NorvernRob Posted November 20, 2017 Inspired firstly by the old threads of Bob De Quatre and Skayen, then by the fantastic in-progress build by Pierre Augustin, a couple of months ago I decided to start my own SSD. The build actually went fairly smoothly, the biggest issue by far is that the SSD is such a thin ship profile-wise it's tricky to get the stiffness required to stop it sagging anywhere as you can't build a tall, strong frame. As the frame approaches the rear it's basically 3 frames stacked and pinned together, each reaching further out and supporting the one above. For the engine sections I just hung technic bricks upside down from the main frame, then built downwards. I completed this section first some weeks ago. As for accuracy - well I've read all the debates about tail length, and engine distances, and this and that, and I settled for a mix of accuracy, what actually looks better rather than is most accurate, and what is practical and possible given the constraints of the medium, the framework etc etc. I'd say it's a fairly stylised version rather than being anally accurate. The engines for instance should be smooth cylindrical shapes, but I tried numerous combinations of cylinders and wheels and settled on what I have now. The rear engines could maybe do with being a few studs further back, as at the moment the distance between the front and middle engines is the same as the distance between middle and rear. However, I was reluctant to move them any further back as there is already a huge amount of weight over the rear end, when I first picked up the ship I thought it was stuck on something! It must weigh close to 20kg and the vast majority of that is in the back half. There was never a doubt as to what I was doing with the top city, I just threw everything at it! The top city is built on removable plates, so can be completely removed to access the frame and lower hull panels if needed. The top hulls simply have two technics axles that slot into technics elements attached to the outer frame edges. The lower hulls are attached by technics parts, balljoints and turntables. I estimate the total parts to be around 15,000. I already had a large stock of grey, broke down my 6,000 part Falcon, got a large number of parts from my LUG, and bought 5,500 parts from Bricklink. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ellisss_2 Posted November 20, 2017 Fantastic! The greebling on this is amazing, awesome job! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raskolnikov Posted November 20, 2017 Wonderful! Proportions and greebles look great. I want one! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karmajay Posted November 20, 2017 Looks great! Thanks for sharing! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LegoRacer1 Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) That is amazing! Edited November 20, 2017 by LegoRacer1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorvernRob Posted November 21, 2017 6 hours ago, Raskolnikov said: Wonderful! Proportions and greebles look great. I want one! It’s my first big MOC, so I’m happy with it - I’ll never reach your levels of Star Destroyer awesomeness though! 5 hours ago, LegoRacer1 said: That is amazing! Thank you, I’m pleased with how it’s turned out - and pleasantly surprised 6 hours ago, karmajay said: Looks great! Thanks for sharing! Thank you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anio Posted November 21, 2017 Great design, great details. Bravo ! Regarding the bottom wings, I can see you used mini turntable. But how did you connect the brick 2x2 to the structure ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorvernRob Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Anio said: Great design, great details. Bravo ! Regarding the bottom wings, I can see you used mini turntable. But how did you connect the brick 2x2 to the structure ? Thanks Anio! I used this combination of parts to secure the bottom hull to the central spine: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrankR Posted November 21, 2017 This is amazing work!! Congrats. Captured the details perfectly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrMap Posted November 21, 2017 Wow, this must have cost a fortune to build. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pierre Augustin Posted November 21, 2017 Hello, very good job. I am definitely convinced (I had been for a long time) that parts 41769/70 are the solution to build the hull. For this, it really thanks Skayen and his model, hoping that the he would decide to move to the construction after we have just opened the way. ;) You and I (like Skayen) have agreed to design the upper shell with the parts parallel to the central axis and not the hypotenuse (the sides). This complicates fixation. For my part, I chose to "pose" it with a simple system of small rods, at the front and everything at the back, which fit into cavities furnished with bricks in the heart of the structure . I understand that Skayen is keen to find an ideal fastening system. He is purer than me. ;) There is a way of designing the hull parallel to the hypotenuse, therefore being able to realize the fastenings on the sides in a traditional way. So with parts 41769/70 along the central axis then the tail can be made with parts 54384/85 (and all those with the same angle) ... but then the hole of the "city" is doomed to be itself parallel to the sides, and not with this slight, sharper angle, which makes it the correctness of drawing (there is a solution but too complicated to write, it would be necessary that I can post drawings but I do not have software to do it). I see that you have opted for the 47397/98 tail parts, following the Skayen model. This is the wisest solution, indeed, that doesn't complicate the design of the tail. I also opted at the beginning for this logical solution. However, I ended up specifying his drawing with parts 3584/85, which are closer to the original drawing of the SSD. But we must admit that it makes fixing more complex because we can't fix plates underneath that spill beyond the edges! I had to cheat inelegantly under ... hoping that the finition of the tail with the engines/reactors will hide a little the result. These are respectable choices from all sides and difficult to make: accuracy of the drawing but risk of some details not very pruning or elegance of the finish and drawing a little more approximate. One thing is certain: for me, it is difficult to design the Executor's overall look with anything other than 41769/70, now ... especially on large formats like ours (and beyond). On smaller formats, it seems obvious to me trat alternative and more approximate solutions are quite acceptables, the goal being to be more "symbolic" than "realistic" ... This choice of 2x4 parts (41769/70, even become my avatar: D ) allows above all to be more fair on the drawing of the tail. There is a frequent approximation to the tail size of the Executor, which is often too short when it is quite thin and long. The choice of Skayen was therefore very judicious. And I know that he himself has long questioned, several times, this drawing of tail. You have chosen to be "thick" on the thickness of the slice ... I totally understand ... I admit that I broke my head for several months before finding the integrated solutions to the structure ... In my own thread, I explained how I proceeded: successions of beams putting "tension" inside the technical bricks 3703 ... which is very, very, very complicated ... The general angle is so acute, almost flat, that at the level of the beak, to get my result, I missed several times a "stroke" and nervous attacks ... especially that I didn't want to put pedestals under the beak (bow) and under the tail ... which always give the impression that the MOC is a victim of the road with crutches (lol). I think I made it with a slice that is only a high tenon ... but I understand that we can't have the time, the energy and the patience to have fun at this kind of operations which, in addition, is not at all achievable with software. For my part, I admit that I had a lot of time before me and even a little money at that time to give me this gift ... this, incidentally, answers, indirectly, a question asked by MrMap: for my part, my ship is not very economical and I think that alone, it will have cost me between 1500 and 2000 euros. I was able to do it at one point in my life. That's why it's unfinished today (not yet the engines) because I don't have time to finish it. I know I will be able to finish it but it's not like during this summer 2016 when I was able to spend almost four months non-stop on it, to ask questions, to question, to rebuild ... We all have a life and work and it is normal that we can't all afford this "luxury". I think I was lucky. ;) You were absolutely right to start thinking about engines, by the way. My bad. Apart from the time I miss, I got a little complicated today because I have to always partially dismantle the tail structure to integrate the engines. Well, I think I found the solution but, again, I was not very economical on my time. That said, it's a real pleasure to "play" with my Lego as before. At least you'll finish yours after mine! And he is very beautiful. Thanks and may the Force be with you. :D (for those who do not know him and will be interested, he is here, with a start of small imperial armada and more.) https://www.flickr.com/photos/150006559@N02/albums/72157681305079932 https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/146361-moc-super-star-destroyer-executor-185-m-73-inches-61-feet/&tab=comments#comment-2734537 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorvernRob Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, MrMap said: Wow, this must have cost a fortune to build. Actually it didn't, the key is buying bulk lots of grey (I ask on Facebook pages etc), along with general bulk lots for technic bricks etc, building up a stock of parts that really cut the cost of a build. I've spent around £500 on Bricklink, the rest of the parts I already had. It has decimated my stock though, particularly dark bluish grey - I literally have around 20 plates left! 2 hours ago, Pierre Augustin said: Hello, very good job. I am definitely convinced (I had been for a long time) that parts 41769/70 are the solution to build the hull. For this, it really thanks Skayen and his model, hoping that the he would decide to move to the construction after we have just opened the way. ;) You and I (like Skayen) have agreed to design the upper shell with the parts parallel to the central axis and not the hypotenuse (the sides). This complicates fixation. For my part, I chose to "pose" it with a simple system of small rods, at the front and everything at the back, which fit into cavities furnished with bricks in the heart of the structure . I understand that Skayen is keen to find an ideal fastening system. He is purer than me. ;) There is a way of designing the hull parallel to the hypotenuse, therefore being able to realize the fastenings on the sides in a traditional way. So with parts 41769/70 along the central axis then the tail can be made with parts 54384/85 (and all those with the same angle) ... but then the hole of the "city" is doomed to be itself parallel to the sides, and not with this slight, sharper angle, which makes it the correctness of drawing (there is a solution but too complicated to write, it would be necessary that I can post drawings but I do not have software to do it). I see that you have opted for the 47397/98 tail parts, following the Skayen model. This is the wisest solution, indeed, that doesn't complicate the design of the tail. I also opted at the beginning for this logical solution. However, I ended up specifying his drawing with parts 3584/85, which are closer to the original drawing of the SSD. But we must admit that it makes fixing more complex because we can't fix plates underneath that spill beyond the edges! I had to cheat inelegantly under ... hoping that the finition of the tail with the engines/reactors will hide a little the result. These are respectable choices from all sides and difficult to make: accuracy of the drawing but risk of some details not very pruning or elegance of the finish and drawing a little more approximate. One thing is certain: for me, it is difficult to design the Executor's overall look with anything other than 41769/70, now ... especially on large formats like ours (and beyond). On smaller formats, it seems obvious to me trat alternative and more approximate solutions are quite acceptables, the goal being to be more "symbolic" than "realistic" ... This choice of 2x4 parts (41769/70, even become my avatar: D ) allows above all to be more fair on the drawing of the tail. There is a frequent approximation to the tail size of the Executor, which is often too short when it is quite thin and long. The choice of Skayen was therefore very judicious. And I know that he himself has long questioned, several times, this drawing of tail. You have chosen to be "thick" on the thickness of the slice ... I totally understand ... I admit that I broke my head for several months before finding the integrated solutions to the structure ... In my own thread, I explained how I proceeded: successions of beams putting "tension" inside the technical bricks 3703 ... which is very, very, very complicated ... The general angle is so acute, almost flat, that at the level of the beak, to get my result, I missed several times a "stroke" and nervous attacks ... especially that I didn't want to put pedestals under the beak (bow) and under the tail ... which always give the impression that the MOC is a victim of the road with crutches (lol). I think I made it with a slice that is only a high tenon ... but I understand that we can't have the time, the energy and the patience to have fun at this kind of operations which, in addition, is not at all achievable with software. For my part, I admit that I had a lot of time before me and even a little money at that time to give me this gift ... this, incidentally, answers, indirectly, a question asked by MrMap: for my part, my ship is not very economical and I think that alone, it will have cost me between 1500 and 2000 euros. I was able to do it at one point in my life. That's why it's unfinished today (not yet the engines) because I don't have time to finish it. I know I will be able to finish it but it's not like during this summer 2016 when I was able to spend almost four months non-stop on it, to ask questions, to question, to rebuild ... We all have a life and work and it is normal that we can't all afford this "luxury". I think I was lucky. ;) You were absolutely right to start thinking about engines, by the way. My bad. Apart from the time I miss, I got a little complicated today because I have to always partially dismantle the tail structure to integrate the engines. Well, I think I found the solution but, again, I was not very economical on my time. That said, it's a real pleasure to "play" with my Lego as before. At least you'll finish yours after mine! And he is very beautiful. Thanks and may the Force be with you. :D (for those who do not know him and will be interested, he is here, with a start of small imperial armada and more.) https://www.flickr.com/photos/150006559@N02/albums/72157681305079932 https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/146361-moc-super-star-destroyer-executor-185-m-73-inches-61-feet/&tab=comments#comment-2734537 Thank you Pierre - I owe you a huge thank you, as without seeing yours built in actual bricks, I doubt I would even have started mine yet! I certainly wouldn't have gotten it done so quickly, yours helped solve several problems before I even ran into them. Mine too is a free build with no software and no planning, I like to solve problems practically rather than fighting with a program that may or may not let me do what I want. I get what you are saying about the angle of the tail. The tail angle on mine is too steep and yours is certainly the more accurate, but I've kept with the clean, tidy look as Skayen did by using the 12x3 wedge plates. I like your very clever solution of the 12x7 wedges underneath, then stepping in the 12x3 wedges to straight up that tail angle, but I didn't really like to use it for two reasons - 1) It takes away from the clean look a little when up close, and 2) It's your design, very unique and I didn't want to use it really. the side trenches on mine are maybe a little thick too, but I like greebling so I was happy to go with it. The top hulls fit very simply, it's just two technic axles each side that slot into holders connected to the outer frame. They are the only connections holding the top hulls. What I do find is that because there is no gap between the upper hulls, and the very tip of the hulls have to be two plates thick to hold the end wedge plates, that the extra plate thickness obviously tries to push the hulls apart slightly. I have to slot the hulls in just at the right angle to allow the friction between those hull tips to actually hold them together nicely, rather than one trying to push up over the other a little - there is very little margin for error! It's actually going to London this weekend for a 6 week display at the Saatchi Gallery, which I'm really looking forward to. I've kept an eye on your build progress via your Flickr, and it's coming along beautifully - it certainly a slightly more faithful rendition than mine, and I'll be very interested to see it completed and compare them both. I love your mini-Imperial fleet too, and I think il have to build my own to accompany the SSD to next year's exhibitions! Regards . Rob Edited November 21, 2017 by NorvernRob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrMap Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, NorvernRob said: Actually it didn't, the key is buying bulk lots of grey (I ask on Facebook pages etc), along with general bulk lots for technic bricks etc, building up a stock of parts that really cut the cost of a build. I've spent around £500 on Bricklink, the rest of the parts I already had. It has decimated my stock though, particularly dark bluish grey - I literally have around 20 plates left! Brinklink is where I go every time I need pieces but I wouldn't even know where to start when buying in bulk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kieran Posted November 21, 2017 That's amazing, looks superb, must have taken a huge amount of focus to complete that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lobot Posted November 21, 2017 Amazing work @NorvernRob - I never tire of looking at UCS scaled Executors and this one is amongst the very best! The shaping is perfect, and I'm awe of the greebling on the underside - that's a lot of 1x2 jumper plates!! The 'city' section is exceptional as well; you've used a nice variety of different elements, but it still looks suitably uniform - it puts the UCS 10221 to shame in that respect! Did you consider using DBG for the engine housing; the LBG looks a little out of place somehow? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pierre Augustin Posted November 22, 2017 "The top hulls fit very simply, it's just two technic axles each side that slot into holders connected to the outer frame. They are the only connections holding the top hulls." Yes ! We adopted the same solution... It's very pratical (transport, evolution...)... "he tail angle on mine is too steep and yours is certainly the more accurate, but I've kept with the clean, tidy look as Skayen did by using the 12x3 wedge plates. I like your very clever solution of the 12x7 wedges underneath, then stepping in the 12x3 wedges to straight up that tail angle, but I didn't really like to use it for two reasons - 1) It takes away from the clean look a little when up close, and 2) It's your design, very unique and I didn't want to use it really." Yes, i understand. It's what i wrote before... it's a choice to do, difficult. The design or the the clean aspect... it's a difficult choice. I undestand. Me to i doubted a lot before the choice... "It's actually going to London this weekend for a 6 week display at the Saatchi Gallery, which I'm really looking forward to." Oh, great. Me it's impossible to expose mine... for two reasons, or three... 1) it's not finished always (that is a good reason, lol), 2) i don't have vehicle, 3) i'm not in the "lego-sphere" and i didn't know anyone in those kind of exhibition... But i think it will go to The Utopiales à Nantes (France)... but in... two years ! Good luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorvernRob Posted November 22, 2017 11 hours ago, Lobot said: Amazing work @NorvernRob - I never tire of looking at UCS scaled Executors and this one is amongst the very best! The shaping is perfect, and I'm awe of the greebling on the underside - that's a lot of 1x2 jumper plates!! The 'city' section is exceptional as well; you've used a nice variety of different elements, but it still looks suitably uniform - it puts the UCS 10221 to shame in that respect! Did you consider using DBG for the engine housing; the LBG looks a little out of place somehow? Thanks for the comments! I ordered quite a few different types of wheels and cylinders to try out on the engines, and there aren't anywhere near as many available in dbg as lbg. They do look very obvious when the ship is upside down, but once it's right side up and the engines are underneath I quite like how the contrasting shades make them stand out a little. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darth Hammy Posted November 23, 2017 freaking out, do u have an interior Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rog Posted November 23, 2017 I see parts in there that you bought from my BL store! It's nice to see them going towards something amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorvernRob Posted November 23, 2017 14 hours ago, Darth Hammy said: freaking out, do u have an interior The ship is so thin there's no room for an interior, it's basically all framework! I could probably squeeze in a tiny room or two, maybe I'll have a look at some point. 4 hours ago, Rog said: I see parts in there that you bought from my BL store! It's nice to see them going towards something amazing. Thanks! I knew I'd end up buying specific parts from Bricklink even though I had a good stock of grey, but I didn't expect to buy over 5,000 still Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uwjedi Posted November 24, 2017 I love the detailing of the underside. The bike hanging above the model does make me nervous though........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob456 Posted November 24, 2017 Truly stunning! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cyanide-Tipped Posted November 24, 2017 Even the "inside" in dark gray looks sick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorvernRob Posted November 25, 2017 On 24/11/2017 at 2:34 AM, uwjedi said: I love the detailing of the underside. The bike hanging above the model does make me nervous though........ Haha, the bike isn’t going anywhere! On 24/11/2017 at 2:33 PM, Spongebob456 said: Truly stunning! Thanks! On 24/11/2017 at 4:00 PM, Cyanide-Tipped said: Even the "inside" in dark gray looks sick. Shame it’s never really going to be seen! It’s at an exhibition in London for the next 6 weeks, shame I’ve seen a photo today and the mini ISD has already been knocked over! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
