[MOC] Kage Goomba's TIE Defender (TIE/d) - Ready for QA/Testers (fully built in real life)

[Kage Goomba]

NOTE: I changed things on my Webserver so images may be broken - if anyone wants to see things let me know and ill dig them up - these forum boards are not entirely friendly on edits. - Sorry! (Pictures are still there - just have to go the the trouble of fixing them.) - And it appears these stupid boards won't render the images upfront - but they load when you click - sigh.

UPDATE - The Hinge fixes worked - its stable as it can get - enough that you'd be at the level of the UCS Star Destroyer or X-Wing or any other model in terms of how much a model can take before it starts having issues.

Currently working on redoing instructions to get it up to current design specs.

PIcs below are still accurate - only the hinges are twice the strength and the stand does a better job keeping it stable.

Instructions are updated up to the stand - got an another 200 pages to blitz through before I can post the current iteration. Should be done tomorrow.

Future plans are improvement on the panel wings to not looks so fragile - cockpit strengthening.

Going to need help with Q/A on instructions and anyone whose released a design - PM me and give me some pointers - total newb here - want to do it right.

Reminder - not charging for instructions - these will be free.

I will however accept donations (to put towards Otana - the "other" monster project)

Would really like to see someone build this thing to really get a sense of cost/design.

Also just might send this up to Lego Group. Any comments about that?

Much thanks.

PS: Bug thanks to the Technic gents who helped me puzzle out a stronger hinge design - which turned out to be a "Well duh" problem and not a disaster.

====

UPDATE 2:

Instructions/Parts List are done.

https://www.kagegoomba.com/lego_moc.php

(2 Files - 54-55MB - 1 PDF/1 CSV)

*Again - please respect the work done here - don't go running off with it/etc - for everyone to enjoy*

I'll be looking into making the manual look pretty with a cover/end cover/credits/graphics.

Decal has been created for this design - https://www.ultimatecollectorstickers.co.uk/product-page/lego-star-wars-ucs-moc-sticker-for-tie-defender-by-kage-goomba

 

TIE Pilot not included in design - just a random thing I snagged for display purposes.

----

<TIE Pilot isn't included in the design - thought it would be cute>

As I said before - still updating instructions and parts list.

So stay tuned.

UPDATE:

I Added LED's - still need to clean it up but here it be.

https://www.kagegoomba.com/lego/tie_defender/TIE_Defender_prototype_led.mp4

==============

This is my second MOC (albeit first one to be "finished" to the point of building)

There's history behind this design that ill save for later - I'll just focus on the meat and potatoes.

Here's the pictures from Stud.io - ill look into a rendering version in a while.

 

Cleaned up the Cockpit <-> Main Core area - not sure if that area is stable but it certainly looks good (Stability in the little bits that decorate it)

 

And the Stand itself

 

3421 Parts as of this posting (With stand)

 

20” x 19” x 19” (51cm x 47cm x 46cm)  (Think - Between an A-Wing/TIE Fighter UCS in size terms - also not including stand so it may be a pinch taller/longer)

This MIGHT support mini figurine in the pilot's seat.

 

Bit of Lore (My Take on it)

The TIE/d or "Defender" was Grand Admiral Thrawns answer to the X-Wing Space Superiority Fighters.

Essentially the first of its kind to be Mass Produced with not only Shields - but a Hypderdrive with exception of modded TIE/i (Interceptors) and Darth's TIE Advanced (bit of a debate?)

Point is - this was designed out the gate to be more inline if not exceed the trouble that X-Wings bring with them - and the ability to not require a Mothership to "Get around" thanks to the Hyperdrive.

 

It also sports additional weaponry. Packing the lasers and ordinance that is typical of a TIE Interceptors (4 Laser Cannons - dual launchers) - this also has 2 ion cannons to make it a formidable ship (taking a page from the Y-Wings/B-Wings). - Also sporting a Tractor Beam to make it easier for its quarry to be killed.
Carries more ordinance as well. Bit of a debate on speed but its essentially an Imperial X-Wing with bigger fangs.

 

Bottom line - this TIE would have been the nail in the alliances coffin if it had been taken seriously as it could fill a Bomber role that the Y-Wings did - Tarkin however would block this project citing its too expensive and prefer to keep to his doctrine of throw many cheap TIE's at them and not bother cleaning up the mess. We all know how that turned out.

 

Thrawn would have cleaned house if he had the backing of the Empire - but alas - he was essentially ignored and the TIE/d was only on field in limited numbers - and still feared overall.

 

Again - just my take on it - I'm a big fan.

 

(For some reason they say it has "Chin cannons" - it doesn't - don't care what they say - don't give a damn - I reference the TIE Fighter Game and similar games :P)

 

That said - in my honest opinion - this was the King of TIE's - the Apex predator of the Empire for Space Superiority.

Vader even grinned behind his mask when he got to fly one - a rare moment indeed (Thrawns books as source)

 

But alas - too little too late - and the rest is history - for now? (We shall see)

 

FAQ:

This is a UCS Scale like model - not a play thing - not very tolerant with tampering.

Yes there will be a Stand - and you can purchase a decal for it - ill dig up a link when I get there.

Cost? - Instructions will be made available for free when they get done. This thing set me back about 2K USD (maybe less now that it's refined? Not sure - happy to take estimates for anyone brave enough to build this beast) - I'll accept donations to put towards my Otana project - but I don't intend on making profit off this for the main reason as to how this project came to be. It did take 1000 hours plus to build this thing out - and it will take a lot of effort to build instructions for it.

Build - there's half a dozen "super rare" (not ultra?) parts Id estimate that may cause some trouble - namely the Cockpit hatch up top and the Window - then you have some decorated tiles inside for looks - and maybe some other parts. I'll audit to remove these variables as much as possible.

Majority of the bricks are Black and Grey with some slight alterations.

Feel free to substitute where you like if you see fit to do so.

Stud.IO file will be made available on request when I get around to releasing this thing propper - so just ping me if you want a copy. This will also produce a parts list as well.

Will it work? I'm 80-90% Confident it will.

Doesn't this look like _____ model? - Yes - it does - the Mocopolis model is no longer available because that design was fraudulent - a total rip off. I actually bought instructions and this became a 3-4 month long nightmare. I suspect that designer will not be allowed to come back let alone claim credit for an "impossible" build. Hence why I'm releasing for free. More details below. Bottom line - this model WILL work - and is legitimately possible to build....I hope. (Going to find out for sure!)

 

I intend to build this in real life very soon - need to these parts off my desk so I can move on to other projects lol - so I'll be sure to take pictures during construction or rather "reconstruction" - keep reading for answers to THAT question.

 

As I said - I'm confident it will work this round.

 

Update: Updated the Cannons - so now they don't freely spin looking awkward//broken/odd. Shrunk the length by an inch or so - more parts - but better looking.

PS: This forums engine has very retarded caching - the images have been updated but it won't load the images - if you load the images in a new tab/window you'll see the updated pics.

 

MVP's -

Special Thanks to @Monkeyulize for helping to redesign the core body/pylons/TIE Panel main struts from ground up - creator of the gorgeous TIE Phantom ->

Big thanks to "Darth Soban" - a Homeworld MOC'er enthusiast whose been giving encouragement and check-summing me the entire time.

@ForgedInLego for helping me solve the Cockpit "sagging" problem or at least giving me the best shot.

And lastly @Kdapt-Preacher for majority of my sanity checks and feedback overall since the beginning. Who has a fantastic collection of minatures ->

Spoiler

 

 

Note: some minor things may be different in this - like the laser cannons are not the same - but the overall idea is the same

 

First off - I want to be clear that this “concept” - in terms of the idea is not mine - this model was something I bought instructions from this source -> https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/design.page?idModel=237679

 

This design is Impossible.

It's an illegal build in that you cannot build this in any shape form or fashion.

 

“Mocopolis” Apparently is not trustworthy by any means as they don’t “vet” their instructions let alone designs as far as I’m concerned.

*They pulled the design which is why your seeing 404 Pages now - they've said nothing - which makes me think they have a serious problem in vetting designs. Moving on either way.

 

They finally responded:

Quote

Hello [K]age,

 

Sorry to keep you waiting.

We are extremely sad to hear your disappointment with our product. This was indeed the MOC of a third-party developer working with us (BrickmanStudio). We discussed a lot with him about the structure of his work and he told us personally that there should not be any critical difficulties, while showing us pictures of the MOCs he had built in life. We had a serious discussion with him and relayed your words. He's already designed the spacecraft stands, if you really still need it. He is also now starting to build it again in life for additional design changes.

Now we are sending his MOC in for a complete revision until we are personally convinced of the sustainability of the constructions. The main problem is that we specialise in building houses ourselves. So we didn't quite know the ins and outs of this kind of work.

 

We would like to convey to the whole community our regrets about this. Our primary goal is to give people new ideas and inspiration for constructions and make people happy. The kind words and good reviews have always inspired us to keep working. So again we apologise to you personally. Thank you for your feedback, we will try to be better.

 

Kind regards,

Mocopolis.

Continued the discussion making my point all the clearer they need to vet their designs :P (like ask for real life build pics)

 

I presumed anyone who charges for instructions would make sure it's “legit” - whoops.

Granted - stupid me - I didn’t bother to test design this out in Stud.io. - Would have stopped me from dumping money on it. Lesson Learned.

Yes I did contact the guy - all he did was say he would upload a fix - and that was just the cockpit issue I found.

 

I asked if he tested this thing - a full audit.

No answer. Nothing.

 

That was 2-3 months ago.

 

And now I have a mess of bricks/boxes for a design that cannot be built.
 

So I said #### this - I’m fixing this come hell or high water - and no doubt others have suffered as I did. Even as a newbie MOC’er - I feel someone had to step up - might as well be me.

 

And it taught me a great deal about what to think about over my own “Otana” Project.

After hundred hours of painful work and blood and sweat - I managed to salvage this 2000+ USD disaster and make it work.

So this “2.0” version - is mine. The changes alone are all encompassing and even then it's not “perfect” In my eye - not by a long shot.

 

I only got it far enough that its at least “presentable” and now “possible” (Until today where I found the TIE Panels will not hold)

I will not be charging for instructions (when I get them done)  - and all files will be up for grabs once I find an appropriate place to post them - for now I’ll just make them available on request.

 

If the original designer decides to show up - I’ll be happy to work it out with him - likely requiring compensation as I paid for the instructions and ended up doing his work for him.
 

I’ll post a detailed list of issues later as its very lengthy - but the big highlights are as follows:

The Cockpit Ball - is too heavy to be held - with only a 2 stud long attachment point at the area between the body and cockpit - it just flat falls off.
 

There’s roughly a dozen “floating” parts that have no attachment points.

2 Places on the Cockpit just “fall off”

The Laser Cannon Shafts have nothing to attach to.

The TIE Panels have missing parts causing floating plates.

 

The little “sensor” nubs below the cockpit window are illegal in that they are forcibly flexed out of position.

 

The “radiator grills” or “missile launchers?” pods on the struts where only attached by a plate with a stud on top - would fall right off - an obvious mistake that was easily fixed by just a simple part swap. If only it was just that.
 

The Back struts on the TIE Panels are impossible to attach as they are

The outer edge/frame is illegal in that it's a set of parts not designed to attach.
 

And worse yet - no stand - and this model - I don’t think will stand on its own.
 

Many areas where parts used are not the best option - and worse yet - insanely expensive in terms of what was chosen.
 

Also the parts list generated is likely - bad - or at least has errors in it.

 

That’s just the tip of the Iceberg.

 

This whole project became “Wack-o-mole” and was constantly costing time and labor to resolve.
 

Which is likely why he stopped talking to me as he discovered the horror he wrought was not as simple as he thought.

It didn’t stop there however -

 

The assembly was a nightmare in-itself.

The way you put this model together as he “suggested” - would result in you abandoning the project all together - so be warned - if you decide to do this - you may want to take note of my “warnings”

 

1: The Cockpit should not be “attached” until the end - you will have a hell of a time with it otherwise. Even with my fix - the Cockpit “sags” a little.
 

2: The Cockpit has some “touchy” areas that fall apart even with my fixes - I’m hoping to find ways to strengthen this - but it's possible - so be careful how you handle this.
 

3: The Main spine of the body is not entirely “Assembly friendly” - patience is advised - be watchful of angel/rotation because it will have an impact on the build later.

 

4: The Front pylons (with the axles) are not securely attached in such a way you can get a little rough with it in terms of assembly -  The back bricks behind this area should not be built until you attach the panels that cover the gaps - due to the hinge plates - this is very difficult to put together. I have a fix pending for the frustration of the “spinning” pylons - should alleviate the frustration.
 

5: The TIE Panel wing tips have some touchy areas - namely the leading edge and back struts - sadly this was the best solution I could come up with as the original design was totally impossible/illegal.
 

6: The Stand - may be over-engineered - but it should do the job and keep your TIE nice and stable while keeping the Cockpit from sagging due to weight. It has a place for your sticker plaque 
 

7: This is not a LED Friendly model due to the shakiness of some areas - which breaks my heart. I hope to fix this at some point but right now it would just frustrate people to no end.

 

8: Make sure your hinge plates are strong and sturdy - stress will be put on these parts due to weight.

 

There is a great deal of room for improvement - my goal was to find a way to fix this design so it worked - it turned out to be a total rebuild from the ground up - nothing as simple as a couple of parts. Learned a great deal here.

It's clear to me this guy is a total amateur when it comes to lego - so much so that my “quiet” peers were stunned.

 

For such a good looking model - the various approaches where scary enough - even Stud.IO missed a couple of areas in its programming (the back struts on the TIE Panels in this case)

 

All he had to do was two things - just two.

 

1: Test Build it in a program enough to get an idea of what works (Stud.IO)

2: Test Build it in real life.

 

BEFORE he charged for instructions.

 

My intention is not to make money off this or charge or steal thunder - but to right a wrong - that being its a rip off.

 

All I ask is that you guys continue to improve on it - give suggestions - it's a beautiful design - while not entirely accurate (the pylons are a bit thick) - It’s a gorgeous look - but looks and build are two entirely different things.

 

New MOC’ers - I have to say this nightmare taught me a great deal.

 

Takeaways:

1: If you're going to charge for instructions - prove you can build it - or at least have an contingency plan (Refund for starters - then work to make it right) - it's just wrong to dump a project on someone that spends thousands only to find out you didn’t do your homework.
 

2: Audit your parts - make sure they are not only the “right part” for the job - but not damn near impossible to find on the market. Yes some things are impossible to account for- but please for the sake of your community and fans - do the work.
 

3: Don’t just slap instructions together - put some time and effort into it - frankly if you’ve not built some complex models like the UCS Star Destroyer or similarly large models - you have no business going solo.

 

Which leads to the biggest take away overall.

 

GET HELP

Namely Feedback - Critiquing - get as many eyes as possible. (which is what I'm doing right now lol)

 

We do not know everything - but together - we can get everything - right?
 

I was not able to do this project without help from some key friends who have chosen to remain quiet for obvious reasons.
 

Personally I do not care about “copyright” on this - because the instructions are fraudulent - you cannot build this design - and I challenge anyone who can prove me wrong with what I have here. In the end - it belongs to The Lego Group and Disney - whom I sure would find this amusing to say the least. Certainly not worth the 10-20 bucks I spent on the instructions that turned out to be trash in the end.

 

There’s been no new versions - no new “Best Efforts” - and my list of “Errors” continues to grow  in my notepad file - with large sentences encompassing multiple steps.

Big Errors - nothing as simple as “wrong part” - but this can’t work type “errors”.

 

So again - take time to work the kinks out of your designs - don’t just post it and walk away.

No one should suffer as I have.
 

In closing - my intention is to help others who may have been hit with this - with solutions.

Don’t care to get any money out of this - although I’d accept donations towards my “Otana” project as a 7000 Part Model is not cheap (and in dire need of testing).
 

Regardless - this is FREE OF CHARGE. (When I get it fixed)

 

I’ll make instructions available when I get them done - the Stud.IO file will be freely available along with any other relevant information. Including the “bad” instructions as a reference should anyone want to tackle this thing. Just remember - this is a mishmash of “fixing” a nightmare design - I need time to refine it - so you may want to wait a bit.
 

If you want a short list of “needs fixing” :

 

Cockpit - Needs a redesign on the front half - parts are falling off too easily. And a way to reinforce the attachment as it sags a bit due to weight - It won’t “fall off” - but that kind of stress on parts isn’t healthy. (The Stand helps in this regard)

 

Main Body - The Pylons - need a better way to make building minimal in frustration somehow.

 

TIE Panels - the outer edge needs work - would be nice to remove the “not so subtle” attachment to keep it anchored.

And the body won't hold them. (Likely will require a complete redesign)

 

Instruction/Assembly Methodology needs serious rethinking.

 

Laser Cannons - may not be the best solution - happy to accept alternates.

 

As to my current "disaster" - here's an idea of the structure

The Back bricks (behind the pylon) snap off and obviously are meaingless structure wise when the panel "falls off" - there's 2 3L Linkers and its obvious they won't hold at all.

 

Happy to supply the instructions and any info you guys request in brainstorming this out.

Frankly It would be easier to Discord this out - already got @Monkeyulize (who made that beautiful TIE Phantom) staring at this and someone outside this community whose a good MOC'er.

 

More help the merrier.

 

Any suggestions/ideas? I'd hate to scrap this.

Remember - I didn't start this design - just trying to fix this nightmare - I'll own my mistakes - unlike the creator.

 

This community is just full of genius that allowed the best chance for this "Salvage" project to come to fruition.

 

Now as to the background as to why this is a thing - ill just tag this as spoilers - happy reading if you wish.

Things left to do:

1: Rebuild Core body/Pylons

2: Rebuild Cockpit / Reinforce Cockpit sagging

3: Rebuild Tail Section

4: Rebuild Stand to accommodate new body and polish remaining areas.

5: Parts Audit/Colorization (ties into 4) (In Progress)

6: Test Build/Construct in Real Life (In Progress - Bricks ordered)

7: Did it work? Is it stable? Corrections?

8: Release final version of 2.0 Model and publish (In Progress)

9: Instructions (1.0 Version done) - Need to go back through and fix and adjust/polish!

10: 3.0 Version? - TIE Panels need rebuild due to ugliness - Feedback from other MOC'ers

 

Big thanks to everyone who helped out! Here's hoping it will work this time!\

PS: This began as a "rant rave for bad moc'ers taking money into fixing this thing and making it work - so bear it all with a grain of salt.

====

Real life build progress:

Day 2 Progress

Looking great - and its holding structurely quite nicely - very rigid.

May have to make some changes to the dressing that covers the spine - its too think with the current build so I removed some plates to make it nice - that and it wasn't fitting so nicely. Or I may keep it as is.

There's some opprotunities to change some parts to make things better/easier however - and I've made those notes in the manual error list.

 

The next step is the make it or break it point!

Next is the cradle/stand being modded for the body - and the outer panels.

 

Found a oops in assembly process and may need a change in parts for the "caps" (center hubs) on the panels - but not enough to cause concern for now.

Off to sleep - here's hoping next post I make in terms of updates is good news that the new TIE Defender is legit (albeit not quite perfect) is build-able.

====

Reported "oopses" on the instructions:

Fixed - its live

Ready - needs to be "compiled in"

 

Manual Corrections:
(In progress)

Edited September 14, 2023 by Kage Goomba
adding video.

[Kage Goomba]

Thanks to one clever MOC'er - got an idea to try out - or at least he gave me an idea thanks to clever "Backwards" thinking.

I'll have to redesign the main body - ironically this will make it more "TIE Defender" accurate than this one as nice as it looks.

(The pylons are not as "Fat" on this one in terms of overall Lore)

My inspiration ^

Other guy came up with this possible idea but it had some holes in it - when I realzied who said I had to line up the wheels - why not flip them 90 Degrees to provide axle holes for all 4 holes.

Allowing his idea to kick in. Just need to redo the main body.

Other ideas are welcome.

[Kage Goomba]

Reached out to mocopolis - asked them to take the build down - If they play nice - ill edit my original post and retroactively not include them :P

 

In any case I'd expect store fronts to at least put weight behind their products - investing thousands into a build only to find out its bad - not kind.

Here's hoping I can salvage my build with the suggestions given.

I'll likely redo the Cockpit to firm up areas on it.

[icm]

Well, good for you in putting the effort to fix it up, but I think you’re getting a bit angrier at the original builder than is necessary. MOC instructions are kind of the Wild West and I’d guesstimate less than 1% of paid instructions for digital MOCs have been fully vetted and test built with real parts. Caveat emptor. And as for spending two grand on the project, the instructions were only €9 and you could have bought the entire thing as a complete kit with genuine Lego parts for €699 and you’d still have more than a grand left over to fix it with.  Best wishes getting everything figured out.

https://buildamoc.com/products/star-wars-ucs-imperial-tie-defender

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-82268/MOCOPOLIS/sw-ucs-imperial-tie-defender/#details

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by icm

[Kage Goomba]

23 minutes ago, icm said:

Well, good for you in putting the effort to fix it up, but I think you’re getting a bit angrier at the original builder than is necessary. MOC instructions are kind of the Wild West and I’d guesstimate less than 1% of paid instructions for digital MOCs have been fully vetted and test built with real parts. Caveat emptor. And as for spending two grand on the project, the instructions were only €9 and you could have bought the entire thing as a complete kit with genuine Lego parts for €699 and you’d still have more than a grand left over to fix it with.  Best wishes getting everything figured out.

https://buildamoc.com/products/star-wars-ucs-imperial-tie-defender

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-82268/MOCOPOLIS/sw-ucs-imperial-tie-defender/#details

 

Some of these pieces are very...hard to get over here in the states.

Its kind of variable in terms of pricing out pieces here and there.

Not including sales tax/shipping etc.

 

Also - if the instructions where bad - the entire kit is bogus too by definition.

 

Now if Mocopolis comes back with a "instructions are good - where did you get yours" - will that would be a mind trip and a half now wouldn't it?

 

Wild West or not - the anger is simply this - do not charge for instructions that are wholly bogus - its just...wrong. (Not to mention Fraudulent which is a crime in this country)

 

If anything I learned of a long list of things that I need to do for my Otana before I go there - and I hope this is a good lesson for up and coming MOC'ers - pelase vet your works.

I hope I don't cause the same pain to anyone else - cause it's a sucky feeling to be sure.

 

My end goal is to not make money - but to make it work and to post the fix for others.

[Kdapt-Preacher]

1 hour ago, icm said:

Well, good for you in putting the effort to fix it up, but I think you’re getting a bit angrier at the original builder than is necessary. MOC instructions are kind of the Wild West and I’d guesstimate less than 1% of paid instructions for digital MOCs have been fully vetted and test built with real parts. Caveat emptor.

I very strongly disagree with you on this. Selling instructions for a model that can't actually be built is fraud, just like any other form of false advertising, and it's completely reasonable to be pissed at the designer. Especially in a case like this where they have professional branding and partnerships with other groups, including as you point out somebody selling the whole package for €700, what it boils down to is a scam ring charging quite a lot of money for defective products. Obviously it's good practice for the buyer to do their own check before spending money on pieces, and that would prevent a lot of these problems, but a) many structural issues aren't going to be detectable without actually building it and b) even if that had worked perfectly the seller would still have stolen the €9. Ultimately anybody selling anything has both a legal and ethical responsibility to determine that their products are what they say they are and do what they say they do; caveat emptor explicitly doesn't mean you can mislead your customers. You're likely right that many or most MOC sellers don't perform appropriate diligence on that, but anyone who doesn't is in the wrong.

Honestly, issues like this are why I don't charge for my MOCs. I do test-build everything, but mistakes happen, and I don't want to be in that position. Once money comes into it, especially when we're talking about this much money, there's so much potential for things to get distasteful.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Kdapt-Preacher

[Kage Goomba]

52 minutes ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

I very strongly disagree with you on this. Selling instructions for a model that can't actually be built is fraud, just like any other form of false advertising, and it's completely reasonable to be pissed at the designer. Especially in a case like this where they have professional branding and partnerships with other groups, including as you point out somebody selling the whole package for €700, what it boils down to is a scam ring charging quite a lot of money for defective products. Obviously it's good practice for the buyer to do their own check before spending money on pieces, and that would prevent a lot of these problems, but a) many structural issues aren't going to be detectable without actually building it and b) even if that had worked perfectly the seller would still have stolen the €9. Ultimately anybody selling anything has both a legal and ethical responsibility to determine that their products are what they say they are and do what they say they do; caveat emptor explicitly doesn't mean you can mislead your customers. You're likely right that many or most MOC sellers don't perform appropriate diligence on that, but anyone who doesn't is in the wrong.

Honestly, issues like this are why I don't charge for my MOCs. I do test-build everything, but mistakes happen, and I don't want to be in that position. Once money comes into it, especially when we're talking about this much money, there's so much potential for things to get distasteful.

Whole heartedly agree - my only caveat here is when you spend an inordinate time on the design and just as much if not twice-thrice on instructions.

It's not unfair or irrational to charge for instructions.

That said - you don't charge for anything unless your willing to back the product.If it fails - I expect the seller/creator to work with "customer" - refund on the instructions - or "make it right" within reason.

Yes - its on the customer to get the parts and do the work - but when the instructions AND part list are bad (Kdapt actaully looked into my "disaster" as a matter of fact and had quite a few things to say about it) - there's no excuse there.

This isn't a "I made a mistake" type situation.

 

The mistake I made in truth is I took a leap of faith and didn't vet the design myself - even stud.io missed a few things - it's not programmed to compute things like "weight" in terms of the cockpit ball falling off or the panels - at least in an easy to understand human format with all the bugs - can't fault the program for what its programmed to do at this time really.

Which is why its important to me to share this with other moc'ers who are selling instructions/goods - vet your product - it could cost you dearly if you don't.And if you make a mistake - do the right thing - cause that's all it takes to help out really. Or take a page out oi Kdapt's book - don't involve money - the risk may not be worth it.

 

And in truth - I may not want that risk either - food for thought to be sure.

 

[icm]

Sigh, I shouldn't be posting late at night but I've been composing a reply in my head so I can't sleep.  Most of what I've just typed out is in the quote box below because it's just a late-night wall of text, and you know how tedious those are most of the time.

Quote

My intent here isn't to reflexively defend Mocopolis per se, it's just to meditate on measured expectations.  Is it fraud if a MOC with paid digital instructions is hard to build or impossible to build?  I am not a lawyer, but I strongly doubt it is technically fraud.  No guarantee is being offered that everything fits together.  If a third party is offering to source all the parts for the build, I would expect that company has test-built it at least once, and what's missing is patience and care.  When I say that I don't mean to doubt Kage Goomba's experience, but it would be nice to see pictures of test builds and failure points in all those 2000+ parts he's bought for 2000+ dollars.  A few months ago there was a short thread about MOCs vs sets where Kage Goomba didn't know the meaning of the term "illegal building technique", and expressed the opinion "if it fits, it sits."  So it seems like he's just coming to grips with the reality of illegal techniques as introducing fragile, highly stressed connections that wouldn't meet set standards.  What are the complaints?  Parts fall off easily, heavy assemblies sag due to weight.  Those are characteristics common to the majority of complex fan builds.  Nothing extraordinary to complain about.   Some parts are very rare and expensive and hard to get.  Again, that's common in ambitious fan builds, especially ones that are digitally prototyped, and especially where the digital builder is, well, mostly a digital builder.  It's far easier and cheaper to include a rare part in a digital build than in a physical build, and there's nothing stopping you from doing that if you mostly build digitally with little to no expectation of ever building your models physically.  Which isn't an unreasonable or rare stance in the Lego hobby these days.  It would be unreasonable to ask every digital builder to physically prototype every single thing they put out - especially when they build hundreds of creations, make instructions for them as a matter of course, and throw the instructions up on Rebrickable because why not?  I've built many Classic Space MOCs in Studio with little expectation of building them physically, making free use of new and rare parts in buildable but uncommon colors, and then I've been shocked to find what it would cost to buy all the parts.  The fact that a set of digital instructions uses rare parts is nothing to cry fraud about.  No stand? Illegal connections?  Must be a Tuesday in MOC world.  There's no reason why every single set of instructions should come with a stand, some people just aren't into building stands.  Lesson to designers, test build your MOCs in Studio - this was a digital build in the first place, surely the designer took care to adjust every part just so in whatever program they used.  That complaint has no standing.  Floating parts with nothing to attach to?  That's not uncommon either.  Some MOCs use floating parts to wedge other assemblies into place or to fill a gap just so.  Jerac, who is one of the most reputable builders on the web, uses floating parts every now and then.  Floating parts in a digital build of a model that uses illegal and stressed building techniques?  Again, it must be Tuesday.  When I built my many X-wings recently, I was lucky enough to have Studio models of the Swan Dutchman (Koen Zwanenburg), Cehnot (Chris Ehnot) versions to guide my building.  Those digital models had several floating parts and assemblies that weren't quite attached digitally, but that came together with patience when I built them in real life.  Even the legendary Mike Psiaki X-wing, which has been built by dozens if not hundreds of AFOLs in the last decade, has floating connections at the tip of the nose, in a digital model, because the real life connection is weak and stressed and doesn't use exact connection geometry.  Now, I didn't pay for instructions for those three X-wings, but I did pay for instructions for the 2018 Jerac X-wing, and it similarly has a few stressed connections that don't quite work ... but if you're patient and careful, they go together.  (The 2022 Jerac X-wing is better).  I know Jerac and other heavy users of illegal techniques who nevertheless have a good physical feel for how things work often turn off collisions and part snapping in Studio precisely because it limits their ability to work with those - so a Jerac model would fail the kind of Studio pre-vetting that Kage Goomba is asking for.  So, keep measured expectations with digital MOC instructions.  Remember that this is a hobby for the vast majority of people, who don't have the time or money to do extensive vetting of everything.  Remember that there's no guarantee that a digital build will work - I think of paid digital instruction sets more like posting your hobby/spare-time/fun creative writing for a small fee on Medium or Amazon Kindle Direct when it would never pass the editorial process at a full publishing house than like a guarantee to the world that if you buy these parts you will build this model and it will be so great!  Remember that a model that seems like a disaster as a digital build may work in real life - or it may still be a disaster in real life, but at least it will minimally hang together if you promise to give Rumpelstiltskin your firstborn child.

In this long frustrated post by Kage Goomba, where he stresses that he paid 2000+ dollars for a bunch of parts that he can't build anything with because the instructions are all wrong, I expected to see pictures of test builds that fell apart.  Photographs of physical parts and assemblies.  Physically doing the build which you have a whole bunch of parts for would help you solve the problems as they come up, using other parts you may have, or at least give you a sense of what parts to order to make it work.  But all I see is a few rough Studio screenshots, I don't see evidence that Kage Goomba has actually tried to put two parts together in the real world.

TLDR, pics please! (And by pics I mean physical parts, not Studio screenshots.)

1 hour ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

 a) many structural issues aren't going to be detectable without actually building it and b) even if that had worked perfectly the seller would still have stolen the €9.

I don't follow that logic.  If the test build works perfectly, then the instructions are good, so how is the seller still stealing? (Setting aside the murky gray area of copyright when the instructions are for intellectual property like Star Wars.)

Edited May 3, 2022 by icm

[Kage Goomba]

48 minutes ago, icm said:

Sigh, I shouldn't be posting late at night but I've been composing a reply in my head so I can't sleep.  Most of what I've just typed out is in the quote box below because it's just a late-night wall of text, and you know how tedious those are most of the time.

TLDR, pics please! (And by pics I mean physical parts, not Studio screenshots.)

I don't follow that logic.  If the test build works perfectly, then the instructions are good, so how is the seller still stealing? (Setting aside the murky gray area of copyright when the instructions are for intellectual property like Star Wars.)

If you had read my post - I'd said I furnish files/instructions on request.

I really wish people like you would bother to respect what is written and not jump to conclusions so easily.

But since your going to play that game.

Here's a snapshot of the instruction issues - its not a complete list as others have found things I didn't.

TIE Defender Trouble List
Step:
6 - Shaft Color (pricing)
17 - Illeagal - No attachment part - replace with 1 1x2 plate - 1x1 Brick and 1x1 plate? (Need to confirm fix)
33 - replace 2x 1x4 plates with 2x4 plate (Stability)
38 - Linker may be "illeagal" consider replacements (for now accepting)
48-51 - Remove "attachment point" entirely - instead use 2x2 Brick with Axle hole and 2 2x2 Round plates with 1 2x2 tile with hole for attachemnt section - may need bricks to fill holes
52 - Considedr removing "custom" 2x2 curved brick for costs and replacing with something else.
58 - Replace Hatch with correct one (inverted design/decal)
61 - Replace 2x 1x2 plates with 1x 2x2 plate
64 - Replace 1x2 Tile modified plate with 1x2 plate and extra 1x1 hook for stability of cockpit window. / Also need to extend length by 1 stud to make room for "sensor pods" as its illeagal in its current iteration (IE: 1x2 plate and sloped wedge plate to cap off - will clarify with instructions)
67-70 - Illeagal due to Step 17 - these are "floating" unless 17 is observed with its correction.
75 - Replace 2x 1x2 plates on either side of cockpit window with 2x 1x2 grooved tiles for look/smoothness
79 - 8 stud long shaft to be replaced with 12 stud long shaft due to severe stability/illeagal build - cockpit ball wheight would collapse/fall off. May need to adjust - pending test results. - parts at end of 8 stud long shaft "removed" - need extra axel "bushings" (3-4?)
100 - Add 3x 1x2 Bricks 6x 1x2 plates  3x 1x2 tiles to cover gap between body/cockpit ball to improve look at the attachment point.
107/117 - replace 1x2 tile with 1 stud with 1x2 tile with linker top to improve connectivity - this applies to its oposing side (Step 117)
134 - Remove 1x2 L Brick and replace with 1x2 Tile and 1x2 Wedge Brick to improve look/style
180-181 - possible "floating" plate/brick stability problem - replace 6x 2x2 Wedge Plate with  6x 3x3 Wedge Plate to improve stability/connectivity
217 - Illeagal Build - Missing part - need 3x 1x2 plate to hold 1x2 bracket as its sitting on nothing.
273, 275, 282 - Illeagal Builds - 282 uses an impossible connection point that risks damage to part which impacts all other steps attached to this area - a hinge plate is needed to restore but it be4comes impossible to use a hinge plate at the tip of the wing - multiple parts will be needed to repair. Details will be included in instructions. Also need additional parts to attach frame - one for each panel (6)
### - No Stand - model isn't safe to sit on its wings in my honest opinion - rendering the entire model at risk. - Stand built - needs testing.

https://www.lekkuguild.com/lego/TIE_Defender_instruction.pdf

https://www.lekkuguild.com/lego/TIE_Defender_partlist.pdf

Add to that the Panels will not hold weight wise by default - the whole thing just flat falls apart.

Rear "grey" struts on panels are illegally attached - had to come up with a way to fix that - took 6 iterations to fix that. Even then - its not perfect.

Oh and need I say the instructions are bad? Yes - I did say that.

Hard to take a picture of a failure when all I have two hands.

Now I do have some pictures highlighting the areas that needed correction.

Keep in mind these are corrections already made or attempted but I'm sure if you look at the instructions and compare notes - smart guy like you should be able to figure it out.

This was my first iteration in fixing the cockpit ball problem the instructions botched horribly - ended up going with a longer shaft and some other adjustments on the cockpit ball side.

Rear end ended up being "bigger" due to shaft being increased in size on the spine.

Also note the pylon - only 2 3L Linkers get pushed into that with the entire Panel being attached to that.

 

Now for some real life pictures since your going to be rather argumentative there.

first lets talk about the cockpit - the small black bricks/red axles are from the "original" instructions - note the size - the cockpit and likely weight - and the main-body - ignoring for moment that its got a longer axle than the original design - do you honestly believe it would hold up to the weight? I can tell you right now - nope - it would fall right off - bang - pieces everywhere. Kept the original parts as a reminder of the foolishness of assumptions.

This is a close up on the day I was installing those tiled/panels on the sides - the instructions have you do this after the main struts/pylons are bricked out/built - damn near bout threw the thing through my window.

Also note how its designed - all that weight on the TIE Panels - 3 of them - are being held by that.

I had a sneaking/nagging itch in my brain that this may not work - too much faith in the original design - should have known better - live and learn.

And if that wasn't enough

Note the size of the Panel - the point of attachment is those blue linkers sticking out that "popped" out of the panel with the wheel base it used.

Note the angel of that panel if attached - sure top one would be fine - but the ones on below? Nope.

Also note the black plate bricks on the tips - yeah - that's cause of the illegal part use to make the outer frame work - not very secure - didn't have much choice.

Also the bricks beyond the main "pylon" strut - snap off/falloff due to weight stress by the panel - the front pylons break loose off the outer spine and attempt to spin out of alignment - I added a hinge plate to stop that - it only stopped it 75% of the way - not enough.

The Laser Cannons are also bogus in the original design - nothing to attach - just floating there - apparently the guy never used the part before at all in real life.

I had to shove an....9L? Axel through it to make it work - spins freely sadly - open to suggestions.

 

So yes - I DID spend money on this - I DID Build this bloody thing which occupied my table for 3 months and now I have parts taking up space all over.

So how bout you help me out here and not bother debating this please?

 

Oh and the stand - that's all me - need to reinforce the back side - but it was necessary as the cockpit sags a little on the main body WITH my fixes - and I didn't like it stressing it too far.- so gave the stand a chin.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Kage Goomba

[icm]

Ok, thanks. With pictures of real parts, you’ve proved your point. But I assure you that I did read your entire original post, and without pictures of real parts I was not convinced. Now I am. Good luck getting everything figured out. It looks like it’ll be a very impressive model once it’s all finished, and I feel your pain about the build according to the instructions being impossible - now that I know you’ve really tried.

Edited May 3, 2022 by icm

[Kage Goomba]

2 minutes ago, icm said:

Ok, thanks. With pictures of real parts, you’ve proved your point. But I assure you that I did read your entire original post, and without pictures of real parts I was not convinced. Now I am. Good luck getting everything figured out. It looks like it’ll be a very impressive model once it’s all finished, and I feel your pain about the build according to the instructions being impossible - now that I know you’ve really tried.

I get the suspicion - but in all fairness - ask for the pics and files upfront next time - cause the approach you took is not friendly at all. I did say I'd provide the files/proof.

Providing the instructions technically is a no-no but it is a FRAUDULENT build so - frankly I don't give a damn anymore.

 

But I did this "project" for 3 reasons mainly:

1 - to get an idea of what it takes to part out a big model - my Otana is 7000+/- pieces - so I figured I might as well get a small taste of this so I don't make mistakes when I release it.

2 - to get an idea of techniques beyond Lego's norm.

3 - TIE Defender is sexy as hell so bonus for me.

As to finishing this monster nightmare? We'll see in about a week or two - as I said - thanks to Kdapt - I have an idea - but it will take a total rebuild on the body.

Sigh.

[icm]

1 minute ago, Kage Goomba said:

I get the suspicion - but in all fairness - ask for the pics and files upfront next time - cause the approach you took is not friendly at all.

Not to unnecessarily prolong this conversation, but how was my post not “asking for pictures upfront”? I posted [words you don’t need to read because they’re in a quote box] followed by TLDR, pics please. How much more upfront about asking for pics can you get? Putting the TLDR pics please ahead of the quote box instead of after it?

[Kage Goomba]

Just now, icm said:

Not to unnecessarily prolong this conversation, but how was my post not “asking for pictures upfront”? I posted [words you don’t need to read because they’re in a quote box] followed by TLDR, pics please. How much more upfront about asking for pics can you get? Putting the TLDR pics please ahead of the quote box instead of after it?

Your first post for starters - and the 2nd post with the long winded statement that was utterly insane until you said "send pics" - you could have saved a lot of trouble and pain in just saying "Pictures in real life please?"

 

That's all I'm saying. Next time ill just put real life pics in the future.

Also your going to get a lot of flack from MOC'ers about your stance on things - so be prepared for that.

No one should be a MOC'er if they don't test build their MOC's - there's no point in doing it if your not going to build it.

Unless we're talking the SSD Thats 75 some odd feet long and have 700k pieces (may be exaggerating here) that would be one of the exceptions I can think off hand.

Although I think Kdapt is threatening to do that one...well a variation of it. :)

Thankfully pretty much all of the MOC's I've seen here (minus the one I just pointed too or any of the obscenely large/over the top legendary builds) are real life builds or been tested/vetted - I think your kind of outgunned here.

[ForgedInLego]

I don't want to get caught up in the drama of it all, but here's an idea to get that cockpit to stay up. I don't care how well secured that axle is, unless it it made of steel it alone probably isn't enough to hold up the cockpit ball. You need some way to keep tension on the top half of the ball, so I decided to put some tiles on brackets to try to dodge the top strut. Secure that other end and you should be good to go. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at with this simple mock up. As for the wing attachment, just remember that brackets are your friend, they are very useful at locking things in place.

[icm]

^^ Ok, I apologize.  My first post in this thread should have been just two words ("Pics please!") and I should have kept all my other thoughts entirely to myself.  You asked for help with your build, and I responded with unasked-for musings about the general culture of building creations and selling instructions.  There are several things in your last post that I might like to respond to, but in the interest of discontinuing this tit-for-tat conversation about a topic that is not the main purpose for which you started this thread, I won't.

Now about the build, I'll just ask for clarification on one thing for now.  One issue with the build that seems to especially bother you, judging by the fact that it was the only detail picture you included in your first post, is the weakness of the pylon.  It's too long for the 12M axle to go all the way through, and the two 3M axles inserted at the end obviously don't bind the entire thing together.  But that assembly is just the core of the fuselage behind the cockpit.  It has studs on the outside of all three pillars of the pylon, which suggests to me that some fairly sturdy assemblies of bricks and plates, finished off by slopes of some kind, go on the outside and join the disconnected parts of the pylon together.  This is confirmed by some of the pictures you posted of the physical build.  I genuinely can't understand what the problem with that is.  It looks perfectly sturdy to me.  I understand how some of the other connections are fragile or impossible, now that you've posted more detailed pictures, but can you please help me understand what the problem is with that pylon?

Edited May 3, 2022 by icm

[1340cc]

5 minutes ago, ForgedInLego said:

As for the wing attachment, just remember that brackets are your friend, they are very useful at locking things in place.

The wing attachment on the 75095 TIE comes to mind, those things are held on very securely. A similar design should work for the Defender as well, even with the downward angle of the lower wings.

[Mr Ogel]

so today the instructions were first reduced by 30% and then fully cancelled on rebrickable.

I bought some time ago the Tie Bomber instructions which I checked now again. I did not build it yet and will most probably also not, some points didn't please me.
From the instruction point of view there was one big repeating topic - putting technic bricks with pins on plates and then adding other technic bricks. Of course this does not work and you have to find your way. Such things (and others) also happened in early instructions from other moccers.

This was clearly showing to me three points:

- not much experience with building with technic bricks (I would not call it building Lego Technic, this would be a little different)
- the instructions were not tested and approved
- and it was proving that the Mocopolis has more experiences with constructing buildings and let's say city dioramas

It is a pity for you that you had such a bad example of bigger Mocs. Maybe you would have more luck with Thomins Tie Defender which is in a smaller scale I assume.

[Kage Goomba]

Wow..great posts....from everyone - need to dig into these.

The Phantom TIE builder @Monkeyulize came up with a total body rebuild that is totally blowing my mind - but still have some challenges to work out.

 

As I'm talking to him on Discord - I point out a potential weak spot - but its miles better than what I had to deal with before.

I'll revisit this thread when I catch up - got things to do. ^_^

See this is why you ask for help - you get great ideas. :D

 

PS: Looks like Mocopolis took the build down - seems "Fraud" triggered them.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Kage Goomba

[Kdapt-Preacher]

11 hours ago, icm said:

I don't follow that logic.  If the test build works perfectly, then the instructions are good, so how is the seller still stealing? (Setting aside the murky gray area of copyright when the instructions are for intellectual property like Star Wars.)

Ah, sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I meant "even if the process of reviewing the instructions before buying pieces did a perfect job of identifying problems", but that wasn't clear from how I wrote that sentence. Also, it looks like the other posts here have largely resolved the topic, but I should mention that I had already seen most of those images and was aware of the scope of the problems with the build, and that informed the tone of my response there. There's obviously a huge difference between 'model is hard to build' and 'model doesn't even come close to staying together', and I forgot that folks looking at this from just the info in the OP wouldn't necessarily have that context.

[Kage Goomba]

8 hours ago, ForgedInLego said:

I don't want to get caught up in the drama of it all, but here's an idea to get that cockpit to stay up. I don't care how well secured that axle is, unless it it made of steel it alone probably isn't enough to hold up the cockpit ball. You need some way to keep tension on the top half of the ball, so I decided to put some tiles on brackets to try to dodge the top strut. Secure that other end and you should be good to go. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at with this simple mock up. As for the wing attachment, just remember that brackets are your friend, they are very useful at locking things in place.

This is brilliant - only issue is maintaining the spine in terms of design - but it has me thinking - the suggested body that Monkey came up with may allow this.

As it is now - its not perfect - but it works - but it would be nice to stop it from sagging.

8 hours ago, icm said:

^^ Ok, I apologize.  My first post in this thread should have been just two words ("Pics please!") and I should have kept all my other thoughts entirely to myself.  You asked for help with your build, and I responded with unasked-for musings about the general culture of building creations and selling instructions.  There are several things in your last post that I might like to respond to, but in the interest of discontinuing this tit-for-tat conversation about a topic that is not the main purpose for which you started this thread, I won't.

Now about the build, I'll just ask for clarification on one thing for now.  One issue with the build that seems to especially bother you, judging by the fact that it was the only detail picture you included in your first post, is the weakness of the pylon.  It's too long for the 12M axle to go all the way through, and the two 3M axles inserted at the end obviously don't bind the entire thing together.  But that assembly is just the core of the fuselage behind the cockpit.  It has studs on the outside of all three pillars of the pylon, which suggests to me that some fairly sturdy assemblies of bricks and plates, finished off by slopes of some kind, go on the outside and join the disconnected parts of the pylon together.  This is confirmed by some of the pictures you posted of the physical build.  I genuinely can't understand what the problem with that is.  It looks perfectly sturdy to me.  I understand how some of the other connections are fragile or impossible, now that you've posted more detailed pictures, but can you please help me understand what the problem is with that pylon?

works for me. As to your question:

The 12M / 3M nomanclature isn't helping me here as I'm used to the stud measurement (IE: 8L or 12L) so you'll want to keep to that if you could. :)

If your talking about the axles in the pylons - yeah you pretty much nailed it - however with Monkey's suggested body - I may abandon my idea and go for his or at least find a way to hybridize it as its a much better distribution of weight/stability (if I'm using the right words)

As to your lack of understanding - that's the problem that kicked my ###.

It looks good - It smells good - but it's a disaster.

The main issue is so simple that it even evaded me here.

The main body is sturdy in-itself - but those TIE Panels are only held by those 2 3L Linkers - that's it - its irrelevant if the 12L? Axel's are there or not - all of that stress is on those 2 little linkers - and that's why it collapsed - dragging the bricks and everything else with it as the back bricks are only sitting on that plate (look at the picture I took where I was holding the body) - it bugged me that the bricks are not attached to the main pylon for stability - I took it as flourish/decoration overall.

The new body Monkey suggested fixes that - but there's now a pair of stress points that concern me in terms of weight.

Again to make it clear - the problem isn't the pylon - its the 3L Linkers - its just not designed to hold that weight. The function is valid (Even if Kdapt screams at the use of such a method hehe) - but it can't hold that weight.

Now if the 12L Axels where involved in that hold - it may work - that was my next attempt - but a better solution may be what Monkey suggested which I need to stare at for a bit longer and see if there's a way to reinforce the body.

 

Not sure if this is making sense - if it isn't I'll see if I can come up with some pics to explain.

2 hours ago, Mr Ogel said:

so today the instructions were first reduced by 30% and then fully cancelled on rebrickable.

I bought some time ago the Tie Bomber instructions which I checked now again. I did not build it yet and will most probably also not, some points didn't please me.
From the instruction point of view there was one big repeating topic - putting technic bricks with pins on plates and then adding other technic bricks. Of course this does not work and you have to find your way. Such things (and others) also happened in early instructions from other moccers.

This was clearly showing to me three points:

- not much experience with building with technic bricks (I would not call it building Lego Technic, this would be a little different)
- the instructions were not tested and approved
- and it was proving that the Mocopolis has more experiences with constructing buildings and let's say city dioramas

It is a pity for you that you had such a bad example of bigger Mocs. Maybe you would have more luck with Thomins Tie Defender which is in a smaller scale I assume.

Pretty much - stupid me for not testing the design out - now I'm, in the hole and attempting to salvage it.

Moc hasn't replied yet - I'll give them a day before I kick the boat - and as to why?

They need to say something to prove to me they care enough to re-vet their instructions - otherwise its obvious to me - no one should be doing business with them unless they want to risk cleaning up their mess(s)

I may have seen that TIE Defender - but alas - I'm addicted to UCS Scale. ^_^;;;

Yep - masochist here....yep.

 

But yeah - lesson learned - which is why I'm using this as a object lesson to other MOC'ers - vet your designs - ask for help - make sure your instructions are valid.

It's the right thing to do.

On the bright side - I'm learning a great deal here - so its not a loss - just feels like I'm going to College again for 2 Grand+ tuition fees. (hahaha?)

Learned more in the last 3 months than I did in designing my Otana - that's for sure.

[icm]

I'm still not sure I understand, but I can clearly see from the photos of the physical build how the attachments for the main wing panels are entirely inadequate.  I'm not very good at big complex builds myself (my MOCs are mostly pretty simple and only about 30-40 studs long), but maybe an idea or two will occur to me if you post more pictures.  Maybe somebody else will have a good idea too.  But it sounds like you've already got a few people helping out, so I hope you can get it all figured out soon.

[Kage Goomba]

4 minutes ago, icm said:

I'm still not sure I understand, but I can clearly see from the photos of the physical build how the attachments for the main wing panels are entirely inadequate.  I'm not very good at big complex builds myself (my MOCs are mostly pretty simple and only about 30-40 studs long), but maybe an idea or two will occur to me if you post more pictures.  Maybe somebody else will have a good idea too.  But it sounds like you've already got a few people helping out, so I hope you can get it all figured out soon.

So to help out here - I've hidden the bricks that have literally nothing to do with structure in terms of the pylon and the TIE Panel.

the Panel is lifted up for view.

Those 2 blue 3L linkers are all that's holding the Panel to the main pylon - the axles there just there for...structure? But nothing to do with the TIE Panel.

My idea was to shove axles with caps through the panel into the body - well that was @Kdapt-Preacher 's idea - but I was going to flip each of those wheels 90 degrees to provide a grip point.

But its up in the air as to what next solution I'll use here.

[Kdapt-Preacher]

I think you're going to have to lose the blue pins either way. They aren't providing any meaningful support there, so they're basically just in the way and are also an illegal connection that'll damage the pins over time. There's no real upside to them that I can see.

[Kage Goomba]

18 minutes ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

I think you're going to have to lose the blue pins either way. They aren't providing any meaningful support there, so they're basically just in the way and are also an illegal connection that'll damage the pins over time. There's no real upside to them that I can see.

That much is very clear for sure lol - so you win an another point there XD

[Kage Goomba]

So fiddling with @Monkeyulize body - came up with an iteration on his design to reinforce the overall "pylon/strut" that will hold the panel.

Any comments?

The question is - will it hold the TIE Panels weight and not snap under the strain?

The TIE Panels fastening is by modified plate brackets - I may need to reivisit how that is done - but I was more concerned with the weight on the main spine.

Monkey already pointed out it won't add much and suggested adding an another plate on the front of the Hex part which will make it look slightly thicker but would help.

 

Don't get distracted by the decorative bricks - may trim/adjust that anyway.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Kage Goomba