mortesv

As I found out commenting a recent review of the 10221, the model is a somewhat a controversial subject on this forum. To say that some people dislike it would probably be an understatement - As a side note, I think the ‘dislike’ group is much louder than the ‘like’ group – at least if you take this poll into account But, despite all its flaws, I have found myself drawn to the model – perhaps because I like modding so much - and the 10221 indeed begs for modding. Thus I planned to mod the model even before I had bought it. The result of the initial mod (Mod Mk 1) can be seen here. I thought all was good in the world, but then one day I met a guy who goes by the name ‘Aeroeza’ and I got further inspired. We met while discussing the 10221 in this thread … I felt the spark immediately… We lengthily discussed the angles of the 10221 and how the model could be improved/rebuilt further. Aeroeza ended up making a 3D render based on the studio model to determine its angles and proportions. AT 17,6km in length the Executor is about 5,94km wide. The hull is surprisingly flat… :D We quickly discovered that some aspects of the model were not feasible in Lego. As also mentioned in another thread by Anio, the overall width of the ship will either be too wide or too narrow using existing Lego wedge bricks – unless you do a voxel model… Thus using the render as a strict blueprint quickly proved nonsensical. But I could use it as inspiration. So, with Aeroeza’s work, together with a few hi-res photos of the studio model at hand, I made the following “wish list” for (further) modding: Extend tail a bit Extend the city a bit Lower the “city” Lower the angle of the top hull Remove the fake bridge – and the minifigs :) Lower the engine section – middle and back engines Lift the middle engines a bit to be in line with the back engines More detail on the engine section – next to the middle engines and the back engines’ “support struts” Redo and tilt the prong between the forward/lower engines (part of the bottom) Remove the flat bottom Extend the tip of the A-frame – needed after removing the flat bottom Create a new bottom and attach it using hinges (hopefully) Tilt the forward (lower) engines to slope with the new bottom/prong “Move” the hangar bay forward – to be more in line with the studio model (keep most Mk 1 modification intact – besides the stepped plate bottom) I began from the “top” by removing the city and the fake bridge. I removed the sloped tips of the structural “ribs” and some of the plating beneath the city. My initial plan was to remove some of the top spine and place it underneath - but that wouldn’t have solved the problem just “moved” it. I discovered that by simply removing or adding plates I could lower much of the city and engine section. Now that everything had been lowered I could begin testing my solution for applying the bottom. My idea was simply to use the old “hinge-trick” - to go from studs-on-top to studs pointing down. Furthermore the hinges would also facilitate the slight sloping of the bottom plates. My only problem was that I didn’t want to apply the new bottom to the old – but if I removed the old bottom I wasn’t sure there was anything left to hinge on to. Well, I just had to follow Yoda and simply just ‘do’: Removing the bottom… and Voila! Seems someone already prepared the A-frame for hinges… hmmm… makes you think… I quickly fashioned a test plate… ... but showing it applied would “spoil” the ending :P While removing the rest of the bottom I took breaks to dust off my modded ISD - who was feeling a bit jealous … …and extend the tail of the ship by elongating the top plates three studs worth. Afterwards I could begin constructing the bottom plates – suffice to say they went through a “few” iterations, but these are the final ones. The picture below shows how the hinges are applied to the plate. Also, to get the right look, and close a potential gap, I needed one stud more width on each plate. The problem was that it had to be applied to the “center” of the plates – in other words on the “bad” side of the wedge bricks … Luckily using the “half” hinges – which have hollow studs, I found a feasible way to apply the extra row. I extended the tip of the A-frame a bit and then I could begin to apply the bottom plates… snap, snap, snap… I tried to match the sloping with Aeroeza’s render - and it should be pretty close. Because of the backmost leg of the model, it made sense to construct the bottom prong between the lower engines separately. The challenge was to line up the angle with that of the lower wings. Having the bottom angled I also needed to angle the lower engines. Looking at the studio model it was apparent that the forward/bottom engines follow the same angle as the bottom itself. Thus I needed a way to slope the engines – but without actually lowing them further. Here is the solution I found: Using two 1 stud 1 x 2 plates and… … Applying this hinge to the engines… ...I was able to angle the engines ever so slightly. In the above pic the extra detail I added is also apparent. Since my mod Mk 1, more detail is added next the middle engines and the support struts have been added to the back engines. Both inspired by the studio model. Well enough talk – now some more pics: In the pic above it can be seen that the top angle has been lowered a bit. The slightly longer tail and extended city in focus. Lastly a profile pic My problem now is that the only space I have for the model is my windowsill. This means I would never actually get to see the bottom (unless I’m lying on the floor – which actually happens surprisingly often…), but knowing it is there gives me peace of mind. Finally – and most important, thanks to the magnificent Aeroeza for inspiration and assistance! So what do you guys think? EDIT:

This is exactly what I have done It looks really awesome - and since you have such an expensive set why should it be half empty? - At least that was my approach and, I have used around 200$ in extra minifigs

In the latest shipment from Lego (2011) some of the 10188 minifigs do have white pupils - Han, Ben etc.. You can see what minifigs I have added to the set by seeing my answers in this thread

I have seen this and it is absolutely insane! One of my friends is working on something similar using another UCS model. I have to show him this

1999 - Because that was when Lego started producing Star Wars LEGO! Since I think of the 10179 s the most awesome SW LEGO set ever I'd have to go with 2007

The TIE is really well done I like how there has been paid special attention to the structs that seperate the triangular solar panels. They look well intergrated into the wing desing and not something that is "tacked on"

This is absolutely mindfreakingblowingly insane! instructions please This must have taken a year or so to make

Great work But please add all the pics of all the models - then I'll comment in more detail

Here is a little sneak peak of a scene I recreated: A cocky Han has chased the stormies down a hallway - only to find himself somewhat outnumbered

Well, I have bought a LOT of extra minifigs for this set. Since I am not playing with the set, but using it as an display item - kind of a detour from the rest of my UCS display - I have bought about 40 extra minifigs, so there can be action in all the rooms at once. What I have bought extra (as far as I can remember): 14 stormies 4 (new) Death Star troopers 1 Obi-Wan 3 Leia 3 Darth Vader 1 Stomtrooper Han 1 Stormtrooper Luke 1 Tarkin 7 Imperial officers (2 kinds - Imperial Inspection and Shuttle) 2 TIE pilots 1 Chewbacca 1 R5-J2 1 message droid And the set does not even look crowded with 60++ minifigs

Hadn't seen this before now - absolutely amazing! :thumbup: Makes my 10179 look boring just standing on a table...

Looks promising Aeroeza The front view looks a bit fatter than the flim shot, but I guess that is due to the drawing beign rendered without perspective I was indeed kidding suggesting making the model detailed Lastly, I really like your style - making a long serious post in a Star Wars forum, and then finishing off with a Star Trek reference - very brave - BTW, I'm a trekkie too!

Kuat what?? ... Just kidding! Well I used to work for them - until I got fired... They found out I had bought the 10221, and brought me in for "questioning". I shoved them my modifications to the model and they seemed pleased.. until... One of the executives lifted the fake bridge section... Then he exploded saying that "if you havn't removed that frikkin bridge yet, then why haven't you at least added a Boba Fett minifig?!". I tried to explain I hadn't come around to it yet, but it was too late - I got sacked... Hope that answers your question

Well, then I'll dispute that the forward engines are invisible! (sorry) Can't wait to see your render (if you have the time for it that is ) If you are detailing it (which I beg you not to - it'll take weeks) - look here It would be cool to mimic those shots with your render If there is anything I can do to help in this undertaking please let me know - although I'd be pressed to come up with anything you couldn't do by yourself, but I'll pay for render timer if you would make an animation of the SSD/DSII crash

Well, then I'll dispute that the forward engines are invisible! (sorry) Can't wait to see your render (if you have the time for it that is ) If you are detailing it (which I beg you not to - it'll take weeks) - look here It would be cool to mimic those shots with your render If there is anything I can do to help in this undertaking please let me know - although I'd be pressed to come up with anything you couldn't do by yourself, but I'll pay for render timer if you would make an animation of the SSD/DSII crash

Always so dramatic The is no dispute (at least not any longer ) Just a quest for facts! @Aeroeza - such a render would be beautiful! However I am a bit skeptical of the drawing (as always ). In the drawing the middle bottom prong seem to go far below the bottom engines. However if you look at the picture of the bottom of the model (in my post above) and draw a line from one bottom engine to the other you can see that the middle prong just barely goes below the engines. And yes, the middle prong and the engines are (almost) aligned in the Z-axis, so such a line would be indicative of "prong" depth vs. engine depth Hope I have not begun another long discussion - honest

Yeah well, we really need the width But Thanks! ;) The width was the "joker" in the entire discussion in the first place; because while the angles (top and bottom both! ) are very shallow, the profile shots however clearly indicates the model's "height" - this height is achieved because of the larger (than I) expected width of the model. Thus, even though I can try to mimic the the angle (as I've have already tried with the bottom), I'll never get the right profile without applying that angle to a broader frame. We need a shot at the model straight from the top!

Yeah, the trig should be easy, but don't have any measurements - other than the rough length at 12 feet - which is only helpfull If I Can use it to calculate the width :) Oh and we also need to know the height of the gap between top and bottom plates - to subtract from the height when doing the trig The pics are from 2009

I miss this thread already! My life seem empty without it Well, now that it has been established (by the magnificent Aeroeza) that this angle: Is about the same as this angle (and that they both look very shallow ): Can anyone help me deciding what the angle(s) really are? It would be very helpful in my tinkering

Very very impressive! I'm speechless. I am amazed that you got so many angles working on such a small model. A work of art

Great review and a great set -It is indeed far the best system TIE so far! You shouldn't feel sorry for the TIE pilots - the knew what they were signing up for when they joined the academy!

That is an excellent falcon! I can see the heavy influence of the "original" UCS and you have made some inspired alterations where you didn't have the "correct" bricks. This must have been a very interesting process - do you have any pics from your building phase?

Good to hear that And very nice moc Just make sure KimT doesn't see that - he is into that "car thing" as well

Funny that you link THAT old discussion - by the way I have evidence that the SSD is MUCH longer than 19km - in the shot where Chewie flies the Lambda next to the bridge of the SSD... What I suggest, is that we gang up on him. I'll steal his protractor while you wave pictures of the Executor in conflicting scale comparisons. My the idea is that all the contradictory material combined with the lack of any measuring device will cause his synapses to overload and finally his brain to implode! If only we could harness the energy of the brain implosion while driving at 88 Mph in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation... hmm As stated above the angle of the official 10221 profile shot is off - making it look even worse - thus not helping in this comparison