Aeroeza

I suspect we probably have similar looking loungerooms CG! A great display! Has the Y-Wing been modified at all? In one photo its engines looked shorter than the official UCS (i.e. more film accurate). The old FBTB site had lots of fan built UCS' with instructions. I downloaded a number of them including a pretty spectacular B-Wing if you're interested...

Yep! Although you'd be forgiven... Sweden answered this one pretty conclusively in this thread back on page 352... Regarding what's UCS or not The first UCS models that TLC made were 7181 TIE Interceptor and 7191 X-Wing Fighter that were released in 2000. These two UCS sets were widely distributed to toy shops and as far as I know they didn't sell good enough to be widely distrbuted (or at least not here in Sweden were they sat on shelves until they cleared them out for a 50 % discount). My half qualified guess is that it was the case all over the world as they were made for and aimed at the more adult builders and collector that's supposed to be 10 % of all LEGO sales. My half qualified guess is supported by the fact that 10018 Darth Maul Bust and 10019 Rebel Blockade Runner Tantive IV and (almost) every other UCS model from there on has been exclusives only available through LEGO Shop at Home and LEGO's own stores. This was probably done because UCS models sold good enough if they were sold directly from LEGO without any middle hands as toy shops. As LEGO exclusives only available through LEGO Shop at Home and LEGO's own stores have a 5 digit item number the UCS models from here on got a 5 digit number as "all" else exclusives did and have. Then we have the "mini figure sets" 10123 Cloud City, 10131 TIE Collection, 10144 Sandcrawler, 10178 Motorized Walking AT-AT, 10188 Death Star, 10198 Tantive IV and 10195 Republic Dropship with AT-OT Walker that probably also became exclusives because they were too obscure and expensive to be widely distributed through toy shops. So the reason for these sets having a 5 digit item number is just because they are exclusives only available through LEGO Shop at Home and LEGO's own stores and "not" because they're UCS models. They're just exclusive mini figure sets and nothing else. When looking at the LEGO Shop at Home webpage over the years one have found that the above "exclusive mini figure sets" have been listed under the cathegory "Ultimate Collector Series" which has added to the confusion of what's UCS or not. But from what I've observed about these cathegories they weren't really "pure" as a Clone Wars set could've been listed under Star Wars Classic and vice versa and so on so I've never ever taken these cathegories too seriously. I don't even think that TLC has taken these cathegories too seriously themselves so therefore UCS models and exclusive mini figure sets have been listed under the same cathegory. The fact that the last widely distributed UCS model, or rather sculpture, to toy shops in 2002 were 7194 Yoda was probably becuase LEGO thought the sculpture was "cute enough" to sell good enough to be widely distributed but here in Sweden at least I saw it collecting dust until I think it was last year at one toy shop. Sure, a whole lot of UCS models have been found on clearance at toy shops but that's because LEGO's clearing out their stocks and werehouses. And if memory serves me right... TLC said somewhere that the UCS model of the Millennium Falcon was the "first" UCS model to be scaled to their mini figures and as far as I know TLC never ever said for example that Cloud City was a UCS model except for some member here or there that claimed that some at LEGO Shop at Home customer service said that Cloud City was a UCS model. As far as I'm concerned the people at Shop at Home doesn't know too much about the product line. I still remember when I got 10018 Darth Maul Bust in september of 2001 and probably was one of the first in the world to receive it early and made a post about that over at From Bricks to Bothans where one hell of a flame war against me started amongst members and then webpage owner Tim Soap. According to Tim Soap and the president of TLC in America (or whoever it was) this was impossible becuase of this or that megablocks they said. Well... A few weeks later it turned out that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing as TLC in America appearently didn't know what TLC in Europe did or didn't. And did I get an excuse for that? Hell no. Anyways... So until TLC makes a official announcement don't read to much into what's UCS or not. So for me at least as a adult builder and collector the UCS models are UCS models and the exclusive mini figure sets are exclusive mini figure sets. I strongly feel that TLC should separate these two cathegories of UCS models and exclusive mini figure sets and keep them as separate brands if that's the correct word. UCS models for the more adult collector and exclusive mini figure sets not suitable for wide distribution for all of us builders and collectors. I believe that this discussion about what's UCS or not started when the fan boys started to read too much in to set number and cathegories over at LEGO Shop at Home. Maybe because they wanted a mini figure set like for example Cloud City to be ultimate when they unfortunately couldn't afford a true UCS model. So let's nip this one in the bud and get back to the speculation about Obi's Starfighter possibly being UCS. There is no reason why we couldn't get another this year. In 2000 we got 2, same in 2006 as mentioned earlier and just to up the ante there were 3 released in 2002 (although this was because the chrome pieces slated for the Naboo Fighter had issues hence pushing the release date out of 2001)... I look forward to the big reveal!!!

Almond, brazilnut, cashew, chestnut, hazelnut, macademia, pecan, peanut, pinenut, pistachio, walnut .. we're AFOL, take your pick!!

What on earth could be better than a UCS AT-AT?!? Pricey and spectacular yes, but proportionally speaking as accurate as a Lego model is ever likely to be! Of course we can't keep a majority of the Lego fans happy for a majority of the time. But we can keep a minority very, very happy for a long time. And the odd UCS is perfect for that! As well as a few more great system sets, playsets etc. But it seems Lego got it wrong with this AT-AT- not a great system set, not a great playset and by no means a UCS. I'm with KimT on this. Blow us away with a UCS AT-AT which only a small number of crazy cashed up Lego fiends can afford. At least that way we have a sculptural benchmark whereby all other AT-ATs can be judged! Then bring out another cheaper playset with a thousand more pieces than this one which includes at least six dozen minifigs, ten speederbikes, a detachable AT-ST, sustainable vegetable patch and foldout sunbed for Norwegian tourists. Who can complain then? As for criticism of the UCS shuttle, that's only limited- reasonably - to the lack of a boarding ramp (arguably due to requiring 4 minifigs in the cockpit)! Other omissions from the design such as extending landing gear and a single control for the wings is easily explained by the need for durability and stability in a marketable consumer product for an adult collector. What you have left is a perfect display model which sits beautifully next to any of the other 14 UCS sets. Negative criticism of 10212 isn't really coming from many UCS collectors (that's my take on it). Besides, they get slim pickings as far as the product range is concerned. (Only 15 UCS'!!! C'mon you system minfig guys, quit complaining and purchase one of the other 192 sets available to you). Could it ever be said better? Amen to the brick! ... and yes, by any benchmark, that AT-AT is horrible!

... are you privy to some insider information? Or just gently flirting with me? (You tease)!

S@H has the Shuttle up for release on September 3rd! Which I might add happens to be my birthday!! (So I guess TLC heard me whinging about the lack of UCS' for the last two years). Happy Birthday to me!!

Sorry to say, but if you hold the shuttle up to your ear you'll hear only the sound of a very distant and somewhat calm ocean. So no, not a plasma TV or coffee cup holder in sight for any minifigs in need of transportation....

Nope! Wishful thinking there I'm sorry to say. A functional ramp would have been advertised as a feature of the model.

True! But... The beak on yours is shifted a little too high so the 'bat wings' located behind the cockpit glass sweep above the upper line of the fuselage. It gives your overall cockpit section a nicer line than Dmac's and matches the dimensions of the set mock-up from ROTJ but it doesn't follow the ILM studio model's silhouette quite so closely. The neck on yours looks to have followed the same blueprints and so is thicker than the studio model. Both of these choices allow more room for all four figures to fit comfortably (and presumably help make room for a ramp too). If you were to follow the ILM model as closely as possible then the neck should be more slender under the nose (by about a brick's width) and your cockpit/nose section shifted down (also by about a brick's width). This keeps the clean line of the cockpit and has the bat wings terminate at the right level. Consequently I reckon you'd then have a harder time fitting all the figures and the ramp in (and I'm assuming this ramp to be fully functional with a reasonable entrance into the interior). Dmac's cockpit terminates at the right height with the fuselage (but lacks the neck detailing that succeeds so nicely on yours) and therefore runs out of head room for the second row occupants in the cockpit. He could fit all the seats in with his CAD model but opted for only two seats with the actual physical MOC in the end. He could have thickened the neck to accommodate the head room needed for the additional figures or raised the height of the cockpit section but chose to maintain accuracy instead. He was also able to fit his ramp in comfortably while keeping the low profile nose section intact. It looks to me like TLC have also tried to match a 'low profile' nose. This has meant their design resembles Dmac's and faces the same problems- how to create the headroom for the second row of seats? Rather than dump space for two figures their solution was to thicken the neck under the beak. Now the neck is pretty much in line with the fuselage below and leaves little room for a ramp mechanism that could do the model justice. So its true, you could have four figures and a ramp but the result is less accurate externally. Mind you I've done all this speculation in my head whereas you've built the crazy thing. Its all just hypothetical to me.... As for an interior its good to know that its like an empty TARDIS in there. Does this mean that if we incorporate a ramp we only have to click our fingers to open it?

Thanks for the confirmation (I suspected as much). If your shuttle is recycled then take heart knowing TLC is unlikely to release an AT-AT to rival yours. I think it will serve you as a fine dinner table for a long time to come yet! I'm happy for the dual wing mechanism to serve a pragmatic reason such as durability. The fact that the knobs are removable is also a nice touch (I know its Lego and its all removable but you know what I mean). I suspect the mechanism is also lockable, at least referring to the knobs as 'keys' seems to suggest the notion of a 'lock' strongly. 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! On this model you'd require an opening under the neck right where the rear seats are for the ramp to look and work realistically. Given the marketability of minifigs then the choice becomes clear when you have the following options to choose from - have 4 minis seated or settle with just two and include a boarding ramp. Its the age old Lego division- expect external accuracy or demand internal features for minifigs. What we have here is a compromise which can't satisfy everyone but its less of a glaring compromise than including a decorative ramp leading up to a dead end. In my own design brief I'd have dumped the figures, lost the bulk in the neck and required a functional ramp. A UCS doesn't need figures nor a consistent scale between similar models for them to be beautiful decorative sculptures. That being said I don't begrudge a collectors love for minifigs nor the inclusion of the little guys in this set. It may have resulted in some design compromises but its slight and it makes more AFOL happy to have them present. And lets face it, despite the odd missing feature or niggling inaccuracy what we have left is simply an epic UCS...

Thats the spirit!

Well spotted! Perhaps a single large knob (no pun intended ) might have put the mechanism under too much strain and not have looked as aesthetically pleasing. There have been complaints from Lego consumers in the past about UCS models being unstable, fragile or not internally strong enough to take their own mass (Star Destroyer nose, Y-Wing engines, X-Wing wings, Tantive IV engine block etc.). Could be (as this is designed as a display piece) they've compromised the wing feature to ensure more durability. It certainly doesn't impact on the two display options available to us and lets face it, 'swooshability' doesn't seem a priority inherent in the design. On the bright side it also gives MOCers something to modify!

Once again if we assume Dmac's plans are the prototype for TLG (which we are all probably in agreement about) then there will be little room for an interior. Instead you'll find plenty of technic pieces for the wing assembly, retractable landing gear and boarding ramp. The scale will not quite be minifig, being limited by the dimensions of the windscreen but large enough to put system set equivalents to shame and excite anyone who loves a big build. If Cavegod's cursory examination holds up to high res image scrutiny then the model will have the following dimensions... Length 49 cm Height 47 cm (with landing gear), 70 cm with wings in full flight position (who knows how many more when positioned on its stand) Width 28 cm (wings folded), 69 cm with wings in full flight position ... and weigh about two and a half kilos! (At least those are Dmac's figures). Interestingly enough the most accurate commercial depiction of the Imperial Shuttle to date is the Kenner toy from the mid 80's. It's dimensions matched the larger (of two) ILM models whose scale was 1/48. The toy has a height of about 50 cm (with over sized landing gear deployed- I'd have to run up to the attic to confirm) and 45.6 cm without the gear (which is 21.9 metres high after converting from 1/48 scale). So it looks like 10212 will be a close match to the size of the original studio model. Dump the minifigs and you probably couldn't tell the difference from a few paces back. In short, bloody awesome!!!

Yep, I'm enjoying the Midi-Scale! My little Falcon needs a pal or two so bring them on! As far as I'm concerned any attempt at accuracy in any scale for Lego is a collectible for me. Admittedly Mini's are off my radar but I do admire them. I've recently completed the Malevolent model from the Quest for R2 game which seems to border between being a UCS and a Midi. It certainly looks the part beside 10186 but could be equally at home beside a Midi Star Destroyer. However, it's stand does tend to lend it a presence that is lacking in a typical Midi....

I reckon those two white lines are specular highlights from the camera flash or set lighting, so perhaps we don't have to worry so much about stickers. Mind you, I've a great collection of sticker sheets hanging out in my UCS cupboard gathering dust who are always looking out for more company.... Edit: Dang, you're right! A closer look at some cockpit scenes found on theforce.net clearly show a thin support strut near the sides of the canopy. Still, there's an outside chance that on 10212 the canopy could end up being a printed piece!?!

I would say the models are fundamentally identical. It seems Lego have based their Shuttle on Dmacs design in more than just a passing fashion. Trawling through his brickshelf pages I came across the following posted information... I started working on my Lambda Shuttle - and my LEGO version is the real deal, please bear it in mind when seeing the slightly modified copies based on my CAD plans all over the Internet - on October 10th 2004. I took me (sic) six months to complete the model using MLCad software and then another year to collect all the necessary parts (some 2500 of them, if I remember correctly). 2500 parts sound familiar to anyone? I hope this inspires all the hard-core MOCers out there to push the boundaries. You never know, you may get your design mass produced! ... and yes Dmacs design has four seats! Quoting him once more... There are four seats in the cockpit but only two are occupied- exactly as in the movie. Although I seem to recall six seats in ROTJ... Still, I take it to mean that although he has four seats in the model there was only head room available for two figures- his pictures seem to support this supposition. Maybe LEGO was able to mod it sufficiently to fit four? It would be interesting to know if Cavegods re-working managed a full crew; perhaps he could enlighten us....

Yep! I'm a happy man. That shuttle rocks and at last the long wait for the UCS enthusiast is over. Its great to see TLC being inspired by MOCs (as well as MOCs inspiring one another) especially when the result is as impressive as what we see with 10212. It makes for a dynamic building community and keeps 'the brick' alive! Well done anyone who can see a touch of their own building solutions in this beautiful sculptural piece. Fingers crossed for an AT-AT of the same scale and MOCer pedigree in the not so distant future. So thank you Lego designers and thank you MOCers. I can't wait to walk in your footsteps and build this stunning set!

Wow! Imagine everyone being happy (except those who couldn't afford it). Again you're right, it is feasible for an interior on a model like this. It's certainly more likely to have one than say a UCS AT-AT with cargo compartment (and room for those elusive speeder bikes)! If this is the case then I'm all for it so long as accuracy and detail are not compromised but I can't see that happening for many other potential UCS designs. Consider the falcon, it would have been nuts to have an interior given the piece count was over 5000 (its weight was already on the threshold of a solid workout at the gym). I know that a MOD out there achieved it but it would not have made a realistic set for commercial release. Also if TLC is now only releasing UCS' which are to scale with minifigs then realistic set choices become more limited and even scarcer if we demand playset interiors as well. Many of these designs would be made incredibly fragile and compromise the structural integrity of already very tricky feats of engineering. It would in short often defeat the purpose of a UCS which is for its accuracy and display potential. I like the idea of a UCS shuttle to scale with minifigs, I think an AT-AT in the same scale is also a must. But if we limit such models to minifig size only then much of the potential grandeur of a UCS could be lost and that would be a sad thing to see happen. Having said that it would be pretty cool to have an interior when possible and a UCS Shuttle seems a likely candidate if it were to happen at all. Let's hope we both get our wish!

The use of the quote (not Lucas' finest hour) was to highlight how odd a position it was for an AFOL to think a UCS model 'pointless'. At the risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself -its important for TLC to offer us a range of choices as there are significant differences between why some adults would purchase a set when compared to others. Its also important for us as a community to encourage such diversity in our chosen hobby. That said the range has narrowed over the last 18 months probably due to the immensity and expense of the UCS Falcon as well as the popularity of minifigs. It may also reflect a change in market demographics as the adult collectors from 10 years ago move on to other financial priorities and a new generation of collectors who adore minifigs replace them. Regardless, given the long wait it would be reassuring to the minority of collectors who enjoy UCS for a new one to become available. That would mean confirmation of the 'brand' not being abandoned. I absolutely agree with you. This should not be a debate about what's better or worse. A simple acknowledgment about the fact we all enjoy Lego for different reasons is what matters. The hope is that TLC continues to satisfy all those reasons.

Merci beaucoup mon ami!

Why thank you kind sir! I doubt we'll see them released that often. A thousand system scaled shuttles will fly through Lego stores for every few UCS ones. But given the UCS Falcon is no more then a new pride of the pack should take its place this year and in another 18 months perhaps we'll see yet another. Only the Sith deal in absolutes!

Spectacular stuff!!

Then you are quite obviously not a UCS fan! That's not a problem but also not much of an acknowledgment that there are AFOL who love this range and haven't had the opportunity to add to their collection since the release of 10186 General Grievous in early 2008. And yes, UCS fans are a minority in the 'Lego community', but one shouldn't causally dismiss the various reasons why both adults and children enjoy collecting Lego. Why does UCS matter? The whole concept of a UCS is one that embraces Lego within a sculptural artistic medium rather than just simply as a building toy. I say this as a special effects artist who also teachers and writes syllabus for higher education courses in 3D animation and visual effects in film, television and games (and some of our graduates do work at ILM). 3D modelling is just one of my passions in the genre and so the desire for accuracy and aesthetics in a model is strong for me. Heck! I build these things virtually so to do something like it with little bits of plastic in the real world is incredibly good fun! Lego becomes more than the sum of its parts when the model is complete. This is the same concept as starting with a single n-sided polygon in 3D and over a period of time molding and sculpting it into a fully functioning virtual expression of an Incom T-65 X-Wing with over 750,000 polygons staring down the barrel of your over worked graphics card! Its the same for any artist in any medium and akin to any traveler at the start of any journey. To build a UCS is to travel in the footsteps of an artist. In this case a sculptor who expresses themselves through the medium of a child's construction toy. What is learned and appreciated along the way is up to you but for me it's the purity of form which emerges from a meaningless, formless pile of plastic. Sure, the Lego brick has function much like a lone house brick does but the application of this functionality in a creative and meaningful way is what matters and is why Lego is so effective and lasting a toy- it inspires us to think, create and play. A UCS is the penultimate expression for any sculptor in the Lego medium, whether its the Effill Tower, Taj Mahal or even an under-appreciated chrome decorated Naboo fighter. Its purpose is not simply play but form, aesthetics and accuracy achieved within the confines and choices made available in the bricks supplied by a commercial toy company. You don't need to be a fan of Lego to enjoy the spectacle of a UCS but to ignore the beauty of these models is to forget how extraordinary Lego can be. If the range died because vocal Star Wars Lego fans (and many on this site are likely to be under 18) wanted more playsets and minifigs then you've just diminished the potential of your own hobby and the artists at TLC who create on its behalf. We should all be hoping for a diverse range of sets released by Lego and not potentially courting the churning out of tired ideas each year by turning our noses up at sets that lack playability, interiors or figures. Be happy there may be another UCS on the way even if its not to your taste because a Lego shuttle is not simply just a Lego shuttle especially if you ask yourself the following question - 'What is the purpose behind the build and what can I learn from it?' Have a thoughtful day! Sweden! The Lego Antediluvian has risen once more! Nice to know you're still lurking in the background. If you build the shuttle before me can we get in a flame war too? It would be too big a case of sour grapes for me to ignore!! Peeron actually lists 10186 General Grevious as a Star Wars Technic rather than a sculpture. Strange given its UCS pedigree and the fact that the designer, Erick Varszeg was quoted as saying (I paraphrase) that although it has strong technic elements the Grevious model was unique because of its use of system bricks. I'd say this is a clear indication of using the best bricks for the job of sculpting in Lego regardless of size - an obvious building philosophy behind UCS (especially after abandoning 1/72 scale in the early years). KimT, given this old topic of what a UCS is has cropped up again and that its taken well informed essays to help clear our way through the muddle, might it be a good idea to separate the Shop@home exclusives from classic UCS's models and sculptures on Eurobrick's review index pages? It would be nice to put this thread to rest....

Thank you Sweden, I spent my lunch time considering the most succinct way of explaining what UCS was especially given the confusion that exists within the Lego community and the observation that this thread was moving inexorably toward confusing it further. I'm happy to say you've beaten me to it and have done so in a manner far more eloquent than I'd have ever managed. For anyone wondering which models are classic UCS please explore the following link... www.brickset.com/search/?theme=Star%20Wars&subtheme=Ultimate%20Collector%20Series For 10212 to be referred to as a 'UCS' Shuttle (assuming this is the unofficial Lego Company title that Eurobricks has unearthed) as opposed to '10212 Imperial Landing Pad (with a wee shuttle on top)' suggests Lego isn't using the phrase 'Ultimate Collector's Series' lightly. Afterall several sets acknowledged as classic UCS models have lacked that title on their box however no set advertised as a UCS has been anything other than a sculpture (be it large or small). I agree with Cavegod that the lack of pilots could suggest a system scale set but consider the following... 1. Remember many people were surprised the UCS MF lacked an R2 and 3PO (surely they'd have been a given also)? So perhaps the omission of a pilot or two isn't so strange... 2. Perhaps TLC have decided for a range of characters with 10212 therefore increasing play potential rather than simply including 5 pilot figures and an officer? 3. The pictures we have of the shuttle mini figs confirm their variety but not necessarily their number. An additional pilot or two to act as navigator/engineer or communications specialist could be included or for that matter found in a future battlepack. 4. Having only one pilot keeps the figures collectability intact. TLC therefore increases the potential market for the set considerably with that one simple, effective decision. Assuming KimT has picked up on an accurate rumor regarding the name of the set then I think and obviously hope 10212 is a classic UCS model. EDIT: Actually I'm tempted to add the Malevolence to the classic UCS fold from the Quest for R2 game. It has no play features, is pure sculpture and (for those who think it matters) comes with a stand. 750 pieces is a fair amount (more than the N1 and Tie Interceptor) and you sure as heck don't end up with something system scaled (although arguably midi-scaled but that's just a UCS which hasn't grown up yet)! On that thought I'm off to Bricklink now to buy the parts. At least then if 10212 does end up as just a big landing platform then at least I've had a small hit of UCS goodness this year...

Weeell.... You did list it with a question mark and without a piece/price count so it really didn't seem to firm up for a wee while... and then, and then... we all got excited about that AT-AT and whether it would be UCS and then talked lotsa dribble there ... and so we were somewhat distracted and then ... weeell... Rumors being rumors and all... Dang! Why do I feel like I just got told off by my dad!?!