 | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
(...) I must agree with Matt. I enjoyed the original review overall, but I have "flown" the ISD around by removing the tower sections and using the internal frame as a handle as well, and I have never had a single plate or greeblie fall off. We're (...) (22 years ago, 31-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
(...) Agreed wholeheartedly, as I opened the box and removed the instructions I found that just travelling to my house had caused a severe rip in the spine. There was a rip on the front cover in the bottom left hand corner. However, after assembly, (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
One other point I forgot to mention in my original review ... The massive instruction book (228 A3 pages) is too heavy for its style of binding and the covers quickly detached from the rest of the book as I started to turn through the pages. And (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
"Bryan Wong" <green_paper@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:H7wB7H.GFs@lugnet.com... (...) small (...) being (...) many (...) Uh? Was it a typo? I thought i should be like that and built one flush against the edge and the other 1 stud away. When (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
(...) Ah, yes, now I remember. The rest of the manual all showed one dome 1 stud away, but on the pictures both are flush. I just put mine flush, I think it's a typo. I snapped a picture with my camera of it: (URL) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if it was only me, but I noticed some discrepancies with the deflector shield domes ("golf balls"). Most steps show one dome flush against the edge of the plate it sits on, and the other dome 1 stud away from the edge. Can someone (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
"Kerry Raymond" <kerry@dstc.edu.au> wrote in message news:H7szBH.CAG@lugnet.com... (...) ISD] <snip> (...) together, (...) greatest (...) (in (...) I agree about the unusual use of the magnets. They are a bit weak, yes. But If you take in count (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
Hey Kerry, While I'll agree that the model is not easily handled and cannot be swooshed around, I wasn't disappointed by this at all. In fact, I expected it. Given it's scale, the model would have to be glued together to be sturdy enough (horrors!). (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
(...) Agreed. While the magnet idea is cool, it is simply not strong enough. Even Though the magnets do not take all the strain, they still tend to slip and disconnect. For the most part, I didn't have much trouble, but when I began putting any (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
|
Kerry, your review was most thorough! I do not have the time nor the patience to type an equally thorough response. However, I respond just hours after completing my own ISD...I must say you are being too critical of the model's integrity. I would (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
