anothergol

I agree, but it's the price to pay for 2 features: -the rays, which are there on the real one, of course not this strong (although I'm not sure the casted shadows will be that strong), but the visible rays make it more recognizable IMHO -most importantly, a proper sloping all around, as IMHO most MOCs look kinda flat because they divide the back into 3-5 panels at best, and that also makes them have a weird side silhouette Perhaps grouping the slices in pairs would be an ok compromize, but IMHO it's nice to have the rays. Here I can't agree because it's what I found the coolest on Joerg Kuehni's MOC. Afterall the whole cover should be curved. Of course it's impossible to do with Lego, but just the rounded ends give a good illusion that it's rounded IMHO.

Lepin (or alike) does lighting kits for quite a lot of sets, they're all reselling the same ones I guess. Not something you can blame them for, for once. Especially when Lego isn't any interested in lighting. I was interested in buying a kit for the Mustang, but I have no idea about the quality, especially when all reviews on Ali are so blatantly fake. Leds are leds and that's what the chinese do best, but I guess the cables are likely to be cut too short.

Or, as Bricklink defines it, "sticker over megablocks..." edit: ah damn, censorship just ruined my joke

Not exactly, the UCS uses inverted 1/4 curves, because it had to make the holes bigger (& thus they're not exactly round anymore btw, I don't think that was a good idea). Here it's the opposite, they're in their simplest form, bottom-up studded, but they're a bit too big (they should be 3x3, around the size of the 6 vents in the back). On sti fos's version they're shrunk using a 4mm tube, which is an interesting idea (not sure I'll do that, I'd have to revise my gribbling).

Fortunately for me (because the underside in the back was a real PITA), apparently in the first movie it only had 3. And only in the second it got 5, for purely filming reasons (pretty sure Lego went for 5 for stability as well)

This would make a more accurate canopy, sadly I can't find a way to attach the bars. Ideally I'd need a small ring, but a 3mm tube can't be bent at this size.

I would love to design an interior, but sadly it's all structure. But you have to admit the barrel looks like a perfect fit, only it's the wrong size. There are also a couple of technic wheels that would fit there. The tubes on the "real" one are only very slightly tapered btw.

I don't know, I wouldn't fancy making instructions for 3000 parts and you wouldn't fancy gathering them (I didn't either) :) (but first I'll see how much of a nightmare it is to build)

Yep I only used existing colors and I've already ordered them all. For the cockpit (the only thing I've actually assembled so far) I've changed it a couple of times, it went from this old version: to the new one, using a 75937 ring & a couple of 93061 arms holding the 4 bars. The barrels are too small btw, but yeah it's a too well-fitting part not to use it. Yeah actually a MF scaled for the smallest MF cockpit (so somewhere in-between this & the UCS one) would be interesting, as it would then make the holes in the prongs have the correct size (here they're too big, but it's that or no holes at all). However the canopy of the toy version is also too long, so it would still not be ideal. Only the UCS one has a proper canopy.

I'm gathering the parts to build this. I tried to stay flat (omitting a lot of pipes instead of using bars that generally change the silhouette too much at this scale). Only a little larger than the toy version, a little over half of the UCS one. 3000 parts. I'm afraid that my internal structure is way too weak, but I'll see - if it doesn't work I'll get back to the drawing board I guess. (it's a little inspired in places by this great, sadly unfinished MOC: www.flickr.com/photos/152499780@N02/37671037711)

no, they look like the real car minus the headlights, grille & parts of the car's geometry for many

On one hand I like stickers because it gives us reusable parts - it sucks when a part in a specific color only exists as printed. On the other hand it sucks that -Lego only gives 1 sticker sheet, while they cost nothing to produce, and it's easy to misplace them, not even counting that stickers just fall off with time. And as written above, the sheet often comes in warped, and the cutout not properly aligned with the artwork. -Lego could also offer a waterslide decal alternative, because those look better (& are kinda easier to apply, even though you need to bother with water) -I like sets like speed champions, but it's safe to say that Lego relies way too much on stickers for those. A speed champions car without its stickers doesn't look any amazing.

Without being "pro"? Here I'm not seeing the actual ads either (they get blocked), but each like 5 picture when I browse using the < >, is a placeholder for an ad, so pretty much each 5th image is a blank now.

One year later, Flickr now has become ad-infested, and its JPG compression is reaching the minimum acceptable. I remember when pics there had barely visible artefacts, it's too something that's lost now.

You know that Disney is gonna do it. Three Ewok films.

Toy stores are full of.. marbles. They roll nicely, they have a weight to them, they cost nothing, and most importantly, they don't have a nasty mould mark.

No, 2.0.10 at this time. (3.0 is the latest version of the AT-ST model)

Normally you'd use the one from Rebrickable, in which I've manually updated all the "any color" parts (the ones in blue in Rebrickable), since Studio has no concept of "any color". If I check the Studio part list for the main model, I get: -all of the bright phosphorecent green parts that (obviously) don't exist, those are "any color" -a black rubber tire, which I had to define in black because in "rubber black" it was troubles in Rebrickable I believe(?) -a 3049b in DBG that definitely exists & is new for 2019, but perhaps is a 3049c or whatever -a Technic socket in DBG which most likely has another # (definitely does exist on Bricklink) -a LBG gold ingot, probably another #, I don't know why Studio has a flat one -a tile+clip in LBG, pretty sure ALL tile+clip exist in LBG -a 18L hose in LBG, this one has to be cut from a longer one -a 32627 that definitely does exist in LBG, but I suspect I added it myself & it's not YET in Studio's database. I wonder how the model displays for you? So yeah, lots of errors, that's why I suggest using Rebrickable's list instead, which I manually edited (took ages). Edit: so apparently I did add 32627 to my local Studio database myself, and as of today it's not yet in the list. So I imagine everyone is still seeing a placeholder instead. Not a big problem, but this is how it's normally displayed. (also, Studio did already support tube-bending when I did the project, however it's hell to use, props to the one who can really bend that thing properly :)

These parts from the star destroyer are now buyable: 35271 & 73587. 17 cents for the lever, that surely beats 10eur on Bricklink. This morning the tub was buyable, by the time I placed my order it was already not anymore.

But Lego would have done the same choice as Blizzard. There are companies that really want to be like Disney, always trying to stay away from controversies & touchy subjects (which of course sometimes backfires, since you sometimes just have to pick a side, because not picking a side backfires as well). Lego & Blizzard are pretty much on the same level as for censorship (Lego is for kids so it's rather normal, but Blizzard, I never got it. I don't understand why people keep massing up playing games in which things like "GG EZ" get censored). In any case I'm very happy that it backfired hard for them.

and yet they do. Have you watched the videos?

..we're talking about 3D home-printed compatible parts.

That's not what the second video is saying. They seem to be after anything compatible. As for the brand, that's quite normal, but all they're gonna get from this is that "Lego-compatible" will turn into "Kiddicraft-compatible" in labels. Lego doesn't like how their brand has become the generic name for all compatible bricks, well I'd be them I'd hate it even more if it stopped being used as such.

I still don't understand what the lead user lab is about, but what's sure is that 3D printing isn't what they had in mind:

Studio's rendering has a FOV setting