 | | Re: 2000 sets —Tony Priestman
| | | | On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Eugwe Coral (<FMzyEJ.HoG@lugnet.com>) wrote at 16:41:34 (...) I too am impressed with the SW sets. They conform to the LEGO view of the universe, being smaller and simpler than the real thing, (six wide trains? I mean, come on (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 2000 sets —Jeff Stembel
| | | | | (...) Yup, see this thread: < (URL) > (read the *entire* thing to get the whole picture) The A-Wing is about 5 studs too short and the B-Wing is about 10 studs too short. Jeff (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 2000 sets —Ed T. Toton III
| | | | | (...) What is the scale based on? Height or Width of a minifig? Minifigs clearly don't have human proportions, so you'll get drastically different numbers depending on which you use. (in some cases, width may be the more limiting factor, such as in (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 2000 sets —John VanZwieten
| | | | | Bones Dragon <necrobones.nospam@i...bones.com> wrote in message news:Fn1nnC.2pG@lugnet.com... (...) It's based on the X-wing and Y-wing, which are considered quite close to scale with the height of a minifig. -John Van (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | | | | |
