Fallenangel

If you're referring to the fact that the fuselage underside is dual-faced while that of the nose is a single curved surface, I did add that, counting that and the plteau on which the shield generator and astromech droid socket are situated, the actual shape is a nonagon. You are right, though, and you can see that at least on my MOC I made as best an effort as I could to capture that aspect (though I feel I should give dateman credit for doing it that way rather than trying to attach slopes to the bottom at an angle). I think that you also have to take into account the fact that many AFOLs do not photograph the undersides of their MOCs (and would thus view the mention of the underside as an unreasonable nitpick) as well as the fact that the existence of the plateau may not have been immediately obvious to many who had only seen the film once or twice. All this illustrates that even the best MOCers are forced to make crude approximations in representing a concept in hopes of triggering in the mind of the viewer the recognization of the more complex shape that the MOC is intended to be reminiscent of. This is most easily observed in the MOCs of people such as Tim Goddard or Chris Deck - even at such a small size and with such few pieces they manage to represent a subject in a way that is immediately obvious to the viewer, and constructed in very interesting ways as that. In the case of the X-wing, it's next to impossible to take into account all the various faces in their precise shapes, sizes, and angles relative to each other, so instead I must take the crudest simplification that still looks clean and is vaguely reminiscent of the original subject, which results in a hexagon. And when something, allowing for the crudest of simplification as stated above, does not take into account even that, it just doesn't look good to me. I would agree that in other respects - price, minifigures, choice of subject - 6212 is a fine set. But in terms of the design of the starship itself, 6212 disappoints, and does so quite obviously. To answer the topic title... yes, it's a Toys R Us exclusive and therefore "limited".

Could be. It was part of a gallery for Star Wars: The Exhibition. It's clearly not a Star Forge...

Now that that's been answered... Still nothing on this? Maybe it never made it into a film...

I think the palace is built to minifigure scale or something. There was a picture of a different LEGOland exhibit in the other thread where they had a 7141 in there, and the scale looked much better. On the other hand, just look at that MTT... the construction is amazing. It's a shame LEGO doesn't try and market these display pieces...

At the very least, there are more UCS-style sets on display than just 10179?

You don't get it, do you?

That was it. It's actually the way they chose to construct the S-foil mechanism (worm-gear pushing four separates hinges into place as opposed to a single central pivot) but if I used that as the point people would write it off as a play feature. So instead I'm emphasizing the fact that by choosing to represent opening wings in such an obtrusive way they've botched the shape of the fuselage, which is so blatantly inaccurate that you couldn't possibly call it a nitpick.

Yes, as I said in the other thread. Indeed.

Let me show you then. (I swear, this is the last time I'm doing this.) While miniscule details like control panels, little vents, or small angular differences are next to impossible to take into account with LEGO (at least in minifigure scale) certain conspicuous defining structures can be achieved effectively, especially with ships with lots of straight edges like the X-wing. After all, 100% accuracy is just impossible, especially with LEGO. This is why as builders we must take the identifying traits of a particular subject and make as best an effort as we can to make it recognizable to the average AFOL. For example, if one were building a TIE fighter, one would definitely include the hexagonal wing panels and twin ion engines. Likewise, someone building a Delta-7 would be sure to have the tip pointed. We can apply this to the hexagonal* cross-section of the X-wing's main fuselage. This is what the back of an X-wing looks like. Now tell me if this ugly Technic mess doesn't speak for itself. As you can see, the hexagonal cross-section runs the entire length of the ship, being a defining trait. If one were to cancel this, one would be alienating the subject to the viewer. It's difficult to pull off in the tapering forward fuselage (I'm working on it), but in the back it's fairly simple. Here are some different ways in which it can be done in LEGO: Better Alternative 1 - Scrap the whole worm gear system altogether and use click hinges. It's simpler and a heck of a lot cleaner. Better Alternative 2 - Prefer a more one-touch mechanism? Do what ILM did and connect a pair of wings to a central pivot situated inside the ship. The construction is incredibly simple and works well. Thanks to Dave Eaton for the idea. Better Alternative 3 - If you want to keep the worm gear, do a better job of covering it up. There are numerous other defining traits that 6212 fudges, such as the extended laser cannons, the sloping transition of the engine to the wing, the relationship between the sloped and straight portions on the wing's aft edge, the kitbashed detail behind the astromech droid socket, the location of the cargo bay relative to the cockpit, and the T-shapes in the air intakes (all of which can also be effectively represented with LEGO) but none of these are as immediately obvious as the hexagonal cross-section. As I said, it's not reasonable to expect an interpretation in a kid's toy that's recognizable to an adult (we see things differently, after all) but that doesn't invalidate what I pointed out. Yes, I realize LEGO is a toy. Yes, I realize AFOLs are not their target market. Yes, I realize price, stability, and availiability of parts are an issue to the LEGO Group. Why then, you may ask, am I so damn pissed about a set aimed at 8-year olds being ugly as hell? I’m sure the people over at BrickForge and other customizers don’t think as highly as a purist would of LEGO’s minifigures since it’s obvious to them that most AFOL MOCs could be better. The same goes for me and 6212. But you don’t see me waxing lyricals about how awesome the recent trend of LEGO making more detailed minifigures is (in fact I think it detracts from overall set quality) because in the end a LEGO minifigure in its non-customized state is a toy (however great a toy it may be) and it takes a good customizer to make it into a great display piece – to act like the new Boba Fett or the ARF trooper is beautiful on an orgasmic level would be to naively discredit the MOCers who put more work than LEGO ever did into making a minifigure look good. On the other hand, enough people have raved to me about how 6212 is supposedly the greatest thing LEGO’s ever released that it’s admittedly annoying (sorry Millacol88 but to go on and on about how the ugly Technic mess is spot-on accurate to the movies when so many MOC X-wings out there completely blow it out of the water is just ridiculous – I’m sure it’s great as for what it is - a toy - but don’t call a toy spot-on accurate when it obviously isn’t, even by LEGO standards, and I’m sure I’ve already made that last point clear). This in turn may lead you to ask why I even bother with sets in the first place, and that’s a valid point. Recently I haven’t been buying much in the way of Star Wars LEGO and in any case I first got into this hobby after seeing some great MOCs. The Star Wars midi-scale sets from ’09 and ’10 are an exception because they don’t include minifigures at all and are more focused on the build itself in the style of 10129 or 10174, which I thought was great (even better that both 7778 and 8099 eventually went on sale for nearly half their original prices in part because none of you minifigure-oriented AFOLs and your kids would buy them). I understand that many here wouldn’t even consider buying those two sets because they didn’t have minifigures, and that’s fine, though by no means is it a reason to bash the set.(I realize this applies to me and 6212, so sorry, but I said I would stop.) *Okay, I know it's actually a nonagon, but that's not as easily represented and would surely constitute nitpicking to some AFOLs here, so I went with hexagon.

I'd like to make it clear now that while accuracy is a supporting claim for why I find 6212 less than satisfactory, it is not the main reason. You all seem to be implying here that the only reason I would have for disliking 6212 is because I'm some spergy nitpicker when the truth is the thing just looks terrible and they could definitely have improved the look of the set overall. Now I'm not actually expecting them to cover up all that messy Technic (it's never been a trend), but there's definitely quite a bit of room for improvement, and the fact that there wasn't any improvement over 4502 other than color changes was something that really bothers me. Sorry, but no matter how many minifigures they toss into the set the design of the X-wing itself doesn't look any better to me.

And now I'm stopping it, see.

With the fall sets.

Hey, why not? Nah. Could we please not get into this again? Besides, there's already a thread for this.

I think System Star Wars sets can be exempt from that complaint seeing as we get rehashes of previous vehicles (regardless of whether or not people think that's a good thing). More often than not the rehashes are better than the originals, and they may even include better minifigures. With 6212 you'd think LEGO would bother to update the (ugly) design after 7 years (though I guess the new Falcon proves that LEGO's pretty much given up on Original Trilogy starships at this point). 4502 may have looked fine back in '04, but it looks pretty bad next to more recent designs. And I really don't get why minifigures are so popular, though that's just me. @simonjedi: Correction - a generic Rebel pilot with Wedge Antilles' helmet is in it. As one AFOL put it, "$50 for a new helmet print..." It kind of makes you wonder why they don't keep all the sets on longer. We should be able to walk into a Toys R Us in 2020 and pick up a shiny new 7161 Gungan Sub.

Wow, this is a really nice mod WIP. I like what you've done with the flick-fire missiles as well as the added greebling and the corrected astro-droid socket (though I would recommend that you just leave the legs out, as they are obtrusive). Overall I like the way this is headed. A few things I would suggest: - Make the engine nacelles larger - 6-wide domes are closer to the correct size. - Shrink the cannons in front - the gun pieces don't look all that great. - Make your own canopy - the LEGO version is too blocky. - Greebling can make or break a good Y-wing. For effective greebling, follow the source material. Oh, and one more thing - if the Y-wing seats one, it's a BTL-4A - if two, a BTL-S3.

Yes. Nah. Never. My views on this stated here.

You want the Incredible Cross-Sections books. Here are some examples of what they've got.

Wow, Rook sure chewed him out. But I digress. This deserves its own thread.

Don't tell me this guy was seriously trying to pass off all those MOCs as his own.

Bach's Fantasie in A minor, BWV 904... very nice.

Of course. After all, the 1:4:9 ratio is what distinguishes TMA-1 from just any old black thing. (I thought it was a rock.) Eh, 1:4:10 is close enough (though Legostein got it perfect).

That's what I thought too, but the proportions aren't 1:4:9...

Like fire across the galaxy, the Smut Wars spread...

Perhaps something like this?

I'm going to have to go with StoutFiles on this one. Although I won't deny that Mara Jade and Thrawn were pretty good characters, they have never struck me as icons of the Star Wars universe any more than characters from other Expanded Universe lit. Even characters like Xizor from Shadows of the Empire or any of the Executor bounty hunters are obscure compared to characters from the films. If you keep in mind that LEGO sells to kids, it's not surprising that a set based on a starfighter from a 90's PC game wouldn't sell very well, because none of the kids would recognize it. (Of course, with their parents it might be a different story...)