BRRogers / Verity Cosplay / 7 Chambers - "MoM of All Heroes"

[thd9791]

If you're willing to share - can you post some in the research thread?

but there are some tells that indicate most of the hilt was solid.

Kurtyboy knows, I have a thing for stunt sabers, and theres a possibility we're looking at a dressed up stunt saber but I haven't seen any evidence of blade retention other than the nipple set screw. If it were solid, much better chance of it being a dressed stunt

 

[Verity Cosplay]

If you're willing to share - can you post some in the research thread?



Kurtyboy knows, I have a thing for stunt sabers, and theres a possibility we're looking at a dressed up stunt saber but I haven't seen any evidence of blade retention other than the nipple set screw. If it were solid, much better chance of it being a dressed stunt

BRRogers or I can add some narrative / thoughts to the research thread yes. The short of it is the tiny amounts of filleting across the hilt. While not definitive it likely is indicative of lathing a solid body vs a joint. It is highly unlikely anyone would artificially produce nose radii marks when lathing a jointed corner vs a solid body.

we see this on both sides of the pommel cubes front and back, we see it at the step change of narrow body to main body. We see it at all of the neck step changes in diameter.

 

[chazzychaz]

I have been looking at circuit boards from late 70s and early 80s graphing calculators for the reveal seen in the cave. it seems promising. quite similar layouts. nothing definite yet, I assume you experts know more than I. this is very exciting

 

[BRRogers]

I found one from HP a while back that had a very similar trace style, however I foolishly didn’t save it because at that time I assumed the board was all one layer

(and of course I haven’t been able to find it again)

 

[Verity Cosplay]

Prototype PCBs ordered and should arrive in about 10 days (prototypes will be purple cuz OSHpark but final color not decided not that it is super important since this is the unseen functional part)..

 

[thd9791]

BRRogers or I can add some narrative / thoughts to the research thread yes. The short of it is the tiny amounts of filleting across the hilt. While not definitive it likely is indicative of lathing a solid body vs a joint. It is highly unlikely anyone would artificially produce nose radii marks when lathing a jointed corner vs a solid body.

we see this on both sides of the pommel cubes front and back, we see it at the step change of narrow body to main body. We see it at all of the neck step changes in diameter.

thank you! that makes sense, I'm mildly astonished you guys are able to find marks like that, but its the RPF, we're good at that I shouldn't be surprised

 

[Verity Cosplay]

Ok. So... I have a question for the community. First some assertions:

1.) the FX run's reveal board CANNOT be identical and full canon. Space constraints mandate this board is different dimensions than the later static version.

2.) this IS an FX run, so bear that in mind.

BRRogers and I are debating some elements to this. He is coming from the "even though it will be dimensionally different we should make it simple and identical to the original as much as we can, allowing for the necessary differences the different dimensions will require."

I am coming from the position of"let's embrace the fact it is gonna be different and make the appearance more loosely inspired by the original with an IC in front and red wires and such, but let's make some alterations to support potentially additional blinkies from pass throughs from the helper board and and make the top reveal more flashy and FX-y with a handful of tiny surface LEDs and MAYBE even support a bar of tiny pixels in a chain to support like PLI supports or whatnot for a main soundboard." This would sacrifice more of the canon appearance but would make the top board have a useful functional aspect.

Bryan is pretty set on simple faux and as close to canon as we can. I am coming from the "it actually can't be canon already so let's save absolute accuracy for the static reveal board and fully embrace FX bells and whistles for the FX reveal board."

So help Bryan and I settle this argument. Which side would the community fall on this debate?

 

[Seanh5134]

Personally I’m for the “as close to” as we can

 

[CHS3CELL]

You guys are already going beyond expectations. On this matter as close as possible without sacrificing the room for FX is my vote.

 

[Dann]

That's a tough choice, and since I've got such limited funds, I'm not gonna state an opinion either way.

But your idea IS really cool!

Is there a way to include all you want to include while still sticking to the "close as possible" philosophy?

Like, pick out certain small details on the real board, and substitute individual details or components with small SMD LEDs and whatnot?

Maybe have the PLI right along the edge of the little square IC, or beneath the "brass photo etched parts"?

 

[Spyhunter2k]

My vote is as close to canon as possible.

 

[Verity Cosplay]

That's a tough choice, and since I've got such limited funds, I'm not gonna state an opinion either way.

But your idea IS really cool!

Is there a way to include all you want to include while still sticking to the "close as possible" philosophy?

Like, pick out certain small details on the real board, and substitute individual details or components with small SMD LEDs and whatnot?

Maybe have the PLI right along the edge of the little square IC, or beneath the "brass photo etched parts"?

well this is exactly the thought I had... but Bryan and I are locked in debate haha.

 

[Dann]

Man, oh man, well I'm sure y'all will come to some sort of a compromise, before too long!

Seems like most folks who've chimed in so far are leaning towards accuracy.

 

[Verity Cosplay]

Man, oh man, well I'm sure y'all will come to some sort of a compromise, before too long!

Seems like most folks who've chimed in so far are leaning towards accuracy.

yesh. Worst case I can always make my own how I wanna bling it as a one off. Hehe.

 

[RogueFive]

Having seen what’s going into this saber as far as accuracy is concerned, I would be most happy with a board that’s as close to the original as possible.

 

[corliss1]

If the answer to "will the static run that is most likely happening be as accurate as possible even more so than this fx version" is yes, I bet a lot of people might hold out for that.

 

[MasterJedi]

Another vote for as accurate as possible. It's understandable that it will be slightly different, but then again, nobody has put a reveal circuit board in the control box before, so I say make the first one as accurate as possible as a baseline, and then in the future you, or whoever, can take design liberties based on the baseline board.

I guess what I mean is, keep it simple and accurate first, before one that has more leeway with flashiness.

 

[BRRogers]

Hmmm yes... indubitably

Another vote for as accurate as possible. It's understandable that it will be slightly different, but then again, nobody has put a reveal circuit board in the control box before, so I say make the first one as accurate as possible as a baseline, and then in the future you, or whoever, can take design liberties based on the baseline board.

I guess what I mean is, keep it simple and accurate first, before one that has more leeway with flashiness.

This resonates with me particularly. The point of the FX project is to be as close as possible to the static ideal while filling the FX need. However... we are also working on the ‘optional extras’ like chassis, crystal chamber reveal, etc... in my mind an ‘optional-extra reveal card’ isn’t fully off the table. In private with Adam; and I’d also agree with Dann there may be some spots on the reveal board that could be utilized for additional ‘hidden’ LED support while maintaining the surface appearance derived from the static.
However I think those points of accent should be completely optional for installers without compromising the already tightly filled surface reveal

The secondary board certainly makes the upper reveal capable of more possibilities from the underside. It also just makes the build and front end timeline more complex, and a tad more expensive....

my then follow up is: someone else could figure that out

but then: between Adam’ and my workflow I think we could figure out something nice that looks right but gives the ‘bling’ crowd options as well? The underside of the top board has a lot of open possibility

 

[Dann]

Astoundingly accommodating, as usual!

 

[Ron]

I'd go for accurate as well but either way I'll be very happy .