Chrome Vader

I think there is definitely something to be said for striving for that minifig-compatible size as opposed to a strict scale ratio. I went around this bush a lot when I built my Millennium Falcon that I posted on here before I settled on a scale. I have found that a lot of SW builders have a specific scale ratio that they adhere to for their "minifig-scale" MOCs, which does allow a fleet of ships to be more or less scaled correctly in relation to each other. But yeah, the "correct" minifig scale ratio is open to personal taste and depends on what metric you use to calculate it, and what baseline you use for that metric. For example, the 1/42 scale ratio uses the height of the average classic minifig, and it is based on the real-life height of the average human. Obviously, since minifigs are not proportionately correct, any ships strictly scaled to the 1/42 ratio are going to feel cramped for the minifigs in terms of how much space they consume width-wise. On the other extreme, if you scaled a ship to the width of a minifig instead of the height, something closer to 1/25 scale would be "correct" minifig scale. Personally, I find neither of these extremes visually ideal for a good "minifig-scale feel," while scale ratios that split the difference a little bit can provide a visual balance between comfortable minifig compatibility and not becoming so large as to look off-scaled. I must admit, I have a scale ratio that I personally use for my "minifig-scale" MOCs, which is roughly 1/40. I arrived at that scale by accident when I built my Millennium Falcon as a result of designing it to be minifig compatible. Personally, I think anything in the 1/35-1/40 scale is the sweet spot for what looks pleasing to the eye (well, my eye, anyway haha) in relation to minifigs. In fact, the 1/38 scale is almost exactly 1 stud equals 1 foot translation. Based on your provided LAAT size, your model would be right at 1/35 scale, which is in my personal sweet spot range for minifig scale, and is probably why it looks so nice to me. (The 1/35-1/40 scale ratio for the LAAT would translate to roughly 54-62 studs in length.) Since you've clearly studied the LAAT in detail, perhaps you can answer a question I've long had about it: I have seen conflicting numbers regarding how long or wide it is in-universe--how did you determine that 17.4 meters was the correct length? Also, does that length include the guns or is it just the ship itself? If it includes the guns, how should they be pointed for an accurate in-universe measurement? Sorry for all the questions, but the chance to finally get these answers from someone who knows is exciting! :D ,

That's an incredible model. The shaping on the back end is just flawless, but all of it looks good. I don't feel qualified to critique anything detail-wise, since I've never really studied the LAAT's proportions and details, but I will say that nothing jumps out at me as wrong. I know "mini-fig scale" is somewhat subjective, and while the scale might be too large for whatever ratio you're using, it looks well-proportioned to my eye.

Looking fantastic! Excited to see your continued progress.

The cockpit support that you have rising above the framework in the landing gear box looks like it will be effective in helping strengthen the mandibles if you want to mirror it for the left side, but the mandibles' outer diagonal will likely also need to be tied into the frame back by the docking rings. As for beefiness...sometimes you can get the stability you need just by using a few technic lift arms or bricks pinned at opposing angles, and big technic structures are not always necessary. Unfortunately, it's hard to know how sturdy something is from a digital render--I was scratch-building so I had the luxury of being able to twist and wiggle stuff to expose weak points and then experiment with different anchor points to alleviate the sag or wiggle. What I do remember was that the mandibles wanted to sag forward but also sag sideways, so I had to anchor them against both twist axis.

Your landing gear boxes have a great aesthetic! I like that a lot. As for the technic supporting structure, it looks like most of the technic bricks run front-to-back, which means there's the potential for separation and sag from side to side. Also, the mandibles look like they will need more support to not sag, especially at the outer edges. I found with my Falcon that the inner straight beams of the mandibles were not sufficient to support the mandibles' weight--I needed an outer edge support as well as technic supports along the back edge tied into the main frame around the landing gear boxes. Depending on how much of the interior you plan to build, you'll need to of course be mindful of that technic structure interfering with your forward cargo bays (my model was imperfect in that regard). If it helps any, when I built my main frame, I had intersecting, pinned technic beams running throughout the entire lower saucer with two layers of plates on the bottom to solidify it, and then toward the center of the saucer where it was deeper I added a second layer of pinned, intersecting technic bricks and then another bottom layer of plates. So the main frame ranged from one technic brick thick at the outer edges to two bricks and four plates thick at the center. This resulted in significant rigidity that was able to support the immense weight of all of the outermost structures of the hull, etc--I was not able to flex the main frame with my hands, so I knew it could hold the weight. It's possible I over-engineered it and you could do it with fewer parts and less thickness in the center. But when working with technic the main things to keep in mind are that the more pins and the more criss-crossing of bricks that you have, the stronger it will be, and layers of plates above or below layers of pinned technic bricks are essential to create sufficient rigidity to prevent flex. Also, as Forged noted, the cockpit on Falcons of this scale does like to tip forward, so you'll need back end support of some kind to anchor it. Looking forward to seeing your further progress! :)

That's beautiful! I'm deeply impressed.

Lego's product is constantly evolving to meet what TLG believes are the strongest areas of consumer demand--they are a business first and foremost, and I tend to accept the possibility that what certain segments of the online Lego SW fanbase vocalizes as a want doesn't always match what TLG knows makes them money when they look at their sales numbers. The fact that Lego SW as a theme has lasted this long and gets multiple waves every years tells me that it is a major money-maker for Lego. And the fact that updated sets of the same ship keep getting released tells me that those sets are a major part of the Lego SW sales every year. If X-wings and Millennium Falcons and landspeeders ever stopped being top sellers for TLG, those sets would've disappeared from the catalog. At the same time, TLG seems to be constantly trying to grow and expand its fanbase and retain existing fans who are getting older and wanting more and more detail and "cool factor" in their sets. I think this is why we're seeing a lot more sets aimed at adults who like to display as opposed to kids who like to play. But if I owned TLG, I would not introduce new sets, new ships, new lines in the Lego SW catalog without first establishing the continuation of the old tried and true sets that I know sell well and will carry the theme should one of the new sets not produce strong sales figures. Now, I'm not TLG, so I can't say for sure, but I would wager that something like the thought process I described here is what goes on behind the scenes at TLG. As has been said by others here, the sets that some of us "veteran" Lego SW fans see as old and tired are, to the new Lego SW fan, new and exciting. I am in the camp of Lego SW fans who have mostly moved on from buying sets to building MOCs. But because of that I know how much money and space it takes to have a parts collection that facilitates the ability to build even moderate-sized MOCs, and I know a lot of would-be MOC builders cannot currently facilitate that. So while I can nitpick the details and functions of a UCS set, I still have to recognize that for someone who cannot afford to build MOCs, that UCS set represents a dream build, and for that target consumer those design choices on the part of TLG designers are less important. When I was a kid, before I got into MOCs, UCS sets were these glorious things, and I marveled at the design elements, functions, and details--I never had a thought about things that could've been done differently with the design. I was just excited to have the world's largest Lego set.

I think I agree with you. The fig looks good. I'm not sure why there isn't a cloth waste cape, but I'm not sure that I would like the fig better if it had one.

I don't think you are alone in your criticisms of the UCS Venator. But I think viewpoints will vary greatly within the fanbase. When I was growing up, UCS sets were low in number and generally this large, super detailed display model of a size you just didn't get with play scale sets. So when I see a UCS set, I don't expect an interior (except for the obligatory cockpit detailing in many of them), and as a kid I never wished any of my UCS sets had them. They were big, imposing builds I put on a dresser and just looked at in wonder and awe. To my perception, playable, minifig-centric interiors like the little vignettes in the UCS Falcon are unusual and often inaccurate in their location/detail/size. I appreciate that Lego sometimes tries to incorporate them when the UCS model just happens to be minifig scale, but I actually wish we got better/more complete exterior detailing instead of dumping several hundred parts into a poor attempt at interior detail. Obviously, my opinion here is one of many regarding this topic. But suffice it to say, I am glad Lego did not "waste" parts adding interior vignettes. Other types of play features like dorsal fin hanger doors etc. would be nice functions to know the model has, even if I never actually use them due to the model being a display piece. But I have a hunch Lego would jack up the price even more if that type of functionality were to be implemented. So while I may wish along with you that they existed, I don't know that it would be worth the added cost. Minifigs with UCS sets, again, for me, feels like a modern thing and not necessary. They would be more appropriate if the ship was minifig scale. But I also recognize that I am probably in the minority with this opinion haha. For me, I wish display stands were both minimalistic and super sturdy. I don't know if this is possible with Lego, even technic (I tried and tried for my MOCs, and it is challenging). As far as aesthetics go, that probably comes down to personal preference. I think the Venator's stand is superior to the ISD's stand, but that's just me. My ultimate opinion on the UCS Venator is that I really like it overall and it well represents the sort of overall build quality Lego has been putting out these days. However, I don't see myself buying it. As a MOC builder, I know I can create something better-detailed, sturdier, more functional mechanisms, to-scale interior elements, etc. And because I know I can build such a ship if I decide I want to (recognizing that it would be super expensive, super high part count, and way beyond anything Lego would realistically market), I just don't think I'd be all that happy with the UCS Venator long term.

This is a magnificent Venator MOC! Wow. You've perfectly captured the proportions, and it looks so sleek! Since you asked...have you considered a Tantive IV or Imperial Shuttle in this midi scale?

This is a really nice design for the scale! It doesn't look off to me, really. Upon long study, the only thing I can think of that might help the look is slightly longer gun barrels front and back. but that's my only guess.

You have captured the proportions and details really well in this small scale! I like most of the modifications you made in these most recent photos, although I would say that I miss the stacked roller skates on the tips of the mandibles--that was a fantastic design idea. I like that the blue engine strip is more visible now. Is this model mountable on a stand for display?

Wow, you somehow captured the designs perfectly with just a few small parts!

Thank you so much! I do not currently have plans to make instructions any time soon, as I simply don't have time with my job, family affairs, and other Lego projects I am working on. I would also have to learn how to use one of the digital designer programs, which would add to the labor of the task. I won't say that I'll never make instructions, but if I do it'll be down the road a ways.

In case anyone wants to see the Falcon in person, it's on display at Bricks and Minifigs in Plano, Texas through the end of July, 2023.