Fallenangel

This well precedes your fine review, Raytracer. We're simply reiterating the conclusions of past debates to those who were not present at the time (as is so often the case). Our amiable and enthusiastic UCS fanatic mortesv committed an honest error in enlightening another member (with the best possible intentions), so those who knew a thing or two about studio models and MOCing (in this case Anio and Aeroeza, though I often join in) felt it would be helpful to share their knowledge. The question of what exactly UCS denotes is another one of those past debates (one probably older than this site, in fact), so I won’t touch that statement, though I will say that as a FOL you are most justified in your satisfaction with this set. We accuracy sticklers are in the minority, and as all this is a harmless bit of lighthearted nitpicking, we only ask that you let us have our fun. Speaking of which, it’s wonderful that Aeroeza has provided us with this ‘geeky and industrious’ construction illustrating that the angles at the top and bottom of the Executor are in fact congruent. In fact... Nah. Though that isn't the original. Anio himself has admitted that there exist certain significant inconsistencies between his creation and the studio model due to the limitations of the medium, personal preference, and other factors (in terms of height, for example, the belly of 10221 is actually closer to what’s seen on the source material than that of Anio’s Executor) , so I’m not quite sure what you mean by “remarkably consistent”, but in any case, interesting study. I wonder how Lasse’s would fare against the original...

Where are you getting this rubbish? Little purpose in stating the obvious, especially since Anio's been saying this for over a year at this point.

In the interest of sparing anyone else a trip to the Chamber, I'd like to remind you all that we do have a separate topic for availability.

None of that is outlined in either the films or the studio models (the question of how one gets in and out of an AT-AT remains unsolved to this day), so I say ignore secondary 'canon' sources and build it whichever way you like! That being said, Star Wars: Complete Cross-Sections (easily the definitive canon source for the fabricated innards of Star Wars vehicles) and Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections before it put the engine room on top and the speeder bikes on the bottom, so I would go in that direction. As for the upper deck, I recall the Kenner AT-AT having a hatch on its side through which troops could enter and exit, so it would be reasonably safe to speculate that troops from the upper deck could simply jump out through said hatch rather than rappelling down as troops on the lower hatch do. Canonically, the AT-AT kneels when deploying troops, so it’s certainly possible. Granted, this isn’t supported by film footage at all, but then again, neither are any of the other things I’ve mentioned. However, hull plating is a different story entirely. Unless you plan to cover them up, I would suggest finding a better alternative to hold up the troop section than the ‘stepped’ slope bricks you’ve got now; that’s sure to cause issues with angles later on. It may also be worthwhile to go a bit further with the shaping of the head, as it looks rather polygonal at the moment. This image does a fairly good job of illustrating the gentle curves sported in that area. Good luck!

Oh, like canonicity, U.S. prices, UCS, minifigure printing, battlepacks, OT vs. PT vs. TCW, the length of the Executor, and the possibility of a Cloud City playset? It’s time we followed in the footsteps of FBTB and had a ‘Shut Up and Build’ week. I don’t see a problem with discussing this particular subject other than the fact that it is not only blown out of proportion but entirely based off of one person’s eyewitness account.

Looking at that picture, it's not unlike the lack of canopy glass in 10179 - not really that bad, but just enough for it to be noticeable and unappealing to some. (Given that many of the filming models lacked canopy glass for obvious reasons, I don't have a problem with it, but you know those sticklers for realism. )

Ah. I had forgotten about that entry. Go with Aanchir's explanation, then.

It’s coming along nicely. Good job with the greebling amidships. I recall the bit inside the walls of the dorsal fin being more sunken in, though. I see you’ve changed the hull to be more curvaceous, in spite of the straighter lines of your previous beta having been more accurate. Is this a variant on the film design? While I’m certainly impressed with how you’ve shaped the forward end, I’m not sure whether a more uniform look in the spirit of the original source wouldn’t be more aesthetically pleasing. You may also want to consider adding flex tubing to the SNOTed brown pieces at the prow; it would definitely bring the detail at that area up to par with what you’ve done amidships and inside. With your adeptness in achieving curves, the underside is sure to turn out promising. I eagerly anticipate further progress on this fine creation.

Frankly, I'm not sure any of our nerd-rage arguments should be taken seriously. Stage sets are traditionally built underscale. But in any case we seem to agree on the murkiness of the matter, with the exception that you resort to canon dimensions while I prefer to indulge in weighing said conflicting sources - putting us on good terms. (In the end, I guess all the numbers are made up. ) Now there seems to exist a tradition on Eurobricks where someone barges in and exclaims how ridiculous the whole concept of Star Wars canon is and why they stopped giving a shit about it every time the matter is brought up (thus annoying many fans wishing to have some fun with their biased personal canons), so I'll stop here.

Compared to Anikan, Obi Won, Greivous, and Utapua, I'd say he was pretty close.

In addition to the reasons above, there's also the fact that 'Vader's Interceptor' refers to something else.

As a matter of fact, both the dimensions of the second Death Star and especially the Falcon are very much debated alongside those of the Executor - one need only to refer to Saxton’s Technical Commentaries and Bob Brown’s Falcon site (or any scale modeling forum, for that matter) respectively to see that the second Death Star could be anywhere from 160 to some 800km across and the Falcon some 25 to 40m in length! With inconsistencies between various depictions of the objects in question and Expanded Universe material constantly muddying the waters (not to mention the numerous retcons that take place in between) it’s plain to see that neither of these frivolous debates will ever be concluded accurately, if at all – the only thing that stops me from capitulating to canon dimensions (as practical a solution as that would be) is the overwhelming consensus that the 160km and 26.7m figures are plainly wrong. And if I recall correctly, the ‘current’ canon length of the Falcon is 35m as determined by the recent James Luceno novel, so 26.7m is wrong either way. One thing I’ve learned from my current dabbles in scale modeling is that building according to predetermined sizes is simply impractical, especially when the exact parameters of the measurement are not explicitly stated. Better to go the way of the FOL and build according to the sizes of certain parts for which the dimensions are certain, extrapolating as you go (the most prominent example being the Saturn V cans used in constructing the X-wing’s engines). Granted, if done correctly the extrapolated figures would theoretically match up with a given length every time, but if it were that easy I’m sure more people would be doing it. As for 'minifigure scale' as opposed to 'System', refer to this:

7191 is an enormous 47cm. Shame it's mostly studs-up, though - an X-wing done right at that size would trounce any System creation.

Quite the droll journey! This is something many of us can only hope to afford. I’ll forgive the use of the highly erroneous canon lengths for now. I never quite liked how fat the 10019 was; if you’re interested in developing that model further I would definitely suggest taking a look at OceanBlue’s extensive mod (assuming you haven’t seen it already) – I think you’ll find that the added length greatly improves the overall look (and accuracy) of the set. And yet, to me,/what is this quintessence of studs? Inaccuracy delights not/me: no, nor discoloration neither, though by your smiling/you seem to say so.. That’s right - in fact, at 1:28 scale it seats a Technic figure well. Going by the canon length of 12.5m, though, 4502 is actually about right for minifigures. Now if only it was presentable...

Wouldn't want any child of mine watching this.

obiwan1011 needs at least ten posts to send and receive PMs, so Anio is unable to send him one.

Oh yes, the skewed cockpit struts of the Fine Molds X-wing and the sorry paint job on the eFX. It's no skin off my nose that this may fall below the standard for Eurobricks reviews. I only feel appreciation for the provision of these images, regardless of their quality.

Well, there goes Psiaki's X-wing. From what I've heard, such a feature would be too complex to implement in LDD and it would be more sensible to simply switch to LDraw.

Might this help? Just remember to use 3x3 or 4x4 wedges at the nose, instead of those 3x6s...

Considering how widely used that particular piece is, I would prefer that they leave it. (After all, it is far too large... ) A swiveling dome can be achieved quite easily.