Fallenangel

On the one hand, your techniques are clean and very nice. On the other, the general look of the ship doesn't really feel like the "original" Alliance Assault Frigate seen in the comic book version of Heir to the Empire, where I believe this ship made its first visual appearance. (Correct me if I'm wrong, someone.) I'll be concise: I don't feel that this MOC looks rugged enough for an Alliance Assault Frigate, because 1) it's very clean, bright and colorful and 2)the exposed sections of the frigate are too clean. I've always thought of an Alliance Assault Frigate as being like an EF76 with the head of a Dreadnaught. I don't know whether you are the sort of person that makes something and says "Okay, it's done" or if you like to revisit certain concepts, but in any case I would very much like to see this revisited with a more rugged feel to it.

But lately it's really been the other way around...

Didn't you say, though... Besides, if the blatant inaccuracy in a UCS set is what bothers you, I really don't think 10134 is any worse than the others. In this case, I'm thinking it probably has to do with the fact that quite a few people don't seem to like the way the Y-wing studio miniature looks (i.e . they prefer this inaccurate yet sleeker version). Don't get me wrong, it bothers me too, but then I never buy UCS sets. Anio said: And I agree. (Anio, if you'd like to add, maybe you could just post in French and someone could translate...)

A fan I was having a discussion with brought up the point that in the same way the Original Trilogy portrays the victories and losses of the Alliance in addition to the conflict between Luke and Vader the Prequels showed us the origins of the Galactic Empire as well as Anakin's journey to the Dark Side. Do you think either one of the two manages this dual storytelling element any better than the other? Is this element also present in the '08 series?

"Away, away from your home... I'm afraid I'm afraid I'm afraid I'm afraid afraid, ghost..." While I certainly get what they're doing, I don't get the "salty" line... THIS!

Okay, I'm honestly trying my best not to sound negative in any way so please don't think I'm attacking you or anything. Once the nose is built, I'll be able to change its position; at the moment, the underside isn't capable of supporting the wings (one reason there will be a third landing strut under the nose). So... glad you're looking forward to that. I was actually considering that myself, but I can't seem to get it to work. Do you think you could shoot me a PM with some ideas for the wingtip laser cannons? Thanks Roncanator. As for the base color, I think it's really a matter of personal preference. While I've seen some fantastic X-wings in white, I prefer gray for my X-wing because it looks more weathered. I actually was considering a white version - I'll have to see if brickartist can build one in white once I finish this and send him some deconstruction pictures. Accuracy-wise, the actual color is more of a dirty white - not as shiny as LEGO white, but not as dull as LEGO gray either. How do I say this... the macaroni pieces are being used due to a parts restriction; I simply don't have enough 2x4 half-cylinder bricks. Would you perhaps know of another way I could construct these engines?

Thought it'd be implied, but here you go... - Special thanks to Brickdoctor for providing constructive criticism and help with illegal connection methods as well as reverse-engineering the wings on BaronSat's X-wing and dubbing me the 'X-wing freak', among other things. As for the gap, I still have to add some stuff there. It makes sense if you'll remember the last point in our PM discussion.

Okay, so I decided to compile a list of critical points I received upon posting my last WIP pic: - Too many studs - Fat nose - Bulky wing section w/ clunky intakes & blocky engines - Overly protective response to constructive criticism I also decided to take yet another critical look at version 8, as Blackknight112 recommended, and came up with this: - blocky, bulky engines and parts of rear fuselage - poorly integrated canopy with nose that lacks the defining hexagonal cross-section After taking all these points into consideration, this is what I have so far: Please excuse the poor photography. Once the nose section is built I'll take better pictures because at that point more holistic criticism would be possible. Feel free to ask questions or contribute constructive criticism, and as I enjoy looking at MOCs very much I request that you provide a link to your favorite X-wing MOC in your post with a short statement of why you like it. I'm also going to request that one of the moderators remove this thread from the MOC index and add 'WIP' back into the thread title, because it's obviously not finished yet. I intend for version 8 to be the 'ultimatum'. Special thanks to: - errbt for pointing out the importance of 4-stud-wide engines and 2-stud-wide guns (as well as inspiring me to make an X-wing in the first place) and Brucey-wan for inspiring me to achieve the hexagonal rear fuselage. - simonjedi for pointing out the size of the astromech droid socket. - LEGO for showing me how not to make a good X-wing with 6212.

Oh yeah, you did say on SeTechnic that you decided on a brickbuilt method after the plates failed to capture the shape accurately. Perhaps it's just a matter of accepting that it's more accurate that way? I suppose the prospect of making a smaller model with the same level of detail, as you said, would be the best solution then. The Providence isn't much smaller than the Venator (around 96% of the length) so they should be about the same size at this scale.

While I can certainly see where you're coming from (all that size but not much that's been done with it) I wouldn't say the size is solely for the sake of making something big. For one, the increased size allowed you to achieve proportions on your MOC that are closer to those of the ship seen in the films, which in itself is a great feat in that it not only made the ship more recognizable but also more aesthetically pleasing (I personally prefer this long, sleeker rendition to Curtis Black's chubby model). However, I will agree with you that there could be some more work done concerning details, and I think that this has partly to do with that you've increased the size without changing critical aspects of the build (at least externally; I don't know about the frame, so I won't say anything about that). Larger size should basically allow you more freedom with the bricks as more complex structures are possible in a larger space, and I see some areas where you could take advantage of that. I mean, wouldn't you agree that this is largely a straight up-and-down "sculpture" build, whereas many UCS sets such as 10030 and 10143 are mostly angled plates? By the way, I think I see three engines, and then I think I see two; which is it? (There should be three.)

I believe I've read that same interview; he's probably right. I can see where they're coming from though - when I was very young my collection of LEGO was so small that I thought plates were extremely rare pieces and that Technic pins had no purpose. Kind of funny looking at how many plates I'm using in version 9 my continuation of version 8. Also, Varszegi's Venator is so amazing. The fact that it's the size of a bathtub means he was free to do pretty much whatever he wanted with the bricks (and he did some amazing things). At that size, I don't think you would even need specially molded bricks unless you want large conglomerations of parts (which can be advantageous structurally).

Just so you know I did not explicitly mention accuracy in that statement. What I was really getting at was aesthetic quality in general, which not all sets have. 7778 may be inaccurate but it looks good enough to me that upon buying it I was unsure whether the Falcon really did have huge mandibles and beefed-up docking rings. Neither Hasbro and Kenner toys have been much for aesthetic quality either (e. g. old Kenner X-wing was incredibly deformed) so I attribute this to the fact that it's a toy. And while 100% accuracy is impossible to obtain that doesn't mean you should forget it completely because without the source material where would we get LEGO Star Wars sets? Disregarding accuracy completely is just as extreme as insisting on 100% accuracy (which by the way I have not, though I will admit it was only a few steps removed). You can't have LEGO Star Wars without Star Wars. It would just be LEGO (which I suppose most AFOLs are happy with, so maybe that doesn't help my argument). And as for 'great on display either way'... that's not always the case. :laugh: Those non-AFOLs... they probably think the miniland T-47 at LEGOland California is the best anyone could do too. LEGO's made some pretty great stuff (e. g. Green Grocer) but I think that with things like the miniland T-47 they've sometimes given AFOLs a bad rep. Well when you put in that way it's really the fact that the LEGO elements themselves are hardy than anything to do with the design of the actual sets. LEGO was smart enough to realize that when a kid plays with something it's not over until the toy is demolished.

In the interest of providing more holistic constructive criticism for this MOC as I see would be reasonable (there's no point in Flickr comments and nitpicking is just ridiculous) I will say this: on the one hand, you've done a very nice job of capturing the smoothness of ship; on the other hand, you've canceled out a lot of its signature Naboo curves (not that that isn't a good thing - I don't like Naboo ships too much) which detracts from the character of the ship itself. An N-1 without a whole lot of curvature simply can't be called an N-1 (something which LEGO admittedly did nicely with the use of the large slope pieces on 7660 and the recent rendition). I think the reason for this is partly due to your use of SNOT, though I don't believe it's necessarily this restrictive shape-wise; for example, some angling bricks/tiles around the cockpit area would aid greatly in providing shape. Lastly, although 100% accuracy is impossible with LEGO it doesn't mean you should toss it out the window completely because I believe one aspect of making a good MOC is in capturing certain very prominent aspects of the ship - surprisingly enough - accurately. An example would be what you've done with the studlessness, which you've done well. However, proportions are also a significant aspect and while there are some places where roughly ideal proportions just aren't possible (obviously, the thickness of the wings) there are certainly some places where it can be brought a little closer (the shape of the wings). That pretty much does it for the 'holistic' criticism. Now brickartist I know that unlike many people you actually like my specific style of criticism so if you'd like that as well send me a PM and we can talk some things over (for one, engines and cockpit).

On the contrary, both 7778 and 8099 were done in the style of UCS sets so 10026 couldn't be described as a midi. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

When Lucas decides it's time... which basically means, who knows? I wonder why so many people asked about cameos... is the show so uninteresting that putting in something else that's cool would make it better? (Samuel L. Jackson certainly couldn't save the Prequels.) 'he could do amazing stories and excite fans...' heh. As if he hasn't already done that.

Wookieepedia doesn't have much in the way of screen captures, mostly CGI renders and illustrations, so it's not that great of a visual source. But the N-1 is supposed to be a showy ship so I guess chroming the whole thing would look good to some people. Where were N-1s in Battlefront II? Nah, LEGO sets aren't intended to look good in the first place. More often than not, scratchbuilding is the way to go if you want something that looks good on your shelf. Are you sure? (Not that I don't like this MOC, but...) Probably so kids would have the choice of having either a pilot or a 9-year-old fly the ship. To my knowledge there are no significant variations between the N-1s in the film (unlike X-wings and T-47s) so it would work. Oh, and for anyone wanting to mod 10026 to fit a minifigure (it's more of a toy than a UCS after all) it's been done fairly well.

I think they're more or less recolored stock sets. mutley777 did say there were a few changes made due to part availability but those are pretty obvious from the pictures for the most part and in any case it shouldn't have affected the interior build.

Deeplink: I think the least appealing part of this would have to be the area behind the cockpit, which is too boxy and doesn't capture the streamlined look of that area on the actual ship. The big square hole for Artoo just butchers the design. As I've said before, sticking just the head on they way did with 10026 would at least have allowed for a thinner and better-looking design. I see four flick-fire missiles... :laugh: ... How many of the gray pieces on this are even available in metallic silver?

Wow, I just love the way they've built this. Inaccuracies aside, all the angled and SNOTed surfaces come together wonderfully. Blech. The opposite end of the spectrum. I swear, a curvaceous ship like the N-1 in a square-based medium like LEGO is a disaster waiting to happen.

The thing is that The LEGO Group and your average AFOL do not always see eye to eye on how something should look when it is LEGO; for example, I learned upon reading an interview with another designer that works for the company that they advocate studded builds. I also know that they have a strict policy against illegal connections and, to a lesser degree, SNOT (I swear, they've got something against it). So it wouldn't be quite the same.

I honestly don't think I was being fair in commenting on this MOC the way I did previously because according to what others have been saying I approach such things the wrong way and end up sounding anal and nitpicky. It is obviously ridiculous to aim for a high degree of accuracy with anything made of LEGO and I'm sorry that my previous nitpicky critique leaned that way. This time I’ll try and focus on more 'holistic' aspects which I guess are more reasonable things not to like about an MOC because I have clearly done you and myself a great disservice in missing the point. First of all I’m sorry if this sounds harsh or negative. English is not my first language and in any case when reading things you don’t agree with tone can easily be misinterpreted. This has been happening way too many times recently so I felt I should make it clear this time that I’m not hell-bent on bashing imperfections because there’s no point in it and in any case it takes too long. So, here goes: The first thing I feel could be better is the blockiness. The sides of the rear fuselage, the top and bottom edges of the nose, and the canopy, among other things, are all very straight and rectangular, and while this does make the MOC much more solid I feel that it detracts from what makes an X-wing. This is less a case of accuracy so much as the “essence” of a ship. When I think of an X-wing, I do think ‘sleek’; I do not think ‘boxy’. Part of what sets this fighter apart from other ships in the franchise is the fact that it’s chock full of weird angles that nonetheless come together beautifully making for a great overall look (an aspect that is reflected in several other designs I’m quite fond of such as the T-47 or the Eta-2). This angular quality is also what makes it more interesting than more geometrically consistent ships such as the Y-wing, which is essentially several rectangular portions and two cylinders, or the Star Destroyer which is essentially a large wedge. To capture this angular aspect taking advantage of whatever hinged parts you have (bricks, plates, Technic) is recommended, as well as generally steering clear of the “sculpture” style of building and leaning more toward the primarily SNOT look you see in UCS sets such as 10030 or 10179. The process would admittedly be rather messy, but if it all comes together in the end to make a great X-wing then that’s what matters, right? The second point that I think I should make is that in my eyes it just looks too clean. X-wings, despite what model makers may say, are not display pieces; they are not polished like the N-1 or the J-type Nubian 327 ; rather, they identify more with ships like the Slave I and the Millennium Falcon in that they are well-worn and very functional which of course makes their battered hulls look all the more impressive. While there’s nothing wrong with a studless System build (a lot of studs showing can make an MOC look amateurish after all) the use of shiny LEGO white and bright LEGO tan is. If you’ve ever seen the large Red Three model at the Art of Star Wars exhibit you may remember that the model is absolutely filthy. While old LEGO gray isn’t quite filthy enough I think it would be closer to a worn look than the crisp LEGO bley is; one reason errbt’s X-wing remains my favorite is because the base color is a mix of old and new gray with some bright red and yellow thrown in which just looks really nice. And yellow to me has always seemed more discolored than tan. I think the white background might have something to do with it as well, but I don’t know anything about photo editing so I’ll leave that alone. I guess this next point kind of goes against what I mentioned earlier, but as it does not constitute nitpicking I think it is a valid point: proportions in general. When something is blatantly disproportionate with itself, it shows. In my opinion it detracts from aesthetic quality, and while it would be unrealistic to expect perfect proportions I think taking note of certain prominent contrasts and relations not only makes the MOC more recognizable (again, relating to the “essence” of the ship) but also more fun to design. As you’ve said, this is your first X-wing; I think psiaki’s is his fourth or fifth. Given your amazing skills as an MOCer I think that keeping these in mind if and when you build a second rendition will make that second rendition that much better.

-_- Can we just drop this? I don't think I even want to answer to this. Okay, it was a stupid thing to say, nobody else gives a damn about accuracy around here, end of story.

The new "chrome" isn't actually chrome, but pearl silver. True, the lightsaber hilts don't look as metallic, but at least the color doesn't come off after having a minifigure hold it. As for chrome on the N-1, I would agree. The chrome was admittedly overdone on the actual ship, and chroming entire underside on a LEGO set would just look weird (especially considering LEGO never puts quite as much effort as they could have on the underside). And the price...

The idea of LEGO Star Wars sets is to sell toys that resemble the ships from the movies. I use reference pictures because some sets don't resemble the ship from the movie well enough (10175) while others do better(10179). It doesn't have to look exactly like the ship; I would prefer it to be as close is possible within the limits of the medium (e. g. what I've seen others do on their MOCs). How many times do I have to say this? Yes, I know it is unrealistic to expect this of a LEGO set, that's why I don't buy too many sets and why I like sets that don't follow this rule (see below). What confused me is that Roncanator is saying is that he likes the ship because it's well-scaled even though the set is not well-scaled (look at the cockpit). (I suppose 'perfect curves' are a matter of personal preference.) If he said he liked the set because he feels it's more aesthetically pleasing than the actual thing, as you said that would have made more sense (regardless of whether I agree or not). And I like inaccurate sets too. Where is this 'half a degree' thing coming from? I don't ever remember ever having said that yet everybody makes a reference to it. Yeah, I noticed some angles were off, but those were off by way more than half a degree.

Haven't you realized? Each of the Prequels are defined by their respective disposable villains. That depends on what Lucas puts into the 3D version of Star Wars. But as of now, yes, he shot first.