Subject:
|
Re: Star Destroyer Domes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:10:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
630 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Stephen Juby writes:
> When I first saw the pictures I just thought they looked so glaringly out of
> place, despite the small amount of cover given by the levers used for
> supports. On actually getting the model and making it... they're actually
> not quite so obvious, strange as it may seem. If you purposefully look at
> them they still look as bad, but they don't manage to ruin the overall
> effect, in my opinion at least.
Ah, cool. That's good to hear. Also, if you DO happen to be unable to ignore
them, you can always explain them away as the results of stray laser fire
from some B-Wings and X-Wings or something!
> In fact if I were to make a criticism about it, it would be about the
> fact that the gap between the top and bottom halves is very noticeable at
> the front where it's not masked by shade inside the vast body. I'm pretty
> sure it wouldn't have been too hard to correct that. It's not so bad if you
> look at it from above or below though, so it's my fault for having it set up
> at eye level!
Hmmm... I was kinda wondering about that. More because the huge side view in
the catalog shows that the trenches along the sides of the ship only go to
about 10 studs back from the very tip of the plates. I have noticed, BTW,
that while ESB and ROTJ ISDs have trenches that come quite close to the
front of the ship, the original Star Wars (ANH) ISDs didn't, and are
actually closer to the LEGO model in the trench detail as WELL as the
communications array and tilt of the domes (later ISDs had domes that were
"straight up" rather than perpendicular to the command tower surface (which
is slightly sloped).
Anyway, that doesn't sound too bad. Here's something a lot of people have
been wondering about, though: does the crack or seam that runs between the
port and starboard plates (top and bottom) attract a lot of notice, or is it
relatively benign? Some photos have shown it quite gaping (but I suspect the
magnets may allow for some play in the plates' positioning). Just wondering,
thanks.
-Greg "Fox" Cook
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Star Destroyer Domes
|
| (...) Like the gap between the ventral and dorsal sections it's only particularly noticeable if you look at it so the two are in line and you can see right through. I would say it's more noticeable than the ventral/dorsal crack if only because the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Star Destroyer Domes
|
| When I first saw the pictures I just thought they looked so glaringly out of place, despite the small amount of cover given by the levers used for supports. On actually getting the model and making it... they're actually not quite so obvious, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Nov-02, to lugnet.starwars)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
