Dragon gets Star Wars licence

Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

Dragons armor kits vary in quality a lot (also the new releases, often badly researched). And they are massively overpriced. I am not excited. Perhaps better than Revell, but I doubt they will be as good as the Bandai kits.

Absolute rubbish, you obviously do not have a clue about AFV kits. Dragon are the forerunners in the afv market and whilst their earlier pieces were a little variable today they are highly accurate. They also regularly include many extras in etch and alloy and many kits run into the hundreds if not thousands of parts with many left overs as spares. They are leagues ahead of many manufacturers and surpassed tamiya although with the parts count they are more technical in construction. Bandai are good but this in 1/35 by dragon would be stunning and I would bet it will be a mind blower. Check out the missing lynx forum and you will see how good and accurate dragon are.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

I wonder if the pics we have seen so far are a mockup designed for Disney executives to approve. If so, perhaps there will be more changes when it comes to accuracy and articulation. I was a little skeptical about the 1/35 claim, but seeing the last photo makes it more believable. Also a bit of research into Dragon and it seems that they are no strangers to large models.

TazMan2000
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

Absolute rubbish, you obviously do not have a clue about AFV kits. Dragon are the forerunners in the afv market and whilst their earlier pieces were a little variable today they are highly accurate. They also regularly include many extras in etch and alloy and many kits run into the hundreds if not thousands of parts with many left overs as spares. They are leagues ahead of many manufacturers and surpassed tamiya although with the parts count they are more technical in construction. Bandai are good but this in 1/35 by dragon would be stunning and I would bet it will be a mind blower. Check out the missing lynx forum and you will see how good and accurate dragon are.

Ahem, obviously you don't have a clue what accuracy and forerunner means. You won't convince anyone that for example the Black Label series kits are accurate. They are badly researched. The M 103 kit is not even able to rotate the turret 180° because it collides with the engine compartment. The M6 is off proportionally, the hatches in the hull can not be opened because they interfere with the turret. Whilst they are generally better, some German AFV kits have severe errors, too, for example the Panzer II has the wrong number of teeth on the drive sprocket. I won't continue the list, it would be long. I do agree that Dragon produced some of the best AFV kits about 10 years ago, but since then they rested on their laurels, the only thing that increased was their pricing. An example is the Initial Tiger I kit. When it was initially put on the market, it sold for about 30-40€ and included a lot of bonus material like extra clothes and a metal bucket. Now they are selling exactly the same kit without the bonus for twice the money. This is also only an example and the list could be continued.

Yes, I do build armor kits and know the manufacturers. You should perhaps inform yourself a bit before insulting me.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

I wonder if the pics we have seen so far are a mockup designed for Disney executives to approve. If so, perhaps there will be more changes when it comes to accuracy and articulation.

TazMan2000

lets hope so, from what i see it looks pretty terrible for something that large, the feet are poor.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

Ahem, obviously you don't have a clue what accuracy and forerunner means. You won't convince anyone that for example the Black Label series kits are accurate. They are badly researched. The M 103 kit is not even able to rotate the turret 180° because it collides with the engine compartment. The M6 is off proportionally, the hatches in the hull can not be opened because they interfere with the turret. Whilst they are generally better, some German AFV kits have severe errors, too, for example the Panzer II has the wrong number of teeth on the drive sprocket. I won't continue the list, it would be long. I do agree that Dragon produced some of the best AFV kits about 10 years ago, but since then they rested on their laurels, the only thing that increased was their pricing. An example is the Initial Tiger I kit. When it was initially put on the market, it sold for about 30-40€ and included a lot of bonus material like extra clothes and a metal bucket. Now they are selling exactly the same kit without the bonus for twice the money. This is also only an example and the list could be continued.

Yes, I do build armor kits and know the manufacturers. You should perhaps inform yourself a bit before insulting me.
You seem very fragile as I have in no way insulted you, but you have judged a whole range of kits by a few with errors. It also needs to be rembered that dragon revitalised the afv kit market with a quality and standard that others had to follow. Many things dragon included in kits became standard by others who had to follow suit ie the extras and individual links, I also know what a forerunner is, who created the slide moulding technology. Maybe you are a rivet counter, rest assured that having been a successful modeller for other 30 years at international level and running my own model business with success I know what I'm talking about and disagree with your opinion, of which I am entitled to. Its not a weeing competition but your comment on dragon suggested they are crap, which we both know they ain't. Perhaps you are in that select group that sees everything half empty.i agree with accuarcy when possible but ANY kit can be faulted if you try hard enough, at the end of the day it's plastic and maybe you will only be happy with a full miniature workng replica made from the exact materials as the original, it's ironic that the AT AT is a fictional piece anyway, the only reference of an existing piece are the studio models unless of course you go off expanded universe images and cut aways. In this scale and by dragon it will be superb, the moulding quality will be unquestionable even if the odd rivet needs adding.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

I don't know about the armor kits as I'm not familiar with the subject, but Dragon's recent real space kits are horrendously inaccurate. Their 1/48 LEM has much more detail than the old Monogram kit, but they are almost all wrong. And their Saturn V is laughable. I hope they show a bit more respect to Star Wars, as I have found nearly every previous offer lacking. Bandai seems to care a great deal for quality and accuracy in their kits, but the small scales don't interest me. If Dragon matches Bandai in accuracy, and makes all the fighters and the Falcon in a common scale (at least 1/48) they will be grail kits for me. Otherwise, meh.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

IMO, the model Dragon shows us doesn't appear to be one of the 3d-printed prototypes I'm used to seeing, they've already cut the moulds and there's no turning back, the model is simply waiting to be boxed and sold. Upon closer inspection, the AT-AT's toes appear fused to its feet, implying that it's a static model with or without limited articulation. If my ruminations prove true, it'll be closer to their current Marvel Hero Vignette series, meaning we'll eventually see them release large 1/9 scale models of Star Wars characters. I don't preceive that case as a bad thing as traditional model kits aren't fully articulated either.

And no, Dragon invented neither slide moulding nor individual link tracks. Most manufacturers these days, including Dragon, have discarded individual plastic links in favour of workable, link-length, and good old vinyl; all of which were being used by other companies before and during the so-called "golden years" of DML.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

IMO, the model Dragon shows us doesn't appear to be one of the 3d-printed prototypes I'm used to seeing, they've already cut the moulds and there's no turning back, the model is simply waiting to be boxed and sold. Upon closer inspection, the AT-AT's toes appear fused to its feet, implying that it's a static model with or without limited articulation. If my ruminations prove true, it'll be closer to their current Marvel Hero Vignette series, meaning we'll eventually see them release large 1/9 scale models of Star Wars characters. I don't preceive that case as a bad thing as traditional model kits aren't fully articulated either.

And no, Dragon invented neither slide moulding nor individual link tracks. Most manufacturers these days, including Dragon, have discarded individual plastic links in favour of workable, link-length, and good old vinyl; all of which were being used by other companies before and during the so-called "golden years" of DML.

After reading that I almost wonder if it will be a vinyl kit. Regardless I'm still excited.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

lets hope so, from what i see it looks pretty terrible for something that large, the feet are poor.

When the first pics of the Bandai X-Wing were released, people were dismayed at the deep panel lines and the softness of the edges, until someone noticed that the initial pics were of 3D printed models. After the models were officially released there were far less complaints. The largest being the stripes being actual parts.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

TazMan2000
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

You seem very fragile as I have in no way insulted you, but you have judged a whole range of kits by a few with errors. It also needs to be rembered that dragon revitalised the afv kit market with a quality and standard that others had to follow. Many things dragon included in kits became standard by others who had to follow suit ie the extras and individual links, I also know what a forerunner is, who created the slide moulding technology. Maybe you are a rivet counter, rest assured that having been a successful modeller for other 30 years at international level and running my own model business with success I know what I'm talking about and disagree with your opinion, of which I am entitled to. Its not a weeing competition but your comment on dragon suggested they are crap, which we both know they ain't. Perhaps you are in that select group that sees everything half empty.i agree with accuarcy when possible but ANY kit can be faulted if you try hard enough, at the end of the day it's plastic and maybe you will only be happy with a full miniature workng replica made from the exact materials as the original, it's ironic that the AT AT is a fictional piece anyway, the only reference of an existing piece are the studio models unless of course you go off expanded universe images and cut aways. In this scale and by dragon it will be superb, the moulding quality will be unquestionable even if the odd rivet needs adding.

Funny than you make guesses on my psychology now...

I see a general problem with Dragon, being that people take the kits from 10+ years ago to defend Dragon's reputation today. Like I wrote previously, I do not question that they have been one of the best companies at that time, but that doesn't make them a good one today. They use their good reputation from these days to sell low-quality items today at a very high price. If you don't believe me, believe robn1's comments on the real space kits. The reboxings of old kits with less PE and extras for double the price should tell you something about the company's attitute, too. The curious thing is that the number of Dragon fanboys is still growing. I do not understand this in times where for example Meng release better kits for the same price.

Ad yes, I am a rivet counter. I don't see any fault in the wish that a model of X should look like X. For me, that's the definition of a model.

In that sence, I expect the AT-AT to be a large kit sold for a very high price. You'll probably get lots of parts, and when seen from a mile it will look great, but if you go closer and compare it with screencaps, you'll see that it is only another vague interpretation of the subject, and not a scale model. Of course, I may be wrong in all points, and will be happy if you are right. I'll believe you when the first reviews show up.
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

I would expect such a well-known and well-documented model to be state-of-the-art, especially when it is announced to come in that huge scale. The AT-AT is by far my favourite SciFi vehicle (alongside with the MF, the TOS Colonial Viper and the TOS Battlestar). I am still hoping that the flaws in the model they used for taking the pics is only a first shot / WIP.

I really don't see much sense in spending several hundreds of Dollars for a model with flawed detail. I mean, just imagine the amount of work and money necessary to accurize the kit. That would be a wasted opportunity. I'd rather build one from scratch then. Just my opinion.

However, I'm open for (nice) surprises and I am really looking forward to seeing the final product. Just remember, the first shot pics of Bandai's Boba Fett were not convincing at all (mainly because they used temporary colours of the parts); the final result was far more pleasing to the eye. :)
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

CG models made for Film almost never translate well to the real world in terms of being something that you could use as the basis for manufacturing. Given that it would still have to be 'Translated' as it were to an engineered and viable product, I doubt that the actual CG models wold be used as anything but for reference. The Bandai model for instance, was likely based on the one used for the film, but in the translation, they lazily mirrored over the sidewall details rather then spend the time replicating the asymmetrical detailing, which is one of the reasons I'm not interested in getting one, actually.

There would still be room for errors like this to occur if they used the Model file to base a large scale Kit on, so I'd probably wait to see how it turned out before committing. Even then, as I'm committed to the DeAgo, I'm not sure ANOTHER large scale falcon would be something I'd need. Or have room for! A Large AT AT, though..... Yeah, I'd probably go for one of those, unless it needs a ton of work to make accurate, then I'd probably pass. Let's hope they get it right!

Cheers

Michael
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

CG models made for Film almost never translate well to the real world in terms of being something that you could use as the basis for manufacturing. Given that it would still have to be 'Translated' as it were to an engineered and viable product, I doubt that the actual CG models wold be used as anything but for reference. The Bandai model for instance, was likely based on the one used for the film, but in the translation, they lazily mirrored over the sidewall details rather then spend the time replicating the asymmetrical detailing, which is one of the reasons I'm not interested in getting one, actually.

There would still be room for errors like this to occur if they used the Model file to base a large scale Kit on, so I'd probably wait to see how it turned out before committing. Even then, as I'm committed to the DeAgo, I'm not sure ANOTHER large scale falcon would be something I'd need. Or have room for! A Large AT AT, though..... Yeah, I'd probably go for one of those, unless it needs a ton of work to make accurate, then I'd probably pass. Let's hope they get it right!

Cheers

Michael

The evidence is starting to appear that Bandai made their model with the files that were available when the model went into production,.....as we now see the CG asset of the Falcon in Battlefront (with circular dish) has exactly the same mirrored details as the Bandai kit

Its only in the last couple of weeks that we have been given views of the portside of the ship,....up until that time the port mandible was considered to be mirrored......so I'd say the first draft of the CG Falcon was given to Bandai & Dice

I would say the full mapping of the Falcon was finished pretty recently & thats why they held back showing any images

The (estimated) 1/48 TFA Falcon likely 3d printed exhibited at Disnyt Launchbay:

attachment.php

J
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

Well, it's not like they didn't have anything to base the model on! Rather than simply mirror one side over, they could have used the reams of available reference to build something more accurate than the flipped sidewalls they ended up with. I'm not sure hwo it would work that 80% of the ship was ready to go, but they simply could not wait for the other 20 to be finalized? I guess it's not something we'll know the reasons for, and it's not that important, just puzzling.

Cheers

Michael
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

Thats what they were given,....the same as Dice,....they thought that was official,....which it was at that point

J
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

I agree. It was the same with the Monogram TOS Battlestar Galactica kits. These were "right" at the time they got the reference (except for the Galactica). The Viper was based on the filming model with the black windows and as such did not have a cockpit interior. The Raider featured one of the lesser prominent mount covers at the chin (triangular piece) instead of the rectangular cover piece which is seen far more often. Probably the other more prominent models were being used on stage and for that unavailable to the Monogram model makers.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to the AT-AT! :)
 
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT

Well, they must not have had anyone from the RPF on staff to call BS on the sidewalls then! For Bandai to just go, "meh, it'll do...'" is a bit of a let down. For the Game, I'm not that bothered, maybe they'll fix it with an update, or maybe no one cares enough to make the effort. It's not like it's anything tangible...

The model in the photo you posted looks a bit..... weird. The Panels on the side-pods look too chunky. The rest of it looks nice though.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top