54 replies to this topic

[skayen]

Hello

I own 10221 Super Star Destroyer, but am somewhat dissatisfied with the number of inaccuracies which has been discussed in detail on these forums, so I sought to rebuild it into my own interpretation.  Unfortunately, this only exists in LDD and it is the first MOC I've done; but as its nearing completion I thought I'd show some visualisations for constructive feedback.

There are a number of issues that I wanted to fix, but I mainly wanted to correct the flat bottom, extend the tail and angle the front engines along the bottom hull.  I've compared my version against a number of resin models (mainly from http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=29704), and I feel my version is reasonably close---but not entirely ;-) It has some "features" which have been stylised differently on purpose (mainly because I couldn't be bothered fixing them:), and at the end it's lego so there's a degree of inherent abstraction.  I was planning on rendering some images to compare the dimensions against the profiles I've used for reference, because I am quite pleased with how close they are---but I haven't done so, yet.

Ray-traced images:
note: there seems to be some errors when converting from LDD->LDR->Povray--some of the bricks used for the underside are missing!


Close-up of the city/underside (rendered in LDD):


Profile comparison:
note that the size reference for both the top and profile views are based on the distance from the tip to the widest point, and that the scale of my version seems to change w.r.t. the Scale Solutions resin model and the profile from the Spaceship Size Comparison Chart.  I guess there only definitive version is the model built for ESB and one/both of the reference images are wrong (since they're different with respect to each other, too...)





Comparison to the /real/ reference model:
I tried to approximate the camera angle/perspective of the reference images for my model and then rendered the LGR version using the same parameters.  In the first image (the one that isn't a frame from the movie), I scaled the LGR image so the image distance from the tip to the rear engines is approximately the same as the real image




Comparison to a third-party resin model:


Finally, a comparison to the LGR 10221:


cheers,
John

[The Chosen 1]

That by far is the best one ever..

[TheBrickHitHouse]

Looks exceptional - care to share the instructions/designs?

[BrickPicker]

Fantastic.  How many more pieces did take to build theis beauty?

[Dapper-D2]

This is really fantastic! The best one I’ve seen to date! I really like the greebling techniques you used on the top of the ship, they look so much more accurate and cleaner then the jumbled messes I’ve seen on Lego’s version and others. Do you have some close-up pics of that?      

[Fuppylodders]

This does look pretty tidy! But is there any chance of close ups of the city/greebling and the underside?

Edited by Fuppylodders, 01 July 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Brickdoctor]

Welcome to EB, skayen!

This looks incredible. It looks slightly too wide, but the other angles look great, and I love the amount of studs you've left visible and the amount you've tiled over. I think the 'city' might be a little too smooth, but it's a sort of simpler, more refined style that I myself like to use often.

Is this a WIP or a completed MOC? If it is complete, could we get some more, larger pics? (I also want to blog this if it's complete)

[Bilbo Baggins]

This looks astonishing, how many pieces did you used?

[purpleparadox]

Woah...what a way to introduce yourself to Eurobricks! It's incredibly huge, and impressive. I don't suppose you'll be brick-building it, thanks to what it would cost? Well, great work. That's quite an accomplishment even in digital. Fantastic.

[Mr Man]

This is really great, maybe a little wide on top but the overall shaping is fantastic.

[skayen]

Hello,

thanks for your kind appreciation :-)  Although the exterior is pretty much finished (except that I haven't added any detail to the side trenches yet and I am still considering changes to the city), but it is currently ~3700 pieces and is (virtually) 1.44 metres long.  For reference, the length from the nose to the widest point of my model is almost the same as the legnth from the nose to the widest point on 10221---but my version is quite a bit longer.

Thanks for your comments regarding the greebling on the city.  I wasn't a big fan of the "random pieces" that some versions use.  While there is a lot of detail on the model, I think the city displays more structure which I wanted to bring out.  Having said that, though, my version does have some element of excessive detail on the outer blocks, but I am musing about scaling that back, too.  I'll post more pictures of the underside and the city soon; I just haven't had time to do it, yet.

I still need to figure out how to turn the model into a working set of instructions, given that some of the internal structure isn't aligned correctly because LDD rounds rotations to the nearest integer and some of the hinges have fractional rotation =/   I hope to be able to build it at some stage, sure :-)

Two people have suggested that it is a little bit too wide.  Although it probably is a bit wider than ideal, I think it's actually extremely close.  I found an image of a resin model by Scale Solutions which has a pretty decent top-down-view, which I've illustrated here for comparison:

(removed: see first post)

The top and side images have been scaled so the baseline I mentioned above is the same, but the overlay in the bottom right corner has been scaled so the /length/ is the same.  This comparison is not /quite/ accurate, because although I can generate perfectly orthogonal synthetic images, the photograph is at a slight angle which can distort the width somewhat---either by making it larger by tilting to the back of the ship or narrow by tilting to the narrow sides.  However, I maintain that it's reasonably straight-on for comparison, and that my model actually seems to be very close to its width (and that the angle formed at the nose is very close).  Not exact, sure: but orders of magnitude better than the official lego model.

The width of the 'wings' with respect to a Korbanth model is illustrated here, where I've tried to mimmick the camera angle taken by Matt Craig:

(removed: see first post)

I plan to make a few more comparison pictures with respect to reference photographs of the movie model from modelermagic and the movies themselves, but haven't got around to it yet.

Finally, here's a comparison picture with the official model, which I think illustrates that my version is significantly flatter than the amusingly hunchback Lego version.  (Also, the top angle is mirrored underneath.)

(removed: see first post)

thanks again for your feedback.

cheers,
John

Edited by skayen, 03 July 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[Mr Man]

skayen, on 02 July 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Finally, here's a comparison picture with the official model, which I think illustrates that my version is significantly flatter than the amusingly hunchback Lego version.  (Also, the top angle is mirrored underneath.)

*Snip*

I think you should add this pic to your first post, showing how much you've improved on the TLG model.

As for the width issue, after seeing the graph you posted it appears that it's not that much of an issue now.

[HJR]

Wow, a serious thumbs up for the investigation you did in making this model; the end result is breathtaking.  

I guess building it would be rather expensive, but if you'd ever open-source the building instructions, I am sure some would consider building it.  I'm one of them :-)

[DFOL]

Hello skayen, first of all a warm welcome to Eurobricks!

When i glanced at your initial pictures earlier, i had a feeling the shape of your Executor wasn't too far off. I'm glad you posted some comparison pictures, it clearly shows how accurate your model really is. Though i'm hoping to see some more detailed pictures, especially from the "city" and the underside, i'm loving what i am seeing so far. I think your model has some great angles, and so far it seems to look amazing from every possible viewpoint.

The only point of constructive critisism i can think of is that the city seems too smooth, i would love to see it a bit more greebled. Other than that, i'd say this is one of the best versions of the Executor i have seen to date. Well done!

[Fuppylodders]

skayen, on 02 July 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Finally, here's a comparison picture with the official model, which I think illustrates that my version is significantly flatter than the amusingly hunchback Lego version.  (Also, the top angle is mirrored underneath.)

*snip*

cheers,
John

Most definitely a huge improvement! Although your city may look relatively tidy I think there is plenty of room for personal preferential changes to it.
I must say this now does look superior to TLG one, and I can see that you have put much love into this. And for something that has had as much love put into it by the creator I can suggest nothing other than for you to over time, turn this beauty into a reality! Surely the pictures are impressive... but imagine the grin on your face if you had this one right in front of you, created by you!

[Plastic Brick]

It looks like a real set, I'd put it at 250-300$
Marvelous detail

[Brickdoctor]

Thanks for the new pics.  

Looking at the comparison with the scale model, the scale and dimensions of this model look great.

[skayen]

Hello,

I've added some more comparison pictures (including to an image from ESB) and close-up of the underside and city to the original post.

cheers
John

[Aeroeza]

skayen, on 02 July 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

... Two people have suggested that it is a little bit too wide.  Although it probably is a bit wider than ideal, I think it's actually extremely close.  I found an image of a resin model by Scale Solutions which has a pretty decent top-down-view, which I've illustrated here for comparison...

... although I can generate perfectly orthogonal synthetic images, the photograph is at a slight angle which can distort the width somewhat---either by making it larger by tilting to the back of the ship or narrow by tilting to the narrow sides.

...I plan to make a few more comparison pictures with respect to reference photographs of the movie model from modelermagic and the movies themselves, but haven't got around to it yet.

My friend, this is awesome work! Amongst the best of seen when it comes to attention to detail and treating Lego as a pure modeller's medium...

I'm excited to see this level of research and passion put into a MOC and wouldn't hesitate to build your model from instructions (if ever I was given the chance   ).

I've put a bit of work into pre-vizing the Executor as a 3D model myself in order to help out with a mate's MOD of 10221. I based my efforts on an image I generated by combining Jeff Russell's work and Martyn Griffiths' superb drafting...



The results are found here (with rounded off measurements). There is some guess work involved but the margin of error is small.

If there's anything I can do to confirm a few angles for you then please don't hesitate to PM me. It would be interesting to compare notes...

Again, fantastic work of the highest caliber!

Edited by Aeroeza, 04 July 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[tvih]

Looks great! I never realized the "tail" of the LEGO SSD was that much shorter than in the movies. I've really wanted the set ever since first seeing it five weeks ago. Though I think it looks nice despite the inaccuracies... so I guess I might get it regardless. If I can afford it before it goes EOL, that is.

[mortesv]

HI Skayen, and welcome to Eurobricks!

I just got home from a short vacation, only to find links to your magnificent creation waiting in my mailbox – what a nice surprise  

You have really nailed many of the proportions of the real thing to an obsessive degree, pressing the medium to its limits with only very minor compromises. I’m impressed!  

I have studied the official Executor model myself extensively – with the invaluable help of the always helpful Aeroeza. The purpose of the study was to mod the official set (10221) to be more in line with the film model – addressing all the shortcomings you yourself point out; missing bottom, lowering angles etc.

Regarding the discussion of width, I also found that the wedge (4 x 2) you have chosen to dictate the breadth of the ship was a bit more accurate than the one usually used when building SSDs. I think Aeroeza’s render of the studio model is perhaps ever so slightly slimmer than your resin comparison, but your width still isn’t far off. In fact, when I was modding the 10221 the width was a recurring topic, but in the end I decided to go with the slimmer design – simply based on my subjective perception of the ship when watching the movies. However, I must admit your “wide” version is very very good.

I also like that your have extended the tail of the ship, but perhaps you have gone slightly overboard when looking at the film model? In any case the official model's tail is definitely too short. As far as I can see the tail on the resin model is also a bit too long compared to the film version, and you have made it a bit longer still. According to your renders and my calculations based on the film model the tail on your model should "begin" about 9cm further away from the tip of the ship. However, I understand this compromise was necessary to "slim" down the model. The Lego designer had the opposite problem because his model was too narrow so he opted to make the tail shorter.  

Note; when I mention the "film model" it is a reference to Aeroeza's research and this "modeler magic" page

From time to time I still build on my Executor, adding more detail and tweaking stuff. I’m a greeble nut and this ship sure poses many challenges in that regard. I think your approach to detailing is a breath of fresh air, and I find the “less is more” method inspiring – although I in some places have gone in the opposite direction with my own model – especially the engine section, which I continue to “upgrade”.

You can see my mod here (although most of the pics are somewhat “outdated” because of my continuous tweaking):

My link

Finally, congratulations on a job superbly done  

Edited by mortesv, 08 July 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[skayen]

Hi,

ok, thankyou for your positive feedback :-D  

I did actually see Aeroeza's and Mortesv's link some time ago when I was looking around for thoughts/feelings on the shape of the SDD after I assembled my version and thought it was all broken.  My original intention was to work out a permutation of the pieces in 10221 to make it closer to what I thought it should be like, and to that end I got hold of the LDD model posted on these forums and started trying to deconstruct it while dragging the pieces aside so I can then be sure that I'm only using the pieces in the original set.  But then the angle at the nose bugged me too much so I deleted all that work and started from scratch with the 2x4 wedge pieces and my own reference to images I could find on the 'net.  Thanks for pointout out your link again--I've checked it out and now that I've struggled with some concepts (or, at least, identified some features I wanted to preserve in my model), I can see how you've approached them--but I'll write a comment on your thread shortly.

BTW, I've added the draft to my profile comparison picture; I hope you don't mind.  I am well pleased that the angles of my hull are a perfect match, actually.  I guessed the angle because I didn't have a profile picture handy, and I figured 8degrees looked about right, and it seems we both agree ;-)

I'd be the first to agree that there are many aspects of my model that I /know/ are not correct, so I definitely agree that my tail is longer than it should be.  My tail is three 3x13 wedge plates, and I knew at the time that I really wanted 2.5 plates long.  While I could address some of that discrepancy by having two plates side by side and using the bottom layer offset by half a length and coating the top with a different angle, then I'd end up with the obvious layered effect you can see on my model just behind the widest point---ie. you can see that the top layer is noticably shorter than the bottom layer.  In the end, I actually liked having a long tail and kept it as 3 elements long.  However, building the top plates was actually the first thing I did, and I think I'll revisit that decision in light of the more complete model.  

However, I am not sure how much I believe the 'scale model reference' illustration as canon.  Maybe it was drafted from the model images (?) but if you compare



the section after the last engines does extend a surprising amount.  To be fair, that image has been taken with a wide-angle lens, and the perspective will definitely distort length ratios, particularly for the end of the tail because it's near to the camera.  Consider also this crude image analysis using the length ratios of the last engine structure with respect to the rest of the tail:



what this shows is the line along the structure that has been divided into segments of the same length, taken from the 2D image length of the last engine of the model: ie each mark denotes the /same/ 2D euclidean line segment which is taken from the corresponding segment over the engine.  

Unfortunately, this image is somewhat deceptive, because it doesn't take perspective into consideration: because the tail is slightly closer to the viewer, to maintain the same length in 3D space the equivalent length in 2D should progressively increase slight.  I'd happily accept that you'd need to take this image with a grain of salt, but it /does/ suggest that perhaps the real model's tail is slightly longer than the draft image.  Anyway, if we pretend that the perspective isn't an issue, then according to the simple image analysis, the length behind the last engine is ~3.75 lengths of the last engine.  (The pink vector you see hanging off the tail is the same downwards vector borrowed from the window, which also has a clearly marked "down").  According to the illustration, the length is little more than 3 engines long.  

Can perspective account for the 'missing' ~25% discrepancy?  ... possibly.  There's a lot of guess work going in there, because I'm measuring things on different planes---the outer edge of the jet engine is closer to the camera than the mid-point to which I'm comparing it too.  But my feeling is that the studio model really is a bit longer than what the draft seems to suggest.  I've tried to find better photographs of the studio model which is side-on, but couldn't.  The best model I could find is the Korbanth model in the original post, and its tail is arguably quite a bit longer than the draft, too...

Regarding the width of the model: I agree that I think the 2x4 wedges make the model a tiny bit too wide.  I was initially going to use the 13x3 wedge pieces and hope that by flatting the model, the angle subtended at the nose would also be correct (because obviously you can fiddle with the top-down angle by tweaking the slant angle: trading errors in height for a given wedge piece for errors in the top profile).

Some other problems with my model:

- the angle of the tail is too steep
- the hanger bay was stylised on purpose to be wrong, mainly because no one can see it and it now reminds me of a shark ;)  (The angles near the mid section are ~45 degrees, and they should be more like 80)--also, it extends to far to the front and should finish at a right angle, not taper to a point.  Again, this was accidentally on purpose because I like the style ;-)
- the last engine group is too close together and consequently the angle from the engine group to the ceiling is too shallow.
- and probably others

But, anyway, I think we can all agree that the TLG's model is too short or too skinny or too anything else you'd like, and while we can happily quibble about just how long the tail really should be, or how wide, I think it ultimately comes down to personal preference :-)  I may revisit my tail, but to be honest i quite like the length of it (for various reasons;-), and really---thats ultimately what it comes down to, I think :-)  I shall make some more thoughts on your link shortly, but let me say now that I greatly respect your interpretation, too.

Thanks again for your feedback!

cheers
John

Edited by skayen, 08 July 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[mortesv]

Thanks for a fulfilling reply John!

I really admire the effort you have put into this – it reminds me of Aeroeza’s work. It is a rare experience to meet such a passionate, fellow minded “geek” - Kudos and respect to you indeed  

This is how I arrived at the “shoulder” points of the model - based on Aeroeza’s render. Aeroeza’s references could be off, or maybe his calculations are inaccurate, but don’t tell him I said that. Anyway here is my quick estimation based on his render:

12,7km / 17,6km = 0,722

According to this the “shoulders” should be at 0,722 of the ship’s total length. As far as I can see the shoulders on your model is at about 0,658 of the ship's total length.

Anyway, I don’t really know how accurate this is - and it really don’t matter much, because your model stunningly captures the look of the film model. Furthermore, your model is the first I have seen with a seamless “widening” of the wings compared to the city down the length of the model – very well done!

And I completely agree, in the end it is about personal interpretation and preferences. And my own mod certainly uses a lot of “interpretation”  

I think I have a top down ILM render of the film model on an ESB Blu-Ray somewhere, maybe I’ll have a look at that – it is still fun to solve the “riddle” of film model  

Again, I hope to see you put this digital model into bricks. I'm happy to donate some of my brick collection to this project. I have a large stash of 12x3 wedge plates and other bricks and also a lot of old style hinges should you require those. Just let me know.

Cheers
Morten

[Aeroeza]

mortesv, on 08 July 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Aeroeza’s references could be off, or maybe his calculations are inaccurate, but don’t tell him I said that.

...   

skayen, on 08 July 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

... I am not sure how much I believe the 'scale model reference' illustration as canon.  Maybe it was drafted from the model images (?)...

Skayen welcome to the 'Executor Trainspotting Club' sir! Where doubts flood forth aplenty, debate fuels the fires of verbosity and images are cast across the eternity of digital space with the regularity of a high fibre diet!

The best I can tell you about the validity of the source images I used for my renders are what Curtis Saxon has to say about Martyn Griffiths being a sci-fi modeller "undertaking a painstaking blueprinting project using all manner of photogrammetric and other techniques to determine the ship's proportions accurately". This was in 1999 and it's evident Jeff Russell has since used them for his Starship Dimensions site (they are a perfect match).

Griffiths' images are missing the central section of the ship so I used Russell's profile to line the two halves up. The point here was to take advantage of front and side orthographic views to construct a basic 3D model in Maya. There are no other such images available online and as you can appreciate, the lack of any lens distortion in the drawings made them invaluable to a 3D project.

I can vouch for the accuracy of my work and for the craftmanship of Griffiths drafting (his front and side images match stunningly) but I don't know how close his are to the studio model other than what my eyes tell me.

Mortesv's suggestion of screen grabbing the ILM render of the film model from the ESB Blu-Ray is an excellent one. Although it will suffer from lens distortion it could still give us some vital clues in preferencing the Korbanth Kit over the images I've used.

skayen, on 08 July 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Can perspective account for the 'missing' ~25% discrepancy?  ...

To be honest my gut tells me it can but if you're right and the studio model is longer than the draft then by how much? Is it as long as the Korbanth model?? I'm off to try and find my ESB Blue Ray (now if only I wasn't in the middle of moving house...)

...and allow me to reiterate just how excited I am by your model and that I'd also be happy to donate all of Mortesv's bricks to see it completed!!  

[Mr Man]

skayen said:

*lots of clever stuff*

mortesv said:

*lots more clever stuff*

Aeroeza said:

*Even more clever stuff*

You know as much as I love this MOC I thiink I enjoy reading this stuff even more .