Post your general LEGO Star Wars questions here

[Bandit778]

@OCD_Chad

Here's a link to the Brickset Ultimate Collection list.

https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Star-Wars/subtheme-Ultimate-Collector-Series

Although looking through the box art for these only the list below actually has the words "Ultimate Collectors Series" on them.

75181, 75192, 75144, 75098, 75159 (although I don't think 10188 does),  75060, 75095, 75059, 10179, 10026, 10030, 7181 & 7191

And of these, only 7191, 7181, 10030, 10026, 10179, 75192 & 75181 actually have it written, the others have the Ultimate collectors series gold badge.

[BacktoBricks]

Hey all. :) Can anyone help identify the Resistance X Wing pilot from set 75102. Are they a named character of just a Lego creation? Thanks in advance.

[RogueTwo]

On 4/30/2018 at 5:00 PM, BacktoBricks said:

Hey all. :) Can anyone help identify the Resistance X Wing pilot from set 75102. Are they a named character of just a Lego creation? Thanks in advance.

Hi,

I have that set as well, and I somehow thought that the helmet belonged to Jess Pava, and that LEGO just used a generic head because they were lazy, but it turns out that is not the case.  I found someone else online who asked the same question.  I don't much like Reddit, but this thread seems pretty much on point.

It appears that the helmet was designed for the movie, but didn't make it into the final cut.  So not a LEGO creation, but probably based on incomplete information before the film was released.  As to whether the pilot in 75102 is canon, I don't know, but I'm leaning toward no.  Maybe he'll show up in Episode IX.  

[BacktoBricks]

25 minutes ago, RogueTwo said:

Hi,

I have that set as well, and I somehow thought that the helmet belonged to Jess Pava, and that LEGO just used a generic head because they were lazy, but it turns out that is not the case.  I found someone else online who asked the same question.  I don't much like Reddit, but this thread seems pretty much on point.

 

It appears that the helmet was designed for the movie, but didn't make it into the final cut.  So not a LEGO creation, but probably based on incomplete information before the film was released.  As to whether the pilot in 75102 is canon, I don't know, but I'm leaning toward no.  Maybe he'll show up in Episode IX.  

Thanks for that :). Yes I thought it was Pava's helmet at first, but looked and realised it actually wasn't, neither did it look like any of the other Black Squadron members (most of whom would not fit that face anyway!). Then I couldn't find anything but what looked like prop replica pictures of it, so I thought it must be an official helmet print of some sort but not for a more known pilot. Going on that, your explanation would make perfect sense.

[RetroInferno]

No clues on what is gonna be on sale for the may the 4th yet on shop@home? That's a first :O

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by RetroInferno

[Seaber]

Could anyone tell me how well the Psiaki X-Wing, Brickwright Y-Wing, Renegadeclone B-Wing and Jerac A-Wing and TIEs scale to eachother? If they are all the same relative scale, how do they compare to, say, the UCS Falcon or UCS Slave I?

Thanks in advance!

[TWP]

9 hours ago, Seaber said:

Could anyone tell me how well the Psiaki X-Wing, Brickwright Y-Wing, Renegadeclone B-Wing and Jerac A-Wing and TIEs scale to eachother? If they are all the same relative scale, how do they compare to, say, the UCS Falcon or UCS Slave I?

Thanks in advance!

Yeah, I've done a quite a bit research on those, but scales of SW vehicles are subject to opinion, someone else can be convinced by something else. I obtained my data by official star wars canon lengths (which has varied over time) and discussion forums sometimes questioning that.

Psiaki X-wing is a little bit too small compared to the brickwright Y-wing (which I think is closest to minifig scale of what you listed)

Jerac's TIEs are (far) too big compared to minifig scale, and also larger then the Y-wing compared. TIEs are actually small crafts, easy and cheap to produce by the empire and disposable.

Renegadeclone B-wing I don't know, I haven't researched B-wings and his MOC. (but my instinct says it should be a tad bigger)

I'm not sure of the A-wing either, but that should be pretty close to scale to the others.

UCS Falcon is (a bit) too large and UCS Slave I is a little bit too large as well.

[Topique]

Hello,

I have a 10030 Lego Star wars UCS set to sell...

Edited May 9, 2018 by Jim
Not buy/sell forum

[Jim]

3 hours ago, Topique said:

Hello,

I have a 10030 Lego Star wars UCS set to sell...

Hi,

This forum is not for buying and/or selling. We have a different forum for that.

[Jerac]

On 9.05.2018 at 1:46 AM, TWP said:

Jerac's TIEs are (far) too big compared to minifig scale, and also larger then the Y-wing compared. TIEs are actually small crafts, easy and cheap to produce by the empire and disposable.

May I ask which method do you use for scaling? I am not denying (nor accepting ^^) your claim, but I could never find any good source when it comes to dimensions of TIE craft. Until new trilogy, there was not one scene with both the ship and a human figure together, which could be use for comparision. All other sources cannot be trusted, as they are all interpretations.

This is the only shot from movie I can think of which can be useful for determining scale.

 

Of course I know these do not have to be the same scale, but it somewhat makes sense for them to be.

This, as far as I know, was used to shot interior of the TIE. It also shows minimum possible size of the TIE ball:

So I really did it so wrong? TIEs are not small ships. Really!

..but then...

...which is why I am curious, which methodology do you use? Thanks in advance!

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Jerac

[Brikkyy13]

55 minutes ago, Jerac said:

This is the only shot from movie I can think of which can be useful for determining scale

 

Worth noting that the TIE in that photo is a FO Special Forces TIE, which is smaller than the Imprerial TIE according to the Star Wars databank.

https://www.starwars.com/databank/tie-fighter

https://www.starwars.com/databank/first-order-special-forces-tie-fighter

[Jerac]

10 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

Worth noting that the TIE in that photo is a FO Special Forces TIE, which is smaller than the Imprerial TIE according to the Star Wars databank.

https://www.starwars.com/databank/tie-fighter

https://www.starwars.com/databank/first-order-special-forces-tie-fighter

Don't trust "official sources":

They're exactly identical. It would be unlikely for differently sized ships to be exactly the same proportions.

[TWP]

14 hours ago, Jerac said:

May I ask which method do you use for scaling? I am not denying (nor accepting ^^) your claim, but I could never find any good source when it comes to dimensions of TIE craft. Until new trilogy, there was not one scene with both the ship and a human figure together, which could be use for comparision. All other sources cannot be trusted, as they are all interpretations.

 

This is the only shot from movie I can think of which can be useful for determining scale.

 

 

Of course I know these do not have to be the same scale, but it somewhat makes sense for them to be.

 

This, as far as I know, was used to shot interior of the TIE. It also shows minimum possible size of the TIE ball:

 

 

So I really did it so wrong? TIEs are not small ships. Really!

..but then...

 

...which is why I am curious, which methodology do you use? Thanks in advance!

 

No, I agree, there's not really a good source.

I don't know if that TFA screenshot you posted can really be trusted, but it's maybe the best we have from the movies indeed. Maybe the CGI in the back/set in the front messes things up. The TIE does look really small from that shot, the stormtrooper is almost as high as the entire TIE cockpit. Which may be accurate, see below.

That interior shot of the cockpit cannot be used to estimate the size in my opinion. It has been stated those interiors are bigger than what would fit in the TIE itself. Same case for the interior of the Millennium Falcon. The viewpoint of the TIE pilots does also not line up with what we see in the rest of the movies. For TFA I believe they corrected this size for the sets, the interior cockpits are smaller there. (is it just me or do you scale that minifig a bit too large from your reference image? I think it's best to compare it to if the TIE pilot was standing upright)

The old canon and new canon up until Rogue One cannot be really trusted IMO with the sizes. It was only for Rogue One that they really started looking into the sizes. They redefined some sizes, and the new canon size came to 7.24 m. This was stated in the Rogue One Visual Dictionary, the first official book of the new canon that referenced OT sizes.

And from Rogue One on, I think the Story Group likes to give out their original digital models and scale lists to other people, like game designers. The Star Wars Battlefront 2 game seems to be on point with the new sizes, and it's pretty easy to compare those ships to human height of course, and view all angles. For example, see this outtake from the battlefront game: (starts at the time where you can compare the scale quite good)

The TIE seems very small, but it seems to line up with the canon size of 7.24 m. But this shot also seems to line up in size to human to the TFA movie, which I had not done before.

If I want to look up a size, I always look on this website: http://www.rebelscale.com/scale-lists/star-wars-size-analyses/official-star-wars-sizes/ They seem to have quite accurate sized, thoroughly backed up. Then of course I do my own research to see if this is correct enough. I think you've been doing quite accurate size analysis as well, I wonder why you did not came to the same conclusion.

This is a very good read for the TIE fighter size as well: http://www.rebelscale.com/scale-lists/star-wars-size-analyses/tie-fighter-size-analysis/ He goes quite in-depth there. I've used some of his points here above.

I'd love to hear how you think about what I said!

Edited May 11, 2018 by TWP

[Jerac]

1 hour ago, TWP said:

I think you've been doing quite accurate size analysis as well, I wonder why you did not came to the same conclusion.

Because I put first-level-canon sources at absolutely highest priority and he does not. Long story short, for me, if data gathered from movie contradicts data gathered from any other source, the movie source wins.

Guys at rebelscale on the other hand use CGI shows models for scaling which is no-no of monumental scale to me, considering how different these CGI models are. If I understand it right, his entire analysis is based off proportions of stormtroopers' height to the canopy diameter in this image:

Unfortunately this is from CGI show and if you take a look at standard TIE/lns parked to the left and right, you'll see they're vastly different. So if you have bad data in the very beginning of analysis this is going to mess up results of everything else later on...

I posted this one:

to pinpoint another issue in scaling. How high exactly a minifig is? If you make it as high as an average human, you will have trouble with pilots not fitting into narrower cockpits (think A-wing, Naboo N1 and similar). If the minifig is as wide as aferage human, he would be basically kid-sized. So if this is flawed on such a fundamental scale... how can you even determine how long a meter is in LEGO universe, if you use people/figs for scaling?

Also books. If he used anything from images from the "ultimate guide to star wars vehicle" series, like this one:

...then I am very sorry, but it is totally, utterly wrong. If you compare movie studio models with these schematics, you'll realize there might be not one drawing without very significant flaws.

The same goes for games; if a game designer faces a choice: preserve truthful scaling or make the model fit the game for whatever reason, I tell you, he will *never* go for the first choice. 

I also dispute the claim of TFA TIEs being smaller than normal ones. Why would Sienar Jaemus do this? It is like making a new version of Ford Focus, just 10% or so smaller. It would be a total redesign of every single component; you can't just downscale a thing and declare it done, because in modern engineering, you're always using some standarized component. Think of a lamp in the aforementioned Focus, if you make the lamp smaller, a standard bulb won't fit - and would Ford make its own bulbs too? 

All in all, I believe there is no way to accurately scale everything using absolute values (like meters), and you can basically only compare ships to each other, end even this only if they end up being shown in the same scene... and then you notice movies are inconsistent within themselves, like you noticed, and you just do whatever seems right because it is wrong anyway :D

Edited May 11, 2018 by Jerac

[Brikkyy13]

On 11/05/2018 at 8:55 AM, Jerac said:

*snip*

 

They're exactly identical. It would be unlikely for differently sized ships to be exactly the same proportions.

1) I’m pretty sure all TIEs would have the same proportions

2) That’s a normal FO TIE in that picture, not a special forces TIE which was in the first picture you put up. I’m not sure about the size difference between those two 

[Brick A Brack]

The created universe of SW is so vast, ideas are not about to stop. 

[Robianco]

Scaling is always difficult due to the proportions of a minifig. Add in that as gifted as the model makers were back in 1976/77 I don't think 100% accuracy to scale was as important. I don't think they ever thought Lego builders would be obsessing over their studio models 40 years later.

The Falcon has always been a tricky one... its outside was always portrayed slightly smaller than its interior would suggest. The large scale of the UCS set feels right as does the Slave 1 (at least to me).

Same with the recent TIE Fighter. When I've looked at the images of the trench run the two TIEs flanking Vader's Advanced do feel the same as the scaling of the recent Rebel's Advanced alongside two of the new TIEs.

Hopefully the new X-Wing will fit with these and feel right to me too. Just need to sort the Y-Wing situation next. ;)

[Jerac]

2 hours ago, Robianco said:

Hopefully the new X-Wing will fit with these and feel right to me too. Just need to sort the Y-Wing situation next. ;)

I've been examining x-wing for scaling some time ago. This is perhaps the most inconsistent model existing. I swear, every major scene uses different model. So ANH hangar scene has one variant of an x-wing, ANH battle of Yavin uses another, in ESB there is third x-wing and - on Dagobah - fourth... and they all differ: Some are longnosed, some are big-engined, some are clean, some dirtier, wing span changes, wingtip distance when open...

Not to mention there are dozens of studio-scale unofficial models which further complicate things. There are not many quality a-wing models existing, so if you see a real plastic a-wing then there is a high chance it is actually a studio model. For an x-wing this is reversed, there is very little chance of the photo depicting a studio model.

[Forresto]

15 hours ago, Jerac said:

I've been examining x-wing for scaling some time ago. This is perhaps the most inconsistent model existing. I swear, every major scene uses different model. So ANH hangar scene has one variant of an x-wing, ANH battle of Yavin uses another, in ESB there is third x-wing and - on Dagobah - fourth... and they all differ: Some are longnosed, some are big-engined, some are clean, some dirtier, wing span changes, wingtip distance when open...

Not to mention there are dozens of studio-scale unofficial models which further complicate things. There are not many quality a-wing models existing, so if you see a real plastic a-wing then there is a high chance it is actually a studio model. For an x-wing this is reversed, there is very little chance of the photo depicting a studio model.

Rogue One X-Wing is also fairly different model as well.

There was a really good blog that tracked the Millenium Falcon, and during Rogue One, X-Wings and noted the differences.

I believe the Rogue One variant is shaped differently from the cockpit back to the engines.

It's also how fascinating the Falcon changed over the films with some significant alterations.

I'll see if I can find a link.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Forresto

[atlas]

14 hours ago, Forresto said:

Rogue One X-Wing is also fairly different model as well.

There was a really good blog that tracked the Millenium Falcon, and during Rogue One, X-Wings and noted the differences.

I believe the Rogue One variant is shaped differently from the cockpit back to the engines.

It's also how fascinating the Falcon changed over the films with some significant alterations.

I'll see if I can find a link.

That's very interesting I would appreciate if you were able to share

On 14/05/2018 at 8:23 PM, Jerac said:

I've been examining x-wing for scaling some time ago. This is perhaps the most inconsistent model existing. I swear, every major scene uses different model. So ANH hangar scene has one variant of an x-wing, ANH battle of Yavin uses another, in ESB there is third x-wing and - on Dagobah - fourth... and they all differ: Some are longnosed, some are big-engined, some are clean, some dirtier, wing span changes, wingtip distance when open...

Not to mention there are dozens of studio-scale unofficial models which further complicate things. There are not many quality a-wing models existing, so if you see a real plastic a-wing then there is a high chance it is actually a studio model. For an x-wing this is reversed, there is very little chance of the photo depicting a studio model.

I don't think it's possible to get a fully clear picture by only looking at movie stills. Of course for different scenes there are "1:1" lifesize mockups made for actors to interact with, and there were miniatures for effects shots as I'm sure you know. I think it's fair to discard reference of the on-set mockups for questions of scaling for a few reasons. First, when we try to replicate the ships in our medium we are ultimately referring to the miniatures that were constructed first and foremost. That's where everything flowed from. Second, there are unavoidable incongruences between the lifesize mockups and the miniatures even though they are supposed to depict the same thing. For example the seam between the top and bottom of the X-wing front fuselage in the miniatures is very subtle and only develops a lip at the front, gradually. In the hangar mockup version the lip doesn't graduate in or out and is much more pronounced. Then you have size differences and so on. For example the falcon on the Echo base set is smaller than 1:1 so it could fit.

I believe that there are only 2 model types for the X-wing minis. 'Hero' version and 'pyro' version (made to blow up). The fuselage seam on the pyros was vertical rather than horizontal so they could get a better explosion. The only major thing I noticed between the pyros and the Hero models is that the bottom of the fuselage directly under the cockpit has an extra angle. On the Hero models, the bottom has a very gradual single slope from the edge of the "cargo bay" section to the nosecone. On the pyros the bottom is perfectly flat under the cockpit and only starts to slope toward the nosecone near the front of the cockpit. It's basically the same otherwise other than the fact that the wings can't move. See below. Interestingly some of the differences in online 'blueprints' are visible here, even from that sourcebook I think you mentioned, one blueprint has this flat fuselage bottom under the cockpit and other reproductions don't have it. Even the UCS "Red 5" features markings of the Red 5 CGI model from the special edition which are completely different to the miniature built 20 years beforehand for whatever reason. The whole thing is a mess.

 

So again, in this situation I discarded using the pyro red 5 model as a reference in favour of the hero red 5 model when i was working on my moc, as the Hero model is the most "true" version of the X-wing as it was conceived and finally produced by ILM. Without all of this knowledge I would have a much less clear picture of the work I was referencing in my moc and potentially could have made (inadvertent) mistakes - if I couldn't tell the difference between a pyro and a hero in different movie stills there could be inconsistencies in my lego work. In short my point is that it's best to research every aspect to get a complete overview of the work being referenced so it can be reproduced as faithfully as possible. If I only used movie stills I would have no idea how the right side of the red 5 fuselage is coloured and weathered, but I do thanks to other sources and media.

 

Obviously with CGI models it's a different problem because there is no physical reference, the origin point is digital. For example in your comparison of the stormtrooper to the FO TIE fighter, we're looking at a chopped up image of a movie still of a movie featuring digitial models, and it's made more difficult by camera angles and the fact that it seems that the guy appears to be a good 10-15 metres and lower than the other object being referenced. Basically a lot of things muddying the waters, hence the requirement for a variety of sources to get the highest possible clarity. In an ideal world we would have access to the 3D scans of the old miniatures that have been made as well as the original CGI assets used in the new movies from Lucasfilm so that no detective work is required. But unfortunately that isn't the case so we have to make do.

I think I have a decent collection of reference of studio models which helped me iron out a lot of inconsistences and establish some basic guidelines for the X-wing. (there are also other people who have done far more research than me on this who seem to have been able to pretty much nail it down) I'm curious what you found that you thought was inconsistent?

[Jerac]

I didn't know about the "pyrotechnic" version and I too noticed the issues with some of them having a lip or not (and inconsistent colouring between hangar and miniatures). I don't use *only* the movie stills, I use them as a primary source, but if there is a good footage of studio models, it is as good or even better. If photos like this one existed for each ship it would be sooo simple:

 

This is a good shot to get lengths of various components of an x-wing.

 

...and so is this.

So yeah, I try to find the best possible sources and plenty of them.

The problem I remember I had was guessing if a particular photo was depicting one of studio models, or not. For example:
Tthi

This might be useful for scaling, but is it one of the six ships seen on the table?

Eventually I will try an x-wing myself and then I'll have to get to know all this...

EDIT: I found an error in my notes, thanks to you! I now started investingating the lip and noticed sometimes I scaled things to the length of the opening cockpit canopy piece, and sometimes to the bluish framing outside. Stupid error but easy to do on side shots. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Jerac

[atlas]

7 hours ago, Jerac said:

I didn't know about the "pyrotechnic" version and I too noticed the issues with some of them having a lip or not (and inconsistent colouring between hangar and miniatures). I don't use *only* the movie stills, I use them as a primary source, but if there is a good footage of studio models, it is as good or even better. If photos like this one existed for each ship it would be sooo simple:

 

This is a good shot to get lengths of various components of an x-wing.

 

...and so is this.

So yeah, I try to find the best possible sources and plenty of them.

The problem I remember I had was guessing if a particular photo was depicting one of studio models, or not. For example:
Tthi

This might be useful for scaling, but is it one of the six ships seen on the table?

Eventually I will try an x-wing myself and then I'll have to get to know all this...

EDIT: I found an error in my notes, thanks to you! I now started investingating the lip and noticed sometimes I scaled things to the length of the opening cockpit canopy piece, and sometimes to the bluish framing outside. Stupid error but easy to do on side shots. 

Thanks for sharing those photos especially the model shop one. I didn't make my post to criticise you directly, I just wanted to make a point about that for others reading because it's a mistake I made early on and overcoming it has improved my work many aspects, accuracy first of all. I spent a lot of time reading about this so I'm able to ramble about it for a lot, I'm sure you could do the same for tie fighters.

That last photo you posted is of the "Blue 12" studio model from ANH. Originally red squadron was blue but this was changed because of bluescreen problems. The first X-wing that was built i believe was Blue Leader and was later repainted to Red 2. I believe there are only two photos of blue 12 that are openly available, the other is below. Notable for the split squadron markings on the wings.

 

[Jerac]

We need to make some sort of modelling resource with only good quality sources ^^
As for criticism I like it and I *need* it to function properly so please never hesitate. At worst I am going to ignore it.

Thanks for clearing that issue with my last photo. I also have seen this "blue 12" one and was just as stumped. I knew it was not a fan model - these don't have all this bracing for live action - but it also did not match anything in the movie. Not to mention I associate slightly different colour with "blue".

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/index.html
This website has some good photos of original models from various exhibitions. They are, sadly, in deteriorating quality, especially seen on TIEs. 

http://swc.fs2downloads.com/reference/starship_modeler/Rebel/X-Wing/
This is to be used with caution; not all of these might be actual studio models! 

[TheGeneralMoe]

So apparently the LSW sets now use the cheaper Chinese plastic used in the CMF line for the mini figures in the main sets now. Is this a confirmed thing and if so are the other themes doing the same with their mini figures?

[stormtroopercaptain]

1 hour ago, TheGeneralMoe said:

So apparently the LSW sets now use the cheaper Chinese plastic used in the CMF line for the mini figures in the main sets now. Is this a confirmed thing and if so are the other themes doing the same with their mini figures?

 I saw you throw this out there in another thread. I haven’t heard anything  like this yet and after asking around all I could find out was. That sometimes the collectibles/giveaways have had trouble with pigments making them more brittle. Some of the brown colors have had this problem. Supposedly the plastic is the same.

Where did you here this from because if true this is concerning?

 

I was told also that they are experimenting with a new bamboo based plastic. They are rolling it out in a few of the plant type elements this year and seeing how well it performs.