Aeroeza

More time for MODs than MOCs sadly but when next I have the opportunity and unlimited budget I'll be sure to follow this chaps mantra. He manages to stick to his own design brief quite nicely with spectacular results... ... and I'd hope to receive fair and constructive criticism based on those goals from my fellow AFOL. If on the other hand I was designing a commercial Lego product which had to prove durable and sensitive to retail cost then I'd need to reconsider that brief. Did you happen to 'product test' it for commercial release? How certain are you it won't have significant structural issues in 12 months time echoing problems associated with a prior commercial release using a similar design? Will magnets hold for all production sets? Is there a better solution than using rubber bands? Could ignoring customer complaints regarding said structural issues affect your products brand name, reputation and profit margin in the future? If you can fix said structural issues associated with a 1.2 meter long and incredibly narrow Lego set using the 'true frame' solution of 10030 then have you just priced your product out of the target market group on a per unit basis? If it came to a commercial release which you might be responsible for then what would be your definition of 'quality balanced by profit'? How would this influence your new design brief? You'd best start pulling out the spreadsheets and doing some calculations quickly before the designers go full throttle with unrestricted Lego construction! Try giving them some clear goals and remember not to pay them by the hour! The structural and design problems associated with 10030 could only have have been amplified in 10221 so the cost effective and more proven solution of a 'flat bottom' is a rational one and on balance probably the right one. Maybe it's 'easy', maybe it 'sucks' then again maybe it's just not a MOC! Its easy to forget we're dealing with a very different world to the comparatively carefree hobby of MOCing and if some compromises aren't to our taste then perhaps its worth considering the ramifications of any alternatives and trying to understand why a designer makes particular choices rather than dismissing them outright. This is not to say I'm uncritical of the set. I'd have loved to see a more accurate and detailed underside, no minifigures and no bridge but that said the bridge is unobtrusive and I can feed the figures to my cat (I'm training him to be an attack kitten even as I write). The final 10221 is long, narrow, strong, transportable and as Kurt hoped for does well with many angles and isn't too bulky in profile. The cityscape isn't overworked and has an aesthetic consistency to it which I can appreciate. However I understand this is not a MOC, has many commercial considerations and is therefore aimed at a broader consumer group than just me and my kitten. For me the compromise works. I'm curious Cavegod, could you describe them please?

That's awesome! This kid's perfect AFOL material! ...whereas LucasFilm used way too much dark bley for this shot... But I understand your point. However you're right, it is a subjective one... I recall a x32 greeble plate on the UCS Star Destroyer! I don't know about you but I needed a dedicated team of monkeys as well as a freshly fed Bear Grylls to finish it! Now what I'm saying here is also a very subjective statement but the level of consistency with 10030's greebling looked pretty good to me and the UCS SSD seems to follow its Lego kin in that department. Too detailed at such a grand scale and it begins to look somewhat messy so the KISS principle (Keep it Simple Stupid) work's well here. Design brief alert! "No bendy noses thank you Mr. Star Wars Lego team!!!" And this is fairly explicit in the final product... Kurt opted for a strong build, stronger than yours and Lasse's because at 1.2 metres you obviously have prime Lego sagging material and a bunch of pissed off collectors. A flat bottom limits your options on top as your own analysis back on page 6 pointed out. Now if we accept that constructive criticism really should take into account a designer's intention then the gap is likely a necessary by-product of the build i.e. a compromise which a commercial product probably needs to make. So perhaps the hardest part of building a UCS (as part of TLC's design team) is knowing when to make those compromises. Fortunately MOCer's don't need to do that and can walk away with their artistic integrity intact! Spoken like a true reviewer! Edit: BTW you should lose the minifigs in that photo. I hear they're not to scale and might look a bit silly...

'Tis a call of duty!

Thanks Doc Dave! Its an informative review and certainly wet's my appetite! That seems a bit harsh Anio! I'm not sure 'fair' criticism of any build can be taken on-board without first understanding the intentions of the designer. As a commercial product I reckon the design brief for 10221 would be somewhat restricted compared to what an AFOL might consider for themselves. Judge the set in that context and I'd call it constructive and fair criticism! ...which is not to suggest you're wrong just rather harsh. ...as for the other Doc on the forum! Its a hit and miss affair with the magnets as they vary in attractive strengths. My 10030 had a few spare so I picked the strongest of them and short of a big bump my Star Destroyer has been happy for a few years. The weaker magnets would not have fared so well. Although I've got no problems personally with the use of magnets (I'd just replace the dodgy ones without complaint) using clips on 10221 will no doubt lead to fewer complaints and a stronger build. The same goes for the flat bottom (in the long run). I've had to reinforce the internal structure of my 10030 (you've probably heard of similar complaints from others) as four of the technic beams between the supporting legs started to buckle. I found it a fun little Lego engineering experience to fix but I'd not be surprised if Lego received a lot flak from customers regarding the problem. I can also understand Lego not wanting to invite similar flak again regarding its latest not so little (but just a little long) 'show pony' product!

Love it! Do it! ...and if you have any Photoshop questions feel free to throw them my way!

It's all about Lego designer liberties with a build! On the one hand there is an attempt to get to the 'truth' of the subject matter. On the other there's room for adding a little artistic license to their work by creating those idiosyncrasies which individualize the final model. I'm all for it as it often makes the model just that little more interesting. Besides anything built from Lego can only ever be considered an 'abstract' of the original. If you get too caught up in accuracy and absolute precision in scale then you're probably overlooking the strength of the Lego 'medium' as a craft... In the case of the Lego UCS Shuttle I understand the designers were given access to the original Star Wars model but I think you'll find they also relied on secondary sources such as the Kenner Toy Shuttle from the 1980's. The Star Wars Technical Commentaries feature an article on the Lambda-class Shuttles so called 'Dimorphism Booper' which has a lot of interesting things to say about Kenner's sculpt. Suffice to say you'll notice the 1x4 'L tile' was probably incorporated into 10212 as a consequence of this toy. Have a close look at its starboard side and you'll see what I mean...

I think you have a case for all of them to be replaced!

... and thanks for the review! Its looking really thorough. The more I look at this set the more 'epic' a build it seems to become...

Hey! At least they employed the Lego community as proof readers for the UCS sticker 'name plate'!

WTF! Are regular Lego white bricks from other sets you own the same shade of 'cream' in your image??? If so then you've nothing to worry about apart from the one piece, if not then the bricks in your 10212 set 'blow chunks' and that odd one out (ignoring any transparency/shot exposure/lighting issues) looks to be the right shade. I can confirm for you that my shuttle set has the same 'white' as every other Lego set I own and any one of my individual pieces, at a cursory glance, look the same shade as your 'odd piece out' (except fortunately being opaque). Any visible 'off white' characteristics are dependent purely on the lighting conditions...

Maybe its a dumb question but have either of you considered how much ambient light in a room affects the way we perceive colour? Incandescent light sources such as light-bulbs, fires, computer monitors and the sun emit light across a broad spectrum by heating up and glowing. Our eyes adjust accordingly and so what we perceive as off white changes relative to the strength of the local light source. Objects which don't emit light reflect particular frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum and absorb the rest. They don't tend to change colour 'absolutely', its only our perception of them under different lighting intensities which tend to make us think they do. In short, try looking at your bricks under different lighting conditions and your eyes will compensate accordingly. The bricks should look less 'creamy' especially in a more natural and indirectly lit environment... ...unless of course all your white bricks really are just plain shit!

Sure, but there's nearly a twenty year gap between a Y-Wing (which is from the same era in the Star Wars universe as a Subjugator Class cruiser) and the newer X-Wing. There's even less than a decade between the X-wing and an A-Wing (and the B-Wing's even newer). What's too big a gap? O.K. let me use fighter aircraft scale models as a real world simile here... Why wouldn't you have a Spitfire Mk V sitting next to an F 15 Eagle? You'd be right in saying that historically they were never used in conjunction with each other for strafing 'enemy insurgents' in Iraq but by displaying them side-by-side you'd certainly be able to appreciate the differences in size and technology over different historical eras of fighter design! Displaying different classes of warship to scale with each other from the Star Wars universe is simply the same gambit and also a pretty funky Lego challenge. I reckon there's nothing 'odd' about it unless you have a narrow definition of what constitutes a vehicle from the Star Wars universe- understandable given the polarization of fans between different age groups and various incarnations of old and new Star Wars films- in which case, to those particular fans, the whole exercise doesn't really matter .... Absolutely true! ...but this comes down to just what you enjoy appreciating... Not every OT fan would care a whit for a Clone Wars vessel sitting next to an OT ship but as you say "do what you want". At least (even to those who wouldn't care for the exercise) the Malevolence is a rejected design for Grievous' flagship from Revenge of the Sith (being dropped in favor of the smaller 'Invisible Hand') rather than 'just' a Clone Wars cartoon ship. This might give it a little more punch for the OT fan who didn't mind PT ships- especially if they appreciated the overall design rational for the six films attempting to link two time periods seamlessly (something I quite admire regardless of the production design team's varying shades of success). I'd say it's an appreciation of that Star Wars design ethos encompassing several generations of vehicles and thousands of years of architecture from various alien cultures across six films, four seasons of an animated series and twenty-five years of effort, which leads to something like the UCS SD scale being used for Lego MOCs in the first place. The fact you can build a 'to scale' Venator and sit it next to your UCS Star Destroyer and say 'Whoopee' is just plain fun not to mention a great homage! As a whole its the entire Star Wars design ethos which proves to be great fodder for inspiring model builders (scale or otherwise) and concept artists alike! If you can appreciate that then it doesn't matter which film or fantasy time period a model comes from or even whether they were ever seen together on screen in the first place.

What? Like an X-wing and a Y-Wing? I guess it depends on what you consider an 'era' given the Malevolence and a more 'refined' Y-Wing spring from the same artists work. More to the point my original post was to highlight the possibility that MOCers may enjoy using the UCS SSD scale to build new Lego fleets - much like what the UCS ISD scale was used for by Brickcommander. The UCS ISD has also often been displayed by fans of the scale Lego 'craft' next to similarly considered Nebulon Bs, Acclamators and Venators. These are wonderful examples of what have been accomplished representing not only a mix of 'eras' AFOL have been happy to exploit but also different Sci-Fi universes. A further example of the art of scale Lego modeling is Legostein who enjoys utilizing varying scales for his fleets with a similar goal. And if you doubt the potential check out Jeff Russel's guide to Starship Dimensions. I reckon it provides fuel for thought! Hope that answers your question! Actually I wouldn't mind knowing what pieces make up the mini Star Destroyer- I'd like to have an additional four escorts for my command ship when it arrives on my doorstep!

You're not the only Aussie Woka! If you aren't already in the habit then check out Bricklink with a PayPal account and take advantage of the strong AUD vs. USD. The deals filter through after a few weeks and will give you a chance to hit Lego pay dirt. Even after factoring in shipment costs you're still ahead of our local Shop@home. Soon you'll become good friends with Australia Post!

So far, so good although you may want to lengthen it a little to really get the long, needle/dagger like look of the fuselage! Try this MOC for inspiration!

Welcome to the fold! I have little time to MOC and prefer collecting the big. impressive Ultimate Collectors Series sets which are designed for display rather than play. Keeping them MISB is not an option, only storage space and an understanding partner. Mind you she loves the World Series sets like the Taj Mahal and Effiel Tower so either way we get to share a few fun builds a year and consider the display or store issues afterwards....

Indeed you have spoken! I'm really not sure what all this fuss and heated debate is about when it comes to SSD scale issues and forgive me for not being overly confident about understanding the point of your post as a riposte to mine. At the end of the day I'd suggest picking your scale (or lack thereof) based on what makes you happy and build away. If it matters to you then Wookiepedia does give a thorough explanation regarding the history of the ever changing dimensions of the Executor and if you haven't already read it then I suggest you do. It certainly leaves me with the impression that the only 'made up' figures come from official publications. Here's some highlights BrickHitHouse... On 19 km. Nearly twenty years after the release of the original A Guide to the Star Wars Universe in 1984, which first provided the approximate length of eight kilometers, James Luceno's Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, published on August 1, 2004, finally provided an Executor length more befitting of the Super Star Destroyer model seen in the films. Luceno described the Executor as being "almost 12 times as long" as a "common Star Destroyer," suggesting a length around 19 kilometers.... ...the process of changing the Executor's length involved a discussion of rationale, comparing previous Star Wars sources to what was seen in the film, and then waiting for an author to submit a draft of to-be published material that would officially change the Executor's length, with Lucasfilm's permission. He also noted that, although unlikely, another size change is not impossible. So for the purposes of story and narrative the size of the SSD is somewhat subject to an author's imagination, 'other sources' and an interpretation of what was seen in the films. Regardless the dimensions can't change without the blessing of Lucasfilm. Suffice to say they all agree that it's big! 8 km, 12.8 km and finally but not definitively 19 km (for the foreseeable future pending a change in mind). On 17.6 km. In fact, the behind-the-scenes book From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives, published in March 1995, was the first Star Wars-released item to contradict the established eight-kilometer length, though not in any official manner, revealing that the Executor "was conceived as eleven times the size of the original Star Destroyer…For a reference, the conning tower that rises from the Executor was supposed to be as big as the original Star Destroyer's conning tower." This implied that the in-universe Executor measured approximately 17.6 kilometers long. ... in 1998, at the personal behest of Saxton for use in his own Executor length Web site, Lucasfilm employee David West Reynolds took measurements of the original Executor model in the Lucasfilm archives. By scaling the measurements with the constant command tower found on the standard Star Destroyer, Reynolds determined that the Executor's length was between 17.4 and 17.8 kilometers, with 17.6 being the most likely. The concept artists, production designers and visual effects model makers responsible for the creation of the SSD seemed to keep their 'facts' consistent over the years and this is no surprise because that's what a good production team does. What they 'concieved' of in 1979 as the size of the Executor was reported in 1995 in 'From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives' and then 'proof' tested three years later in 1998 by an ILM employee. For myself (as a professional visual effects guy) I model from plans at consistent scales all the time so of course my preference is to choose a 17.6 km Executor as was originally envisaged by the ESB production team ('cause that's my job). 'Narrative' is not my job, that's for the script writers, directors and producers to worry about. If they want to change their minds afterwards then so be it- or even license out their product so others can contribute and muddy the waters further and write more books, get that RPG out, make more money and 'expand' the Star Wars Expanded Universe 'till their cup runneth over! That's all great merchandising stuff and call it 'official publication' if you must! Now I'm not saying 19 km is wrong, after all Lucasfilm seem happy with it (for now), but the physical (or virtual) model remains and I prefer to respect the original creation, designed and built by a team of artists who worked hard to convey a particular and intended 'reality'. As for the Malevolence dimensions, well I've already explained my preference for the larger scale in my earlier post and perhaps I can be accused of choosing the more convenient of the two, but so what? There are competing sources here, one from the 3 inch Star Wars Titanium Die Cast series (so not to scale with each other) which Wookiepedia footnotes and another from 'Star Wars: Republic at War'. I'm happy to say that for now I'm satisfied with a 7.8 km Malevolence and not only because of what I mentioned in my first post (the CW cartoon script)- I've a personal bent toward gaming artists here- its a matter of professional pride for 3D modellers (in this case a computer game) to ensure their work is as exacting as possible in the time frame they have to complete a project, especially if they have to build a series of models to scale with each other- its simply the nature of the job. In fact its a discipline which requires the same mindset that SFX artists and modellers had in the pre-digital era! So there is no plucking of 'figures' out of thin air here when it comes to demonstrating that the UCS SSD and 'Quest for R2' Malevolence sets are pretty much to scale with each other. Now I too have spoken! Edit: No it doesn't look like it. Shame really...

For those of you who enjoy building fleets to scale (especially MOCers fond of building vessels in the old UCS SD scale) I've just noticed a happy coincidence between the size of the UCS SSD and the 'Quest for R2' Malevolence set (a build I've always felt was a UCS release by stealth). Now I realize there are two lengths for a Subjugator Class Cruiser floating around- Wookipedia states these vessels are 4845 metres whereas the Star Wars: Republic at War folks give us a more generous figure of 7892. I've always preferred the second figure as it's more in line with estimates given by the Republic forces in the Clone Wars cartoon when first discussing the possibility of a monster ship with ionic weaponry hunting their strike fleets. It also works beautifully for a Lego Malevolence that is a smidge over 55 centimeters in length sitting next to a 1.245 meter Executor! Assuming the UCS SSD is 17.6 km (all controversies aside) then the Lego Malevolence is only about half a centimeter too short to be an exact match in scale! (What's a stud between friends?) (124.5/17.6) x 7.892=55.8 If you take the SSD to be 19 km long then you're 3 or 4 centimeters short of the mark... (124.5/19) x 7.892=51.7 ... but still close enough to sit the two models proudly next to each other and give any passerbys a lesson in Star Wars capital ship comparisons (mind you, I hear that's not the best way to make friends at most social gatherings )... So perhaps we have a new UCS SSD scale to inspire the fleet builders out there? It seems TLC have already, inadvertently, started using one!

That would be absolutely spectacular! Please prod away! It would certainly pair nicely with the SSD.

When you've 'Bricklinked' the best part of 10,000 parts for a MOC then I'd reckon absolutely bloody anything in life would be straightforward in comparison!!!

Over the last decade (apart from 2009) Lego's big exclusive/UCS releases have tended to favour UCS builds. But you're right, more recently there does appear to be a balance between the two again, even if its been a wild swing between them the last couple of years. Perhaps some 'normality' will return once more for 2011 and mirror years like 03, 04, 05, 07 and 08. Just so long as we get one UCS a year I'll be happy! Although I wouldn't mind another 2002 for UCS releases (three of them back-to-back 'cause TLC couldn't perfect production of the chrome pieces for 10026 in time for a 01 release) but I suspect that would be just plain greedy of me. Just don't give me another 2009!!!

I'd say Light Bley is the closest you'd get for the SSD's blueish grey appearance in the films when depicted in Lego. Just use Old Light Grey for your mini Star Destroyer if you'd like to get the relative differences in tone apparent in the films due to lighting and compositing multiple film elements from different passes with a motion control camera...

I sympathize with you Bobskink! To solve your news/spoilers dilemma perhaps you could mount your computer on a few grams of C4 and rig it to explode should you accidentally view the front page of a Lego site. It's a drastic solution but the proverbial Pavlov's dog treatment might be the only way to control 'The Evil Urges'- I know the temptation would be too great for me! But in principal you're right, we should all do as much as possible to bring back Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and even the Tooth Fairy into our dull adult lives and re-live the magic of yesteryear where walking around every toy store provided a new Lego surprise! But I'm not made of your stern stuff and am jaded by the joy of looking at 'The Spoilers of Tomorrow' and their green-eyed temptress dubbed 'The Jpegs of Longing'! 607 pages and counting! I get your point. I have to admit that I also find the speculation often meaningless. The size of the 2011 Pictures & Rumors thread does reflect this- it is enormous compared to previous years and to read through it in search of posted gems and notable comments is awkward given it's often overblown with speculative blurbs and surreptitious wish lists. This is not to say that all speculation is bad just that informed speculation is what I prefer to comment on. Let's face it, Eurobricks has become an enormous site over the last few years and in this time experienced a population explosion among its Star Wars postings. An 'unmanageable dog' springs to mind but its moderators do well in steering the overall path. If tested I doubt many members who frequent the Star Wars forum could stand up to the site's age restriction. As a result the "endless speculations about upcoming sets" may simply mirror this trend through a consequent lack of 'adult' discourse. To be fair though I find the spoilers fun- they focus comments and provide some healthy debate within the community which in turn generate and spill over into other interesting site topics (like this one).

Ooh - ah!!! I trust that's in your best Southern English or Cornish accent then FA? Are you now truly traveling 'on stranger tides' off the coast of the Yellow Sea!?! Actually I think I may have paraphrased Cavegod poorly in my earlier post. On a second read its clear only that Lego is supplying 10221. The other UCS' may be coming from another source. If they're CG's then I doubt we'll be seeing any playsets in the mix but regardless an 'official' collection may be in doubt...

Or okay!