Fallenangel

Oh okay then. I thought you were saying that the LEGO Y-wing pilot actually was a generic Y-wing pilot. I thought there were only two pictures of the new V-wing (box and loose), both of which show only the front of the ship. The box pictures were generally not clear enough to determine whether the entire body fits in the back, while the loose picture suggests that the ship does not, in fact, house the entire body. And the droid shouldn't fit in the back, as I will say below. Why would an entire astromech droid fit in the back of the Alpha-3 Nimbus? According to the Incredible Cross-sections the droid for the V-wing is a Q7-series droid, which is spherical - they do not have a body like an R2, only a head and some repulsorlifts. It would therefore be more accurate to have just the astromech droid head on the fighter rather than trying to fit a droid body (which, by the way, is out of scale with minifigures anyway - R2-D2 was only about half as tall as Luke and the others). Another point for the 6205 V-wing...

Actually, I thought the same thing when I saw how stubby the nose looked, but then I saw this photo and I realized it wasn't all that far off. I think that it might only look that way since we're so used to the long, skinny nose seen on the 4502 and 6212 X-wings. Not only that, but the nose of Wedge's X-wing is actually a bit thicker in relation to the rest of the body than those of other X-wings, so I think that might contribute to it looking too short. Of course, there's also the possibility that the canopy is too large... but I could be wrong.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about the minifigure in this picture. So how is Dak a generic Rebel pilot, you ask? Well, for one, he's a smiley face. But look at his helmet. How many Rebel pilots have this helmet? According to this clip, at least three, which is problably enough for LEGO to assume that it is a generic Rebel pilot's helmet. I will add that the Y-wing pilot is, in fact, NOT a generic Rebel pilot. The pilot with that particular pilot is Dutch Vander (Gold Leader):

So amazed you had to say it twice, eh? ; ) From what I can see, he uses hinges, similar to what lowlead did on his X-wing: Although I suspect he may have gotten the idea from roguebantha, who did something similar with his model.

If LEGO had wanted to inlclude a pilot they should just have included a pilot with a regular smiley face and a helmet with blue crests, since it is not only more generic but would probably cost less to print. Not only that, Dak Ralter wore the generic helmet with blue crests so it makes sense. Out-of-box pictures, like the sets themselves, aren't known for their 100% accuracy. I know that in some out-of-box sets pieces are either the wrong color or not attached correctly (for example, 6209 Slave I). Such small details should be negligible. Perhaps the out-of-box picture of the new V-wing has the wings attached in landing position simply because they can be.

Don't ignore it: This also gives an idea of how big those engines should be.

Yes, I know. That is why I advised marshal banana to opt for wings that are only a single plate thick; in my opinion a studded wing that is closer to the correct thickness looks much better than a smooth SNOT wing which is too thick. As much as I admire roguebantha for thinking to use SNOT there I don't believe it would suit this particular ship. And given the amount of detail he has shown himself to be capable of incorporating into his MOCs I honestly think that marshal banana could have done without the SNOT wings and still made a great model. Not only that, but SNOT works best when it's applied to the whole model - that is, if you're aiming to make the exterior even and smooth. That's one reason cavegod's UCS Sentinel shuttle looked so great. And the intensive tile-stacking seen on this model rules out SNOT as a technique that would suit this model. I realize from your UCS V-wing that you are an advocate of the "use as much SNOT as you can" school of thought but of course SNOT just doesn't look good when used in a situation where the surface in question is intended to be thin, such as an X-wing's wings. Now, if this model had been built in 1/24 UCS scale I think I would very much have encouraged the use of SNOT for the wings since they would be closer to the proper thickness and would indeed look better than plates and tiles, but at minifigure scale I feel plates work best.

I always said SAH-loo-KA-mi... Yup. And I have a hunch that the older LEGO Clone pilots were also based off the same character:

As an avid fan of the X-wing starfighter (see avatar and brickshelf folder) I always enjoy seeing others' renditions of this fighter, and yours is no exception. In particular, I think that the approach to the unique canopy piece is quite nicely done and very original (unlike mine). The attention given to the shape of the nose (especially the tip) and rear fuselage is incredible, and in my opinion it's pretty close to spot on. I like how you've captured many small details which are usually overlooked by other MOCers, such as the little protuding square in the rear fuselage directly in front of the air intakes, the inclusion of the three rear windows on the cockpit canopy, or the placement of the small grey bits in the slopes connecting the engines with the main body of the wing. I would rate this at UCS-level detail, which makes sense seeing as you've included many aspects of the 7191. However, having built quite a few versions of these myself (and having seen several other exceptional models) I can say there are significant flaws in the work. The most obvious of these is the size of the engines and the laser cannons. When the X-wing's s-foils are set in attack position the boosters on the end are displaced well above and below the outline of the rear fuselage - this is clearly not the case with your model. Those engines should be MASSIVE, especially on the Red 2 X-wing. Furthermore, at this scale, I feel that 2x2 round bricks would represent the size of the laser cannons more accurately than 1x1 round bits (but the LENGTH is correct). You've already achieved the taper for part of the cannon so swapping the 1x1 parts for 2x2s would complete the effect (rhe structure should be completely white as well - the same color as the main body of the wing). I would also recommend that you swap out the 3x3 cylinders you're using for the engines with 4x4 round bricks, which would also allow you to represent that section of the wing more accurately (by building it as a half cylinder mounted on a rectangular prism like the studio model). I will add that the mechanism you are using to open the wings(with gears) is inaccurate; the studio models use a pivot system similar to what this individual has done. The wings look good, but they are just too thick. Furthermore, the rectangular section on which the engine is mounted should be offset from the sloped region by about one stud; this is not the case. It should look like this. At minifigure scale I think even a thickness of two plates would be pushing it; I would recommend using 3x12 wings for the angled portion in the rear to be able to maintain a one-plate thickness. You can also use 2x4 wings which capture the angle more accurately but would require another layer of plates. One more thing; I'm not sure, but I think that the wings should be about one stud longer vertically. Doing this would achieve the aforementioned offset. The cargo bay area appears to be shifted forward; it should begin to taper out at the line separating the front half of the canopy from the rear windows. This picture should give you the idea. See last page. Inaccuracies aside, I still think it's a very nicely done model, and improving upon the inaccuracies mentioned above would make the model even more fantastic. EDIT: I just remembered - Wedge's astromech droid is red.

Oh I've seen this before! It was built by Erik Varszegi who also made the 8-ft. LEGO Venator!

I've already explained this. Man that thing is ugly. We can only hope LEGO doesn't decide to make that into a set... Agreed. Indeed. Remember how pathetic Jango Fett was without his jetpack.

Well said, Brickdoctor. I wouldn't expect anything more tolerant from the person who had constructed a wonderful UCS rendition of the Alpha-3 Nimbus. Well it looks like I was wrong and the wings on the new set do rotate. Or at the very least, they can be attached horizontally. (This would explain why LEGO shortened the guns.) It's a little bit strange though... if you zoom in on the picture above, you can see that the way the wings attach to the main body doesn't look much different from the connection on the previous rendition; what's more, the wing panels are still individually movable via bar clips (using the more recent 1x2 plates w/ vertical handlebar). But you can see a Technic bit around the larger panels... perhaps there's a dial in the back to turn the wings? In addition, I don't think that the nose on this set is actually longer than the nose on the previous rendition; it's just that LEGO has opted to use only one pair of 3x12 wing plates in the front (as opposed to two pairs on the previous rendition); the section around the cockpit (which was represented with 1x4 wing plates on the 6205) are now 1x3 wing plates, and shifted several studs forward at that. (It's very inaccurate.) I think that the rectangular area around the cockpit makes up for the removal of the second pair of 3x12 wing plates, so the nose looks about the same length. The large panels around the droid socket are definitely shorter; they are 6 studs long here, whereas they were 8 studs on the previous rendition. (Again, inaccurate.) As I've said before, LEGO has switched out the click hinges for bar hinges, which actually seems like a step back. (Not unlike the other two points I've mentioned.) But it looks like the droid socket itself is only two studs wide rather than four, so the ship doesn't actually acommodate the whole droid. (Consistent with the last rendition.) It looks like Lord Embo's wish was granted. The triangular structures on the rear of the wing pivots are slightly more accurate (and those look like new slope brick pieces) but the way they're attached looks a bit awkward. That new oversized canopy piece just looks so terrible... not only is it out of scale with the minifigure, it's actually out of scale with the rest of the fighter. Compare: On the other hand, I see what looks to be 1x1 tiles with clips, so the canopy piece swings upward. I don't know how accurate this is, but it does constitute a new play feature. What's with that minifigure? Why haven't they changed it to a real TIE pilot? The printed helmet face is starting to annoy me (even if it does look a lot like this guy). All in all, this set looks like a step back for LEGO.

Well said, Brickdoctor. I wouldn't expect anything more tolerant from the person who had constructed a wonderful UCS rendition of the Alpha-3 Nimbus. Well it looks like I was wrong and the wings on the new set do rotate. Or at the very least, they can be attached horizontally. (This would explain why LEGO shortened the guns.) It's a little bit strange though... if you zoom in on the picture above, you can see that the way the wings attach to the main body doesn't look much different from the connection on the previous rendition; what's more, the wing panels are still individually movable via bar clips (using the more recent 1x2 plates w/ vertical handlebar). And we all know you can already choose to display your 6205 in this manner. (Just fix the wings like this.)But you can see a Technic bit around the larger panels... perhaps there's a gear of some sort in the rear of the ship (similar to the 4502 or the 7259)? In addition, I don't think that the nose on this set is actually longer than the nose on the previous rendition; it's just that LEGO has opted to use only one pair of 3x12 wing plates in the front (as opposed to two pairs on the previous rendition); the section around the cockpit (which was represented with 1x4 wing plates on the 6205) are now 1x3 wing plates, and shifted several studs forward at that. (It's very inaccurate.) I think that the rectangular area around the cockpit makes up for the removal of the second pair of 3x12 wing plates, so the nose looks about the same length. The large panels around the droid socket are definitely shorter; they are 6 studs long here, whereas they were 8 studs on the previous rendition. (Again, inaccurate.) As I've said before, LEGO has switched out the click hinges for bar hinges, which actually seems like a step back. (Not unlike the other two points I've mentioned.) But it looks like the droid socket itself is only two studs wide rather than four, so the ship doesn't actually acommodate the whole droid. (Consistent with the last rendition.) It looks like Lord Embo's wish was granted. The triangular structures on the rear of the wing pivots are slightly more accurate (and those look like new slope brick pieces) but the way they're attached looks a bit awkward. That new oversized canopy piece just looks so terrible... not only is it out of scale with the minifigure, it's actually out of scale with the rest of the fighter. Compare: All in all, this set looks like a step back for LEGO. EDIT: One more thing I've noticed - I see what look like 1x1 tiles with the clips in front of the droid socket. The canopy now swings upward. I don't know how accurate this is, but it does constitute a new play feature. I count three stickers, one on the nose, one on each panel. A chrome silver astromech droid was seen in the corridors of the Death Star. Now what is LEGO trying to imply here...? By the way, I built the stand for that 6205.

How about the Ebon Hawk or the Moldy Crow? (Since video game suggestions seem to be popular.) There's also Dengar's Punishing One or Boba Fett's Slave II for EU, or perhaps a Royal Guard TIE Interceptor? Or maybe... an X-WING!!! A REALLY BIG ONE!!! X-wings have lots of colour. For even more Clone Wars, there's Asajj Ventress's Geonosis fanblade starfighter, the V-19, the Solar Sailer, the Eta-2 Actis, or the LAAT/i from Hypori. TX-130 fighter tank,

Better action sequences, better script, better plot, better starship designs, less redundancy, less retcons, Asajj looks better, Grievous looks better, original V-19s, etc., etc... I'm not liking your tone there. Excuse me, but I just think it seems a little big-headed to go and ask whether any of one person's ideas were suggested in 80+ pages of suggestions of both Original Trilogy and Neo-Clone Wars fans alike. Especially ideas like a Mos Eisley cantina, which I have seen multiple times on multiple forums, and not just by coincidence. Tipoca City as well - apparently everyone wants some sort of large arena-type set like Geonosis, and since LEGO already carved up Hoth into 5 or 6 sets, it's time for something else. (This has probably already been suggested before, but I would actually prefer a Red Squadron X-wing with a turbolaser tower on a section of Death Star in the style of the Hoth battlepacks, as opposed to more huge land-battle sets. Not only cheaper but can be mass-purchased.) And I don't know, something's just not right about the way you've phrased the first statement. Even seeing the way LEGO has included extra stuff in their sets... and it's not pointless, including only R4-P17's head on Obi-wan's Delta-7 is not only movie-accurate but saves the cost of including the entire body including the leg molds (and/or the aesthetic quality of the ship itself since it won't have a mess of bricks on the underside to house the body, allowing for more freedom in the set design). And the 7143 Jedi starfighter is inaccurate enough as it is. On top of that, I will add that R4-P17's entire body is included - the whole fighter. An astromech droid's body is actually integrated into the Delta-7 and only its head is an external structure (perhaps because pilots appear to receive comfort from having another 'face' to look at and a 'voice' to listen to rather than just readings on a monitor =D). Personally I'm fine with only the R5 head piece being included on the actual set and even wish LEGO had done the same for other starships (the N-1 for example) rather than trying to cram a droid body into a starship design and losing both accuracy and aesthetic quality in the process. (Not unlike what they've done with the new V-wing...) I would love a small Yoda vs. Palpatine set. Perhaps if they only included the two minifigures and ONE Senate seat so they can toss it back and forth using the Force. An Obi-wan vs. Anakin set with only the platform and the droid is another option. (And of course, Luke vs. Vader with either the little platform Luke grabs onto or a couple of boxes for Vader to lob at him.) I really liked the idea of the Final Duel/ Jedi Defense sets and I really wish LEGO would make more small sets in that style rather than integrating those into the $100+ sets.

I don't think so. Then again... By the way, ARFS are redundant, since there was already a division serving essentially the same purpose at the time. But I guess those ignoramus producers have to milk the cow somehow... poor Leland.

clicky. There's a lot more I'd like to say regarding what KielDaMan said but this isn't the thread for it so I'm waiting for Brickdoctor or someone else to open a new one.

Indeed, with the 10129 UCS snowspeeder LEGO actually had an opportunity to make a really small but nice UCS set (if it had been in 1/24 scale like 7191 and 7181)but instead it looks like they opted for studio scale (which is obviously a lot larger) since there was more of a chance to be "big and awesome" (and, of course, pricey). I think that at this point UCS pretty much connotes a sort of grandeur rather than any sort of scale - which is why 10179 is pretty much the epitome of LEGO UCS (minute inaccuracies aside) despite the fact that it is scaled to minifigures. That's also probably why when we saw the price tag and piece count for 10215 people were so upset (since 676 pieces at $100 is unheard of unless it's an Architecture set). Also keep in mind that LEGO is always trying to make money so with UCS they are tapping into an AFOL fanbase who would actually be willing to pay these enormous sums - which would require them to keep making big UCS sets. Another factor - UCS sets are set apart from regular sets by their size; if UCS sets are smaller they can't be as detailed or accurate. In this aspect 10026 suffers greatly, since at that size there were certain proportions and angles (curves?) it was unable to adhere to. What if LEGO had released 7191 in 1/48 scale? (It would be smaller than 4502.) Imagine how much greeble and fancy gears they would have had to exclude to fit it to that scale. At that point, it wouldn't be much different from a System set. Sure, smaller UCS sets are possible. There was a small model of the Millennium Falcon used for filming (around 30in I think it was) in addition to the 5-ft. studio model, and the starwars.com Databank mentions that there were 13" TIE Interceptor studio models. And the Imperator-II Star Destroyers used in scenes with the Executor were around the same size as the new 8099 midi-scale set. But UCS renditions at such small scales wouldn't allow for neither the awesome detail and grandeur nor the insane price tag we have come to associate UCS sets with. Nah. LEGO does try with their System sets but for the most part the proportions are terrible and there exist numerous flaws as a result of bizarre building techniques (for example, those random huge gaps we've been seeing in every Technic-System Star Wars set ever released).

I realize this would clash with your SNOT approach, but a MOCpages model I came across a few years back offers a possible alternative: It has space for two minifigures in the cockpit, maybe more: Personally I'm not a fan of the SNOT cockpit since you can't maintain the angled shape of the head all the way while including the canopy. If you are in fact thinking of starting another project, perhaps you could also consider the Sun Crusher from the Jedi Academy Trilogy (along with the aforementioned Radiant VII - would love to see one of those in UCS).

Radiant VII? Oh, wait, all of yours are in minifigure scale... then... Khetanna? Jawa sandcrawler? World Devastator? (I see you're considering video game ships, so why not Dark Empire?) There's also the Jabitha, the Seismic tank, and the CR-20 troop transport - all from the Clone Wars.

Couple of differences: The 6205 uses the same cockpit piece as the LEGO Jedi Starfighters, the new 7915 uses some weird really big cockpit piece which is inaccurate. 6205 has tiles on the top of the nose, 7915 has a slope piece - which is weird considering that there's a cavity in that spot on the "real" V-wing. The 7915 is clearly a bit bigger in the nose area. The area around the cockpit is now completely rectangular (in contrast to the red 2x4 wings used on the 6205 which were more accurate) It looks like the 7915 has a couple more slope bricks around the cockpit area. The 6205 uses click hinges for the panels surrounding the astromech droid, the 7915 uses the bar hinges which are easily knocked out of place. The 6205 had a pair of 2x4 45 slope bricks surrounding the astromech droid (which is accurate); the same area is more rectangular on the 7915, and they seem to have made space for the whole droid (which is inaccurate) The 6205 used black "lightsaber blades" for guns and connected them to the round structures via Technic pins; the 7915 uses cones (somewhat more accurate but too stubby) and appears to attach with this piece. The 6205 had a pair of red 1x4 wings on the rear of the round structures; the 7915 appears to lack anything resembling those. The 6205 used "flaps" with bars to attach the wing panels; I'm not sure what they did for 7915, but it's evidently different. Yeah, but there are video games out that feature several starships and vehicles from the Original Trilogy (Empire at War or the Force Unleashed for example) which gives LEGO an excuse to make some Original Trilogy sets. See above. I'm actually glad about the TIE pilot since the new ones are more accurate and the older rendition was badly done IMO (just a black stormtrooper helmet which is way off). And this way you won't have to spend $50 on a TIE Defender to get one. And of course there's always bricklink.

In the spirit of this thread, I will say that I would first and foremost release ONE set to see whether or not the line is profitable or at least to see how many hardcore Star Wars fans out there would buy a LEGO set for themselves and/or their children if it was Star Wars. Now since it is essentially a pilot test there would have to be a few essentials it must possess to be effective: It must be distinctive. I know there are some fans who would want a LEGO Ubrikkian-9000 landspeeder but how many people would recognize it as Star Wars? It must be big not not too big. Money and effort blown on a product nobody buys is more or less wasted. It must look cool. Even kids who have never heard of Star Wars might buy a LEGO product if it looks cool. Now since this is 1998 and LEGO is still blocky we must take that into account and find something from Star Wars that could be blocky. Hmmm... TIE Fighter? No. Y-wing? No. Ubrikkian-9000? No. AT-AT? Yes. Now, is it distinctive? Yes. Is it big? Yes. But it can't be too big so release it in a midi-size ($40 range, about same piece count as 7778?) Does it look cool? Heck yeah!!! So in summary, the first product of the new line would be a medium-sized All-Terrain Attack Transport. Now for "Episode I"? A more difficult choice, since the makers decided they'd adopt a 1930s look (since it's set 30 years before Star Wars, which was in the 70s. ) Come on, there has to be something that looks like LEGO. MTT? Eww, no. AAT? Eww, no. Queen's starship? Too smooth and shiny. N-1? Too smooth and shiny. ... The Radiant VII? Sure, why not. It's red (distinctive) and has the feel of the older films. (Plus it's the first thing you see of the Prequels, so it's also pretty iconic.) Now 115 meters is a bit large for minifigure scale so again make it medium-sized. Does it look cool? Yes. So since we have to include "Episode I" the second set of the new line would be a medium-sized Consular-class cruiser. So the first wave would consist of two sets, one from each of the trilogies. And thus there would an "Original Trilogy" wave in January followed by a "Prequels" wave every August.

Yes, but Hasbro die-cast models tend to include landing gear and a removable stand so that the model can be displayed either in flight or docked as desired.

For the ARC-170: Clone Wars Chapter 23, about one minute in. For V-wing: I couldn't find an underside shot of the actual V-wing. However, there is a Hasbro diecast model, which is accurate enough to determine this much: No landing gear on either of them.

I agree, the top wing is just too big. The head is dwarfed even more than on the official model. The Essential Guide isn't known for its 100% accuracy. (Look what they've done to the Tantive IV!) That side view is looking real good though. It's very exciting to see a UCS model coming along. (Makes me wish I had enough parts to make one of my own...)