gotoAndLego Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) On a model like this, the lack of an opening cockpit bothers me far less than the lack of landing gear because its not like I'm going to put anything in the cockpit. Had this set been priced reasonably, I doubt we'd be nitpicking quite as much as that extra $20 would cover the bricks needed to solve those issues. Edited August 23, 2010 by gotoAndLego Quote
Aeroeza Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Fallenangel... Just to be clear, when I use the term 'accuracy' I wasn't referring to unseen internal elements like the X-Wings S-Foil mechanism. So long as the mechanism works, doesn't detract from the external shape and doesn't cause the Lego to deform over time then I'm a happy chappie! In this the UCS X-Wing does well (although the wings can droop a little over many years if you don't give them a rest). True, the gap between the wings is missing but then the Lego model is an abstract of the original and obviously not an exact match in every detail (even Dave's fantastic design lacks 'the gap'). This applies to the shuttle also. If I'd wanted the Shuttle to be as accurate in its working features internally as the Lucasfilm original then I'd be insisting that the wing mechanism should automatically lower the landing gear as well. As a side note I'm aware of how the original S-Foil works as I taught myself how to 'hard model' in 3D by building a fairly accurate scale replica of an X-Wing right down to its paneling and rivets in Maya (i.e. as uncompromisingly as possible ) . I studied all the differences between the various studio models- engines, textures etc. but moved on to other things before I'd finished modelling the cockpit. I'm happy to share my research material if you'd like. I'm sure an X-Wing nut such as yourself would enjoy it- there's a lot)! I guess my overall observations in this thread can be summarized as follows... For me a UCS is designed to look the part but (so to speak) not necessarily act the part! They are for display and so tend to lack 'complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model'- and I did use the word 'tend' in my original post as well so implicitly I accept that exceptions may exist. As a general rule of thumb though UCS' don't have much in the way of play features yet alone complex ones (e.g. living space for minifigs in the Falcon and Shuttle, a clamping mechanism for the mini RBR inside the ISD hanger bay or even poseable legs on the ATST). As for what constitutes a 'play' or 'display' feature that's simply a personal line in the proverbial sand and could lose us even further into semantics if we aren't careful (7191's S-Foils inclusive)... Consequently I'm unfazed by a cockpit that doesn't open and the non-existing landing gear on 10215 as the Lego captures 'in abstract' the JSF quite nicely. I'm focused on 'external' accuracy and an exciting build- everything else be it called a display feature or play feature is simply an added bonus- so long as the model continues to look the part and doesn't have silly things like Leia's office desk installed just for the hell of it. This philosophy does seem to be the design brief of the UCS range and as such fair criticism of these sets would take their sculptural priorities into account. Your observation about the X-Wing's S-Foil mechanism is a perfect example of good criticism regarding a UCS (I'd just assumed it was the best solution given the medium but perhaps it isn't). So too was AFOL criticism over the elongated look of the UCS Y-Wing, the nose on the Snowspeeder and the over-sized wings on the Tie Interceptor (there are some great MODS out there which address these issues). But I'm not so convinced by the opinion that the JSF's non-working cockpit represents a 'failure' on the part of the Lego designer who created it- I just don't see how else it could have been done without sacrificing its very UCSness- the bricks don't exist to capture it accurately enough and make it open! That being said, your criticism of 7191 doesn't contradict what I enjoy about the set- although it does make me wonder if it might have been executed better. It would have been awesome to see the pivot system successfully realized but for me the external detailing and silhouette of the model fulfills its brief in a pretty spectacular fashion (and the existing S-Foil mechanism proved to be an extremely interesting build as well)! Had this set been priced reasonably, I doubt we'd be nitpicking quite as much as that extra $20 would cover the bricks needed to solve those issues. Yeah you're probably right! Quote
CommanderFox Posted September 3, 2010 Posted September 3, 2010 Lovely just lovely! Is it just me or is this a smaller UCS? Wish I could get one. Thanks Bonapartefor showing! CF Quote
kamigawa Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 It's a shame they didn't sell this set with an hyperspace ring. It would have been perfect. As of now, 670 pieces + 100 euros = no thanks, I'll wait till their price obviously drops, since people don't like to have their wallet raped without reason. Way to be greedy at TLG. I don't really understand what they were thinking. **Engages cloaking device till S@H's future discount sale** Now, I hope they won't horrendously overprice next year's huge UCS set they have talked about. Quote
spacepilot3000 Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 I'll get this set, regardless of how gritty the part/price ratio looks like.... I have many VIP Points to change from the new bakery and the Shuttle, and so I think it will be not so silly to buy this UCS. This "small" one is a good filler for one of the shelves of the big ships ;-) Unfortunately I never could get one of the 10026 Naboo fighter from 2001. This both sets would perfectly play together in my galaxy... Quote
cavegod Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 this set was auctioned off at the great western lego show on saturday, highest bid was £60 GBP! Quote
Skafte Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 It's LEGO. It's Star Wars. It's UCS. I'm getting one. Sure, it's a bit pricey, but I always find that UCS sets somehow are worth their price, no matter how good the ppp value is, how many details have been omitted, which figs are included, if the droid head is 4 wide when it should have been 3 wide and so on. I like it, and it's nice for you PT fans to get a proper UCS. (Maul - sculpture, Naboo Fighter - tiny, Grievous - well something else.) Quote
cavegod Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 (edited) a couple of pictures. Edited October 6, 2010 by cavegod Quote
XimenaPaulina Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 a couple of pictures. Nice! But why only the backside? Where's the rest of the pics? Teasing us ain't cha? Quote
cavegod Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Nice! But why only the backside? Where's the rest of the pics? Teasing us ain't cha? there the only 2 i have at the mo what you wanna see and i will get the owner to take some more. Quote
XimenaPaulina Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 there the only 2 i have at the mo what you wanna see and i will get the owner to take some more. Ah ok, I thought you own the set. Well, we just have to wait then for more pics, and hopefully a full review soon. Quote
prateek Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 What's wrong with the belly? I find it very nice Quote
cavegod Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 nothing now it looks nice very accurate the only problems with it are that the wings are to steeply angled and the droid head is to big. Quote
Skafte Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 So shiny! I think it looks pretty good without stickers as well! And the astromech head isnt that oversized, now is it? Quote
Masked Builder Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I like it! Though I probably won't get it. The snot work looks pretty good... So shiny! I think it looks pretty good without stickers as well! And the astromech head isnt that oversized, now is it? I sure don't think so! Quote
Big Cam Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I can't believe I kept passing this thread over. This looks great, and that giant astromech head is just ftw. $100 isn't bad, this may be my first ucs purchase ever. Quote
Walter Kovacs Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Sorry, but for me this is the worst UCS... Even worse than the Naboo N-1 Starfighter? I for one think it looks fantastic. But the price is a bit to steep for me to add it to my collection. If I see it on sale, I'll snap it up in a heartbeat, but until then it will have to stay a pipe dream (like so many other sets). Quote
prateek Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 How can anyone say that the droid head is big? It's perfectly sized! I'm pretty sure the designers had the scale of the droid in mind when making this. Quote
cavegod Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 How can anyone say that the droid head is big? It's perfectly sized! I'm pretty sure the designers had the scale of the droid in mind when making this. these are the pictures they used and the droid head is too big Quote
Legoman Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I've been avoiding the Star Wars forum a little bit recently, due to the too-many-thousands of posts every day to keep track of, But I this set! Nice to see that they've done a 'normal' PT UCS Definately getting it, I think they've done it very nicely Quote
Skafte Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Sorry, but for me this is the worst UCS... Have you built it? We'd sure like a review! Quote
XimenaPaulina Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Sorry, but for me this is the worst UCS... To each his own I guess. I'm a bit biased since I love jedi starfighters, so I might get this one if the circumstances (read: budget) permits. Regarding the astromech head, yeah it is a bit oversized, but it's not that bad and actually looks ok. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 How can anyone say that the droid head is big? It's perfectly sized! I'm pretty sure the designers had the scale of the droid in mind when making this. And there's the fact that a three-wide dome doesn't exist. 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.