GOt another one. Now on to the outer mandibles. Then we'll be all the way around her. 
An RPF Open Source 5 ft Millennium Falcon Build/Reference Thread. All Are Welcome
- Thread starter jcoffman99
- Start date
Okay so the old map says 2 is a 1/35 Tamiya Sheridan. Looking at scans, I'm pretty sure it's not. Am I right?
Are these plans still considered the most accurate, and have they ever been revised?
Bjorn
Sr Member
These amazing plans were created by a group led by vfxsup64 and maruska and from what I have seen, currently represent the most accurate drawings of the ANH "5 footer" to be published. eagle1 and t2sides had a big part in this collaboration.
I think the most recognisable issue with these drawings at this point is the cockpit diameter of 5.75". They have since established 6" as the correct diameter.
As I understand, after literally thousands of hours later, they are still being tweaked to be as accurate as possible. However between other projects and professional work/family obligations, any of this revised work is yet to be released.
If you haven't already done so, check out their build threads and Maruska's Falconer blog for a run down of their approach and findings.
I consider them must reads for would-be 5 foot builders.
I think the most recognisable issue with these drawings at this point is the cockpit diameter of 5.75". They have since established 6" as the correct diameter.
As I understand, after literally thousands of hours later, they are still being tweaked to be as accurate as possible. However between other projects and professional work/family obligations, any of this revised work is yet to be released.
If you haven't already done so, check out their build threads and Maruska's Falconer blog for a run down of their approach and findings.
I consider them must reads for would-be 5 foot builders.
You can find the latest released version on Grabcad, not sure if they are the same as the drawing you posted. (I think the link is also on the Maruska Falconer page Bjorn mentioned)
Also, Maruska and Co's upper gun turret base OD is off by a smidge -- it's actually slightly larger than that, as both the photogrammetry method and the Bandai PG Falcon conversion method will show. N.B.: these two methods do not deliver the same answer, but a range of answers within 0.15" of each other, so you have to make an interpretation, guess, and commit to "your answer" at some point either way, no matter how you get there. Another way to figure it is to think about how ILM worked, and in what material. So for the gun turret bases, the evidence suggests that the ILM guys started with a 12" round wooden disc, put it on a lathe, and started shaving away until they found the angle they liked.
Aw man. I taught myself how to do this last night. Lol.
Attachments
Ha good start! shapr3D right?
Yep. Using the Apple pencil makes it super easy on a tablet.
Yes I know the program... also have it on my Ipad. Works suprisingly good indeed with Pencil. (Never would have expected that 3D could work that good with it.) For 3D I am mostly married with my Mouse.
So how tall is the gun turret base?
Hello
First off, amazing forum, and amazing work beeing done in this thread. Thank you so much for sharing.
I'm rather new here, I'm sorry for just barging in here and asking. I'm currently working off of vfxsup64 and maruskas amazing plans. I've not yet been able to confirm weather the diameter is indeed 5,75 or 6". You seem to know tho
would you also happen to know if that changes their calculations of the front diameter of the cockpit cone? atm I'm working with 3,50", but considering your statement, is that number still accurate?Again, thank you all for sharing this.
The cockpit tube is indeed 6 inches. I don't "think" that changes the front diameter. I'm still learning about our precious bird.
Bjorn
Sr Member
Hey Larsen,Hello
First off, amazing forum, and amazing work beeing done in this thread. Thank you so much for sharing.
I'm rather new here, I'm sorry for just barging in here and asking. I'm currently working off of vfxsup64 and maruskas amazing plans. I've not yet been able to confirm weather the diameter is indeed 5,75 or 6". You seem to know tho
Again, thank you all for sharing this.
That's a great question and one that I too have also been mulling over recently.
I could be wrong here, but I think the Version 1 drawing released on GrabCAD had the initial main section of the cone at 3.375" in length, and total length of 3.737" from the very front mullion.
Based on my own calcs, I estimate it to be slightly longer at just over 3.8" which is really a negligible difference. It's difficult to definitively say.
Like a lot of this stuff it's really a matter of 'He's got to choose his own path. No one can choose it for him.' sorta thing.
That quote was for my friend Searun
Hey BjornHey Larsen,
That's a great question and one that I too have also been mulling over recently.
I could be wrong here, but I think the Version 1 drawing released on GrabCAD had the initial main section of the cone at 3.375" in length, and total length of 3.737" from the very front mullion.
Based on my own calcs, I estimate it to be slightly longer at just over 3.8" which is really a negligible difference. It's difficult to definitively say.
Like a lot of this stuff it's really a matter of 'He's got to choose his own path. No one can choose it for him.' sorta thing.
That quote was for my friend Searun
Thank you very much for replying.
I don't want to derail this amazing thread, so I won't go into detail about my own project. But my thoughts where on the resulting "angle" of the cone as well, considdering that if the radius of the overall tube changed, so must the other meassurements... to retain the aspect?!
I would think there's er very fine line between it 'feeling' like the ANH 5FT, or like the 32" ESB?!
Brian
Bjorn
Sr Member
Hey, I'll try not to bang on too much about it either. I agree with trying to maintain the aspect ratio per se, and the look as you put it.
Despite taking many pictures of the ESB 32"er, I'm not sure what the cockpit cone angle is as I haven't really studied it at all. It's a great miniature but it's no 5 footer.
I think they originally had the angle of the 5' cone on the drawing pegged at around 18° from what I can see. I'd suggest between 18° to 19° is good and work with this.
I can't speak for their drawings as I had no input, but I would have thought that angles being referenced are pretty reliable, regardless of scale. So as the scale is manipulated, the angle will stay the same but the resultant length will slightly change proportionally to the diameter.
The difference between the 6" and 5.75" cone is only 4%. The V1 drawing at 3.737" in length, 4% longer is 3.88". If my math is correct...
So I feel it should be somewhere between the two. It comes down to your own workings out. A good in focus, straight on photo, from a medium distance is a good clue.
I just broke down and ordered the Bandai PG Falcon. I figure it will be a helpful reference. Don't tell my wife.
OH I envy you!...I just broke down and ordered the Bandai PG Falcon. I figure it will be a helpful reference. Don't tell my wife.
Try telling her there is no try... Do or do not! So basically, you had to do it. You really had no choice.
Similar threads
