Limited Run Luke's ROTJ Static Yuma/ISYHCANL/Hero Variations Kit Parts Run (Sign up closed/In Production)

**Update!!!**

Ok, here we go.... This is going to be quite a long post, so apologies for that. Over the past few days I've been making some final changes to the models. I wanted to get these changes in and be able to show people the final models before requesting payment. I also wanted to give those who have expressed an interest chance to confirm their orders before beginning to take payments.

They are, at face value, very minor changes. Modelling them was the easy part. As always, the time consuming part was cross referencing against the available photo references. All measurements have been double/triple checked and I'm fairly confident that this is now the most accurate model of the Yuma prop ever made.

Here's a list of model changes that have occurred since the previous update:
  • The diameter of the live centre in the base of the pommel has been increased based on new calculations.
  • More detail has been added to the inner part of the live centre in the base of the pommel. A Step, followed by a conical indent.
  • The step up to pommel channels have been reduced in height. Two of the six channels have a slightly taller step.
  • The angle of the step has been made steeper. Still not 90 degrees (explanation below)
  • The diameter and position of the Tri-Ring hole has been adjusted compared to previous updates. (It was done by hand/eye on previous run).
  • The emitter entrance has increased in diameter based on new measurements.
  • Additional detail has been added to the emitter, including ridges in nipple face and countersink to grub screw.
Here are some renders of the latest models in Hero configuration:

SHOT_01.png
SHOT_02.png
SHOT_03.png
SHOT_04.png



The following is a detailed explanation for those who like to get in to the details. :)

There is still some debate over whether or not the steps are a 90 degree drop, or on an angle (which is my strong belief). I'd just like to explain my reasoning... I wish they were a 90 degree drop by the way, believe me! It would have been much easier to model! A flat channel being cut in to another flat surface will always produce a straight edge (if the inner face of the step was extruded from the body at 90 degrees it would be a flat surface). It's my belief that it is not extruded at 90 degrees though. This is what creates the curved edge at each end of the channel. Something that is surprisingly difficult to calculate!

A straight edge next to a curve can appear curved, I admit, but even allowing for optical illusions, the ends of the channels are most definitely not a straight edge. The only thing that could cause this curve is if A) the channel isn't flat, or B) the step is on an angle.

90 degree step. Note the optical illusion. (The edge is actually a straight line.)

90 degree.png


Angled Step (I believe this is what we see on the actual prop):

ANGLED.png


Here A and B are clearly curved. I don't believe this is an optical illusion:

CURVES.png


C is not quite as pronounced, and almost looks straight. I believe this is because our line of sight is actually looking down the face of the step.

I hope this goes some way to explaining my decision to keep the angled step, and maybe convince people that it is the correct approach. I have made the step steeper, and at a different angle to that of the pommel cubes. I've also reduced its height to match my latest measurements.

Here is a quick explanation of the additional detail that has been added to the live centre in the base of the pommel:

LIVE CENTRE.png


And finally, the additional detail that has been added to the emitter:

EMITTER.png


Now that all of the models have been through their final pass of accuracy checks, I'm going to begin to get the ball rolling! :)

Over the next few hours, I'll be in touch with everyone on the list regarding their order. I'll also be asking people which version of Tri-Ring they'd like with their kits (Stainless or Mild Steel).

**I won't be placing the order until everyone has paid, so there is a little time for people to confirm their order, or for others to jump on board.**

So excited to get this kit made!
I can't tell you how grateful I am to everyone who's gotten involved or given encouragement throughout! Couldn't have done it without you! A special thank you to BRRogers and Verity Cosplay for the incredible job they've done maintaining the MoM reference thread! I find myself on there regularly and couldn't have made this without their hard work, and everyone who contributes to the debate on there. and on my previous threads.

All the best,

Dave
 
The emitter nipple front is concave?
It is indeed. It's not as drastic as it looks. I scaled/positioned the inner edge to match the ref and it's definitely set back in relation to the outer edge. I'm guessing it's wear from where the face was in contact with the short stunt blade.
 
It is indeed. It's not as drastic as it looks. I scaled/positioned the inner edge to match the ref and it's definitely set back in relation to the outer edge. I'm guessing it's wear from where the face was in contact with the short stunt blade.
I would have preferred a flat, not concave one and do those weathering after if needed. Is there a possibility?
 
**Another update. (Sorry)**

Sorry to disappoint anyone, but I won't be sending out payment requests this evening. There is still some discussion over some of the finer details of the model.

I hate to leave people waiting, but I don't want to start taking money off people while I'm still making adjustments.

I certainly don't want to place the order while there are areas of the model that could be improved!

it is so very nearly there! One final push this evening to get these final details ironed out...

Sorry to disappoint anyone. What's one more day in the grand scheme of things? I'm determined to make this thing perfect!

Dave
 
I would have preferred a flat, not concave one and do those weathering after if needed. Is there a possibility?
I may have gone in a be it too far. As can be seen in my overlay actually. It definitely does go in though. I'm having a think on this at the moment. My thinking is that it would have been flat originally. I'm fairly certain the marks are from the short stunt blade, so occurred over the course of it lifetime. Was it flat though? Or did it have the outer lip, which is a bit more prominent? I'm thinking on it. Maybe it is something that can be added later by people if they wish? It would have to be one or the other on the order.
 
I may have gone in a be it too far. As can be seen in my overlay actually. It definitely does go in though. I'm having a think on this at the moment. My thinking is that it would have been flat originally. I'm fairly certain the marks are from the short stunt blade, so occurred over the course of it lifetime. Was it flat though? Or did it have the outer lip, which is a bit more prominent? I'm thinking on it. Maybe it is something that can be added later by people if they wish? It would have to be one or the other on the order.

IMO, is something to be added in weathering stage, like the bent emitter in the V2, or any scuff the saber can have.
What I would prefer is to have it pristine and weather it on my own, as again, IMO, 3D pre-weathered things dont look as good as real weathering.
But is only my opinion.
 
IMO, is something to be added in weathering stage, like the bent emitter in the V2, or any scuff the saber can have.
What I would prefer is to have it pristine and weather it on my own, as again, IMO, 3D pre-weathered things dont look as good as real weathering.
But is only my opinion.
Having thought about it, I'm inclined to agree. I got a bit ahead of myself there I think. Trying to add every last detail. I wouldn't usually add wear and tear to the model thinking about it now. Today was a bit of a write-off! :D Onward and upwards! Made a bit more progress this evening though. Time for bed! More updates tomorrow.

Cheers,

Dave
 
Interesting take on the nipple detail. A non spinning short stunt blade locked in with a set screw caused those striations?

Either way they are a part of the saber post stunt blade removal. They would be on Yuma, ISYHCANL, and cave MoM. It’s not modern day weathering. I would vote for inclusion of the raised outer lip if nothing else. It’s the most visible detail.
 
Last edited:
DaveP

It depends on
1. Who your customer is.
Is your customer someone who wants accuracy out of the box?
Or are your customers someone who want to finish what you provide?

2. Is that detail something people can feel confident to add on their own reliably?
IE, do they have a lathe, chuck, or skill to make it resemble the canon saber?

3. Is the detail well defined *enough* to include it?
Is adding that simple to do and weather or was it inherent to the structure?


Personally. For what you're offering, and all the detail you're expecting from this: I'd machine it close. And if people want to make it *grungy* looking uneven, ripped up, or sanded smooth... you'll have done most of the work towards the actual prop.

Check out Dann's work with his Rylo, he managed to do a similar treatment with his lathe and got it half-way there without looking beat up. 1 step in either direction and it's two different camps.

Just my questions to challenge inigou's thought. No offense Inigou ;)

and sorry Dave, I don't want to create a scenario where you feel spread thin through disagreement. My advice is: work with what's there, people can adjust it if they want to (some things are easier to modify than others though)
 
Last edited:
DaveP

It depends on
1. Who your customer is.
Is your customer someone who wants accuracy out of the box?
Or are your customers someone who want to finish what you provide?

2. Is that detail something people can feel confident to add on their own reliably?
IE, do they have a lathe, chuck, or skill to make it resemble the canon saber?

3. Is the detail well defined *enough* to include it?
Is adding that simple to do and weather or was it inherent to the structure?


Personally. For what you're offering, and all the detail you're expecting from this: I'd machine it close. And if people want to make it *grungy* looking uneven, ripped up, or sanded smooth... you'll have done most of the work towards the actual prop.

Check out Dann's work with his Rylo, he managed to do a similar treatment with his lathe and got it half-way there without looking beat up. 1 step in either direction and it's two different camps.

Just my questions to challenge inigou's thought. No offense Inigou ;)

and sorry Dave, I don't want to create a scenario where you feel spread thin through disagreement. My advice is: work with what's there, people can adjust it if they want to (some things are easier to modify than others though)
Funnily enough, I've just said the same thing! Amazing what a bit of sleep can do! :D It occurred to me that it's far easier to remove than it is to add accurately. I scaled it back on the model last night, and hadn't gotten round to removing completely. I'm going to leave on, and if I have any requests to sand flat, I can do that. :)

Interesting take on the nipple detail. A non spinning short stunt blade locked in with a set screw caused those striations?

Either way they are a part of the saber post stunt blade removal. They would be on Yuma, ISYHCANL, and cave MoM. It’s not modern day weathering. I would vote for inclusion of the raised outer lip if nothing else. It’s the most visible detail.
Yeah, wasn't so much the spinning. I was thinking more rocking back and forth/impacts that may have caused the indents over time. Either way, the image you showed me has me convinced. I need them on mine! :)

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to getting this perfect. This is important stuff. I'd much rather have the debate now, than after the parts are in production! :D
 
For me personally, I'd want it on mine, as that is what is on the prop itself. It's those kinds of details that give replicas their characters and differences, that really set them apart from the ones designed with more idealism that are far more plentiful in the fx saber community world.
 
DaveP

It depends on
1. Who your customer is.
Is your customer someone who wants accuracy out of the box?
Or are your customers someone who want to finish what you provide?

2. Is that detail something people can feel confident to add on their own reliably?
IE, do they have a lathe, chuck, or skill to make it resemble the canon saber?

3. Is the detail well defined *enough* to include it?
Is adding that simple to do and weather or was it inherent to the structure?


Personally. For what you're offering, and all the detail you're expecting from this: I'd machine it close. And if people want to make it *grungy* looking uneven, ripped up, or sanded smooth... you'll have done most of the work towards the actual prop.

Check out Dann's work with his Rylo, he managed to do a similar treatment with his lathe and got it half-way there without looking beat up. 1 step in either direction and it's two different camps.

Just my questions to challenge inigou's thought. No offense Inigou ;)

and sorry Dave, I don't want to create a scenario where you feel spread thin through disagreement. My advice is: work with what's there, people can adjust it if they want to (some things are easier to modify than others though)

What´s the difference on adding that, or adding scuffs and dents that are all over the saber.
It´s wearing, not the original saber shape.
I like to have options, but unfortunately, pre-adding it will limit my options. If i sand that part to flatten it, i will be loosing some fraction of the nipple lenght, what i dont like.
Also, IMO, those kind of marks will look weird if machinned. definitely not natural.
Is certainly a pitty.
Hope they are not deep at all and i can flatten and do my own wearing.
 
Last edited:
0-2.jpeg
Screen Shot 2020-04-07 at 9.35.20 AM.png
A9AECE90-9CE2-4A51-8E38-D43584013C8A.jpeg

That's really not just a dent or scuff.
it's very subtle geometry there.
is it scuffed?
Well... I'd honestly say it's more like 'gummed up aluminum'/ machine finish. Friction abrasion & heat causes gummed up machine marks like that... so most people will have a hell of a time recreating that too. The machinist can't do that by principle lol...

But most people who desire that are going to have a hell of a time replicating it without a lathe process. If a customer without a lathe wants that (without paying someone to do it) they'll have to rig something less efficient and potentially ruin their saber finish.
Flatting it out, or smoothing the surface of the nipple really shouldn't be difficult. But going the other direction to get THAT would be.

What´s the difference on adding that, or adding scuffs and dents that are all over the saber.
It´s wearing, not the original saber shape.
I like to have options, but unfortunately, pre-adding it will limit my options. If i sand that part to flatten it, i will be loosing some fraction of the nipple lenght, what i dont like.
Also, IMO, those kind of marks will look weird if machinned. definitely not natural.
Is certainly a pitty.
Hope they are not deep at all and i can flatten and do my own wearing.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1283811View attachment 1283812View attachment 1283813
That's really not just a dent or scuff.
it's very subtle geometry there.
is it scuffed?
Well... I'd honestly say it's more like 'gummed up aluminum'/ machine finish. Friction abrasion & heat causes gummed up machine marks like that... so most people will have a hell of a time recreating that too. The machinist can't do that by principle lol...

But most people who desire that are going to have a hell of a time replicating it without a lathe process. If a customer without a lathe wants that (without paying someone to do it) they'll have to rig something less efficient and potentially ruin their saber finish.
Flatting it out, or smoothing the surface of the nipple really shouldn't be difficult. But going the other direction to get THAT would be.

I´m ok if is very very subtle. But in my experience, as i said, 3d modeled weathering doesnt look good. Looks fake. Is why anyone dont recreate any weathering effect in the manufacturing stage. Lets hope this will be subtle enough to remove if does not look good.
Cheers
 
Sorry for the possibly repetitive question, but what is that circular mark that's in the first two images?


I´m ok if is very very subtle. But in my experience, as i said, 3d modeled weathering doesnt look good. Looks fake. Is why anyone dont recreate any weathering effect in the manufacturing stage. Lets hope this will be subtle enough to remove if does not look good.
Cheers

It looks to me more like it was purposely machined that way, just in a slapdash way, so don't think it would be counted as weathering, just a characteristic required to correctly replicate it
 
Sorry for the possibly repetitive question, but what is that circular mark that's in the first two images?




It looks to me more like it was purposely machined that way, just in a slapdash way, so don't think it would be counted as weathering, just a characteristic required to correctly replicate it
IMO is clearly wear caused by friction. It show somekind of a burr in the inner hole.
If is finally added, doing it very subtle is the key
 
I´m ok if is very very subtle. But in my experience, as i said, 3d modeled weathering doesnt look good. Looks fake. Is why anyone dont recreate any weathering effect in the manufacturing stage. Lets hope this will be subtle enough to remove if does not look good.
Cheers

Yeah, see Dann 's project thread:

He managed to get it very clean and consistent (similar looking radii).... but for that quality you need a metal lathe.

0325200959-jpg.jpg
 
Back
Top