Aeroeza

Aah! You are indeed a gentleman and scholar. I'll give that a try...

Nice touch b4p and well executed! This does a lot for displaying 10221 in its best light at that height and angle. Now with Mortesv great work I've got two cool MODs to consider... Gotta love the brick! ...and (if it's not inappropriate to ask) I'm truly up for that Falcon's part list if you have the time kind sir! That would be pretty cool but please disregard my request if it's too much trouble...

Awesome! Parts list! Rough is all that's needed. Thank you again good sir... This was a fun project to contribute to even if it was in a very loose, back seat driver kind of a way. 10221 begged for this treatment and the end result really does look excellent and absolutely complete! The renders were done to answer questions Mortesv & in particular Fallenangel had about the 'studio' model which is why the scale is smaller than the 19km stated currently by such sources as Wookiepedia etc. No disrespect intended to lovers of 'canon'. It would be cool to model and render a comparison image of the studio model with Mortesv's final MOD. He'd need to supply me with lot's of measurements and angles however so that may prove unfeasible. Unless I get my act together and MOD my own set.... Hmmm. ...and Fallen, if you're out there mate...

Look's great! I suspect I'd be speaking on behalf of more than a few of us if you could also add a photo of your UCS Pod Racers sitting side-by-side. That would be a marvelous sight to behold Cavegod! Never mind the little kids, us 'big' kids also want to see them...

I'm looking forward to your take on the Falcon's 'weathered' look! Keep up the posts!!

... and plain wrong (or simply endorsing misinformation for financial gain). More than 10,000 collector editions of 10179 were released so we can add 'opportunism' or idiocy to his lunacy!! Still, if it sells then I'm happy to eat humble pie. It will be a stunning reminder that there is always an even 'looser' brick out there!!!

Yeah I know. I was just trying to avoid a big 'SCIENCE/MATHS' content warning in the topic header and pull in a few extra patrons...

I'm not worthy!!! But I sure got a kick out of this! Enjoy... Edit: Well it's minifig scale but 1:1 got your attention!

R2 looks beautiful! It's hard to get much more iconic than this little guy. Short of a Vader bust I can't see Lego getting it more right than a sculpture like this. How wonderful! UCS vehicles are one thing (a big thing) but the odd sculpture is just delightful. Love it and suspect I'll feel like a six year old building it!

I think he means the old light grey 10030 and yes the two tones look odd together. It's a personal taste 'thing' of course but I feel the new grey or 'bley' blue tinge makes the old grey look rather yellowed and, well nasty!

:laugh: No way is this going to be detailed!!! I don't have three months spare to bring it to any level of awesomeness! For those who don't know how much working in 3D is like watching paint dry or grass grow consider this... The 'BSG Pegasus' for the re-envisaged 'Battlestar Galactica' series was built by one guy in Lightwave over five weeks (presumably very long days) using thorough concept art as a guide and crafted using 1 million polygons (they don't build themselves). Someone else textured it. That's an industry build, so an incredibly efficient model. Hobbyists at Sci Fi meshes sometimes spend many, many more months (if not the odd year) doing crazy, cool stuff you'd never, ever do in a VFX company (you'd get fired as a time waster)!!! I spent seven weeks on a B5 Thunderbolt Starfury for the hell of it a couple of years ago (down to the nuts 'n' bolts) but I'm forgetting to mention the research and design time which went into conceptualizing the scramjets, variable thrust mechanisms, landing gear etc. (..and rigging most of that for animation). NEVER AGAIN well maybe never again! I got that right out of my system...until the next time... This tiny project is for the 10221 crowd who want a little help with the research into MODing it! I'll probably just build the hull as there's buckley's info on the cityscape from above. I'll assume 17.6km is the length and from there we'll be able to know height, width etc (given we have the command tower drafted for us). I'll render out bug ugly front, top & side images for your protractor! Of course the success of this is dependent on Mr. Griffiths' frontal image. Initial observations are promising despite running into an unforeseen issue with the reference images... i.e. the middle third of the SSD was missing! His rear image lined up about 98% accurately with Russell's image- except Russell's command tower is too large compared to the actual model. (Again this bodes well for Grif)!. I lined those up and then threw in Grif's other image just to check his overlaid nicely with Russell's (and my own vectors thrown in for good measure). I recken it's all good within 2-3 pixels of error. What's that when scaled to 17.6k??? Here's what I'm working with after much fiddling... That's it for now, it's bedtime 'Downunder'! Nahh I'm a bricklayer... not a Doctor..... or engineer...

I think I've worked out your concern... The forward most engine hasn't been drawn at all so the 'prong' outlining the engine housing would look too low in its absence...

Guy's! If you're happy with Martyn Griffiths' work (Saxton stated he is a sci-fi modeller who was "undertaking a painstaking blueprinting project using all manner of photogrammetric and other techniques to determine the ship's proportions accurately." I could whip up a 3D model for you which would give you all the angles of your dreams in addition to orthographic top, side and front renders...

Cavegod offered this interesting piece of information a few months back... Presumably it's a first hand account... Certainly it is an 'interpretation'- fair call! But I would be hard pressed to call it anything other than a UCS i.e. a display set. As Cavegod mentions in the same thread (after I suggested it was a 'hybrid')... EDIT: I got blogged!!!

Alrighty! I'm having fun with angles! I'm also wanting to check myself and avoid making horrible assumptions when it comes to the lower hull of the SSD so please bare with me folks! It's obviously next to impossible to be certain about anything but if ever I'm gonna MOD this 10221 monster then I'd like to be as sure as my meager expertise allows... Just to clarify the image below consists of several profiles of the SSD, one being a stitched together, vaguely side on angle of the original model. This first profile was constructed from photos downloaded from Curtis Saxton's Technical Commentaries. I've used the cityscape profile as reference points for aligning the separate images and as you can see the photographer did a good job for about two thirds of the model. Despite its visual limitations when sitting side-by-side with the second profile (snatched from the spectacular work of Jeff Russell) they support each other rather well. Differences in the hull heights in the two profiles could be attributed to lens distortion phenomena inherent in any photo and the fact that the second profile is a blueprint a.k.a. an orthographic image lacking depth characteristics. Russell's work I suspect was based on Anthony Tully's and Martyn Griffiths' drafting. In addition he probably also would have had access to model shots like these broadsides. The final profile is of course the promotional photo (basically side on) of 10221 in all its controversial glory. Anio has kindly highlighted some key discussion points in red and green. The most illustrative appears to be the red line on Russell's profile verses 10221s. Clearly the centreline of the Lego model is too low given the position of the middle engines and the fact that the forward engines are obstructed from view. However, Mortesv has correctly surmised that this image was "taken at an elevated angle - further accentuating the 'top angle issue'". Inspection of the physical model shows the A-Frame or centre line is actually level with its middle engine housing despite what the photo indicates. After building 10221 myself and studying it's characteristics I feel the set's designer prioritized the Executor's needle-like profile but was hampered by having to also install a minifig bridge. This caused a few problems for the accuracy sticklers... The A-Frame is actually well positioned, however the minifig bridge has added height to the model (about a brick's worth). The floor of it is level with the plate located just under the A-Frame so it takes up a lot of room (it's approx 14 studs wide & six studs high)! This has increased the angle of the top hull plating making it much steeper than the reference material suggests it should be. It also means the volume of the bridge's 'real estate' gets in the way of an angled lower hull which simultaneously; a. mirrors the upper hull b. maintains the needle-like profile. In order to keep the profile slender the solution was to make the bottom flat. Sure you could mirror the present upper hull angle on the underside and keep the compartment but it would be a pretty fat and 'unUCS-like' profile! ...and this is why many UCS enthusiasts get annoyed with play features- they compromise builds!!! It's been suggested that George Lucas himself asked for the bridge as a late modification- mind you everyone thinks he shot JFK from the grassy knoll so who knows. Poor guy always gets a bad wrap... The final design does add strength to the model- it sure as hell is extremely sturdy, and everything connects beautifully. There are no magnet issues or bendy noses (like with 10030)! Arguably, if there had been no bridge and an angled lower hull was added in keeping with a low profile and two support struts on the frame, then the nose would never have bent over time anyway . Anio's SSD MOC suggests this although of course these two models are beasts running in different races and direct comparisons could be misleading... Mortesv has put forward the following solution for a more accurate build... "the (preliminary) conclusion would be that further modification does not necessarily entail moving the A frame up - but instead lowering the entire city super structure." This would certainly create a more pleasing angle for the upper hull. I'd also suggest removing the bridge compartment altogether to create the opportunity for designing a studs down lower hull more in keeping with the much valued slim profile... This brings me to my final musings- does the angle on the top of the hull match the bottom?? I genuinely would like to be sure! I've had a quiet weekend so couldn't help but be geeky and industrious when it comes to the problem so here we go... 1. The green circles represent my starting point where I've worked out the camera persons 'angle-of-attack' so-to-speak. 2. Using these reference points and the lines of the hull I've determined where the nose of the model is relative to the camera as well as its central line of axis. 3. Again using the green circles and the clear lines of the hull fairings around the mid-engine housings I've drawn two yellow lines which happily cross exactly with the green central axis. This gives us the upper angle of the hull which can be measured using the (almost) horizontal green line which crosses through the two green circles of the 'wingtips' (the ships horizontal or X-axis relative to the camera). I've lost my protractor so if someone would be so kind... 4.I've then flipped the upper hull's yellow line along the image's horizontal plane (see arrow) and changed its colour to red for clarity. Finally I've lowered it slightly along the vertical until... Bingo!!! Note: the X-axis of the SSD here (green line) is a tiny bit different to the photos horizontal alignment. My image editing software used the images horizontal plane instead and I didn't worry about adjusting for this small inaccuracy. As you can see the photographer did a pretty good job of standing up straight! ... and still for a Mk I eyeball it lines up pretty nicely! I'd say we're dealing with the same angle.

Pesky Jedi scum! Can't they tell the difference between an effective UCS modification and a stock standard-off-the-rack Imperial death machine? O.K. I see you've gone for the lesser of two evils, err angles here. A big improvement over the infamous flat bottomed tug which is 10221! In truth this is the first UCS I've wanted to modify in a major way. I've made lots of small changes to the others- that's just cosmetic surgery- but what's needed here, if you'd like to keep 10221 a little more film literate, is major surgery!!! If I ever get the time (and pieces) I'd like to try raising the centre line of its A-frame by one brick closer to the superstructure- so as its in line with the mid way positioned engines (for anyone interested have a look at my image posted earlier to see what I mean by this line-up). I feel this is much more akin to the studio model and gets the top hull angle looking more subtle. Then I'd try and figure a way for a studs down bottom hull to match the same (but inverted) angle used on the top. Rogue Bantha's trick might be the way to do it (thanks again for that link Mortesv). The bottom plate of the bridge would consequently get in the way of the lower hull (this new angled hull would cut across it) so this whole feature needs to go (good riddance). Once the A-frame is right the width of the model becomes slightly broader, again more accurate but in turn this would create problems getting the internal structure to line up nicely and connect properly with the newly positioned hulls. That would probably be the trickiest bit to solve... That's when I need to buy apartments next to Cavegod and Anio, stalk them on a regular basis and save myself alot of time... Again, great review Ray! You can't beat a witty approach to what could be a somewhat dry subject! Sorry if I'm off topic...

Wweeeel...My posts are intended as 'discussions' rather than 'arguments', but then I'm only saying that because I'm being argumentative! No matter, my 'geekometre' is satisfied! There will be no 'high noon' or dueling swords at dawn good sir. Words are gems best shared with the appreciative and I've enjoyed our banter! It's been a fine review sparking fun debate, food for thought and extrapolations upon a Lego theme! What more could you ask for on a quiet weekend?

Hard to judge? Really? The intention of this SFX sequence from ROTJ was to illustrate the distance of the Imperial Fleet from the rebels. It helped to inform the audience that the Imperials were 'holding back' and blockading the Rebels while possessing an overwhelming number of capital ships pointed aggressively and directly at them. The distance at which the miniatures were shot coupled with the camera lens chosen for the sequence reduced distortion significantly, flattening out the distinctive profiles and helping to sell the subtext of the narrative in a visually powerful way. Any 'slight lower angle' is rather slight and made less so when viewing the entirety of the shot. So it's the best and probably only view we have of the SSD's forward profile! You could pull out a protractor and measure the angles if you really wanted to. Short of an actual orthographic, non-distorting cross section from a schematic then I doubt we could do better... Hmmm... the photographer is very close and positioned below the centre line of the model. Also all the angles of the various hull edges and fairings around the port and starboard engines are asymmetrical when compared to the top hull fairings. The optical effect created makes it look as though the top and bottom hulls have different angles to them! They don't. Basically put- the bottom isn't flatter than the top it just looks that way here! Too late!!!! I made an image ... I'll let it speak for itself. I find it more disappointing and annoying than 'bad'... I hope you do!

...but this one isn't!!! Anio's spot on here! The angles on 10221's upper hull are far too obtuse and do much to make this UCS rather average compared to other models in the series. Owning the set myself I'd say there were aspects I liked about the build- it was fun- but I think many of its problems stem from the inclusion of that darn bridge- it's just too deep and so prevents a leaner, more needle-like profile. Simply adding a lower hull to match the present angle of its upper counterpart means you need to remove the bridge or modify it dramatically. On the other hand If you were to make the upper and lower hulls more 'movie accurate' (and significantly more 'acute') then the centreline of the whole model needs to be raised by about a bricks width. Again the bridge gets in the way. Keeping the base flat seems the design compromise here- i.e. it keeps the profile sharp and yet the bridge deep enough to be still functional as a play element for minifigs. A pity. Thanks Raytracer for a thorough review. What a set to win!!! Ya lucky bum!

The important thing about tradition is that it's upheld and respected regardless of sense (or sensibility). Star Wars canon??? What a load of cane toad turd!

My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.-'Discoloured' bricks!!! 'Soft' light by my 'gluteus maximus'! I don't care who's metaphorically 'arising' in the east. They can stay the hell away from my bricks rather than leave me sick and pale with grief! Don't give up on the other 4! Afterall, you need only standing room (mostly) to use your toilet- so plenty of room left in your home for the remaining UCS'!! Although this may upset your 'balance' to a happy life/wife! ... as for 10188, BL is BS! Brickset have it right! But I digress from said 'staying on of the target' and find myself wondering instead if perhaps either of you had come across a 10019 scaled Imperial Shuttle? That would also prove quite the treat and give us an alternative route from UCS Death Star II through to Minifig...

Holy crap! This is a stunning MOC. In fact its a bloody tease. Remove it from this site at once so as I have a chance to clean up my drool!!

Ha! A man after my own heart! If the intensity of my admiring gaze could turn objects to stone and finally erode them over time then my 17 UCS' would have turned to dust long ago. I've been wanting to play this 'scale game' since preliminary photos of 10221 first showed up last year. The only problem was of course Lego's missing link- a 10019 scaled Millennium Falcon. I toyed with a MOC myself but didn't get round to refining it down to any level of real satisfaction... ...and then viola! Here is the 'missing link' in all its unrivaled glory! Now if only my own attempt had been half as well executed. Great work Mortesv! You've played the UCS scale game brilliantly. Your attention to detail, in adjusting the standard models so as they relate to each other as closely as can be (ignoring where 'canon' contradicts itself of course), is a very, very nice touch. I wouldn't have had the patience myself! I wasn't aware of Rogue Bantha's work so thank you for citing him. Consequently I tracked down his Falcon and can see he's been most generous in sharing with the community just how he built it. I'll be scrapping my own 'missing link' and following your lead with this MOC! What a piece of work is Lego, how noble in reason, how infinite in possibilities, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like a 10019 scaled Millennium Falcon... Cheers!

Dude! You are too cool for skool! Xmas will be a let down compared to what you are giving us!!!

Thanks for that! Sounds very promising indeed! Not a small piece count for a sculpture by any means...