Fallenangel

Perhaps this is more along the lines of what you're looking for.

They're not really my pictures (I got them off brickshelf and other photo-sharing sitse) so I can't resize them, sorry. On second thought, some of the features on the newer version are exaggerated (for example, the turbolaser cannons and the viewport); when you add its squatness into the equation the set looks rather awkard. A modified version of the UCS (basically downsize the engines and stretch the whole ship) is your best bet so here are the instructions. Yeah, building most of the set from your own parts may take a lot of time but it sure beats paying $500 for a boxed set on bricklink. Keep in mind that you will make many of the same mistakes LEGO did if you use the schematics from the Essential Guide.

This set is a lot like the despicable 6212 X-wing in that LEGO is releasing virtually the exact same thing with a few cosmetic changes, different minifigures, and new extras. It appears they do not feel the need to improve, or even alter, their current design for the Delta-7B despite the fact that if kids wanted the same ship in different colors they would probably just buy multiples and paint the parts. (Or replace them, or something.) Combine this with my dislike for the ugly Delta-7B "retcon starfighter" in general and you have the reason why I will definitely pass on this. You do realize that Grievous was originally a Kaleesh (a reptilian people from Kalee - from the Revenge of the Sith video game ), and that his faceplate allegedly resembles the masks that his people wear. His "heart" is definitely not human.

As for which you should buy, I'll let you decide that for yourself. As for which is better, I think this is really a case where you have to look at the original studio model. Compare with the 10019 UCS rendition: A nice comparison image with the newer 10198 exclusive: Both of them look a little too stocky compared to the actual model for me so I really don't like either of them. However, the newer version obviously has a slimmer feel to it which I think is more true to the elongated look of the original. Of course, this is due more to the main engines on the newer version than anything else - There is a section between the main engines and what I believe to be a docking point (the cylindrical structure near the rear of the ship) which has been all but omitted in both renditions: It's interesting that the 10019 UCS rendition resembles a Micro Machine toy from the '90s: It's the one on the right. Compare to the Hasbro die-cast rendition to its right, which is more accurate to the original.

As for which you should buy, I'll let you decide that for yourself. As for which is better, I think this is really a case where you have to look at the original studio model: Compare with the 10019 UCS rendition: A nice comparison image with the newer 10198 exclusive: Both of them look a little too stocky compared to the actual model for me so I really don't like either of them. However, the newer version obviously has a slimmer feel to it which I think is more true to the elongated look of the original. Of course, this is due more to the main engines on the newer version than anything else - There is a section between the main engines and what I believe to be a docking point (the cylindrical structure near the rear of the ship) which has been all but omitted in both renditions:

Right. And of course the reason for this reassignment was solely game mechanics. The same reason that the T-47s in Battlefront 2 had no cannon(only a harpoon shaped like a plug) and Grievous's fighter was labeled a 'CIS Strike Bomber'. Game mechanics are the reason why I don't consider Star Wars video games to be canon - unless (as with Jedi Starfighter) a certain canon starship or vehicle appeared in a video game prior to a true canon appearance. There is no second variant of the Alpha-3 Nimbus fighter. And the existing variant does not feature wing panels that fold toward each other. (And I hope we all know Hasbro toys aren't canon...) From Wookieepedia: By the way, where is that comic from? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Even better than comparing it to other LEGO models.

But as far as I know, they only fold that way in the video games and the Hasbro toys (most of which I consider to be non-canon). I'm fairly certain that the V-wings shown in Revenge of the Sith just had the entire wing structure pivot 90 degrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiotiRvQaTg&feature=related In the first few seconds, you can clearly see a V-wing landing next to the Theta-class shuttle. From the Star Wars databank: If you can show me a passage from Labyrinth of Evil or a panel from a canon Star Wars comic book released prior to Revenge of the Sith, I'll believe you and everyone else on this forum who says the V-wing's wing panels fold like scissors, but until then, I stand by the film footage.

Oh. I thought Brickdoctor had meant that a Mon Calamari star cruiser was a rumored August 2011 set. A bit of a meh for me personally (warts don't look good in LEGO) but still good to hear.

Well, it looks like a lot has happened in the short time I was out of it. What Mon Cal cruiser? A new midi-scale/UCS set? It appears I was right about this BARC speeder being the fattest one yet. It looks like this is another case of LEGO making a fair attempt to include detail on their set but screwed up the scale - not a very good decision in my opinion, especially in a vehicle like this where the size difference is clearly seen (as opposed to more closed-in starships like the Jedi starfighter, which LEGO also released a huge version of). I don't know what those orange clones are, but I definitely won't be buying any of these. What bulky Technic?? You don't need bulky Technic. Really, you don't. I see bar clips on that V-wing, so it's likely LEGO is doing the folding wings again. What's worse, LEGO appears to have replaced the click hinges on the inner panels with bar clips as well. (The inner panels also look smaller.) I wonder why? The droid carrier, I think, is the best of the lot, as seen from this screenshot: Of course, I think I would have preferred a longer rack and more droids over Gungans. The bounter hunter ship looks all right and has some neat play features, but it doesn't really look like Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I like the look of it, but not in a way that's reminiscient of Star Wars. And the fact that they've altered Aurra Sing's character is a bit upsetting as well. That V-wing looks terrible. It's still too stretched out, and the piece LEGO has used to attach the cannons kills the look of the ship. The impression of being stretched out is enhanced by the fact that it's now fully rectangular at the rear and doesn't begin to taper out until halfway down the cockpit; strange, since the "real" V-wing fighter's cockpit is surrounded at the base by large red wedges. That cockpit is clearly oversized; I would have preferred this piece. I still think it's strange that LEGO would put one of these where there's supposed to be a hollow, and with a sticker at that. The sides are still flat stacked plates. I see some sort of printing or sticker directly in front of the Q7 dome, what is that? The roof tiles behind the cockpit have been omitted and replaced with stacked plates. The Mandalorians in the battlepack look so much like Jango Fett it's almost scary. Not too promising of a year so far; still hoping for more sets from the Original Trilogy (or the pre-'99 Expanded Universe, that would be nice too).

From what I remember, both the 10188 Death Star playset as well as the 8038 Endor playset were fairly large diorama-type sets with large numbers of minifigures, and they seemed to sell pretty well. (I hope we're all aware that you can't pick up the Death Star or the Endor shield bunker and fly it around a room. Yes, there is the small TIE Advanced x1 and the Ewok glider, but I doubt people would pay $100+ for one of those.) And besides, I think with all the new molds such a large set would be a toss to LEGO collectors like many of the people on these forums and probably not aimed at kids who would swallow the new Boba Fett helmet and jetpack without a second thought as to its future value. So a Geonosis arena is very possible. And kids can play with a properly scaled hailfire droid too. (It would be another opportunity for flick-fire missiles that actually look good, as with the 8086 droid tri-fighter.) For August 2011 sets, there's the aforementioned Mace Windu's Jedi starfighter, and then someone keeps bringing up Cloud City.

With the increasing number of new LEGO minifigure molds for Star Wars and other lines, 'a bunch of minifigures' is quickly becoming the ideal LEGO set. Hence the collectible minifigure packs, the continued success of the battlepacks and LEGO's reluctance to give us troop carrier vehicles that could actually act as troop carriers (i. e. an AT-AT with more than two snowtroopers) to force fans into buying more battlepacks - with the exception of the 7662 MTT, which doesn't really count because battle droids aren't legitimate minifigures. It would only make sense, then, that the highlight of a year devoted to the Prequels would be a Geonosis arena set with Agen Kolar and 5 or 6 exclusive Jedi I've never heard of and who appear for less than a second in the entire film. And of course maybe someone would want a LEGO acklay, reek, or nexu. Perhaps a properly sized hailfire droid could be included, as the most recent rendition is pitiful in terms of size.

Of course it is. By 'perfect' I simply meant that I believed errbt's X-wing was the best way I've ever seen anyone build a LEGO X-wing. Despite what some may say, I believe it's definitely superior to bwhp's, dateman's, mikepsiaki's, or roguebantha's versions. (And mine, of course.) Brickdoctor's UCS V-wing or Badgerboy's UCS Grievous fighter isn't really 'perfect' either. Just by LEGO and LEGO fan standards. If you really wanted 'perfect', you would choose FineMolds or Master Replicas over amateur LEGO fans. LEGO has made ships that have appeared in the films or series for like less than 10 minutes (droid carrier, Gasgano's pod, Wookiee flyer, etc.) so I don't see why not. Of course, I'd rather LEGO choose something obscure from the Original Trilogy or the EU (skipray blastboat anyone?) As long as it's well done... and a 'Trident' would make a nice parts pack for orange/ dark tan pieces.

I apologize KielDaMan; it appears that when I join in the sarcasm other board members appear to be able to use so fluently I tend to overdo it a bit. I did not and probably never will 'perfect' the LEGO X-wing. That has nothing to do with it; it's just that I feel LEGO is mistaken 'about a great many things' when it comes to the X-wing. I feel the same way about the Delta-7 Aethersprite and the Slave I. Besides, someone else already did. Regardless of whether we're getting another Mace Windu or not, I think it would probably be his Eta-2, and not his Delta-7, which will be released; as I had previously stated, seeing as Phase II clones, ARC-170 starfighters, and the like has already featured in the newer Clone Wars series, it's likely that the Eta-2 Actis interceptor should make its appearance soon. (After all, the Eta-2 and the ARC-170 made its debut appearance in the same year of the war - 20 BBY. Not 22 BBY - this 'Battle of Malastare' is obviously a retcon.) Of course, there's the risk of the 'new' set just having almost exactly the same build as Anakin's and Obi-wan's Jedi starfighters (with purple rather than yellow or dark blue) and the same oversized (B-wing) canopy piece as a cockpit bulb again. Or worse, a vulture droid included. I would disagree commanderneyo; we know from the TIE/d, TIE Crawler, TIE Defender, and Rogue Shadow sets (among others) that LEGO is aware of the EU. Rather than just rehashes, it means that LEGO has a near-infinite choice of starships, minifigures, and situations with which they can please Original Trilogy (pre-'99 Star Wars) fans and NOT just rehashes. (I've been saying it for years.)

Simply amazing, spacepilot3000. It's usually pretty difficult to make a UCS of anything. Other than the pods not being the same length, it should be noted that the engine arrangement actually looks like this: Here's a reference picture showing the pods to be the same length (one of the models used in the film, I may add - certainly more reliable than CGI renderings!). Also, the middle bit between the pods look just a bit too big. Otherwise, the details look spot on. I particularly like what you've done with the pylons.

Um? Mm? Hmm. Mm-hmm. this too. Get the point yet? For LEGO, playability & stability >>> accuracy. ALWAYS. That's part of why people make MOCs.

Fantastic WIP Diaabo - though I have to admit I wouldn't say it's quite 99% complete. My major gripe is the fact that you're using these to attach the wings. Personally I don't think this piece very much suits a TIE at all. Look at the connection on the actual studio model. (I know I used the same piece on my own TIE Interceptor, but that was only because I was low on parts.) A better alternative would be to simply attach some 2x2 round bricks to the cockpit with SNOT (running a technic axle through for stability, of course) and attaching plates directly to those. Of course, using this, you would have to rework the connection between the arms and the ball cockpit - I can't help but think these are too thick for the TIE Interceptor - after all, remember that the Interceptor's design resembles the original TIE more closely than any of its film variants. Which reminds me - the method for mounting the angled panels shouldn't be limited to these. I suggest doing something like this. The panels are connected via this piece. This would also reduce the HUGE gaps in the wings. There should be guns on the wings - and the raised segments on either side of the guns are oriented in the other direction. To avoid a blocky cockpit, dump the TIE windshield piece (there's too much transparency anyway - unless you plan to paint the piece) and use this piece as the windshield, and SNOT it around that. Something similar to this technique could work. A TIE Interceptor, like the TIE fighter, has only two ion engines, as well as a hexagonal rear viewport. (It is not, as LEGO appears to think, the main booster.) I hope that my suggestions and all the reference pictures I linked to were helpful. Keep at it Diaabo and your TIE interceptor could be the best one on these forums.

What about Heir to the Empire, the Jedi Academy Trilogy, Droids, and Ewoks? Or the Marvel and Dark Horse comic books? I'm pretty sure all of those were around way before Jar Jar Binks. And the Special Edition too. LEGO would have had quite a lot of stuff to make sets off of, even without the Prequels. Heck, maybe the license would've even been better at the beginning without Menace; I would much rather have had a K-wing from the Black Fleet Crisis or the E-wing from Dark Empire over that 'craptastic' Gungan Sub or even the 7153 Slave I. In the U.S. (or at least, here in Texas) the summer sets don't arrive until late July/early August and the winter sets until the first week of January.

What about Grievous's wheel bike? I think the fact that you can definitely tell the parts are from the LAAT/i makes it look like it was built from salvaged scrap metal, which is pretty neat.

I think what he means is we got an ARC-170 this year, so it's unlikely that we'll be getting a UCS of the same ship next year. But seeing as LEGO released their 7657 AT-ST the year after their 10174 UCS rendition you never know for sure. On the other hand, neither the ARC nor the A-wing got a whole lot of screen time in the movies(although the A-wing is fairly significant), so I doubt the possibility for a UCS of either of those. I think a better possibilty is the Executor or AT-AT so many people seem to be wanting. Or a Venator, since a lot of Clone Wars fans seem to want one of those too. Like everyone has already said, it's highly unlikely LEGO will halt the license when they're already making so much money off of it (although if LEGO decides to do more sets like the 8097 Slave I that may change). As long as there's demand for LEGO Star Wars sets it's likely LEGO will keep providing.

Those clones should have blue markings... but that can't be helped can it? It's always nice to see very small details represented in LEGO; I really like the way the bases of the columns are built, and the bookcase is superb. The expressions on the Jedi are nice as well - where did you get those minifigure heads?

If the Death Star isn't a space station, then what is? And let's not forget that even the prototype for that space station was conceived in a space station. And there are many more...

Yes I love the '03 Clone Wars so much more than the new one!!! The mods look great. Any chance of making more stuff from '03 Clone Wars? (Say, the Seismic Tank, Saesee Tiin's Eta-2, etc.)?

MAJOR EDIT!!! Okay, so not everyone was satisfied with the pictures I took the first time. So two weeks ago, I got rid of them and took new ones. Personally I think the pictures are a lot better: they're smaller, but they're more clear and they have flash so you can really see all the details. Unfortunately, it looks like Starstreak has beat me to the front page, even though I think I am more deserving of this right, as I posted a review of this set several weeks beforehand. With the new pictures, at least I have a chance of this review being added to the index and polled. Anyway, it's been several weeks since I've bought this set: there's been time to look through the set and compare it with movie screenshots, studio model pictures, etc. I have to say that the additional time has changed my opinion of this set greatly and broken down a lot of the thoughts I had from my first impression of this set. These new ideas will (hopefully) be reflected in this revised version. I may come back and change the review even further to fit my liking, but by then this will have had its 15 minutes of fame and hopefully have joined other great reviews in the Index. Now, for the review. I have included an EDIT: sign with all NEW thoughts; however, the pictures have replaced the older pictures. Yes! First midi Destroyer review on Eurobricks! Some time ago, on another LEGO forum, I asked why LEGO couldn’t make sets of a different kind – sets which were meant to represent starships and vehicles of the Star Wars universe more accurately and feature dense, entertaining builds aimed at older kids and TFOLS/AFOLS. Of course, I was attacked for this revolutionary idea – others claimed it couldn’t be done, complaining of higher prices and asserting that LEGO was and always will be a product aimed at kids, and that I should probably get into die-casts or model kits if I wanted accuracy. Then, in 2009, LEGO released a groundbreaking set, the 7778 “Midi-scale” Millennium Falcon. It was so different from the other LEGO Star Wars sets of that time – no minifigs, a stacked-plate build, almost no rare pieces or molds. At $40, it was quite pricey – however, I snapped it up and found it was more or less an amazing set. It is almost as if LEGO had answered my call for cheaper, more accurate sets with the midi-scale line. The 8099 Midi-scale Imperial Star Destroyer is the second of two midi-scale sets released at this time, the first being the 7778. Like its predecessor, it does not disappoint. So here goes the review. 8099 Midi-scale Imperial Star Destroyer $39.99 USD 423 pcs. The box, like the 7778, features quasi-UCS info and the parts inventory on the back. A blue clone trooper (I assume from the markings that it’s that Rex guy) is featured on the front. We can infer from the Tatooine backdrop that the model is intended to be the Devastator, the ship that captured the Tantive IV in the first scene of Star Wars. The instruction manual, in the usual fashion, features the same picture as the front of the box. Since images of the box are already available online, I will not be posting them. EDIT: Note from the bridge that 8099 actually depicts an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer, even though the Devastator is clearly an Imperial I-class. For those who don't know the difference (like I did before I wrote this review), theforce.net covers this topic in great detail. More on the bridge later. Some interesting pieces - red 1x2 plates with clips, 1x3 tiles, and 2x4 tiles. EDIT: Sorry, it's the same picture, only smaller. The build: In keeping with FBTB fashion, I didn’t want to spoil the build, but the construction of this set is so different from most sets that I felt I had to share it. The first thing you build is the central module – all other parts of the set attach to this section. LEGO manages to attach the bottom by taking a large Technic brick and inverting it so that the bottom is angled. The brick is held in by a pair of connectors with axles running through them; the construction is surprisingly sturdy. Oh yes, the stand; it’s simply a few Technic connectors that you place on the bottom of the ship to keep it upright. It functions well and is easily removable. EDIT: New picture; the bottom "wings": In addition to the large notches near the bow of the Star Destroyer (which, I might add, LEGO captured fairly well), there also exists a smaller notch which they appear to have overlooked. It's a fairly simple mod to include it, just shift a couple plates over. Here you see the module with the two bottom parts of the set attached: As you can see, the parts of the hull attach to the central module with clips. Unlike the 7778, there isn’t much detailing on this set, just a few scattered studs and clip pieces. The lack of tan pieces in this set is a bit refreshing. The inclusion of the larger grooves along the border is a nice addition. I can now flip the construction over and show you the completed bottom: In my opinion, LEGO really outdid themselves here. (They ought to have, since the bottom of the Star Destroyer is the first part of the ship you see.) They captured many details fairly correctly, as seen from these screenshots: Note that LEGO not only included the main hangar into which the Tantive IV is pulled, but also the smaller hangar from which Vader’s shuttle descends in Return of the Jedi. And I had my doubts about the shape of the ship at first, but this screenshot reassured me: This too: Indeed, it doesn't look as bad from out here. EDIT: There is another shot which further shows the hangars. How could I have forgotten this? Triangles on either side of the smaller hangar are represented by wings plates on 8099. LEGO definitely outdid themselves on the bottom. This funny-looking thing is the rear part of the ship, the engines; the two protruding bars attach to the two Technic connectors on the central module. As you may suspect, the connection is very loose; the bars easily detach from the 1x2 plates. Both the three main engines and the four smaller engines are included. EDIT: The "four smaller engines" are actually emergency engines. A bit of a disappointment here, since on the studio model all the main thrusters are separate from each other and connect into the ship individually, and the emergency thrusters are connected to the "wings" of the ship: To those who would like to do mod the engines, I would suggest moving the bar plates on the "wings" a few studs closer to the rear so that when attached the hull extends farther back, leaving more space for engine attachment. Ditch the bars with the half pins and replace with studs so they'll connect to the holes better and have less a chance of falling off. Pictures of the bridge tower are also included with the engine. In case you didn't look through the page I linked to earlier, I will now discuss the bridge in detail. Note the 1x3 tile laid sideways across the top of the bridge. This is incorrect; recall that the Devastator has quite the tall array in that location, as seen in the picture below: A bit distant, but you can definitely tell that the middle section rises up well above the level of the sensor arrays on either side. Also worthy of notice is the actual command bridge area. In the 8099, the bridge is represented by this piece; this corresponds with the bump with the groove seen in the dead center of this picture (a picture of the bridge tower of the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer Avenger, I might add; it looks like LEGO slipped.): Obviously, the reason for the curve is because the inside of the command bridge should look something like this: Note also the square indents on either side of the bump; this is fairly well represented on the 8099 with a number of these. Some may consider this an easter egg or something, but personally I'm impressed. This more than makes up for the fact that the tower sits too high upon the finished set. But I'll get to that later. EDIT: New pictures. Top wings: A picture of some detail on the top "wings": Compare to the studio model: Something I suspected when I first built the model; the section around the bridge tower is just too squat. It's no wonder that the tower appears so tall. Note the turbolasers along the sides. (Actually, on the real model, I think the rearmost one is an ion cannon.) They are represented simply by light bley binoculars, mounted on studs so that they can rotate. Simple, yet effective, although I'm pretty sure there should be four - three turbolasers an an ion cannon. (They should also be a whole lot closer together, but that's another easy mod.) Between stacked plates are more 1x1 clip plates and a wing, in dark grey so it'll stand out more. EDIT: New picture; the set is mostly assembled but the innards are still visible, just to give an idea of how everything fits together. Finally, the completed set! The first thing you notice is that huge groove down the middle of the ship (somewhat reminiscent of the original UCS Star Destroyer) that continues through to the bridge section. But the pieces in the middle are just large rail plates, so perhaps a “zigzag” method could be employed to minimize the gap, as seen in some Executor MOCs on Brickshelf. The dark gray, ugh! Again, common pieces, but it just doesn’t look right. Somebody else pointed this out to me while we were watching Jedi: The set is just too fat. Compare with the studio model: However, considering the way this set is constructed, it really can't be helped, and it becomes less noticeable if you dilate all of the wings by maybe 10%. (Don't quote me on this.) The squatness of the area around the tower (and the huge gap) is very noticeable here. Speaking of which, I think the ship is in fact more than quite a bit squat, comparing the side view above with this picture: I think LEGO might have underestimated how immense this really was. The gaps on the side are also a bit of a bother. Another new picture; this was intended to be a front view of the ship, but I decided I wanted to display the lovely UCS-type information in the instructions as well. Some of the parts inventory is also visible. You can really tell how fat this thing is when you compare it to a shot from the film. I will also say that this ship is FRAGILE. (EDIT: Thanks Starstreak for mentioning this.) The flimsy engine section leads to a whole bunch of other connection-related problems, and it’s difficult to pick the ship up without dislodging the engines. I would suggest either grasping the bulky area round the bridge with both hands or scooping up the ship from underneath with the stand just within your fingertips. Almost no play features with this ship. The midi Falcon had two rotating quadlaser cannons; this set has the six guns and not really anything else. I guess if you wanted to you could somehow swoosh the set without popping off the rear section. The best use for this is probably setting it up for a perspective shot with the UCS Tantive IV (Aftter all, the actual studio model of the Devastator was half the size of the Tantive IV studio model). EDIT: Actually, considering the size of the ship, you can have a lot of fun with it: Two fighters against a Star Destroyer? Is that really fair? Yes, that is the 7658 Y-wing next to the ship. You can really tell how bad the economy is when you consider that the two sets were marketed at the same price. (Not to mention the fact that 7658 has 23 more pieces, although they're mostly half pins). Also shown (small) are advertisements for the summer 2010 sets. I wonder who's flying Grievous's fighter while he's fighting Anakin. "Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately three thousand, seven hundred and twenty to one!" "Never tell me the odds!" There are a lot more quotes from Empire that would probably fit this better, but I like this one. You can tell that the mandibles on 7778 are really oversized. In the back are a few sets I don't have room for. Yes, there is another box with red clones behind the 8099; no, it is not another 2010 LEGO set; it' a Revell SnapTite X-wing kit I picked up a few months back since at that time I didn't have the budget, display space, patience, or painting ability required for the 1/48 FineMolds kit. But I digress. You can also see from this shot how tall the bridge tower isn't supposed to be. (But it is.) The 8099 is 24.5 cm (or 24,5 or however they do it) in length, only a bit longer than the midi Falcon, which is 23.5 cm. The 7778 is around 1/144 scale (assuming the length of the "real" Falcon is about 33 meters), the 8099 is at, as I mentioned, 1/6600 scale. It's interesting to note that the large Falcon used in filming was around 5 feet in length, while the Devastator was only about 3 feet. Oh yeah, that reminds me: NO STICKERS ON THIS SET! Final verdict: Price: 8/10 423 pieces for about $40. Compared to the outrageous prices of the other 2010 sets, this one is great. Parts: 7/10 Good parts pack for grey pieces. Minifigures: N/A As with the 7778, there are no minifigures with this set. I suppose LEGO could have thrown in Tarkin or something to please collectors, but that probably would have driven up the price. I’m glad there are not minifigures. Playability: 5/10 Few play features, combined with flimsiness, gives playability a low rating. Set design 10/10 I loved the build of this set, it’s very unique and isn’t sculpture-based. Overall 5/10 It’s actually 4 if you do the math but I added 4 because I like this set and it is fairly accurate. (EDIT: Then I subtracted 3 because of all the newly discovered flaws. So now it's 5.) This is a really great set, terribly underrated, and I highly recommend this set to UCS fans. That's all for now! fallenangel

Look through my brickshelf folder (the one titled "8099review" - when it's public, that is) and you'll see that the large ones aren't mine; they were merely the best I could find and I couldn't reupload them because then I think some people on the Net would be more than a little upset. And besides this review is much more in depth in comparison to starstreak's dontcha think?