LEGO Exclusive 10221 - Super Star Destroyer

[Praiter Yed]

Sure - enjoy !

'snip'

Cheers,

D.

Thanks drdavewatford - I do like that head print - I'm wondering if I could make it work on my IG-88 MOC (probably not ).

DSS is a bit crap in a set of this nature.

[drdavewatford]

... and thanks for the review! Its looking really thorough. The more I look at this set the more 'epic' a build it seems to become...

It's certainly a monster and no mistake !

The completed model will be displayed at the UK National Space Centre this weekend, so I obviously need to finish building it by then...! I'll try and post Part 2 of the review before I leave for the show. I'm really looking forward to seeing the Super Star Destroyer displayed next to some of the other big UCS sets like 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer at the exhibition; I'll take lots of pics so people who can't attend can share the experience.

D.

[Brickdoctor]

Agreed - printed parts would be better.

Also agreed, though in a set which we already knew would have one huge sticker, did we really expect everything else to be printed?

[Fallenangel]

Also agreed, though in a set which we already knew would have one huge sticker, did we really expect everything else to be printed?

Maybe.

[Bricksan]

Dr.Daves blog was an awesome read and I blogged his blog and this set yesterday, I have never built a large set before and think this one will be the first.

Edited July 13, 2011 by RJH

[pedro]

this is just wrong though

*Distressing Imagery*

Words escape how dissapointed I am that a set of this size carrying a price tag like this lacks a reasonable selection of unique printed elements. I wouldn't be half as disappointed if the quality of these stickers was any good, but after a few years they crumble and flake becoming a useless mess (and a bugger to remove).

Also agreed, though in a set which we already knew would have one huge sticker, did we really expect everything else to be printed?

Maybe not. But maybe this should have been a serious consideration when it came to the creation of this set. Look at the Cars 2 theme: low cost sets with printed elements everywhere. It can be done.

All the same, I still like this set. If I have the oppotunity, I'll head down to see the model in the flesh next Sunday.

[Fallenangel]

Speaking of Dr. Dave, he finished his review of 10221... pictures here.

The upper hull is held on by plates - didn't see that one coming...

Edited July 15, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Brickdoctor]

The upper hull is held on by plates - didn't see that one coming...

Specifically, they're clips, which to me is not surprising. TLG usually uses clips, clicky hinges, magnets, or angled Technic pieces here. The magnets are probably too weak, the clicky hinges should have the wrong angles, and the angled Technic pieces probably took up too much space in a thinned model like this.

[Anio]

The magnets are very strong if correctly used.

I have absolutely no problem with magnets on my Executor and Venator.

The reason why the magnets are not used is because they are VERY expensive parts.

I'm curious to see the model "in flesh", to really see how poorly designed it is.

From what I've seen so far, it is similar to the Death Star II #10143 : the model looks good when look at it from afar.

When you look closer at it, you see all defects : poor greebs (or even no greeb for the back), bad joins between the different sections, and bottom flat with tubes.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Anio

[Brickdoctor]

The magnets are very strong if correctly used.

I have absolutely no problem with magnets on my Executor and Venator.

Seeing as you actually own those models, I'll take your word for it. I had heard that the magnets on the UCS ISD weren't that great when moving the model.

[Aeroeza]

Speaking of Dr. Dave, he finished his review of 10221... pictures here.

Thanks Doc Dave! Its an informative review and certainly wet's my appetite!

I'm curious to see the model "in flesh", to really see how poorly designed it is.

That seems a bit harsh Anio!

I'm not sure 'fair' criticism of any build can be taken on-board without first understanding the intentions of the designer. As a commercial product I reckon the design brief for 10221 would be somewhat restricted compared to what an AFOL might consider for themselves. Judge the set in that context and I'd call it constructive and fair criticism!

...which is not to suggest you're wrong just rather harsh.

...I had heard that the magnets on the UCS ISD weren't that great when moving the model.

...as for the other Doc on the forum! Its a hit and miss affair with the magnets as they vary in attractive strengths. My 10030 had a few spare so I picked the strongest of them and short of a big bump my Star Destroyer has been happy for a few years. The weaker magnets would not have fared so well.

Although I've got no problems personally with the use of magnets (I'd just replace the dodgy ones without complaint) using clips on 10221 will no doubt lead to fewer complaints and a stronger build.

The same goes for the flat bottom (in the long run). I've had to reinforce the internal structure of my 10030 (you've probably heard of similar complaints from others) as four of the technic beams between the supporting legs started to buckle. I found it a fun little Lego engineering experience to fix but I'd not be surprised if Lego received a lot flak from customers regarding the problem. I can also understand Lego not wanting to invite similar flak again regarding its latest not so little (but just a little long) 'show pony' product!

[StoutFiles]

That seems a bit harsh Anio!

I'm not sure 'fair' criticism of any build can be taken on-board without first understanding the intentions of the designer. As a commercial product I reckon the design brief for 10221 would be somewhat restricted compared to what an AFOL might consider for themselves. Judge the set in that context and I'd call it constructive and fair criticism!

...which is not to suggest you're wrong just rather harsh.

Anio has built his own so naturally he will hate this set. A MOC is almost always better than the TLG version for many reasons.

[Brickdoctor]

Anio has built his own so naturally he will hate this set. A MOC is almost always better than the TLG version for many reasons.

Agreed. Often when I build my own models, I might start with just a slightly bad view of a set, but if I do I'll finish the MOC detesting the set.

[Ceroknight]

I don't like it as much as I did before after I saw Dr. Dave's review (Fantastic, and thank you!)

You can see bits of red where there shouldn't be and bits of awkward colours on the back as well..

[Fallenangel]

That seems a bit harsh Anio!

Yeah, be careful guy, you might end up making some bipolar kid cry .

Agreed. Often when I build my own models, I might start with just a slightly bad view of a set, but if I do I'll finish the MOC detesting the set.

Quoted for truth.

Joking aside, I do see some rather unsightly colorful bits poking out here and there, but for commercial purposes I suppose it isn't too bad. The same goes for what Anio said about poor greebling and such. I maintain, though, that this set looks too fat.

And I suppose I'm just nitpicking at this point, but the amount of dark bley in this set (as opposed to color consistency in the spirit of the source material) is beginning to get to me. I do understand that it serves the purpose of making an otherwise monochrome build interesting, but come on...

[Anio]

Anio has built his own so naturally he will hate this set. A MOC is almost always better than the TLG version for many reasons.

No. It is not fair to say that.

Just compare 10221 to 10030, you will see the difference.

10030 is not perfect, but the greebs are very varied (more than 10221, at least). The joins between the section are also satisfying.

The joins on 10221 are definitely not satisfying ("huge gaps" is a euphemism).

Making good joins between all the sections is IMO the hardest part on a UCS model.

It is also what makes that the job is well done on the final result.

And if I can understand that the bottom is flat to make things easier, on the contrary, the tubes outside is not acceptable on a UCS, IMO.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Anio

[drdavewatford]

Thanks for all the nice comments about my 10221 Super Star Destroyer review, guys - much appreciated.

A couple of thoughts from me on the postings so far.

Firstly, I don't think it's reasonable to judge 10221 against the standards set by the highest quality MOCs - it's not a fair comparison. It's a production set, and as such compromises will have to be made for reasons of practicality, cost, stability and other considerations, as against the "no expense spared" approach favoured by the best UCS MOC builders such as Anio. That having been said, I think the designer has done a good job with 10221 - it's not perfect, but it looks good to my eye, you don't need to perform gymnastics with your hands to put it together (I still have nightmares about trying to fit the lower surface of the UCS Imperial Star Destroyer onto the frame without it immediately falling off) and the finished model is stable and can be readily moved about without parts falling off. And comments about the greebling not being extensive enough or varied enough are definitely a matter of personal taste - I'd have started to get bored with the build if I'd been required to add much more greebling, so I think LEGO got that compromise right. As for the joins on 10221, I don't find them obstrusive at all - I actually think the ship fits together pretty well, certainly when compared with some of the joins and transitions on previous UCS sets. This is after all LEGO - the joins will never be airtight without obsessive levels of effort and potentially complex workarounds, and once again I come back to the fact that this is a set for retail, not a MOC.

Secondly, the magnets. I'd agree that some magnets are stronger than others, but as a result of using them on the UCS Imperial Star Destroyer, mine was so fragile that I could barely breathe on it without it breaking. Credit LEGO for coming up with an alternative solution in the form of 1 x 2 plates with clips, and I can live with the bottom of the ship being flat if it means I don't have to shield the ship from air currents in order for it to remain intact !

Cheers,

D.

[Anio]

Firstly, I don't think it's reasonable to judge 10221 against the standards set by the highest quality MOCs

True. And this is precisely why I did a comparison with 10143 and 10030.

[drdavewatford]

True. And this is precisely why I did a comparison with 10143 and 10030.

Then I will have to disagree with you, Anio - you could drive a bus through some of the joins on 10143, and I don't think 10030 is much better than 10143 in that regard. Coincidentally, I'm currently in a strong position to compare 10221 and 10143...!

I guess what I've been trying to get across is that 10221 feels quite "polished' compared with a number of other other UCS. You're absolutely right that some aspects could be improved, but for a retail set I think it's pretty good.

D.

Edited July 15, 2011 by drdavewatford

[cavegod]

i'm seriously thinking of popping round to drool over all them old boxes!

[simplefig]

Another Death Star and Yoda hologram in the near future?

[Aeroeza]

Yeah, be careful guy, you might end up making some bipolar kid cry .

That's awesome! This kid's perfect AFOL material!

And I suppose I'm just nitpicking at this point, but the amount of dark bley in this set (as opposed to color consistency in the spirit of the source material) is beginning to get to me...

...whereas LucasFilm used way too much dark bley for this shot...

But I understand your point. However you're right, it is a subjective one...

...10030 is not perfect, but the greebs are very varied (more than 10221, at least).

I recall a x32 greeble plate on the UCS Star Destroyer! I don't know about you but I needed a dedicated team of monkeys as well as a freshly fed Bear Grylls to finish it!

Now what I'm saying here is also a very subjective statement but the level of consistency with 10030's greebling looked pretty good to me and the UCS SSD seems to follow its Lego kin in that department. Too detailed at such a grand scale and it begins to look somewhat messy so the KISS principle (Keep it Simple Stupid) work's well here.

... The joins on 10221 are definitely not satisfying ("huge gaps" is a euphemism).

Making good joins between all the sections is IMO the hardest part on a UCS model.

It is also what makes that the job is well done on the final result.

And if I can understand that the bottom is flat to make things easier, on the contrary, the tubes outside is not acceptable on a UCS, IMO.

Design brief alert!

"No bendy noses thank you Mr. Star Wars Lego team!!!" And this is fairly explicit in the final product...

Kurt opted for a strong build, stronger than yours and Lasse's because at 1.2 metres you obviously have prime Lego sagging material and a bunch of pissed off collectors. A flat bottom limits your options on top as your own analysis back on page 6 pointed out. Now if we accept that constructive criticism really should take into account a designer's intention then the gap is likely a necessary by-product of the build i.e. a compromise which a commercial product probably needs to make.

So perhaps the hardest part of building a UCS (as part of TLC's design team) is knowing when to make those compromises. Fortunately MOCer's don't need to do that and can walk away with their artistic integrity intact!

Thanks for all the nice comments about my 10221 Super Star Destroyer review, guys - much appreciated.

A couple of thoughts from me on the postings so far...

El Snippo!

... This is after all LEGO - the joins will never be airtight without obsessive levels of effort and potentially complex workarounds, and once again I come back to the fact that this is a set for retail, not a MOC.

Spoken like a true reviewer!

Edit: BTW you should lose the minifigs in that photo. I hear they're not to scale and might look a bit silly...

Edited July 17, 2011 by Aeroeza

[Anio]

"No bendy noses thank you Mr. Star Wars Lego team!!!" And this is fairly explicit in the final product...

Kurt opted for a strong build, stronger than yours and Lasse's because at 1.2 metres you obviously have prime Lego sagging material and a bunch of pissed off collectors.

Do not worry for my Executor. ;)

I did a 1,6 meter Executor with only one support...

So, there is absolutely no problem for a 1,2m Executor with 2 supports.

A flat bottom limits your options on top as your own analysis back on page 6 pointed out. Now if we accept that constructive criticism really should take into account a designer's intention then the gap is likely a necessary by-product of the build i.e. a compromise which a commercial product probably needs to make.

I know why there is a gap, thanks. ;)

But this 1cm gap sucks anyway.

Fortunately MOCer's don't need to do that and can walk away with their artistic integrity intact!

If you say that, I guess you don't design much MOCs, do you ?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Anio

[cavegod]

having seen it in person i shall not be bying it, i have however seen 2 new parts from the girls lego range being released later this year.

[cavegod]