Millennium Falcon is constructed at minifigure-scale, measuring 84cm in length. While perfect accuracy cannot be verified, I think the Millennium Falcon appears appropriate beside minifigures and am therefore satisfied with this scale. The onscreen vessel reaches 34.75m in length, giving an approximate ratio of 1:41.369 for 75192 Millennium Falcon. I don't know who's the worst troll here - the user who says "Sod Star Wars" and "Fanboys has taken over the community", or the one who says "There’s no place for your statements here" and "Every sentence you wrote reeks of stupidity".

Notes: Three different lengths are commonly provided for the TIE Advanced x1. Detailed fan calculations have established that the length is nearest to the shortest of those canon measurements, which would match the design in 75150 Vader's TIE Advanced vs. A-wing Starfighter. LEGO has released a number of sets based upon their own animated series in recent years, the latest of which are from The Freemaker Adventures. On the one hand, these sets are at a disadvantage because they are not based upon a familiar or beloved design from the Star Wars movies. However, this situation also allows the designers to create something from their own imagination, without the restrictions imposed by a source material. I did mention that one member of my LUG specifically builds in that scale. Besides being easy to calculate, many features on buildings, like windows and doors, are built in 6” increments, so it also scales well. The LEGO Star Wars range is primarily focused upon vehicles but it has also included some splendid location-based models. Unfortunately, 7257 Ultimate Lightsaber Duel is not among them in my opinion as the control rods around which the entire set is designed do not work particularly well. These rods for each minifigure are a nice idea but their execution is rather disappointing as the platforms tend to rotate freely, making them difficult to direct.So for full functionality, sets should probably include proper scaling for height, depth and width, but that would make a lot of real-life items look more stubby." Measurements taken from StarWars.com, Wookieepedia.com or the most recent canonical reference book. The sixteen identical battle droids feature one straight arm to hold their blasters, which are the same as the new clone blasters, upright. All of the other parts are the same to the older versions. Yes, with the 1:41 scale of the article more emphasis is put on figure height. This works for most vehicles but the smaller walkers like AT-RT and AT-ST are missing width, especially the latters 2009 version can barely manage one pilot. This is why the common AT-ST mocs with Bionicle ball joints go the route of recent official sets and veer towards 1:32 or 1:35 scale which is frankly too large, especially when they then go on to put them next to 1:41 starships, but it easily allows 2 seats and interior. As for the Flagg, at 6’ long, that would only be 115’ long. Even helicopter carriers seem to start at about five times that length. The USS Gerald R Ford is right around 100x that length. I can’t find any hard numbers, but based on photos, I think I did find one “aircraft carrier” that was shorter. In 1849, the SMS Vulcano became the first “balloon carrier”, when it was used to launch bombs carried by hot air balloons against Venice. Over 40 years earlier, the 127’ HMS Pallas was used to launch kites bearing propaganda against Napoleon. So, when you get down to the length of a football field, you’re largely talking about unmanned aircraft, or at max maybe one small helicopter.

T-16 Skyhopper - as featured in A New Hope. Err... really? It's not a bad model, but it's presence here perplexes me. At least I saw the Jakku Quadjumper in TFA. this could be literally anything else. Certain memorable vehicles would be decidedly unsuitable for minifigure-scale renditions, based upon their incredible size. Nevertheless, we can establish how large they would need to be, for accurate scaling beside minifigures! Venator-class Star Destroyer Once again, this issue can be attributed to the limited selection of colours available. Dark green pieces are ideally suited to Boba Fett's Slave I and have been used on every subsequent model of the vessel. Unfortunately, they did not appear until 2003 so the designer had to use the standard shade of green which is not at all suitable. This model also suffers from a severe scaling issue and its flaws become even more apparent when the set is compared with 7153 Jango Fett's Slave I which was released just two years later. 7257 Ultimate Lightsaber DuelForgot to mention last time: Thank You @CapnRex101 , for using Boba and Jango Fetts' ship's PROPER NAME...yesh, don't know what's worse: revisionist history, or the name their trying to replace it with...But I digress... However, there are a couple of mitigating factors to be taken into consideration. Firstly, the designer probably only had access to limited material from which to take inspiration as the set was created while the film was in production. The range of pieces and colours available was also far less comprehensive than it is today. Elements such as curved slopes, which have been used to good effect in modern Sith Infiltrator sets, were not created until 2004. 7184 Trade Federation MTT I have selected ten sets which I believe to be among the worst ever released and have tried to explain my reasoning for each selection below. The following items have not been taken into consideration as I do not think they can be properly compared with conventional System sets. There is actually also a thing about colors, that ends up looking inaccurate in smaller scales, making people mix lighter colors and create fake shadows, but that's a whole other can of worms, that scale modelers have to deal with. Whoa, awesome article! It’s interesting that the most accurately scaled examples in official sets (by this standard) are very old sets in some cases and much newer sets in others.

Using that figure and the following simple calculation, we can ascertain the approximate minifigure-scale for every vehicle. The significance of minifigure-scale varies dramatically between subjects. Larger starfighters such as the T-65 X-wing or TIE/sk Striker have achieved near-perfection and that is apparent simply when looking at them, without needing any calculations. Other vehicles deviate slightly from the source material, but are ideally-suited to interaction with minifigures. Notes: Canon sources sometimes give a length of 23.40 metres, but that describes the fully armoured BTL-B Y-wing Starfighter deployed during the Clone Wars, rather than its later stripped-down equivalent.

178 comments on this article

I think it is not fair to say those sets from early years are bad, because designers got limited amount of well designed slope pieces[1] and the idea of combining interesting building technics to create play feature revolves over times.[2] Seriously, interesting article. The same method could be applied to vehicles and buildings from other lines (e.g. City, Marvel, DC). Might be worthwhile developing a standardised scale of scale accuracy from 1 to 10 with any score of 1 to 9.5 getting an additional + or - to indicate whether the vehicle is oversized or undersized." Includes a Gungan Warrior minifigure with a weapon, plus 2 Pilot Battle Droids and 12 Battle Droid figures with weapons

However, I think it would be unfair to ignore sets from the first few years of LEGO Star Wars entirely. Sets should be judged according to the context of their release and in that regard I think certain older models, such as those mentioned in the article, fare comparatively poorly in relation to other sets released in the same year. Also, from a purely practical perspective it would be almost impossible to identify a single year after which we are able to judge sets by modern standards.Maybe if the FO AT-ST had at least improved on the design of the legs by making them posable it wouldn't be as bad. Unfortunately it doesn't do that though so it easily gets my vote. There are studies proving that a parent is much more likely to buy something if they can relate to it. While children may be the target audience, Lego is really selling sets to adults. So when Star Wars is chosen over say, Castle, its because of the parents, not the children. I agree with those who have suggested that early sets are beholden to different standards in relation to those released today and made certain to stress the limited availability of parts and colours during that period in the article, as well as the potential for limited source material being available.