DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
not meant to take anything away from you kind Sir!

but the way I see it, both you and Dave are serving different geographical locations (e.g benefits from custom tax and postage cost for us in the UK and vice versa).

Furthermore, the base model used are from different sources (e.g Dave using his own CAD model, etc).

Using the same production method as per original should be encouraged, and it does not infringed on any parties intellectual properties.

but what do I know, I’m just a very excited member of the community seeing all the great developments surrounding this prop! Good work everyone!

That wasn't what I was getting at, an on-going research and "living history" project---and accompanying project run---exists, just for those unawares. I wasn't intending throw shade on anyone.

My further point was this, casting a finished V2 model wouldn't be a benefit. Casting alu shrinks. You may have a nice CAD model of a V2 but as soon as it's cast, it's gonna be smaller than your model and, therefore, be inaccurate.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

enrico

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This is great. I've managed to do something similar and certainly looks to be the case. Although I'm seeing what could be something sticking out to the left too at 90 degrees to this one, as well is something on the right. Could it be that there were actually more than two. I'll be looking in to this a little more closely later today.

That's great, thanks! I'd love to find this interview and the exact wording as it could very well corroborate my theory. If the emitter is loose during filming and free to spin around the rod, any lateral pressure applied to the emitter would indeed create friction between the body section and the rod, slowing down the blade! Very interesting!

View attachment 1475232

Thanks for all of your contributions to the discussion everyone. It's all very much appreciated!

I'll be posting a mammoth update later today covering everything from this week. All written out. I just need to finish up a few images I'd like to include. Lots of model changes and refinements. :)

All the best and MTFBWY

Dave
Waiting for your mammoth update, looking forward Dave!
 

Mr Mold Maker

Master Member
I have Palps V2 and love it to death, but I am also very much on board with yours. They scratch two very different itches for me, personally.

I hope that I’ll have them side by side on my shelf in the future. :)
 

BRRogers

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Part of the idea of casting a V2 /V3 shared in aluminum (or any other material) also involves a completely different set of processes for manufacturing. I’m sure PoopaPapaPalps can attest at this point doing them himself that any high quality manufacturing for multiples would probably be a VERY significant investment beyond the typical machine shop much less creating the tooling for making this in a foundry THEN having it shipped to a machine shop for exact specification machining… they’d likely require an order of hundreds to create that kind of tooling due to the complexity of the process... if not thousand to make it economical for the buyer.

Im not saying it can’t be done; but I know the last individual who was going to pursue that came back empty handed when the masters for casting were accidentally destroyed and the progress was lost leaving the project unfinished and the maker in the hole some 7 digits if I’m not mistaken.

Unless some gracious soul with a legitimate foundry smiles on the community and one run in particular (and I hope they do one day) it might not be in the cards unless we figure it out in our garage as TheRPF is apt to ;)
 

PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
It'd be a very large investment, indeed. A factory would need thousands to be made and just as much money upfront to make them (nitrogen degassing and large crucible batches) and then to machine them to spec---it would be very hard to do. Not impossible but very hard to produce. These companies would likely be those contracted by automotive industries. Only they would have the capacity to facilitate such things but the order numbers, or pocketbooks, would have to be fairly sizable to make it happen.

Small shop forges could do it, but it's the inverse; inventory would be larger than what I'm doing but it'd still be as much as the forge can produce, and to have them machine each to spec by hand---each piece would be very expensive to pay the wages.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
**Update**

Hi Everyone. It’s been an eventful week, with a number of discussions here on the RPF and behind the scenes, as well as a few revelations of my own. I’ve updated the models in a number of subtle but important ways. I guess the most important change (and the one that is the reason for the delay in posting this) is one that you won’t necessarily be able to see on the overlays. It’s probably the most important thing to get right though! I found that the whole thing was too small by a very small amount.

I noticed this when I came to combine the models for the body and the Michell cone knob in to the same file. The cone knob appeared to be too big, which forced me to check on all of my scaling. The actual cone knob is correct. I had no doubts there, on account of the references I used, which had a very deliberate and obvious reference scale. So I double checked my scaling on the reference for the body, and it was a fraction of a mm out on the Graflex clamp. This of course throws the whole thing out, so It’s great that I had these two points of reference to check against each other. It kind of helps to triangulate an accurate scale for everything.

Having scaled the reference plane up by 1% so that the clamp was the correct real world length and diameter in my 3D file, I then had to scale my models to match the new scale. This then threw all my cameras out of course so I’ve spent a bit of time just getting everything lined up again and all my various files and cameras back in sync. Hence the delay in posting this update!

I now have 100% confidence that my overall scale is spot on, so I can concentrate on getting the finer details ironed out.

VIEW_01_COMPARISON.png


On a slightly related note, It was bothering me that the gap around the nipple in my emitter was ever so slightly too wide still when modelled to fit the closest bearing size. This was actually because everything else was a fraction too small. Now that I’ve scaled everything up based on the accurate graflex clamp and cone knob, whilst keeping the bearing size the same, it’s closed that gap up a little. :)

EMITTER_VIEW.png


GRAFLEX/LEVER

I’ve now modelled the graflex clamp too, to include in my renderings. The clamp on the V2 is slightly misshapen, so this, like everything else, was an interesting challenge. It’s great to have the whole prop represented in 3D though, even if I don’t end up producing these parts myself. The models for these parts are very basic and not final by any means, but for the purposes of including in the renders, I think they’re close enough.

CLAMP_RENDER.png


RINGS

The rings on the model, as well as the grooves, have now been softened and fine tuned. They were previously a very approximate representation of the rings. Now that I’m refining the model, I’m ensuring that every groove is cut to the correct depth (all slightly different) and that any sharp edges and corners are chamfered by the correct amount.

RINGS.png


EMITTER

There was a discussion earlier in the week where we discussed the emitter and its grub screws. I was previously of the view that if there were grub screws on the main part of the emitter, that they were likely added for RotJ. With the kind help of PoopaPapaPalps and Gerard2567 , I’ve now seen evidence that they were there on the original prop. I’m still certain that they were loosened off during filming to allow the emitter to spin freely, but they were certainly there the whole time. Possibly just to lock everything up if needed.

This actually makes my life a lot easier. I was thinking I might need to have two different emitter options as part of my kit, but since the set screws were there the whole time, I can include them in the model. Then I just need to add the accurate buckling to the emitter face for the RotJ version. I’ll be doing this myself with a purpose made vice jig for those who want them.

I still need to do further investigations in to these grub screws to determine their exact positions in relation to the damage on the emitter lip.

POMMEL

So after some discussions behind the scenes and investigating further in to the mystery pommel mark, I have abandoned the idea that it is a filled hole. It turns out, after trawling the internet, and looking in to the milling process more closely, that a raised circular mark like the one we see here is not uncommon under specific circumstances.

toolmarks.png


The real mystery is why it was left that way? It would have been easy enough to get rid of. An even bigger mystery is how to recreate it! This is something that I need to discuss with my machinist.

The fact that it appears NOT to be the remnants of a hole, have ramifications for the internals too. I’m actually quite pleased that I can now leave the pommel almost entirely solid. This will add a little weight to balance the grenade and harks back to that Hamill quote: “It’s heavy isn’t it”.

CUTAWAY

The whole point of this thread is to discuss this prop and to dig in to its inner workings, so that I can produce the best possible replica that I can. If the RPF isn’t the place to do this, nowhere is. I am aware though, that there are some amongst us who see fit to take the hard work of others and copy it. Even going so far as to take part in runs, and purchase people’s work for the purposes of taking measurements. This is recasting, and it is not acceptable! Unfortunately, there is really very little that can be done about this sort of thing. Going forward, I’ll continue to discuss the various features of the prop and my design for the internals. I WONT be divulging any measurements or references to part numbers, etc. I’ll also be avoiding posting any 2D drawings, instead opting for 3D cutaways to show the internal structure:

CUT AWAY DIAGRAM.png


I really do need to discuss these things openly though, if I'm going to get things right. The current design for the internals is still a rough approximation and there are a number of areas that can, and probably will, get shifted around and changed. It's important that any decisions I make going forward are based on the evidence and on the advice/suggestions of the community.

With that in mind, I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far! I really appreciate everyone's involvement.

Thanks for looking and MTFBWY,

Dave
 

Gerard2567

Active Member
If i remember correctly the circle was suppose to be 16mm roughly. You can try to replicate this using a leather hole punch. Perfectly round and usually hardened steel.

But as for the origin of that mark, im not sure either.
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Wonderful work Dave! I really like the way you're handling this. Funny that the whole thing was a little off.. glad you caught it though.

I would raise your motor area up a bit. That cone knob was the location of a toggle switch. Back then, they were not micro sized things, and the casings were rather chunky. I would think that would put the motor behind the clamp entirely, which may raise the coupler and bearing into the grenade section a little.

I really like the work you did on the clamp and lever. I noticed the clamp was bent together during celebration
 

Poikilotherm

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
1.jpg

4.jpg

6.gif

8.gif

In my stunt V2 sword, I used a 20MM diameter and 25MM length elastic coupling, which can greatly adjust the skew of the shaft rotation during swinging, so that the body does not shake too much. I see in your rendering that it is a clamp-on coupling. Maybe I'm wondering if the elastic coupling I'm using can fit into your V2 body. The clamping coupling is smaller in size than the elastic coupling.

This is also my only solution to the body shivering problem, I just hope it works for your V2 internals. I sent a few GIF pictures, you can see the body shaking, if I use the clamping coupling it will shake more seriously.:oops: Thd9791 is quite right,the grenade part needs to be raised properly!:lol:
 

scottjua

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Please don't take too much stock into Mark's comment on it being heavy... it's really not out of the realm of normal. Holdin the Gen 1 Solo's Hold and Starkillers next to the real one at the same time... they were VERY similar in weight in the hand. I think making so much of it solid is barking up the wrong tree. Also having seen the inside... it's not that solid.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Wonderful work Dave! I really like the way you're handling this. Funny that the whole thing was a little off.. glad you caught it though.

I would raise your motor area up a bit. That cone knob was the location of a toggle switch. Back then, they were not micro sized things, and the casings were rather chunky. I would think that would put the motor behind the clamp entirely, which may raise the coupler and bearing into the grenade section a little.

I really like the work you did on the clamp and lever. I noticed the clamp was bent together during celebration

View attachment 1475545
View attachment 1475546
View attachment 1475547
View attachment 1475565
In my stunt V2 sword, I used a 20MM diameter and 25MM length elastic coupling, which can greatly adjust the skew of the shaft rotation during swinging, so that the body does not shake too much. I see in your rendering that it is a clamp-on coupling. Maybe I'm wondering if the elastic coupling I'm using can fit into your V2 body. The clamping coupling is smaller in size than the elastic coupling.

This is also my only solution to the body shivering problem, I just hope it works for your V2 internals. I sent a few GIF pictures, you can see the body shaking, if I use the clamping coupling it will shake more seriously.:oops: Thd9791 is quite right,the grenade part needs to be raised properly!:lol:

Please don't take too much stock into Mark's comment on it being heavy... it's really not out of the realm of normal. Holdin the Gen 1 Solo's Hold and Starkillers next to the real one at the same time... they were VERY similar in weight in the hand. I think making so much of it solid is barking up the wrong tree. Also having seen the inside... it's not that solid.

Thanks guys! I REALLY appreciate the input! I agree that the motor housing is looking a little too small now, thd9791 and that things still need to be moved around on the internals. I'm awaiting the arrival of a variety of motors for me to take a look at in person and I'm sure we're going to end up going further up in to the grenade section (but only as far as is needed).

The cutaway is definitely only intended as a rough representation at this stage. I've left the rod protruding in to the motor chamber, but this was really just to show that I don't know where it ends just yet.

When I scaled up the exterior (leaving the interior as it was) I did think it was looking a bit on the chunky side now. Not that I have anything to base that on personally. I certainly take your first hand account very seriously, scottjua, so I'll bare what you've said in mind going forward!

I'm going to be concentrating on the internals next and will take all of your comments on board.

I'll be looking at the various options for shaft couplings too and looking at how they effect things. It's interesting that they have such an impact on the movement of the hilt too! Thanks Poikilotherm ! I'll keep this in mind!

With regards to the weight, I understand what you're saying Scott, and I'll certainly reign things in, including looking at how things look with the next size of motor up (Now that that could be a possibility with the scaled up exterior).

The difference in weight between my solid Yuma and a Starkiller V2 isn't huge. 730KG/430KG, so I'm not talking about making it ridiculously heavy. Just somewhere between the two?

Thanks again for the input everyone! I'll take all this away and come back soon with another update once I've digested everything.

All the best,

Dave
 

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
If i remember correctly the circle was suppose to be 16mm roughly. You can try to replicate this using a leather hole punch. Perfectly round and usually hardened steel.

But as for the origin of that mark, im not sure either.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what caused it now, but I'm not in a position to say just yet. The biggest mystery for me is why it wasn't removed. :D
 

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
**Update**

Hi Everyone,

I've just updated the "Construction" section of the thread with a new internal construction diagram:

Latest Cutaway 20-07.jpg


This is the culmination of hours of trawling through the internet looking at and for vintage motors/gearboxes and any information I could get on their dimensions.

I stumbled upon some notes that vadermania posted on another thread, following a conversation he had with Jon Bunker (Thank you for sharing!). Jon recalls that the motors used were geared model railway motors rather than the Japanese style RC ones I had been investigating previously. It turns out that the standard diameters are very similar, and the jump between the size seen here and the next size up would leave the walls dangerously thin.

The additional length of the motor (due to the gear box) has pushed the coupler and bearing in to the grenade section though, and I have opted to carry the step in the booster section through to the interior to allow more space for the switch and wiring. Had I not done this, the wall of the booster section might have been too thick to install the toggle switch on the ANH effects prop.

This is still very much a work in progress, but I feel like we're moving in the right direction, and this latest version is a big improvement on the previous design. The additional interior space now fits a lot better with what scottjua said about his recollection of the interior of the prop.

I'll continue to chip away at this and will post another update soon!

As always, I welcome any constructive criticism or suggestions. (y)

Thanks for looking and all the best,

Dave
 
Last edited:

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Had I not done this, the wall of the booster section might have been too thick to install the toggle switch on the ANH effects prop.
such a small comment for so much work - but I wanted to add something here. Switches are usually rectangular and the switch we see on the prop sticks straight out... meaning it toggled left and right (so the side profile would look straight) and probably not up down.

1608876680930.jpeg

That means the switch casing was up against a curved wall, and would probably need a thinner wall to get the threads up and out of the saber!
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
such a small comment for so much work - but I wanted to add something here. Switches are usually rectangular and the switch we see on the prop sticks straight out... meaning it toggled left and right (so the side profile would look straight) and probably not up down.

View attachment 1477678

That means the switch casing was up against a curved wall, and would probably need a thinner wall to get the threads up and out of the saber!
Thanks Tom! Not a small comment at all. That's a really good point! I did think it might be that way around, but for a different reason. I figured that there might not be room to have it length ways due to it being so close to the pommel. Maybe that's the reason? You've proved that that's the orientation there though I think, so that's great! Well spotted! I did have the threads of the switch in mind when reducing the thickness, but you're absolutely right, we would loose a thread due to the curvature of the hilt. More so with it being side on like this. Awesome stuff! (y)
 

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
such a small comment for so much work - but I wanted to add something here. Switches are usually rectangular and the switch we see on the prop sticks straight out... meaning it toggled left and right (so the side profile would look straight) and probably not up down.

View attachment 1477678

That means the switch casing was up against a curved wall, and would probably need a thinner wall to get the threads up and out of the saber!
I just threw together a very quick switch based on some measurements I found online and it would definitely be in the way of the pommel if it were rotated 90 degrees (y)

Latest Cutaway plus switch 20-07.jpg

*All the various set screws and openings have been lined up for the diagram so that they can be seen in the cross section by the way.

Thanks again for the input Tom. Much appreciated. :)
 

v312

Well-Known Member
Is there evidence that the whole emitter was a separate piece during AHN?

Just looking at this diagram it makes so much more sense if the emitter is one piece with the body like it is in the raw cast.
 

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Is there evidence that the whole emitter was a separate piece during AHN?

Just looking at this diagram it makes so much more sense if the emitter is one piece with the body like it is in the raw cast.
I'm fairly certain I've seen the emitter rotating independently of the body, although it doesn't appear to spin with the blade. This is what led me to believe that it was independent of the entire mechanism. I'm sure I remember seeing a discussion around there being two different emitters too. (Don't quote me on that though!). I guess it would make sense for it to be one piece mechanically. Maybe it was easier to make/work on as two separate pieces though?

Leave this with me and I'll see if I can get a better answer....
 

Zenkai

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Well, in the video with Mark Hamill, Brandon shows off that it spins, independently of the body. About 38 seconds in:
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top