Fallenangel

Should be about 38 studs.

I think that to a 'REAL fan' you would be less concerned about the specifics than the fact that Lucas keeps bothering to alter the movies. I don't care what he says about wanting to realize his vision or whatever - there is just no point in throwing in extra stuff and pissing off fanboys other than to milk this franchise for all it's worth. I completely agree with Clone O'Patra's post that it is ridiculous how many versions of these films exist at this point. On a related note, has anyone seen this? It's not the content I mind so much as the fact that pointless changes are still being made. Artoo has extra rocks!

You're already buying 7666 as a foundation, so my recommendation would be to find out how everything in Echo Base is laid out and then scale everything to the door. Depending on whether or not you want the base to be scaled to minifigures, that may or may not be big enough. I believe a diagram of Echo Base exists in The Art of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. In short, find some sources, then translate everything into bricks as best as possible.

As I've said before, we already know that it's a 10XXX number, which (taking into account he size of a B-wing relative to a minifigure) implies that it will be UCS. Nothing new with this box art.

The change was mentioned on Yahoo... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I&feature=player_embedded#!

Or if you want to bring MOCs into the equation... And as Anio said, as much concentrated greebling as there is on this set, it's largely repetitive and overall not very interesting (not unlike the detail on 10143). A quick glance at the source material shows that the detailing is dense and wildy varied, something that MOCers such as Lasse make an effort to convey in their renditions of the Executor. There is a difference between arranging detail in a way that is tasteful and attractive and drably lining up a bunch of the same pieces and expecting it to look good on its own (like this set did). All that dark bley doesn't help much either.

You've got the SNOTed cheese along the sides of the tail, so I expected you to have studs facing downwards to allow some more greebling in that area. I'm guessing from the way you've included the brackets that that isn't possible.

There are a lot of good things going on in this MOC - very nice... I'll start with what is probably the best part of this MOC - the wings. I really like the tiled border that the SNOT build made possible, and the piece you've used for the angled edges is perfect. The simple solution of hinges work well here, and I can't get over how spot on the detailing on the insides are. Just fantastic. The wing pylons look great in spite of being studded and really captures the angular look of that area, something I've found difficult to properly execute at this scale. As you said, the back sides aren't exactly the most presentable, but considering how little space you have to work with the wedge bricks are very effective in retaining the shape. I love how well you've captured the squat, blocky look of the "tail" section and nailed the shape with those cheese slopes. What looks to be traces of a hinge in the back is not only accurate but a fun Easter Egg (BasOne ). The entire hyperdrive area looks really good; the shaping is somewhat off (can't be helped, I guess, due to the sloped bricks available) but the smooth SNOTed look of the region is quite fitting and the gaps are spot on. Regarding the cockpit - the Lowell Sphere technique works very well here next to the angled wing pylons. The clips you've used to represent the laser cannons aren't too bad actually - they kind of do look like the ball-and-socket joints that are there after all (it's a shame they couldn't be placed higher up - or maybe the bottom just needs a 3x3 inverted dish to be complete... more on this later) I'm a little surprised that you didn't SNOT the underside as well - limitations are limitations, I suppose... Overall, a great MOC. There is just one suggestion I would make, though, and it's a pretty big one. This is really the only thing I would suggest reworking on this MOC. Since the x1 studio model used the same cockpit ball as that of a TIE/ln but was more compact, the cockpit ball ends up looking huge in comparison to the rest of the craft, as evident in shots like this one. When I first saw this MOC, the shape of the main body reminded me of 10175, which suffers from the same problem. This is also apparent when you consider the width of the "tail" of your MOC relative to the diameter of the cockpit ball in comparison to the same ratio on the studio model. I think the issue may have arisen from the fact that you've represented the windshield with a 4-wide dish instead of a 6-wide dish. I'm afraid I can't offer much in the way of technique other than referring you to Gareth's outstanding rendition (I've been wondering whether the ball could be done this way at minifigure scale but haven't had a chance to try it out), but I can tell you that a diameter of around 8 studs would better suit an MOC of this size. Perhaps if you were to do something like this...

It's really interesting to see what some people on Eurobricks actually look like - I was honestly surprised at how young (or old) some of you appear to be! Did you know that before I saw this, whenever I tried to imagine what you looked like, I envisioned Kermit on a laptop ?

I don't know about the minifigure, but someone once said that a minifigure-scaled Jabba the Hutt would be about six studs high and twelve studs long from belly to tail. If you're feeling braver, Pepa Quin made a brickbuilt Jabba in a larger-than-minifigure scale some time back.

Assuming everything goes as planned, a matter of hours. I can hardly wait! A 100% legal build from Brickdoctor - this is bound to be interesting...

If 7778 had lots of little moving bits like this did, it would be a bit excessive, especially given its small size. Actually, I found the rotating quadlasers kind of bothersome - they ruin the solid feel of the set, and they're so insubstantial that spinning them isn't a whole lot of fun (good thing that's a quick fix). There is a size at which a playset interior is appropriate in a LEGO Millennium Falcon, largely because a certain amount of room is necessary for actual playing to occur (which, as Ki-Adi-Mundi has said, is probably why the interior of the recent 7965 is so sparse). I feel that the inclusion of an interior is ill-suited to a build as diminutive as JackJonespaw's MOC and that the main area of this MOC could have been better executed as a sleek and solid surface with a high degree of swooshability in mind rather than a bulky mass of hinges and a cramped interior. (This is also my opinion on why The LEGO Group may have chosen not to include minifigures in 7778 or to incorporate a functional cockpit - it's just too small). I think that the aesthetics of 7778 and JackJonespaw's MOC are also an important factor in which one would be more likely to appeal to kids. Unlike this MOC, which is largely reliant on SNOT and somewhat reminiscent of one of these, 7778 was something a kid could pick up and swoosh. It sported a simple studs-up build that allowed for a solid build and an appealing 'old skool' look appropriate for the Falcon, as well as proportions which were, as I mentioned, sleeker and more like its on-screen counterpart, allowing a stronger connection between the source material and its representation. The playset interior of this MOC, as previously mentioned, feels cluttered and in my opinion would not encourage a whole lot of playing, while the outer appearance is irregular and gappy - there just isn't a "swooshable" look to it.

I don't think Aayla Secura and Luminara Unduli were ever on the council, though.

Something interesting I thought I should bring up: Look carefully through this gallery, and this one, and this one. I don't think there is any cockpit glass.

Hence "Playability Mod". I think that if I wanted the rear hatch to open more accurately, I would have to have pretty much just the 4x4 inverted dish flip up, something that I couldn't figure out at the time. Looking at it again, though, I think I could just as easily have had the hatch flip upwards. Guess I'll have to incorporate that into a TIE MOC sometime.

Great review as always, Rufus. The construction of the engines and rear fin are interesting revelations. I like that you've highlighted the solid build and nice playability value of this set as well as the fact that it's incredibly out of scale. I like that picture with the pilot, seated and cuffed - it's no wonder that he looks so upset. Intriguing note about the lack of curvature in the rear fin (though to be fair, I don't think it's quite as pronounced as that die-cast model makes it look ). Regarding the flick-fire missiles - it's been a while since I last watched Menace, but I thought that proton torpedoes actually came from this aperture and that the elongated slits on top of the ship (represented by stickers in this set) were the laser cannons...

I'll start with the pros of this MOC - you've done a good job of retaining many of the play features of 4504 at a much smaller size as well as quite a few interior details. Overall, the ship's main deck area looks to be very compact. You've even included the escape pod and quadlaser pit. This would rank highly if judged on playability. However - and this is simply my personal opinion - you seem to have compensated heavily on the overall aesthetics of the MOC in order to retain those features. With a Star Wars-themed MOC the general objective, regardless of what you excel in - NPU, studlessness, durability, accuracy, etc - is to capture the "essence" of the source material in such a way that the audience can make a definite connection between the source material and the LEGO representation. This is reflected both in official sets, which aim to fuse fun play features and good structural integrity with a model which is eye-catching and generally attractive, as well as MOCs, which can have the same aims as offical sets but with a greater emphasis on aesthetics, durability, accuracy, etc. Perhaps my opinion is biased - I view 4504 as a very distorted and flimsy piece that doesn't rank too highly in comparison to other Star Wars sets - but simply put, I find it difficult to see the "essence" of the Millennium Falcon in this MOC. For all intended purposes, the Falcon was a beat-up piece of junk, but the overall design of the ship was sleek and beautiful, its battered exterior adding only to its magnificence. In contrast, this MOC is rather blocky and gappy - it certainly possesses that beat-up quality, but fails to complement it with the sleekness of the original source material. I feel that the square portion between the mandibles (where the loading doors are situated) is the most prominent example of what I am talking about, as are the mandibles themselves. Take a look at that area on the original studio model - very thin and sleek but at the same time well fleshed out with greebling along the top and sides. In contrast, the area on your MOC is squatter and gappier. The structure between the mandibles is quite phallic in appearance and the mandibles themselves, on top of being grossly disproportionate to the rest of the craft, have very little detailing - e. g. the black 2x2 round plates used to represent the access bays just aren't exactly convincing. The large gaps along the sides don't look too great and give the MOC the sense that it is unfinished or hurried. My advice is that you revisit this MOC, putting greater effort into circumventing the aesthetic issues that result from adopting the techniques from 4504 at this smaller scale while retaining the look of an official set, and perhaps keep the following suggestions in mind: - Be mindful of the shape. 4504 may be very distorted in comparison to the original source material, but on its own it did a good job of maintaining a sleek look appropriate for a toy rendition of the Falcon. I feel that diminishing a few portions and making adjustments here and there will greatly aid your MOC in this aspect. - In the case of the mandibles, I would advise you try and continue the angling of the mandible all the way to the 3-high portions behind them, not only because it will be more accurate, but because it will help the shape flow better. If you find that the angles of the wedge plates prevent you from doing so in a way that is aesthetically pleasing, you can always SNOT it to make the mandibles any angle you want. - The same goes for the blocky portion between the mandibles - perhaps diminishing it to around two to three plates' thickness would help give a sleeker look there. I can see why you would want to retain the 45 slope bricks from 4504, but in my opinion they just don't work here; I would suggest cheese slopes along the sides. - I can see what you're trying to achieve with the cockpit, and it is an interesting approach, but at this scale it looks unfinished. You may want to try building it like this. - To retain the escape pod function and improve the look of the docking pods, try having the round 4-wide portion SNOTed right up against the 45 slope bricks and placing the hinge farther back so that more of the pod will lift up. I beg to differ. 7778 was solid and overall more thought out, the detail being applied with greater taste and the studs-up approach well executed to give a feeling of sleekness to the whole model (something that was further enhanced by the fact that the whole thing is elongated in comparison to the source material). The set was designed in such a way that aesthetics and presentation of the subject was put first and foremost (which makes sense, as 7778, in spite of its price, was more UCS in its style than anything else - the fact that there are no minifigures further suggests this)

I've always thought that the way The LEGO Group's TIEs had the entire front half of the ball cockpit flip up for pilot access was rather excessive, so I made a few small adjustments to 7263 that, among other things, allowed him to get in through the back: I originally wanted the pilot's seat attached to the back as well (in the style of the old Kenner toys, which featured the pilot and the entire rear half of the TIE as one large piece with a handle you could pull out), but I couldn't make that happen due to my relative inexperience with LDD. Actually, now that I look at it, I also forgot to connect the black 1x3 plates on top with the hatch area (without this, the set would fall apart when picked up). Any thoughts on this rather simple mod would be welcome...

Stardusty, I'd like to congratulate you on making a great MINI. I've always felt that having just the right mix of detail and shaping was one of the hardest things about making MINI models, but you've pulled that off very nicely. I like that even at this small scale, you've managed to include certain major details such as the hexagonal cross-section of the rear fuselage and the length of the laser cannons. Plenty of NPU here as well - it's great what you've done with the flick-fire missile and the clip light plate (and are those pneumatic T-pieces holding the wings together?). It is true that the wings seem a tad too thick and that the rear and canopy are somewhat off, as you mentioned, but I think that this way it allows for a sleeker and more detailed overall appearance. Nice work.

Give me a minute... EDIT: Here you are!

Read the first page...

After seeing 10212, I think The LEGO Group could revisit the Lambda shuttle and give us a better System version, preferably without the large printed windshield. Technically, we've only ever had one System Lambda shuttle (7166, which was reused in 7264) so it's even more wanting of a redesign than the TIE/ln.

Suspected spam reported.

Maybe I should start a new thread for this. StoutFiles, I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you here - the blocky look of 4479 and 6206 were fine for their time, but looking at 8017 and 9492, I feel that they too could use some refinement to bring them up to contemporary standards. In particular, 4479 is more boxy and discolored than it needs to be; it could very well use a redesign utilizing recent techniques for more curved shapes. Next to 8017, 4479 looks mediocre and unfinished. I wouldn't be surprised if we were to see rehashes of those two sets in the near future.