Fallenangel

The better choice would be to realize that there are too many clonelover n00bs on MOCpages and switch to Flickr.

I thought I had noticed that the MINI Imperator included was about as big as pedro's MOC, but I was wrong. The superior price-per-part ratio, level of detail and accuracy, build difficulty, and generally higher set quality associated with the UCS label? And hey, the big blob of gray isn't too shabby either.

Hmm...

Major bump! I have found a solution!* When you posted your original JSF collection on Eurobricks, I made this suggestion: To be honest, I wasn't exactly sure how to pull this off myself, but I really thought that the 3x12 wings would be ideal. I remained in this state until I came across spacie's entry in the FBTB HybridFighter contest: This was exactly what I was talking about. The use of the wing plates provides that sharp look that is characteristic of the Delta-7 and Delta-7B. Now, I am aware that this method is not directly applicable to your models because there exists a difference in size. I would** simply move the entire plated structure just forward of the bubble canopy (this would also leave room for the astromech as well as allow the canopy to sit flush). *Hooray for accuracy craving! **Sydag's solution is also an excellent alternative, though I admittedly prefer spacie's.

Yeah, just accept the fact that the Star Wars films are chock full of retcons, both obvious (like this one) and implied (Luke and Leia as siblings).

Interesting... it resembles a cross between an A-9 Vigilance and a Sith fighter.

I concur. Though I maintain that neither the quality of the builds themselves nor are particularly appealing, I do like the idea behind this program. Don't lose hope! I doubt LEGO will be catching up to us anytime soon. Could be.

It appears from his member profile that he's been a member here for the better half of a year, in spite of the fact that he's only made ten posts. Regarding 7171: I think that this set is unusually detailed for its time. On the one hand, people could have said that LEGO was raising their standards; on the other, that LEGO sets were getting too detailed. I remember back in '07 when one AFOL here complained that they included the vents on the back of the head in 7657...

Tsk, tsk, the Executor is eleven times the length of an Imperial, about 17.6km. In midi-scale, around 2.7m long.

Eh, it's possible nobody actually saw him. Remember that this is the same film in which a 9-year old accidentally blows up a droid control ship in a fighter he's never flown before.

That I can : Gallery here, courtesy of Toromodel. The full-size prop: There does seem to exist an inconsistency in that while the scaled miniature sports a "pack" on the back (a feature which, I might add, was curiously omitted in The Essential Guide) the full-size prop does not. Technically, both would be screen-accurate, but I would go off the miniature since full-scale props are traditionally built smaller and have to accomodate real people (the same could be said for the T-47 and the X-wing). However, the illustration from the Incredible Cross-Sections does seem to be a variant, so I would go ahead and put in a heating unit. Hope this helps. By the way, that "model kit" is actually part of a Hasbro playset: I think we can all agree that Hasbro isn't exactly the most accurate source.

I concur with the above posts. On the other hand, I'd like to see you scrap the landspeeder part entirely and just finish the Lambda shuttle (though the main body will definitely need some work if you're considering that).

For convenience: Have you considered expanding this into a full corridor?

Eh, LEGO doesn't care about scale in System sets... If you mean the alternate builds that LEGO provided for 6211, here's the thread that has them. But what does this have to do with 8039 in comparison to 6211?

Now that you mention it, you're right. I mean, it's not like it wouldn't be the perfect chance to throw in Hoth trooper minifigures...

Yeah, that's basically what I meant. It doesn't seem like it would make that big of a difference for LEGO (though if that were to happen, I'm sure there would be someone on this forum who's going to say, "What's up with that AT-ST? " )

Overall a rather unconventional approach to the T-47. The 'studded' look and stock canopy makes it look like LEGO could have made it, which is neat. I agree with the comments above. The only other major area for improvement would be the nose - the 'real' T-47 has a lot of tight angles in that area, and I think that a SNOTed approach (perhaps something along the lines of this)may convey that look better than a studs-up approach. I'm looking forward to any further developments on this.

Is there anything that distinguishes a Blizzard Force AT-ST from a "normal" one, other than the proportions? (I know I don't seem like someone who would ask that, but since you mentioned it I am genuinely curious.) I agree with you on the AT-ST; however, I can't help but think that as LEGO has successfully marketed the 4500 design four times now they wouldn't feel the need to change it (in spite of the fact that it's absolutely warped). Might have something to do with this... There could. We haven't had one since '07 (though LEGO will probably reuse the 7658 design, seeing how many people seem to like it). That's subjective.

I think "Fallen Angel" is pretty self-explanatory... 327 is the docking bay on the Death Star that housed the Millennium Falcon as well as the prime factorization of 42, which in turn is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (as well as - although I found out after I chose the number - the length of an X-wing in feet). March 09, 1989 is a certain pop star's birthday and completely unrelated to Star Wars.

Hey look, some new designs: - Midi-scale J-type Nubian - Midi-scale Lucrehulk - Midi-scale Providence It would be pretty neat if these were made into sets...

Some DUPLO set:

The original UCS sets, 7191 and 7181, are both in 1:28 scale and thus to scale with each other. This could be extended to 10175 since it used the same piece for the canopy as 7181.

The "minifigure scales" I prefer are: Fig = 6 feet tall 1 stud = 1 foot 3 studs = 1 meter From Dave Eaton's LEGO Scale Converter. But as everyone else has mentioned, it really is quite arbitrary. I lean toward the latter two of the scales I listed since they're independent of minifigures (because minifigures defy proportionality - with the latter two, minifigures look about the right size next to them, though they're not perfectly to scale or compatible). Take minifigures out of the equation and everything should be a little simpler. It may also help to know that a 1x1 plate measures 8mm to a side.

It looks like they eased up on the printing a bit. So I'm curious - is the black ARF trooper actually canon? A 'stealth recon' of sorts?

Maybe I was sounding too contemptuous of this program in my last post here, but I agree with Peppermint_M on this point. While it's great that kids can now take a "textbook" approach to building better LEGO (for those who prefer to get into it that way), I feel that having exposure to LEGO MOCs can do your building skills a world of good(no pun intended) as well as help you to realize that LEGO sets are not the be-all, end-all. Does The LEGO Group make sets that encourage imaginative building? Sure. But can you also get that creative inspiration from a good MOC? Of course. It's nice that LEGO tried to create a strictly moderated environment within which kids can develop through this program, but in all honesty if I were eight years old and excited about building better MOCs I would take a look around brickshelf before turning to a 'Builders Academy'.