 | | | | | | |
| |
|
What is the possibility of TLG coming out with the most popular starship in SW?
Pretty good if you ask me.
First glance at the interchangible design of the wings used in the LEGO®
Snowspeeder, and X-Wing shows that these could be used on the front pointing
nacels on the Faclon. Even to scale.
In the webpage, http://starwars.com/vehicles/millennium_falcon/ one can see the
falcon's nacels in the front - they are distinguished by the right shape and
scale as the new wings designed by TLG.
If you take a built LEGO® Snowspeeder, look down at it from the top (top view)
and pull the wings up so they are level...Voíla!! it looks like the front end
of a Millenium Falcon (minus the snowspeeder cockpit in-between)!!! If you
finish off the rest of the rounded body, it would turn out to be a good sized
ship in minifig scale (10" - 11" in Diameter). The Star Wars Smithsonian site
labels the Falcon the be approx. 27 meters in length - Which is close to how
big it would be as a model in minifig scale.
I'm assuming this size of model would be in the ~500 peice range, and be
approx. USD$ 50.00 MSRP.
Sencond glance - Take a look at the new and upcoming Rock Raider subtheme - see
the large cockpit features in models 4940,4959 4970 & 4980? If the top portion
was grey, it would look really close to the cockpit on the falcon shown here:
http://starwars.com/smithsonian/part3/falcon/
What do you think?
Is it possible?
Will it be a Shop-at-Home special item, not shown anywhere but in the S@H
catalogs in early to mid-summer?
Will our dream come true?
-jeremy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
BTW:
Here's a little Futuristic Film Noir Trivia for all of you:
Did you know that one of the Millenium Faclon model props was use for the top
portion of the Police Headquarters in Blade Runner? It's quite distinguishable
- take a good look at the opening Spinner flyby when Deckard is on approach
back to the station.
:-)
-jeremy
(proud owner of one of the original Blade Runner Blaster props used in the
film)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Probability of the TLG coming out with the Millennium Falcon = 0.00001% chance
Probability of the TLG coming out with the Millennium Falcon (in dream land) =
99.87% [1]
In other words, in all probability, you are dreaming!
As previously noted, the MF should have a cockpit suitable for two abreast
seating. That drives the rounded cockpit to about 8 studs in diameter,
minimum. Scaling the rest of the ship from this starting point puts it at
about 20" wide (diamter of circle section) and about 27" long.
Yes, the new wing pieces are pretty close to the right angle.
I am not holding my breath for TLG to release a MF. Instead, I'm building my
own. As of right now, it weighs in at 11 pounds (5 kg), when is the last time
the TLG has ever made a model weigh that much? Granted a TLG would be more
efficient with piece use and have many specialized pieces, but would still
require 5000-8000 pieces (at least)
But you know what, I sure hope I'm wrong.
Ben
[1] 0.03% of people do not dream, estimated
In lugnet.starwars, Jeremy Rear writes:
> What is the possibility of TLG coming out with the most popular starship in • SW?
>
> Pretty good if you ask me.
<snip>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.starwars, benfleskes@msn.com (Ben Fleskes) writes:
> [...]
> In other words, in all probability, you are dreaming!
Grr.
> [...]
> But you know what, I sure hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, I'll say. :)
OK, what about -- what if they just released the instructions to build an MF
-- like they did for the 6861 Blacktron Super Vehicle? They could make a
96-page booklet that you could send in for if you bought all the right sets
and sent in the proofs-of-purchase.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I agree with Ben. Being a pessimist with the way TLG has been, I think
we're lucky enough to get any sets with a decent selection of usable
parts. The only way I could see a MF coming out is if they Town
Juniorize it so much, you end up with 10 parts, with bumps for the
mini-figs to sit on. :(
Scott Sanburn
Ben Fleskes wrote:
>
> Probability of the TLG coming out with the Millennium Falcon = 0.00001% chance
>
> Probability of the TLG coming out with the Millennium Falcon (in dream land) =
> 99.87% [1]
>
> In other words, in all probability, you are dreaming!
>
> As previously noted, the MF should have a cockpit suitable for two abreast
> seating. That drives the rounded cockpit to about 8 studs in diameter,
> minimum. Scaling the rest of the ship from this starting point puts it at
> about 20" wide (diamter of circle section) and about 27" long.
>
> Yes, the new wing pieces are pretty close to the right angle.
>
> I am not holding my breath for TLG to release a MF. Instead, I'm building my
> own. As of right now, it weighs in at 11 pounds (5 kg), when is the last time
> the TLG has ever made a model weigh that much? Granted a TLG would be more
> efficient with piece use and have many specialized pieces, but would still
> require 5000-8000 pieces (at least)
>
> But you know what, I sure hope I'm wrong.
>
> Ben
>
> [1] 0.03% of people do not dream, estimated
>
> In lugnet.starwars, Jeremy Rear writes:
> > What is the possibility of TLG coming out with the most popular starship in • SW?
> >
> > Pretty good if you ask me.
>
>
> <snip>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I think if the choice for TLG was to scale the cockpit down by putting one
minifig behind another or to skip the MF altogether and miss out on a sure
winner, they would chose the former. Are their _any_ Lego space sets (or town
for that matter) which accomodate two minifigs sitting side by side? And if
they made a cockpit to accomodate two minifigs across that was a little out of
proportion to the rest of the ship, who would complain?
The necessary elements for a decent MF would be similar to those in the Kenner
MF: cockpit seating for at least two, a chess table area accomodating several
minifigs, a gunner's seat, and probably a lowering exit ramp.
And if they had to JRize the MF to price it in the $80-$100 range, do you
really think they wouldn't? They have obviously been willing to go out of
their way to make new parts for the SW sets, and the Mindstorms R2D2 seems to
have JRization on a whole new scale with its huge dome on top. I'd welcome
some JRization if it was needed to strengthen the insides of the ship, or to
model the rounded walls. I'd prefer to see the top and bottoms modeled with
regular slopes, which considering the amount of slopes used in the X-wing
wouldn't suprise me.
They will come out with a MF, and it will have Han and Chewie with it. And of
course it will be expensive, but who cares? It is _the_ SW ship, and no SW
line would be complete without it. The only other option I could see is a
Model Team MF which would be more realistic but less minifig friendly.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:09:15 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> ... They have obviously been willing to go out of
> their way to make new parts for the SW sets,
... more so for the EP1 sets ...
> ...and the Mindstorms R2D2 seems to
> have JRization on a whole new scale with its huge dome on top.
That's not Jr., that's a good old-fashioned specialized piece. What *else*
are you going to do with that thing, except use it as R2D2's face?
> ... It is _the_ SW ship, and no SW
> line would be complete without it.
I thought the X-Wing was *the* SW ship.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <371b913e.28601859@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:09:15 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > ... They have obviously been willing to go out of
> > their way to make new parts for the SW sets,
>
> ... more so for the EP1 sets ...
Note that I'm not complaining about the special pieces. Many of them are
great additions to the Lego building arsenal, and they seem to be designed
with multiple uses in mind. In the EP1 sets we see the laser cannons used in
two different non-laser cannon ways.
> > ...and the Mindstorms R2D2 seems to
> > have JRization on a whole new scale with its huge dome on top.
>
> That's not Jr., that's a good old-fashioned specialized piece. What *else*
> are you going to do with that thing, except use it as R2D2's face?
Put two of them together and play soccer? Perhaps Jr'ization is not the
correct term. But they've made a pretty big hunk of ABS just to make R2 look
more "realistic". I could see them doing the same for a MF.
> > ... It is _the_ SW ship, and no SW
> > line would be complete without it.
>
> I thought the X-Wing was *the* SW ship.
Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
flying around in their cool ships!
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
Death Star.
-John Van
Steve Bliss wrote in message <371c7e1a.2609035@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> > that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> > central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
>
> That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
> flying around in their cool ships!
>
> Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> Death Star.
:)
Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
already too derivative).
What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
*much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and • I
> > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > Death Star.
>
> :)
>
> Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> already too derivative).
>
> What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
I whole heartedly agree. How come the Ewoks got there own movie but no other
cooler aliens did?
>
> Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Would you guys stop picking on the Ewoks :) Wicket was my second
favorite character. They got 1/2 of a movie because George Lucas
wanted to give them 1/2 the movie, duh :)
Ryan
"Build or build not. There is no try." - Lego Master Yoda
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/20/99, at 8:44 PM, Ryan Carr wrote:
> In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> > <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and • I
> > > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > > Death Star.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> > already too derivative).
> >
> > What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> > *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> > have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> > from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> > imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> > monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> > after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> > and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> > And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
>
> I whole heartedly agree. How come the Ewoks got there own movie but no other
> cooler aliens did?
> >
> > Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:00:13 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > Death Star.
>
> :)
>
> Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> already too derivative).
>
> What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
Then everybody could have sat around celebrating and eating fried Ewok.
A universally known delicacy.
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were just to
cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a whole,
the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
-- Terry K --
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> Death Star.
>
> -John Van
>
> Steve Bliss wrote in message <371c7e1a.2609035@lugnet.com>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> > <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> > > that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> > > central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
> >
> > That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
> > flying around in their cool ships!
> >
> > Steve
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
Jesse
__________________________________________________________________
Jesse The Jolly Jingoist
Looking for answers?
Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! http://www.multicon.de/fun/legofaq.html
Power-search in Deja News! http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
>
> So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
A very valid question. One can only hope.
But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:03:45 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
> >
> > So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> > loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
>
> A very valid question. One can only hope.
> But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
> handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
Very true. Interesting that the second trailer barely mentions Anakin (I
hate when movies change advertising, and make themselves look like an
entirely different movie!).
> The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
> fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
(er, -plated) one is a god.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:03:45 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > > > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > > > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > > > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > > > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
> > >
> > > So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> > > loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
> >
> > A very valid question. One can only hope.
> > But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
> > handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
>
> Very true. Interesting that the second trailer barely mentions Anakin (I
> hate when movies change advertising, and make themselves look like an
> entirely different movie!).
I hate when the movie trailers are better than the movie. Or when they give
away what should be a pivotal plot point in the movie. I *HATE* knowing what
is going to happen from seeing the stupid preview.
(go ahead and insert Titanic sinking jokes here) <g>
> > The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
> > fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
>
> Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> (er, -plated) one is a god.
Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:24 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> > Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> > plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> > (er, -plated) one is a god.
>
> Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
Forgot to mention the most insipid part of it: Chewie being fooled by a
hunk of dead meat on a line. And the entire crew being hoist by a snare.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:41:22 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:24 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> > > Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> > > plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> > > (er, -plated) one is a god.
> >
> > Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
>
> Forgot to mention the most insipid part of it: Chewie being fooled by a
> hunk of dead meat on a line. And the entire crew being hoist by a snare.
Ouch! Ouch! OK! I give up! Uncle!
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:09:15 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> ... Are their _any_ Lego space sets (or town
> for that matter) which accomodate two minifigs sitting side by side?
The Landspeeder. All of the cars/trucks in the Adventurers line.
(And I'm wondering how well that one-piece passenger compartment from the
Adventurers would work as the base for an AT-AT 'head')
> And if
> they made a cockpit to accomodate two minifigs across that was a little out of
> proportion to the rest of the ship, who would complain?
Depends on how badly out of proportion it was. The cockpit tube is either
1/8 or 1/10 the total width of the ship. Anything more than 1/5 is going
to look odd. At 1/4 or higher, it will look very strange.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <371ca48f.12455493@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:09:15 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > ... Are their _any_ Lego space sets (or town
> > for that matter) which accomodate two minifigs sitting side by side?
>
> The Landspeeder. All of the cars/trucks in the Adventurers line.
D'oh! I'm not really familiar with the Adventurer's line, but I do have the
landspeeder :)
> (And I'm wondering how well that one-piece passenger compartment from the
> Adventurers would work as the base for an AT-AT 'head')
>
> > And if
> > they made a cockpit to accomodate two minifigs across that was a little out • of
> > proportion to the rest of the ship, who would complain?
>
> Depends on how badly out of proportion it was. The cockpit tube is either
> 1/8 or 1/10 the total width of the ship. Anything more than 1/5 is going
> to look odd. At 1/4 or higher, it will look very strange.
So at 7 studs minimum across for a two-seater cockpit X 5 = 35 studs across.
I threw together a quick mock-up of what such a beast might look like. I
created a 15 X 15 quarter hull and a 7 stud wide cockpit piece. The cockpit
definitely stands out as too wide compared to pics of the MF, but as a Lego
model might work. LMKWYT.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John VanZwieten wrote in message ...
> So at 7 studs minimum across for a two-seater cockpit X 5 = 35 studs • across.
> I threw together a quick mock-up of what such a beast might look like. I
> created a 15 X 15 quarter hull and a 7 stud wide cockpit piece. The • cockpit
> definitely stands out as too wide compared to pics of the MF, but as a Lego
> model might work. LMKWYT.
Well, the Millenium Falcon model on my page is built exactly to minifig
scale. The math alone almost killed me when I built it (measure length of
random part from book; convert to length in lego; measure lego; add to
model). For the record, when I did my calculations, I based a minifig on
being 6 feet tall. Anyway, some of the more important dimensions:
Length: 24" (77 studs)
Width: 17 1/4" (56 studs)
Cockpit width: 2 1/2" (8 studs)
And of course pictures are at
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9639/swlego.html
:Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.starwars, Derek Schin writes:
> Well, the Millenium Falcon model on my page is built exactly to minifig
> scale. • <snip>
> And of course pictures are at
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9639/swlego.html
That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table. Chewie is an interesting
improvisation too.
Okay, now for the hard part: how many pieces is it? :)
-Tom McD.
when replying add syrup to the spamcake.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McDonald wrote in message ...
> Okay, now for the hard part: how many pieces is it? :)
I really wish I knew. Since I never plan on taking it apart, I'll probably
never know, either. As for modeling it in LDraw...I don't think so. We're
certainly talking about thousands of pieces here.
:Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
for the cockpit of a falcon. how about using the cockpit pieces from the
aquanaut subs.
they look close and they fit with the octogonal walls.
or TLG could make something colse to those that is more like the real MF.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
> round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table.
would the 4 x 4 round with holes from the y-wing engines work?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I used an old 4x4 turntable (without the 4x4 bottom plate) with a grid of blue
and white 1x1 tiles on top. So far it's the closest, I've come up with.
Ben
In lugnet.starwars, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
> > round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table.
> would the 4 x 4 round with holes from the y-wing engines work?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.starwars, Ben Fleskes writes:
> I used an old 4x4 turntable (without the 4x4 bottom plate) with a grid of blue
> and white 1x1 tiles on top. So far it's the closest, I've come up with.
That's an interesting idea Ben... it almost sounds like they could eat chinese
food on the Falcon now that the entire table rotates! :)
> In lugnet.starwars, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
> > > round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table.
> > would the 4 x 4 round with holes from the y-wing engines work?
I thought about that last night when I was taking apart my Y-wing. It could
work, but anything 1 brick high is kinda thick for a table in minifig scale.
Yet, it might be better to use a 4x4 disc because I don't recall that any of
those old 4x4 plateless turntables were made in grey (though I could be wrong).
I've only seen them in white, black and red.
-Tom McD.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:41:22 GMT, "jonathan wilson" <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
wrote:
> > That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
> > round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table.
> would the 4 x 4 round with holes from the y-wing engines work?
More likely, the round disk with cross-axle hole from CyberSlam (and
others).
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:41:22 GMT, "jonathan wilson" <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
> > > round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table.
> > would the 4 x 4 round with holes from the y-wing engines work?
>
> More likely, the round disk with cross-axle hole from CyberSlam (and
> others).
What about using one of those Throwbot disc things. Are they Lego compatable
or just useless?
Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Utterly, completely useless! No Lego compatibility. Does anyone want
some?
Scott Sanburn
Jason Fabisch wrote:
>
> In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:41:22 GMT, "jonathan wilson" <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > That's very cool! I like the control station in the lounge. I wish you had a
> > > > round 4x4 plate for the holo-chess table.
> > > would the 4 x 4 round with holes from the y-wing engines work?
> >
> > More likely, the round disk with cross-axle hole from CyberSlam (and
> > others).
>
> What about using one of those Throwbot disc things. Are they Lego compatable
> or just useless?
>
> Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.starwars, Derek Schin writes:
>
>
> Well, the Millenium Falcon model on my page is built exactly to minifig
> scale. The math alone almost killed me when I built it (measure length of
> random part from book; convert to length in lego; measure lego; add to
> model). For the record, when I did my calculations, I based a minifig on
> being 6 feet tall. Anyway, some of the more important dimensions:
>
> Length: 24" (77 studs)
> Width: 17 1/4" (56 studs)
> Cockpit width: 2 1/2" (8 studs)
>
> And of course pictures are at
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9639/swlego.html
This was one of the first sites I found last year when I went searching for
Lego on the net, and I was blown away! You can rest assured that the TLG
version of the MF will not be as nice as yours. Do you still have the model
built? This would make a great (though daunting) LDraw project.
After looking at the landspeeder, I'm convinced the cockpit could be done at 6
studs (or maybe 6.25) width with a special piece. This would reduce the
minimum width of a TLG model to 30 studs (35 would look much better), which
should be doable for less than $100.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
A few comments, keep in mind, dimensions of the Millennium Falcon vary by as
much as 40% depending on what source to use. But if you scale it based on the
8 studs as the width of the cockpit you come up with number pretty close to
what Derek mentions below.
Regarding a six stud wide cockpit. That would work if you had a square cross
section, but the cockpit is supposed to be round. Thus you need a six stud
wide area the full sitting height of the minifig. That drives the width up to
8 studs in diameter.
Ben
> >
> > Length: 24" (77 studs)
> > Width: 17 1/4" (56 studs)
> > Cockpit width: 2 1/2" (8 studs)
<snip>
>
> After looking at the landspeeder, I'm convinced the cockpit could be done at 6
> studs (or maybe 6.25) width with a special piece. This would reduce the
> minimum width of a TLG model to 30 studs (35 would look much better), which
> should be doable for less than $100.
>
> -John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Ben Fleskes wrote in message ...
> A few comments, keep in mind, dimensions of the Millennium Falcon vary by as
> much as 40% depending on what source to use. But if you scale it based on the
> 8 studs as the width of the cockpit you come up with number pretty close to
> what Derek mentions below.
If it's correctly to scale. As Steve pointed out, a cockpit to overall size
ratio of 1:5 would be the minimum necessary without it looking ridiculous. I
doubt TLG would be as concerned about exact dimensions as Derek was. If they
can make a model look good enough to sell, they will.
>
> Regarding a six stud wide cockpit. That would work if you had a square cross
> section, but the cockpit is supposed to be round. Thus you need a six stud
> wide area the full sitting height of the minifig. That drives the width up to
> 8 studs in diameter.
Actually you need a 5 stud width at the butt level of the cockpit, 6.?? at the
arm level, and 4.5-5 stud width at the head level. Hopefully Chewie will be
taller than a normal minifig, so some extra clearance would be needed. I'll
play around in LDraw with a couple of minifigs and a cylindar and let you know
what I come up with.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John VanZwieten wrote in message ...
>
> If it's correctly to scale. As Steve pointed out, a cockpit to overall • size
> ratio of 1:5 would be the minimum necessary without it looking ridiculous. • I
> doubt TLG would be as concerned about exact dimensions as Derek was. If • they
> can make a model look good enough to sell, they will.
True, but I did measure their Y-Wing to see how far off it was from the
correct scale, and you know what? It was really close. Everything except
the cockpit was dead-on. Of course, the cockpit was a bit wrong, but I'll
be fixing that on the Y-Wing I have.
:Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:49:46 GMT, "Ben Fleskes" <benfleskes@msn.com> wrote:
> A few comments, keep in mind, dimensions of the Millennium Falcon vary by as
> much as 40% depending on what source to use. But if you scale it based on the
> 8 studs as the width of the cockpit you come up with number pretty close to
> what Derek mentions below.
>
> Regarding a six stud wide cockpit. That would work if you had a square cross
> section, but the cockpit is supposed to be round. Thus you need a six stud
> wide area the full sitting height of the minifig. That drives the width up to
> 8 studs in diameter.
You are correct, but that's assuming the cockpit tube is nearly circular.
If the tube was built to 'suggest' a circular cross-section, it could be
smaller than 8 studs across.
0000
00 00
0 0
0 0
00 00
0000
This would be very cramped.
Other than a totally special piece, the easiest solution is to use the
octagonal corridor pieces (example at
<http://home.att.net/~partsref/images/2466.gif>) and create an 8-wide,
6-high tube.
This still leaves the problem of the cockpit canopy/nose. The TIE Fighter
porthole wouldn't cut it for this application. It would work, but it would
be ugly (ugly=not like the real thing).
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:09:15 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > ... Are their _any_ Lego space sets (or town
> > for that matter) which accomodate two minifigs sitting side by side?
>
> The Landspeeder. All of the cars/trucks in the Adventurers line.
> (And I'm wondering how well that one-piece passenger compartment from the
> Adventurers would work as the base for an AT-AT 'head')
I'm jumping in here late, so forgive me if this had already been mentioned.
To me it seems a ship cockpit canopy or AT-AT 'head' would have to be at least
six studs wide rather than use the one-piece ~5-stud passenger compartments
found in the Adventurers' cars. In looking at that piece in front of me with a
minifig sitting in it, the minifig's arms can rest on top of his "door", like
a human passenger can do with a 1:1 car with the windows down, but not inside
the door. In fact, the fit is perfect: the outside of his arm is flush with
the outside of the "door". The Landspeeder is better about this though at six
studs wide with thin walls (but it still needs a control stick at least! :)
But if they did use that piece, I would guess they would have to make a kind
of special cockpit piece that is slightly wider and covers or "walls in" that
passenger compartment piece or the cockpit won't be "airlocked" cuz the
minifig arms will be in the way.
My $0.02 which is often inflated and only worth $0.005.
-Tom McD.
when replying watch the road for the spamcake.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McDonald wrote:
> To me it seems a ship cockpit canopy or AT-AT 'head' would have to be at least
> six studs wide rather than use the one-piece ~5-stud passenger compartments
> found in the Adventurers' cars. In looking at that piece in front of me with a
> minifig sitting in it, the minifig's arms can rest on top of his "door", like
> a human passenger can do with a 1:1 car with the windows down, but not inside
> the door.
This may be appocryphal, because I don't have the piece in front of me, but doesn'
t the piece in question have a stud (representing door handles) on the outside of
the "door" panels? If so (Again, I'm not sure about this), one could seal up the
cockpit by placing plates vertically on the studs... Anyway, just an odd idea
thinking outside the box (no pun intended) at midnight.
--Karim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.starwars, Karim Nassar writes:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> > To me it seems a ship cockpit canopy or AT-AT 'head' would have to be at • least
> > six studs wide rather than use the one-piece ~5-stud passenger compartments
> > found in the Adventurers' cars. In looking at that piece in front of me • with a
> > minifig sitting in it, the minifig's arms can rest on top of his "door", • like
> > a human passenger can do with a 1:1 car with the windows down, but not • inside
> > the door.
>
> This may be appocryphal, because I don't have the piece in front of me, but • doesn'
> t the piece in question have a stud (representing door handles) on the • outside of
> the "door" panels? If so (Again, I'm not sure about this), one could seal up • the
> cockpit by placing plates vertically on the studs... Anyway, just an odd idea
> thinking outside the box (no pun intended) at midnight.
It's not appocryphal. And I'm a bit surprised that it's *you* that even
thought it could be ;-)
Yes, that piece has studs representing door handles. I suppose it could be
done. But my last part of the previous did have a big UNLESS in it :) I just
have a feeling TLG won't use it because it doesn't fit four minifigs, and it
has a solid back wall. The MF's back cockpit wall has a hatch.
See Derek's model of the MF in another strand of this thread. It's more simple
but quite accomodating.
-Tom McD.
| | | | | | |
