Dragon gets Star Wars licence
- Thread starter Sergiotron
- Start date
CAPTAINCOX
Sr Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Sure does!. Cant wait to get my hands on all three models...Diorama Time
Sure does!. Cant wait to get my hands on all three models...Diorama Time
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Yeah but still way off, look at the leg part that goes from the middle leg part to the ankle, way too long !
After the release of Bandai's ne at perfect AT-ST, I cant understand why Dragon can release so innacurate models (ATAT and ATST), using old blueprints found on internet. They obviously did not do their homework and just want to make money thinking the customer is dumb enough to not see the difference. It's a lack of respect to me...
Yeah but still way off, look at the leg part that goes from the middle leg part to the ankle, way too long !
After the release of Bandai's ne at perfect AT-ST, I cant understand why Dragon can release so innacurate models (ATAT and ATST), using old blueprints found on internet. They obviously did not do their homework and just want to make money thinking the customer is dumb enough to not see the difference. It's a lack of respect to me...
Jaitea
Master Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Ha,...you'd think they'd know not to disrespect you Julien!!
There really is no excuse for inaccuracies now, as you say after Bandai leading the way,.....how much work would you say would be needed to correct the problem,...& what version would the best to try and modify it too?
Have you seen the Speeder,.....theres something strange going on with the gun barrels also.....is it artistic licence?
The conversation came up over on StarshipModeller
....& our man Blakeh1 said:
J
Ha,...you'd think they'd know not to disrespect you Julien!!
There really is no excuse for inaccuracies now, as you say after Bandai leading the way,.....how much work would you say would be needed to correct the problem,...& what version would the best to try and modify it too?
Have you seen the Speeder,.....theres something strange going on with the gun barrels also.....is it artistic licence?
The conversation came up over on StarshipModeller
MRF said:Yeah, but no matter how the business works, we modelers - end "users" expect product as accurate as it's possible.
It's really hard to me to understand how and where all those accuracy issues come from, and honestly I can't find a better explanation than "hey, it's just some niche, space opera BS subject, who cares - we have a license obligations, and have to push a bunch of products on the market until specific date".
Unfortunately for now only japanese companies - once FM, now Bandai - try to do the job the best they can (although it's well known their releases are not free from some issues too).
Just sayin'
Tracy White said:
....& our man Blakeh1 said:
blakeh1 said:
J
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Dragon posted a photograph of a pile of Star Wars reference material before unveiling its line of kits, so not all research is done on the internet. That said, I believe I've found where those greebled "muzzle brakes" on the Snowspeeder come from: http://www.loresdelsith.net/universo/alirep/bin/snowesq.jpg. One of the "Incredible Cross Sections" books!
That first quote was quite something, I've been suspecting that such cases always happen in the industry, great to see someone who's part of the model kit industry confirm this speculation. IIRC, as they mentioned Trumpeter, one of their R&D team got caught in a bit of a tussle with the so-called "rivet counters" on social media who were tearing apart the accuracy of their upcoming product. I suppose it isn't really that much of a problem for companies whose R&D is all being done in-house by full-time employees, less complications due to back and forth exchanges between the design team and the researchers working miles apart at the expense of more critical reviews before release.
The issue with Dragon these days as some say is the cost. While we're upset at the cost of importing and running a business driving sellers to price foreign kits unreasonably, the newer Dragon kits I know of have become quite expensive everywhere, even at home. That being said, I wouldn't expect these kits to be cheap but time will tell.
Dragon posted a photograph of a pile of Star Wars reference material before unveiling its line of kits, so not all research is done on the internet. That said, I believe I've found where those greebled "muzzle brakes" on the Snowspeeder come from: http://www.loresdelsith.net/universo/alirep/bin/snowesq.jpg. One of the "Incredible Cross Sections" books!
That first quote was quite something, I've been suspecting that such cases always happen in the industry, great to see someone who's part of the model kit industry confirm this speculation. IIRC, as they mentioned Trumpeter, one of their R&D team got caught in a bit of a tussle with the so-called "rivet counters" on social media who were tearing apart the accuracy of their upcoming product. I suppose it isn't really that much of a problem for companies whose R&D is all being done in-house by full-time employees, less complications due to back and forth exchanges between the design team and the researchers working miles apart at the expense of more critical reviews before release.
The issue with Dragon these days as some say is the cost. While we're upset at the cost of importing and running a business driving sellers to price foreign kits unreasonably, the newer Dragon kits I know of have become quite expensive everywhere, even at home. That being said, I wouldn't expect these kits to be cheap but time will tell.
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
as with any non-trivial project upfront planning pay dividends in cost and schedule... a bit longer planning saves you time and effort in the "redo" phase.
in this case the planning refers to gaining access to the proper reference for the subject. bringing in the experts after you've already prototyped is STUPID. it takes just as long to CAD something wrong as to CAD it correct. Bringing in the experts at the beginning to provide the proper reference is the way to go. Anything else is is a mistake.
<puts away soapbox>
Jedi Dade
as with any non-trivial project upfront planning pay dividends in cost and schedule... a bit longer planning saves you time and effort in the "redo" phase.
in this case the planning refers to gaining access to the proper reference for the subject. bringing in the experts after you've already prototyped is STUPID. it takes just as long to CAD something wrong as to CAD it correct. Bringing in the experts at the beginning to provide the proper reference is the way to go. Anything else is is a mistake.
<puts away soapbox>
Jedi Dade
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
The said blueprints that can be found on internet comes from a book, that doesnt mean it's accurate.
I mean there are no accurate blueprints ever made for any of the star wars models in any books or other stuff. The only way is to do the hardwork and study the filming miniatures (or the full size models if they want to reproduce them) like Bandai did.
I don't buy the working a tight schedule and costs excuses, Bandai did well and pretty quickly. They just hired the right guys.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly !
The said blueprints that can be found on internet comes from a book, that doesnt mean it's accurate.
I mean there are no accurate blueprints ever made for any of the star wars models in any books or other stuff. The only way is to do the hardwork and study the filming miniatures (or the full size models if they want to reproduce them) like Bandai did.
I don't buy the working a tight schedule and costs excuses, Bandai did well and pretty quickly. They just hired the right guys.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly !
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
I think another problem is that Dragon has such a good reputation that a lot modelers will not discuss the quality of their models and will bully anyone who raises doubt on the accuracy. I followed some discussions about Black Label Series kits where the tank's turret block the hatches, where the turret is deformed as far as that it doesn't even allow it to rotate, but there are enough fanboys to make the bad bad "rivet counters" leave the discussions, because regardless how good their arguments and references are, Dragon's reputation is better. This way Dragon seems to have no pressure in making anything more accurate as they did here.
I think another problem is that Dragon has such a good reputation that a lot modelers will not discuss the quality of their models and will bully anyone who raises doubt on the accuracy. I followed some discussions about Black Label Series kits where the tank's turret block the hatches, where the turret is deformed as far as that it doesn't even allow it to rotate, but there are enough fanboys to make the bad bad "rivet counters" leave the discussions, because regardless how good their arguments and references are, Dragon's reputation is better. This way Dragon seems to have no pressure in making anything more accurate as they did here.
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
The nature of producing mass market kits means there will always be some compromise made for tooling purposes, construction limitations, costs or any other of a number of considerations.
I accept that
What I don't accept is lazy, obvious differences but still charging as if it was a premium model. For example Revell's falcon way to tall sidewalls.
One of them is even based on the old MPC sidewall from their original releases that has the on/off switch for the grain of wheat light bulbs. That isn't even a feature in this one, plus it is differently scaled. They got it proportions right on some models, but for some reason just choose to ignore the issue on their big snap tite falcon. Worse, they even went and tooled a new square radar dish. They want to charge high prices for it like it is some prized tooling.
Most toys are more accurate shapewise than that "model"
Dragon may be doing research, however the sources they are using are not really the sources many of us here want a model of. We want models of the actual filming models, not the cross-section or full size set blueprints etc...
Bandai and Fine Molds understood that.
I'm sure the kits will sell. There will be those who don't notice, those who do notice, but don't care and then there will be those who do care, but will happily buy and accurize them.
For me it comes down to cost. If they going to be expensive kits, and inaccurate, then I'm just going to steer clear. If they are reasonably priced, I can overlook the inaccuracies
The nature of producing mass market kits means there will always be some compromise made for tooling purposes, construction limitations, costs or any other of a number of considerations.
I accept that
What I don't accept is lazy, obvious differences but still charging as if it was a premium model. For example Revell's falcon way to tall sidewalls.
One of them is even based on the old MPC sidewall from their original releases that has the on/off switch for the grain of wheat light bulbs. That isn't even a feature in this one, plus it is differently scaled. They got it proportions right on some models, but for some reason just choose to ignore the issue on their big snap tite falcon. Worse, they even went and tooled a new square radar dish. They want to charge high prices for it like it is some prized tooling.
Most toys are more accurate shapewise than that "model"
Dragon may be doing research, however the sources they are using are not really the sources many of us here want a model of. We want models of the actual filming models, not the cross-section or full size set blueprints etc...
Bandai and Fine Molds understood that.
I'm sure the kits will sell. There will be those who don't notice, those who do notice, but don't care and then there will be those who do care, but will happily buy and accurize them.
For me it comes down to cost. If they going to be expensive kits, and inaccurate, then I'm just going to steer clear. If they are reasonably priced, I can overlook the inaccuracies
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Perhaps how Bandai got its details almost 100% correct was the fact that they're a megacorporation whose employees have direct channels to Disney and their researchers are in-house. However, Dragon has been releasing their own products for Marvel, a brand owned by Disney, ever since.
It's true that prototyping is as much a dead end in kit design as already cutting the moulds. AFAIK, Dragon already shrugs off enough of the complaints it's been receiving since the AT-AT. Even if the AT-ST's aren't true to the acutal filming models, anybody can argue that's how they could have looked had Lucas and company used modern 3D modeling software more than 30 years ago all because the blueprints said so.
It may upset or simply amuse some but I'm quite certain in a few months, or even at this very point in time, we'll hear how Dragon kicked Bandai down a notch in detail with their 1/35th scale Snowspeeder from the greebly muzzle brake alone.
Perhaps how Bandai got its details almost 100% correct was the fact that they're a megacorporation whose employees have direct channels to Disney and their researchers are in-house. However, Dragon has been releasing their own products for Marvel, a brand owned by Disney, ever since.
It's true that prototyping is as much a dead end in kit design as already cutting the moulds. AFAIK, Dragon already shrugs off enough of the complaints it's been receiving since the AT-AT. Even if the AT-ST's aren't true to the acutal filming models, anybody can argue that's how they could have looked had Lucas and company used modern 3D modeling software more than 30 years ago all because the blueprints said so.
It may upset or simply amuse some but I'm quite certain in a few months, or even at this very point in time, we'll hear how Dragon kicked Bandai down a notch in detail with their 1/35th scale Snowspeeder from the greebly muzzle brake alone.
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Also, Fine Molds is not a "megacorporation" either. They are a very small business in a fairly small office building. They put the time into researching the miniatures and before Bandai came along were pretty much the best out there as far as mass market kits. Again, the reason being, they spent a lot of time directly interacting with the sources rather than getting second hand info
To be fair though, they still got some things "wrong" as well, but in some cases that was because they used one version of a miniature rather than a different one. For example, they used the large non-screen used X-wing as the main reference rather than the new hope filming models.
Also, as was pointed out in the discussion over on SSM, you've already got a whole community of experts you could ask...the Studio Scale guys. I'm sure you easily pay 1 or 2 of those talented experts like Monsieur Tox to consult and it would probably wind up saving you money in the long run.
Also, Fine Molds is not a "megacorporation" either. They are a very small business in a fairly small office building. They put the time into researching the miniatures and before Bandai came along were pretty much the best out there as far as mass market kits. Again, the reason being, they spent a lot of time directly interacting with the sources rather than getting second hand info
To be fair though, they still got some things "wrong" as well, but in some cases that was because they used one version of a miniature rather than a different one. For example, they used the large non-screen used X-wing as the main reference rather than the new hope filming models.
Also, as was pointed out in the discussion over on SSM, you've already got a whole community of experts you could ask...the Studio Scale guys. I'm sure you easily pay 1 or 2 of those talented experts like Monsieur Tox to consult and it would probably wind up saving you money in the long run.
CAPTAINCOX
Sr Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Don't know how accurate it is but a darn good paint job for sure.
Don't know how accurate it is but a darn good paint job for sure.
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
They got the width of the canopy frames right, but the nose (the red stripe area in front of the canopy) looks too long and the guns look parallel. I suspect they've fudged the proportions to make a more realistic cockpit depth. That's what happens when you try to make Star Wars vehicles plausible in the real world!
They got the width of the canopy frames right, but the nose (the red stripe area in front of the canopy) looks too long and the guns look parallel. I suspect they've fudged the proportions to make a more realistic cockpit depth. That's what happens when you try to make Star Wars vehicles plausible in the real world!
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
Maybe. Hard to tell from the angle. The paint job makes me think they missed an opportunity to do something a bit different and offer the TESB version of the AT-ST. It would've been a win-win: they make a popular OT subject but one that hasn't exactly been done before. I would've bought that version. I won't be buying this one.
Maybe. Hard to tell from the angle. The paint job makes me think they missed an opportunity to do something a bit different and offer the TESB version of the AT-ST. It would've been a win-win: they make a popular OT subject but one that hasn't exactly been done before. I would've bought that version. I won't be buying this one.
Jaitea
Master Member
Re: Dragon making a 1/35 AT-AT
.....Youre right,...that slope in front of the cockpit doesnt look right,....its so bizarre,....I thought now that we have accurate Bandai everyone would be singing from the same hymnbook
....it really is a shame
The Dragon compared to the MR Snowspeeder
Looks completely off to me
J
They got the width of the canopy frames right, but the nose (the red stripe area in front of the canopy) looks too long and the guns look parallel. I suspect they've fudged the proportions to make a more realistic cockpit depth. That's what happens when you try to make Star Wars vehicles plausible in the real world!
.....Youre right,...that slope in front of the cockpit doesnt look right,....its so bizarre,....I thought now that we have accurate Bandai everyone would be singing from the same hymnbook
....it really is a shame
The Dragon compared to the MR Snowspeeder
Looks completely off to me
J
Last edited:
Similar threads
