Aeroeza

A 'spurcus mens' apparently... At least that's what it says in Latin on the back of the pack.

Sorry, I'm UCS obssesed and forgot to take my medication! How about this one then! More to you liking? For a system scale MOC it even manages to temp me!

How about this for successful cockpit execution!! Good 'ol Guybrush really sets a stunning example of what's possible with UCS scale. His gallery also shows an example of this technique with Vaders Tie. His dimensions are seemingly perfect and absolutely lay waste to the official sets. Simply wonderful!

I can understand your preference but mine remains a vote for a wee bit more variety with UCS Ties... Black & Old Dark Grey (Tie-Interceptor- I must admit I got rid of the blue bits on mine) Black & New Light Grey (Vader) Black & New Dark Grey (wishful thinking Tie Bomber) Black & White (our hoped for Tie Fighter) Each Tie would look distinct when on display and it helps us avoid making every Stars Wars Lego model simply light bley! It also gives us a greater variety of unique cockpit prints (Old Dark Grey, New Light Grey, New Dark Grey and White) as well as closely matching the late 70s and early 80s little plastic and die-cast metal Tie ships (not to mention the bigger Kenner and Toltoys ones) which were available when I was a wee lad. (You have to admit - nostalgia is a difficult emotion to argue with logically)!! Now I'm all outta excuses for my non-canon colour spread....

Something like Reto Geigers masterpiece would do quite nicely thank you! Imagine your UCS Tie x1 flanked by two of those beauties... Although I'm sure Mr. Kovacs could give them all a run for their money with his MOCS! As I mentioned earlier- black and white trim would look best. That leaves black and dark bley for the UCS Tie-Bomber which obviously they'll release AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME!!!

Lego- Give us a sexy goddam UCS Tie-Fighter with B+W dressing harking back to the 1970s die-cast toy model!!! It would look spectacular next to the UCS dark grey Intercepter and light bley Vader ship. Besides when all is said and done and the license with Lucasarts is kaput surely you would look back in shame and remorse for omitting such an iconic design from the UCS range!! Seriously, what's a UCS X-Wing without its traditional on-screen rival after-all!?! Every Spitfire needs a BF-109...

I thought he was from Polmark!?!

Thanks HJR. Damn you were quick getting this review in! I was tempted not to look at the pictures and avoid spoilers but the power of the dark side was too strong. Nice work! My shuttles in the mail- like others out there its proved cheaper (by a large amount) to buy the set overseas and have it imported. With the savings made I might just be able to get my hands on 10215! (In some parallel universe where market economics establish rational Lego prices that is)!

Car Crash Face Luke! Dude you crack me up!! NIce review

Hey Rufus! Your latest review was as entertaining as ever. It certainly highlighted what I'll be missing out on (I'm not a fan of 'system' rather mini's, midi's and UCS) and shows the strength and virtues of the build in great detail. Just like with a good book I was sorry to come to the end of it. I'm not sure we can ask more of a reviewer than what you give us (blood, sweat and tears not withstanding, in addition to perhaps the supreme sacrifice i.e. the melting down all your minifigs)! Once again I look forward to seeing which set you target next especially with a couple of UCS' on the horizon!!! Thanks!

I really like the CTT. I'd agree that it needs more colour though. Perhaps a dark red 1 x 8 plate would look appropriate on its mid section or some dark bley on its under carriage as well? A light bley joystick could capture the observation tower but might also look a little 'dinky' considering how well the rest of your model looks... Good stuff!

EU certainly fills in the speculative gap with some nice concept designs but as far as the OT is concerned all Lucas was worried about with the Walkers was presenting a ground battle in a fashion we'd not seen before in celluloid (and with a War of Worlds type twist). If you think too hard about how the AT-AT might really work then your head begins to hurt!

Eichhorn, I'm a little late with jumping on the praise wagon but best late than never! Others have said it before me regarding colour choice and clever build options which leaves me only to say how fantastically you manage to capture so much detail and accuracy in so small a model. It really is quite delectable! If it came out with a plate of hor d'oeuvres I'd be tempted to eat it first!

Fallenangel... Just to be clear, when I use the term 'accuracy' I wasn't referring to unseen internal elements like the X-Wings S-Foil mechanism. So long as the mechanism works, doesn't detract from the external shape and doesn't cause the Lego to deform over time then I'm a happy chappie! In this the UCS X-Wing does well (although the wings can droop a little over many years if you don't give them a rest). True, the gap between the wings is missing but then the Lego model is an abstract of the original and obviously not an exact match in every detail (even Dave's fantastic design lacks 'the gap'). This applies to the shuttle also. If I'd wanted the Shuttle to be as accurate in its working features internally as the Lucasfilm original then I'd be insisting that the wing mechanism should automatically lower the landing gear as well. As a side note I'm aware of how the original S-Foil works as I taught myself how to 'hard model' in 3D by building a fairly accurate scale replica of an X-Wing right down to its paneling and rivets in Maya (i.e. as uncompromisingly as possible ) . I studied all the differences between the various studio models- engines, textures etc. but moved on to other things before I'd finished modelling the cockpit. I'm happy to share my research material if you'd like. I'm sure an X-Wing nut such as yourself would enjoy it- there's a lot)! I guess my overall observations in this thread can be summarized as follows... For me a UCS is designed to look the part but (so to speak) not necessarily act the part! They are for display and so tend to lack 'complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model'- and I did use the word 'tend' in my original post as well so implicitly I accept that exceptions may exist. As a general rule of thumb though UCS' don't have much in the way of play features yet alone complex ones (e.g. living space for minifigs in the Falcon and Shuttle, a clamping mechanism for the mini RBR inside the ISD hanger bay or even poseable legs on the ATST). As for what constitutes a 'play' or 'display' feature that's simply a personal line in the proverbial sand and could lose us even further into semantics if we aren't careful (7191's S-Foils inclusive)... Consequently I'm unfazed by a cockpit that doesn't open and the non-existing landing gear on 10215 as the Lego captures 'in abstract' the JSF quite nicely. I'm focused on 'external' accuracy and an exciting build- everything else be it called a display feature or play feature is simply an added bonus- so long as the model continues to look the part and doesn't have silly things like Leia's office desk installed just for the hell of it. This philosophy does seem to be the design brief of the UCS range and as such fair criticism of these sets would take their sculptural priorities into account. Your observation about the X-Wing's S-Foil mechanism is a perfect example of good criticism regarding a UCS (I'd just assumed it was the best solution given the medium but perhaps it isn't). So too was AFOL criticism over the elongated look of the UCS Y-Wing, the nose on the Snowspeeder and the over-sized wings on the Tie Interceptor (there are some great MODS out there which address these issues). But I'm not so convinced by the opinion that the JSF's non-working cockpit represents a 'failure' on the part of the Lego designer who created it- I just don't see how else it could have been done without sacrificing its very UCSness- the bricks don't exist to capture it accurately enough and make it open! That being said, your criticism of 7191 doesn't contradict what I enjoy about the set- although it does make me wonder if it might have been executed better. It would have been awesome to see the pivot system successfully realized but for me the external detailing and silhouette of the model fulfills its brief in a pretty spectacular fashion (and the existing S-Foil mechanism proved to be an extremely interesting build as well)! Yeah you're probably right!

Thanks for the posts! You're right Zzz! It's a real thin line between what constitutes a play feature on one hand and on the other a necessary/display feature which adds to both realism and display options. The old Countach always looked a treat with its doors raised, I had one, (well, a really small one admittedly)! I should address what I consider a play feature verses a display feature... The UCS X-Wing is an awesome example. Thanks for bringing this one up Fallenangel! The wings open on the one hand but on the other do not detract from the accuracy of the build. TLC hit a real sweet spot with this model and it remains one of my all-time favourite UCS sets. If significant accuracy had been sacrificed for the wing mechanism to work then I guess I would not have been as happy with the final look of it i.e. it becomes a ‘play’ feature. I’d have been more content with the S-Foils locked in attack position and the model looking as much as possible like its namesake than workable wings that look wrong... But what we have is an amazing model that works and is accurate (within the limits of the medium). The opening wings therefore (for me) become a ‘display’ feature! I’m all for that kind of thing! That’s Lego at its unsurpassed best for me as an AFOL. So I guess I’m a bit of a purest! 10215 bucks the trend for cockpits on UCS’ but I don’t see this as a failure in design by TLC rather a priority for accuracy over functionality (or playability/display options whatever definition is right for you). This cockpit is cool by me! An accurate opening cockpit is too hard to achieve with the current brick moulds available and so under the circumstances the lack of said feature does not detract from the enjoyment I’ll have when I build it. You see, I’m dammed uncompromising with a UCS!! If accuracy is dropped to include a particular feature then I’d call it a ‘play feature’. If it can be included without sacrificing the sculptural purity of the original design then it’s a welcome bonus! Same goes for landing gear. So yes, they are moving parts of a model and ideally should be included but Lego bricks do have restrictions especially if a designer’s modus operandi is primarily accuracy. I think I addressed my definition of a ‘play feature’ with the X-Wing example above. Because it maintains its accuracy it becomes a display feature (honestly I’m not meaning to sound like I’m splitting hairs here). TLC with a system set could go hell for leather and add whatever feature they like to make it more fun to play with! (Princess Leia’s office desk in the Tantive IV springs to mind). I can appreciate differing opinions on the definition of ‘play’ vs. ‘display’ features. It’s a philosophical and somewhat grammatical distinction which makes discussions like this fun! So as a rule of thumb (i.e. a principle with broad application) a UCS doesn’t tend to have complex play features (for me) which take away from the accuracy of the model. Rather they have display features which are based on the characteristics of their subject matter, achieved via limitations defined by a set number and shape of Lego bricks. The most successful UCS’ manage to capture many of these characteristics (moving parts and so on) and 10215 does admirably under the circumstances. You see I’m just a strict disciplinarian at heart which is why I made the observation on 20th June in the LEGO Star Wars 2010 Pictures and Rumors topic regarding the Imperial Shuttle... “The lack of a ramp is understandable given the design brief probably required four minifigs to fit in the cockpit. If you look closely at the side of the shuttles 'neck' you'll notice its a little thicker than the corresponding ILM reference material (by about a brick's width). This distortion in detail looks to be a sacrifice in accuracy for the sake of the figures inside. When you think about it that's the first time a UCS has forgone looks for the inclusion of a minifig. It also means you don't get a functional ramp!” So here’s the exception thus far to the ‘tendency’ as far as I’m concerned- an obvious play feature has been added to a UCS but it’s pretty subtle and doesn’t detract from the overall design much (arguably at all). But if it makes more people happy so they’ll buy it and we also get an amazing model out of it then I’m happy. Besides it’s meant to be ‘minifig’ scaled and complement the UCS Falcon (it isn’t, but its close and it will)! DMAC’s review of 10212 is also very revealing regarding the non-inclusion of a ramp- basically so the whole design wasn’t too fragile for commercial release. This raises a very noticeable oversight by AFOL when criticising sets, especially UCS’ i.e. they have to be a commercially durable build for adults. If a possible feature weakens the model too much then TLC will receive complaints later down the track (sagging ISD nose sections, RBR engines etc.) and that’s bad for business on such expensive sets especially for a company that prides itself on quality. Which is also why the shuttles wings have a non integrated wing mechanism, (I quizzed Cavegod on this very topic a while back and he stated that the weight of the wings put too much strain on his integrated system). So the balance TLC must consider for a UCS design is accuracy, realistic features and durability (considerations that can’t ignore the commercial restraints faced by Lego and the sets designer). Fair criticism of 10215 would ideally take all these factors into account which is why I was initially responding to Zzz and hoping he/she might clarify their post (thank you for that by the way). Cheers guys!

Fair enough Sorry, I guess I didn't quite follow your earlier comment. Was it a criticism or an observation? To me it inferred you would want an opening canopy and working landing gear. If it was a criticism of 10215 then your comment lacked a little punch given a UCS, as a rule of thumb, doesn't tend to have complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model (like retractable landing gear probably would). Perhaps realistically you could have non-retractable gear which might be clipped or slotted into place (giving us a second display option like the Imperial Shuttle). This might be a good modification to try, but my instinct for Lego says this would be hard to achieve without giving up some major (and successful) design choice in the pre-existing set... The problem with the canopy is again explained by the inherent aims of a UCS i.e. accuracy and display potential - what's the point of an opening canopy on a UCS if it doesn't look much like its original subject matter? Eek, Blasphemy!! In a world of Lego choices its each to their own Zzz! You see I'd be rather skeptical of a UCS sacrificing accuracy and display potential for the play options you've suggested!

Yeah, but remember... Detail tends to be lacking on most UCS models when it comes to their undersides. (One of the few exceptions would be the Snowspeeder). I guess the logic for TLC is for them to concentrate piece count where it matters on a 'display' model- afterall you'd only tend to view it from every other angle except underneath. For example, the UCS Y-Wing is a much admired model for its detail and greebling, but turn it over and you'd be excused for comparing it to the average system set. Given the way 10125's build captures a number of 'clean' plate angles from above I'd expected it to have a few compromises underneath. To have had a 'clean' underside then a simple alternative would have been for the top slope of the wings to have been replicated using small plates piled on larger plates, thereby giving a very straight forward (and flat) build for the underbelly (like some other pretty cool MOC UCS JSF's out there). But personally I don't see this solution being as aesthetically pleasing from most other angles when compared to the 10125 build. What we have here is an alternate and more interesting approach which could probably be modified to be even better with a higher piece count and a deft hand/eye for modding. ...but yes, from the wrong (and least important angle) it does look 'rough' but then how much less accurate would the rest of the model look if approached in a more conventional building style? Out of curiosity Zzz, could you suggest a way for the canopy to open but maintain the sculptural integrity of the aft region? I know I couldn't. No landing gear either on this set but then its inclusion would be contrary to the design brief of every other one man fighter in the UCS series. I guess you just have to decide what you want from a Lego model- system play features or UCS accuracy. For me the lack of landing gear and an opening cockpit makes sense.

What a cheeky sod he was!! I live in Australia now. If you happen to visit and anyone speaks to you of the dangers associated with walking in the bush and encountering 'drop bears' then rest assured they're taking the piss! Of course if you catch an Aussie out on this there are plenty of other killer animals out there we can scare you with. Ever heard of Bunyips?

In fact we don't! Not unless the Falkland's War happened in 1977 when the bridge was re-painted in the present colour for Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee. It used to be a chocolate brown so unless you can think of a good reason for brown being associated with either Imperial or Nazi Germany (apart from the SA) then I'd say your hypothesis, however 'colourful' is incorrect... As for 10214, as wonderful as it looks, I'm still gonna have a hard time convincing my girlfriend that she wants it! She already owns and displays the Eiffel Tower and Taj but the apartment is getting a little small for this one as well... Maybe its time to move!

Ugly! Awesome ugly! The front angle says it all! It looks like it might fly like a pig but strike like a swarm of horribly be-weaponed Lego enthusiasts!! I see a bit more of the F 4U Corsair in the design even with the air intake - but what gets me good is the teeth! Now they've got to do something for the war effort... Love it!

For anyone feeling that 10215 is poorly proportioned check out the studio model of the Delta 7. Compare to the Lego model's promotional photo. These images share a similar camera angle and focal length to my eye (although you may wish to flip one of them in Photoshop so as they are not mirror opposites). Clearly the width of the wings and length of the hull are not terribly dissimilar. Even the slanted angle of the wings is fairly close and the cockpit size is dead on. The detailing of 10215 on the hull is perfectly adequate for the job, even down to the suggestion of scorch marks on the wings and the subtle yellow and green markings on the nose (and these are not stickers). There doesn't appear to be any greebling just for the sake of it which keeps it looking sleek and dagger like especially with the use of 'SNOT'. The rear image of 10215 shows off an array of interesting building techniques with a well integrated engine exhaust. The designer wasn't kidding when he said that he built this thing in multiple directions at once. There are some really subtle angles captured as a consequence and this has all been accomplished with less than 700 pieces. The more I study the build the more impressed I become. This is a great UCS Lego model whose abstractions of form and detail closely match the original Delta 7's design.

Bear in mind that these are not great comparison images. Its easy to forget the effect a particular lens will have on a photo such as a wide angled one combined with its focal length. If you want to get your dimensions right then you need orthographic images which completely lack the effect of distortion caused by perspective and depth. Anything else is guesswork and prone to significant error. Remember also that sculpting with the brick limits us to particular 'clean' angles. What you get from a UCS model is the best dimensions possible within the confines of the pieces available to us. Perfect proportion is unlikely and in some ways part of the appeal of Lego. 'Near enough' is a big accomplishment when your building blocs set the parameters so rigidly. The droid head when compared to the Lucasfilm studio model (as opposed to the 3D rendered one using wiz-bang camera settings for dramatic effect) is not nearly so oversized as some members feel. Once again a desire for accuracy has to measured against what's near enough to the resources available to a Lego builder. Not to mention that this droid head is also a fantastic MOC inspiring Lego element for the Star Wars theme! Forgive me if its already been mentioned but the lack of an Astromech body is due to this model being a Delta 7 as opposed to a Delta 7B. The droid head is hardwired into the fighter and lacks a body altogether. On a side note, complaints about price are reasonable but 100USD is not so different to the UCS Tie Interceptor and that was released 10 years ago. In short it isn't enough of a problem to deter a collector who has enjoyed the range over the years. It's apples vs. oranges stuff....

Now the draught is truly broken! A second UCS and one to sit nicely alongside the N1, Grevious and Maul. I'm not a big fan of the prequals but their design elements have always intrigued me. The evolution of SW aesthetics from the elegant 1930's car curves through to 50's hotrods nicely offset the hard lines of many of the earlier OT design motifs. The JSF sits right at the beginning of the 'new' imperial pedigree and at the twilight of the republic. If they ever do a UCS A-Wing then the two will look great next to each other, the later being a return to softer lines and a more 'civilised age'- despite each being wedged shaped and rather deadly looking... I think the JSF will prove an enjoyable Sunday afternoon build comparable to the UCS Tie Interceptor in piece count and price (despite ten years of inflation). The larger printed astromech will also be popular with future MOCs and lets face it, how long will it take for one of us to throw together a UCS Hyperdrive Ring to complement it? Lot's of fun. Bring on the high-res images!

Your MOC looks great Davor. The additional coloring does much in adding to its character. Greebling under the 'spine' as well (such as some piping or 'hoses') might contribute to the overall accuracy of your design. How you might do this is beyond my feeble powers so don't let this observation detract from the fact that this LAAT looks mighty fine indeed!! You say its minifig scaled. How much larger or smaller is it when compared to 10195? I'd always wondered how close that set was to being scaled correctly to minifigs.

Thanks for the heads up CG. Dmac's review puts a strong argument forward as to why 10212 lacks all the playability or features many members had hoped for. Strength and durability stand as a sensible selling point for this model. Its stand out feature remains the sheer beauty of the design and the final scale of its presence.