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).

This is partly due to the connection point being in the wrong spot—the base of the stick should be just flush with the top of the base. (See here.) But even with that modification, you don't get the greater-than-180-degrees sweep that you could in real life.

I remember this cute little model fondly, as I had it myself. LDraw is definitely the only way I know to get the little nose antenna to remain perfectly straight and fixed. :-)
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#32
Smile
I imagine some solved this issue by adding a small drop of glue ?
The classic space set I had when around 10 was the 6929 Starfleet Voyager. But no 4592/4593 on this one !
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#33
Hello,

Here is the set 6845 "Cosmic Charger".

   


.mpd   6845 - Cosmic Charger.mpd (Size: 4.99 KB / Downloads: 6)

MPDCenter reports the file to be OMR compliant.
No error I know of.

The 4593 levers are inclined by 92° (same remark as in my previous post).

EDIT: 2020-12-12, replaced 3815b/3816b/3817b parts by 3815/3816/3817
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#34
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 ?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#35
Everytime I see this question I ask myself, - Did we make a horrible mistake redesigning the legs?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#36
(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 ?

The new versions are supposed to be more correct…but note, for that to be so, the back faces of the legs on a seated minifig should not be parallel to the surface it's seated upon. (The default snap info in LDCad makes it so that they are parallel.)

But the fact is, the distinction between the old and new geometries is reeeally subtle, when viewed on real-life parts. (So much so as to be all but indiscernible, honestly.)

(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?

I think the motivation was good, but maybe there needed to be some more careful measurement—to a Cailliau-esque level of precision, perhaps?

Or maybe this is just another example of a case where the real-life dimensions of a part, and those that are idealized for LDraw, are just too small to warrant being modeled—just as we don't model the gaps between bricks. And maybe it's yet another instance where the precise dimensions of a part would make more sense being stored as a kind of metadata, to be applied when great precision is needed, but ignored by editors and viewers when over-accuracy is not desirable?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#37
Wow, apparently I'm not the only one who dislikes this slope...

Yes, I do know the old parts have some flaws too, and of course I have no doubt that the initial motivation for designing new ones was good. And yes, I do think that some even more precise dimensions would have made the new parts perfect.

But if I understand well, the fact that old parts are not tagged obsolete yet means that using them is still correct, and the choice is left to the appreciation of the model author ? Besides, I note that some recently added OMR models still use the old parts...

Well, well... I hesitated a lot, but I think I'm eventually going to use them (and upload new versions of the already-uploaded models). If I misunderstood something and/or am wrong doing so, just tell me so Smile
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#38
Hello,

Set 6824 "Space Dart I"


   


.mpd   6824 - Space Dart I.mpd (Size: 4.55 KB / Downloads: 6)


MPDCenter reports the file to be OMR compliant.
No error I know of.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#39
Hello,

While browsing the OMR for classic space models, I discovered a few glitches:
  • 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.
May I propose the following fixed versions of the files (only the minimal needed changes were made):


.mpd   6929-1 - Star Fleet Voyager.mpd (Size: 13.34 KB / Downloads: 5)

.mpd   6844 - Seismologic Vehicle.mpd (Size: 3.83 KB / Downloads: 6)

.mpd   6825-1 - Cosmic Comet.mpd (Size: 22.58 KB / Downloads: 5)

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.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#40
(2020-12-19, 21:45)Jeremie Guillaume Wrote: Hello,

While browsing the OMR for classic space models, I discovered a few glitches:
  • 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.
May I propose the following fixed versions of the files (only the minimal needed changes were made):





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.

Thanks for the corrections. I'm in the middle of doing a rewrite for the OMR software and, as such, an update freeze is in place so it may be a bit before you see any changes to the repository contents.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#41
(2020-12-20, 0:56)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I'm in the middle of doing a rewrite for the OMR software and, as such, an update freeze is in place
Thanks for the info, I didn't know that.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#42
Hello,

Set 6846 "Tri-Star Voyager"

   

.mpd   6846 - Tri-Star Voyager.mpd (Size: 5.41 KB / Downloads: 1)

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 Smile
.
EDIT: 2021/05/02 - uploaded a new version, in which LDRs are nested differently - no other change.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#43
(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 Smile

Here's a couple views I pulled off Google images. It's clearly 3024.
[Image: lego-space-classic-tri-star-voyager_1_be...a486a1.jpg]
   
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#44
(2021-01-23, 17:17)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Here's a couple views I pulled off Google images. It's clearly 3024.

Thanks for your research Orion.
Mmh, not so obvious. When googling you can find some pics with 3070b as well:

   

... or this video.

Furthermore, when using 3024, the resulting rotation of the 4596 arms cannot be more than this:

   

... while Internet is full of pics of those in perfect vertical position.

Ideally, I would love to hear somebody having, someday, opened an original box of this set... No one here?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#45
Hello,

Set 6848-2 "Inter-Planetary Shuttle"

   


.mpd   6848-2 - Inter-Planetary Shuttle.mpd (Size: 4.01 KB / Downloads: 1)


Reported as OMR compliant by MPDCenter.
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#46
Hello,



Three small but nice sets...



- Set 6802 "Space Probe"

   

.mpd   6802 - Space Probe.mpd (Size: 3.58 KB / Downloads: 1)


- Set 6803 "Space Patrol"

   

.mpd   6803 - Space Patrol.mpd (Size: 2.42 KB / Downloads: 1)


- Set 6804 "Surface Rover"

   

.mpd   6804 - Surface Rover.mpd (Size: 2.28 KB / Downloads: 1)

Reported as OMR conform by MPDCenter.
No error I know of
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#47
here some test renders,


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#48
(2021-04-07, 7:18)hehud Wrote: here some test renders,

Great render but as a Classic Space traditionalist it is a shock to see an astronaut with something else as the standard grin pattern and the Classic Space logo on the torso. Sad

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#49
yep sorry, I will  be more careful ,


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#50
Looks like:

6985 - Cosmic Fleet Voyager
6892 - Modular Space Transport
6971 - Inter-Galactic Command Base (rubber tubes are missing)

are also missing from the OMR. It would be good if you could submit your files (preferably already OMR compliant).

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#51
Hi hehud, hi Willy,

I like the renders too ! (and those of the pirate scenery even more, really beautiful).

About some sets missing from the OMR, I discovered that many of them have already been made by Damien Roux [darats] and published on the Eurobricks forum, several years ago. My opinion is they're good candidates for being OMRized...?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#53
(2021-04-10, 16:19)Jeremie Guillaume Wrote: Hi hehud, hi Willy,

I like the renders too ! (and those of the pirate scenery even more, really beautiful).

About some sets missing from the OMR, I discovered that many of them have already been made by Damien Roux [darats] and published on the Eurobricks forum, several years ago. My opinion is they're good candidates for being OMRized...?

Sure, but it wouldn't be nice snatching files for EB to upload them here, would it?

If they are posted here by the author it is a totally different story.

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#54
(2021-04-14, 10:35)Willy Tschager Wrote: Sure, but it wouldn't be nice snatching files for EB to upload them here, would it?

If they are posted here by the author it is a totally different story.

w.

Oh, I didn't think so at all; I would never do that without the permission of the original author. Sorry if I could be misunderstood (which I now realize when re-reading my post).
But I see he already put in the OMR many of his creations, with 100+ sets. So I was thinking, someday he's going to publish here the missing Classic Space sets he already created, and which don't need much work to be full OMR-compliant ?
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#52
here the 6985 Cosmic Fleet Voyager, 

normally wihtout mistakes,

from Leocad,


Attached Files
.ldr   Spaceship_6985.ldr (Size: 21.63 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply
RE: Classic Space
#55
Hello,

Set n° 6849 "Satellite Patroller"

   

.mpd   6849 - Satellite Patroller.mpd (Size: 4.95 KB / Downloads: 1)

OMR compliant, no part missing.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)