Fallenangel

I seem to have become the butt of a joke these days... Inaccuracies aside, 6212 is just plain ugly. Even an AFOL who's never seen a Star Wars film in his life would shy from its gaps, awkwardness, and terrible attempt at integrating Technic. Agreed. And don't forget the fact that it's got some of the best play features we've seen in a while. (At least, it's not a flick-fire missile.) I think UCS sets in general use a lot of interesting techniques as well. Yeah, it's just too fat. I think the issue there is that they used Technic bricks for the core as opposed to, say, these, which I think would have allowed for a much sleeker model. But it's still nice. I like that LEGO actually made some sort of attempt at including small details like the shape of the bridge viewport.

I'm certainly flattered to be mentioned beside those two names, and even more to be called a 'master'. Eh, I think a couple squadrons of TIE Avengers or Defenders would do the trick. Anyway, back to the MOC - I think that rather than the main fuselage being too wide the nose is actually much too narrow. As can be seen in the illustration I linked to, the nose is only very slightly thinner than the rear fuselage (i. e. a transition from 6 studs to 2 studs seems like too much).

This is certainly a nice start to an MOC. You've got the basic idea, which is good. With some work, I think that this could potentially become a very nice custom indeed. Of course, there is the obvious uncertainly involved in the dimensions of a comic-book ship (which has no tangible counterpart as far as I know). The wings are the first thing that I feel needs some work. This panel from Dark Empire portrays the wings as tapering (though the angle is different for the fore and aft edges), but they are rectangular on your model. (This is true for that little bit that hangs off the main wing as well.) Notice also that the wings stem from the underside of the ship (though not from under the ship) and that the angle at which they positioned isn't quite as steep as they are on your model. (This is likely due to your use of click hinges, which don't offer much choice in the matter. I would suggest using bar clips, as the wings could possibly be supported by the angular structures connecting them to the main fuselage. Using bar clips would also get rid of that nasty interrupting click hinge brick you've got under the wing.) I think that those thrusters could be better represented with 2x2 round bricks as well; the slope bricks seen on your model, I'm sorry to say, are rather unconvincing. Of course, there's also the issue of the bars you've used for the wingtip-mounted cannons, which don't exactly have much aesthetic quality. (They can also give too much of a "<insert that tiresome argument>" feel to the MOC, though that may just be my opinion.) What's more, they make the guns too stubby (the same issue that is present on the 6212 X-wing). In addition, you've used the same piece for the dorsal cannon as you've done for the wingtip cannons, which is only accurate if you're going off the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. (Seeing the depiction of the Tantive IV in that book, I can't help but say that source isn't completely credible .) I feel that the dorsal cannon should be bulkier and longer than the wingtip cannons. Maybe a Technic driving ring there could establish the size difference? As Stoutfiles mentioned, the stern of the ship should be considerably longer - what's more, they should line up with the aft edge of the wings. (The fore edge should also line up with the rear edge of the canopy.) I'm not so sure about the 2x2x3 slope bricks you've used for part of the main fuselage - according to the illustration I linked to above, that region should be quite boxy rather than angled. Over the years I've lost taste for the LEGO X-wing canopy piece (I was forced to use it on my last MOC because bricks were too bulky), as they don't capture the sleek look of the real canopy. Tiao appears to have devised an effective alternative. As Baylego mentioned, a tapering nose using hinge bricks would add to the model, though it appears there isn't nearly as much of a taper as there is for an X-wing. (The 45 slope bricks you've put there do seem a bit awkward, though it may just mean that the entire rear fuselage is too wide.) The nose cone should transition smoothly into the rest of the nose; the 2x2x3 slope brick you've used appears a bit too abrupt. Perhaps you could do something with this piece? Is there a socket for an R7 unit? Lastly, you may want to make this a bit bigger. Wookieepedia lists the length of the E-wing as 11.2m, which is only about a meter shorter than the X-wing (given the similarity in the main fuselages of the two, I would allot the shorter length to the stockier nose). Yours looks to be around 28 studs long; if the craft were scaled to minifigures, it would have to be roughly 33 studs at the smallest. Increasing size would also allow for more detail, which is always a plus.

Their faces look oddly grotesque... and I didn't know they had mouths there.

Clone O'Patra that image is hilarious! I always did wonder why they left that white square... On the contrary, it appears he's discovered that the dark side is quicker, easier, and more seductive. What I'm wondering is... why does he need so much toilet paper?

*nod nod* So to paraphrase, LEGO sets can't be perfect, as inspiration would die and most consumers don't care if they aren't? Makes sense to me. Guess all those ravin' Amazon reviews have something to them after all. (AFOLs do buy a lot of LEGO, after all...) Still, that doesn't explain why LEGO doesn't rehash some of their less aesthetically pleasing sets... Those are Geonosians?!

Indeed... I remember seeing some MOCs by professional designers on the Net once, and one had built a large B-wing fighter which was simply mind-blowing. Of course, that isn't to say some recent sets have been, in fact, disappointing... though I know now that it isn't a fault on the designer's part. Learn something new every day, huh? I wonder who's in charge of rehashes...

I think that the issue here is that the parts connecting the legs to the drive motor are too thick. It's evident from this pictures that they are quite thin on the actual vehicle. Perhaps you could try building them SNOT? You may also want to consider dilating the hull by about a stud around. (That is, the edge of the hull would be one stud farther away from the neck than it would be now.)

Erm... Anyway, the sheer size of this model is incredible, and I love the attention you've put into hull detailing and structure as well as scale. (By the way, it's pretty close to minifigure scale, judging by the size of the parts connecting the legs to the drive motor.)It's clear from what I can see of this that you've put a considerable amount of blood, sweat, and tears into it. (The interior looks nice as well.) There are just two things about this that I feel you could improve - one small, and one... not so small. First, the guns. It can be observed from this picture of the studio model that the side-mounted medium blasters should be shorter than the chin-mounted laser cannons; it's clearly the other way around on your model. I would suggest increasing the length of the chin-mounted cannons and perhaps shortening the medium blasters just a bit. There's also the issue of the width of the legs - from what I can see, it appears that your AT-AT is wider across the legs than it is across the hull, something that seemed strange (because it's clear from the film that the legs were tucked well under the hull - also, see this. From this, it looks like the hull on your model is too thin - there should be more space around the neck. Perhaps this can be allotted to the fact that the angle for the hull didn't exist in LEGO? I don't think the neck is too long - it probably just looks that way because it's straight.

In terms of design, I don't feel that there's any controversy over which is better, because I don't think that the 8129 is more accurate or better designed than the 4483. And more detailed minifigures != better set. For reasons stated previously in this thread, I think that the 8097 Slave I is a pretty good example of this. (Of course, if you want to take playability into account, you've got an argument that I, having never encountered any of these sets loose, cannot follow.)

Let's all try and sound like AFOLs here... With the quality of minifigures these days, I would agree with the first statement. However, I don't think we would be getting only re-releases of the Original Trilogy for the same reason. With the demand for minifigures, who knows, it's possible that LEGO may get some leeway from Hasbro and start producing minifigure-oriented rather than starship-oriented sets. With that, we have more possibilities for sets. (A good thing, too - compared to, say, Revenge of the Sith, Star Wars and Empire don't have a whole lot of starships in them, with the exception of perhaps the final scene in Empire.) Exactly. Though I'm not sure if Hasbro would accept LEGO just selling minifigures and scenery. Perhaps a SMALL and CANON vehicle or object(speeder/swoop, droid, moisture vaporator) would be more likely? As for a UCS A-wing and B-wing, here's my two cents: based on another member's argument that LEGO can make UCS sets of vehicles with relatively little screen time because they are directed towards more dedicated fans, I think that both of those would be very possible. (After all, the A-wing did play an important role during the Battle of Endor.) Still, the A-wing and B-wing don't have much in the way of greebling (not unlike the recent 10212 Lambda-class shuttle) so I don't know if it would be too popular. And they are somewhat "smoother" than the X-wing and Y-wing (the same reason that Mon Calamari Star Cruisers will never make good UCS sets). If LEGO could only re-design 7191 and 10134...

Stealth-X, Tandem X-wing, X-TIE, Z-95 Headhunter (which is similar enough for LEGO to release it)... Counting only the System renditions, that's only two, 7140 and 4502 (because there's no way I'm counting 6212 as a remake). Compare to the Slave I, which has had three (7144, 6209, 8097) and the Falcon, which will be having its third one. The AT-AT also has three (4483, 10178, 8129). Even the TIE Advanced x1 has had more versions (also three - 7150, 10131, 8017). For the T-47, well... just ask Brickdoctor. After 6 years, I think it's time for a remake of the X-wing.

By the way, this actually reminded me of this... And this, this...

I see your point, and I agree that certain ships have been released too frequently (without much improvement at that - the upcoming Falcon and the procession of Delta-7Bs appear to support this) but isn't that just the way LEGO works, since most System LEGO sets don't stay in production for over two years? (This is why I'm so baffled at why 6212 is sitting in the local Toys R Us after four years.) Well, I would agree that the dark green is an improvement (it is more accurate, after all ) but I didn't really get the cherry red. It's just too shiny (though it may be just LEGO's refusal to do something about the heavily <insert that tiresome argument> bottom area and overexposed canopy piece). The grey stabilizer fins were also something that confused me (they're clearly tan in the film). Factor in the oversized and exaggerated laser cannons, the fact that they can't seem to separate the cockpit from the stabilizer fins, and this terrible thing and suddenly this set doesn't look so great. (The astronomical price is one of the few throwbacks to classic LEGO Star Wars, so I won't complain about that.) And I don't think you can really say that the hull patterning for 8097 is any better than that of 6209. (They both look totally random to me.)

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what in the world LEGO would do to Threepio to differentiate him from his film counterpart. Will they enlarge his photoreceptors (like the anime eyes on Neo-Clone Wars human minifigures)? Exaggerate his bodily details (Yoda's hair)? Or will they just make a whole new mold for him (Grievous)?

Not unlike the Ultimate Space Battle set... but then again, I don't know how well that sold. And I'm not sure whether LEGO would include a full-sized starship (Plo's Delta-7B) with a large playset. The closest thing we've had to vehicles in playsets so far are the escape pods in 6211 and 7665 and the speeder-looking thing in 10198. Yes please. I understand that a significant portion of you are minifigure collectors (and thus focus more on sets that could include minifigures you want, which makes sense), but let's try to be reasonable. I want an Echo Base with 10+ minifigures too, but I doubt they would even give us all the main characters (as that would already put it at 4 minifigures and Artoo) and I would anticipate one or two new minifigures at best (maybe Rieekan, since his name was mentioned in the film and they did include Madine in the Home One set). It's not like they're cheap, like battle droids... Well, there was 7662 with 21 droids. I think the new droid carrier is kind of a throwback to that. Now all they need to do is make a Neo-Clone Wars vehicle that can deploy a whole lot of B2s (or better, droidekas)...

Indeed. That blue Slave I did get a considerable amount of screen time (what with demon kid Boba's enthusiasm and all).* Not only that, it would give LEGO a reason to redesign their Delta-7 Aethersprite. *Also keep in mind that the desire to sell toys played a significant part in the making of the Prequels whether you want to admit it or not (just as it did in Jedi - to prove that I'm not just an Original Trilogy fan bashing the Prequels), something that we as LEGO enthusiasts would certainly want LEGO to take advantage of. Boba took his armor, so kids probably wouldn't know the difference (or wouldn't care) if they just released the Clones version. Wait, so the Fanblade fighter has appeared in the Neo-Clone Wars? Use cloth for the "fan", like they did for the 6210 Sail Barge, hinges connected to bars for the part that folds out. And the main body and cockpit could be achieved with SNOT in the style of the Nantex. (Actually, I wish they'd at least included a cloth with the Solar Sailer so we'd have had some kind of sail.)

Ah! I get it. :laugh: That gives me a few ideas... but they'll have to wait until I can get my sets rebuilt.

Not because it's from the Original Trilogy. I can remember Naboo, Kaminoan, Geonosian, and Utapaun just fine. (Because the names of the worlds were mentioned in the films.) Neimoidian, Dug, Gungan, Muun, and Kaleesh are also quite familiar to me. (As well as Coruscanti, but that world was first introduced in Heir to the Empire.) In contrast, I had to look up all three of those species' names when I first heard them mentioned. There we go! Okay, maybe three parts for one helmet would be pushing it a bit... I was thinking, what if they kept the same helmet but made a mold for the neckpiece as well? That way, we'll still have the classic helmet piece but Vader won't look awkward wearing it.

Could someone please explain The Legonater's? I don't get it...

Here's something I've always wanted to know: Why so much hate over rehashes of previous sets?

I disagree. Look around 2:00. I'm hoping they omit the door altogether - a wall and some large <insert that tiresome argument> parts doesn't really seem like an essential part of a Star Wars set. It'll be like in Jedi Defense where they threw in a door so Hasbro wouldn't complain. Only if you're going off of the Special Editions. Of course, the fact that the bottom half of Vader's helmet (the part that doesn't come off) is currently absent on the minifigure is more of an issue for me. If LEGO fixed that, I suppose it would be one pro of having Vader with the Falcon. And I believe they also printed Chewie's nose. Why is it that people can remember Iktotchi, Rattataki, and Togruta, but not something as straightforward as Sullustan?

Say, you're right! And the release of a LEGO tauntaun also increases its chance of being in the new Hoth set as well! Here's something I've noticed: no midi-scale sets this year? I guess LEGO has finally accepted the fact that people don't like tiny UCS sets or paying a lot for them. Too bad; I was really looking forward to a midi-scale Tantive IV or Radiant VII. Season 3 outfits... doesn't sound bad. Ahsoka's new modest outfit certainly deserves new printing. (That is Season 3, right?)

Ooh, very nice. I should keep that in mind if I'm ever able to afford any clone troopers. I just remembered that I did one of these while writing my review for 8099. Now, this is before I got good at taking pictures, so excuse the poor lighting. "Captain Needa, the ship no longer appears on our scopes." "They can't have disappeared. No ship that small has a cloaking device." (Crewman looks out the window) "Uh... SIR?"

We've already had that discussion... I'm glad someone took the time to look through the rest of my brickshelf folder. Just know that I made that first version in about two hours without any reference and without having seen the film in weeks. A quick look at the nose detailing (which, by the way, is similar to that of the Red 5) should indicate that this model does not represent the Red 1 X-wing. Furthermore, to make the model more accurate and aesthetically appealing I wanted to include a full astromech droid, even though it isn't to scale with minifigures, and the seven-stud wide rear fuselage allows for that. Besides, it looks fine to me. (See how the width of the aperture for the astro-droid is the same as that of the detailing behind it, which itself appears to be the appropriate width. I realize the same cannot be said in relation to the canopy piece, but as I've already said, I was forced to use that piece since a brickbuilt solution would be too bulky. ) Yes, X-wings are supposed to be very battle-worn fighters, so I tried to mix light and dark grey, with occasional white and red thrown in. I was also inspired by someone who had painted their X-wing model kit in grey "New Republic" shades, which looked very impressive indeed.