Fallenangel

But if LEGO puts decent effort into redesigning their sets, they will essentially create new products of the Original Trilogy which will encourage fans of the Original Trilogy to keep buying LEGO sets. Put another way, rehashing should be encouraged. I know there are some people who don't see much sense in LEGO putting in effort to rethink and improve something they've already done but I think it does make a difference. I mean, look at how successful the 4502/6212 X-wing has been; it's probably not a coincidence that it bears little to no resemblance to its predecessors. The same could be said for the T-47 based on 4500 which LEGO feels no need to improve because it's selling so well. And 8017 and 7657 were two sets so radically different from their predecessors that I actually went and bought them (before realizing that they, like the X-wing and T-47 described above, actually felt worse than their predecessors). And these Neo-Clone Wars sets aren't even that great - for the most part they have poor parts-to-price ratios which can be attributed to excessively detailed minifigures and are themselves based on designs that typically lack aesthetic appeal. What's more, the Neo-Clone Wars hasn't been around long enough for people to really get a feel for the designs so LEGO in theory could just release something that very vaguely resembles a Nu-class shuttle and people would buy it and think it was fantastic because they themselves don't remember very well what the actual thing looked or felt like. (I know I don't.) If the Neo-Clone Wars had happened five years ago and LEGO released the same sets they've been releasing people would probably see significant flaws and poor design such as what's become evident in the '04 Original Trilogy sets (that everybody thought were amazing when they first saw them) and thus less people would buy them (though collectors would probably dish out $60+ for the minifigures anyway, but that's secondhand.) Where are you getting this? And why doubt expensive sets? If it's iconic enough, wouldn't it justify the price? I feel that that's what's been happening with any LEGO Star Wars set in the $100+ range. I'm not complaining about the $400 price tag for 10188 - the Death Star is (or was at some point) a global icon, and the set itself brings nostalgic memories of old playsets... And I think what Brickdoctor says reinforces my point above. (Not to mention the fact that the most distinctive in-film TIE variant, the TIE bomber, hasn't been re-released yet. It's not any less iconic than the TIE/In. The same could be said for Jabba's palace - and we all know Jabba's palace was at least in part an excuse to sell more Star Wars action figures.)

Agreed.

What, TIE fighters aren't Imperial-ish? (It's clearly bluish in the picture.) And I do believe the TIEs seen in the asteroid chase in Empire were bluish, as were the TIE interceptors at Endor in Jedi. If I remember correctly, it's only in Star Wars that they appear to be light grey. Hence...

Whatever do you mean? At the very least, the canopy should be sand blue or some bluish shade of grey. And I'm fairly certain that the squadron markings on the wings should not extend all the way to the engines. My thoughts on the nose are confirmed through this picture: The flaw seems to be that drakmin has got the top half of the nose (with the red stripe) centered the vertical line of symmetry, when in fact it should sit well above the line. This is evident in the way that the bottom edge of the red strip does not line up with the nose cone the way it should, though I guess that's just due to Technic limitations. (Getting those strips to line up is a pain for me - that's why I usually don't include them. Actually, they're not lined up on my current rendition either.) The angle of inclination of the nose is the same as that of the canopy - fine if you're making an E-wing fighter, but not for an X-wing. Furthermore, it appears that the top face of the nose does not taper, which is incorrect; the taper should be evident there as well. (This is also something I should fix on my X-wing, but so far I haven't been able to...) In any case, I really hope drakmin remembers to fix these slight inaccuracies, because I've never seen a LEGO X-wing that captures the angles of the nose correctly - if done right, his will look quite fantastic! It appears from the way drakmin has filled in the area where the wings should be that the wings are not intended to open or close. But I suppose a rod running through the whole thing wouldn't support bulky Technic wings all that well - maybe drakmin intends to use a gear system of some sort?

KimT has already stated multiple times that any information on new 2011 sets is added to the '2011 News Topic' thread. (And no, it doesn't look like there's any info on it yet.) I think that a speculative question like this would more appropriately belong in the Rumors Thread.

Would these help? Length Width Cockpit And the in-film length of the A-wing is actually around 7.63m, despite what official sources say. (The 1/48 SMT kit was based off the original studio model, and the kit is about 15.9cm.) As many MOCers have pointed out, 9.6m is ridiculously large for an A-wing. At "minifigure scale" (somewhere between 1/40 and 1/35) an A-wing would therefore be around 24 studs long, which isn't too big. If you want it to look decent I would suggest building it in 1/24 UCS scale since it's such a small ship and dimensions won't suffer from the shape of the minifigure. If you want to make it yourself, just make your own from scratch and don't bother with the set...

What are you talking about? I'm right here. I thought you'd mention my name... I thought this model was actually fairly interesting, as I haven't come across many X-wings larger than minifigure scale. (So far, I think I've only seen two MOCs, including this one - the other was so terrible that I've even forgotten what it looked like.) As far as dimensions go, I can't help but think that the nose looks a bit thick and that the canopy section looks a bit shortened, though it may just look that way from the angle at which the photo was taken. He may have made the rear section of the canopy (the part that doesn't open) just a bit too big. I need a side or overhead view to be completely sure. Like most MOCs, the cargo hold area on his appears to be misplaced forward, and the straight transition between the nose cone and the rest of the nose doesn't look too good to me. Still, I like the way this person has tried to capture the angles of the X-wing's fuselage using Technic. At this large scale, I find the SNOT wings strangely fitting. Of course, the fact that the aft edge of the wing appears to extend too far back isn't too great. I'm not a big fan of how the Technic leaves all those gaps in the hull - I really hope that this drakmin addresses that. In any case, I'm curious to see how this will turn out.

Okay, that's what I thought. Those lights did seem a bit out of place.

Well, it is a Star Wars set, and in any case I think what he's asking is, "should I buy this or not?" If you want my opinion, 6210 looks rather fat and stubby in comparison to what you see in the film ( ), but it's got great playability and a lot of minifigures ( )which I guess makes the set for many people. Of course, if you want lots of minifigures in an Original Trilogy set, you can't beat the 8038 Battle of Endor or 10188 Death Star.

The phrase "exactly the same" cannot be attributed to the new Falcon set; there are several differences, the most obvious being the 3x6 wing plates used for the mandibles rather than the 4x8 wings which were used on the 4504. If you want exactly the same, try 6212; they added, like, one 2x2 tile and made a couple color changes and that's it. This is also true for the Lambda-class shuttle from the 7264 Imperial Inspection; if I rememeber correctly, the only difference between it and 7166 was the change from grey to bley. What are you talking about?

You know, over the years I've seen so many tiny, inaccurate, sloppy renditions of this scene... but this MOC isn't one of them! Great work! It's a shame the blast doors can't close, though... EDIT: I don't seem to remember there being yellow lights near the blast doors... can anyone show me?

Maybe I should have said the port mandible, since that's the one you can see in the preliminary. As far as fixing goes, LEGO already solved that issue with SNOT as shown here and here (not the most presentable solution, but a bit of work can fix that). Still, if you really wanted to make this as aesthetically pleasing as possible I think you would have to start from scratch - I'm not a big fan of how they did the hull, since it leaves those nasty gaps everywhere. Stacked/angled plates would be the way to go.

My bad; it looked trans-red from the lighting. I was referring to the fact that the minifigure was pale-skinned, when they are traditionally yellow, as well as that TIE pilot minifigures in the past have only had solid brown and black heads.

Ah, I see... It's not so much the size that really stands out (though they do appear too small) as the fact that the rear edge of the starboard mandible stops short of the cockpit. If you look at images of the beautiful 32" studio model used in Empire you can see that that area of the ship is very much filled in. In addition, that cockpit is ridiculously disproportionate to the main body of the ship. The studio model and the films are the most accurate sources of the ship you'll see because they portray the actual ship. Most toys, video games, and model kits, tend to alter the proportions of the ships for whatever reason. (Battlefront II is a good example of this.) This is especially true for LEGO sets. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels do not portray the ships as accurately as some would like either. A good example of this is their depiction of the Tantive IV; they've obviously shortened the main engines, making them look fat, and omitted the main reactor section between the main engines and the docking pods entirely. I think the 2x3 wing plates might also have something to do with it, as is evident with 10179, which also used 2x3 wing plates, in this picture.

Very funny! What's also funny is that the pilot doesn't have controls either (since it's a sticker)! On a side note... I can't believe I almost bought that! But he won't be able to fit in the cockpit... Does it have something to do with the the fact that the wings pivot around the cockpit on the set? That must be some pretty bad motion sickness if he's coughing up blood. And look how pale he is!

I see a gap where the nose section should transition into the rest of the ship on the Scimitar which doesn't look too great. On the other hand, I also see some Technic which suggests a hinge; what do you all suppose it might do? The attachment points for the panels appear too scrawny, which I suspect would create some aesthetically unpleasing gaps in the ship when viewed from the side. But what I really don't like is that it looks even more pronounced here than on the last rendition. Eh - at least they're centered this time. I don't like how the rear edge of the mandibles on the Falcon just hang out; it makes them look like they've been slapped on as an afterthought (an issue that was not unpronounced in the 4504). Anyone else here think this might end up looking too fat? I mean, they've got the hull sloping above the level of the docking pods (again)!

On his MOC, maybe, but there's definitely sloping on the studio model. marshal_banana tells us they're sloped, so at least that's cleared up. Of course, the rear walls should angle toward the rear of the ship as well as the top - upon closer inspection, it doesn't look like he took that into account. (Look at the lip region just below the sloping wall; it's angled on the ILM model, but his is rectangular.) When I saw those pictures I suspected from the raised lines and mottled proportions that it was a toy. I followed the link, and it is indeed part of a Hasbro playset. The site you got these pictures from is one that sells Star Wars collectables. marshal_banana what book did you get that reference picture from?

How is that picky, especially for a UCS? In any case, I'm not so sure about the front portion but it looks to me like the sides are angled inward in the rear. If they aren't, I hope marshal_banana fixes it or his MOC will end up with very strange proportions.

By the way, your panel reminded me of this - :laugh: EDIT: Hint: click on the pants - er, smilies.

"Look at the size of that thing!" I see you're off to a very great start marshal_banana! The size is impressive and looks to be roughly minifigure scale, and your usual attention to detail can be seen in what you've done so far. The paneling along the sides looks very nice. I look forward to seeing the weathering near the top later on. (I don't have any constructive criticism to offer at this point, but here are some reference pictures...)

I'm really not that much of a stickler for accuracy - compared to, say, this guy, I'm just pointing out the obvious. And as I've said, I try to calibrate to what can be achieved with LEGO (Because let's face it, even Gareth's models aren't much compared to, say,SMT kits - but that's because he's using LEGO as a medium). What really shocked me here was the number of AFOLs who have labeled some less-than-exemplary LEGO sets and MOCs as very accurate (this model, for example - there's nothing 'spergy' about noticing that there were no engines on this MOC, and to think I was the first to mention it!!!) And I believe some degree of accuracy is essential for an MOC in capturing the feel of whatever it was based on. If the laser cannons on someone's custom X-wing are too stubby or skinny, their model suffers because some of the sleekness and elegance of the original concept is lost. I admit that since it is LEGO, you can be a lot less lenient about certain details than non-LEGO modelers such as the guy whose blog I posted a link to. But there is such a thing as too lenient. My main issue is when there are some really obvious errors. For example, this. I almost cried out in pain when I read the comments on this; it makes 4502 look perfect. (Granted, I'm not saying everyone's MOCs are this bad, I just needed an effective example.) And even when it looks to be impossible in LEGO, there's nothing that says you can't try to achieve it. I used to think it was impossible to incorporate a sloped hull into a mini Star Destroyer and maintain a sleek look until I saw this (though that's not to say there aren't significant flaws in the work, but that's for another thread). I'm still thinking of a way to incorporate the upper sloping portion of the nose on my X-wing (since I was too lazy to try with version 8 and dateman's solution has that gap - if only I could achieve something like this...) Besides, wouldn't you feel terrible if some 8-year old stumbled onto an MOC you've slaved away at for weeks and said something like "ha ha tehres no engin n00b"?

Good choice. Nah. We've all had our awkward beginnings. Indeed. As you can see, some of us are more enthusiastic than others when it comes to accuracy. Yeah, some of my pictures with flash are terrible.

I'm not certain whether I should be getting annoyed at this point... Just look for pictures of the original studio models. Model kit enthusiast sites like modelermagic or Studioscale have them by the bucketful. (That 32" Falcon! ) Anyway, from my understanding the A6 was created as a retcon because they made the Juggernaut at the Battle of Kashyyyk ridiculously large. The practical part of this is that its exterior is identical to that of the previously existing A5, aside from the additional armaments described on Wookieepedia (though I think several of those are concealed). As there is no tangible studio model of the A6 that I know of (did they use any real models in that movie, other than the Eta-2?) I'm going to assume that the proportions as depicted in the Essential Guide are the correct ones. So, there's one of your best resources.

Actually, I didn't know either, I just remembered seeing this and you posting something about how unfair people think the MOCpages contests are. Aww... after seeing your UT-AT, I was looking forward to another great MOC. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't think of going to the Review Index and read my excellent review on 8099( ) and just post a picture of the core of 8099 (the midi-scale Star Destroyer, a fine set indeed, though not without its share of inaccuracies): The technique brickartist mentioned is using two Technic pieces with studs facing opposite directions connected by a pin as the center and attaching bar clips to them, allowing you to slope vertically as well as horizontally. Still, even with the pieces I mentioned the system ends up being a bit big. (In fact, this core ends up making the set too fat.) To take full advantage of the possibilities this gives you would require you to make this much bigger, as brickartist and Brickdoctor have already said.

I think that you've captured the look of the ship quite nicely for such a small scale. What's difficult with a small model is achieving the right "look" while compromising details. I see you've remembered to include the characteristic heavy turbolaser turrets, which is a plus. The stand is nice as well. Personally, I like the way the plate-stacking looks at this scale, but if you really want everything to look right you'll probably have to incorporate sloping of some sort (though I can't help but think that the thickness of the plates would make it difficult to capture the right angles. Still, Brickdoctor knows what he's talking about - perhaps you should send him a PM). Using the core from 8099 would yield disastrous results, as the core is quite bulky and the Venator is a very thin ship. However, I think that if you used these you may be able to use the basic technique. Two things that I noticed at first sight: First, the rear. There should a blocky protrusion at the stern of the ship with the engines clustered around it. Looks like the rear of your model is nearly flat. Second, the area around the docking port could be bigger. Maybe two studs instead of one. And of course, it lacks the characteristic Open Circle Fleet markings, but that's a quick fix, and I guess not all Venators belong to that anyway. There's no tangible studio model of the Venator that I know of, but the Revell kit is generally considered by people in the modeling world to be quite dimensionally accurate, though sporting some obvious simplified detailing (in the manner of other Revell models), and it's probably accurate enough to determine this much: The most important thing you could gain from this is the look of the rear section. As I stated above, there is a protusion behind the aft fins around which the engines are placed. Looking at your MOC, I would suggest you make the aft fins a bit thinner, then just attach a rear to what you already have (though I can definitely state from this clip that the aft edge of the bridge tower should be roughly aligned with the aft edge of the fins). I count eight engines - four large, two smaller ones, and two still smaller ones. The model also appears to confirm my thoughts about the docking port area as well as what Brickdoctor said about the tower. The 33 slope brick should definitely be shifted a bit more forward, but you may even want to use a 1x4 slope brick. I think that the issue there would be the use of a 1x2x3 slope brick, which honestly doesn't look right. Perhaps you could remove the cheese slope and just mount the bridges directly on the 45 slope brick? It looks like you should place the turbolaser turrets apart with about a half stud in betwen, as they seem too close together, and one stud would be a bit too much. By the way, regarding the dimensions, Wookieepedia states that the Venator is 1137m long and 548m wide - at a width of 14 studs, your model should be roughly 29 studs long. I think that expanding the area around the docking port and adding the engines would probably make up for most of the lost length. I realize that I just threw an awful lot at you, but don't be discouraged. Part of the fun in building MOCs is making great leaps in accuracy over LEGO's fun but typically inaccurate products as well as achieving things that other builders couldn't. 'I'm a conformist!'!