Fallenangel

I'm grateful that a skilled LEGO modeler would take my comment into consideration. I'm almost sorry that you had to go through so much trouble for the tan parts... but the end product looks great. And I kind of don't want to bring this up, but I'm sorry that you were flamed at FBTB. Disregarding the debate about UCS, your Slave I is a very nicely done, SMT-quality model. I think that the folks over at FBTB were expecting something else from the UCS label alone. And somewhere along the way it looks like somebody decided you were full of yourself and from then on a bunch of people started to look down on you...

The UCS Lambda shuttle is quite unlike LEGO's style. I wish that all the fancy techniques used in UCS sets could be incorporated into some larger System sets as well, prices or whatnot. More complicated builds would at least justify the outrageous prices we've been paying for these things lately. Unlike some others, I'm actually hoping that LEGO decided on a UCS version of the Delta-7 Aethersprite. In Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith(as well as much of the older Clone Wars media) the Delta-7 and Eta-2 were two starships that really stood out, very sleek and elegant and reminiscent of legitimate Jedi Knights. Their designs look better than some of the ridiculous Prequel vehicle designs we've seen (homing spider droid anyone?) and definitely better than the atrocious designs we've seen in some recent Clone Wars episodes. Not to mention the fact the current single UCS set from the prequels isn't really all that great. (I was counting on either the Radiant VII, a Venator, or even an AT-TE as a Prequel UCS but two got turned into 'exclusives' and the third appears quite successful as a System set.) To the less observant: there are many, many differences between Obi-wan Kenobi's Delta-7 Aethersprite and the Delta-7Bs used in the newer Clone Wars, the placement of the astromech droid being the most noticeable at first glance. I will not go into detail right now, however; maybe later.

Looks a little cleaner than the real thing... You might want to check some angles here and there. Still, the sheer size and detail in this is amazing. I'd like to know, though - why is it that the 'fins' on the side of the ship are grey, as opposed to yellow or tan? No need for new minifigures - the classic LEGO Boba Fett works fine.

You can always just take a screenshot from the actual film... several people have uploaded A New Hope: Special Edition on YouTube and other video-sharing sites. RenegadeClone I'm fairly confident that the shot from X-wing Alliance is a landing craft from a Star Wars video game rather than the movie. (You can tell because the wings are straight, as in the LEGO version; the movie version, as cavegod said, has bent wings.) I've always wondered why LEGO would opt to release the video-game version of a ship that appeared in the movies...

'@fallenangel'? I don't even use Twitter... I don't recall ever saying that the nose on 6209 was any worse than that of 8097. (Rather, I think it looks better.) What I actually meant was that LEGO's renditions of the Slave I have always had a flat edge on the nose. (It really can't be helped, seeing as it's LEGO.) I remember the 'real' ship as having a slightly rounded nose. I would have to agree that LEGO has indeed been decreasing in the quality of their sets since '07, especially with Toy Story and Hero Factory lines, not to mention all the overmolded pieces in Space Police and Power Miners... it all started with that horrible LEGO Anakin's Delta-7B and the Rogue Shadow. EDIT: I remember about the Slave I now. The 'real' ship's nose inclines upward. This has never been present in any of LEGO's renditions. Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

As I thought, it's quite small... a "Truescale" shuttle would be around 60-65 studs long (since 'real' shuttle is 20m). Nevertheless, it looks great, and it is indeed quite proportionate to itself (unlike most LEGO products). More studs, meh... depending on what you're building, more studs isn't always better. In any scale, nice job Renegade Clone!

I would have to agree with Brickdoctor that most LEGO Star Wars sets, even nowadays, are "pretty bad in terms of accuracy and detail". 6207 might LOOK better than the 7134, but the proportions aren't any more accurate. And even many of the sets that some on Eurobricks consider really faithful to the films aren't nearly as accurate as some think. Take, for example, the 7658 Y-wing. In comparison to the older LEGO system Y-wing it obviously looks sleeker, but looking closely at the proportions, scale, detail, etc... it falls quite short of the studio model. The same could be said for the 6212 X-wing (don't even get me started on that again) or the 4504 Millennium Falcon. Don't get me wrong, though - I do think that certain newer pieces (new wing plates, canopy molds, hinges, etc) do, in fact, improve the complexity and detail of the sets themselves - just not always in a way that's faithful to the studio models. I doubt LEGO is more concerned about disregarding the original source than they are about sticking flick-fire missiles wherever they can and selling them to kids who have no idea what a "TIE Advanced x1 Starfighter" is. I agree completely with ThatGuyWithTheBricks' comment on the 8097 Slave I. (Although I might add that the LEGO Slave I has always had a flat nose.)

I hardly think that giant piece LEGO uses to attach TIE wings could be called accurate. And that Grievous minifigure could barely be defined as LEGO. There's a point to which you can mold a LEGO minifigure before it stops being LEGO and becomes something else.

I completely agree with you on the first statement KimT - in fact, I would say the exact same thing for the X-wing, the TIE/In fighter, and the T-47 airspeeder. (As well as the Delta-7 Aethersprite, Naboo N-1, Venator, etc...) However, I would disagree with the latter statement - seeing the amount of negative criticism toward the new Lambda shuttle as well as the 'truescale' Millennium Falcon makes me think that a UCS AT-AT would only make us hungrier for a better one. Besides, the BIG problem with UCS sets - no pun intended - is that LEGO can't get their proportions correct. Would you really want that with any Star Wars ship, especially an AT-AT? Play versions will only make things worse... System scale collectors would complain, of course, about re-releases, and you know I would rant about scale, proportions, and whatnot.

Man that is simply amazing! What are the proportions? It looks a bit small to be scaled to minifigures. I think my favorite part of this is the fact that you made a "shell" of white around the ship and put in dark gray pieces on the "inside" for detail... it looks really good. Can the guns on the wings pivot like they do in the film?

What, only one driver in the cockpit again? (Come on LEGO, be cool.) And that rear space looks so cramped... no extra seats for battle pack troopers... too much unnecessary junk. That little platform looks so weird... I thought Veers (at least I think it's supposed to be Veers) was in the cockpit with the drivers? It looks like they forgot the "toe" on the inside of the foot again. Those holes near the top look atrocious. Save the unnecessary minifigures for your Clone Wars sets LEGO and give us a proper AT-AT!

The new AT-AT is extremely deformed. It reminds me of that joke of a set LEGO called an AT-ST back in '07. I agree that this really is the worst set of the year. I'm glad LEGO is making another midi-scale set, especially since it's of yet another UCS set! (Waiting for a midi-scale N-1, Tantive IV, and TIE Interceptor)Of course, it looks a bit deformed for an Imperial-class. I expect to have some fun nitpicking it. I cannot recognize Cad Bane's speeder at all... does anyone have a screenshot or something of what it's supposed to be?

And these parts may have been acceptable back in 2000, but they certainly fall into what I'm talking about. (Used in "new" A-wing from Home One playset and 6212 X-wing) (Used in 8017 and 8087) (Used in 8017 and 8087) (Used in "new" snowspeeder from Wampa set) I believe some of these parts may be outdated. LEGO can use SNOT; they can make round things look round; they can make blasters look good; they have radar dish pieces. Also... I believe this is still being used. Was this ever really necessary?

One day, fallenangel got bored and decided to mess with his LEGO TIEs. He made a startling discovery. This is what he had to say on the matter: "I hear AFOLs talking about how much better and improved the newer Star Wars sets are over the newer ones... I'm not sure they realize how similar these TIEs actually are." These required little to no modding - there's about as much altering done to the various modules of 6206 and 8017 as there was done to the 6212 over the 4502. (Of course, I'd like to make it clear I'm not a fan of the newer 8017.)

If LEGO had all the variety and better pieces of today (useful ones, mind you, not like 2x4 tiles that scream, 'put a sticker on me!')combined with the simplicity of the classic minifigures and the aim for ACCURACY with newer UCS sets, it would be perfect. Stickers are fine with me - there are some really old LEGO minifigures with stickers for torso detail... You really can't prefer different eras of LEGO Star Wars because it's too much like comparing apples and oranges... the old sets were less about accuracy and more about fun. The newer sets , while certainly a bit more accurate, are an attempt to overjuniorize the industry with huge and unnecessarily molded pieces, ultimately contributing to the dumbing down of America - to the point that LEGO has to steal designs from PepaQuin and dmac.

Does anyone else find it more than slightly annoying that LEGO never seems to bother to check proportions or scale on their Star Wars sets? I know this is a children's toy but I honestly think making Luke's already pricey landspeeder twice its size is too much, not to mention THIS. What's more, they can crank out new (huge!) Bionicle and Exo-Force molds every few months but they can never bother to replace this, this, or even this. How about making new molds for the SHIPS instead of ugly ones for the minifigures, LEGO? After all, the SHIPS are what most of us pay good money for. (And a lot of it too, especially since 2008.) In any case, a very thorough and informative review Clone O'Patra! The picture quality is excellent.

Anyone else here think this looks a little stubby? Stubby or not, this is incredible! I admire those who take risks with LEGO to make fantastic MOCs. The wings look perfect. They may fold in the video games but in the movie they just pivot, so there really isn't any need to have them do that... even if it looks cool. It would be like trying to get a UCS Delta-7 Aethersprite to do this...

I believe I had already mentioned that in my post about the 10179 Millennium Falcon and the 7778 Midi-scale Millennium Falcon.

For those of you who noticed that the 10212 is REALLY similar to dmac's version, you shouldn't be surprised. It is quite obvious that LEGO took a lot of things from Pepa Quin's amazing Millennium Falcon for their 10179. The cockpit and side details are very similar, as is the way in which it is built. And there probably was no other way a LEGO team could have managed to come up with a 5000+ piece count, that's bigger than the 10143 Death Star II. Overall the set doesn't seem like LEGO at all. cavegod you are not alone! And where else would LEGO have gotten the idea for 7778 Midi-scale Millennium Falcon?

A beautiful rendition of a vehicle which appeared only briefly in the movies, and of course a great improvement over LEGO's version. Grievous with Exo-Force limbs are also a nice touch. Good job with Boga as well. Are there any other sets you intend to redesign?

The 'cargohold' piece I was referring to is merely the humble 2x2 45 inverted slope brick. The 3x2 33 inverted slope brick works just as well. Some people don't know this, but the piece that LEGO used for the cargo bay - the 4x4 triple inverted wedge - is completely off, as is the 4x7x1 2/3 windscreen piece (the "X-wing" canopy). The shape isn't like that at all. Screenshots from the Death Star run as well as the "told you I did, reckless is he" scene from Empire show that the shape is far more similar to the common inverted slope. I'd have to disagree on that one - Lucas should never have approved the "enhancement" of the Original Trilogy with CGI in the first place. And the amount of CGI used in the Prequels serve only as an excuse to act out terrible scriptwriting. Y'know, I just noticed that you signed up like 10 months after I did but have about 5 times as many posts.

Great vignette, Darth Yoda! It's very cool, almost like something out of a special-effects film! I can't help thinking that it must have taken a long time to put in all of those greeblies on the rebel base! Nice work!

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough Swash Buckler - I wasn't referring to the lengths of the laser cannons. (In fact, I praise you for making them the correct length.) I was referring to the diameter of the section of the laser cannons mounted on the wing. I know Bruce Lowell and others use 1x1 round bricks, but they just look too small. One of many reasons Brian Tobin's X-wing is my favorite LEGO X-wing is because he used 2x2 round bricks on his, they capture the shape really well. You made a good point on removable landing gear - there really isn't any point to it unless it's actually on the ship. I actually developed a really accurate way for retractable rear landing gear a few months back but it can only be used for brickbuilt 4x4 engines since the official "Star Wars engine" isn't hollow in the middle. (4x4 is more of a correct size for X-wing boosters anyway IMO.) I can PM a general description to you if you would like... If the 6x12 wing piece is disagreeable with the rest of your ship, I've found that this piece or this piece may work better - Brian Tobin and Bruce Lowell both used 2x4 wing plates on their X-wings. If this helps, this piece actually captures the shape of the cargo bay quite well and it should be a really common piece. Although if you want it to store something, the best solution is angled plates. I don't recall ever seeing a white Star Destroyer... Some alternates to the official Star Wars X-wing canopy piece: Baronsat's larger X-wing... and his smaller one. mikepsiaki's amazing brick-built version. roguebantha's is also good. You can also go the way of Brian Tobin's Millennium Falcon and omit the canopy, but that's rather difficult. Agreed - the LEGO white just doesn't look good for X-wings unless you throw in a bunch of grey pieces here and there. I think the red stripe is supposed to vary for each X-wing - the reason all the X-wings in the Yavin hangar have the same markings is because they multiplied a single image while they were producing the film. In the film, the helmets also have the same issue.

All right! You built a LEGO version of the huge gun from the 2003 Clone Wars series!!! You should do more guns from that same scene! All the guns are amazing accurate - minifig accesories without custom pieces are always a challenge.

The X-wing starfighter has always been my favorite Star Wars fighter, and I'm always interested when someone makes an X-wing MOC. I noticed in the first picture that you included the little offset part on the side of the fuselage (even though it's kind of in the wrong place.). I think it's great that you put in something that so many others have omitted. Grey is, of course, probably the best color available in LEGO to depict an X-wing in (the real model is more of a dirty white), so good job with that. Now this next section is going to sound a bit nitpicky, but I've always been taught to provide constructive criticism on LEGO forums, and I study reference pics, so... First off, you very conspicuously omitted the hexagonal cross section of the nose. But I'll let that slide since it's near impossible to execute correctly in LEGO. Kudos for using the Red Two markings on Wedge's X-wing (unlike LEGO). They look cool, especially since you made the upper red part extend right up to the edge of the wing like it should. As for the wing itself, the part of the wing that is perpendicular to the fuselage is a bit too big; the "flat" region should only continue from the fuselage to the far edge of the booster. After that, the sloped region begins; because the slope is a bit offset from the main region, many builders tend to place the wing plates so that they are one stud behind the flat region. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at Bruce Lowell's X-wing.) As nice as the laser cannons look, they really should be quite bigger. I would suggest removing the second axle link piece on the cannon and using 2x2 round bricks for the part of the cannon mounted on the wing. But I really like the creative use of the flick-fire missile pieces!!! Another thing - great job including the T shape inside the air intakes. But they don't line up with the edge of the wing - they actually go past (about a stud or two) and stop just behind the astromech droid socket rather than surrrounding it. In other words, not only are the engines too short, the entire rear fuselage is a bit compressed. And something of a pet peeve to me - the "cargo bay" section on the underside of your X-wing is, like the 7191 UCS X-wing, misplaced forward. It should begin just before the canopy stops.These X-wing schematics should give you the idea. And a very easy way to fix that gap between the wings - build two pairs of wings like the top ones, then attach one pair upside down. (I can tell by the angle and the gap that click hinges allow your X-wing to switch to attack position - in which case a mod like this should be simple.) Just ONE more thing - I usually don't comment on landing gear (since I don't think it was even on the X-wing models used in the Death Star scene) but the rear landing gear isn't part of the rear fuselage - it actually comes from inside the boosters on the bottom of the X-wing... Overall a very unique and nice-looking model of one of the best science-fiction concepts in history. And I know from experience that designing and building any Star Wars ship with 200+ pieces is quite tedious - I admire the amount of effort you put into this X-wing. (I can nitpick all I want, but it's not like I can put everything I just wrote above into one of my X-wings...) Looking forward to more of your models.