Fallenangel

Darn, I was hoping it'd be the green-and-yellow one as seen here... why do these guys like the Delta-7B so much? Isn't it time the Eta-2 made its appearance? (They've already retconned the Venator, ARC-170, and AT-RT into this time period anyway...) Well, at least that's what we all hope... General Magma, what progress on your X-wing? I know this is probably what you meant, but I can't help pointing out that 10215 was the original Delta-7 from Clones while the version in the '08 series is the distorted version known as the Delta-7B.

Yes, and that's precisely what I warned brickartist DobbyClone about in our PM discussions. I'm glad that he's taken that into account, as the shape of the minifigure no longer affects the look of his model. True, true...

Okay, could someone explain this one to me? I thought maybe it had something to do with a chrome Vader, but... Clone O'Patra: Yeah, Emma beats Natalie in looks any day. Though I might be biased since Natalie was a terrible love interest for Hayden.

You must have a lot of clear bricks... Well, I wouldn't mind so much, since that 6212 is pointing toward rock bottom anyway. By the way Frolando22, I would advise you to deeplink images from another site such as Flickr or brickshelf rather than uploading, because that takes up your file space which isn't good if you tend to include lots of links and pictures in your posts (like me). MarcoB, have you ever had any issue of the wire cutting into the bricks? Indeed. Here's my solution: The column holding up my ARC-170 is 4x4, sturdy enough so that it won't topple when something hits the wall. 6205 looks much better in flight, stacked nose notwithstanding: Sorry about the bad flash. But I guess the ARC-170 is just a bizarre design in the first place; six wings with three copilots (though the latter is probably a homage to some WWII ship, so I don't mind that too much), and how often do you see S-foils on a bomber?

You asked for it in your sig, so... Here at Eurobricks, we typically discourage insubstantial posts like "Great work!" Or "I love this!". We also discourage lazy English, though that doesn't seem to be a problem with you. Remember, this isn't Flickr/YouTube/MOCpages where people just spam in the Comments section. As an additional warning, I will say that the moderators may ban anyone who regularly contributes bad (insubstantial) posts. Just trying to be helpful.

Indeed. It's only a matter of time before the ban... brickartist, what happened to your username?

The funny thing is that they've already done that. Well, now we know what to expect in the Blu-ray release of Jedi...

Then, is it this thing? Man, that's awful. It almost makes 7143 look good.

Well to them, it's apparently better than 'another' X-wing, TIE fighter, or snowspeeder. *rolls eyes*

No, we love the Star Corps. More importantly, we love Aayla. (Well, I don't, but... you know) If anything, it needs to land on this shiny thing first. You could probably see this a parsec off, so it shouldn't be too hard for Han. Anyway... What's Lando doing in an Imperial Officer's uniform? Is it a reference to an Expanded Universe novel?

Like what you see on YouTube? I didn't know people actually believed those. As for 7756, it looks to be the result of some MOC research. Though I must say, that 74-Z certainly looks a lot better than the LEGO one, motorcyle frame notwithstanding.

Where?

Oh, and 327 is also the factored answer to the Ultimate Question... but you're right, this is getting off topic. Moving on... Kashyyyk is a Wookiee word, so it's supposed to be spelled like that. It could also just be a clue to pronounce the word with that sound being a 'long' sound, as in Alderaan, Nelvaan, Muunilinst, or Bimmisaari (fur and moving plants a specialty ).

Ah. Of course KielDaMan would have noticed as well. It's funny how well we seem to know each other on these forums... 309 isn't Star Wars-related, so there's no point in explaining. And as far as I know 327 isn't directly related to any ship except for one that I've come to hate and one I don't remember seeing, both of which featured in a bad movie by George Lucas (and of course, the Falcon, which was captured in Docking Bay 327 in Star Wars and was granted permission to land on Platform 3-2-7 in Empire). A number for Y-wings would be something along the lines of A4 or S3... Actually, the first person to mention that to me was Brian Tobin (who as you all may know created the fantastic X-wing that inspired me to build my own) in his critique of version 7. The larger cannons on my recent X-wing are actually a homage to his. So it was originally errbt's line.

Right, that's what I meant. Its first visual appearance was in a video game. Well then the best alternative would be a ball with handles arranged in a triangle (similar to what they did with the first LEGO droideka). Ah... that makes sense.

The latter is a retcon. So far, only two people have noticed it. Most impressive... I thought of that exact panel as well! That's a TIE/Ln fighter. You're probably thinking of the TIE/In interceptor. I thought it was a reference to his Tiin* angst... *sounds like "Teen" Isn't that my line?

You're forgetting the Rogue Shadow, Sentinel, and TIE Defender which were all ships from video games. (The wings on the Sentinel are not creased like they are in the film version, indicating its video-game origins.) I think the TX-130 was also first featured in a video game, but I'm not sure... Yeah, I see your point. That is one redeeming trait of this new Falcon. But surely anyone who's seen the movie must know that they really are seated vertically! Eh, all the better that it's so easy to fix (get rid of the turntable ). We already have something like the latter, but I would agree about the former. Excuse me? I see no sign of a horizontal pivot; the quad laser is clearly intended to pivot up and down and from port to starboard. Although it's easy enough to pivot the quads to vertical on the recent renditions (reattach the binoculars - another quick fix). By the way, that's the quad laser from the 5' miniature - you can tell from the detailing on the port docking pod. Interestingly enough, the same area on the 32" model is cleaner (e. g. there's some stuff missing around the large circular structure on the far inner surface). Aren't Falcon studio models fascinating?

On the contrary, I like that you're showing your appreciation for older Expanded Universe and introducing classic material to n00bs who wouldn't have known otherwise people who are newer to the franchise. Besides, I enjoy seeing Thrawn ships like the Alliance Assault Frigate( ) and the Dreadnaught battlecruiser( ) in LEGO form, as well as video game classics like the Xg-1 and bounty hunter ships like the IG-2000 and the Hound's Tooth.

Indeed. Besides, if he can retcon in this ugly thing...

I wonder when LEGO will realize that the axis of rotation for the Falcon's quad lasers is oriented horizontally, as opposed to vertically... The droideka is something I'm hoping there actually will be a new mold for; the last two brickbuilt renditions just haven't it justice. Strange that I find the older Grievous and Fett minifigures okay, but not the droideka. commanderneyo, if you want an '07 droideka so badly you could probably build it from instructions yourself. I've seen one in person before, and I know it's made up of fairly common pieces (with maybe the exception of the three-pronged piece to which the legs are attached).

Actually, as I mentioned earlier, 7191 and 7181 are both in 1:28 scale, so they are to scale with each other. 10179 and 10212 are both scaled to minifigures, so they would also be to scale with each other. 10175 uses the UCS TIE windshield piece, so it's safe to assume that it, too, is in 1:28 scale (though the proportions of that set are so out of whack that it's really impossible to determine its true scale). The rest, as far as I know, are all in their own scale. Actually, since the wing-opening function for 7191 is not accurate to the original studio miniatures (which used a pivot system) it would constitute a play feature. The same could also be said for the opening top windows of 7181 and 10175 because in-universe, the main hatch is actually in the back of the TIE (rather than the "top hatch" concept devised by those evil people over at Hasbro - darn you, Hasbro!). 10212 features a flip-open head (sacrificing accuracy in the process, as member Aeroeza pointed out) which is also a play feature. And I don't think either 10198 or the AT-OT with LAAT/c were UCS, just S@H exclusives.

Very nice that you've set out to remake 7143, as that set is notorious for being one of the most inaccurate LEGO sets ever (right up there with 6212, 4504, and 7657). Now that I've said that, I think that while your model is generally pretty good, there are a few key points I would fix. The biggest issue is the size (no pun intended). The Delta-7 is a tiny, tiny ship, and 7143 was obscenely huge and out of scale (to the point that FBTB Gareth's UCS model is only 6cm or so bigger than it). According to the Fine Molds kit the ship is only around 25.5' long, which translates to the same number of studs in length in stud-to-foot 'minifigure' scale. Clearly, your model is... significantly larger. Speaking of size, I would shy from using the large printed curved bricks for the ship's central slope - it just doesn't look right to me (an issue that continues in LEGO's multiple Delta-7B sets today). Surely some angled plates or even just some straight slope bricks there would look much better. This would also allow you to fix the blockiness around the cockpit (the Delta-7 is a very smooth and clean ship). Finally, in defense of SNOT, let me remind you that the Delta-7 has a very smooth surface for which SNOT would be ideal. Of course, if you want to get right down to it the best choice would be to use a modified version of what you see in 8099 Midi-scale Imperial Star Destroyer, since the Delta-7, being based on the design of the Imperial-class, has a similarly angled hull. But at this scale, SNOT would just look better and be a whole lot simpler. And of course, what everyone else has been telling you: those 1x4 slope bricks will seriously improve the shape (though if you really want to get the angle correct, I would recommend using these attached via SNOT).

Yes, Panaka's styrofoam hat makes me laugh! Well, any thick SNOT wings would certainly look better at that scale... Under? How does that work? Looks like he finally .

And the radio drama was the one I mentioned... isn't that also the one where they explain the name 'Death Star'? (It's a code name.) There was a T-16 in Clones? Where? Yeah, they always change something with the CGI model so the end product ends up looking funny. Like the CGI Cloud City Falcon in the Special Edition of Empire. Well, if they can make some kind of 'Dathomir speeder'...

Yeah, that was an issue with the original 7665 (which I mentioned while commenting on one of the reviews of the set). The biggest issue is the middle section, which is too fat. I had really hoped that LEGO would have sized it down for the new rendition (since that would look better) but they didn't, which is my main gripe about that set. The engines are fine - it's that the middle section is too fat and that the entire region around the salon pod is all wrong. What do you mean? This is only the third System Falcon we've had. I don't think a whole lot of fans would have bought the other two (10179 was $500, 7778 had no minifigures) and the MINI sets don't even count. I love the Falcon but I myself own only one of the five (7778, and I'm quite happy with it). Besides, very few of us actually buy every single rehash LEGO gives us. That's only assuming that the LEGO lightsaber is actually supposed to represent Ben's lightsaber. Otherwise, it's really quite arbitrary, just like the old megaphone blasters. That's one thing I like about minifigure accessories - they're so nondescript and you can generally use them however you want to. As many as you want, though they won't all be comfortable. The set looks to have the same basic design as 7665, so you may just want to find some pictures of that on brickshelf.