Well, it looks like they made an updated version of Luke's ROTJ saber for TFA...

Untitled.jpg

Forgive this because I did it in paint.... but is this a possible configuration?

meaning that 3 is like a washer between 2 and 4.... holding 2 to 1?

See what I'm seeing?
 
Man, for $100 or so, count me in! Would you do this before or after a ISYHCANL run?
 
Looks to be a hole, or set screw hole on the side of the nub, down inside the recess. The recess also looks a bit deeper than you have it above.

Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 4.25.26 PM.png

And I'm pretty sure that activation box should be the same length on both sides, it wouldn't make sense to be asymmetrical and longer on one end, i think that's just an illusion from the angle.

Untitled-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Man, for $100 or so, count me in! Would you do this before or after a ISYHCANL run?


Yes. Nicksdad's saber run will probably put a damper on my ISYHCANL run for a while, since it looks like he's gathered up a bunch of commitments from people who I was expecting to be in on my run.

Dan
 
I'd prefer yours, since he's using the resin casting measurements, which we know are too small.
 
Yep. Me too. But with so many folk jumping on board his run, it decreases the number who would be in on my run, and consequently raises my costs. Last time I did a Luke Hero run, I had a bunch of people committed, I ordered the parts, put up my own money, then when it came time to pay up. A bunch of people jumped ship and signed up for Rylo's run because it was a bit cheaper leaving me holding the bag. I don't want to put myself in a similar situation, and I also don't want to compete with Nicksdad and screw up his run.
 
For me the ROTJ sabers are only stocking stuffers, display pieces that will go in the glass cabinet and stay there - not like the sabers from real parts, which i like to take out and hold them. So they are in a much lower "league" for me, also for the acceptable price.

But when i say i´m in, then i am. And that means i am ready to pay when asked for, no "sorry, i can´t afford it now due to med bills", or whatever.
 
Looks to be a hole, or set screw hole on the side of the nub, down inside the recess. The recess also looks a bit deeper than you have it above.

View attachment 612678

And I'm pretty sure that activation box should be the same length on both sides, it wouldn't make sense to be asymmetrical and longer on one end, i think that's just an illusion from the angle.

View attachment 612680

Nice catch! And I agree about the activation box. It actually looks like it might have been put on the body slightly wonky? But if anyone gives a crap about my vote, I vote symmetrical. There's no reason it wouldn't be.
 
Hey, your 3D models are looking good so far.

What 3D software are you using? I'm guessing the one with the blue/gray parts is Solid Works? What is the software in post 77?

The other one is Netfabb. I exported the model as a mesh and then sliced it up so that I can see how it looks in different colors

- - - Updated - - -

Nice catch! And I agree about the activation box. It actually looks like it might have been put on the body slightly wonky? But if anyone gives a crap about my vote, I vote symmetrical. There's no reason it wouldn't be.

I don't see the hole, and if there is one where you're seeing it, it would greatly increase the price of the prop, so I'm not going to add it to the model. I think you probably are right about the recess depth. As to the box. The one on my model is defiantly to small. But, while I'm confused by the asymmetry, it is what I'm seeing, so that's what I'd go with.
 
The other one is Netfabb. I exported the model as a mesh and then sliced it up so that I can see how it looks in different colors

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see the hole, and if there is one where you're seeing it, it would greatly increase the price of the prop, so I'm not going to add it to the model. I think you probably are right about the recess depth. As to the box. The one on my model is defiantly to small. But, while I'm confused by the asymmetry, it is what I'm seeing, so that's what I'd go with.

You don't think the control box is just twisted a little? Like, not in line with the body?
 
Although these hilts are similar, they represent completely different spots in a collection. It think those expressing interest in both are most likely willing to jump on both projects.

I know I expressed no interest earlier but as this project has been going forward and pricing discussed, I am rethinking my original position.


If you are afraid of committers backing out, might I suggest a non-refundable deposit.
 
Here's the resized box.
attachment.php

attachment.php

attachment.php


- - - Updated - - -

Although these hilts are similar, they represent completely different spots in a collection. It think those expressing interest in both are most likely willing to jump on both projects.

I know I expressed no interest earlier but as this project has been going forward and pricing discussed, I am rethinking my original position.


If you are afraid of committers backing out, might I suggest a non-refundable deposit.


Sorry. I was talking about two different projects. MCM was asking me if I was planning on doing a Luke ROTJ hero run in the near future. I said that that decision would depend on if there's still interest after Nicksdad's run.

As to doing a TFA saber, yes, they're two different projects.

Dan
 
Yes. Nicksdad's saber run will probably put a damper on my ISYHCANL run for a while, since it looks like he's gathered up a bunch of commitments from people who I was expecting to be in on my run.

Dan

This is a bummer to hear. I'm a huge fan of your particular brand of accuracy, Dan! Maybe do a Shared Stunt run instead? Eh? Eh? ;)
 
This thread is more than 7 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