mortesv

Good job It almost looks like it can really fly now

Hi Anio, as I have stated a few times now, I know that the angles of the 10221 are not right. Regarding your comparison, my guess is that the top ship is a pic of the real model - if you compare that with the drawing in the middle (which you are using). It is evident that the drawing has a deeper bottom than the top pic (compare the 'middle' top pic with the drawing below). Thus as far as I can see the bottom angle is a tad more shallow than the top - but as I told the dear Aeroeza, I don't think we will ever completely agree Also, I'm a big fan of your moc And I understand and agree with a lot of your criticism of the 10221 - in many ways it seems unfinished. However, I don't completely follow your criticism of the inaccuracies of the model, since your own, excellent creation also has taken a less strict and more creative approach (and is indeed cooler looking than a plain 10221). So, besides being unfinished, I can understand why a Lego designer sometimes chooses to be creative Sometimes we may not like what a designer chooses - but then we can modify or build our own as we see fit - as we both have done Good idea. However if you look at my pic (with the lightsabers!) the mid engines and the centre line is pretty much in alignment. My Pic is taken at the exact level of the centre line. It is obvious that the official Lego "profile" pic is taken at an slightly elevated angle, thus further accentuating the "top angle issue".

I'm satisfied as well EDIT: I can see how my statement in the line above may be "misinterpreted" - Thus I'll quickly divert the attention to a profile picture of my modded 10221 (including a slightly fatter underbelly). The picture was taken just before the model was destroyed by two white/blue lightsabers

You sure like to argue - well me too I have already stated that I agree the angles are off on the 10221. As far as I can tell by looking at all the close up shot of the studio model the bottom angle is more shallow than the top - but it seems we both argue based on discrediting each other evidence - so we will probably never agree completely (perhaps we should become presidential campaign advisors) To reiterate, my main point is that, while I am not fond of the bottom angle of the of the 10221 (and to a somewhat lesser extend -'dislike' the top angle), the 10221 has bigger problems. Especially considering its hefty price tag: Almost no engine detail, lack of top greebles, cracks between plates etc.. And that is why I have modded mine :) You should do the same - perhaps we both should use our time building instead of arguing Although it is really nice to meet a guy who is as passionate about these "little things" as myself And once again: Gratz on your prize Ray! (It really is a fine model) - and great review!

Well I thought so too - but then Anio said that is was May

I din't start this - honest! Back to the topic: Since it has been reported that the UCS B-Wing is coming in May - instead of September, do anyone have any info regarding size/brick count etc.?

Hehe, guilty as charged However, it seems the consensus is to prefer an "unrealistically" fat underside - rather than a slightly elevated topside But I'll let it rest - lest this turn into another canon discussion Besides, as you know, the 10221 had bigger problems

I agree that it is a design compromise, but it is not all that bad In the the picture from the film the model is shot at range and at a slightly low angle - so it gets very hard to judge angles based on this However in this picture Film model you get an idea of the sloping - compare that angle with the 10221 - is it really that bad? Note: this 10221 pic is of my mod - and the bottom is lowered slightly

I must say that I favor the beta 2 front end - even though it is not as accurate. Perhaps you could achieve the slight angle on top if the cockpit by using technics and plates? In any case, good job

Hehe, I'm sorry My point just were that the 10221 is not as "bad" as many believe (when compared to the studio model) - but perhaps I could have put it more eloquently

That picture is a drawing The studio model used in the films can be seen here In these pictures it is also evident that the top angles on the 10221 are indeed a bit too steep - but not much - so I agree that your could say that the top angle compensates for the lack of bottom angle. But since the bottom is so shallow, the real angle difference between the 10221 and the real thing is really not that pronounced

The slope underneath is in fact very, very shallow. Lighting and camera angles makes it look much more pronounced than it really is (official reference model).

Very nice and detailed review! As you point out giving score for figs and playability makes no sense. Regarding the overall score (8/10) I tend to agree. However with 400plus extra bricks this set could become a 9.5 look

@Fallen - I meant discussions to be taken seriously But thanks for your input Just to put it into perspective, the live Falcon model in ANH was only about 16m long (between 18 and 22m in ESB) and in X-Wing vs. TIE fighter the Falcon length is stated as some 76m If you freeze frame ROJ you can indeed find evidence that the second Death Star is both over 800km (lazy modelmakers did not bother to simulate the curvature of the DSII surface )in diameter and also a lot smaller. There is also a brief shot of the Falcon next to a Blockade Runner in ROJ where its length cannot be more than 15m - unless the Blockade runner is way bigger than 150 In conclusion, I acknowledge the discussion of the Executor - but for the rest there simply exist too much conflicting evidence - meaning a discussion becomes purely "religious" and IMO moot. Saying that one is length is "right" and another is "wrong" simply makes no sense - because you can always watch the movies and find evidence to they contary. Thus canon wins And as much as it pains me the EU novels are not considered canon - but that does not keep me from reading them. (

Great review! I bought this set for the Sandtroopers as well. They are very cool - however the more I look at them the more I get the feeling that the detailing on the has gone a bit overboard. Suddenly the speeder bike and the pod itself look very "plasticky" and plain compared to the detailing on the troopers. I think Lego should stop up for a moment and see what they are doing - if they want to continue to add detail to their minifigs we will quickly get to a point where they need to add more detail to the bricks as well. This simple set already comes with big ugly stickers and I take this as a sign of things to come. Sorry for going slightly off topic - but I am scared! :)

From the genius that is Tim Goddard to the world: Millenium Falcon

Indeed my Shakespearian friend! A mini scale Imperial Shuttle would GREAT! (the expression is quoted from Tony the Tiger - you are not the only one using immense cultural references in your brick discussing discourse! ). Perhaps Tim (Rogue Bantha) has made one? On a side note, it seem that "minifig scale" is not a well defined quantity - since the 10179 and the 10212 which are both considered minifig scale is not really in scale with each other

"Canon lengths" - plural? As far as I know only one of the lengths I mention is debated Regarding modding the 10019, yes, it is very fat: reference - the reason I haven't posted the mod in a stand alone thread is that it is not really done. As you can see in my picture I have stretched the "middle" engines and made the model slightly longer - but other than that not much else is done, yet - if I ever get around to it

@Steiney - nice comparison with the TIE advanced! Now I Will have to get another as well ;) This set is really a beauty - perhaps I should just buy 10 of them... :)

The ship is seen in Return of the Jedi, it is a fast Imperial fighter piloted by elite TIE pilots :)

I'm quite aware of this - and I was just teasing - Although I am surprised the see you could get that much detail into a three stud model :thumbup:

Really nice, and very ambitious - this would make a great UCS - I think your effort could easily compete with Lego's latest prequel-trilogi UCS model What is the approx brick count? I don't mind the snot wings - although one could argue they are bit thick, I do think they are better than the alternative - nicely done! @Anio - can't wait to see your take on this

Thanks :) I would love to meet your request - The problem is that the UCS X-wing is not in minifig scale - it is way too big - a minifig in the cockpit looks like a child driving a car ;)

You are a poet - and you make me blush! 17 UCS is quite a collection - I only have a measly 13 (I don't count my 10188 as UCS - even though BL lists it as such ) Post a pic of your mini Falcon when you are done