10215 Obi Wan's Jedi Starfighter

[M'Kyuun]

I'm liking the looks of this model, but the price seems a bit steep per number of parts. The ship itself, while captured pretty faithfully in brick, is an ok design. There was precious little exposition about the model in the video; it would have been nice to see the features beyond the rotating astromech dome. I'm curios if there's landing gear.

I hope they make a UCS model of the Ep III Jedi Starfighter. That and the Naboo fighter are my two favorite prequel fighter designs. We got a small UCS Naboo fighter (10026) in 2001, and, imho, it was trumped by the System release in 2007 (7660), which was pretty sleek, accurate, and could accommodate a fig.

[Ras 74]

This is one set I will definatley have to get! Looks like it can be an awesome display set.

Now all we need is Jango Fetts Slave I UCS to go with it!

Next year TLG??

[Zzz]

Looks brilliant! But once again I would have gone for a new System one or a .. cheaper one. Will probably have some time to think about it cause UCS x expensive x Episode 2 will not make it such a hunted item, me thinks. : )

[I Scream Clone]

This is one set I will definatley have to get! Looks like it can be an awesome display set.

Now all we need is Jango Fetts Slave I UCS to go with it!

Next year TLG??

Pretty much what I was thinking too, a great looking display set.

Slave I sounds yum too.

[Ai841]

I think it will go on sale. Who's going to buy it for $100? And considering how weak the dollar is, the European prices must be ridiculous. It DOES look nice, but I'll pick it up for maybe half that price!

[Brickdoctor]

Set= Price=

'Nuf said.

[Defferwa]

I love this set, the build looks very cool. But 120 bucks for it? I don't think so. I could get an AT-AT for that much monies. :$

[Corvus]

Hmm. I'm loving the back of it. The cockpit is nice. However, I'm not liking the nose. The SNOT nose just doesn't blend with the wings at all.

The price is also disgusting, but I've wanted a UCS JSF for so long that I might overlook that detail.

[brickmack]

Wow thats cool. Its very expensive though. Almost 100 dollars! I would have thought something with this peice count would be about 70 at the most.

[brickfoot]

I like the set but it is way to expensive for me.

[Blackicep8ntball]

Rebel Blockade Runner UCS (the more recent release) had nearly 1,500 pieces for $150; this has just over a third the number of pieces and it's only 2/3rds the price. Should be between $59-$69. Not even the new slave I (which had a very similar number of pieces) was $100, and it has 3 minifigures and a whole lot of popularity behind it. Moreover, this new UCS starfighter has stickers, which are just a cheap cop-out in my opinion. This set is unfortunate, TLG. Drop it 30 bucks, as others have mentioned, and maybe you'll be talking.

PS. I was looking at the pics Kiel-da-man posted of the starfighter... should the R2 unit be in the middle of the craft?

Edited July 24, 2010 by Blackicep8ntball

[mutley777]

PS. I was looking at the pics Kiel-da-man posted of the starfighter... should the R2 unit be in the middle of the craft?

No, because this is Obi Wan's ship from the movie Attack of the Clones, not a clone wars ship.

[Dhivael]

I'm probably going to pass. Although I've been a sucker for some of the other UCS, this one is way, Way, WAY overpriced. It feels now like TLG is just trying to milk the franchise for whatever it can get from fans, and this is where I'm going to draw the line. Also, I'm not really a big fan of the prequel trilogy, so that makes it easier for me to say 'enough's enough.'

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

No, because this is Obi Wan's ship from the movie Attack of the Clones, not a clone wars ship.

Exactly. The one in Ep 2 was a Delta-7 versus the Delta-7B's used in the CW. It's actually interesting, really. So the jedi switched from 7's to 7B's because of 'technical advancements.' But than in Ep 3, Plo Koon switches back to a 7.

[squidman85]

Cool.Glass piece in trans-black should be usefull.As well as droid cone head.

[Anio]

I found some pics where we can see the model from under.

Now, I know why there are no official photo were we see the JSF from under : because it looks rough.

PS : Sorry if you already have seen these pictures...

[cavegod]

I agree it's a mess under there.

[Zzz]

I am not a 100% sure but by the pics, but this one has no landing gear, right? This adds to the non opening canopy..

[Aeroeza]

Now, I know why there are no official photo were we see the JSF from under : because it looks rough.

Yeah, but remember...

Detail tends to be lacking on most UCS models when it comes to their undersides. (One of the few exceptions would be the Snowspeeder).

I guess the logic for TLC is for them to concentrate piece count where it matters on a 'display' model- afterall you'd only tend to view it from every other angle except underneath.

For example, the UCS Y-Wing is a much admired model for its detail and greebling, but turn it over and you'd be excused for comparing it to the average system set.

Given the way 10125's build captures a number of 'clean' plate angles from above I'd expected it to have a few compromises underneath. To have had a 'clean' underside then a simple alternative would have been for the top slope of the wings to have been replicated using small plates piled on larger plates, thereby giving a very straight forward (and flat) build for the underbelly (like some other pretty cool MOC UCS JSF's out there).

But personally I don't see this solution being as aesthetically pleasing from most other angles when compared to the 10125 build.

What we have here is an alternate and more interesting approach which could probably be modified to be even better with a higher piece count and a deft hand/eye for modding.

...but yes, from the wrong (and least important angle) it does look 'rough' but then how much less accurate would the rest of the model look if approached in a more conventional building style?

I am not a 100% sure but by the pics, but this one has no landing gear, right? This adds to the non opening canopy..

Out of curiosity Zzz, could you suggest a way for the canopy to open but maintain the sculptural integrity of the aft region? I know I couldn't.

No landing gear either on this set but then its inclusion would be contrary to the design brief of every other one man fighter in the UCS series. I guess you just have to decide what you want from a Lego model- system play features or UCS accuracy. For me the lack of landing gear and an opening cockpit makes sense.

[Zzz]

I didn't say I could do it better, I just said it has no opening canopy... and no landing gear - that's all.

[Aeroeza]

I didn't say I could do it better, I just said it has no opening canopy... and no landing gear - that's all.

Fair enough

Sorry, I guess I didn't quite follow your earlier comment. Was it a criticism or an observation? To me it inferred you would want an opening canopy and working landing gear.

If it was a criticism of 10215 then your comment lacked a little punch given a UCS, as a rule of thumb, doesn't tend to have complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model (like retractable landing gear probably would). Perhaps realistically you could have non-retractable gear which might be clipped or slotted into place (giving us a second display option like the Imperial Shuttle). This might be a good modification to try, but my instinct for Lego says this would be hard to achieve without giving up some major (and successful) design choice in the pre-existing set...

The problem with the canopy is again explained by the inherent aims of a UCS i.e. accuracy and display potential - what's the point of an opening canopy on a UCS if it doesn't look much like its original subject matter? Eek, Blasphemy!!

In a world of Lego choices its each to their own Zzz! You see I'd be rather skeptical of a UCS sacrificing accuracy and display potential for the play options you've suggested!

[Zzz]

You are so right with everything you said. Especially with the canopy, that it is almost impossible to make it look like in the movie AND possible to be opened.

But I think you also got to admit that opening doors on a car model for example don't really count as play features. They add to the realism, accuracy and beauty in design of the actual car, or spaceship in real life. Cars don't look only fantastic with their doors closed. Remember the old Lamborghini? Who would want a model of one without being able to open the doors? Why do the wings unfold and the canopy open for the UCS X-Wing, or why do people were sad that the UCS Lambda Shuttle had no boarding ramp? Cause there is a thin line between accuracy and play features, the meaning of the latter go as far as flick fire missiles perhaps.

I agree that design counts first and there is no argueing about it, no way. But little details, also things that move, and that the real life or movie counterpart is known for, these things might add to accuracy in my book! Or take away from.. depends!

cheers!

[Fallenangel]

Zzz is right; the various moving parts of a model are just as important as its details, especially if the craft it is based on sports actual moving parts. This is the reason for the opening canopy on the UCS Snowspeeder and X-wing. Since moving parts are a real trait of the ship upon which the model is based, of course those same moving parts would be featured on the model itself.

However, that does not take the trends of the LEGO UCS line into account. With the exception of the UCS N-1 fighter, every UCS set of a small fighter or vehicle has featured an opening cockpit; for this one not to would be a failure on LEGO's part. But LEGO UCS sets have not featured landing gear, even if it was a trait of the actual ship - I speak of the UCS X-wing and Y-wing. For this reason, the lack of landing gear on this is somewhat acceptable. The best, of course, would be to offer both display options, as many model kits do, but LEGO can't please everybody can they? (Not to mention the fact that a UCS AT-AT and Executor - sets I know several AFOLs have been wishing for - would have made a whole lot of sense for 2010 but instead we get a Lambda shuttle and this thing.)

Not that I'm challenging you or anything, but Aeroeza I believe you are mistaken in saying that "a UCS, as a rule of thumb, doesn't tend to have complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model". Have you looked at the wing-opening function for the UCS X-wing? It's an absolute mess of gears and technic beams. Some X-wing nuts like myself (see avatar and Brickshelf folder) are aware that the wings on the studio model were connected via a central axle in the rear fuselage of the fighter; the wings would simply pivot in opposite directions around this axle to achieve their trademark "X" shape. While I suspect that LEGO rejected this method due to the enormous weight of the wings, I maintain that this gritty mechanism could be considered a "complex play feature".

And as to your comment on a UCS sacrificing accuracy and detail for play features, did you know that the new UCS Lambda shuttle basically omitted a ramp so that the head area could be flipped up to access minifigures - an obvious play feature if I've ever seen one.

[Aeroeza]

You are so right with everything you said. Especially with the canopy, that it is almost impossible to make it look like in the movie AND possible to be opened.

But I think you also got to admit that opening doors on a car model for example don't really count as play features. They add to the realism, accuracy and beauty in design of the actual car, or spaceship in real life. Cars don't look only fantastic with their doors closed. Remember the old Lamborghini? Who would want a model of one without being able to open the doors? Why do the wings unfold and the canopy open for the UCS X-Wing, or why do people were sad that the UCS Lambda Shuttle had no boarding ramp? Cause there is a thin line between accuracy and play features, the meaning of the latter go as far as flick fire missiles perhaps.

I agree that design counts first and there is no argueing about it, no way. But little details, also things that move, and that the real life or movie counterpart is known for, these things might add to accuracy in my book! Or take away from.. depends!

cheers!

Thanks for the posts!

You're right Zzz!

It's a real thin line between what constitutes a play feature on one hand and on the other a necessary/display feature which adds to both realism and display options. The old Countach always looked a treat with its doors raised, I had one, (well, a really small one admittedly)!

I should address what I consider a play feature verses a display feature...

The UCS X-Wing is an awesome example. Thanks for bringing this one up Fallenangel! The wings open on the one hand but on the other do not detract from the accuracy of the build. TLC hit a real sweet spot with this model and it remains one of my all-time favourite UCS sets.

If significant accuracy had been sacrificed for the wing mechanism to work then I guess I would not have been as happy with the final look of it i.e. it becomes a ‘play’ feature. I’d have been more content with the S-Foils locked in attack position and the model looking as much as possible like its namesake than workable wings that look wrong...

But what we have is an amazing model that works and is accurate (within the limits of the medium). The opening wings therefore (for me) become a ‘display’ feature!

I’m all for that kind of thing! That’s Lego at its unsurpassed best for me as an AFOL. So I guess I’m a bit of a purest!

10215 bucks the trend for cockpits on UCS’ but I don’t see this as a failure in design by TLC rather a priority for accuracy over functionality (or playability/display options whatever definition is right for you). This cockpit is cool by me! An accurate opening cockpit is too hard to achieve with the current brick moulds available and so under the circumstances the lack of said feature does not detract from the enjoyment I’ll have when I build it.

You see, I’m dammed uncompromising with a UCS!! If accuracy is dropped to include a particular feature then I’d call it a ‘play feature’. If it can be included without sacrificing the sculptural purity of the original design then it’s a welcome bonus! Same goes for landing gear. So yes, they are moving parts of a model and ideally should be included but Lego bricks do have restrictions especially if a designer’s modus operandi is primarily accuracy.

Not that I'm challenging you or anything, but Aeroeza I believe you are mistaken in saying that "a UCS, as a rule of thumb, doesn't tend to have complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model". Have you looked at the wing-opening function for the UCS X-wing? It's an absolute mess of gears and technic beams. Some X-wing nuts like myself (see avatar and Brickshelf folder) are aware that the wings on the studio model were connected via a central axle in the rear fuselage of the fighter; the wings would simply pivot in opposite directions around this axle to achieve their trademark "X" shape. While I suspect that LEGO rejected this method due to the enormous weight of the wings, I maintain that this gritty mechanism could be considered a "complex play feature".

And as to your comment on a UCS sacrificing accuracy and detail for play features, did you know that the new UCS Lambda shuttle basically omitted a ramp so that the head area could be flipped up to access minifigures - an obvious play feature if I've ever seen one.

I think I addressed my definition of a ‘play feature’ with the X-Wing example above. Because it maintains its accuracy it becomes a display feature (honestly I’m not meaning to sound like I’m splitting hairs here). TLC with a system set could go hell for leather and add whatever feature they like to make it more fun to play with! (Princess Leia’s office desk in the Tantive IV springs to mind).

I can appreciate differing opinions on the definition of ‘play’ vs. ‘display’ features. It’s a philosophical and somewhat grammatical distinction which makes discussions like this fun!

So as a rule of thumb (i.e. a principle with broad application) a UCS doesn’t tend to have complex play features (for me) which take away from the accuracy of the model. Rather they have display features which are based on the characteristics of their subject matter, achieved via limitations defined by a set number and shape of Lego bricks. The most successful UCS’ manage to capture many of these characteristics (moving parts and so on) and 10215 does admirably under the circumstances.

You see I’m just a strict disciplinarian at heart which is why I made the observation on 20th June in the LEGO Star Wars 2010 Pictures and Rumors topic regarding the Imperial Shuttle...

“The lack of a ramp is understandable given the design brief probably required four minifigs to fit in the cockpit. If you look closely at the side of the shuttles 'neck' you'll notice its a little thicker than the corresponding ILM reference material (by about a brick's width). This distortion in detail looks to be a sacrifice in accuracy for the sake of the figures inside. When you think about it that's the first time a UCS has forgone looks for the inclusion of a minifig.

It also means you don't get a functional ramp!”

So here’s the exception thus far to the ‘tendency’ as far as I’m concerned- an obvious play feature has been added to a UCS but it’s pretty subtle and doesn’t detract from the overall design much (arguably at all). But if it makes more people happy so they’ll buy it and we also get an amazing model out of it then I’m happy. Besides it’s meant to be ‘minifig’ scaled and complement the UCS Falcon (it isn’t, but its close and it will)!

DMAC’s review of 10212 is also very revealing regarding the non-inclusion of a ramp- basically so the whole design wasn’t too fragile for commercial release. This raises a very noticeable oversight by AFOL when criticising sets, especially UCS’ i.e. they have to be a commercially durable build for adults. If a possible feature weakens the model too much then TLC will receive complaints later down the track (sagging ISD nose sections, RBR engines etc.) and that’s bad for business on such expensive sets especially for a company that prides itself on quality. Which is also why the shuttles wings have a non integrated wing mechanism, (I quizzed Cavegod on this very topic a while back and he stated that the weight of the wings put too much strain on his integrated system).

So the balance TLC must consider for a UCS design is accuracy, realistic features and durability (considerations that can’t ignore the commercial restraints faced by Lego and the sets designer). Fair criticism of 10215 would ideally take all these factors into account which is why I was initially responding to Zzz and hoping he/she might clarify their post (thank you for that by the way).

Cheers guys!

[Fallenangel]

You realize, Aeroeza, the reason I brought up the UCS X-wing in the first place is to show that the mechanism wasn't accurate and therefore constitutes a play feature. You claim that the mechanism in the X-wing used to open the wings is accurate within the limits of the medium. However, rewatching the Death Star sequence shows this is clearly not the case. In addition to the incorrect method of attaching the wings which I had previously mentioned, I will add that the studio model of the X-wing used in the Death star sequence (all of them, not just the "hero" X-wings) have a large gap between the wings due to the cavity in the rear fuselage necessary for the pivoting function of the wings to work. Since LEGO's UCS X-wing does not utilize this pivoting system, it appears that they did not see any need to include the gap, despite the fact that it was a real feature on the actual model. The LEGO X-wing's wing-opening mechanism is therefore not only overly complex but also detracts from accuracy, ultimately being a play feature. Indeed, a feature of the real model is dropped (the gap between the wings, as well as the pivot in the fuselage) to accomodate a particular function (the gear system that opens the wings).If you are as uncompromising as you say I can't help but think you would take such matters into consideration before praising that aspect of the UCS X-wing.

And I do not think that the pivoting function of the studio model cannot be replicated in LEGO; Dave's LEGO X-wing proves otherwise. In this case then there are no limitations in the medium that interferes with this aspect of the X-wing, except maybe the weight of the wings (but of course that, too, can be easily addressed).