Subject:
|
Re: My impressions of the Imperial Star Destroyer Model ( some "spoilers")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:44:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Bryan Hodges writes:
> During the week of Christmas I had a 9-day vacation from work. Along with
> spending time with my family, and playing a good chunk of Metroid Prime, I
> wanted to use the time to build my Star Destroyer. I decided that instead
> of trying to build it all in one sitting, that I would spend a few hours
> each day on it, and build it as carefully as possible. It took about 18
> hours total. I could have built it in a much shorter time, however I wanted
> to take the extra time that detail requires.
Great summary of the experience of building the ISD, Bryan. I ended up
spending around 17 hours myself, but only over a span of 2 days (26th and
27th). It was hard on the thumbs, but well worth it. Just a couple of things:
(snip)
> Attached to the inner frame are the magnets to which the 4 hull panels
> mount, the engines, and the display stand. At first I was disappointed that
> the display stand was attached to the model, but once I started attaching
> the other sections I began to understand that it's necessary. The three
> large engines are quite pretty to look at... however the advised mounting is
> not very sturdy. A technic axle is pushed into the a 4x4 round brick that
> is attached to the frame. The axle runs through a 2x2 round brick with it's
> studs faces the 4x4 round brick's studs, through the large tire, and is
> attached to additional bushings inside the tire. However, the axle easily
> slipped out of all of the 4x4 round bricks that I have so I ended up turning
> the 2x2 round bricks around to add friction to keep the engines from falling
> off. This had the negative result of allowing the engines to spin, but this
> is a small drawback compared to them falling off.
Myself, I didn't have a problem with the engines themselves. Flipping the
2x2 round bricks around sounds like a good idea. As long as you aren't
touching the engines, after all, they won't be spinning too much. Oh, I did
move the center engine down a stud, since all three are supposed to be in a
straight line.
> On the fourth day, I started on the hull. The next section to be built was
> one of the lower hull panels. At this point my work table was taken up by
> the bulky inner frame. I decided to use it to display the Star Destroyer,
> so that it wasn't a problem, but I needed a place to work on the other
> sections of the model. I did not want to build on the floor as I have weak
> knees and a dog that sheds like crazy. I cleared off a spot on the coffee
> table, and set to work on the panel. The panel consists mainly of lots of
> gray plates laid side-to-side and reinforced on both sides. The problem is
> you have to build the studs up side first, flip the entire thing over, and
> then reinforce the other side. Some of the plates come partially apart
> while flipping which can cause misalignments, which is why after flipping I
> made sure to re-secure all of the plates. Once you reinforce the other
> side, it's pretty sturdy.
I didn't do this myself, but for anyone who has yet to build the model, or
for anyone who may buy a second or reassemble theirs, I have some advice:
While it will take a bit more concentration, and page flipping, I recommend
splitting the "topside" building of each of the 4 large panel sections into
2 or 3 segments, THEN doing the underside bracing/support, and then
continuing on with the topsides. It would prevent the lack of stability
experienced when the panels get really long but don't have any support
underneath. I really began to get irritated at 2 places near the middle of
the underneath panels, and one particular place (near the turbolaser
batteries) on the top panels.
> Once completed, I attached the first of the lower panels to the frame. To
> my dismay, this caused the frame to lean. I detached the panel and set it
> aside. I decided to complete the other lower panel before attaching the
> first one again.
Heh, I remember that. I just placed something underneath the nose and the
panel on that side to help it stay upright till the other one was done. Then
again, I didn't wait till the next day to do the other panel for the
underside like you did, either. #;-}>
(snip)
> The day after Christmas, I got building again. I built one of the upper
> hull panels. It was similar to building the lower panels, but of course
> there were some differences. I set this panel aside until the other panel
> was done so the frame wouldn't lean.
Actually, I believe I found that once the two lower panels were on, just
putting one of the top panels on didn't make the frame lean.
(snip)
> It was starting to look like a Star Destroyer...
I remember thinking that as well, heh. I took it for a spin at that point.
(snip)
> Now came the fun part... The frame was an enjoyable build, but the panels
> were largely repetitive. The tower assemblies are by far the most enjoyable
> part of building the ISD...
I agree with you in part. The frame was good, and the tower was the most
fun, but at the same time, I kinda enjoyed the panel parts (until they got
so large that those weak spots started acting up, at least).
Here's a good question, though: did you get more tired of the detail work on
the trench between the top and bottom panels, or did you get more tired of
the detail work around the sides of the tower sections? Myself, it's tough
to decide. While the superlong trench was all at once (I built both frames
simultaneously), the 10x1s were easier to produce faster than the later
10x2s used for some parts of the tower. But at the same time, the tower
instructions did a good job of distributing detail work amongst the actual
beam-and-pin internal structure work. So, I'd have to stay the tower details
were easier.
(snip)
> The ISD is an absolutely beautiful model. It was worth the money, worth the
> time, worth the planning, and worth the frustration.
You took the words right out of my mouth. While I didn't do as much planning
as you, I got a system going where I kept identical piece bags intact, and
only dumped out the large-variety-of-pieces bags, spread everything out
around me, and was able to quickly find the 12x4s, the 16x2s, the 10x6s, and
so on and so on.
> This is definitely NOT a model for children. However, if you are an AFOL
> you owe it to yourself to get this model. It will inspire you with building
> techniques that you will use for years to come. However, if you don't have
> the time or patience to build it right, you may be disappointed.
The time can be spread out as you did. It's the patience part that really
needs to be there. Anyway, again, great post about a great LEGO set.
-Greg "Fox" Cook
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
4 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
|
|
|
|
