Anio

Nice turntable. :) It is a useful part, and its design is pretty common (not too specialized). Contrary to many part in 8110. The quality make me think to Megabloks, though.

1) 1 3L diff on the 3rd axle 2) 2 3L diff + 1 4L diff in the middle 3) I'm not a big fan of motorising the models to drive them. So, I won't answer 4) both are great. Pneumatic works fine, but LA's are very interesting (though the 2nd LA is slow). Outriggers are more impressive on 8258. But well, I will say that 8110 has the best play value given that it is modular, and you can easily mod it, and create your own equipments. 5) 8258. Definitely, 8258.

Yes, and the thing is that I have no avenue in mind for you to improve what you consider as "frustrations".

I think you did a pretty good job with what the Lego parts enable. Unfortunately, I do not think that the RGS can be very well UCS-ised, because of the current Lego parts, but also because of its overall shape. First, with the shape of the model, you can hardly put it on a support. And I do think that a (black) support is very important for an UCS in order to give the model a strong presence. The front cockpit is perfect. Lego could not do better. The second cockpit is too blocky, because of the red line. Well, let's say that Lego can make this cockpit perfect by printing a red line on the windscreen. On the top, you've some nice missiles. But I think that the 2 engines are wrong. A bit too thin (ideal would be 5 studs wide), and the right conical shape can not be executed with the current Lego parts. The slope you used are better than the curved slope Lego use in its RGS. However, I'm not sure it is very accurate. 5x1 slopes would maybe work better. But of course, this angle doesn't exist in the Lego slopes. Oh yes, it does, with the Technic slopes. But then, you've got a lot of terrible holes on the side. Is the cockpit linked to the slopes or does it just lay on them ? I mean is it attached on both ends ? The wings are okay, though a little blocky for me (I'm not a big fan of those big tiled surfaces). The body of the vessel is very similar to 7676, but bigger. There is not more detail on your bigger model. But the problem is not your model, but the ship itself. There is no detail to add. Ok, you've 2 speeder bikes. But it'is not much when we take into account that the part number maybe twice higher than 7676. The front laser cannons are also too small now. So, I think that the RGS doesn't not justify to make a UCS version. I doubt it, for the reasons I explained above. In short : Some aspects require a model which make the size of 7676 to be well executed (engines, canons) On the contrary, some parts must be bigger to be correctly designed (cockpit, missiles, and maybe the interior (even if I think that an interior is not 100% necessary for such a UCS model)). Moreover, new slopes would be very usefull. In a UCS scale ? If yes, you can still make your own UCS.

I forgot them too when I built my model. But they are in the instruction. Page 78 : http://www.setechnic.com/Images/NoticesP/8071/078.jpg

Maybe. But it is very understandable. Adding wheels would increase the price (or at least the cost) without increasing the value of the model.

Personnaly, I don't think it is a remake at all. Actually, not more than 8421 is a remake of 8460, for example.

Certainly. I meant too big for Cuusoo.

Maybe. But that was not my point. My point is how 9397 is designed.

Criticizing that point is irrelevant.

Btw, 9395 has a gear box. edit : Lars Krogh Jensen designed 9394. Uwe Wabra designed 9397.

This thread is a nice idea ! On the contrary, I'm not sure that bumping my thread was a good idea. Well, no matter how great our MOCs are, I'm convinced they will never make it on the Cuusoo. They are too big.

http://www.setechnic.com/Forum/post91808.html#p91808

No, it wouldn't. Designing a Lego part (or a Lego set) is not model making. A well and cleverly designed part is a part which fit well the Lego system.

Hi all, If you like this podracer, support me on the Cuusoo. => project deleted. Thanks ! ;) edit : project deleted.

Anyone to help me to explain ?

But it's for sale : http://www.bricklink.com/search.asp?itemID=1480&colorID=86 It was in the 10030 released after 2003.

Not really the 3x12 wings. ;) You can make a much bigger SSD with these wings, but a much smaller too. Whas is important on a wing is the angle. And whatever the size of your project, the angles do not change. ;) So, on 10221 (and on my Executor), the size can be defined by some elements in the greebs (it is nearly obvious that the bridge has to be done with slope, 1x3 plates, and 1x1 round plates ; I did the bridge that way, and TLG too). Another thing that can define the size of the SSD is the SNOT greebs on the side. Given that there is a structure, you've got techniks bricks (triangular shape). The height of this structure (basically 1 brick + 2 plates) gives you the distance between the upper and the bottom wings : a little bit more than 1cm. If you make a 90cm long SSD, 1cm between will be too much. On the contrary, if you make it twice bigger, 1cm is not enough any more (too thin). Engines are also a key part on most of the ships. edit : windscreens too, of course.

Not sure about this model... The building process of this model is different. When it was started, it was for fun and not supposed to become a real Lego set that people can buy. Given that the model turned out well, Jens thought that it could become a very nice Lego set (and he was right :) ).

What a nice idea... Be patient... ;) As a UCS MOCer who has a very good understanding of how a model can be must be built, I'm pretty sure that, on every UCS TLG did, the minifigs are not considered by the designer during the design process. The designer make the model, regarding the existing Lego parts, and the features that must be included. For example, the size of 10212 was defined by the necessity of a mechanism for the wings, and the thickness of the liftarms. The Lego parts and the features tell you what size you have to choose. After that, and only after that, if you can include some minifigs and if they fit well in the model, you do it. That was exactly how I proceed when I designed my model (Sebulba's podracer has a minifig, and it's fine, but my TIE, AT-TE and Juggernaut don't, and it's fine too). I'm nearly sure Lego Designer proceed that way for most of UCS models (because of a guy from Georges Lucas, 10221 is of course a FAIL an exception).

I'm not yet convinced that the bridge and the minifig are an actual bonus... Well, I'm glad to read that if Lego had designed the model on its own, the designer would never have included bridge+minifig.

Who would enjoy less accurate sets ? But I gonna be objective : the mini bridge with figs in 10221, whatever if people think it is cute or do enjoy minifigs, it is not accurate at all. And so, it sucks. But after all, it is very understandable. It seems it is an idea of the guys of George Lucas. These guys know as much in Lego than I know in ballet. -_-'

W00t !!??! PF in a UCS ? After minifigs in the 10221, now, PF in a UCS ? You're kidding me, right ?