skayen

Hi I didn't see this post before, but although late to the party, please let me also extend my congratulations on a magnificent effort! Like everyone else, it seems, I think the lighting really puts your model in a class of its own--apart from the fact it is impressively large and detailed. I would have no idea how to begin work on a 2 year project like that, and I can only imagine the amount of redesigning you'd have had to undergone to see the project to the end. nice work! cheers John

Hi! hah, that is gold ;-) The only thing that could make it better would be if Darth was conducting with his lightsaber :-) cheers John

Hello! wow, your MOC is fantastic. It has really captured the key features of the SSD but in a convenient size :-D I note that you've angled the bottom hull (and the front engines) and have a nice, svelte engine area thing like the "real" model. You've also managed to straighten up the tail, too---some implementations (e.g. mine;-) I think taper the tail too much. I am very impressed. Congratulations =) cheers John

Hello, your MOC is fantastic. Nice work! cheers John

Hi, I came across your thread when linked from a discussion of my own Lego SSD :-) I see that you've also correctly angled the forward engines along the hull. One of the clues that TLG 10221's lower hull is flat is that the engines are parallel to all the other engines (and many other people's MOCs also keep the front engines parallel...!). I also like what you've done with the rear engines, too. One of the problems with my model is that the slope of the bracket from the top of the ship to the engines is too shallow on mine, but you've really nailed yours---and it lines up nicely with the edge of the hull plate. Your greebling is also very nice, particularly the detail invoked by the set of spanners holding the bar along the side. However, I think the last picture in the link illustrating the profile of your model really showcases how much it's improved over the TLG's version: your version has lost the hunch-back look of TLG version, replacing it with the arrow-head-esque profile. I like it ;-) The only problem with working without instructions is that now you can't disassemble and reassemble your model =/ Nice work. Much kudos and respect :-) cheers John

Hi, ok, thankyou for your positive feedback :-D I did actually see Aeroeza's and Mortesv's link some time ago when I was looking around for thoughts/feelings on the shape of the SDD after I assembled my version and thought it was all broken. My original intention was to work out a permutation of the pieces in 10221 to make it closer to what I thought it should be like, and to that end I got hold of the LDD model posted on these forums and started trying to deconstruct it while dragging the pieces aside so I can then be sure that I'm only using the pieces in the original set. But then the angle at the nose bugged me too much so I deleted all that work and started from scratch with the 2x4 wedge pieces and my own reference to images I could find on the 'net. Thanks for pointout out your link again--I've checked it out and now that I've struggled with some concepts (or, at least, identified some features I wanted to preserve in my model), I can see how you've approached them--but I'll write a comment on your thread shortly. BTW, I've added the draft to my profile comparison picture; I hope you don't mind. I am well pleased that the angles of my hull are a perfect match, actually. I guessed the angle because I didn't have a profile picture handy, and I figured 8degrees looked about right, and it seems we both agree ;-) I'd be the first to agree that there are many aspects of my model that I /know/ are not correct, so I definitely agree that my tail is longer than it should be. My tail is three 3x13 wedge plates, and I knew at the time that I really wanted 2.5 plates long. While I could address some of that discrepancy by having two plates side by side and using the bottom layer offset by half a length and coating the top with a different angle, then I'd end up with the obvious layered effect you can see on my model just behind the widest point---ie. you can see that the top layer is noticably shorter than the bottom layer. In the end, I actually liked having a long tail and kept it as 3 elements long. However, building the top plates was actually the first thing I did, and I think I'll revisit that decision in light of the more complete model. However, I am not sure how much I believe the 'scale model reference' illustration as canon. Maybe it was drafted from the model images (?) but if you compare the section after the last engines does extend a surprising amount. To be fair, that image has been taken with a wide-angle lens, and the perspective will definitely distort length ratios, particularly for the end of the tail because it's near to the camera. Consider also this crude image analysis using the length ratios of the last engine structure with respect to the rest of the tail: what this shows is the line along the structure that has been divided into segments of the same length, taken from the 2D image length of the last engine of the model: ie each mark denotes the /same/ 2D euclidean line segment which is taken from the corresponding segment over the engine. Unfortunately, this image is somewhat deceptive, because it doesn't take perspective into consideration: because the tail is slightly closer to the viewer, to maintain the same length in 3D space the equivalent length in 2D should progressively increase slight. I'd happily accept that you'd need to take this image with a grain of salt, but it /does/ suggest that perhaps the real model's tail is slightly longer than the draft image. Anyway, if we pretend that the perspective isn't an issue, then according to the simple image analysis, the length behind the last engine is ~3.75 lengths of the last engine. (The pink vector you see hanging off the tail is the same downwards vector borrowed from the window, which also has a clearly marked "down"). According to the illustration, the length is little more than 3 engines long. Can perspective account for the 'missing' ~25% discrepancy? ... possibly. There's a lot of guess work going in there, because I'm measuring things on different planes---the outer edge of the jet engine is closer to the camera than the mid-point to which I'm comparing it too. But my feeling is that the studio model really is a bit longer than what the draft seems to suggest. I've tried to find better photographs of the studio model which is side-on, but couldn't. The best model I could find is the Korbanth model in the original post, and its tail is arguably quite a bit longer than the draft, too... Regarding the width of the model: I agree that I think the 2x4 wedges make the model a tiny bit too wide. I was initially going to use the 13x3 wedge pieces and hope that by flatting the model, the angle subtended at the nose would also be correct (because obviously you can fiddle with the top-down angle by tweaking the slant angle: trading errors in height for a given wedge piece for errors in the top profile). Some other problems with my model: - the angle of the tail is too steep - the hanger bay was stylised on purpose to be wrong, mainly because no one can see it and it now reminds me of a shark ;) (The angles near the mid section are ~45 degrees, and they should be more like 80)--also, it extends to far to the front and should finish at a right angle, not taper to a point. Again, this was accidentally on purpose because I like the style ;-) - the last engine group is too close together and consequently the angle from the engine group to the ceiling is too shallow. - and probably others But, anyway, I think we can all agree that the TLG's model is too short or too skinny or too anything else you'd like, and while we can happily quibble about just how long the tail really should be, or how wide, I think it ultimately comes down to personal preference :-) I may revisit my tail, but to be honest i quite like the length of it (for various reasons;-), and really---thats ultimately what it comes down to, I think :-) I shall make some more thoughts on your link shortly, but let me say now that I greatly respect your interpretation, too. Thanks again for your feedback! cheers John

Hello, I like the idea. Some thoughts for adding new pieces/scenes include - adding corners so you can make intersections (for the scene where Threepio and R2D2 dash across the corridor admist gunfire) - escape pod exit bay template - possibly some room so Leia can record a holographic message, if it's not same as the escape pod bay You could think about extending the concept to the Death Star, which I'd argue uses very similar themes and include - prison corridors - that room where Han and Chewbacca fight the officers ("is everything allright?" "yes, yes, we're all fine. How are you?") - cells - tonnes of others, including caverns for swinging across, corridors for the fight between Vadar and Obiwan, &c. cheers John

Hello, I've added some more comparison pictures (including to an image from ESB) and close-up of the underside and city to the original post. cheers John

Hi, I think your idea is ingenious and well modelled. Nice work; I like it :-) I realise that this is probably impossible, but it occurred to me that it'd look cool if the clock hands were emanating from the laser cannon, as though the Death Star was firing / scattering golden beams of death ;-) cheers, John

Hi, I, too, think your diorama is outstanding. I like the way you've faded the larger trees in the forest into a clearing for the bunker, including having layers of smaller trees and green tiles: it makes your work look really striking. I don't want to undermine your work---because it really is extremely impressive---but in the spirit of thoughtful comments as 'food for thought' rather than just stunned awe, I was wondering if you've thought about / tried rounding out the tree trunks? Although I appreciate that the different tile heights adds to the bark texture, the trunks still look very square. Perhaps you could try adding another layer of tiles in the middle of each side and with careful (/randomised;-) use of the 2/3 slopes on the edges you might be able to give a more rounded look to your trunks while maintaing the bark-look? cheers, John

Hello, thanks for your kind appreciation :-) Although the exterior is pretty much finished (except that I haven't added any detail to the side trenches yet and I am still considering changes to the city), but it is currently ~3700 pieces and is (virtually) 1.44 metres long. For reference, the length from the nose to the widest point of my model is almost the same as the legnth from the nose to the widest point on 10221---but my version is quite a bit longer. Thanks for your comments regarding the greebling on the city. I wasn't a big fan of the "random pieces" that some versions use. While there is a lot of detail on the model, I think the city displays more structure which I wanted to bring out. Having said that, though, my version does have some element of excessive detail on the outer blocks, but I am musing about scaling that back, too. I'll post more pictures of the underside and the city soon; I just haven't had time to do it, yet. I still need to figure out how to turn the model into a working set of instructions, given that some of the internal structure isn't aligned correctly because LDD rounds rotations to the nearest integer and some of the hinges have fractional rotation =/ I hope to be able to build it at some stage, sure :-) Two people have suggested that it is a little bit too wide. Although it probably is a bit wider than ideal, I think it's actually extremely close. I found an image of a resin model by Scale Solutions which has a pretty decent top-down-view, which I've illustrated here for comparison: (removed: see first post) The top and side images have been scaled so the baseline I mentioned above is the same, but the overlay in the bottom right corner has been scaled so the /length/ is the same. This comparison is not /quite/ accurate, because although I can generate perfectly orthogonal synthetic images, the photograph is at a slight angle which can distort the width somewhat---either by making it larger by tilting to the back of the ship or narrow by tilting to the narrow sides. However, I maintain that it's reasonably straight-on for comparison, and that my model actually seems to be very close to its width (and that the angle formed at the nose is very close). Not exact, sure: but orders of magnitude better than the official lego model. The width of the 'wings' with respect to a Korbanth model is illustrated here, where I've tried to mimmick the camera angle taken by Matt Craig: (removed: see first post) I plan to make a few more comparison pictures with respect to reference photographs of the movie model from modelermagic and the movies themselves, but haven't got around to it yet. Finally, here's a comparison picture with the official model, which I think illustrates that my version is significantly flatter than the amusingly hunchback Lego version. (Also, the top angle is mirrored underneath.) (removed: see first post) thanks again for your feedback. cheers, John

Hello I own 10221 Super Star Destroyer, but am somewhat dissatisfied with the number of inaccuracies which has been discussed in detail on these forums, so I sought to rebuild it into my own interpretation. Unfortunately, this only exists in LDD and it is the first MOC I've done; but as its nearing completion I thought I'd show some visualisations for constructive feedback. There are a number of issues that I wanted to fix, but I mainly wanted to correct the flat bottom, extend the tail and angle the front engines along the bottom hull. I've compared my version against a number of resin models (mainly from http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=29704), and I feel my version is reasonably close---but not entirely ;-) It has some "features" which have been stylised differently on purpose (mainly because I couldn't be bothered fixing them:), and at the end it's lego so there's a degree of inherent abstraction. I was planning on rendering some images to compare the dimensions against the profiles I've used for reference, because I am quite pleased with how close they are---but I haven't done so, yet. Ray-traced images: note: there seems to be some errors when converting from LDD->LDR->Povray--some of the bricks used for the underside are missing! Close-up of the city/underside (rendered in LDD): Profile comparison: note that the size reference for both the top and profile views are based on the distance from the tip to the widest point, and that the scale of my version seems to change w.r.t. the Scale Solutions resin model and the profile from the Spaceship Size Comparison Chart. I guess there only definitive version is the model built for ESB and one/both of the reference images are wrong (since they're different with respect to each other, too...) Comparison to the /real/ reference model: I tried to approximate the camera angle/perspective of the reference images for my model and then rendered the LGR version using the same parameters. In the first image (the one that isn't a frame from the movie), I scaled the LGR image so the image distance from the tip to the rear engines is approximately the same as the real image Comparison to a third-party resin model: Finally, a comparison to the LGR 10221: cheers, John