[MOD] Soulless One - General Grievous' space ship - 7565 / 8095

[Murdoch17]

This model is a combination of the best parts of sets 8095 and 7565, both of which are called General Grievous’ Starfighter. I consider both sets lackluster, so I combined both bad sets into one good one.

The ship's name in the Star Wars universe is the "Soulless One", and is General Grievous’ personal vessel in Episode III and both the Clone Wars cartoon and mini-series until his death at the hands of a Obi Wan Kenobi, who then "borrowed" the ship and later abandoned it.

Here, it is being re-purposed by Imperial forces, led by Admiral Oswald Lyons (my fictional character), who found the ship and claimed it as his own. The ship features a small change from it Separatist days: a Imperial symbol has been added to the side wings. (That 2x2 round tile is supposed to have this print: http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=4150ps5#T=C

The ship features a slide open cockpit, which comes with a flight computer. The ship defends itself with two laser cannons mounted near the front of the nose, one per side.

I heavily modified the tail, wings, and underside to attach better to the rest of the ship. Also, in case anyone is wondering, the wings and mostly from set 7565 while 98% of the body is from set 8095.

Here is the LDD file: http://www.moc-pages.com/user_images/80135/1452378022m.lxf

Comments, questions and complaints welcome!

[JekPorkchops]

By combining the two different sets, the proportions are totally off. The engines are way too small compared to the cockpit. Honestly, the 2010 model was pretty much perfect. Only the engine pods could have used some form of smooth slope pieces like the 2007 one. Since you pretty much used the center section of the 2010 set, maybe you can make completely custom engines that are as big as the 2010 version (though a little longer) and as smooth as the 2007 version?

[pittpenguin123]

Its very proportional. I think lego did better IMO.

[Jedi Master]

Looks good. I would buy it as a set since they have not released those in a while.

[Kristof]

Both sets are quire well executed in my opinion. I have the newer one and it seems very accurate to me, compared with most pictures I have seen.

As mentioned above, the set from 2007 is significantly smaller which makes your mixture highly out of proportion. It also seems that your tail wing can't effectively move neither opwards, nor down-forwards. I regret having negative feedback again but similarly as with your snowspeeder, I see everything but improvement here.

May I ask about your motivation for doing these 'set modifications'? It feels to me that you are picking quite well done sets (lacklusters? these??) and pointlessly try to modify them in LDD, ultimately calling your rather questionable result as an improvement... Please take no offense (although my stand is very critical here so I couldn't blame you), I just don't really understand your efforts here :)

[brickmasterben11]

By combining the two different sets, the proportions are totally off. The engines are way too small compared to the cockpit. Honestly, the 2010 model was pretty much perfect. Only the engine pods could have used some form of smooth slope pieces like the 2007 one. Since you pretty much used the center section of the 2010 set, maybe you can make completely custom engines that are as big as the 2010 version (though a little longer) and as smooth as the 2007 version?

I agree. The cockpit is too thin, and the engines are out of proportion.

[pittpenguin123]

Both sets are quire well executed in my opinion. I have the newer one and it seems very accurate to me, compared with most pictures I have seen.

As mentioned above, the set from 2007 is significantly smaller which makes your mixture highly out of proportion. It also seems that your tail wing can't effectively move neither opwards, nor down-forwards. I regret having negative feedback again but similarly as with your snowspeeder, I see everything but improvement here.

May I ask about your motivation for doing these 'set modifications'? It feels to me that you are picking quite well done sets (lacklusters? these??) and pointlessly try to modify them in LDD, ultimately calling your rather questionable result as an improvement... Please take no offense (although my stand is very critical here so I couldn't blame you), I just don't really understand your efforts here :)