obiwan1011

Awesome build. Very sleek-looking and absolutely love from the nose to the cockpit section. The colour also reminds me of Hi-Nu Gundam. ;) How many bricks? Does it have a landing gear? The black version suggest it does, but just double-checking... Will you be sharing the LDD file?

AMAZING! I especially love how you managed to accurately capture the nose and the angled front part. PLEASE do us a favour and create an instruction for this masterpiece!

nerdsforprez, As an owner of this model, I really love the improvements that you have made - especially the stand and the underside of S-foil wings (can't help but think LEGO designers are getting lazier... increasingly leaving the bottoms 'unfinished' - e.g. the flat bottom of 10221 SSD ). Like Regimus, I would be interested in applying your mod. Would you have a LXF file for your stand and underside of S-foil wings? - as I struggle to understand what you mean by "Use both side of a plate with clip..." Thanks.

Recently saw an UCS Slave-I exhibited at one of the Lego shops and I must agree with Anio. Once the initial wow factor settles down, you start to see shortfalls; the engine area especially looks so... ugly and chaotic. But it will no doubt sell well given how a lot of people have waited for an UCS version of this popular ship... Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I am not impressed with its design and would only rate SSD below Slave-I among the recent UCS releases. Even the unpopular B-Wing and JSF look better than this.

Apologies to all the other great Star Wars MOCs out there, but this is by FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR the best Star Wars MOC. EVER. Lord Vader will be very pleased.

Looking at b4p's post reminded me yet again how ugly the original bottom looks and I must agree the SSD should look MUCH better with your bottom. Since this is my tenth post to "qualify" for the pm feature, let me contact you via that method for further enquiries.

Yes, but even with the 10030, there seems to be a number of rare bricks that are not available in sufficient amount at Bricklink - e.g. the magnets holders

Great modding. The official SSD finally has a bottom! The angle - while it may be an accurate reflection of the original model - is perhaps too subtle to be noticeable in the final profile shot? Nonetheless, do you any plan to release a manual for the modifications that you have done - at least the bottom part? Since I have had such a distaste for the flat bottom, I had looked at Anio's SSD, but sourcing the necessary bricks has proved to difficult...

Pardon me for being persistent, but let's say if I used a 10 or 12 x whatever length plate for the wings of Anio's design (instead of the 8 x L plate), would that put too much pressure on the superstructure so that it is unsustainable? No doubt Anio must have gone through various thoughts and iterations to come up with the final design, but doesn't the 10030 - with a very similar superstructure - have a wider wing span? Never having designed a Lego model myself, I am just struggling to understand (and want to know) why a compromise needs to be made between the width and thickness. I think 10221 has even less excuses to make on this particular issue because it is on a flat surface - which means it is more stable and has less pressure exerted on its overall structure (or at least in my mind). On a separate note to Fallenangle... I am not yet qualified to view the comments that you have posted to my profile...

That still does not answer my question, though. Couldn't they be thick (due to the structural limitations), yet still have the wide wing span as the original model? Again, just curious.

Might I ask all you experts why Lego Super Star Destroyers - whether it is the official 10221 or MOCs - are not as wide as the original model? They all seem pretty "sharp and narrow" compared to the Executor's frontal view shown in ROTJ.

I guess I went a little too far by stating "as accurately as possible." It would have been more appropriate saying that UCS does a better job recreating Star Wars models compared to the regular, playable ones produced by Lego. Since Anio compared 10221 with the original SSD design, I took the liberty of doing so with Anio's MOC. Though Anio's is not perfect, the overall design is much better than 10221 as its shape and angles are remarkably consistent with those of the original SSD design.

I hope this is false information, but if true, then George Lucas' journey to the Dark Side - starting with that ugly new trilogy - is now complete. Why would he ever want to have a playable command bridge and minifigs to a UCS set whose sole purpose is to recreate Star Wars models as accurately as possible? On a different note, I think what Anio has been consistently trying to say is that Lego could have and should have done a far better job with 10221 - despite all the possible excuses, ranging from trying to improve some of the shortcomings of previous building techniques (e.g. stability issue due to the usage of magnets) to adhering to the need to implement a command bridge because someone thought it would be a brilliant idea. I can't agree more on this. The more I learn about 10221 and compare it against the original SSD, the more I see how poorly it is designed. ...which brings me to another question. How are Lego designers evaluated? Based on sales? Cost to build? How pleased George Lucas is?

I got the instruction from Anio and it is truly a masterpiece - both the design and the instruction itself. While Anio deserves much praise for his fantastic MOC, I would also hold him partially responsible for the rather disappointing official SSD. Realizing that they had virtually no chance of coming up with a better design, Lego was seduced by the Dark Side and came up with a design that had a flat bottom and a curious inclusion of the command bridge and minifigs. P.S. I do understand the logic behind limiting some forum features to newbies, but is it really that necessary? In my limited experience, I have never come across a forum that would block the PM feature until you posted enough...