lego the hutt

Where is that confirmed?> Also, maybe you misquoted and meant to reply to someone else? I suggested no such thing.

Could be but be careful about thinking non-canon information is factual.

We can guess that there is a good possibility that it is endor (not the forest moon). That is the assumption most fans have guessed about the planet in the trailer that is rocky with water where we see the crashed DS. It would make sense...

Fair enough. Being able to not see into the ship from the top as compared to the sides/front/back could be more important to some. I see that. It's close, but there are a couple other factors that make the older models edge out the newer one imho. I know you mentioned you dont have a falcon. It is always easy to be able to purchase a new, rehashed set when you dont have other versions to compare to...and nitpick the little differences about.

Funny because I just watched Jangs comparison video of the new and old falcons. (I watched it after I posted the above post). My comparison of the 2 models before was mostly comparing the top and bottom. Jang points out how much larger the gaps are in the new falcon on the side. There are still a couple other things I prefer about the old falcon but as far as gaps go I think, after watching the review, the gaps are pretty similar just in different places. In a weird way realizing there are such large gaps on the side of the new falcon makes me like it a little bit more. Those gaps and imperfections are part of the Lego aesthetic that I enjoy. Though if you are someone that wants smooth/seamless designs without gaps I'm not sure if the new falcon is any better than the older versions in that respect?

Many years back I stopped wanting sets without visible studs. It is part of the Lego aesthetic. Some studs make sets better imho. Just recently, with the UCS ISD, I came to the realization that some gaps are ok. Most sets have small gaps if you look closely. Some small gaps make sets better. I don't want studless, seamless sets. It is part of the Lego aesthetic. Then we get the new falcon. Some people seem to be ok with gaps on the ISD but not the older falcon models. It shouldn't go both ways. At this point, I have embraced the Lego aesthetic. After close comparison, I have decided that I prefer the older falcon models for a few reasons.. Small gaps don't bother me. I consider them just part of what makes Lego a medium that I enjoy.

Please go read discussions on the subject that have been had many multiple times before to get caught up. The terms are not interchangeable. You just have to have an understanding that system and minifig scale are not the same. Minifig is the larger scale. Again, it is not an exact science. No one is going to supply a 1/X scale. It is about having an understanding without requiring an exact, mathematical, definition. I'm not here to teach all the newcomers to the hobby about the difference and this conversation is spinning its wheels. I'll leave it to you all to do the research for yourselves.

@Ron Dayes It's not about what "you build". System scale sized sets are defined by TLG. As a builder you can try to imitate that and refer to it as system scale but without TLG designing "system scale" sets, system scale wouldn't be a thing. It really shouldn't be so difficult to understand but every few years on various forums there seem to be people who struggle with the difference between system scale and minifig scale. It isn't an exact science so I guess some grey area is understandable but you would think after rehashing the same discussion over and over for years the confusion would taper off. Maybe that is a good sign for TLG? It might show that there are still new people entering the hobby that haven't participated in this type of discussion a dozen times in the past.

It's not about justifying that they are the same. It's understanding the difference.

This is why I commented earlier that figure/statue collectors generally have a better grasp of scale than the Lego community does. As much as it is discussed in the Lego community, because Lego isn't designed to scale, there is always a lot of confusion. While scale is discussed often in the action figure community, even Hasbro 3 3/4 and 6 inch figures are made only loosely to scale. It isn't until you get into the higher end collectibles like hot toys and sideshow that scale is more accurate. Though, compared to Lego, they are all more precise. The industry standard (the toy industry) is that scale is based on a person 6 feet tall when scale isnt exactly defined as a ratio. Not the average person height by country or whatever was stated earlier hah. All this is just talking around the subject though. The important thing in all of these Lego scale discussions that have been had over the years is that, in the end, people understand that there is a difference between system scale and minifig scale.

That's ok for your personal builds, but in a conversation about scale in general, you have to stick with the industry standard. Enough people struggle with this already it seems without muddying the waters further.

Why do you think scale of toys should be based on average height?

@ Ron Again, Lego is not a perfect medium so trying to narrow it down to an exact 1/X scale is futile (though, as others mentioned, if you want to define a range of scale that is fine...though I'm not sure what good it does?). That being said, the one thing that can be clearly acknowledged is that system scale and minifig scale are definitely different. To use the two terms interchangeably is a mistake that has been going on for at least a couple decades that I have been in the hobby...and a major reason why this has been discussed so often. It is still happening in this thread. I encourage those who are interested in this topic to look up the number of places it has been discussed before. I know there was a lengthy discussion on FBTB, I think rebelscum, maybe here as well? Likely other forums too. Though I caution people about the wiki, it has some very bad info that I saw in my quick, 5min search.

Ill take the bait. System scale is what some here are describing as minifig scale. Even though this is a slightly old thread, this has been discussed to death well before this thread was created. This has been covered on multiple forums. I know there was a lengthy discussion 10ish? years ago on FBTB. I'm sure it wouldn't be to difficult to dig up old discussions if someone is interested. From my experience, people who collect figures and statues understand the "scale discussion" better because it is standardized in those hobbies and It is a constant topic of discussion. It seems like there is always a lot of confusion in the Lego community partly because Lego sets are not built to an exact scale, but also because the scale of Lego is generally not considered as important as it is elsewhere.

Many people here seem to not know what system scale is...