UCS Sets

[Fallenangel]

Pretty sure it was just created for the tie fighter game but what about a UCS tie defender??

Walter Kovacs made a pretty good UCS TIE/d a few years back, as did cavegod.

[Anio]

As for how one would be executed, Anio said that there just isn't an interesting way to build a UCS LAAT/i. I would have to disagree with that claim - I for one would welcome a LAAT/i along the lines of psiaki's with a predominantly SNOT build.

Like my Slave 1, the model you show just does not have what I call the "TLG's touch".

It is way too blocky to be an official set.

Moreover, there is not significiant improvement on that model, compared to 7676, regarding the details and finitions.

[StoutFiles]

This is certainly true from a cultural viewpoint, but for this discussion - concerning the viability of marketing meritable display models to dedicated FOLs and possibly children - I feel it is necessary to stretch or otherwise modify our standards of what is memorable or 'iconic' to accommodate the standards of the target audience of the Prequels. Remember that these kids also went gaga over 'N Sync and Digimon.

Popular is not iconic. Will 'N Sync be as revered as The Beatles in 30 years? I highly doubt it. Digimon is laughable, although one could make a case for Pokemon. For something to be iconic it has to be revered both in its time and be enough of a game changer for people to reflect upon it, rather than just another thing in a sea of things.

If we use the word iconic to define something that some people like and will remember personally, then the word has lost all meaning and debating it is pointless. By that standard everything is iconic.

[Darth Nihilus]

I, for one, would like more UCS with minifigs. Like a UCS CTT with 4 pilots and a few passengers. That wouldn't compromise the 'spirit' of the UCS line. It would just make the set a hot seller because of the minifigs. If they put exclusive minifigs in there, it would make sales even higher. The times are changing, as more and more adults get back into LEGO. Don't you think that they would want accurate ships from their childhood combined with the endless playability of figs? I know I would. And I'm a PT fan, even though I was 15 when ROTS came out. I just can't compare the two trilogies. The OT has that classic feel, though it does have its own faults. I admit, when I first watched ANH, I was underwhelmed. But I have come to love all three movies in the OT, despite the obvious bad CGI. The PT had better special effects, but TPM was a little...stiff. Then AOTC came out, and I was amazed. I was 12 by then, and it was just what I had wanted. Armies, lots of fighting, and monsters. The clone army was my favorite part of the entire movie, as I imagine it was for may other children at that time. But I had not been introduced to LEGO yet, and only had a few action figures. I was introduced to LEGO in 2005, but at that time I had no idea they had a SW line. But now I am a huge fan of the SW line, and though I may not always have the funds to buy a $400 UCS set, I still love them.

[Anio]

Don't you think that they would want accurate ships from their childhood combined with the endless playability of figs?

Who would enjoy less accurate sets ?

But I gonna be objective : the mini bridge with figs in 10221, whatever if people think it is cute or do enjoy minifigs, it is not accurate at all.

And so, it sucks.

But after all, it is very understandable. It seems it is an idea of the guys of George Lucas.

These guys know as much in Lego than I know in ballet. -_-'

Edited October 5, 2011 by Anio

[Aanchir]

Popular is not iconic. Will 'N Sync be as revered as The Beatles in 30 years? I highly doubt it. Digimon is laughable, although one could make a case for Pokemon. For something to be iconic it has to be revered both in its time and be enough of a game changer for people to reflect upon it, rather than just another thing in a sea of things.

If we use the word iconic to define something that some people like and will remember personally, then the word has lost all meaning and debating it is pointless. By that standard everything is iconic.

That may be true to an extent, but I still think your definition of "iconic" is far too narrow. Something being "the start of something new" doesn't make it iconic, since many things that we consider iconic are themselves derivative. An ironic case in point is visible in your own post-- you consider Pokemon more iconic than Digimon, even though technically Digimon came first. It can be argued that Digimon fed off of Pokemon's success, but that's a knife that cuts both ways-- chances are the idea of monster training stories and games was just really popular concepts at the time, similar to how Doom Patrol and X-Men emerged at around the same time with very similar concepts. Whether one could have inspired the other is irrelevant, because neither was inherently more "derivative" than the other-- they were just working from extremely similar ideas.

Another example is the LEGO Minifigure. I'm sure many people consider the LEGO Minifigure iconic, but when they say this they're not referring to the original ones from 1975 with one-piece legs, no arms, and no faces. They're referring to a minifigure in its current form, with flexible arms, legs, and hands. Some might even see a minifigure with the modern-day "eye sparkle" and call it iconic, just because it is immediately recognizable and extremely distinctive.

Or MP3 players. The iPod was far from the first, but it is still extremely iconic, and if someone is asked to draw an MP3 player an iPod would probably be one of the first things they think of.

By the loosest definition, all something needs to be iconic is to be a cultural icon, and that's something that doesn't necessitate it being the progenitor of something greater than itself. It's a really loose definition, but it has to be remembered that "iconic" isn't some single-tier designation that only the best of the best fits into. Things can be more iconic than one another, and I think it could probably be argued that certain images and concepts from the OT will always be more iconic than their PT counterparts. All I expect in the years to come is for the gap to narrow a bit.

A lot of PT vehicles won't ever be as iconic as the X-Wing Starfighter, but they might one day be iconic enough to be immortalized in a UCS set. After all, the TIE Interceptor wasn't nearly as iconic as the X-Wing starfighter or even some things that have never appeared as UCS sets, like the original TIE fighter. Being iconic enough for a UCS set doesn't mean PT vehicles will magically become super-iconic as time goes on, either. But there are pretty much no Star Wars vehicles as iconic as the X-Wing Starfighter, Millennium Falcon, Death Star, and Star Destroyer. Unless we'd rather abandon UCS sets entirely or start a "remake cycle" like people are lamenting in minifig-scale sets already, then the bar will eventually have to be lowered.

[Darth Nihilus]

Who would enjoy less accurate sets ?

But I gonna be objective : the mini bridge with figs in 10221, whatever if people think it is cute or do enjoy minifigs, it is not accurate at all.

And so, it sucks.

These guys know as much in Lego than I know in ballet. -_-'

I didn't mean how accurate the bridge is, it's in the body for God's sake! I just meant that some sets, like the CTT, could be great with figs, if they did it right. But larger vehicles, like the SSD or the ISD or the Venator don't work with figs. If they did, say, a UCS Venator and put Wullf Yularen and Anakin in it with a bridge in the center, I would hate it because it isn't accurate. But if they did a UCS AT-AT with a troop bay and an accurate cockpit ( able to fit 2 pilots and 2 commanders), then I would like it because it's accurate. When there is an accurate solution to pu figs in, I will accept it with open arms. But the 10221 is inaccurate, and thus I'm not going to spend the $400 just for the figs and a tiny bridge. If it was an Executor Bridge playset, I might consider it. But it isn't. And it never is going to be. I am just going to live with the fact that we can dream, but we are never going to get exactly what we want. Just a year ago, I thought that figs in a UCS would be impossible. But now I have been proved wrong. This is a prime example of how the times are changing. Now, perhaps my dream of a UCS CTT could come true. It won't be as awesome as I think that it should be, but at least there's the chance that it could have figs and an interior.

[DBZkame]

Who would enjoy less accurate sets ?

But I gonna be objective : the mini bridge with figs in 10221, whatever if people think it is cute or do enjoy minifigs, it is not accurate at all.

And so, it sucks.

These guys know as much in Lego than I know in ballet. -_-'

What are you talking about? If people wanted great accuracy I don't think they would have gone with lego sets in the first place. I personnally think that the bridge is a great addition as it has never been done before, and I have been looking forward to it. Even if it isn't accurate, Lego just wanted to make the set appeal to a larger crowd, as in people like me who like to collect ultimate collector sets, but want to display them with minifigures. However, I do agree that it is inaccurate and shouldn't appeal all too well for people who want accuracy.

[apps]

Here is an idea throw the minifigs away and glue the bridge section on permenantly, problem solved stop complaining!!

[Aeroeza]

Here is an idea throw the minifigs away and glue the bridge section on permenantly, problem solved stop complaining!!

Play nice Apps

The whole point of this thread is to define what members want in a UCS i.e. whether it should be a traditional build or something more akin to a playset, hybrid product, OT or PT and broadly speaking what members find 'iconic' in the Star Wars universe and whether Lego are targeting their probable 'changing' UCS market group appropriately.

Complaints about a UCS' product identity or lack thereof are therefore welcome...

it was explained in detail at GWLS why the 10221 had an interior, it was not legos choice it was ordered from George Lucas, Lego was just going to have the minifigs stud next to the sticker.

Now that is a real eye opener!

What are you talking about? If people wanted great accuracy I don't think they would have gone with lego sets in the first place. I personnally think that the bridge is a great addition as it has never been done before, and I have been looking forward to it. Even if it isn't accurate, Lego just wanted to make the set appeal to a larger crowd, as in people like me who like to collect ultimate collector sets, but want to display them with minifigures. However, I do agree that it is inaccurate and shouldn't appeal all too well for people who want accuracy.

Remember that up until recently a UCS tended to present 'accuracy' and 'detail' (in particular) as their selling points. I think its fair to say a majority of UCS collectors in the past craved as much accuracy as possible with these sets given the necessary 'abstraction' a Lego model imposes.

The question (among several others in the thread) is whether this 'hybrid' set (10221) currently appeals to most UCS collectors or potential collectors (i.e. they would buy it in a flash if they could) and if people would like this 'hybrid concept' to continue...

Edited October 6, 2011 by Aeroeza

[cavegod]

10221 is not a hybrid set, it's not a play set, it's a display piece nothing more the minifigs where added as a bonus and Mr L stuck his 2p worth in, apparently the designer was not happy at all about having to add a bridge! still i won't be buying it anyway far too expensive for what it is, and besides i need to save up for whats coming!

Edited October 6, 2011 by cavegod

[Anio]

10221 is not a hybrid set, it's not a play set, it's a display piece nothing more the minifigs where added as a bonus and Mr L stuck his 2p worth in, apparently the designer was not happy at all about having to add a bridge! still i won't be buying it anyway far too expensive for what it is, and besides i need to save up for whats coming!

I'm not yet convinced that the bridge and the minifig are an actual bonus...

Well, I'm glad to read that if Lego had designed the model on its own, the designer would never have included bridge+minifig.

[Aeroeza]

10221 is not a hybrid set, it's not a play set, it's a display piece nothing more the minifigs where added as a bonus and Mr L stuck his 2p worth in, apparently the designer was not happy at all about having to add a bridge! still i won't be buying it anyway far too expensive for what it is, and besides i need to save up for whats coming!

Fair enough. It certainly is a display piece by anyone's definition. I guess I called it a 'hybrid' because I'm still coming to terms with its flat bottom. It makes me wonder whether this design choice was necessary for a stable, strong consumer product (i.e. to reduce the stress on the framework and base plating due to its length) which I'm happy to accept or if it came about because the depth of the bridge interfered with the 'ideal' of an angled underside combined with a needle-like profile. In which case one of these three needs to go i.e. bridge, angled underside or slim profile (and Mr L eliminated one of these options). The resulting set's accuracy would then appear 'compromised', for the sake of a play feature, and therefore could be considered a hybrid between what most consider a UCS and others a playset.

I wouldn't mind the bridge if its inclusion didn't impact on the build...

...but if it has... Grrr.

I withdraw the term then if its confusing- its just that 10221 confuses me...

-I'm of a tender and sensitive predisposition afterall...

Edit: Still, whatever we call 10221 (display, hybrid or 'the one which broke the mold') it certainly changed the rules of the UCS game...

Edited October 6, 2011 by Aeroeza

[Lobot]

I’m definitely in the ‘OT’ and ‘accurate’ camp on this question! In my opinion UCS sets should be i) impressive, ii) challenging to build and iii) as accurate as possible.

Lego have a massive range of other sets, so I’m surprised that they would consider diluting a winning formula with the addition of unnecessary ‘play’ features....like a bridge, but the ‘GL’ factor does explain a lot! I can’t imagine that many parents could afford to buy this set for their kids....so the primary market must be solvent adults! Personally I would have been much happier to pay £25 less for the set & to not have the bridge or minifigures.

I hope that Lego will eventually make a new UCS AT-AT; I have a 10178 and it’s a cracking design but not the prettiest of sets. Alternatively I’m sure that a new Slave 1 or a re-release of the Snowspeeder would do well. I’m not keen on the PT, but if they did a nice (3,000+ piece) Venator I would be tempted.

[Brickdoctor]

One also does have to consider that while the UCS sets might be declining in accuracy, it could just be that MOCs are increasing in accuracy, hence why the MOCers all think the set is ugly and all the collectors think it's beautiful.

When the UCS AT-ST first came out, I thought it looked awesome. Having built my own AT-ST in minifig-scale, I now think the set is absolutely ugly.

[Fallenangel]

I, for one, would like more UCS with minifigs. Like a UCS CTT with 4 pilots and a few passengers. That wouldn't compromise the 'spirit' of the UCS line. It would just make the set a hot seller because of the minifigs. If they put exclusive minifigs in there, it would make sales even higher. The times are changing, as more and more adults get back into LEGO. Don't you think that they would want accurate ships from their childhood combined with the endless playability of figs?

I think Aeroeza has already spoken for me here:

You've made some fair points but I feel your position maybe a bit of a slippery slope or as they say 'the thin edge of the wedge'...

The UCS range to date has been aimed at AFOL who enjoy model making, so their purpose is not simply 'play' but form, aesthetics, detail and a level of accuracy achieved within the confines and choices made available with bricks supplied by TLC. Its sculpture pure and simple! If you throw in little play scenes then the purpose of the set changes, becoming more of a toy than a rendition of the studio model meant only for display. An analogy might be going to your favorite up market restaurant only to find they're serving fast food (Hey, it looked great on the outside but gave me heart disease anyway)!

No more sushi for you, only KFC!!!

On a less emotive level its just a waste of bricks. If a UCS is meant only to be a sculptural piece then utilizing bricks for any other purpose is compromising detail elsewhere on the build and adding to the cost unnecessarily.

So keep playability, interiors and figures for system scale vehicles and playsets or get rid of the UCS label altogether. Don't mash the two together unnecessarily....

To expand on this point, minifigures redirect play toward people rather than toward building. With "minifigure-scale" MOCs, MOCers are forced to compromise aspects of a build, whether it be size, stability, or technique, to accommodate a minifigure. 10212 with its opening cabin is a perfect example of this. Take minifigures out of the equation and more Star Wars MOCs may have been along the lines of this - indepedent of scale with the MOCer's choices in construction determined more by the original subject than anything else - as opposed to this, in which parts usage and depiction of certain areas are largely depedent on the size and shape of the minifigure. If we continue to tolerate minifigures in UCS sets, we risk The LEGO Group bringing down the higher standard that UCS sets have enjoyed.

Furthermore, regarding 10221:

Children likely won't be enjoying this feature either, this ship is too big for kids to be running around the room with and too expensive for any parent to justify buying as a one room playset.

@Brickdoctor: If anything, I think UCS sets have been getting more accurate. The thing is that they may be becoming more toy-like.

Only six iconic OT designs come to mind (A-Wing, B-Wing, Tie Bomber, AT-AT, Slave 1 and Landspeeder- give or take some minor vehicles of course*) which could yet be released as UCS sets...

The thing about a UCS X-34 is that the The LEGO Group would release it in tan.

Edited October 7, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Aeroeza]

I grew up watching and loving the original trilogy. I was an early 90s kid. I was a fan of Star Wars before the Phantom Menace came out. As such, I loved the X-wing, Millenium Falcon, and the lot. Everyone I knew enjoyed the PT, but still recognized that it was worse than the OT, and we all preferred the OT ships. The people you are referring to, these Gen Y kids, are like me, but older. You might not realize this, but the only people who grew up on the PT are kids who are still in high school. They dont exactly have expendable income...

True!

So Let's be clear on who the 'Gen Y kids' are! Born between 1982 and 2001 (approximately) Also known as the 'Millennials' (which let's face it sounds cooler) of whom the earliest are about to turn 30, so the idea of a shifting generational focus, a mixing of OT and PT UCS sets is reasonable. You're right though, its probably slightly too early to have a dramatic impact as HJR suggests...

...I'd wait for a few more years, as the kids who got the 7163 RGS back in 2002, would probably want the UCS version somewhere in 2015 - 2017...

...and of course those who grew up on PT have yet to flex their financial weight which does suggest 10215's timing was 'odd'.

I think the PT sets were not bad, it's just that the timing of them was lousy. Had LEGO introduced the UCS Jedi Starfighter at the time of release of the movie, I'm sure it would have sold better than introducing it last year.

Really good point.

Now, I think if you were to give the prequel trilogy a couple more decades to "ferment", so to speak, there would be fewer people who remembered it all that differently from the original trilogy, just as today there are a lot fewer people who impose a strict partition between Episode 4 and its sequels than there were in the 80s. It will take more than kids who grew up on the prequels reaching adulthood for that feeling of "new and different" to go away.

Now, this doesn't mean I don't think there's a market for UCS ships from the prequels. But it might be years before there's as strong a market for them as there is for ships from the original trilogy.

...which hammers it home.

As for the awesome 'iconic Star Wars design' discussion- who'd have thought ABBA could have made such a cultural return in the mid 90s after disco was so universally panned and sent to the dust-bin of musical history only a few years before?

A 'cultural icon' can only be defined retrospectively, being slowly absorbed over time or torched into the psychi by a sudden traumatic or dramatic event. It has to be a generational phenomenon which evolves and shifts in understanding as we age with it before becoming associated and defined within a broader period in history.

...I know there are model kit enthusiasts out there who know the weathering, detailing, and kitbashed parts of the Falcon or the X-wing on a level that only a true fan would. That kind of passion isn’t possible with a cold digital model. You can talk about the Nu-class shuttle and the Pelta frigate all you want but in the end they don’t feel as realistic as the Original Trilogy starships do...

...which is an assumption you should consider more closely given a whole new generation of digital modellers and special effects people would question your statement about 'passion'...

The shift in the art of modelling for film & TV, from practical to digital effects, means there are clearly identifiable 'digital' frontiers being breached from time-to-time which industry practitioners associate with particular production pipelines and achievements. Designs associated with these new achievements are loved by visual effects people who are by their very nature fanatical fans of the genre and industry they work in. A vehicle such as the Earthforce Starfury from Babylon 5 is a perfect example- it's an iconic digital design from a groundbreaking visual effects sci-fi series (and also loved by NASA for its practical space worthiness)- the first TV series using 3D effects so comprehensively and effectively as a production technique. So there's plenty of passion for 'cold digital models' out there!

The 'old' modelers craft is also being augmented by new technology and virtual skill-sets are beginning to merge with more traditional methods. Model kit builders are evolving in kind and this new breed will have much more versatility in pursuing their craft and what is/will be iconic to them will also broaden and change as a consequence...

Emerging 3D printing technology available for home computers is shifting virtual model making into the 'warm fuzzy' real world. 3D modellers are now able to 'scratch' build their own designs in addition to any preexisting ones. You don't need 'Revel' kits anymore. So any 3D hobbyist can go nuts building their Nu-class Shuttle or Starfury in 3D Max or Maya, exporting it as an OBJ file and printing it off piece by piece so as it can then be snapped or glued together in whatever manner they designed it to be and paint away to their heart's content. Now that's ownership!

As for the impact of 3D printing on Lego over the next 10 years, well here's a prediction...

End of TLG.

At least in its present incarnation so enjoyed by AFOL for the last 50 years... and remember they couldn't copywrite 'the brick'!

So get ready to 'print' your own Lego bricks dear MOCers in the privacy of your own home using a plastic or resin of your choice in any shade of colour you need using easily downloadable un-patentable designs you can get from your friends or family alike!!!

In fact print any plastic household, consumer or industrial implement you want! Don't know how to design one and it isn't available online? Talk to your local 3D modeller for a quote! Want a Lego model of a SSD without a flat bottom? Talk to Anio, he'll be making a business on the side selling his instructions online while refining a new UCS Slave 1 using, printing and selling his own brick designs...

...and a future UCS product from TLC may consist of a lone downloadable instruction book...

3D Printer. Iconic? Will be.

...If we continue to tolerate minifigures in UCS sets, we risk The LEGO Group bringing down the higher standard that UCS sets have enjoyed...

...If anything, I think UCS sets have been getting more accurate. The thing is that they may be becoming more toy-like.

Fair call about accuracy! 10212 was amazing (the cockpit is a small compromise toward 'toy-like' but really not a biggie) and 10215 was pretty darn good (even if some of you insist on its astromech having a big head). Which brings us back to what Stoutfiles had to say regarding 10221 and its toy feature and this is really where the standard may have suffered...

Children likely won't be enjoying this feature either, this ship is too big for kids to be running around the room with and too expensive for any parent to justify buying as a one room playset.

...but if Mr. GL is responsible for the bridge then perhaps it will simply be a one off? It's nice to know he's an AFOL, BTW I remember reading somewhere his favorite Star Wars toy of 2007 was 10179- shame he changed his tune on the UCS concept though...

Edited October 7, 2011 by Aeroeza

[apps]

Play nice Apps

The whole point of this thread is to define what members want in a UCS i.e. whether it should be a traditional build or something more akin to a playset, hybrid product, OT or PT and broadly speaking what members find 'iconic' in the Star Wars universe and whether Lego are targeting their probable 'changing' UCS market group appropriately.

Complaints about a UCS' product identity or lack thereof are therefore welcome...

Now that is a real eye opener!

Remember that up until recently a UCS tended to present 'accuracy' and 'detail' (in particular) as their selling points. I think its fair to say a majority of UCS collectors in the past craved as much accuracy as possible with these sets given the necessary 'abstraction' a Lego model imposes.

The question (among several others in the thread) is whether this 'hybrid' set (10221) currently appeals to most UCS collectors or potential collectors (i.e. they would buy it in a flash if they could) and if people would like this 'hybrid concept' to continue...

Yeah I know I don't mean to be rude but if people don't like it they can change it after all it is lego isn't it, personaly I don't care about minifigs in ucs sets. The set looks great but people seem to complain no matter what the TLG bring out so I do stand by my position on if u don't like it change it if you do like it then enjoy it as it is. nuff said

[Aeroeza]

Yeah I know I don't mean to be rude but if people don't like it they can change it after all it is lego isn't it, personaly I don't care about minifigs in ucs sets. The set looks great but people seem to complain no matter what the TLG bring out so I do stand by my position on if u don't like it change it if you do like it then enjoy it as it is. nuff said

[Brickdoctor]

Yeah I know I don't mean to be rude but if people don't like it they can change it after all it is lego isn't it, personaly I don't care about minifigs in ucs sets. The set looks great but people seem to complain no matter what the TLG bring out so I do stand by my position on if u don't like it change it if you do like it then enjoy it as it is. nuff said

We know we can fix it with an MOC. We just want to see TLG get it right so we don't have to.

[apps]

We know we can fix it with an MOC. We just want to see TLG get it right so we don't have to.

All right I'll shut up now lol

[Anio]

Talk to Anio, he'll be making a business on the side selling his instructions online

What a nice idea...

Be patient... ;)

With "minifigure-scale" MOCs, MOCers are forced to compromise aspects of a build, whether it be size, stability, or technique, to accommodate a minifigure.

As a UCS MOCer who has a very good understanding of how a model can be must be built, I'm pretty sure that, on every UCS TLG did, the minifigs are not considered by the designer during the design process.

The designer make the model, regarding the existing Lego parts, and the features that must be included.

For example, the size of 10212 was defined by the necessity of a mechanism for the wings, and the thickness of the liftarms.

The Lego parts and the features tell you what size you have to choose.

After that, and only after that, if you can include some minifigs and if they fit well in the model, you do it.

That was exactly how I proceed when I designed my model (Sebulba's podracer has a minifig, and it's fine, but my TIE, AT-TE and Juggernaut don't, and it's fine too).

I'm nearly sure Lego Designer proceed that way for most of UCS models (because of a guy from Georges Lucas, 10221 is of course a FAIL an exception).

Edited October 7, 2011 by Anio

[Concept]

As a UCS MOCer who has a very good understanding of how a model can be must be built, I'm pretty sure that, on every UCS TLG did, the minifigs are not considered by the designer during the design process.

The designer make the model, regarding the existing Lego parts, and the features that must be included.

For example, the size of 10212 was defined by the necessity of a mechanism for the wings, and the thickness of the liftarms.

The Lego parts and the features tell you what size you have to choose.

After that, and only after that, if you can include some minifigs and if they fit well in the model, you do it.

That was exactly how I proceed when I designed my model (Sebulba's podracer has a minifig, and it's fine, but my TIE, AT-TE and Juggernaut don't, and it's fine too).

I'm nearly sure Lego Designer proceed that way for most of UCS models (because of a guy from Georges Lucas, 10221 is of course a FAIL an exception).

Would you think that 10179 may be an exception to this? Cockpit fits 4 minifigs nicely and the cockpit size seems in proportion to the rest of the model.

[Aeroeza]

...The Lego parts and the features tell you what size you have to choose.

Such as the 3x12 wedge plates for a 1.24 meter SSD!

[Anio]

Would you think that 10179 may be an exception to this? Cockpit fits 4 minifigs nicely and the cockpit size seems in proportion to the rest of the model.

Not sure about this model...

The building process of this model is different. When it was started, it was for fun and not supposed to become a real Lego set that people can buy.

Given that the model turned out well, Jens thought that it could become a very nice Lego set (and he was right :) ).