Faefrost Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 As a person who's moderately interested in Star Wars, this reminds me a lot of the the Sandcrawlers place, or lack of a place, in my collection. I have the X Wing and R2D2 and they make great display models. The color and shape of the Sandcrawler and the awkward design and huge proportions of the TIE fighter make it something I probably won't want to buy and display. With that said, I can appreciate the work the designers put into it and can understand why a dedicated SW collector would want it. Just not for me. I would recommend that you don't write off teh Sandcrawler and experience it if your budget allows. It really is a fascinating build, with far more interesting angles and connections that I ever expected. And it actually is a fairly impressive display piece that catches the eye, and yet is pretty conservative of shelf space. I like this new Tie. I just don't love it. Maybe once I see the interior it will grow on me. I am already starting to become more fond of the shaping on the ball. I do find it weird and fascinating that they put the stand in the only place or facing that the studio model did NOT have a mounting hardpoint. For those not aware most studio models are constructed in such a way that at the very center or balance point of the model there is a steel joint. Basically a few pieces of welded pipe that can face in up to 6 directions that looks like a childs "jack" of a caltrop. Many of what we think of greeblies hide the access hatches where they stick a rod in to mount the model for filming. The tie has a 5 point armature with hard points facing forward, aft and up (so on the studio model the canopy, that rear "engine" detail and the top hatch) plus left and right (those detail hexagons in the center of the wings). If I remember correctly the X-Wing only had three hardpoints. One on the bottom, pretty much where the UCS stand is, One straight to the rear that whole hex shaped rear detail panel popped off. And the Astromech Droid was the top port. Once you learn what they look like it is very very easy to spot them in a number of non Star Wars ILM designs, such as Classic Battlestar Galactica ships such as the Viper and Raider. But coming back to the Tie Fighter I can't help but nerd chuckle at the stand being the one spot that they did not have a mounting point. Yeah! I;m a nerd. Quote
Aeroeza Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 ...But coming back to the Tie Fighter I can't help but nerd chuckle at the stand being the one spot that they did not have a mounting point. Yeah! I;m a nerd. Ha! You can stay! :D Quote
rollermonkey Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Nine UCS info plaque tiles? Wow, that's going to be big. My first impression was how good it looks and that it's enormous. I think it's @56 studs tall? The price does seem a bit high for the piece count but I can't really fault the design. Then I read through the thread... What a bunch of negative nancies. LEGO Star Wars fans really are impossible to please. Quote
Aeroeza Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Then I read through the thread... What a bunch of negative nancies. LEGO Star Wars fans really are impossible to please. Ha! You too can stay!! ;D Quote
atlas Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Nine UCS info plaque tiles? Wow, that's going to be big. What do you mean here? STAMPs?!?!?!? Sorry just confused Quote
Arigomi Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 What do you mean here? STAMPs?!?!?!? Sorry just confused Each wing uses 4 of the large tiles typically used for the fact plaque. Quote
atlas Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Oh yeah, I noticed that too. Was just confused. Yes, the inclusion of those must have bumped the price a bit but I'm glad to have more. Quote
draganb Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Not trying to toot my own horn, but that canopy looks awful and way to small for the wings. Here is a TIE interceptor, but a TIE nonetheless, thats in scale, and with a far better canopy (and a similar brick count) Edited February 16, 2015 by draganb Quote
rollermonkey Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Yeah, I couldn't think of a better name for them... I guess 16x8 black tile is better... But with so many, this thing could make a nice parts pack for MOCing up a Death Star Hangar. :) Quote
andibandit Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) hmmm, that cockpit.... It has way to many edges for my taste, but i'll get this set regardless. Edited February 16, 2015 by andibandit Quote
Aeroeza Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Not trying to toot my own horn, but that canopy looks awful and way to small for the wings. Here is a TIE interceptor, but a TIE nonetheless, thats in scale, and with a far better canopy (and a similar brick count) Excellent horn, great model and I love the cockpit window especially! I'm a little worried that the panels are too heavy for the wing pylons though... :) I'd tend to disagree with your statement that the UCS Tie is significantly out of proportion. The margin of error is small given it is Lego. I'd also like to encourage posters to explain why the UCS Tie's cockpit is awful, or horrible etc. Obviously such opinions have a subjective element but if a MOCer had built this UCS Tie and asked for honest feedback what would the community say? If the official UCS Tie was my model I would hope others would criticise it within context and not apply a completely different build philosophy to it or ignore the set of criteria I'm trying to address. Obviously this build 'solution' addresses different criteria to what's come before... Likewise looking at your solution (and Gareths, and Anios etc.) would it be reasonable for me to say they just look really bad because they are more like a low poly count 3D model from an early 90's computer game? Or is that actually the source of your model's charm? My point is that this thread would be far more enlightening if peoples adverbs were thoughtfully backed up by a constructive narrative. I guess I'd just like to know the 'why' and not just read unsupported statements. (Hmmm... Sorry guys, maybe my rant wasn't done. I think I've scratched this itch enough now, time for a 'Bex' and a good lie down...) Edited February 16, 2015 by Aeroeza Quote
Off the wall Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 My point is that this thread would be far more enlightening if peoples adverbs were thoughtfully backed up by a constructive narrative Well, in general, comments made on the Internet and 'thoughtfully backed' are mutually exclusive. And, when I comment, it's usually just an off the cuff remark based on my subjective feelings. For example, when I say the last two offerings in the modular building series 'suck', it's based on my subjective evaluation. Besides, this is a hobby. And, it's the Internet. I don't feel confined by the rules of evidence that I had to live by in the courtroom. Life is good on the Internet. Not many rules, not a lot of thought, just a gut feeling. Quote
draganb Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Excellent horn, great model and I love the cockpit window especially! I'm a little worried that the panels are too heavy for the wing pylons though... :) I'd tend to disagree with your statement that the UCS Tie is significantly out of proportion. The margin of error is small given it is Lego. I'd also like to encourage posters to explain why the UCS Tie's cockpit is awful, or horrible etc. Obviously such opinions have a subjective element but if a MOCer had built this UCS Tie and asked for honest feedback what would the community say? If the official UCS Tie was my model I would hope others would criticise it within context and not apply a completely different build philosophy to it or ignore the set of criteria I'm trying to address. Obviously this build 'solution' addresses different criteria to what's come before... Likewise looking at your solution (and Gareths, and Anios etc.) would it be reasonable for me to say they just look really bad because they are more like a low poly count 3D model from an early 90's computer game? Or is that actually the source of your model's charm? My point is that this thread would be far more enlightening if peoples adverbs were thoughtfully backed up by a constructive narrative. I guess I'd just like to know the 'why' and not just read unsupported statements. (Hmmm... Sorry guys, maybe my rant wasn't done. I think I've scratched this itch enough now, time for a 'Bex' and a good lie down...) I completely agree with you. People tend to get caught up in the rant and the hate builds up. I will try to constructively explain my points. Scale: While not "significantly out of proportion", the canopy does run small, and the cockpit window looks just ridiculous. Also, the details on the canopy, pylons and the pylon - canopy connection look nothing like the "real" thing. The overall canopy design approach of stacking slopes is what I would expect of a child if given lego bricks and tasked to build a ball-like structure. Maybe if the model came out in 1999, that would be acceptable, but in the era of recent UCS models, it just looks half-arsed. The technic stand is another low point of the model. It looks like real construction scaffolding. I imagine the craft would rest on it while being bult. It's far from elegant and intrudes in the overall look of the finished model. Quote
ummester Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) I would recommend that you don't write off teh Sandcrawler and experience it if your budget allows. It really is a fascinating build, with far more interesting angles and connections that I ever expected. And it actually is a fairly impressive display piece that catches the eye, and yet is pretty conservative of shelf space. It was a fascinating build - the way it was designed impressed me more than any TLG build in a long time. The way the side panels work is very clever and gave me heaps of design ideas.I did cover the exterior in tiles and greebles, to make it look better on display - but the build itself is so clever I don't want to mess with it :D. Re this Tie Fighter - meh, I dunno - I have a fleet of Ties - fighter, advanced and interceptor, sourced many parts to get the design consistent across the 3 so that they look impressive on display as a group - a differently built big Tie fighter would be so out of place. I don't think it's going to be popular. I think the designer looked bored in the video. It's probably just a cash in because there are Tie fighters in the trailer for the new flick. All this means they probably won't make many and it will be one of the most expensive Star Wars sets in 10 years time Edited February 16, 2015 by ummester Quote
Off the wall Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 It was a fascinating build - the way it was designed impressed me more than any TLG build in a long time. The way the side panels work is very clever and gave me heaps of design ideas.I did cover the exterior in tiles and greebles, to make it look better on display - but the build itself is so clever I don't want to mess with it :D. Re this Tie Fighter - meh, I dunno - I have a fleet of Ties - fighter, advanced and interceptor, sourced many parts to get the design consistent across the 3 so that they look impressive on display as a group - a differently built big Tie fighter would be so out of place. I don't think it's going to be popular. I think the designer looked bored in the video. It's probably just a cash in because there are Tie fighters in the trailer for the new flick. All this means they probably won't make many and it will be one of the most expensive Star Wars sets in 10 years time I'm retired. So, budget is no problem in the late fall of my life. With that said, I'm a sucker for large piece count sets despite what I might say. I'll probably buy a couple of the new TIE and the Sandcrawler. Of course, when I actually experience a buidling process involving over 300 pieces of the same small part, I may regret it (Sandcrawler). The TIE will probably be offered up to shut up one of my wife's friends children/grand children when they visit during a Stanley Cup play off game. 'Here, kid, take this, go upstairs with your Aunt and her friend and leave me alone.' Quote
Chills Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I like it, but I don't LOVE it. The proportions are spot on, the design looks like it'll be an interesting build, but the cockpit is... meh. I don't mind the slopes all over the place, but it doesn't look spherical enough, especially when viewed from above. The front looks like it got smashed in, a bit. I'll likely buy it, but not right away. I really would have rather have a TIE bomber. We got a B-Wing, which had less screen time than the bomber. Quote
sparkart Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 From far away, and under the right lighting this looks pretty nice. Impressively sized, but when you get up close and look at the details, it seems a bit too blocky (for me). The TIE fighter is a ball intersected by sharply angular, almost architectural, pylon supports. There's a visual difference in those structures that are seemingly lost in this build, which look like a ball just blended into the pylons. There's not enough of a textural difference to discern where the ball is, and where the pylons intersect it, it's just all blended together in the same-looking blockiness. Overall, I like the model, good proportions, and it's a great size, and much better than what's been released before, IMHO. I really like the solution to locking the solar panels in. Quote
StoutFiles Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I'm glad this set was finally made, it's rather silly that it's taken this long to get the UCS version of the Empire's most iconic fighter. I don't mind the inaccuracy of the cockpit, it looks like a fun build and screams LEGO. I can look past it. If I decide I need a rounder shape, it's an easy enough fix. I do think at $200 it's incredibly overpriced though. Compared to the Slave I, it's nether as impressive nor has much going on in terms of features at the same price point. I also think one minifig is a disaster, they could have at least thrown in a Stormtrooper and a mechanic. I'll have to decide whether I want this at full price or to wait for an inevitable sale like the B-wing had. Now TLG, give me what I really want. UCS AT-AT and/or Falcon remake! Quote
gotoAndLego Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) See... Now THAT is a Tie id be happy to get without a second thought. The ball design is just that, and imitates e 'real' tie much better. I don't get... Really dont get why TLG cant do something like that? Much better looking, much nicer design easier the eyes. TLG could learn from that. When the UCS Imperial Shuttle was announced, Eurobricks ground to a halt under all the accusations of the designers stealing an MOC's design. So really Lego can't win. I think its a shame Lego couldn't re-release the cockpit piece from the earlier UCS tie-fighters. Really would be nice for people who display them side by side. Edited February 16, 2015 by gotoAndLego Quote
Zzz Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 It is really a great model, the design is mostly sub-excellent but the size of it is just enormous. It would make a great display piece but I don't know if this wins against the Slave I, and for both I don't have the budget this year. Especially with Hoth on the horizon. Quote
Schneeds Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I think it looks great, my only problem with it is the size. You can build a fantastic looking, minifig scale ship for all the Star Wars fighters for around a thousand pieces, give or take a few hundred. Look at Brickwright's Y-wing, Eric W's Vader's tie, Jerac's A-wing, the various snowspeeder mocs... If you've collected all the other UCS fighters, I think it's a great addition to those, but if you perfer minifig scale there's better moc options out there. I agree the price is on the high side. Still great looking though. Quote
Legoman123 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) It's a fantastic set but I just don't think I can afford to get it with everything else that's coming out this year. Edited February 17, 2015 by Legoman123 Quote
ummester Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I'm retired. So, budget is no problem in the late fall of my life. With that said, I'm a sucker for large piece count sets despite what I might say. I'll probably buy a couple of the new TIE and the Sandcrawler. Of course, when I actually experience a buidling process involving over 300 pieces of the same small part, I may regret it (Sandcrawler). The TIE will probably be offered up to shut up one of my wife's friends children/grand children when they visit during a Stanley Cup play off game. 'Here, kid, take this, go upstairs with your Aunt and her friend and leave me alone.' You could get them a minifg scale Tie advanced, Tie Interceptor and Tie fighter for the same price, which they'd probably have more fun with. Quote
stackables Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I passed on the X-Wing and will pass on this too. Both sets should have been much cheaper. If lego ever decides to allow exclusives to be discounted again, I may change my mind. Quote
Dapper-D2 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I for one will be happy to add this model to my collection. I admit I had the same reaction as most of you when I first saw it. The stacked cockpit ball looked odd, the wings seem too bulky along the outer edges, and the price seemed to steep. That said it has been growing on me. I'm liking the stacked approach more and more and while I am still not fond of the bulk around the outer edges of the wings, I don' t see how it could have been done differently to accomplish the details in that area. Also the price is in line with the other UCS ships recently released and there are some rather large plates in those wings. Minifigs are not a priority for me and I'm glad they only included one. The tie pilot is all you need. It's a display model. I don't like the trend of TLG making UCS models with play features. Classic Lego goodness here IMO. Edited February 17, 2015 by Dapper-D2 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.