Page 2 of 2

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:46 pm
by Natalya
Whiteagle wrote:
Natalya wrote:Find a way to do it without ball joints and it will rock.

Why is there always such ball joint hate?!?!


I have a few reasons...

First, they are flimsy.  The amount of weight they can support is pretty low.

Secondly, in creations where people use them, they are almost always exposed, so they would be easy targets.  The rules even provide for considering joints as weak-points that can be damaged more easily.  I don't know why you would want to set up your creation for military failure just because the joints were exposed.

Third, they don't look very good.  It is like, "Oh wow, they spent a lot of time on that model--oh wait no, they didn't, they just used ball joints."

Fourth, the more skilled builders I have seen shy away from them.  When they do use them, it is in awesome places like this where they add to the creation's aesthetic, instead of taking away from it.

Fifth, Bionical.

Sixth, you can do better with Technic.  It is possible to achieve even cooler designs when you don't use them.  See here:


Image

The legs have four axes of motion (excluding the wheels), which is sufficient for posing, but their joints are strong enough to hold up the weight of the whole thing.  You couldn't replace the joints in the Spider Tank with ball joints and have it stand.  Also, two of the joints for each leg are completely obscured and can not be targeted by its opponents.  The other two have the bulky armour of the leg protecting them from most other possible angles of attack.

It takes a lot of time, a lot of tinkering, a lot of experimentation, and sometimes even planning to design a mecha that uses no ball joints, but the effort will pay off in the end.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:54 pm
by trebnos1
That's fair enough--I have to admit, the Spider Tank looks pretty darn slick. I personally don't really have a problem with ball joints; weight isn't an issue for something this small (on bigger creations I might use them for mounted weapons, but you're right, they can't handle much else); I don't mind the weak point factor way too much, it just gives me one more factor to deal with in a game. I was going to say the appearance issue is more a matter of opinion, but now I'm imagining what those legs would look like in technic... I'll get back to you on that.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:22 pm
by Zupponn
Usually I'm not a fan of ball joints, but here they're not too bad.  They could be changed to something else and the legs would probably look cooler.  Also, they can hold a lot more weight than I originally thought they would be able to.  See here for an example of that.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:30 pm
by trebnos1
Bah, I toyed a bit but I think I'm sticking with the ball joints for now.
This happened while I was messing around. It's the Paladine Imperium's Kite I combat drone, a light and fast robotic skirmisher built to move nimbly across the land or through the air to attack or defend as the situation warrants. The Kite is a product of the Imperium's (soon to be) extensive AI department.
Image
Image
Image
Image
I'm not fond of the gun; that will probably be changing soon.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:58 pm
by Zupponn
Isn't the best stuff always created while messing around? :lol:
Looks really good by the way.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:44 am
by Natalya
trebnos1 wrote:Image



Image


That's more like it.  This thing is totally rad.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:50 am
by Ben-Jammin
DAT SORD.

Back to the ball joints though, I personally don't like them either. The only thing I really use them for is my Ninjago dragons, and in the few instances that I do build mecha, I much prefer the "clicky" joints like in the older Exo-Force sets. They can support a good amount of weight and can stay in a position for a long time with little flimsiness. The downside is that they aren't as poseable as the ball joints; some of the clicky ones can only pivot up and down or side to side.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:06 am
by muffinman42
I also dislike ball joints. They look Odd. Joints with one axis of motion are easy to move by motors making for a robust and powerful joint, but a ball joint requires weird methods like linear activators and hydraulics, which are weak, unreliable and easy to damage.
They have no place on the battle field where power and robustness are king.

the foot joint is cleaver though, and with the ball joint swapped out this would be a mighty fine mecha.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:31 pm
by Robot Monkey
Love the hardsuit, but if you want poseability, stick with ball joints. You can make a click joint set that has similar poseability, but that method is extremely rare part intensive.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:13 am
by Arkbrik
Number 3 on this list is pretty strong.

Image

For some reason they show a brick with a round hole; the left brick should have a Technic axel hole.

Image

Like this.

Re: Consortium Raider Hardsuit

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:14 am
by BFenix
Ben-Jammin wrote:DAT SORD.


:<3: