Aeroeza Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 You sure like to argue - well me too ...perhaps we both should use our time building instead of arguing Although it is really nice to meet a guy who is as passionate about these "little things" as myself Wweeeel...My posts are intended as 'discussions' rather than 'arguments', but then I'm only saying that because I'm being argumentative! No matter, my 'geekometre' is satisfied! There will be no 'high noon' or dueling swords at dawn good sir. Words are gems best shared with the appreciative and I've enjoyed our banter! It's been a fine review sparking fun debate, food for thought and extrapolations upon a Lego theme! What more could you ask for on a quiet weekend? Quote
mortesv Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Wweeeel...My posts are intended as 'discussions' rather than 'arguments', but then I'm only saying that because I'm being argumentative! No matter, my 'geekometre' is satisfied! There will be no 'high noon' or dueling swords at dawn good sir. Words are gems best shared with the appreciative and I've enjoyed our banter! It's been a fine review sparking fun debate, food for thought and extrapolations upon a Lego theme! What more could you ask for on a quiet weekend? I'm satisfied as well EDIT: I can see how my statement in the line above may be "misinterpreted" - Thus I'll quickly divert the attention to a profile picture of my modded 10221 (including a slightly fatter underbelly). The picture was taken just before the model was destroyed by two white/blue lightsabers Edited January 28, 2012 by mortesv Quote
Fuppylodders Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Great review! You had me laughing at every turn. This ^^^^ Seconded Quote
Aeroeza Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) I'm satisfied as well ...The picture was taken just before the model was destroyed by two white/blue lightsabers Pesky Jedi scum! Can't they tell the difference between an effective UCS modification and a stock standard-off-the-rack Imperial death machine? O.K. I see you've gone for the lesser of two evils, err angles here. A big improvement over the infamous flat bottomed tug which is 10221! In truth this is the first UCS I've wanted to modify in a major way. I've made lots of small changes to the others- that's just cosmetic surgery- but what's needed here, if you'd like to keep 10221 a little more film literate, is major surgery!!! If I ever get the time (and pieces) I'd like to try raising the centre line of its A-frame by one brick closer to the superstructure- so as its in line with the mid way positioned engines (for anyone interested have a look at my image posted earlier to see what I mean by this line-up). I feel this is much more akin to the studio model and gets the top hull angle looking more subtle. Then I'd try and figure a way for a studs down bottom hull to match the same (but inverted) angle used on the top. Rogue Bantha's trick might be the way to do it (thanks again for that link Mortesv). The bottom plate of the bridge would consequently get in the way of the lower hull (this new angled hull would cut across it) so this whole feature needs to go (good riddance). Once the A-frame is right the width of the model becomes slightly broader, again more accurate but in turn this would create problems getting the internal structure to line up nicely and connect properly with the newly positioned hulls. That would probably be the trickiest bit to solve... That's when I need to buy apartments next to Cavegod and Anio, stalk them on a regular basis and save myself alot of time... Again, great review Ray! You can't beat a witty approach to what could be a somewhat dry subject! Sorry if I'm off topic... Edited January 28, 2012 by Aeroeza Quote
Anio Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) I have already stated that I agree the angles are off on the 10221. As far as I can tell by looking at all the close up shot of the studio model the bottom angle is more shallow than the top - but it seems we both argue based on discrediting each other evidence - so we will probably never agree completely (perhaps we should become presidential campaign advisors) Actually, there is no room for interpretation here. The ship is what it is. You just have to look at the pics to know the answer. The red line is the structure. The green line represent the distance between the top/bottom and the red middle line. On the real ship, the 2 green lines do have a very similar lenght. => This implies that the distances top/structure and bottom/structure are similar => And this implies that the angles on the top and the bottom are very similar too. In that matter, you can also see that 10221 is aboslutely inaccurate. Edited January 28, 2012 by Anio Quote
Rogue Angel Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Very nice review! I have to admit that it is a beautiful looking set, but I only buy the minifig-scale sets, so I'll have to pass on this one. I agree that the minifigs are an attempt to lure in collectors, but I wish if they were going to have new figs, they would have put in all the bounty hunters. This would have made sense for this set, and then we'd have Zuckuss and 4-LOM instead of getting hinted at them being included in sets every year and then never seeing them. Quote
mortesv Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Actually, there is no room for interpretation here. The ship is what it is. You just have to look at the pics to know the answer. The red line is the structure. The green line represent the distance between the top/bottom and the red middle line. On the real ship, the 2 green lines do have a very similar lenght. => This implies that the distances top/structure and bottom/structure are similar => And this implies that the angles on the top and the bottom are very similar too. In that matter, you can also see that 10221 is aboslutely inaccurate. Hi Anio, as I have stated a few times now, I know that the angles of the 10221 are not right. Regarding your comparison, my guess is that the top ship is a pic of the real model - if you compare that with the drawing in the middle (which you are using). It is evident that the drawing has a deeper bottom than the top pic (compare the 'middle' top pic with the drawing below). Thus as far as I can see the bottom angle is a tad more shallow than the top - but as I told the dear Aeroeza, I don't think we will ever completely agree Also, I'm a big fan of your moc And I understand and agree with a lot of your criticism of the 10221 - in many ways it seems unfinished. However, I don't completely follow your criticism of the inaccuracies of the model, since your own, excellent creation also has taken a less strict and more creative approach (and is indeed cooler looking than a plain 10221). So, besides being unfinished, I can understand why a Lego designer sometimes chooses to be creative Sometimes we may not like what a designer chooses - but then we can modify or build our own as we see fit - as we both have done If I ever get the time (and pieces) I'd like to try raising the centre line of its A-frame by one brick closer to the superstructure- so as its in line with the mid way positioned engines. Good idea. However if you look at my pic (with the lightsabers!) the mid engines and the centre line is pretty much in alignment. My Pic is taken at the exact level of the centre line. It is obvious that the official Lego "profile" pic is taken at an slightly elevated angle, thus further accentuating the "top angle issue". Edited January 28, 2012 by mortesv Quote
Aeroeza Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Alrighty! I'm having fun with angles! I'm also wanting to check myself and avoid making horrible assumptions when it comes to the lower hull of the SSD so please bare with me folks! It's obviously next to impossible to be certain about anything but if ever I'm gonna MOD this 10221 monster then I'd like to be as sure as my meager expertise allows... Just to clarify the image below consists of several profiles of the SSD, one being a stitched together, vaguely side on angle of the original model. This first profile was constructed from photos downloaded from Curtis Saxton's Technical Commentaries. I've used the cityscape profile as reference points for aligning the separate images and as you can see the photographer did a good job for about two thirds of the model. Despite its visual limitations when sitting side-by-side with the second profile (snatched from the spectacular work of Jeff Russell) they support each other rather well. Differences in the hull heights in the two profiles could be attributed to lens distortion phenomena inherent in any photo and the fact that the second profile is a blueprint a.k.a. an orthographic image lacking depth characteristics. Russell's work I suspect was based on Anthony Tully's and Martyn Griffiths' drafting. In addition he probably also would have had access to model shots like these broadsides. The final profile is of course the promotional photo (basically side on) of 10221 in all its controversial glory. Anio has kindly highlighted some key discussion points in red and green. The most illustrative appears to be the red line on Russell's profile verses 10221s. Clearly the centreline of the Lego model is too low given the position of the middle engines and the fact that the forward engines are obstructed from view. However, Mortesv has correctly surmised that this image was "taken at an elevated angle - further accentuating the 'top angle issue'". Inspection of the physical model shows the A-Frame or centre line is actually level with its middle engine housing despite what the photo indicates. After building 10221 myself and studying it's characteristics I feel the set's designer prioritized the Executor's needle-like profile but was hampered by having to also install a minifig bridge. This caused a few problems for the accuracy sticklers... The A-Frame is actually well positioned, however the minifig bridge has added height to the model (about a brick's worth). The floor of it is level with the plate located just under the A-Frame so it takes up a lot of room (it's approx 14 studs wide & six studs high)! This has increased the angle of the top hull plating making it much steeper than the reference material suggests it should be. It also means the volume of the bridge's 'real estate' gets in the way of an angled lower hull which simultaneously; a. mirrors the upper hull b. maintains the needle-like profile. In order to keep the profile slender the solution was to make the bottom flat. Sure you could mirror the present upper hull angle on the underside and keep the compartment but it would be a pretty fat and 'unUCS-like' profile! ...and this is why many UCS enthusiasts get annoyed with play features- they compromise builds!!! It's been suggested that George Lucas himself asked for the bridge as a late modification- mind you everyone thinks he shot JFK from the grassy knoll so who knows. Poor guy always gets a bad wrap... The final design does add strength to the model- it sure as hell is extremely sturdy, and everything connects beautifully. There are no magnet issues or bendy noses (like with 10030)! Arguably, if there had been no bridge and an angled lower hull was added in keeping with a low profile and two support struts on the frame, then the nose would never have bent over time anyway . Anio's SSD MOC suggests this although of course these two models are beasts running in different races and direct comparisons could be misleading... Mortesv has put forward the following solution for a more accurate build... "the (preliminary) conclusion would be that further modification does not necessarily entail moving the A frame up - but instead lowering the entire city super structure." This would certainly create a more pleasing angle for the upper hull. I'd also suggest removing the bridge compartment altogether to create the opportunity for designing a studs down lower hull more in keeping with the much valued slim profile... This brings me to my final musings- does the angle on the top of the hull match the bottom?? I genuinely would like to be sure! I've had a quiet weekend so couldn't help but be geeky and industrious when it comes to the problem so here we go... 1. The green circles represent my starting point where I've worked out the camera persons 'angle-of-attack' so-to-speak. 2. Using these reference points and the lines of the hull I've determined where the nose of the model is relative to the camera as well as its central line of axis. 3. Again using the green circles and the clear lines of the hull fairings around the mid-engine housings I've drawn two yellow lines which happily cross exactly with the green central axis. This gives us the upper angle of the hull which can be measured using the (almost) horizontal green line which crosses through the two green circles of the 'wingtips' (the ships horizontal or X-axis relative to the camera). I've lost my protractor so if someone would be so kind... 4.I've then flipped the upper hull's yellow line along the image's horizontal plane (see arrow) and changed its colour to red for clarity. Finally I've lowered it slightly along the vertical until... Bingo!!! Note: the X-axis of the SSD here (green line) is a tiny bit different to the photos horizontal alignment. My image editing software used the images horizontal plane instead and I didn't worry about adjusting for this small inaccuracy. As you can see the photographer did a pretty good job of standing up straight! ... and still for a Mk I eyeball it lines up pretty nicely! I'd say we're dealing with the same angle. Edited January 29, 2012 by Aeroeza Quote
obiwan1011 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 It's been suggested that George Lucas himself asked for the bridge as a late modification- mind you everyone thinks he shot JFK from the grassy knoll so who knows. Poor guy always gets a bad wrap... 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? Quote
Fallenangel Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) 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? Where are you getting this rubbish? 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. Little purpose in stating the obvious, especially since Anio's been saying this for over a year at this point. Edited January 29, 2012 by Fallenangel Quote
Raytracer Posted January 29, 2012 Author Posted January 29, 2012 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 think everyone's making too much of a fuss, honestly. The set isn't called UCS Super Star Destroyer in actuality. It's called Super Star Destroyer. Yeah, it looks like a UCS set, but I think they knew putting it out the door that it wasn't. I like it as an 'interpretation' of the SSD and if you aren't too picky, it looks like a typical lego-ised version. I might consider modding mine to look more realistic at some point. Quote
obiwan1011 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Where are you getting this rubbish? 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. Edited January 29, 2012 by obiwan1011 Quote
Fallenangel Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I think everyone's making too much of a fuss, honestly. The set isn't called UCS Super Star Destroyer in actuality. It's called Super Star Destroyer. Yeah, it looks like a UCS set, but I think they knew putting it out the door that it wasn't. I like it as an 'interpretation' of the SSD and if you aren't too picky, it looks like a typical lego-ised version. I might consider modding mine to look more realistic at some point. This well precedes your fine review, Raytracer. We're simply reiterating the conclusions of past debates to those who were not present at the time (as is so often the case). Our amiable and enthusiastic UCS fanatic mortesv committed an honest error in enlightening another member (with the best possible intentions), so those who knew a thing or two about studio models and MOCing (in this case Anio and Aeroeza, though I often join in) felt it would be helpful to share their knowledge. The question of what exactly UCS denotes is another one of those past debates (one probably older than this site, in fact), so I won’t touch that statement, though I will say that as a FOL you are most justified in your satisfaction with this set. We accuracy sticklers are in the minority, and as all this is a harmless bit of lighthearted nitpicking, we only ask that you let us have our fun. Speaking of which, it’s wonderful that Aeroeza has provided us with this ‘geeky and industrious’ construction illustrating that the angles at the top and bottom of the Executor are in fact congruent. In fact... 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. Nah. 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. Though that isn't the original. Anio himself has admitted that there exist certain significant inconsistencies between his creation and the studio model due to the limitations of the medium, personal preference, and other factors (in terms of height, for example, the belly of 10221 is actually closer to what’s seen on the source material than that of Anio’s Executor) , so I’m not quite sure what you mean by “remarkably consistent”, but in any case, interesting study. I wonder how Lasse’s would fare against the original... Edited January 29, 2012 by Fallenangel Quote
Aeroeza Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) 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? Cavegod offered this interesting piece of information a few months back... 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. Presumably it's a first hand account... I think everyone's making too much of a fuss, honestly. The set isn't called UCS Super Star Destroyer in actuality. It's called Super Star Destroyer. Yeah, it looks like a UCS set, but I think they knew putting it out the door that it wasn't. I like it as an 'interpretation' of the SSD and if you aren't too picky, it looks like a typical lego-ised version. I might consider modding mine to look more realistic at some point. Certainly it is an 'interpretation'- fair call! But I would be hard pressed to call it anything other than a UCS i.e. a display set. As Cavegod mentions in the same thread (after I suggested it was a 'hybrid')... 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! EDIT: I got blogged!!! Edited January 29, 2012 by Aeroeza Quote
Raytracer Posted January 29, 2012 Author Posted January 29, 2012 This well precedes your fine review, Raytracer. We're simply reiterating the conclusions of past debates to those who were not present at the time (as is so often the case). Our amiable and enthusiastic UCS fanatic mortesv committed an honest error in enlightening another member (with the best possible intentions), so those who knew a thing or two about studio models and MOCing (in this case Anio and Aeroeza, though I often join in) felt it would be helpful to share their knowledge. Ah! I thought little old me couldn't have stirred up quite that much controversy! Carry on then, men. Quote
mortesv Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Alrighty! I'm having fun with angles! I'm also wanting to check myself and avoid making horrible assumptions when it comes to the lower hull of the SSD so please bare with me folks! It's obviously next to impossible to be certain about anything but if ever I'm gonna MOD this 10221 monster then I'd like to be as sure as my meager expertise allows... /quote] You sir, indeed are powerful! This is very convincing evidence and I admire the sheer work you have put into it I must say that you with this demonstration have won me over - the top and bottom angles looks to be about the same So I'd suggest if one wanted to create a moc with 100% exact angles, engine placment etc. a slightly wider (and more correct) frame is needed to fit everything in between those two narrow angles. So dear Aeroeza, champion of correctness, I challenge you to make a mod/moc with the sole purpose of being as precise as possible! I'm looking forward to your solution of the how the top wing side plated gets a little wider down the side of the ship - that is a detail that is easy to overlook and the angle is so subbtle it'll be a real challenge doing in Legos - I dare you! On a further note, I'm always modding my UCSs and so far the 10221 is presenting the greatest challenge AND the most fun. I'm continuing to work on it (as I do with the others mods as well) - somewhere going for precision other places being more creative. The medium do have its limitations - which is what makes it challenging! Besides contemplating top/bottom angles (assisted by the magnificent Aeroeza) I have begun lengthening the "tail" of the ship a little and adding a little "support" structure to the center engines. I'll update my mod thread when I have something to show And perhaps one day - possibly with the help of you guys I'll finally get rid of George's bridge In the end I feel a bit sorry for the Ray who won this great prize, wrote a great, inspired and funny review - only for us to make a long discussion on all the ways his newfound baby "is out of order". I'm sorry Ray - but welcome to eurobricks - we are all really nice people actually - just VERY passionate PS @ Fallenangel: I tried following your example by linking helpful photos - but in the future we must be more careful - we newer know if Aerozea is waiting in the shadows with a protractor Edited January 29, 2012 by mortesv Quote
Fallenangel Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry Ray - but welcome to eurobricks - we are all really nice people actually - just VERY passionate I only wish we VERY passionate people weren't in the absolute minority. The average response is probably something like what you see here: FINNALY!This is really cool! Terribly uninformed - though it only appears that way to us! PS @ Fallenangel: I tried following your example by linking helpful photos - but in the future we must be more careful - we newer know if Aerozea is waiting in the shadows with a protractor Aeroeza effectively beat me at my own game before I even started (being a 'visual effects guy' by profession and having attempted a 'definitive' X-wing in Maya), so I'm afraid I've since lost that battle. We tend to agree on matters of accuracy. Edited January 29, 2012 by Fallenangel Quote
mortesv Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Aeroeza effectively beat me at my own game before I even started (being a 'visual effects guy' by profession and having attempted a 'definitive' X-wing in Maya), so I'm afraid I've since lost that battle. We tend to agree on matters of accuracy. Funny that you link THAT old discussion - by the way I have evidence that the SSD is MUCH longer than 19km - in the shot where Chewie flies the Lambda next to the bridge of the SSD... What I suggest, is that we gang up on him. I'll steal his protractor while you wave pictures of the Executor in conflicting scale comparisons. My the idea is that all the contradictory material combined with the lack of any measuring device will cause his synapses to overload and finally his brain to implode! If only we could harness the energy of the brain implosion while driving at 88 Mph in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation... hmm 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. As stated above the angle of the official 10221 profile shot is off - making it look even worse - thus not helping in this comparison Quote
Raytracer Posted January 29, 2012 Author Posted January 29, 2012 I'm sorry Ray - but welcome to eurobricks - we are all really nice people actually - just VERY passionate If it makes you feel better, all I've managed to get out of this discussion is a challenge - I'm thinking some serious mods to my 10221 might be in order in the next week.... I too do the passionate thing, I just tend to do it in other arenas (Here, for example)... but you guys have sparked my inner fire. I just hope that my Lego isn't too flammable. Quote
Fallenangel Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 So you like racers? What a coincidence - our subforum moderator actually happens to be a big Formula One fan. If it makes you feel better, all I've managed to get out of this discussion is a challenge - I'm thinking some serious mods to my 10221 might be in order in the next week.... That's the spirit! Quote
mortesv Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 If it makes you feel better, all I've managed to get out of this discussion is a challenge - I'm thinking some serious mods to my 10221 might be in order in the next week.... I too do the passionate thing, I just tend to do it in other arenas (Here, for example)... but you guys have sparked my inner fire. I just hope that my Lego isn't too flammable. Good to hear that And very nice moc Just make sure KimT doesn't see that - he is into that "car thing" as well Quote
mortesv Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I miss this thread already! My life seem empty without it Well, now that it has been established (by the magnificent Aeroeza) that this angle: Is about the same as this angle (and that they both look very shallow ): Can anyone help me deciding what the angle(s) really are? It would be very helpful in my tinkering Quote
Fallenangel Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 And while we’re at it, I’d also like to know when and where these pictures were taken. I can see Red Two, the Devastator, the 5’ Falcon, and the Radiant VII in the background… @mortesv: If we could get some more numbers (height, widths, etc.) the angles shouldn’t be too hard to find with some simple trig. Quote
mortesv Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Yeah, the trig should be easy, but don't have any measurements - other than the rough length at 12 feet - which is only helpfull If I Can use it to calculate the width :) Oh and we also need to know the height of the gap between top and bottom plates - to subtract from the height when doing the trig The pics are from 2009 Edited January 30, 2012 by mortesv Quote
Fallenangel Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 The length of the studio model is 282cm (or 277cm, according to the Technical Commentaries). That's all I've got, though there are profile shots floating around that one could probably use to estimate other dimensions. 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.