Fallenangel

As Sweden mentions in his post way back in '05, Ultimate Collector Series originally referred to 1:28 scale (with 7191 and 7181, the "original" UCS sets). Now, I think UCS is just used loosely by LEGO and AFOLs to describe any set or MOC that is generally large and detailed. It is true that cavegod's models are very large and detailed but several of them are really just very well done minifigure-scaled MOCs, like Brickdoctor's AT-RT or my X-wing. Actually, there is no such thing as a definitive "minifigure scale" since the minifigures themselves do not have human proportions, which is why people like Pepa Quin or Brucey-wan build in stud-to-foot scale (which is much less ambiguous and looks about right). As far as I'm aware minifigure scale just means it's of a size that would be compatible with minifigures. So by no means are UCS and minifigure scale the same. And not all of cavegod's models are scaled the same - I think he himself mentioned that his "UCS" Delta-7 was in 1:17 scale, and you can tell from the use of the TIE windshield that all of his UCS TIEs are in 1:28 scale. And judging from the size of the visor on his AT-AT relative to the minifigure that model may actually be smaller than "minifigure scale" (correct me if I'm wrong, cavegod). A minifigure-scaled AT-ST is a minifigure-scaled AT-ST (though if you wanted it really accurate, you'd find some measurements/pics of the real thing and build in stud-to-foot scale). It wouldn't be terribly large, so I don't think most people would think of it as UCS.

This thread is getting hard to read again... Millennium Falcon... and the bottom looks terrible because there's exposed Technic and the dreaded flick-fire missiles. (Oh well - at least they remembered the ventral quad laser cannon...) It's the Millennium Falcon. And what's wrong with the gap? Need we use such crude language? And I believe the word you are thinking of is accurate. It's the Millennium Falcon. Putting in the couch from Blue Harvest would be hilarious. It's the Millennium Falcon. And looking at what LEGO did with 10179 this new Falcon could have been a better version but LEGO refused to fix the terrible cockpit and as a result the whole ship suffers. It's the Millennium Falcon, but you are right about the minifigures. Oh? Why? Well then just go buy a 6212 and be happy with it, because there's no way the real X-wing had all that Technic garbage in the back. Man, next thing you know we'll have people elongating the engines on their Y-wings and shrinking the troop sections on their AT-ATs.

It's not supposed to be an actual backpack, but some detailing on the speeder bike itself.

Flick-fire missiles... on the Falcon...

:laugh: Well, I've never tried burning my sets, but if I ever get hold of a 6212...

Well, you've succeeded in making me hungry... but I thought I wanted cake with liver and onions on top? It's probably the latter, as they could have just left it unpainted after they learned it wasn't going to be in the movie. One of the things Lucas should have done with his Special Editions is include the Beggar's Canyon scene from the radio drama where Luke threads the Stone Needle so this thing could have gotten some action (instead of stuffing the film with useless CGI...) Despite? More often than not, accuracy makes a model more fun to build! Why else would I have built so many X-wings?

Well, I laughed sooner, if not because Ahsoka's tattoos gives her a quite diabolical look in this scene ... Oh, and by the way: "When nine hundred years you reach, look as good you will not, hmmm?"

'dad, let's get this cool speeder that wasn't from the movie!'

Yeah, compared to how old some of the established Expanded Universe is (the Tales of the Jedi comics are 5000 BBY) the gap is pretty small. Considering that the Wars were supposed to have ended in 35 BBY, I think Lucas had intended for the gap to be larger. But then they had to include Luke and Leia being born at the end of Sith, among other things, which I think screwed up the timeframe. And there are some people, like StoutFiles who don't think the Prequels needed to be told.

Well, if you are planning to make one, I'm also expecting a lot of cheese... Yeah, that's me and anything LEGO makes that's from the new series - like that Savage Oppress guy.

I think you may be better off just making brickbuilt cockpits with black bricks.

Well, only because it doesn't look as clean as the rest of the model. Oh, yeah - and it's going to have SNOT wings, right? That it isn't... Well, 4477 was certainly a nostalgic little set...

Well I didn't know that, and thank you...

Wow, this looks really good! The wings almost look bad because they're not SNOT Did you know? T-16s are also produced by Incom Corporation! And because of that, it has cockpit controls similar to that of the X-wing, which is why the Alliance used the them as training vehicles. In any case, you've done a fantastic rendition of this ship. I really like the solution you've devised for the angle of the top fin - very creative! The only thing you've really missed is the protruding bit on the bottom that acts as the stopper for the wings, and the bottom suffers a bit because of that. I think you could also emphasize the overlap on the side panels a little more. I see you're making good use of the reference site I've linked to multiple times. I didn't know this thing actually had two cockpits!

It's Ebenezer Scrooge...

The area surrounding the astromech droid socket should be as tall as the neighboring cockpits, and the rear cannons could be beefed up a bit. I would agree with Masked Builder about the LEGO cockpits - surely there must be another way? Also, Pepa Quin appears to have come across some decent reference: Rear Side Top Length-width ratio of the middle section according to the third picture is roughly 18/95, so I think it could be a lot longer.

Actually, the version shown in Empire at War is a variant of the original. I would agree, though, that they're great when you're rushing the enemy space station (in Skirmish mode - the only mode that actually feels like real RTS). Man, Han Solo at Stars' End... that's some classic Expanded Universe. A fantastic model, Legostein, and a shame about the incidents on YouTube.

Though I would agree that the cockpit could be a bit closer to the wings (those guns should line up with the two central panels of the octagonal viewport) I think what's really wrong with the cockpit is that it lacks the "lips" surrounding it that protrude from the wing area. And the wing panels should cover nearly the length of the whole wing.

Yeah, that would be me. And I can see where Brickdoctor's argument is coming from. Only a Star Wars fan would even recognize a brick with two tiles as any sort of TIE. As for KielDaMan I guess there are just a lot of things we happen to disagree on. And that's kind of why it's necessary to want accuracy - if we can tolerate crap, what's to stop them from only selling us more crap? I'm really hoping for a proper cockpit in the new Scimitar - it better not be just another garage.

This makes me laugh for some reason. I don't think I ever complained about these micro models being inaccurate, only about them being insubstantial. And I'll have you know I've only bought two sets since '08 (7778 and 8099). What are you talking about? The Millennium Falcon doesn't have any S-foils that I know of. Well, you have to admit that some people here have incredibly low standards for accuracy (anyone who praises the most recent X-wing, T-47, or Falcon, for example). And the models are only vaguely recognizable. And I have high accuracy standards because I like the way they look in the movies. Don't you?

Kids nowadays don't know or care what a TIE fighter looks like because they're all too busy watching "The Clone Wars". And a TIE/ln needs both of those traits* to look like a TIE fighter. *You know the people on these forums are being too lenient with LEGO when you have to remind them that hexagonal wing panels are a key feature on a TIE fighter. It's like reminding them of the X-wing's hexagonal fuselage or the Falcon's stubby cockpit... And nobody said these advent calendar things had to include mini models. They could have been little accessories or something. After seeing some of the neat little minifigure-scaled things they've included in past advent calendars, the micro models really are disappointing. (I hate the mini X-wing.) StoutFiles said it best:

The walls of the troop section are too thick; there should be a noticeable hollow in the neck area. I think the neck could be longer as well; it looks too short in all of your pictures. You could actually cut down on greebling on the top - it's cleaner there. The central segment of the troop section has some noticeable differences in size and angulature compared to the two neighboring segments; I think you could emphasize that more.

Shame that you've lost the shape of the repulsor drive units and that the guns are still a little misplaced, but great work! What about an AT-ST? Or just show me a better X-wing...

The consensus is that the lack of a "stopper" for the click hinge bricks is a bad thing since the bottom pairs of click hinge bricks could become permanently damaged over time if you just displayed the set flat on a shelf instead of mounting it on a stand. Of course, the set is pretty bad in my opinion (the large inverted slope piece annoys the heck out of me because it does not help the look at all) so this set is now locked up in my closet.

But why is Bossk helping him?