Fallenangel

Would anyone like to tell me why this is on the front page when my review's been sitting in the forum for weeks? And incorrect, Mr Hobbles; the Executor is eleven times the length of one Imperator-class Star Destroyer; in fact, for reference, the bridge tower on the Executor was made the same size as that on an Imperator-class. theforce.net covers this in great detail. And I'm pretty sure I mentioned the size of a LEGO Executor in comparison to this set in my review.

Acclamators shouldn't have Open Circle fleet markings... Sorry but accurate as it is, it's got large gaps everywhere. I would recommend you fix this before adding any additional detail. And you might want to check the shape. And maybe the section around the tower should be raised more conspicuously? However, I think you captured the bridge, the boosters, and the lump in the back perfectly. The overall shape of the ship is spot on.

I added new pictures, as I promised. I also added new content in addition to what was already there; I guess you could call this my "8099 Midi-scale Star Destroyer REVIEW: Special Edition". Please read this review again!!!

Bah, retcons. 2x3 large baseplates? So it's 128x192 studs that's huge! (102.4cm x 153.6cm!!!) I'm really not sure about how accurate this diorama actually is (for one, no walls separating fighters in the actual hangar) but the attention to small details and the floor tiling makes this absolutely amazing.

Understood ThatGuyWithTheBricks; I know from building LEGO myself that gaps and angles can be extremely hard to achieve, especially when the angles don't exist in LEGO. I meant those LARGE gaps where the blue wing plates meet with the 2x6 curved brick that forms the main slope, and also where the sides of the ship angle down. (Something similar also happened in some official TIE sets; I suggest taking a look at guybrush's TIE Interceptor to fix it.

My favorite part of this would have to be the way that you achieved the starburst pattern and the yellow arrow on the hull, very nice. Proportions look spot-on. I'm not sure how accurate that cockpit detail is (it appears to be the same printed tile used in LEGO's rendition), but it looks graet. However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to nitpick this a bit: The first thing I noticed is the slope of the sides of the ship; it's just too steep. I know from rewatching Clones and several Clone Wars episodes that while there is an incline to the sides, it's not very steep; many MOCers have even disregarded the slope altogether (guybrush's UCS comes to mind) and managed to create a pretty accurate rendition. I would suggest you either reduce the incline or take it out completely (after all, the Wookieepedia reference picture appears to depict the Delta-7 without inclined wings). I would probably use a technique for inclining the wings similar to LEGO's own technique seen in the 7143 Jedi Starfighter, but set the entire system within the central area so as to avoid awkward obtrusions on the underside of the wings. And the latter would be a simple stacked-plates build, wouldn't it? Of course, with this picture I'm not too sure. The second detail is the guns. The look of the guns themselves are captured quite well (and actually to scale, for that matter) but they're not set into the ship at all; they just kind of sit on top of it. Stock photos of the Delta-7 and shots from Clones show a deep, narrow groove in which the guns are set, and a gap in the outline of the ship resulting from the groove. I don't see any sign of this on your MOC; the guns are obviously mounted well above the level of the hull. I'm not sure if it could be done considering the construction at that area, so I would suggest removing the large wing plate at that part and putting something else there. You might also want to fill in the gaps in front of the cockpit, though I think that would be easier if you just switched to sculpture build. I'm assuming the cockpit doesn't actually open? My favorite part of this would have to be the way that you achieved the starburst pattern and the yellow arrow on the hull, very nice. Proportions look spot-on. I'm not sure how accurate that cockpit detail is (it appears to be the same printed tile used in LEGO's rendition), but it looks graet. However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to nitpick this a bit: The first thing I noticed is the slope of the sides of the ship; it's just too steep. I know from rewatching Clones and several Clone Wars episodes that while there is an incline to the sides, it's not very steep; many MOCers have even disregarded the slope altogether (guybrush's UCS comes to mind) and managed to create a pretty accurate rendition. Of course, with this picture I'm not too sure if I'm right about this. I would, however, suggest you either reduce the incline or take it out completely (after all, the Wookieepedia reference picture appears to depict the Delta-7 without inclined wings). I would probably use a technique for inclining the wings similar to LEGO's own technique seen in the 7143 Jedi Starfighter, but set the entire system within the central area so as to avoid awkward obtrusions on the underside of the wings. And the latter would be a simple stacked-plates build, wouldn't it? The second detail is the guns. The look of the guns themselves are captured quite well (and actually to scale, for that matter) but they're not set into the ship at all; they just kind of sit on top of it. Stock photos of the Delta-7 and shots from Clones show a deep, narrow groove in which the guns are set, and a gap in the outline of the ship resulting from the groove. I don't see any sign of this on your MOC; the guns are obviously mounted well above the level of the hull. I'm not sure if it could be done considering the construction at that area, so I would suggest removing the large wing plate at that part and putting something else there. You might also want to fill in the gaps in front of the cockpit, though I think that would be easier if you just switched to sculpture build. I'm assuming the cockpit doesn't actually open?

Sorry about that. Back on track, here are a few observations I've made on the new sets: It looks like the Bounty Hunter Ship is able to rotate what I assume are its boosters. Sorry, but I think the Imperial V-wing looks crappier than ever. The nose looks even thinner than on the previous rendition, the guns appear to have been shortened (although it looks like there is a third pair - correct me if I'm wrong), and there's a STICKER on the slope piece. The panels on the rear of the ship look really weird at that angle, and it appears they're attached by the sides again. The wings look to be the same thing and look like they're attached to bars. Bad show LEGO bad show. I'm glad I picked up the 2006 version when it was still around (insignificant to Sith as it is) since it looks a lot better than this one. Is that Coruscant in the background? If that is a BARC speeder in the new battlepack it's got to be the largest and fattest one I've ever seen. It makes it worse that a decent-sized BARC speeder would really have gone well with a clone battlepack... It doesn't look like the '07 short guns will be discontinued since the droids seem to use a pair. They ought to give us the ol' megaphone once in a while so we can have some variety in the ranks. I wonder if a 'Mandalorian' in Jango's colors means we'll be getting yet another Slave I soon? Or better yet, a Geonosis arena-themed set with another load of new Jedi? (Agen Kolar and Ki Adi-Mundi! Yeah! And new droidekas! Yeah!)

Yeah, and while they're at it they should make another B-wing fighter using that piece. With 3 Slave Is, 3 A-wings and like 6 snowspeeders, a third B-wing doesn't seem all that impossible. There have been many instances, especially in more recent sets, where LEGO has used, as one member of another LEGO forum described it, redundant use of pieces. Yeah, but you have to remember most of that was ripped off of dmac's MOC, the same way the UCS Falcon was ripped off of Pepa Quin's and the UCS Delta-7 from cavegod's. I'm guessing that if LEGO hadn't seen dmac's shuttle, they probably wouldn't have used a SNOT technique in certain places. (Heck, they might not have even released a UCS shuttle in the first place.) Oh by the way, I remembered what I was going to say: the ARC-170 made its first appearance in the Star Wars: Obsession series, which takes place in 20 BBY. Its only appearance before that time is in a Battle of Malastare in 22 BBY (the previously cited first appearance of the ARC-170). This Battle of Malastare only takes place in the new Clone Wars series that started last year; the cited date of 22 BBY can therefore be considered a RETCON. Let's not promote doublethink in the Eurobricks community, shall we? And no, I don't believe in TIE/Ins and A-wings being around during the first movie either, nor do I believe Anakin actually built C-3PO on his own.

Is that so? Because Wookieepedia also cites the first appearance of the ARC-170 in the Star Wars: Obsession series, which takes place in 20 BBY. And I'm sure that the Eta-2 Actis appears in the first issue of this series (piloted by Obi-Wan). The Eta-2 should therefore have been around the same time as the ARC-170s. Since the Obsession series ran in 2004, and the Clone Wars comics which you cited having been released a few months ago, your information could be considered a retcon. EDIT: Never mind, my post doesn't make sense at all.

If anything, the older 7140 X-wing is less accurate to minifigure size than the newer version. But I think there are certain details on the older version (shape and printing on the nose, grey color, etc.) which I prefer to the newer one. Plus, a smaller X-wing allows for a smaller diorama, which is always good for those in shortage of parts. The bridgelike structure over the X-wing and the tile floor looks amazing. I love that after all those Menace-based dioramas you're showing one from the original Trilogy. I can't wait to see the finished product ACPin!

I've seen Sith at least 5 times. In the scene where Obi-wan is talking to Cody in the Venator you can see the tip of a V-wing fighter on the right. Show me a scene with "ARFs" in it; the closest thing I can think of are the Kashyyyk troopers or the clones on the BARC speeders during Order 66. Where are these "ARFs"? More battle droids make the Naboo set, but I don't see them. Could someone point them out? (By the way, I think the color of the new carrier looks about the same as that of the engine area seen on the 2006 Slave I.) Just curious... in the older Clone Wars, the Eta-2 Actis interceptors made their debut around the same time as the ARC-170s. Apparently there have been ARC-170s in the new series, so where are the Eta-2s? We haven't had a new one since '07, and even then Obi-wan's blue one wasn't nearly as applicable as Anakin's yellow one. Is there anyone here who thinks LEGO might release an Eta-2 anytime this year? Even though I'm hoping for a primarily OT-based line in the fall, I've been expecting new Eta-2s for a while. The same could be said for droidekas.

I'm sorry KielDaMan for criticizing the sets without actually not knowing anything about the starships they're based on. It's just that as Rufus pointed out these sets all seem obscure (not unlike 'Cad Bane's speeder this year but at least Cad Bane was in more than one episode) and the only thing I can really recognize in the Clone Wars based sets are Saesee Tiin and Shaak Ti, and even then we only see them briefly. The number of new molds is almost disturbing and I can only think of how much the price will go up. The thing is, as much as the Mandalorians have appeared in the new Clone Wars series (they seem quite popular) I don't like the concept of like 1000 people with Boba Fett's armor organized in a near-fascist state. It just doesn't seem like Star Wars. And I also don't like the fact that LEGO would make a nice big model of a ship that has only appeared in like one episode as well as nice expensive new molds for the characters. (I speak here of the "Bounty Hunter Ship".) I don't think either the ship nor characters have reached (or will ever reach, for that matter) the comic book and video game awesomeness that has led LEGO to release a third Slave I (another bounty hunter ship) with a new Boba Fett mold. In other words, LEGO is unnecessarily making things too expensive. To be honest, I've changed my mind about the T-6 shuttle (the Star Wars galaxy needs to advance, after all). I hadn't realized that Quinlan Vos has had as much an extensive pre-Sith comic book history as Shaak or Saesee (or the fact that he was actually in a Star Wars movie) - I apologize. And the shuttle's design looks fairly accurate and thought out. The amount of clone variations they've managed to release in a year is ridiculous. The fact that they have ARFs when they already have the awesome ARCs is kind of pointless isn't it? Contrary to others, I don't like this year's battlepacks too much - the Mandalorian mold shortens the number of minifigures that can be include in one battlepack and the inclusion of the newer green-painted clones as opposed to the older red and blue "clone trooper commandos" leads me away from the other one. We can only hope that LEGO will truly wow fans of the older stuff in the fall with the UCS and exclusives.

OMG what is that ugly 'Sugii' thing? Aurra Sing makes sense I guess but a new mold of a weird teddy bear thing is ridiculous, why? And what's with the shoulder pads on 'Embo'? Not even the Darth Vader minifigure has shoulder pads. I can't help thinking LEGO is beginning to go a little overboard on new minifigure molds nowadays, even though we did get some long-desired figures (Wampa, Tauntaun, Bossk, etc.) Are all these new molds really that highly desired as to cause massive price boosts? Mandalorian battlepack? I don't see the purpose in that. Were there Mandalorians in a recent Clone Wars episode or something? V-wing reminds me of 7663, ugly. Black astromech is neat (it was seen on the Death Star, after all), but what's with that Imperial pilot? I've never seen anything like it. Hopefully we'll get the TIE pilot from the Defender in the final. And besides, I thought the astro droid was programmed into the fighter like with the Delta-7? Droid carrier looks all right, but it doesn't seem to carry any more droids than the previous rendition, which is a bit of a letdown. Printed Gungans: expected. "Jedi Shuttle"? I thought they already had Consulars, Delta-7s, and LAAT/is? Who the heck is "Quinian Vos"? I don't know what LEGO is thinking expecting children to be happy with expensive new molds of who appear to be more or less throwaway characters. And do Jedi really need yet another transport? Luke traversed across the galaxy in just his X-wing, Han in just the Falcon, and even Obi-wan traveled all the way to Kamino in just his Delta-7. Plus you can totally tell the T-6 is a ripoff of Asajj's Geonosis fanblade starfighter in the '03 series, and the 'Bounty Hunter ship' of Jaster's Legacy. (But then again, that legacy, too, was ruined...)

Yes KimT you're right. In an attempt to get this review added to the index, I'm taking better pictures and plan to write a review that uses some more refrence pictures. I intend to have it up by Saturday, though nothing's certain... until then please keep this on notice.

You realize, Aeroeza, the reason I brought up the UCS X-wing in the first place is to show that the mechanism wasn't accurate and therefore constitutes a play feature. You claim that the mechanism in the X-wing used to open the wings is accurate within the limits of the medium. However, rewatching the Death Star sequence shows this is clearly not the case. In addition to the incorrect method of attaching the wings which I had previously mentioned, I will add that the studio model of the X-wing used in the Death star sequence (all of them, not just the "hero" X-wings) have a large gap between the wings due to the cavity in the rear fuselage necessary for the pivoting function of the wings to work. Since LEGO's UCS X-wing does not utilize this pivoting system, it appears that they did not see any need to include the gap, despite the fact that it was a real feature on the actual model. The LEGO X-wing's wing-opening mechanism is therefore not only overly complex but also detracts from accuracy, ultimately being a play feature. Indeed, a feature of the real model is dropped (the gap between the wings, as well as the pivot in the fuselage) to accomodate a particular function (the gear system that opens the wings).If you are as uncompromising as you say I can't help but think you would take such matters into consideration before praising that aspect of the UCS X-wing. And I do not think that the pivoting function of the studio model cannot be replicated in LEGO; Dave's LEGO X-wing proves otherwise. In this case then there are no limitations in the medium that interferes with this aspect of the X-wing, except maybe the weight of the wings (but of course that, too, can be easily addressed).

For those who are interested, somebody on Brickshelf took better pictures of the build. I can't help thinking I've seen the username Mathis somewhere, but oh well. (Still not polled I see... oh well, it's not like this review is going to be indexed...)

Perhaps this screenshot from the film could help?

Zzz is right; the various moving parts of a model are just as important as its details, especially if the craft it is based on sports actual moving parts. This is the reason for the opening canopy on the UCS Snowspeeder and X-wing. Since moving parts are a real trait of the ship upon which the model is based, of course those same moving parts would be featured on the model itself. However, that does not take the trends of the LEGO UCS line into account. With the exception of the UCS N-1 fighter, every UCS set of a small fighter or vehicle has featured an opening cockpit; for this one not to would be a failure on LEGO's part. But LEGO UCS sets have not featured landing gear, even if it was a trait of the actual ship - I speak of the UCS X-wing and Y-wing. For this reason, the lack of landing gear on this is somewhat acceptable. The best, of course, would be to offer both display options, as many model kits do, but LEGO can't please everybody can they? (Not to mention the fact that a UCS AT-AT and Executor - sets I know several AFOLs have been wishing for - would have made a whole lot of sense for 2010 but instead we get a Lambda shuttle and this thing.) Not that I'm challenging you or anything, but Aeroeza I believe you are mistaken in saying that "a UCS, as a rule of thumb, doesn't tend to have complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model". Have you looked at the wing-opening function for the UCS X-wing? It's an absolute mess of gears and technic beams. Some X-wing nuts like myself (see avatar and Brickshelf folder) are aware that the wings on the studio model were connected via a central axle in the rear fuselage of the fighter; the wings would simply pivot in opposite directions around this axle to achieve their trademark "X" shape. While I suspect that LEGO rejected this method due to the enormous weight of the wings, I maintain that this gritty mechanism could be considered a "complex play feature". And as to your comment on a UCS sacrificing accuracy and detail for play features, did you know that the new UCS Lambda shuttle basically omitted a ramp so that the head area could be flipped up to access minifigures - an obvious play feature if I've ever seen one.

Thanks everyone for your comments!! Unfortunately, I'm not very good with a camera, and the pictures I have up are the best I can do at this point. This review probably won't be indexed because of the pictures (even though I was the first one, darn it). On the other hand, building instructions are available on the LEGO website, so I would suggest a look through that for anyone curious about the build. For those complaining about the price, fred is right - after all, the set contains 28 dark bley 1x1 round plates and 24 1x1 plates with a clip. But keep in mind that this is (as far as I know) the only set in the fall 2010 line that is below the $0.10/piece ratio, and besides it's more like a UCS set than your average LEGO set. It's also likely that WalMart will start selling these at discount after a few months. By the way, I figured out the 'scale' of this set. (Unlike the Falcon, a Star Destroyer has a standard length of one mile.) The set is 9.6 in. (24.5 cm) long; it's about 1/6600 scale, in case anyone wants to construct an Imperial fleet scaled to this set. (A scaled Executor would be 105.6 in or about 2.7 m long, a Tantive IV about 2.29 cm, based on the listed length of the Tantive IV as 150m.) By the way, could one of the site administrators maybe add a poll to this review?

MAJOR EDIT!!! Okay, so not everyone was satisfied with the pictures I took the first time. So two weeks ago, I got rid of them and took new ones. Personally I think the pictures are a lot better: they're smaller, but they're more clear and they have flash so you can really see all the details. Unfortunately, it looks like Starstreak has beat me to the front page, even though I think I am more deserving of this right, as I posted a review of this set several weeks beforehand. With the new pictures, at least I have a chance of this review being added to the index and polled. Anyway, it's been several weeks since I've bought this set: there's been time to look through the set and compare it with movie screenshots, studio model pictures, etc. I have to say that the additional time has changed my opinion of this set greatly and broken down a lot of the thoughts I had from my first impression of this set. These new ideas will (hopefully) be reflected in this revised version. I may come back and change the review even further to fit my liking, but by then this will have had its 15 minutes of fame and hopefully have joined other great reviews in the Index. Now, for the review. I have included an EDIT: sign with all NEW thoughts; however, the pictures have replaced the older pictures. Yes! First midi Destroyer review on Eurobricks! Some time ago, on another LEGO forum, I asked why LEGO couldn’t make sets of a different kind – sets which were meant to represent starships and vehicles of the Star Wars universe more accurately and feature dense, entertaining builds aimed at older kids and TFOLS/AFOLS. Of course, I was attacked for this revolutionary idea – others claimed it couldn’t be done, complaining of higher prices and asserting that LEGO was and always will be a product aimed at kids, and that I should probably get into die-casts or model kits if I wanted accuracy. Then, in 2009, LEGO released a groundbreaking set, the 7778 “Midi-scale” Millennium Falcon. It was so different from the other LEGO Star Wars sets of that time – no minifigs, a stacked-plate build, almost no rare pieces or molds. At $40, it was quite pricey – however, I snapped it up and found it was more or less an amazing set. It is almost as if LEGO had answered my call for cheaper, more accurate sets with the midi-scale line. The 8099 Midi-scale Imperial Star Destroyer is the second of two midi-scale sets released at this time, the first being the 7778. Like its predecessor, it does not disappoint. So here goes the review. 8099 Midi-scale Imperial Star Destroyer $39.99 USD 423 pcs. The box, like the 7778, features quasi-UCS info and the parts inventory on the back. A blue clone trooper (I assume from the markings that it’s that Rex guy) is featured on the front. We can infer from the Tatooine backdrop that the model is intended to be the Devastator, the ship that captured the Tantive IV in the first scene of Star Wars. The instruction manual, in the usual fashion, features the same picture as the front of the box. Since images of the box are already available online, I will not be posting them. EDIT: Note from the bridge that 8099 actually depicts an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer, even though the Devastator is clearly an Imperial I-class. For those who don't know the difference (like I did before I wrote this review), theforce.net covers this topic in great detail. More on the bridge later. Some interesting pieces - red 1x2 plates with clips, 1x3 tiles, and 2x4 tiles. EDIT: Sorry, it's the same picture, only smaller. The build: In keeping with FBTB fashion, I didn’t want to spoil the build, but the construction of this set is so different from most sets that I felt I had to share it. The first thing you build is the central module – all other parts of the set attach to this section. LEGO manages to attach the bottom by taking a large Technic brick and inverting it so that the bottom is angled. The brick is held in by a pair of connectors with axles running through them; the construction is surprisingly sturdy. Oh yes, the stand; it’s simply a few Technic connectors that you place on the bottom of the ship to keep it upright. It functions well and is easily removable. EDIT: New picture; the bottom "wings": In addition to the large notches near the bow of the Star Destroyer (which, I might add, LEGO captured fairly well), there also exists a smaller notch which they appear to have overlooked. It's a fairly simple mod to include it, just shift a couple plates over. Here you see the module with the two bottom parts of the set attached: As you can see, the parts of the hull attach to the central module with clips. Unlike the 7778, there isn’t much detailing on this set, just a few scattered studs and clip pieces. The lack of tan pieces in this set is a bit refreshing. The inclusion of the larger grooves along the border is a nice addition. I can now flip the construction over and show you the completed bottom: In my opinion, LEGO really outdid themselves here. (They ought to have, since the bottom of the Star Destroyer is the first part of the ship you see.) They captured many details fairly correctly, as seen from these screenshots: Note that LEGO not only included the main hangar into which the Tantive IV is pulled, but also the smaller hangar from which Vader’s shuttle descends in Return of the Jedi. And I had my doubts about the shape of the ship at first, but this screenshot reassured me: This too: Indeed, it doesn't look as bad from out here. EDIT: There is another shot which further shows the hangars. How could I have forgotten this? Triangles on either side of the smaller hangar are represented by wings plates on 8099. LEGO definitely outdid themselves on the bottom. This funny-looking thing is the rear part of the ship, the engines; the two protruding bars attach to the two Technic connectors on the central module. As you may suspect, the connection is very loose; the bars easily detach from the 1x2 plates. Both the three main engines and the four smaller engines are included. EDIT: The "four smaller engines" are actually emergency engines. A bit of a disappointment here, since on the studio model all the main thrusters are separate from each other and connect into the ship individually, and the emergency thrusters are connected to the "wings" of the ship: To those who would like to do mod the engines, I would suggest moving the bar plates on the "wings" a few studs closer to the rear so that when attached the hull extends farther back, leaving more space for engine attachment. Ditch the bars with the half pins and replace with studs so they'll connect to the holes better and have less a chance of falling off. Pictures of the bridge tower are also included with the engine. In case you didn't look through the page I linked to earlier, I will now discuss the bridge in detail. Note the 1x3 tile laid sideways across the top of the bridge. This is incorrect; recall that the Devastator has quite the tall array in that location, as seen in the picture below: A bit distant, but you can definitely tell that the middle section rises up well above the level of the sensor arrays on either side. Also worthy of notice is the actual command bridge area. In the 8099, the bridge is represented by this piece; this corresponds with the bump with the groove seen in the dead center of this picture (a picture of the bridge tower of the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer Avenger, I might add; it looks like LEGO slipped.): Obviously, the reason for the curve is because the inside of the command bridge should look something like this: Note also the square indents on either side of the bump; this is fairly well represented on the 8099 with a number of these. Some may consider this an easter egg or something, but personally I'm impressed. This more than makes up for the fact that the tower sits too high upon the finished set. But I'll get to that later. EDIT: New pictures. Top wings: A picture of some detail on the top "wings": Compare to the studio model: Something I suspected when I first built the model; the section around the bridge tower is just too squat. It's no wonder that the tower appears so tall. Note the turbolasers along the sides. (Actually, on the real model, I think the rearmost one is an ion cannon.) They are represented simply by light bley binoculars, mounted on studs so that they can rotate. Simple, yet effective, although I'm pretty sure there should be four - three turbolasers an an ion cannon. (They should also be a whole lot closer together, but that's another easy mod.) Between stacked plates are more 1x1 clip plates and a wing, in dark grey so it'll stand out more. EDIT: New picture; the set is mostly assembled but the innards are still visible, just to give an idea of how everything fits together. Finally, the completed set! The first thing you notice is that huge groove down the middle of the ship (somewhat reminiscent of the original UCS Star Destroyer) that continues through to the bridge section. But the pieces in the middle are just large rail plates, so perhaps a “zigzag” method could be employed to minimize the gap, as seen in some Executor MOCs on Brickshelf. The dark gray, ugh! Again, common pieces, but it just doesn’t look right. Somebody else pointed this out to me while we were watching Jedi: The set is just too fat. Compare with the studio model: However, considering the way this set is constructed, it really can't be helped, and it becomes less noticeable if you dilate all of the wings by maybe 10%. (Don't quote me on this.) The squatness of the area around the tower (and the huge gap) is very noticeable here. Speaking of which, I think the ship is in fact more than quite a bit squat, comparing the side view above with this picture: I think LEGO might have underestimated how immense this really was. The gaps on the side are also a bit of a bother. Another new picture; this was intended to be a front view of the ship, but I decided I wanted to display the lovely UCS-type information in the instructions as well. Some of the parts inventory is also visible. You can really tell how fat this thing is when you compare it to a shot from the film. I will also say that this ship is FRAGILE. (EDIT: Thanks Starstreak for mentioning this.) The flimsy engine section leads to a whole bunch of other connection-related problems, and it’s difficult to pick the ship up without dislodging the engines. I would suggest either grasping the bulky area round the bridge with both hands or scooping up the ship from underneath with the stand just within your fingertips. Almost no play features with this ship. The midi Falcon had two rotating quadlaser cannons; this set has the six guns and not really anything else. I guess if you wanted to you could somehow swoosh the set without popping off the rear section. The best use for this is probably setting it up for a perspective shot with the UCS Tantive IV (Aftter all, the actual studio model of the Devastator was half the size of the Tantive IV studio model). EDIT: Actually, considering the size of the ship, you can have a lot of fun with it: Two fighters against a Star Destroyer? Is that really fair? Yes, that is the 7658 Y-wing next to the ship. You can really tell how bad the economy is when you consider that the two sets were marketed at the same price. (Not to mention the fact that 7658 has 23 more pieces, although they're mostly half pins). Also shown (small) are advertisements for the summer 2010 sets. I wonder who's flying Grievous's fighter while he's fighting Anakin. "Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately three thousand, seven hundred and twenty to one!" "Never tell me the odds!" There are a lot more quotes from Empire that would probably fit this better, but I like this one. You can tell that the mandibles on 7778 are really oversized. In the back are a few sets I don't have room for. Yes, there is another box with red clones behind the 8099; no, it is not another 2010 LEGO set; it' a Revell SnapTite X-wing kit I picked up a few months back since at that time I didn't have the budget, display space, patience, or painting ability required for the 1/48 FineMolds kit. But I digress. You can also see from this shot how tall the bridge tower isn't supposed to be. (But it is.) The 8099 is 24.5 cm (or 24,5 or however they do it) in length, only a bit longer than the midi Falcon, which is 23.5 cm. The 7778 is around 1/144 scale (assuming the length of the "real" Falcon is about 33 meters), the 8099 is at, as I mentioned, 1/6600 scale. It's interesting to note that the large Falcon used in filming was around 5 feet in length, while the Devastator was only about 3 feet. Oh yeah, that reminds me: NO STICKERS ON THIS SET! Final verdict: Price: 8/10 423 pieces for about $40. Compared to the outrageous prices of the other 2010 sets, this one is great. Parts: 7/10 Good parts pack for grey pieces. Minifigures: N/A As with the 7778, there are no minifigures with this set. I suppose LEGO could have thrown in Tarkin or something to please collectors, but that probably would have driven up the price. I’m glad there are not minifigures. Playability: 5/10 Few play features, combined with flimsiness, gives playability a low rating. Set design 10/10 I loved the build of this set, it’s very unique and isn’t sculpture-based. Overall 5/10 It’s actually 4 if you do the math but I added 4 because I like this set and it is fairly accurate. (EDIT: Then I subtracted 3 because of all the newly discovered flaws. So now it's 5.) This is a really great set, terribly underrated, and I highly recommend this set to UCS fans. That's all for now! fallenangel

I didn't make the newer A-wings because I think that the original 7134 is closer in shape to the actual model in comparision to newer 2006 or the 2009 versions. (The discontinued 4x8 wings are closer to the real angle of the ship than the 3x12 wings IMO.) And on top of that, I think the newer versions have more pieces, so it would have taken more time. (The newest version has a few pieces at an angle behind the canopy; angled pieces are difficult on MLCAD for me.) And of course, the original LEGO A-wing has that "classic" feel to it. However, if it will induce more comments, I will make a rendering of the newest A-wing in blue and red as well.

Having recently rediscovered MLCAD, I decided to replicate a classic set, the 7134 A-wing, not only because it was one of the smaller LEGO Star Wars sets of that time, but because I'm quite fond of the set, despite never having owned it. Click here - the pics are .bmp files, so I can't deeplink them. However, considering the ease with which you can change part colors on MLCAD (a feat not easily accomplished with real bricks) I decided to fool around with the rendering a bit. The first thing I did was "repaint" the set. One thing about the set you can nitpick is the fact that the colors are really off; I decided to correct the color scheme a bit, and this was what resulted: It definitely looks more accurate than the original. Looking closely, you can also see that I fixed the inside of the cockpit to be completely dark gray rather than the colorful bash LEGO likes to make their starfighter cockpits with. Having done this, I was about to move on when I recalled the blue diecast A-wing released by Hasbro a few years back, as well as Jerrec's fantastic blue A-wing custom. I "repainted" the set again, and came up with this: Yeah, it's blue. I think I should've made the 2x4 slopes in front blue as well, but I already took screenshots. Note that alterations to this set are purely cosmetic; I did not change the actual build or the shape of the pieces used in any way. So naturally there were a few restrictions. I'm planning to "repaint" the 7141 Naboo fighter to represent the blue variant shown in the Phantom Menace video game next, if anyone's interested. And I'm not sure whether this belongs here or not, but I've been wanting to do a review of my 7658 Y-wing for a while (as well as some older sets); what's been stopping me is the fact that there are already reviews of the sets and nobody might care. So should I or not...?

"Uncle Owen!" "Yeah?" "This 'Artoo' unit's got a bad motivator, look!" Nice chrome 3PO and clever job on the treads.

I apologize gambort. Here's a way to achieve grooves in the wings: I think the groove could be achieved if instead of the 33 slope you're using you put this or this used with a plate/tile, or maybe even something like this in its place.

I'm hoping nobody will flame me for this, but I think this is missing something. The details are there, but it lacks some characteristic traits of a Delta-7B. Refer to the reference picture below as you read: Click this. For some reason I can't deeplink it. One defining trait of the Delta-7B - as well as one reason I don't like this ship too much - is the large "blade" in the front of the ship that is more pronouced than in the Delta-7 due to the "wings" on either side being a bit smaller and more offset. It would be better if you could achieve this in your MOC. Which leads me to the guns; they are about the right size on your ship but they should be shorter, as the guns on the actual ship are like small canisters. In addition to that, the deep grooves directly in front of the cannons (deeper than on the Delta-7) are next to nonexistent on your MOC. Another thing that's lacking is the dark square-like structures on the rear of the Delta-7B, carried over from the Delta-7. I see neither the mentioned structures nor the yellow arrows in front of them. I will say, however, that I like the style in which this is built - perhaps more detail could be included if the ship itself were to be built in a larger scale (around 1/30)? I know from experience that construction is slightly restrictive at that size.