LordsofMedieval

Naw, those are way too big (and I think I read that their pin holes are in a bad place, or something?). I'd just use custom 3d printed ones like most folks on here.

Eh. I have nothing better to do. I have Covid; I'm in quarantine. Here it is lengthened. I think this is closer?

Here's the length thing illustrated slightly (and also embarrassing insight into how anal I am with these things): So, on the all the photos, each red line is the same length as its counterpart: they measure the distance from the 'start' of the square portion of the cab to the end of the rear driver, then again from the end of the rear driver to however far it gets on the third driver. As you can see, on this model (though not others :/) and the real thing, the length from the cab to the back of the rear driver is to juusssssssst past the axle of the third driver. On the model, it's on the other side - barely less than 1 stud. Considering that the wheels themselves are precisely to scale, I'm inclined to lengthen it one stud based on this evidence. Thoughts?

I experimented with that briefly, but the long and short is that the 2x3 wedge plate cannot be mounted without interfering with the driver/running gear. The 2x4 was a compromise :/. *Edit* NM, I got it. I dunno. I personally think the problem somehow relates to the wheels looking so small. I don't know why they look small, but they do. And they definitely don't on the real engine. Another weird bit about this engine is the front, which - again, to me - looks more angled in the photographs I've found than the model. But, when lined up on the best side-on references I possess, the angle I've got is within a degree or so of being correct. Overall, I am really satisfied with the thing, though.

I need the community's help with this one. My eyes are telling that the locomotive is too short by about 1 stud - specifically in the area between the end of the last driving wheel and the front of the cab. However, measurements involving every model I could find (most, unfortunately, unshrouded, though that shouldn't make a difference since the cab was not lengthened) indicate that I have things right as they are. Part of the problem would, at first glance, appear to be that the driving wheels are too small. However, the inverted standard drivers are actually exactly 69" in the scale I am working in - a perfect match for the real thing. So, in this case, especially, using the wheels as a baseline to determine proportions should be rock-solid. Yet, here I am with nagging doubts. So... am I just seeing ghosts? Or is the engine really a stud short? A number of blue and white stickers would be necessary to fix the trim here and there. Also, the entire front pilot (with the blue shrouding) free-pivots, so I believe the model would have no issue negotiating most larger-radius Lego tracks. Funnily enough, I lack any photo reference for the rear off the tender, so I had to take an educated guess on that one :/. I'm not sure a picture of the back actually exists, but I spent about an hour scouring the web last night just in case. Lastly, yes, there are two gaps at the front of the engine - I don't think there's any legal solution to filling them. When I build it, I'm going to just create some custom pieces to shove in there.

I like the Navy one better simply because it makes all the great contours and lines stand out more.

Supremely better than the original.

This has bern kind of thread-derailing (my fault [and I don't just mean the above quote, but my stuff too]), so I'll leave off on any further debate here. Sorry to the OP for the distraction.

In a galaxy of hundreds of trillions, where moon-sized battle stations and capital ships can literally obliterate the population of entire worlds; where space combat and hyperspeed has existed for thousands of years, nobody ever... ever considered jumping to lightspeed to destroy their enemy? I mean, you can't argue that people didn't employ self sacrifice, because Arvel Crynyd did it. And every piece of canon information that we possess declares that the deed was voluntary - he was on a one-way trip of his own accord. You can like the new movies - nobody is telling you what to or not enjoy. But I'm never going to do anything but roll my eyes at this particular plot hole. Because it was glaring. And Poe's 'okay, all better' statement was like slapping a bandaid on a missing limb.

Poe - I think? (I haven't watched the movie after The Last Jedi bloodied my fandom so bad) - actually says it was a "one in a million" chance in Rise of Skywalker. That was one of JJ's "outs" for Rian Johnson's many, many unsolvable lore issues introduced in TLJ. This isn't in anyway exonerate JJ "somehow, Palpatine returned" Abrams... merely acknowledging that he was left with a mess, and that was his explanation to solve the riddle as to why all capital ships aren't simply kamikaze'd by drone-flown vessels with hyperdrives. Ultimately, the issue here is fairly simple: well-written fantasy respects its own rules, and doesn't do things simply because they look neat - especially if those things would cause all kinds of continuity issues that past and future content will have to explain. There are thousands of easy (some smart; some stupid) explanations you could provide to someone asking why the ships in Star Wars didn't do the Holdo Maneuver... until we saw the Holdo Maneuver performed on what appeared to be a whim. And then, suddenly, there was the cat, not only out of the bag but fixing itself a sandwich while hissing.

I still think this falls under the "rule of cool," which seems to govern everything the mouse owns of late. On the flip side of the coin, the base design of the ship is really neat - kind of a squished Falcon. And @azanderk's initial work on that cockpit is freaking inspired MOCing. Very impressed.

I really liked this ship until I saw the lightsabers. Leave it to Disney to write themselves into yet ANOTHER Holdo Maneuver situation. I suppose this, too, will require a quaint "that's got to be one in a million" off-hand explanation for why we don't see it all the time?

Wow, this is really cool. Aside from the obvious fact that it's in CHP livery, I'm getting some serious Blues Brothers vibes here.

Ultra slick!

Jesus. Wow. Moc-of-the-year.

Lol, I completely forgot they made that change. Great work, OP. These are some of the better looking Star Destroyer-like capital ships out there, any you're nailing it.

Good review. However, you don't get enough for $100.

Love this. The only thing missing is the cone of a volcano looming in the background :).

It's okay, man, you don't need to justify the theme. I mean, despite Lego's claims to the contrary, 'war' - albeit not modern - is everywhere in their product: pirates, castle, Star Wars, etc. Plus there are violent subthemes like Marvel, DC, Police, and so-on that are all based on conflict. War is just... part of who we are. Some people fight for bad reasons, and others good. But there really isn't an option to not defend yourself, your country, your interests, etc. unless you want to cease to be. Even pacifist nations like Switzerland and Norway understand this. Just because Lego as a company draws this silly line in the sand about conflict doesn't mean you need to defend modeling that unaddressed niche. Lego refuses to address a great many subjects, modern warfare being just one. And it is definitely a viable, compelling, and relevant theme.

Ouch. That + very short notice is going to rule out a ton of would-be participants.

Yeah, in all seriousness, the moment I saw the Scythe, I bought it. I cannot STAND Disney Star Wars, but the angling involved in this model is a thing of beauty. And I can appreciate something for what it is without loving the source.

Those mating photos seem unsuitable for a child-friendly website.

Not sure what to do about the cockpit. A bigger problem than the panes is that the front slopes aren't actually produced in trans... so they'd either have to be custom-printed for the project, or I'd have to go back to square one. I feel like, eventually, Lego will produce that part in a transparent color - it's too obvious a canopy for SOMETHING to not happen. But it's unsatisfying to me that the most essential part of the whole build doesn't actually work. The issue is, I a) need the whole thing to be round, and b) want it to be mostly clear, since that's the hallmark of the Mk. 2 - that the canopy makes the pilots feel like they are floating in space. It's something I'm going to have to revisit.

This took all night. Credit for the original 3D design goes to EC Henry.

Way, way too advanced for me, but it's jaw-droppingly cool. My one criticism is that it looks very, very European. I realize that we have some signals like that in NA, but the majority are still constructed as cantilevers/signal bridges over the tracks. I think you'd want to offer that as an option if you wanted to sell to NA customers.