x-wing drawings?

vistaVision

Is there a source for drawings or prints that are "ballpark" accurate for any of the x-wings? I don't need complete and detailed construction drawings (that would be nice, but...) but would like to work from something that can serve as a reference, to compliment the dozens of photographs we've all collected.

I've not been able to find anything of worth on the web, thought maybe someone here might be able to point me in the right direction.

Marcus

Colin Droidmilk

Sorry I can't help, but good luck with it. Despite the heroic attempts of those brave enough to step up to the plate, the X-wing still remains to be nailed perfectly.The TIE's been conquered, the Falcon's been surmounted, the Y-wing looks like it's going to be, the 8ft star destroyer is currently on its knees before the all-conquering might of Monsieur Tox, but the X is holding out. The X fuselage, with its maddeningly complex and elusive geometry seems to be the ultimate challenge for studio scale!

AT-AT Luvah

Can I ask what it is about the fuselage that is so hard to get right?

Are people trying to get the fuselage to match those still in existence in the archives? If so, isn't it possible that the resin or other materials have warped since the late '70s/early '80s?

Should allowances be made for this possibility?

And how far off have the best replicas been to date? Are we talking really big difference or just infinitesimal amounts not visible to the naked eye?

Hector

Nighteyes

As I am arms deep in cutting up my maxi brute fuselage I can say with certainty we are talking about very small differences in measurements. But NOT infinitesimal.

As each X had much variation due to its basic construction, they do not all look alike. The only way to offer the perfect X Wing is to first replicate all of the parts used to make the Hero versions. Even the pyro master is created from these same parts.

So why hasn't it been done yet? Well, there's no market for it at all. If you've got the loot you could buy an old Icons or the new eFX. The beautiful Salzo kits (from moe's great scratched fuselage) satisfy most of the fans brave enough to tackle their own build and it is a complete X wing when assembled.

Even if someone handed you a box with all of the cast parts used for the Hero ANH X wings, you would still have about half of it to scratchbuild. Even then there's no guarantee it would turn out right unless you picked a specific X Wing to replicate AND had photo reference of it.

phase pistol

Wouldn't there just have been ONE fuselage master, which all the many miniatures would have been cast from...?

Granting everything that Incredipaul just said, I'd say the desirable goal would be to replicate that one singular original master. THAT is the definitive "X-Wing".

k

PHArchivist

Anything else...?

Nighteyes

Thats right, and exactly what I was thinking. I don't think anyone would buy my Hero kit. The panel lines were done individually on the Hero models and I know people won't want to do that kind of thing. I know I'm not looking forward to it. Still, my original point remains valid. No one would want to do this much work themselves, or just a few at the very least.

And you still wouldn't be able to make a Red 5 quite right. Look at the reference and tell me something hasn't compromised the original shape of the Hero buck just past the front of the fuselage heading towards the nose. Furthermore, the nose cones are separate parts from the rest of the body with each being attached in a different way; Blue Leader/Red 2 points up, Red 3 slightly down.

Based on Hero construction alone... there are plenty of opportunities for individual variation and no way to create one perfect base X wing suitable for ALL replica birds without compromising on accuracy.

EDIT:
Hey Rob, I'm sure Colin just didn't think of it as a ship... no arguing that that DS is a FEAT of yours, and a benchmark of quality in this community.

Colin Droidmilk

Phase Pistol, I agree. I've been staring at ILM X fuselages for years, and with the exception of the Red 2 nose up-turn, they look practically the same to me, minor diffs being caused only by the stuck-on nosepieces. That is, they all have a commonality not shared by the EFX, CC, or Salzo. As far as I'm concerned, the differences that exist between ILM fuselages (except Red2) are negligible and can be ignored - even pyros. What I mean is, if you succeed in capturing one ILM X fuselage then you're far closer to all ILM X than you are to any replica yet made. Such a standard would count as perfection in my book.

AT-Luvah, as to the differences between, say the V3 and ILM, well, I've gone on about it in my thread about the V3 - perhaps to the irritation of some, I don't know... but since you ask...

The errors are small but visible. Some of us feel the front of the canopy on the V3 is too wide, giving the ship a slightly stubby feel when compared to all photos, old and new, of all ILM 1/24 Xs. For me, this was instantly visible as the first photos of builds came through. The canopy top is somewhat too wide and too short, and in the top view the angle where the starboard canopy strut meets the fuselage is turned inside out. However, the kit was still accurate enough to warrant my blowing 300$ on it! I'd give it 9 out of 10. And from most angles, it's a dream to behold.

But I can see the differences between it and every ILM X photo I possess. I don't WANT to find differences, but they just jump out at me. I think the entire fuselage slopes a little abruptly. Evidence of this is that the V3 has a smaller gap between the red stripe and the top of the fuselage at the point where the stripe meets the nosecone. The cockpit seems to be placed too far forward, which seems to bulk out the fuselage, giving a squatter look in the plan view than to what we see in the plan view of Red 3. These are all solid deviations from every ILM X - pyros included, seems to me. An ILM X fuse feels sleeker, narrower. But, just how much one cares about these errors is entirely subjective, I guess. Still, if we're talking perfection - the kind of perfection we're seeing in the Neisen TIE or Monsieur Tox's work - then these errors are the final issues which need sorting out.

The reason I think the X fuselage is one of the toughest nuts to crack is because it's not based on simple geometrical forms like the TIE, the Y body or the Star Destroyer, which are all worked up from spheres, cuboids, cylinders, trapezoids etc. One of the biggest headaches has got to be the way the forward fuselage edges blend from a hard edge to a soft edge. To execute that while keeping the edge correct-looking from all angles - without working from cross-section plans of an original, must be a nightmare. In the whole fuselage it's like there are very few constants to get a hold of. So many tapers, and across long and very difficult to determine distances. About the only thing that you can grab hold of firmly is the horizontal line between the upper and lower body halves. And, since the cockpit isn't just stuck onto the fuselage but entirely integrated into it, the slightest error in any part of the forward upper fuse is going to show up in the canopy. Plus, the original was a hand-sculpt so it's like trying to copy someone's handwriting... has to be said, Moe made a heroic go of a very difficult task.

Colin Droidmilk

Oh my God, I forgot your Death Star. I'm so embarrassed!

AT-AT Luvah

Thanks for the in-depth explanation, Colin. That makes sense.

So how close did the EFX studio scale offering come to the ILM models? I ask about this one because it is the most readily available for a large portion of the community to look at and assess.

Hector

PHArchivist

You caught that, eh!?

I've been quiet on it lately, but progressing forward...

vistaVision

So, the answer to the question in the OP: "Is there a source for drawings or prints that are "ballpark" accurate for any of the x-wings?" is no?

Sure, there are a variety of differences from one model to the next. But hey, I built my R2 from plans, and R2 himself has countless variations. Want to build an "accurate" r2? Not good enough to ask which movie? How about which scene? Or even, which shot in which scene?? But there are many drawings of R2. These differences didn't stop the talented draftsmen.

I built my GB Proton Pack from drawings. Mostly GBII details. The drawings available are always being re-worked to show new discoveries. I've got plans for the 4 ft. Nautilus I'm working on. Even there you have differences between the full-scale waterline set and the 11 ft. hero model. But there's no shortage of drawings.

So really, why no x-wing drawings? If I had the talent and skills I'd draw it up myself! I'd expect that any of the 3D CG models that have been built could be exported to basic 2D plan outline views...

Anyway, it was worth a shot. Working on an x-wing project right now and would prefer to reference drawings along with all the photos.

Marcus

modeleers

What's the best X-fuselage out there? (in any scale)
The one the looks closest to the films (in general).

Nwerke

A lot has already been said but I'd like to add that I don't totally agree with Colin's take on the hero fuses - for example, the butt end of the hero X-wings differed quite markedly in some cases and we don't have references for others. But look at Red Five and Red Three - quite similar - then look at Red Two - very different. Only the upper fuselage of the heroes was cast in urethane foam, the lower was vacuformed and as Paul noted, those lower fuses had to have their panelling scribed in individually, so there are differences. Then there are differences in the trimming of both the cast and vacformed parts!

Marcus, I did drawings years ago but they're horribly obsolete now. I still think of Miniaturizer Ray's X-wing as the definitive CG model, so orthos taken from that would be a good starting point.

Ray, you around? Any chance?

If not, I'll try to update my old stuff. Colin, I really need to do that anyway, need to get on and do some proper pixel-by-pixel measuring - want to see if I can independently confirm (or not) your dims!

Modeleers, far as I'm concerned the best bang for the buck is the Salzo V3.1.

Miniaturizer Ray

Actually, I was working on a new model of Red 3, from which I hoped to derive a model of Red 5. Trouble is, I currently have monocular polyopia ( which basically means my eyesight has gone to heck), so I'm not really making any progress on it at the moment. I have a file with 45 photographs that have been optically corrected using a program called PTLens, imported into Autodesk Imagemodeler and solved in 3D space, and then transferred to 3ds Max for modelling. I haven't got that far with the actual surfacing, but if anybody wants any particular dimension, I can provide it:



Alternatively, if anybody is adept with 3ds Max, I'm willing to share the file, on condition that you keep us all updated about how you're getting on with it. If you do want the file, say so here, in this thread. I won't reply to PMs about it.

Colin Droidmilk

Wow, that looks interesting. I'd love to know the width of the front edge of the canopy lid. I reckon it should be about 27mm as opposed to the V3's 30mm - that is, if the cans are the same size ( I'm using the can diameter - 47mm in the V3 - as a constant in my ratios). Also, the V2 canopy front always looked bang on to me, and it's 27mm, presumably with 47mm cans.

Martyn, hi, yeah, the butt thing. Red 5's is different. But it doesn't seem to affect the forward fuselage...

As to which is the most accurate replica. Probably the V3, even though the front edge of that canopy - just that one dimension - is better on the V2, and even the MPC kit. Others think the EFX is better.

Some pics showing profile comparisons between V3 and ILM. Looking at the ILM pyros and heroes - if you follow the upper line, you see there's a kind of delay before the nose drops away, as if the nosepiece holds onto the horizontal a little before shearing away. The effect is it feels like the slope shallows just before the nose and in the nose itself until the dropaway. In the V3, the slope feels much more uninterrupted. Actually, again, MPC captured this effect while being far less accurate than the V3 profile in other ways , [FM were nowhere on this]).

I also stuck in a front comparison showing what I call the 'crowded in' look of the V3's guns-to fuselage relationship compared to the wider spaced feel of an ILM hero. This is presumably down to the V3's slightly wide fuse and perhaps slightly small wings.

Finally to get totally on-topic here, the reason I'm blathering on forever about these small glitches is that I hope it'll be of use to anyone attempting another go at either scratching an X or drawing one up. It's all in the interest of pooling observations and info in the hope that one day the ultimate X replica may emerge...

Attached Thumbnails

         

 

Miniaturizer Ray

The reference measurement I'm using is the distance between the two centre-line stringers on the SatV part in the screengrab, which I make 44.76mm (diameter is 46.66mm, but that's a bit variable as the part might be buckled a bit).

The measurement I have for the width of the front of the canopy reads as 27.391mm (I'm not claiming to be accurate to a µm, that's just the exact distance that the software reports), but that's with hard edges. If the edges were chamfered off, then 27mm - or possibly a shade under - would be just about right.

Flintlock

Ray, I've been working on a model of the fuselage in a 3d CAD program called Alibre Design. I'm working from the Maxi Brute which is good all-around, but there are some minor differences.

I am also pretty good with 3D Studio Max. I am interested in the file if you are willing to share it with me - I'll see what I can do with it and my CAD models, and I will definitely share what I come up with.

Miniaturizer Ray

Okay. I'm using 3ds Max 2009 32-bit. It's quite a lot of data, though; 6Mb for the actual scene file, but about 600Mb for the images. You'll also need to get Peter Watje's ZoomCamera plugin from here. What's the best way of getting it to you?

Flintlock

Do you have a file hosting service or a website you could upload a zip file to? If not, I'll set up an account for you on my website and you could upload them to my webspace. I'm about to leave for work so I'll have to do that a little later on this morning.

Or, if you could split the images up into separate zip files, you could probably e-mail them - just check your e-mail service's limit on attachments.

My e-mail is ronald@eulercircles.com.

Nwerke

Awesome, Ray and Flintlock! I suck at Max, Rhino is the only thing I'm any good with. So thanks for stepping up, Flintlock, can't wait to see your results.

Ray, sorry to hear about your eyesight problems. Are you getting treatment for that?

Colin Droidmilk

Fantastic, thanks. Actually I'm quite thrilled with this, as I'd extrapolated 27mm from the famous top shot of Red 3 before asking Robiwon if the V2 - which always looked right on this dim - was 27mm. He said it was, so I began to feel justified in shouting my mouth off about it. The thing is, those extra mm get added on to the thickness of the fuselage at the canopy area, making the fuselage top view appear as a fatter-based 'triangle' than the narrower-based 'triangle' of Red 3.

Colin Droidmilk

I concur! (I suck at all 3d software - having had no experience with it)

Good luck, Flintlock, we're rooting for ya...

Colin Droidmilk

Well I don't own one, so my impressions are sort of secondhand. On the whole it looks pretty good, but I quibble even more about the nose on that one. And I think, despite the flaw I mentioned above, the V3 canopy is still far more authoritative-looking than EFX, which suffers from not being cast into the fuselage like ILM and like the V3. But it's got great-looking wings.

Also it's idealised, with all parallels orthogonal and straight and perfect. What I love about the Salzo kit is its handmade feel, with chips not cut straight, slightly unparallel guns etc. - the same kind of slight wonkiness clearly to be seen on the ILM originals. Working on the kit gives you a real sense of following in the steps of the ILM modelmakers, so to speak, which is a total blast.

mslz22

Hope you guys don't mind me chiming in here with a few observations that i hope make sense. Minaturizer Ray's measurement of just about 27.4mm is almost exact to the pyro casting that I have here, which is an earlier casting than some of the ebay ones and, from what i understand, what Moe at least partially based the fuselage off of (though i should not speak for him).

As i have been looking more and more at this part of the fuselage/canopy as it has come up in a couple of threads, I see a couple of things that likely got the V3 up to the 30mm that it is. 1 is that it does have a harder edge both on the fuselage body and the canopy frame than the ILM casting has. Softened edges would make up a little space but not 2.6mm.

2nd is a bit harder to explain, but, at least to my eyes (which have been known to deceive me) the STB side of the fuselage directly in front of the canopy frame "sweeps in" a bit more towards the center of the body than the Port side does, again not enough to make up 2.6mm but the combo of these 2 things may get closer to getting the V3 to 30mm. By seeing how Moe constructed the V3 fuselage, the act of cutting the body out of straight pieces of Renshape may have "corrected" some of the asymmetry of the fuselage and made this area slightly bigger.

I know that when I made the size corrected version of the BSG TOS viper i had to contend with some of this stuff, most noteably the back plate. The engines on the original filming model pointed inwards towards the back ever so slighly. When i built the new master i straightend out the engines and the back plate became larger, ever so slightly, not a big deal until i tried to get the greeblies to fit in just like the original. There ended up being too much room.

I have a scrap casting here of the V3 that i may play with a bit by rounding this area to see how much closer it can get to the 27.4mm.
mike