Just be aware that the wings on the DeAgo model are questionable, as I've seen them. They don't open from a central point of the ship, but rather from the side. So it's not like the wings are a total of two pieces that work like scissor. The right and left side each have separate top and bottom wings and they open from the side. If I had one of these, I'd keep the wings closed just because of this.
Mike Todd
Dedalus 5550, Thank you for your sincere answer.
I also saw the image of the production advertisement, noticed the abnormality of the opening degree of the wing, and saw the 3D structure and understood the cause (also posted by Mr. hugescale).
When I saw DeAgo's official advertisement, I thought that the structure of the wing was wrong.
However, I think DeAgo 's approach is one correct answer now.
Because I find the same appearance as DeAgo in the CG animation which is announced later.
Here, we will explain the pattern diagram on the arrangement of the wings.
A. The structure seen in Deago, the armature can not be seen, the structure inside the fuselage of the wing and the outside of the fuselage are on the same plane.
B. This is the internal structure seen in the movable wing of the Studio model.
C. Overlay AB to highlight differences.
D. The structure of internal A, external B, which can be seen in the movie scene.
E. The concept of attaching a cover to hide the armature on the fuselage part of the movable wing.
One idea to eliminate the discomfort with the scene of the movie with F. A's pattern. Reduce the angle at which the wing is open.
Image example
1. DeAgo
2. CGI (The lost starfighter)
3. CGI (The battle of lothan)
These are A in the pattern diagram.
4. Studio model - RED 3
5. Studio model - RED 5 left side
These are D in the pattern diagram.
6. Studio model - RED 5 right side
This is B, which is rare in movies. It seems they have forgotten to cover the armature.
I think the design on the desk is the A pattern.
For that reason, CGI had the structure as designed, and DeAgo also tried to reproduce the design, so I believe that DeAgo implemented the A pattern.
ILM's modeler seems to have been unable to implement movable wing in A pattern.
So I think that they adopted the E pattern hiding the armature so that they look like the A pattern.
For the reasons above, DeAgo 's approach is correct, but you can not deny the sense of incompatibility for those who like movie scenes.
It is difficult to realize Pattern D with DeAgo's movable wing (although there are some ideas, I will skip here).
Plan B is to reduce the angle at which the wing opens, as shown by pattern F.
If DeAgo's movable wing is stopped by the limit switch, it can be adjusted by the position of the trigger, but in the case of a program, it is necessary to reduce the number of gears on the drive side.
It is also difficult to realize Pattern D on models other than DeAgo.
In this case, adopt the pattern E, and when moving the wing, the armature cover must be removed.