BARC Speeder - Clone Wars Version

[XimenaPaulina]

As promised, here's Version 2, with a couple of subtle modifications which I think improved the look of this BARC:

1. After realizing (lately) that the 2-slope wide rear part is too blocky, I decided to follow the BP BARC 1-slope set-up with some minor mods and following Mr Man's suggestions of using cheese wedges for a more continuous transition to a sloping end. I'm now happy with the slimmer shape and getting that grey patch detail at the rear. Here's the reference image of the slim rear part.

2. I replaced the ski rear flaps with 1x2 tiles as suggested by DobbyClone. The size is much better now. Reference image .

Comparison with the 7913 BARC:

Other views:

UPDATED First Post with Version 2.

Well that's it. I think I'm satisfied now with this one, and will stick with this version for the moment.

[Sisco]

Pictures aren't working for me Kiel; is it just my browser?

[XimenaPaulina]

Pictures aren't working for me Kiel; is it just my browser?

I tried to re-deeplink them, can you see them now?

[Sisco]

Yes, I see them now; thank you.

This version looks even better than the previous one, which I thought was fantastic! I love the general shape of it, as it seems just a tad bit sleeker. The back looks amazing! You've done a great job here, Kiel.

[Commander_Rob]

Looks amazing, the second version even more so. The engines are much better than on the battlepack version and the narrower front part is very nice, though I think the section between the seat and front engine could be a stud longer, looking at this image. Otherwise great though.

[XimenaPaulina]

Looks amazing, the second version even more so. The engines are much better than on the battlepack version and the narrower front part is very nice, though I think the section between the seat and front engine could be a stud longer, looking at this image. Otherwise great though.

Thanks Rob. Ive actually played around on how long should the front part be, and I even did that 1-stud longer that you mentioned. But in the end I went with this one since I thought this is a 'safe' length that's not too long and not to short either (if you look closely, I actually used an illegal 'half-stud connection' just to be in the middle).

[Brickdoctor]

Great job, KDM. The little changes you've made really make a big difference. Really the one thing I don't like are the harpoons; to me they still don't fit in. They're skinny on the front and fatter on the back, and I'm not seeing that in the reference pics.

BTW, your second link has some numbers stuck between the 'http://' and the 'www...'. It's IP address 62.0.5.133, which you can read about here; not sure how that got there, but you have to delete the numbers to view the pic.

[Commander_Rob]

Thanks Rob. Ive actually played around on how long should the front part be, and I even did that 1-stud longer that you mentioned. But in the end I went with this one since I thought this is a 'safe' length that's not too long and not to short either (if you look closely, I actually used an illegal 'half-stud connection' just to be in the middle).

The half-stud offset of the sloped piece, you mean? I didn't notice that before actually, but looking at it now I have to say it definitely helps the look here.

[Kendo]

I think it's perfect now . I wouldn't like it being more accurate , it will not look that awesome ...

[Mr Man]

Looks great KielDaMan, much better than TLG pathetic attempts.

Although (forgive me if you addressed this) The TCW BARC only has one set of controls, its the ROTS one with two sets.

TCW Version

ROTS Version

The main difference is the front end between the intake and the controls, it lacks the covering over the control rods of TCW one. Presumably the ROTS one is a striped down or later variant.

Edit: Another difference is the TCW version has only 1 set of controls, whereas the ROTS version has two, which suggests a later model. And the seat has no headrest on the TCW version.

The first image and the image from this show that.

Again sorry if you mentioned it I just don't want to have to read back through the whole topic again . (They look great though, just wrong model.)

Edit:Shouldn't the square stud underneath the dark grey cheese slope also be dark grey?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Mr Man

[XimenaPaulina]

Really the one thing I don't like are the harpoons; to me they still don't fit in. They're skinny on the front and fatter on the back, and I'm not seeing that in the reference pics.

BTW, your second link has some numbers stuck between the 'http://' and the 'www...'. It's IP address 62.0.5.133, which you can read about here; not sure how that got there, but you have to delete the numbers to view the pic.

Yeah I know the harpoons' shape is quite questionable, but I don't know any other piece that has that skinny front. I might have to explore on brick-building that part.

With regards to the link, I'm going to look at it.

The half-stud offset of the sloped piece, you mean? I didn't notice that before actually, but looking at it now I have to say it definitely helps the look here.

Sorry, I didn't know the proper term to describe it.

I think it's perfect now . I wouldn't like it being more accurate , it will not look that awesome ...

Nothing's perfect my friend. But I'm quite happy with this one right now, so I would leave the design of this one at the moment.

Looks great KielDaMan, much better than TLG pathetic attempts.

Although (forgive me if you addressed this) The TCW BARC only has one set of controls, its the ROTS one with two sets.

Edit:Shouldn't the square stud underneath the dark grey cheese slope also be dark grey?

Thanks Mr Man! I know the controls should only be one set, but I really like the double steering vane set-up. I guess this is the case of following what I want even if it's slightly inaccurate.

And yes, the 1x1 plate beneath the cheese slope should also be the dark grey, I just ran out of that piece and got lazy to scavenge from my other MOCs.

[Brickdoctor]

Yeah I know the harpoons' shape is quite questionable, but I don't know any other piece that has that skinny front. I might have to explore on brick-building that part.

Screw driver!

[XimenaPaulina]

Screw driver!

Yes, right! Thanks for the suggestion Doc, I'll do that next time (gotta order some screwdrivers from BL).

[BrickArtist]

Screw driver!

I'm also experimenting with 3L bars with minifig hands to represent the fins, that might work too.

[prateek]

This version looks even better than the previous one, which I thought was fantastic! I love the general shape of it, as it seems just a tad bit sleeker. The back looks amazing! You've done a great job here, Kiel.

Agreed. You really went beast mode on this version. It's perfect in my eyes

[Daedalus304]

Great looking speeder, KielDaMan! The new thin body of the second version looks very nice (I thought the first version was pretty cool as well).

One thing I am curious about, how would that front air scoop look with an 8-tooth gear inside it instead of a 1 x 1 cylinder? I'm not sure if there's even any way to get it in there, but the thought popped to mind when I saw the reference picture.

[Kendo]

Nothing's perfect my friend. But I'm quite happy with this one right now, so I would leave the design of this one at the moment.

The level of accuracy is what is perfect actually , although I much appreciate brickartist's one ( not comparing , just giving an example ) , it's too detailed for me .... Edited April 2, 2011 by Troopmaker

[XimenaPaulina]

Great looking speeder, KielDaMan! The new thin body of the second version looks very nice (I thought the first version was pretty cool as well).

One thing I am curious about, how would that front air scoop look with an 8-tooth gear inside it instead of a 1 x 1 cylinder? I'm not sure if there's even any way to get it in there, but the thought popped to mind when I saw the reference picture.

Thanks Daedalus, I actually thought of using that as well, though I currently don't have that piece at my disposal (read: extremely limited parts). I might look into using that (will go order some in BL), so thanks for pointing it out.

[Masked Builder]

Not bad at all! It's really getting close to the right size and proportions. And I really like what you've done with the back section. I still like TLG version better though.

[The Legonater]

Personally, that's a great MOC. It looks all right to me. However, the Aurebesh A in your pics is wrong...

[XimenaPaulina]

Personally, that's a great MOC. It looks all right to me. However, the Aurebesh A in your pics is wrong...

Thanks. What do you mean the Aurebesh A is wrong? The one in the BARC title? That's supposed to be Engli-besh and not Aurebesh. The only Aurebesh text there is my signature, which I think is right.

But just to make sure, calling our resident walking Aurebesh dictionary brickdoctor: are my Aurebesh/Engli-besh texts right?

[Fallenangel]

I think it's perfect now . I wouldn't like it being more accurate , it will not look that awesome ...

Don't underestimate KielDaMan's MOCing abilities. Narrow-mindedness and a failure to see potential for improvement is not going to help anyone around here.

Anyway, on to the MOC. The decision to make the back slimmer certainly makes the craft much sleeker, which is nice. The 1x2 tiles are a big improvement as well; looking at your previous rendition the skis look rather goofy compared to what you've got there now.

A couple things I would address:

- The side-mounted handlebars are rather obtrusive; I would either have them on top or get rid of them to retain the sleekness of the nose.

- Is there a different way to represent the air intakes in the rear at this size? The construction you've got with the wing plates is just too blocky, especially now that there are 1x2 tiles there. I guess I feel the same way about the front intake as well.

- The dark bit on the underside of the forward intake makes the nose look too bulky; I would suggest you omit that feature.

[The Legonater]

Thanks. What do you mean the Aurebesh A is wrong? The one in the BARC title? That's supposed to be Engli-besh and not Aurebesh. The only Aurebesh text there is my signature, which I think is right.

But just to make sure, calling our resident walking Aurebesh dictionary brickdoctor: are my Aurebesh/Engli-besh texts right?

I meant the text in the signature. Trust me, I've commited 90% of Aurebesh to memory.

[Brickdoctor]

But just to make sure, calling our resident walking Aurebesh dictionary brickdoctor: are my Aurebesh/Engli-besh texts right?

According to the Wookieepedia version, which is up-to-date with the latest canon Aurabesh (I've checked it with text in CW), you wrote:

Krenth Isk Esk Leth Dorn Enth Mern Enth Nern

Which translates to:

Kh I E L D Æ M Æ N

So to me, it looks like your font has substituted the characters for the double-letter sounds for the characters for single-letter sounds, in this case the Krenth (Kh) for Krill (K) and Enth (Æ) for Aurek (A).

[The Legonater]

So to me, it looks like your font has substituted the characters for the double-letter sounds for the characters for single-letter sounds, in this case the Krenth (Kh) for Krill (K) and Enth (Æ) for Aurek (A).

I wouldn't be surprised- my font does the same thing, so I use all caps to get the letters right.

It was just an error I noted and thought that it was something worth pointing out. Sorry if it got a little off-topic.