Fallenangel

I thought this was important enough to warrant a bump: What do you all think? Could 'Stephanie' hold any relevance to the future of Star Wars Minifigs?

I quite enjoyed those as well. Unfortunately, it appears that many consider the idea of a starfighter-sized superweapon capable of destroying an entire star system to be bad writing. Unrelated: Prequel bashing, a good laugh, or both... you decide.

9495 doesn't look too bad from that angle; the lack of curvature in the head is less noticeable. Come now, it's accurate! (Well, to some scenes, anyway. But we've already had that discussion.)

Indeed. I find it funny that they've added sand yet neglected to fill in the dark impressions on the back of the helmet.

The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural.

I take it you haven't seen a side-by-side then?

No, you're thinking of 4502 to 6212. 9493 and 6212 are substantially different. Let me find the post... @Macoco: Unfortunately (and I'm assuming that we all want more detailed and accurate minifigures) Boba's jumpsuit is a very light bley around the neck and Jango's is a sort of lavender. On the new head, it is black. I replace Vader's head with a solid black one for the same reason. It would be great for clone troopers, though.

That argument's been floating around for quite some time now. It's one reason why many claim that THE Clone Wars was responsible for saving the license. You'd be surprised how much hasn't been covered, either due to obscurity or the fact that it wouldn't work well as a toy. I've been clamoring for an SPHA-T for years, and of course everybody wants a 327 Nubian... @Lyichir: The reason The LEGO Group hasn't touched old sets like the bongo or the Flash speeder in years (and I swear I've said this before) probably has something to do with the fact that they wouldn't work well in LEGO. I believe that with the parts available, it wouldn't be possible to design a bongo or Flash speeder that wasn't blocky, and given that expectations have risen (however slightly) such an approach wouldn't meet standards. Then again, anything is possible.

These are the kinds of bumps I like - I don't know how I missed this. It's admirable that you've put so much effort into refining this one small MOC, and the result does not fall short in the slightest – clean and solidly built, and just about the right size for minifigures. This sort of thing is really the best thing about the AFOL community. And with the issue of lazy posters that has risen lately I am ever so glad that an example of it was not the case for this bump. Quite the opposite, in fact...

Even better than SNSD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0T50OElma0

I thought we had already established that piece per price ratios didn't mean much. Price per weight, now that's a different story...

Are you sure about the size? Because Mike Crowley's B1 is considerably larger than this one.

I have a feeling this isn't working.

What link? Oh, wait...

Are people these days so lazy now that they can't make ten good posts? EDIT: I've even found an appropriate video by the spammer himself: A guy is spamming on Eurobricks! But we are glad the spam police is here. Seriously, the video description is hilarious. The amount of spam that goes unnoticed on YouTube is ridiculous.

Someone appears to have rendered 9493 in LDraw. See here.

I believe that's from this book... it's the canon interior of Echo Base, or something.

I keep reporting them, but they keep coming back!

Yeah, impossible, right? I think I'm scaling it wrong. Hold on... EDIT:No, the figures are coming out roughly as is. Taking the scale for the original 7191 (and probably losing much credibility in the process) we can verify this: Well, I knew that 8092 was much too big for minifigures, but to think that it actually borders on UCS scale! Either that or I'm doing something terribly wrong.

I can't even begin to describe how awesome the general construction is (I love that LDD allows us to see that), so I'll just comment quickly on the measurements... the wingspan and dorsal fin on this thing are enormous... but it looks spot on! What reference did you use?

I think those curved bricks might be the issue. They would work fine at a larger scale, but used on this creation, they exaggerate the curves in that area. I'm guessing that Gareth and Ras_Al_Ghul realized this and opted for stacked plates instead, which I would prefer since the overall result is far sleeker. I'm curious as to why the stick shift has been omitted. I think the back could use some cleaning up as well. Are you sure? If I remember correctly, SWDA gave the length of the X-34 as 402cm based on the full-size prop, and 388cm based on the ¼ miniature. Either way, a “UCS scale” X-34 shouldn't be more than about 5.5~5.8in...

Maybe it's just because I've been looking through old threads, but lately I've also noticed the site being slower than usual.

*Slightly bothered due to The LEGO Group's continuity choices* *Remains silent because it's really not that big of a deal*