[MOC] Super Star Destroyer (virtual)

[Aeroeza]

You know as much as I love this MOC I thiink I enjoy reading this stuff even more .

You're da main Man Mr. Man!!

[mortesv]

You know as much as I love this MOC I thiink I enjoy reading this stuff even more .

Always happy to meet a fan

I had a look at the blu-ray and...

Didn't have any way to grab the pic - not even a phone camera. I will get it soon though!

However, I did notice that the render is taken at an angle, so it will be hard to determine precisely. My gut feeling though, tells me that Aeroeza's render looks about right.

Anyway, I'll grab that pic ASAP

PS.: I'll donate my SPARE parts MYSELF! I love my UCSs waaay too much to take them apart But perhaps I could have more than one SSD? Just need a bigger apartment...

Edited July 11, 2012 by mortesv

[mortesv]

Here it is:

Not the best quality. I tried to get the frame of the TV in the pic as well, so you can determine whether the pic of a pic was taken at an angle also

[Mr Man]

Here it is:

Can you not play the Blue Ray on your computer? If so just take a screenshot.

[skayen]

Hello,

since my last post, I came to the conclusion that Aeroeza and Mortesv were correct that the tail of my SSD was too long, so I bit the bullet and I set about correcting it. The overall length has been reduced by 7 studs, and the rear engine moved forward by two studs. I took some quick and dirty side shots in LDD to compare against the draft model and it was quite a bit better (or "closer", I think:-) to the draft from Aeroeza. The result, replete with weird colours and sans top-plating, can be seen next to the Korbanth model here:

again, I've rescaled the image so the distance from the tip to the widest part of the wings is the same.

Unfortunately, I don't like the new model. To my mind, it looks ~ok~ in the top image there, but from other views I think the new tail looks too unwieldy---even inelegant. I think part of the problem is that the angle from the wings to the tip of the tail is too steep on my model, and it's really a problem with the /aspect ratio/ of the tail than the overall length. At least, that's part of the reason, I think.

The tail on Pellaeon's outstanding model is closer to what I think it should be. The leading outer edges of the tail are almost parallel to the ship's spine, giving the tail a long, sleek (and menacing!) appearance. I've used the 3x13 wedge plates along the outer edge, but the gradient is too steep and, accordingly, the tail is quite wide by the time it's reached the wings of the ship. Clipping the tail means the aspect ratio (the ratio of the width of the tail to its length) isn't as elongated, which I think breaks the overall appearance.

I considered three techniques to fix this. The first was to change the angle from the wing tip to the tail to make it more orthogonal to the ship's spine, which would lengthen the tail slightly without changing the overall length of the ship---but I didn't like the look of this, and, I think the more swept angle in the current version is more accurate. (You can see the effect of a steeper wing-to-tail angle on Aryo Gono's MOC here). I also considered making the plating along the tail thinner by shifting the outer wedges towards the spine by a couple of studs. Unfortunately, this gave the tail a somewhat anemic look because I couldn't change the interior edge that connects the hull to the city without resorting to series of stepped flat plates. I also briefly considered using hinges to swing in the tail at whatever angle I thouht was appropriate, but that would either have obvious gaps in the top plating (like some SSD MOCs) which I could tile over, but not completely (because the joining studs would be at an angle, too...) Anio also separated the plates between the tail and his body.

(later: actually, I'm reconsidering moving the outer tail edge towards the spine. I'll come up wiht a version that this the tail by one/two studs and shortens the length by a little and see what happens.)

I think, ultimately, it is a battle between many different aspects of building with lego: while some /lengths/ may be accurate, the /angles/ they form might not, and the effect may well appear worse than a balance between errors in both angles and length. In this case, it is many subtle problems with my implementation: the ship is possibly a little too wide, the tail a little too thick, and so on, that I think that, on balance, the tail needs to be longer. But, you're right, Aeroza: there's a lot of doubt, and confusion when I compare many many different instances of SSD resin models like the Korbanth, above, and others---all of which have a clear view of the entire length of the model and appear to have longer tails. In the end, I decided that I preferred the overall look of the longer tail, but I figured it was worthwhile experimenting with the look of the shorter tail just in case it was all kinds of awesome ;-)

I've tried to pull better 3D information out of the photographs of the real model. The irony is that I actually work in computer vision (essentially, quicker and dirtier photogrammetry!) and extract 3D from images, but with a lot more constraints about focal length and right angles and so on ;) To this end, I've tried triangulating feature points on the photographs to get a point cloud, but automated methods don't work on this image sequence. I ~could~ resort to manual tracking, and did try that for two views of the top hull, but it drove me to tears---the guy who took those photographs wasn't all that concerned with keeping corresponding points in view across different images ;-D You mentioned somehting about a render from ILM on the StarWars BluRay, and I can see that Mortesv has posted a picture. Can you tell me more about this sequence? Is it, by any chance, an animation of the SSD moving about---perhaps on a turn-table or something? Because if it is, then perhaps you could try ripping the video of that sequence and using a camera tracker to generate a 3D point cloud. I have access to Boujou, too (and others...), but you could also try PhotoSynth and PhotoTourism/Bundler and PMVS to make 3D models from nicely conditioned sequences... Unfortunately, I don't have the BluRay because I am sufficiently annoyed by the persistent meddling with the original movies =/

Also, thanks for your kind gesture to donate bricks, hah :-) I do plan on building the model when I /finally/ finish working on it (and making 3D instructions (*)), and plan on hitting up Bricklink for the pieces. I already own 10221 which I plan to cannabalise to feed my MOC, so I shouldn't need too many more pieces, I hope ;D The only problem is getting lots of desperate shops to economically ship to Australia.

(*) which leads me to another question which I'll need to post sometime shortly. Namely: WTH do you do that, given that the automated instructions out of LDD leave a lot to be desired...

cheers

John

Edited July 12, 2012 by skayen

[DFOL]

"Lots of clever stuff" indeed! I really admire the endless devotion to accuracy and perfection you have, but aren't you guys overdoing it just a bit? After all, it's still LEGO we're talking about, so naturally you're limited by the dimensions and the angles of the bricks and plates your working with. As far as i could tell the model already looked pretty close to perfect as it was.

Personally, i would stick to what looks good, even when it means that that the model is ever so slightly less accurate. When a model looks as great as yours does, not many people would care or even notice that the tail is a few studs too long. But a tail with the correct length that doesn't look right because of an awkward construction, or because the proportion between the angles and the length is a bit off, would get noticed in a less favourable way i think.

Anyway, that's just my humble opinion. Please, don't let that get in the way of your creative processes, because i'm very much impressed by what you have achieved!

[mortesv]

@ John, I dont mind sending bricks to Australia, as long as it is for a good cause

I must say, I totally understand your dilemma. In shot, a shorter tail is perhaps more correct, but the price you pay in terms of fighting with the other angles and proportions probably isn't worth it.

However finding out what "correct" really is, is still the primary challenge - if any further tweaking is to be justified.

There actually is a little animation of the ship. It may be a render, but it could actually be the model itself with a panning camera. In any case it is the correct proportions. Unfortunatly I do not have a Blu-ray drive in any of my computers Thus grabbing the animation is not really feasible. I could grab it on the TV-screen, but I think that would defeat the purpose of correctness

Someone out there must have the SW Blu-rays and a Blu-ray drive in their PC?

Edited July 12, 2012 by mortesv

[Chills]

Wow, John that is an awesome MOC.

I'm just coming out of my dark ages and it was 10221 that brought me back to Lego. I'm a HUGE fan of the Executor; I've been studying material about it since 1980 and have been building my own MOCs of it since I was a wee lad.

I am impressed with 10221 and its one of my favorite sets, but I will admit that the first thought I had when I finished was, "Its not nearly wide enough." I was also not thrilled with the flat bottom. But I figured it was nice to have a big ship that wasn't held together by magnets and had hull-sag over time.

Your MOC is amazing. I understand what you mean by having to compromise on shape/angles/lengths when building with Legos. But I think you've found a great balance.

I will say I like your revised version with the shorter tail better than your original version. Fantastic work. I'm looking forward to seeing more in this thread.

[cavegod]

lol I have the bluray on my hard drive and i don't have a bluray player

if I can find the files i can email them.

[BrickPicker]

This ship has a better "bottom" side, then a "top" side...A rarity with LEGO MOCS and models.

[mortesv]

lol I have the bluray on my hard drive and i don't have a bluray player

if I can find the files i can email them.

Unfortunately the animation it is actually not on the ESB Blu-ray - and the shot sof the ship in the film do not pan or rotate around the ship :/

The animation is found on the disc called:

"Disc 2: Bonus Disc Episodes IB-VI Archives"

Do you have that on file as well?

[Aeroeza]

Personally, i would stick to what looks good, even when it means that that the model is ever so slightly less accurate.

Absolutely agree! But research is the mother of industry and allows the practioner to make informed choices...

Can you tell me more about this sequence? Is it, by any chance, an animation of the SSD moving about---perhaps on a turn-table or something?

Looks to me as though the camera is mounted on a dolly and crane arm. It's no 3D render and so the movement is not particularly smooth. Certainly there is change in perspective (there's no zoom) and there's no gift for you in terms of a turntable. Instead you have a dolly in and to the right as the camera pans left. It does offer you a number of continuous points to track although the front tip of the Executor's hull fall's out of shot as well as the tip of the stern. You do get both wing tips and and the port tip of the stern visible throughout the sequence. There's also a good dark patch available at the front port cityscape section. The rest of the city is mixed shades of grey tones 'popping' alot but if I were to use the footage for matchmoving with my software I could get away with it.

I'm not sure how successful you might be using this footage but it is the best available of the model.

I might be able to rip it in a few weeks but right now my workstation (and blue-ray drive) is being packed away for a long dreaded house move ...

Sorry!

What about you Cavegod?

[skayen]

Hello,

...but aren't you guys overdoing it just a bit?

heh, I was showing someone the test renders at Uni and he was... well, I think he politely made the suggestion that I had OCD :-) Actually, continually modifying the model is certainly holding me up (that and fighting with LDD...), but I figured that I've come this far, I may as well at least see what it looks like: otherwise doubt will plague me =)

I'm just coming out of my dark ages and it was 10221 that brought me back to Lego. I'm a HUGE fan of the Executor. ... I will admit that the first thought I had when I finished was, "Its not nearly wide enough." I was also not thrilled with the flat bottom.

I too came out of Lego hibernation around about the time of the 10221, (I actually bought several technic sets and the Shuttle prior, but missed out on a number of UCS sets that I would have liked to had...) and I think the Executor is one of my favourite ships: I like it more than the ISD, I think :-) To be honest, the issue with the width only became apparent to me when I looked into models of the Executer for researching my MOC---but the flat bottom and short tail were glaringly obvious to me =/ The advantage of the 10221, though, is that it has a removable bridge to store all the minifigs that it comes with. Sadly, my MOC doesn't have that feature

This ship has a better "bottom" side, then a "top" side...A rarity with LEGO MOCS and models.

oh? what's wrong with my top side? That it's too smooth?

Absolutely agree! But research is the mother of industry and allows the practioner to make informed choices...

yes, I agree ;-) at least I can know that I'm wrong, rather than continually second guessing myself

You do get both wing tips and and the port tip of the stern visible throughout the sequence.

I'm not sure how successful you might be using this footage but it is the best available of he model.

I might be able to rip it in a few weeks but right now my workstation (and blue-ray drive) is being packed away for a long dreaded house move ...

that sequence sounds pretty close to ideal, really. It's game-over if the focal length changes, but it's ok if the ship isn't in view for the entire sequence. If you (or someone) could rip that sequence and make it available, I could try camera tracking and reconstructing as much of it as I can---at the very least it'd be a set of 3D points, but I think I can come up with something more than that---and then we can render the extracted "true" 3D model in whatever orthographic views we need ;-)

cheers,

John

[cavegod]

Unfortunately the animation it is actually not on the ESB Blu-ray - and the shot sof the ship in the film do not pan or rotate around the ship :/

The animation is found on the disc called:

"Disc 2: Bonus Disc Episodes IB-VI Archives"

Do you have that on file as well?

yep I have the 80GB bonus discs on drive I don't have the films my drive ain't big enough!

[Aeroeza]

yep I have the 80GB bonus discs on drive I don't have the films my drive ain't big enough!

We have a winner!!

[tvih]

Ah bummer. The more I look at the comparison shots etc, the more I want to have the more accurate version I will say that I prefer the "city" area of the 10221, but yours definitely looks better for the rest of the ship. The 10221 being as pricey as it is (over 400 euros even in the cheapest place - 449 from S@H) it's getting harder and harder to "forgive" the flaws compared to these great MOCs as of late. Damn you!

[cavegod]

We have a winner!!

maybe but finding the dam file is hard work!

[mortesv]

Ah bummer. The more I look at the comparison shots etc, the more I want to have the more accurate version I will say that I prefer the "city" area of the 10221, but yours definitely looks better for the rest of the ship. The 10221 being as pricey as it is (over 400 euros even in the cheapest place - 449 from S@H) it's getting harder and harder to "forgive" the flaws compared to these great MOCs as of late. Damn you!

You can get the 10221 for 335Euros new on bricklink - If you do that I suggest you mod it though

[skayen]

The 10221 was $770 AUD in Australia, though I think its price has come down somewhat since then. That's 480 Euros, or ~770 USD. In.Sane. I imported my copy from USA at some ungodly insane shipping cost (but 12.5% off at Amazon:D). The Imperial Shuttle goes for ~$450 AUD, too. Seriously, Lego... I'd buy more stuff if I didn't have to keep paying insane costs to ship a mostly empty box from Europe/America to me (and have it STILL work out to be cheaper than buying it locally).

Although 10221 has a number of issues, at least it's not set in stone :-) You can buy it for the base and modify it until you're happy with it!

cheers

John

I will say that I prefer the "city" area of the 10221, but yours definitely looks better for the rest of the ship.

Hi, that's cool, but what about the 10221's city do you prefer? Things I don't like about the city include the mixture of dark/light grey bricks and that

the structure behind the buildings is largely lost. I reckon the SSD has very clear trenches between buildings, e.g.

and doesn't really have a lot of "upwards facing" greebles, like the plethora of clips that the 10221 uses to add detail, which is largely why I kept the tops of my buildings flat.

If you could tell me what you like about the 10221 over my model, it'd help me re-evaluate what I've done, so I appreciate your feedback!

cheers,

John

[tvih]

Hi, that's cool, but what about the 10221's city do you prefer? Things I don't like about the city include the mixture of dark/light grey bricks and that

the structure behind the buildings is largely lost. I reckon the SSD has very clear trenches between buildings, e.g.

and doesn't really have a lot of "upwards facing" greebles, like the plethora of clips that the 10221 uses to add detail, which is largely why I kept the tops of my buildings flat.

If you could tell me what you like about the 10221 over my model, it'd help me re-evaluate what I've done, so I appreciate your feedback!

Oh, don't go changing it on my account, since I think I'm probably the only one who thinks that way!

My comment was more just a general observation based on my own personal preference, but to back it up a bit more on a closer look... It's true the SSD has/should have the trenches, which are not as clear on the 10221... but at the same time the LEGO model manages to create that sense of extra detail. Yours just seems so... smooth? And it's not just the tops of the "buildings", but the sides also feel so uniform. I mean, if you look at shots like this of the studio model, there's not a smooth or uniform section in sight. Obviously with LEGO there's plenty of limitations in trying to implement such tiny details. Your city are does look nice, but personally I prefer the busier look of the 10221 in that one regard, even if some of the underlining structure loses definition as a result.

Oh, and there is one additional "caveat" - I often find it difficult to compare LDD/render pics to photos of physical LEGO model, they're just not quite the same! Yours might look better as the real thing, who knows?

[DFOL]

I'm not sure if i commented on the city part of your design before, but i too think it looks way too smooth, especially compared to the latest reference picture you provided. Personally i would prefer a much more greebled look. Looking at the pictures of your model, i'm sure it could be rebuilt in such a way that it has a greebled appearance while still keeping the trenches. But in the end it comes down to a matter of personal taste, so it's really up to you to change it or leave it as it is.

[TheBrickHitHouse]

Want to see it built, how close are we to that?

[Bob De Quatre]

Any news on your model Skayen?

[skayen]

Hi,

well, the current news is that I've broken my model :-/ "But," you think, "that is impossible if it's only virtual!". Sadly, no :P I think most of the problem is that the way I go about building my model is completely not how LDD designers intended, and it's causing... problems.

Previously I had my hull plates attached by two anchors (one for either side), but the left hull were removed in the process of adding the undercity engine, and so they ended up just floating in space. When I finally got around to adding in the hinges to support them, LDD kept refusing to snap them into place, presumably because they're out by 10^-3 brick units, or something ridiculous, and LDD just refuses to anchor them and play with the hinges after the fact. So, in order to debug the fitting (ie. find out which part of the model is conflicting with the hull), I had to partially disassemble the hull and add it back in piece at a time. But... another problem with how I attach the plates means that it's tedious/frustrating to find the right angle. See, 10221 (and your model, and presumably others) anchors the plates along the diagonal edge of the ship and attach them to the long right angle edge (ie. not the hypotenuse) of the wedges, Just to be different, and for other aesthetic reasons, I figured it'd be easier to get the centre seam to be nice and straight if the wedge plates were angled so their hypotenuse aligned with the outer edge of the hull, not in the centre. To accommodate this, I need two degrees of freedom (and possibly 3) in my way. And apart from the RHS which somehow LDD seems more happy with, it's nto working all that well. So, it's partially disassembled and lying in a hideous multicoloured broken state :(

I am incredibly impressed, Bob De Quatre, with the speed and ease you built your model. =) Mine has taken a lot, lot longer and it's no where near finished =(

cheers

John

[Bob De Quatre]

Hi,

well, the current news is that I've broken my model :-/ "But," you think, "that is impossible if it's only virtual!". Sadly, no :P I think most of the problem is that the way I go about building my model is completely not how LDD designers intended, and it's causing... problems.

Previously I had my hull plates attached by two anchors (one for either side), but the left hull were removed in the process of adding the undercity engine, and so they ended up just floating in space. When I finally got around to adding in the hinges to support them, LDD kept refusing to snap them into place, presumably because they're out by 10^-3 brick units, or something ridiculous, and LDD just refuses to anchor them and play with the hinges after the fact. So, in order to debug the fitting (ie. find out which part of the model is conflicting with the hull), I had to partially disassemble the hull and add it back in piece at a time. But... another problem with how I attach the plates means that it's tedious/frustrating to find the right angle. See, 10221 (and your model, and presumably others) anchors the plates along the diagonal edge of the ship and attach them to the long right angle edge (ie. not the hypotenuse) of the wedges, Just to be different, and for other aesthetic reasons, I figured it'd be easier to get the centre seam to be nice and straight if the wedge plates were angled so their hypotenuse aligned with the outer edge of the hull, not in the centre. To accommodate this, I need two degrees of freedom (and possibly 3) in my way. And apart from the RHS which somehow LDD seems more happy with, it's nto working all that well. So, it's partially disassembled and lying in a hideous multicoloured broken state :(

I am incredibly impressed, Bob De Quatre, with the speed and ease you built your model. =) Mine has taken a lot, lot longer and it's no where near finished =(

cheers

John

Wow that's sad news...

Maybe I can help you?