Millennium FX Dr Who Sonic Screwdriver

[Anakin Starkiller]

When I compare the MFX to the original I see this

And when I look at this picture, I can't agree with statements that

MFX got their ridges wrong.

the ridges are wrong at the end of the main crackle body

The ridges on the MFX look a bit different from the prop they referenced because the MFX was machined in mass on cnc machines versus being hand turned, filed, and sanded. But that doesn't mean they screwed up.

And I think that saying

If you have an MFX compair the rides against the one ion this photo and you will notice they are slightly cleaner but shaped and spaced correctly (they are just grooves with the edges rounded).

Isn't an altogether unfair assessment.

 

[phez]

Those models pretty much match my Autocad plans (and the point I was trying to make on the view angle of the ridges) almost exactly :lol.

although the paint layer will possibly thicken up the grooves a little bit, it won't fill them and since for the paint to go on at all it must go on uniformly the machined profile and the finished profile after painting should match fairly closely.

This is sort of what I am seeing. My ridges look just a touch to small once the finish is on. not so much the depth but the width (the width of the ridge is reduced by two times the thickness of the paint [paint on each side]). I am going to try to increase the size of the grooves the thickness of the paint to see if it looks right to me then.

 

[mooneye63]

Why don't you just try changing the shape of the ridges to the ones in the photo that Robatto is holding? Then when you apply the paint you'll see if it looks right or not. I'd have thought that would be a shortcut to all those wasted hours tweeking the sizes of the ridges.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

When I compare the MFX to the original I see this.

You're not comparing the MFX to the original though, are you? You are comparing the MFX to a 3d model of what you think the original looks like, an interpretation heavily influenced by the MFX anyway. This statement is misleading and is actually wrong.

 

[TheSexyBlueBox]

When I compare the MFX to the original I see this

And when I look at this picture, I can't agree with statements that




The ridges on the MFX look a bit different from the prop they referenced because the MFX was machined in mass on cnc machines versus being hand turned, filed, and sanded. But that doesn't mean they screwed up.

And I think that saying

Isn't an altogether unfair assessment.

Your 3D model matches those angles, only sort of. We do not know the angles used on the original, so could you make a 3D model of the grooves we're talking about. Then compare each photo with both.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

Here's a pic I found on the internet. The ridges look pretty good to me:

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

Your 3D model matches those angles, only sort of. We do not know the angles used on the original, so could you make a 3D model of the grooves we're talking about. Then compare each photo with both.

:lol That's funny yesterday you said that my models matched the original exactly. Guess someone made you change your tune. Sorry I'm not going to make a 3d model with the grooves that you're talking about because they didn't exist.

Clearly the more sophisticated method of determining the details of this prop that I should have used was to use the crayon tool in MS paint and trace the ridges from a CT sonic on a Photoshopped picture of the original.

:lol
http://www.therpf.com/members/leangesolitaire/

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

Here's a pic I found on the internet. The ridges look pretty good to me:

See what you like. I suppose if I paid $400+ for someone else's work, I'd want to believe it was the end all be all too:rolleyes

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

:lol That's funny yesterday you said that my models matched the original exactly. Guess someone made you change your tune. Sorry I'm not going to make a 3d model with the grooves that you're talking about because they didn't exist.

Clearly the more sophisticated method of determining the details of this prop that I should have used was to use the crayon tool in MS paint and trace the ridges from a CT sonic on a Photoshopped picture of the original.

:lol
http://www.therpf.com/members/leangesolitaire/

AS, now you're just being petulant. Leave the guy alone. For a start, the assymetrical ridges did exist, definitely on one prop and slightly less on another and very much on the River Song sonic. You can see it clear as day in the 11th Hour sonic. This prop was used as the reference for that other guy's sonic and he's already published a pic of the ridge profile straight from the prop. You might poo poo it but the proof exists.

You are using 3D models you created from eyeballing low quality pics to somehow pass off that they are exact representations of the original props. They aren't. Until you have had the originals in hand to measure, you're only speculating as much as we are. You scorn Asp9mm's analysis as rudimentary but it certainly has more validity than your apparently conclusive 3d models because Asp9mm's pic is actually of the prop in question. The fact that the head happens to be PSed doesn't make affect the point we're examining: the ridges. Please exercise a bit of intelligence.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

See what you like. I suppose if I paid $400+ for someone else's work, I'd want to believe it was the end all be all too:rolleyes

No AS, this replica has been proven to be replicated from a screen used prop. If that galls you, so be it, but you don't have to invent 3d models to prove it's somehow wrong when it has been shown to not be.

 

[Birdie]

Everyone in this debate has an agenda, so why don't you just stop behaving like high schoolers and let each other believe what you want to?

What's the point?

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

No AS, this replica has been proven to be replicated from a screen used prop. If that galls you, so be it, but you don't have to invent 3d models to prove it's somehow wrong when it has been shown to not be.

This quote made me laugh:lol

The MFX replica had been proven to be replicated from a screen used prop too.

I wouldn't have accepted this statement as valid when it was made about the MFX replica.

your not going to get a more accurate screwdriver than the MFX one. Theirs was reverse engineered from the original prop so there was no guess work making in 100% accurate.

So, why would I accept the same exact line of argument as valid now when it is made about CT's replicas?:rolleyes

The hypocrisy of your arguments is mind blowing.

Phez posts this

and you say that this picture shows nothing.
But to you, this

is irrefutable evidence that cannot be challenged.
Why, because you want to believe that the replica you bought from CT is the most accurate possible and anyone else's work is ****.

When CT ****s all other people's work, at least that makes a certain type of sense because it makes his stuff look better and gets him more sales. But when his sycophantic lackeys do it, it just looks sad. At least he's building something and can speak from a point of having to have worked with 3d models, machining limitations, the process of actually finishing and constructing a prop. But when your authority comes from the fact that you bought someone else's replica--so you know 100% all the details of the original--I find that sort of inflated posturing to be quite silly.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

This quote made me laugh:lol

The MFX replica had been proven to be replicated from a screen used prop too.

I wouldn't have accepted this statement as valid when it was made about the MFX replica.



So, why would I accept the same exact line of argument as valid now when it is made about CT's replicas?:rolleyes

The hypocrisy of your arguments is mind blowing.

Phez posts this

and you say that this picture shows nothing.
But to you, this

is irrefutable evidence that cannot be challenged.
Why, because you want to believe that the replica you bought from CT is the most accurate possible and anyone else's work is ****.

When CT ****s all other people's work, at least that makes a certain type of sense because it makes his stuff look better and gets him more sales. But when his sycophantic lackeys do it, it just looks sad. At least he's building something and can speak from a point of having to have worked with 3d models, machining limitations, the process of actually finishing and constructing a prop. But when your authority comes from the fact that you bought someone else's replica--so you know 100% all the details of the original--I find that sort of inflated posturing to be quite silly.

Whoah! Take a chill pill there! The MFX has been PROVEN to be wrong. It looks wrong, it was the wrong colour, the dimensions of the head and everything else are WRONG. If you think otherwise, you're just being dogmatic. All this has been already covered. It is immaterial. MFX screwed up, end of story. This is NOT CT Vs Everyone else.

What we are discussing is the ridges on a single prop. I'm no one's lackey, I'm not here to be a mouthpiece, I just like the prop and I want accurate information out there. If it wasn't for people like CT and others, you would all believe the prop was a cast of the CO toy as is the official BBC line. Since there are only very few people out there who have actually gotten their hands on the prop and only one who has released a true 1:1 replica of it, so instead of trying to alienate the guy, why not use his discoveries and learn from them? His sonic really is replicated from the prop. I've seen the proof, and one look at what he has produced is enough to tell you that he wasn't kidding. It looks right from every angle and in every respect, something that cannot be said for other replicas.

Phez's pic and Asp9mm's pic are the same prop, agreed. But Asp9mm's way of measuring the front and back angles of the ridge is the most sensible and direct way of getting the proof you need. There is no need to create a 3D model and then pretend is of the original prop when measuring the slope of the leading and rear edges tell you all you need to know. I know you won't listen, as you're blinded by your prejudices but I hope others with more sense can see exactly what is going on.

 

[TheSexyBlueBox]

:lol That's funny yesterday you said that my models matched the original exactly. Guess someone made you change your tune. Sorry I'm not going to make a 3d model with the grooves that you're talking about because they didn't exist.

Clearly the more sophisticated method of determining the details of this prop that I should have used was to use the crayon tool in MS paint and trace the ridges from a CT sonic on a Photoshopped picture of the original.

:lol
http://www.therpf.com/members/leangesolitaire/

Eh, no.
I said the were great, not exact replicas. This was the main detail that was off.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

Phez's pic and Asp9mm's pic are the same picture, agreed.

They're not the same picture. But nice try. Way to instantly spot those detailsI Clearly you're one with a discerning eye:behave

I wonder why I don't take your word as gospel when you say "one look at what he has produced is enough to tell you that he wasn't kidding. It looks right from every angle and in every respect"

 

[TheSexyBlueBox]

Everyone in this debate has an agenda, so why don't you just stop behaving like high schoolers and let each other believe what you want to?

What's the point?

No. I am trying to correct. An error on his design, but he is really being difficult about this because this select detail was found out by CT.
Therefore, he will ignore it and is attempting to justify it by making a 3-D model something thats already there and is attempting to convince us that it's correct from SOME angles. Head on, it would immediately look off against the final prop.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

They're not the same picture. But nice try. Way to instantly spot those detailsI Clearly you're one with a discerning eye:behave

I wonder why I don't take your word as gospel when you say "one look at what he has produced is enough to tell you that he wasn't kidding. It looks right from every angle and in every respect"

My bad, I meant, they are of the same prop I'll let you have that one. In all this excitement, I have been typing too fast. :facepalm

 

[TheSexyBlueBox]

This quote made me laugh:lol

The MFX replica had been proven to be replicated from a screen used prop too.

I wouldn't have accepted this statement as valid when it was made about the MFX replica.



So, why would I accept the same exact line of argument as valid now when it is made about CT's replicas?:rolleyes

The hypocrisy of your arguments is mind blowing.

Phez posts this

and you say that this picture shows nothing.
But to you, this

is irrefutable evidence that cannot be challenged.
Why, because you want to believe that the replica you bought from CT is the most accurate possible and anyone else's work is ****.

When CT ****s all other people's work, at least that makes a certain type of sense because it makes his stuff look better and gets him more sales. But when his sycophantic lackeys do it, it just looks sad. At least he's building something and can speak from a point of having to have worked with 3d models, machining limitations, the process of actually finishing and constructing a prop. But when your authority comes from the fact that you bought someone else's replica--so you know 100% all the details of the original--I find that sort of inflated posturing to be quite silly.

Hold the **** up...hypocracy? Are you trolling?
The MFX was proven against the original prop as being innacurate. This was done by CT. His props were built on info he streamed trough his blog over the space of 3 years, showing off prototypes and details which make up the prop. MFX gave 2 photo's of an awesome prototype, but gave a watered down production version, which was dissapointing.

 

[Organic Mechanic]

No AS, this replica has been proven to be replicated from a screen used prop. *snip*

Nobody's proven diddly squat.

Maybe it's been proven to YOU, but I've read his blog. And NOWHERE does he provide anything resembling proof.

As far as I'm concerned, he makes a great replica. The best commercially available replica ever in fact. But it doesn't look like the actual props to me.

Yeah, the ridges are asymmetrical, I agree there. Yeah, the MFX missed the mark, I agree there as well. But that's about the extent of it.

But the real point is, Anakin's prop looks good, and he's happy with it...and continually improving it. (In fact, I think the body is far closer in shape than CT's.) So why must it be a brawl? Why is CT's interpretation in any way relevant to Anakin's, or Phez's? It's not, and you will never, I repeat never, convince them otherwise.

I am fed up with every freaking SS thread turning to crap. This is THE prop that brings me here. If discussion of the topic results in a melt down every damned time, then maybe I should take the hint and just GTFO. :thumbsdown

 

[Bootlegger137]

Ya know, if you guys discussed religion or politics, I think you'd have a better shot at changing each others' minds. :lol