LEGO Exclusive 10221 - Super Star Destroyer

[bensl]

looks in that photo to be a lot smaller than the 10030.

[Aeroeza]

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

More time for MODs than MOCs sadly but when next I have the opportunity and unlimited budget I'll be sure to follow this chaps mantra. He manages to stick to his own design brief quite nicely with spectacular results...

... With that project, I had several goals. The first one is obviously that the MOC had to be accurate.

And here are the other rules I wanted to respect :

- no illegal build

- no odd colors

- a true frame (like the 10030 ISD)

- no use of old parts which are no more used today by TLG

- optimisation of the part number as much as possible

- the model has to look homogeneous

Eventually, I managed to respect everything. :)

... and I'd hope to receive fair and constructive criticism based on those goals from my fellow AFOL. If on the other hand I was designing a commercial Lego product which had to prove durable and sensitive to retail cost then I'd need to reconsider that brief.

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.

Did you happen to 'product test' it for commercial release? How certain are you it won't have significant structural issues in 12 months time echoing problems associated with a prior commercial release using a similar design? Will magnets hold for all production sets? Is there a better solution than using rubber bands? Could ignoring customer complaints regarding said structural issues affect your products brand name, reputation and profit margin in the future? If you can fix said structural issues associated with a 1.2 meter long and incredibly narrow Lego set using the 'true frame' solution of 10030 then have you just priced your product out of the target market group on a per unit basis?

If it came to a commercial release which you might be responsible for then what would be your definition of 'quality balanced by profit'? How would this influence your new design brief? You'd best start pulling out the spreadsheets and doing some calculations quickly before the designers go full throttle with unrestricted Lego construction! Try giving them some clear goals and remember not to pay them by the hour!

The structural and design problems associated with 10030 could only have have been amplified in 10221 so the cost effective and more proven solution of a 'flat bottom' is a rational one and on balance probably the right one. Maybe it's 'easy', maybe it 'sucks' then again maybe it's just not a MOC!

Its easy to forget we're dealing with a very different world to the comparatively carefree hobby of MOCing and if some compromises aren't to our taste then perhaps its worth considering the ramifications of any alternatives and trying to understand why a designer makes particular choices rather than dismissing them outright.

This is not to say I'm uncritical of the set. I'd have loved to see a more accurate and detailed underside, no minifigures and no bridge but that said the bridge is unobtrusive and I can feed the figures to my cat (I'm training him to be an attack kitten even as I write). The final 10221 is long, narrow, strong, transportable and as Kurt hoped for does well with many angles and isn't too bulky in profile. The cityscape isn't overworked and has an aesthetic consistency to it which I can appreciate. However I understand this is not a MOC, has many commercial considerations and is therefore aimed at a broader consumer group than just me and my kitten.

For me the compromise works.

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.

I'm curious Cavegod, could you describe them please?

[ISDAvenger]

Dispite all the critiques, negetive and postive, I think it is a cool set and I am planning on purchasing it when it comes out.

[Willdog]

Really doesn't look 125 cm. I know Lego wouldn't lie about it, just saying. Also the Star Destroyer next it looks more dominant. Maybe it's the perspective of the photo (which i really appreciate BTW) but I can't help but keep changing my mind about getting the set.

[cavegod]

I'm curious Cavegod, could you describe them please?

dam just looked on bricklink,

while they are from the new girls leg product they are not new parts.

1x4 antenna with flat top and trans purple minifig umbrella.

[Anio]

@ Aeroeza : Yet another fanboy spotted. -_-'

You just can not admit that sometimes Lego designers do some wrong choices.

Yes they are set designers, but in fact, they are still (official) MOCers.

Like every MOCer, they can do some mistakes, wrong compromises.

You think 10030 is weak, and you would like this model to be stronger ?

No problem ! Do no attach the underside triangles upside down. Put it with studs up, do few modifications inside (with about 30 parts), and on the back near the 3 main reactors, and it's done !

If you want another mistake, look at the Technic theme (it is an example, but I know this theme pretty well ; I'm pretty sure it would be possible to find other examples in other themes). They could not sell 8043 for 2 months in order to fix 2 problems on it (a problem with a 16t gear, and a problem with linear actuators). Or look at 8110, it has again a part that have to be redesigned. Or 8289, a 1050 part fireman cherry picker with very few functions (compared to part number). In the next years, they released a motorised cherry picker with only 800 parts which worked much better. And this year, they release 8071, which has exactly the same functions as 8289 but 460 (!!) parts less ! (basically - 40% @_@). Yes these 2 models has been made to make money (like every set), but it is plain obivous too that these models have to replace the poor 8289.

I do not know if you have this model or if you know a lot in Technic, but if you look at the way 8289 is built, you will see how it sucks ! ;)

And before you ask me "So, are you saying that you do not do any mistake when disigning your MOCs", I answer : Yes, sometimes I do mistakes. Look at my first Slave. The approach I built it was definitely not the good one. Even today, its back side has still too much different parts to be an official set. Same for my Executor. It would require to use a bit less different refs to make the greebs to turn it into an official set. But that is something very easy to change.

As for my pod, I know it is (waaaay) too fragile to be an official set.

On the 10221, the greebs are made of 3 differents parts (tile with clip, plate round 1x1, and plate 1x2 with something :p). Com'on ! It is a 400$/€ set !

Have you seen the back of 10179 and how many different parts there is ? I look at it right now, and I may have count at least 20 different refs !

Even on 10030 which has much fewer greebs than 10221, I've count 9 different refs.

And here comes the 10221, with absolutely no greeb on the back !

Oh, btw, it is not true to say the bridge can not be seen from outside.

It seems there is a bunker in the middle, with no greeb.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Anio

[Aeroeza]

dam just looked on bricklink,

while they are from the new girls leg product they are not new parts.

1x4 antenna with flat top and trans purple minifig umbrella.

Dammit! So how are new girls legs just gonna 'have fun' now huh?

@ Aeroeza : Yet another fanboy spotted. -_-'

You just can not admit that sometimes Lego designers do some wrong choices.

Respectful 'snip'

It seems there's an intriguing philosopical divide in our posts and in considering that, it would be unfair of me to summerise what you're been trying to say so I'll just clarify mine and then perhaps look forward to moving on...

I'm not a huge MOCer so I'm not prepared to build my own UCS SSD, however I am fascinated by and appreciate the projects of AFOL who do build great designs. I am also a collector of certain Lego products like 10221 and enjoy deconstructing and understanding their builds.

Having said that I'd like you to bare in mind that my perspective is that of a designer whose job it is to 'create' within time and budget to an employer's brief. There is much problem solving and many compromises made along the way and some fixes work better than others. It is not so much that these 'choices' are wrong or right its that they often represent a necessary compromise between what is possible and what is ideally achievable given the brief at hand.

So I don't see 10221 as just another MOC nor compare it unnecessarily to one. Its altogether a different creature built for an altogether different kind of horse race...

Now I've stated (and restated) that constructive criticism of a creative commercial endeavor is ideally derived from a position which appreciates the demands of the original 'brief'. So it would be nice to see that same level of respect and objectivity applied to commercial MOCs in our own forum (that's my bias). After all individual MOCs have design briefs which differ widely to one another and so do commercial ones. However (and this is not an attack) I wasn't convinced your posts reflected that kind of objectivity and I'm still not. Just to reiterate- I didn't say you were 'wrong' in expressing a particular opinion merely 'harsh' and then outlined why I thought that. I was curious to understand how it was you didn't seem to be considering a broader view. Confusingly you've still not really addressed the core of my comments which I've underlined in my previous posts. That being said you don't have to explain yourself to anyone but obviously dropping posts on a forum tends to encourage a certain social etiquette and its been fun to date.

As for my opinion on 10221 I think I've been pretty clear regarding my own thoughts on the set since first seeing preview images several months ago and I've certainly expressed my reservations about it. I'm quite happy to 'admit' to that! I've also been happy to comment on what appear to be compromises in the build and whether they're too 'compromised' for my own preferences regarding what's important in a UCS. Like you I would consider it 'unfair' to have those views ignored or dismissed inappropriately so I hope you don't feel that way. But for me to say Kurt has made 'wrong choices' in a commercial product is probably a value judgement best left for the sales figures to answer. They are after all the ultimate arbiter for a retail product as opposed to a MOC and let's face it the set certainly looks like an exciting UCS to many AFOL out there.

So there appears to be a philosophical divide between us which has been enjoyable to post about and I hope just as enjoyable for others to read. No doubt it will crop up again in future and we can continue to draw a line in the metaphorical Lego sandbox!

Thanks for the banter and I'm always happy to reply but probably won't be able to for a few days- I've got some commercial design work to do and the brief is calling...

[gotoAndLego]

In regards to the center gap on top...how easily do you think that could be fixed using techniques from the MOCs that have been made? I'm specifically thinking about the alternating 2x4 wings that create a zigzag seal.

Edited July 18, 2011 by gotoAndLego

[Anio]

I'll just clarify mine and then perhaps look forward to moving on...

Yes, I think we both explained our point of view. :)

I would like to correct something I wrote.

It is indeed not the designers who do mistakes or wrong choices, but the people who are above them.

A designer is able to design good greebs ; no doubt about that. But someone above may have said "Hey, you see the huge amount of greebs on the top ? Do it with 3 parts !"

@ gotoandLego : using 2x3 wings woundn't change anything about the gap. ;)

Actually, using a 1x3 plate + 2x3 wing was just a (smart) way to get the angle of 3x12 wing (which was not produced at the time)

Edited July 18, 2011 by Anio

[gotoAndLego]

@ gotoandLego : using 2x3 wings woundn't change anything about the gap. ;)

Actually, using a 1x3 plate + 2x3 wing was just a (smart) way to get the angle of 3x12 wing (which was not produced at the time)

I think I was using this as an example. Are there any techniques you can think of that could fill or minimize that gap?

[Anio]

I think I was using this as an example. Are there any techniques you can think of that could fill or minimize that gap?

Ok.

Hard to say...

Actually, the angle is mainly defined by the structure.

To reduce the gap, it would be necessary to increase the angle of the wings.

Maybe 1x2 plates + 3x2 wings can work.

But I'm still not convinced that a zig-zag is better than a gap.

[gotoAndLego]

I wonder if you could fill the gap using grey tubes, or use these ( door rail 1, door rail 2 ) parts mounted vertically between the hull halves to visually close the gap.

Edited July 18, 2011 by gotoAndLego

[Anio]

I wonder if you could fill the gap using grey tubes, or use these ( door rail 1, door rail 2 ) parts mounted vertically between the hull halves to visually close the gap.

These parts wouldn't make a good looking result.

But more important, it is not possible to attach something properly on the hypotenuse of the wings.

edit : hum, you said vertically. Don't really see what does it mean on the model.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Anio

[Brickdoctor]

But more important, it is not possible to attach something properly on the hypotenuse of the wings.

You could turn them upside-down and use an assembly under the wing to hold them on.

The problem would be that where before there was a gap, now there is a dip, because the plate with rail would have to go underneath the wedge plates. You could put the rail on the same level, but that would require expanding the width by at least two studs (and the length to keep proportions), and if you're going to do that you might as well change the size to one where the wedge plates of each hull plate are close enough to touch, thereby avoiding the gap altogether.

[cavegod]

the gap along the middle is tapered, at the very front the gap is not really there and just gets wider the further bqack you go, the only way to fix it would be to build the tops the same as the bottom, you could probably re jig the mounts but it seems a lot of work (having looked through the entire instruction book) the best solution would be to build your own version.

[Brickdoctor]

edit : hum, you said vertically. Don't really see what does it mean on the model.

Oh, I didn't notice that either.

Mounting them vertically on the inner sides of each hull plate would add a plate's height's worth of plastic to the width of each plate. The problem with that is that in doing so, you change the height of each hull plate on the inner side from one plate to around 1.5 studs. Since it's the bottom edge of the side of each hull plate that touches, you've now increased the gap.

[gratefulnat]

So there appears to be a philosophical divide between us which has been enjoyable to post about and I hope just as enjoyable for others to read. No doubt it will crop up again in future and we can continue to draw a line in the metaphorical Lego sandbox!

I follow these discussions between you and Anio with much appreciation, and look forward to more

I envy your ability to convey your thoughts in such a succinct and respectfull manner

Thanks for the 'food for thought' that your discourse offers.

[gotoAndLego]

I meant that they would be attached vertically to the substructure and the hull pieces would sit on either side.

Edited July 18, 2011 by gotoAndLego

[Brickdoctor]

I meant that they would be attached vertically to the substructure and the hull pieces would sit on either side.

But then you either have the increased gap I talked about or a thin flat area where the hull plates come together. (as in, not sloped)

[gotoAndLego]

But then you either have the increased gap I talked about or a thin flat area where the hull plates come together. (as in, not sloped)

I guess I didn't explain myself well. You would not be changing the gap, the hull pieces would be left alone but you would have the rail part of those modified plates sticking up to fill the space.

So it would be the second thing you said. If the height is done correctly it might look better than having a gap.

Edited July 18, 2011 by gotoAndLego

[cavegod]

I guess I didn't explain myself well. You would not be changing the gap, the hull pieces would be left alone but you would have the rail part of those modified plates sticking up to fill the space.

So it would be the second thing you said. If the height is done correctly it might look better than having a gap.

That would work but as i mentioned the gap is tapered front to back.

[Diamondback]

Anyone else from the US seeing this as a total FUBAR at LEGO and "disappeared" from Shop @ Home?

Don't tell me they're gonna tease me by announcing this and leave me hanging like a nerd who's just had the Prom Queen tell him he just MIGHT have a chance to get lucky with her... :(

[kamigawa]

Well, at least you had those random reappearances of the page, from time to time. The european's Lego.shop didn't even have those. I got really close to sending two or three e-mails to TLG when I was a bit too frustrated. I fear the release date won't be the 1st of September anymore, seeing how the Lambda SHuttle's page had been up and running, last year, since July.

[Cutler Beckett]

Oh.... It's very very good ...

[Larrynautik]

The Super Star Destroyer effectively disappeared from the Shop at Home. I remember it was there last month. I Lego rework this set ?