Magic of Myth ( MoM ) Luke RotJ Hero ( cave build ) lightsaber research, images, reference, & collaborative model builder's discussion.

[DaveP]

So if anyone has still been wondering about wether the buttons have shifted position over time....
View attachment 1254614

I'm not even sure they're the same buttons. They look to be slightly bigger in the bottom image to me. Is it possible they were replaced at some point? They've definitely been glued back on, having been knocked off.

 

[thd9791]

So if anyone has still been wondering about wether the buttons have shifted position over time....
View attachment 1254614

Oh man, the buttons, card and rails are all pushed forward! Somebody did not take good care of this thing. Is there glue gunk in between the buttons and the arrows? this would explain it

 

[thd9791]

Yep, I see some in Post #5. Also seems theres solid metal underneath at least the back part of the buttons. Mild confirmation there, you never know lol

 

[dr_slurpee]

Oh man, the buttons, card and rails are all pushed forward! Somebody did not take good care of this thing. Is there glue gunk in between the buttons and the arrows? this would explain it

To me it looks like the rails are shorter not forward more, or that the box is longer. The end of the rails at the front looks pretty much as it should.

 

[BRRogers]

To me it looks like the rails are shorter not forward more, or that the box is longer. The end of the rails at the front looks pretty much as it should.

The rails are indeed a bit shorter! However, during its life it seems they have been moved either flush to the front, or flush to the back... presumably by whomever was tasked with repairing it

 

[dr_slurpee]

The rails are indeed a bit shorter! However, during its life it seems they have been moved either flush to the front, or flush to the back... presumably by whomever was tasked with repairing it

In the top pic they are sitting flush with the front but not with the back, in the bottom pic (current condition) they are basically flush front and back, that can’t be achieved by just shifting them. To me it looks like the rails etc are different in the older pic, or the box is different. The box does look like it extends further toward the pommel end, over the recessed area beside the “clamp” section. Though it’s blurry and hard to tell.

Things don’t seem to add up with it.

 

[BRRogers]

In the top pic they are sitting flush with the front but not with the back, in the bottom pic (current condition) they are basically flush front and back, that can’t be achieved by just shifting them. To me it looks like the rails etc are different in the older pic, or the box is different. The box does look like it extends further toward the pommel end, over the recessed area beside the “clamp” section. Though it’s blurry and hard to tell.

Things don’t seem to add up with it.

In many exhibits the rails aren’t flush to the front:

and of course, the rails aren’t quite sitting flush to the front here seen in the same set

 

[BRRogers]

In the top pic they are sitting flush with the front but not with the back, in the bottom pic (current condition) they are basically flush front and back, that can’t be achieved by just shifting them. To me it looks like the rails etc are different in the older pic, or the box is different. The box does look like it extends further toward the pommel end, over the recessed area beside the “clamp” section. Though it’s blurry and hard to tell.

Things don’t seem to add up with it.

And here are the images showing the rails slid forward the same approximate offset from the back...

this appears to be the same difference between the two: the rails being about 1mm shorter than the box.
Here’s a side by side of both positions: both rail and button position clearly visibly different, but same sizing.
And the boxes flipped to compare the offset

 

[dr_slurpee]

Right I can see there is a small difference in those photos, the mm you mention seems about right, but in this pic it looks far more significant of a difference, and they look to be equally flush at the front of the box both top and bottom pics.

View attachment 1254614

 

[BRRogers]

Right I can see there is a small difference in those photos, the mm you mention seems about right, but in this pic it looks far more significant of a difference, and they look to be equally flush at the front of the box both top and bottom pics.

View attachment 1254614

Gotcha.
Well thats why its been so important to find and examine all angles and directions. One can’t properly determine the terminations of something obscured from view because of a 3/4 perspective shot.
luckily in both of those same settings/photo sessions there are other photos from straight on, so you can actually see what’s happening and view where the edges are actually hitting

 

[BRRogers]

Just wanted to do a light update for where Adam and I are at. You can see/read more in the MoM Hero run thread about that specific offering but in short : Dann printed our model on his resin/FDM printers and finished them out. I’m really pleased with the direction and results on this research as it has been printed. And; as a result: we have found a few more things that beg deeper examination and correction on the model side.

the gears on the pommel, for one, had some geometry that was eluding us because no individual photo has shown it implicitly.

BUT, the recent run of castings *did* prompt us to look at other areas more closely in the photo reference and were indeed helpful in identifying and translating several details we’ve (ALL) missed!

we since: have updated the model with the geometry there (based on the photo reference, prompted by the cast).

suffice to say: we are hoping our spec. machinist drawings translate with the amount of detail specified here and the machined pieces reflect it well.
This is a comparison of the one* item we found on the bottom of the cubes with the cast, and highlighted from photo reference also. There are a couple more items like this but less obvious... so I’m just sharing the one atm

*edit* also interestingly you can see an example of how casting shrinkage has stunted that lip since its original iteration

 

[BRRogers]

I’ve also updated some recent findings at the top of the thread that I still need to document with photo evidence

 

[MattMunson]

Hey gang just wanted to say thanks for giving my video some love, and I hope it was entertaining. I think I shot that footage on a Sony Hi8 camera, back in the day. Man if I could hit that exhibit today with some of my 4k gear I could really do some amazing stuff. Hard to believe that was 25 years ago. Yikes. Gettin old sucks!

Awesome thread, by the way. Really great read. Definitely reminds me of all the reasons that the RPF is great.

 

[BRRogers]

Hey gang just wanted to say thanks for giving my video some love, and I hope it was entertaining. I think I shot that footage on a Sony Hi8 camera, back in the day. Man if I could hit that exhibit today with some of my 4k gear I could really do some amazing stuff. Hard to believe that was 25 years ago. Yikes. Gettin old sucks!

Awesome thread, by the way. Really great read. Definitely reminds me of all the reasons that the RPF is great.

Thanks MattMunson! That’s the best kind of compliment any RPFer could receive! And it means a great deal.
(Especially from the “og’s”)
Urban dictionary says original gangsters but I think ‘old guys’ holds more clout here

Glad to see you and hope you’re well!

 

[Gregatron]

Question: Regarding the Ultimate Hero trade-in, will that only apply to this initial FX model? Cuz I'm kinda thinking of holding out for the static version, instead. Haven't decided, yet. I have the new Starkiller version, but I'm still mulling over which version to build static (with cave-build PCB and flashing arrows) and which as FX.

 

[BRRogers]

Question: Regarding the Ultimate Hero trade-in, will that only apply to this initial FX model? Cuz I'm kinda thinking of holding out for the static version, instead. Haven't decided, yet. I have the new Starkiller version, but I'm still mulling over which version to build static (with cave-build PCB and flashing arrows) and which as FX.

Trade in eligibility is for those who pre-ordered the Ultimate Hero and only applies towards the updated MoM *FX* version.

For all intents and purposes the future static Hero should be considered a separate offering.

 

[Gregatron]

Trade in eligibility is for those who pre-ordered the Ultimate Hero and only applies towarsa the update ted MoM *FX* version.

For all intents and purposes the future static
Hero should be considered a separate offering.

Reasonable, under the circumstances. It should be easy enough to either mock up the FX with just the cave-build control box internals, or mod and transplant the internals to the Starkiller version to make a static cave-build hilt, I should think.

Any thoughts on offering the control box internals separately, or will they just be part of the static and/or FX runs?

 

[BRRogers]

Reasonable, under the circumstances. It should be easy enough to either mock up the FX with just the cave-build control box internals, or mod and transplant the internals to the Starkiller version to make a static cave-build hilt, I should think.

Any thoughts on offering the control box internals separately, or will they just be part of the static and/or FX runs?

Well, perhaps I can explain it this way:

The FX board (we are working to finalize now) has been split into two separate board parts;
The faux upper reveal board & the lower functional 'duty' board.

As we've been designing the boards for the 'FX product' we realized we would have better control over functionality if there was simply more surface area for components, however because of the connectivity between the top and bottom, and engineering of the rail sleeve and buttons... it really is proprietary and unique to this saber.
The top reveal board has some cosmetic differences and is integrally tied (by design and necessity) to the rest of the saber.
So, I think that this will only be included as a one off for this particular design.
In the FX realm.... there are also already existing Hero saber internals and lighting/switch board combinations available to purchase if you know where to look so I don't think there's really a need to overproduce that board for other setups in mind. That would be counterproductive for our product's integrity.

NOW:
In terms of a STATIC board I do think that is an item/items that would have great success and benefit to be produced as its own assemble-able kit.
Our idea for the static is to make it as true-to-form possible in every way.
If I haven't discussed it previously I am quite certain now that the interior reveal board was a stacked layering of boards (the same, or samples of several stacked in a jenga-like manner... possibly adding layering height on the backend to get over the circuit and lights up front).
In that regard, a kit for people to assemble themselves is much more sensible... as the setup wouldn't make any sense otherwise for a PCB fab house to produce en-masse.

THAT is something we could make a good amount of, and would fit into a wide range of existing control boxes. Functionality in those cases would be left to the builder to work out.

Once the 'MoM' FX run goes into the books that's one of the big projects on deck for us to get into.

 

[PrinceZip]

BRRogers

Will the static board have LED light-up functionality like in the Cave scene?
Or will it be strictly static with no LED compatibility and accurate appearance only?

 

[BRRogers]

BRRogers

Will the static board have LED light-up functionality like in the Cave scene?
Or will it be strictly static with no LED compatibility and accurate appearance only?

I don't think the reveal circuit in the Static scene did much more than hide the FX components.
(much cooler looking for potential closeups)
And by that I mean, the Static board probably won't do much but look correct and hide the stuff underneath.
Which, really won't be as hard as we've thought.
....just saying
|
|
|
V