Round2 Acquires Star Wars License
- Thread starter edge10
- Start date
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
Sci-fi fans are notorious for wanting to shoehorn objective reality into subjective fiction (who can blame us -- it has "science" right in the word). How big is the Enterprise? It's exactly as big as the filmmakers need it to be for the shot to look cool.
TazMan2000
Master Member
Perhaps every scale model should reference the the original model and not necessarily real (movie) size. So the Studio Models would be considered 1:1.
TazMan2000
TazMan2000
Hah! All the fighters in the OT were foot-long drones!
rbeach84
Sr Member
Discussions of scale in this context seems quite contentious to say the least! In the made up world of Star Wars, the best you can hope for is to relate a feature of the model 'vehicle' to an actual full-size feature (which of course fails for the Falcon given the 'set' was intentionally undersized for completely understandable reasons... and varied between movies!)
In the case of ships with astromechs, since there was an actual full size prop (R2-D2) for which the size is know, scale for any model may be set *exactly* just by measuring that dome.
In the case of the TIE fighters, there is no such yardstick and so you can only 'wing it' on the basis of something like the size of the figures. For the AMT TIE fighters, both the snap-tite interceptors and the latter releases of the 'two in one box' regular TIE, the size between kits is consistent i.e. the same, based on the size of the cockpit ball. Measuring the provided figures, which appears a reasonable fit, you come up with a pilot of modest stature (on order of 5'5" to 5'8") that fits nicely as a 1/48 scale figure. Recalling the scene in SW (ANH) where Vader and his escorts are 'heading for their fighters', you see the two TIE pilots seem relatively short (of course, next to Vader, most folks seem short...). Being on the small size seems to fit well with the tiny dimensions of the TIE cabin and so I find it acceptable. Result: I call the AMT/MPC kits 1/48 scale - or close enough for my purposes, since that is my preferred scale - and (lo!) there is frankly nothing to refute it as there were no full size props for the TIEs... so I make my peace with it and carry on.
Any other approach is frankly doomed, since citing the studio models as being '1/24 scale' or any other such is, as already noted, based on the fact that the pilot figures used were of that scale (or others;the B-Wing model used a 1/32 figure from the Tamiya 1/32 F-14 kit...) In the case of the X-Wing, the size of the SS model A-Mech may actually conflict with that determination, but I've never heard if anyone had done that investigation to confirm or not... regardless, for kit models, the A-Mech dome size is an exact yardstick gladly accepted to validate a kit's scale. Too bad nothing of that easy measure exits for TIE based vehicles (or I believe... did perhaps the filming sets have actual viewport windows we could get the measures of? Now! That would solve our problems with "scale" indeed!)
My $15 worth for your consideration. Best and "Cheers"!
Regards, Robert
In the case of ships with astromechs, since there was an actual full size prop (R2-D2) for which the size is know, scale for any model may be set *exactly* just by measuring that dome.
In the case of the TIE fighters, there is no such yardstick and so you can only 'wing it' on the basis of something like the size of the figures. For the AMT TIE fighters, both the snap-tite interceptors and the latter releases of the 'two in one box' regular TIE, the size between kits is consistent i.e. the same, based on the size of the cockpit ball. Measuring the provided figures, which appears a reasonable fit, you come up with a pilot of modest stature (on order of 5'5" to 5'8") that fits nicely as a 1/48 scale figure. Recalling the scene in SW (ANH) where Vader and his escorts are 'heading for their fighters', you see the two TIE pilots seem relatively short (of course, next to Vader, most folks seem short...). Being on the small size seems to fit well with the tiny dimensions of the TIE cabin and so I find it acceptable. Result: I call the AMT/MPC kits 1/48 scale - or close enough for my purposes, since that is my preferred scale - and (lo!) there is frankly nothing to refute it as there were no full size props for the TIEs... so I make my peace with it and carry on.
Any other approach is frankly doomed, since citing the studio models as being '1/24 scale' or any other such is, as already noted, based on the fact that the pilot figures used were of that scale (or others;the B-Wing model used a 1/32 figure from the Tamiya 1/32 F-14 kit...) In the case of the X-Wing, the size of the SS model A-Mech may actually conflict with that determination, but I've never heard if anyone had done that investigation to confirm or not... regardless, for kit models, the A-Mech dome size is an exact yardstick gladly accepted to validate a kit's scale. Too bad nothing of that easy measure exits for TIE based vehicles (or I believe... did perhaps the filming sets have actual viewport windows we could get the measures of? Now! That would solve our problems with "scale" indeed!)
My $15 worth for your consideration. Best and "Cheers"!
Regards, Robert
TazMan2000
Master Member
I'd say, scale it to the pilot.
TazMan2000
TazMan2000
star-art
Sr Member
According to Joe Johnston himself, the TIE, X-Wing and Y-Wing filming models were (at the time, i..e 1976) intended to be in the same scale relative to each other. What that scale was didn't really matter back then. What was important was the fact they were built to be in scale with each other. And since they used the same 1/24 pilot figure in each model, calling them ~1/24 seems like a very reasonable conclusion.
Dedalus5550
Sr Member
This is the logic I always used—except I don’t know enough about the issue of the TIE pilot in the cockpit. It gets back to whether you’re building a model of a fictional ship or a model of an actual model. I prefer the former, so I would put “glass” on a Salzo x-wing. And cockpit and pilot that match the full size versions. And my TIE and snow speeder would also have to make sense in that way.
Mike Todd
rbeach84, very well put. A couple specific responses...
I've been continuing to dig, though, and I begin to wonder if there's the problem of too many brains at ILM involved in the original build... One source says all the craft were built to the same scale -- that being 1:24. One source says the TIEs were 1:16. To supplement the pilots above in their roomy cockpit set, we also have this referent of the pilots' approximate eyeline (makes sense it would need to be below that triangular piece of equipment that sticks down into the viewport):
And I am beginning to re-revise my take on the Bandai kits and their "correctness" due to the size of the pilot in the cockpit, which looks enough like the spacious set piece as makes no never mind:
All of that leading to this close-up of one of the original filming models:
I'm still trying to dig up information on the diameter of the miniature's viewport frame, but based on everything I feel like that's a 1:24 pilot figure in there. I'm wondering who thought it was supposed to be a larger scale. Such misinterpretations and misconceptions are well-documented. See the myth that Slave I was inspired by a streetlight near ILM. It wasn't. But that myth keeps getting propagated by ILMers -- just not the one who designed it... based on a radar dish. George saw a drawing depicting the ship at an oblique angle and thought the base shape was elliptical, and that's what he approved, so that's what they built. So I can see the myth that the TIE miniature was a larger scale being carried down to things like this blueprint to build a new cockpit set for ROTJ (which they ended up not doing and just used footage filmed for Star Wars instead):
With that doofy top hatch and ridiculous lack of visibility, there's no way this underscaled cockpit reflects an accurate take on the TIE. So, after all that, I think I'm okay being in the SS=1:24 camp -- and keeping all my models. Sorry for being all over the place on this, but I am never afraid to revise my stance on the basis of new information.
Looks close enough to me.
The A-Wing is messy because the two filming miniatures have different size pilots. And neither agrees with the full size set-piece. The large pilot is a bit too large, but the small pilot is too small. The official size was based on the small-pilot version for the longest time, and so the ship was listed as 9.6m long. Which is what the FFG and Bandai kits are derived from. More recently, that got corrected to something that matches the set blueprints and live-action footage -- 6.9m... which lands it somewhere between the sizes forced by the two pilot figures. Ironically, it makes the old MPC kit 1:43, which goes well with their 1:43 X-Wing. *lol* But it also means the "1:72" Bandai kit is actually 1:51, and their "1:144" kit is more like 1:104.
Just these, but we don't have enough information about the setpiece built for filming in '76:
I've been continuing to dig, though, and I begin to wonder if there's the problem of too many brains at ILM involved in the original build... One source says all the craft were built to the same scale -- that being 1:24. One source says the TIEs were 1:16. To supplement the pilots above in their roomy cockpit set, we also have this referent of the pilots' approximate eyeline (makes sense it would need to be below that triangular piece of equipment that sticks down into the viewport):
And I am beginning to re-revise my take on the Bandai kits and their "correctness" due to the size of the pilot in the cockpit, which looks enough like the spacious set piece as makes no never mind:
All of that leading to this close-up of one of the original filming models:
I'm still trying to dig up information on the diameter of the miniature's viewport frame, but based on everything I feel like that's a 1:24 pilot figure in there. I'm wondering who thought it was supposed to be a larger scale. Such misinterpretations and misconceptions are well-documented. See the myth that Slave I was inspired by a streetlight near ILM. It wasn't. But that myth keeps getting propagated by ILMers -- just not the one who designed it... based on a radar dish. George saw a drawing depicting the ship at an oblique angle and thought the base shape was elliptical, and that's what he approved, so that's what they built. So I can see the myth that the TIE miniature was a larger scale being carried down to things like this blueprint to build a new cockpit set for ROTJ (which they ended up not doing and just used footage filmed for Star Wars instead):
With that doofy top hatch and ridiculous lack of visibility, there's no way this underscaled cockpit reflects an accurate take on the TIE. So, after all that, I think I'm okay being in the SS=1:24 camp -- and keeping all my models. Sorry for being all over the place on this, but I am never afraid to revise my stance on the basis of new information.
Looks close enough to me.
The A-Wing is messy because the two filming miniatures have different size pilots. And neither agrees with the full size set-piece. The large pilot is a bit too large, but the small pilot is too small. The official size was based on the small-pilot version for the longest time, and so the ship was listed as 9.6m long. Which is what the FFG and Bandai kits are derived from. More recently, that got corrected to something that matches the set blueprints and live-action footage -- 6.9m... which lands it somewhere between the sizes forced by the two pilot figures. Ironically, it makes the old MPC kit 1:43, which goes well with their 1:43 X-Wing. *lol* But it also means the "1:72" Bandai kit is actually 1:51, and their "1:144" kit is more like 1:104.
Attachments
rbeach84
Sr Member
Thank you, Inquistor P. Well said, sound reasoning and (as Mr. Spock might say) quite logical. Yes, gives me the idea that the full size cockpit sets may indeed be our missing scale "yardstick". If someone with the appropriate imaging skill-set could do an analysis of the pix above and get a diameter of the upper hatch, we might then have something to provide a reasonable scale marker for all these kits... since they all share that same hatch detailing.
I checked again, chewing on this issue, that I can take the MPC/AMT kit figures and compare them to a well known "high fidelity" scale figure in 1/48 scale (the generic naval pilot found in many of Monogram's 1/48 scale kits like the A-4 Skyhawk and F-14A) and it is a perfect match. Then placing that pilot figure in the lower half of the cockpit 'ball', upon the mounting post socket and with feet 'on the ring' of the forward viewport, the figure's eyeline surprisingly lines up with the horizontal centerline. Placing in the kit's cockpit assembly will raise the eyeline by about a scale 10 inches, so still pretty good for these kits if assumed to be 1/48 scale. So again, I'm happy with it, barring another measure like the hatch size...
Analyzing from a 'real world' engineering perspective, I always thought the TIE fighters - as short range 'point defense fighters', would have a mimumal interior volume for several reasons, which make the 'set pieces' seem perhaps overly generous.
1) (Considering 'Star Wars 'verse tech) lessened baseline power requirement for the force compensators due to reduced internal clearances.
2) Smaller physical size gives several combat advantages, such as reduced optical visibility and making it more difficult to target.
3) Less internal volume means lessened 'blow out' impact if the hull is, well, "holed", if we assume the cockpit has an atmosphere at all.
4) If not pressurized except when absolutely needed, then the required gas volume storage would be reduced. In short, smaller pressure tanks.
5) More space could be dedicated to the machine's power, propulsion and weapons volume requirements.
Inquisitor, your comments are also well taken re: the MPC A-Wing kit and when compared to the new toolings. Again, the model makers have the same challenges we have been discussing in determining a 'scale' for these fictional objects. Using images of the movie A-Wing cockpit scenes supports the apparent size of the model kit cockpit pointing to something very close to 1/48 scale, leaving the Bandai kit obviously *not* 1/72 since it is nearly as large as the MPC kit. Which is too bad (grouse, grouse) since the MPC kit takes a great deal of 'tweaking' to make it a refined replica... sigh!
Last point I'd like to make is this: scale in this situation, being somewhat ridiculous, can be disregarded if the modeler is simply happy with a replica regardless of how it is sized. Only if you use scale as a desired characteristic for other reasons does it even become an issue. I use a constant scale in my modeling as I like it for comparison purposes, and 1/48 scale specifically because of the level of detail that can be shown, which I appreciate especially as a former pilot and as an engineer. So I will consider scale. Doesn't mean I'm more or less correct and certainly happy to be along for the ride down the creative 'rabbit hole'!
SyFy spaceships provide a welcome foray into the imagined worlds of whatever source, so it is simply all in good fun without any specific need to be dogmatic since it is all equally "real", if that makes sense. In short, how one goes into that 'fun' is pretty well equally valid regardless of direction... and makes for some fine discussions to boot!
Cheers, Robert
I checked again, chewing on this issue, that I can take the MPC/AMT kit figures and compare them to a well known "high fidelity" scale figure in 1/48 scale (the generic naval pilot found in many of Monogram's 1/48 scale kits like the A-4 Skyhawk and F-14A) and it is a perfect match. Then placing that pilot figure in the lower half of the cockpit 'ball', upon the mounting post socket and with feet 'on the ring' of the forward viewport, the figure's eyeline surprisingly lines up with the horizontal centerline. Placing in the kit's cockpit assembly will raise the eyeline by about a scale 10 inches, so still pretty good for these kits if assumed to be 1/48 scale. So again, I'm happy with it, barring another measure like the hatch size...
Analyzing from a 'real world' engineering perspective, I always thought the TIE fighters - as short range 'point defense fighters', would have a mimumal interior volume for several reasons, which make the 'set pieces' seem perhaps overly generous.
1) (Considering 'Star Wars 'verse tech) lessened baseline power requirement for the force compensators due to reduced internal clearances.
2) Smaller physical size gives several combat advantages, such as reduced optical visibility and making it more difficult to target.
3) Less internal volume means lessened 'blow out' impact if the hull is, well, "holed", if we assume the cockpit has an atmosphere at all.
4) If not pressurized except when absolutely needed, then the required gas volume storage would be reduced. In short, smaller pressure tanks.
5) More space could be dedicated to the machine's power, propulsion and weapons volume requirements.
Inquisitor, your comments are also well taken re: the MPC A-Wing kit and when compared to the new toolings. Again, the model makers have the same challenges we have been discussing in determining a 'scale' for these fictional objects. Using images of the movie A-Wing cockpit scenes supports the apparent size of the model kit cockpit pointing to something very close to 1/48 scale, leaving the Bandai kit obviously *not* 1/72 since it is nearly as large as the MPC kit. Which is too bad (grouse, grouse) since the MPC kit takes a great deal of 'tweaking' to make it a refined replica... sigh!
Last point I'd like to make is this: scale in this situation, being somewhat ridiculous, can be disregarded if the modeler is simply happy with a replica regardless of how it is sized. Only if you use scale as a desired characteristic for other reasons does it even become an issue. I use a constant scale in my modeling as I like it for comparison purposes, and 1/48 scale specifically because of the level of detail that can be shown, which I appreciate especially as a former pilot and as an engineer. So I will consider scale. Doesn't mean I'm more or less correct and certainly happy to be along for the ride down the creative 'rabbit hole'!
SyFy spaceships provide a welcome foray into the imagined worlds of whatever source, so it is simply all in good fun without any specific need to be dogmatic since it is all equally "real", if that makes sense. In short, how one goes into that 'fun' is pretty well equally valid regardless of direction... and makes for some fine discussions to boot!
Cheers, Robert
rbeach84
Sr Member
So, using some images from the web of the same cockpit blueprints, it appears that the set would have had a 4 foot viewport and a3 foot top hatch. 3 foot seems undersized, based on the proportions on the plans vs the model kit (one thing about the MPC models, they are often spot-on for the features of the filming minuatures though obviously not always... (Millennium Falcon!!)
The MPC TIE interceptor has a 4-foot top hatch and a 4-foot viewport (diameters) so the viewport agrees while the top hatch is 12" undersized. However, the blueprints seem to show the TH - as noted - as undersized, which may be correct if the interior diameter is different from the external diameter, quite reasonable considering it would have to be a pressure hatch and has to have a 'clamping ring' mechanism.
So, FYI for what it is worth, not sure how that relates to the sets they used in Star Wars (aka 'A New Hope'). Again, perhaps someone might be able to do a perspective 'map' of the screen captures and come up with some measure of that top hatch. It seems set back and the "pilots" are not centered under it (most likely a cineotographer's "trick" to provide more context...?)
Thoughts? Three or four foot hatches seem reasonable match to the movie views, and a three-foot hatch even more so (from an engineering standpoint). Only real world examples we might look to are the space programs and submarines. The ISS hatches are on the order of at least three feet, so cool beans!
R/ Robert
The MPC TIE interceptor has a 4-foot top hatch and a 4-foot viewport (diameters) so the viewport agrees while the top hatch is 12" undersized. However, the blueprints seem to show the TH - as noted - as undersized, which may be correct if the interior diameter is different from the external diameter, quite reasonable considering it would have to be a pressure hatch and has to have a 'clamping ring' mechanism.
So, FYI for what it is worth, not sure how that relates to the sets they used in Star Wars (aka 'A New Hope'). Again, perhaps someone might be able to do a perspective 'map' of the screen captures and come up with some measure of that top hatch. It seems set back and the "pilots" are not centered under it (most likely a cineotographer's "trick" to provide more context...?)
Thoughts? Three or four foot hatches seem reasonable match to the movie views, and a three-foot hatch even more so (from an engineering standpoint). Only real world examples we might look to are the space programs and submarines. The ISS hatches are on the order of at least three feet, so cool beans!
R/ Robert
That's all excellent to know. Mine are being built as uncrewed setpieces for Legion, and I'm 3D-printing new wings for both Fighter and Interceptor, as the ones in both are underscaled and the Fighters' aspect ratio is way off. I'm superdetailing one cockpit, though, as it's an objective. So it'll have a better floor placement.
I have a personal headcanon that "twin ion engine" is an in-universe mnemonic starfighter wonks use, a bit like "NCC" standing for "naval construction contract" is just a mnemonic in Star Trek. In the latter case, the letters don't actually "stand" for anything. It's an indicator of an active-service starship of the Federation Starfleet. By interstellar agreement, all Federation-registered vessels have an "N" first letter, with the other two indicating authorizing agency. NGL, NAR, NDT, etc.
In this case, though, it was a nickname the ILM modelers gave Vader's ship because it looked like a bow tie to them. Kenner got their nicknames ("X ship", "Y ship", "tie ship") and, for lack of anything better to call them, needing to put something on the box, so those designations became official. If, in-universe, Sienar did call those craft TIEs, it probably does stand for something, and -- given how many have more than two engines -- that something likely isn't the mnemonic enthusiasts use among themselves. I like to think it stands for the crafts' versatile rôle: Tactical/Interdiction/Enforcement. What the Empire uses them for. A nice, flexible, multirole base platform that can be configured myriad ways depending on what's called for.
Now, let's take your points...
Power-generation does not seem to be an issue in the GFFA. Whatever the size, TIE Fighters reactors are likely in the lower dome, below the cockpit floor. About the only place for them. And they have such massive output that the fluctuations of usage (throttle changes, weapons going from firing to not) need to dump the waste heat through those huge radiator panels.
As I've said before, things like the N-1 and Luke's landspeeder have such reliable repulsorlifts that those vehicles have no landing apparatus of any kind. That's still gotta raw power, and it's power that can be banked for while the craft is otherwise completely inert. Heck. Lightsabers! Those things are basically high-energy plasma chainsaws. They're not running off of a couple D cells.
So saving power on inertial compensators is probably not on the checklist of requirements...
Prior to the Battle of Yavin, I don't think Imperial combat pilots went up against much in the way of opposition. Some surplus Y-Wings or Z-95s would likely be the top of the line a dissident world could muster. Some might have locally-made transatmospheric craft... But the TIE was already compact and nimble. I'm not sure where the thing about them being disposable tin cans came from. Probably the same source that decided Y-Wings were "slow and ungainly", when we see them moving at the same speed as the X-Wings, who I am doubtful were holding back on their account.
In the portion of the Battle of Yavin we saw, and leaving out the trench runs, because the Rebel ships there were attacked from behind and couldn't evade or shoot back... Six TIE Fighters against ten X-Wings. By the time Red Leader made his trench run, the skies over that part of the Death Star seemed clear. They were down four ships, and one damaged. So, yes that flight of Fighters was eliminated, but they were up against some fairly late-model starfighters, with shields, good maneuverability, and numerical advantage, and still managed to inflict ~50% casualties.
And that's only assuming more wasn't going on elsewhere. We have about half of those "thirty ships" unaccounted-for. Were they destroyed? Did the survivors bug out once Luke took the shot and they're behind the camera already when we see the Falcon, Luke, Wedge, and mystery Y-Wing flying away from the station? There's only so much we can glean or infer, but from what we saw, with superior ships and superior numbers, the Rebels only did as well as they did because Tarkin didn't take the threat seriously. Vader took unilateral action and got the half-squadron on hot standby into the air, and it was all over before more could launch.
So size doesn't seem to be an issue.
That gets into materials science that we definitely don't have enough information for. Things in space in the GFFA seem to be made of light but hard materials that we don't have (yet) in any quantity in the here and now. If the reactor gets ruptured, it doesn't matter. Blooey. If the pilot has time to react, he ejects. Any other hits on the ball itself are likely to injure or kill the pilot outright, never mind any explosive decompression effects. There isn't all that much volume above the reactor for a shot to go through and not hit them. Wedge, Luke, and Red Leader all take hits to the aft part of their craft, but there's so much back there, they're personally unscathed. All TIE's have back there -- unless they're an x1 -- is the entry hatch and engine ports.
I always presumed the cockpits had atmosphere. Vader's mask acts as a respirator. I don't think he has an internal air supply, despite the mask's origins in the concept stage. But it might. In Solo, however, the cut Academy scene shows an open-face pilot helmet, and we see open-face piloting of TIEs in Rebels, Resistance, and TFA. So there's that, too...
Everything also seems to be super-compact in the GFFA. The breath masks Han, Leia, and Chewie take out into the asteroid; the breathers Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon use to get to Otoh Gunga, etc. The cockpits of the ROTS Jedi fighters are smaller than TIE sized, and Obi-Wan and Anakin definitely didn't have helmets. Air tanks and processors are likely much smaller than what we're used to.
Look at those wings again. Those ships already have way more power than they use, from a reactor the size of Captain America's shield. The guns are compact and efficient and mostly mounted internally (the external hardpoints are just, basically, barrel sleeves). And the engines are tiny. If they needed to be any bigger, they'd stick out more, rather than taking up more interior space.
I think the main driving factor in the cockpit size is being able to get around the pilot seat upon entry. Any smaller and that rear hatch would be idiotic. Personally, I have never understood why the front viewport didn't just hinge up so the pilot can climb straight in. That's the direction they went with the StarFury in Babylon 5.
The A-Wing, though, is a case where we have other external metrics besides the filming miniatures. The upper-hull set lacks detail, but the proportions are right:
Which agrees with all the cockpit shots:
And the hangar matte painting:
Lucasfilm revised the official size after revisiting all this and used it to also determine how much bigger the RZ-2 is over its predacessor:
I have the Bandai "1:144" A-Wings because there are aftermarket decals for them and I'm doing a flight display of Battle-of-Endor Rogue Group (or, at least, its Gold and Red Squadrons), so the half-inch size discrepancy is acceptable -- at least for now -- among the X-, Y-, and B-Wings, and the Falcon. Which leads conveniently into...
Absolutely. Some things are solo display pieces and scale doesn't matter. But I love comparative settings. I have real-world air- and spacecraft, Sci-Fi air- and spacecraft, all in 1:72 so I can see them relative to each other. Star Trek shuttles (up to the whompin' huge runabout, aeroshuttle, and Captain's yacht), Mercury up to the Space Shuttle, the StarFury and Thunderbolt from Babylon 5, a Gunstar, a whole mess of Star Wars craft, F-14, YF-23, and so on.
I have... other derangements in other scales. *lol* That's why working out as much of they inconsistency and unknown as I can is so important to me. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean consistency doesn't matter. Hell, if anything, it matters more, because it doesn't have the crutch of being real to lean on. It can be a profound crisis of faith to discover that a thing you thought was one way... is not and can not be that. Take the official length of the USS Enterprise from TOS. 947'. Matt Jefferies came up with that. We can't question it!
...Except he came up with that length for the pre-production before the first pilot, when the ship was smaller and had a smaller crew. He never revised it upward to account for the larger ship we got when the series went to production. His own materials, such as his blueprints for the shuttlebay, put the lie to that length. At that length, the shuttlebay lateral alcoves would stick through the hull out into open space. Both the TOS and TMP ship need to be scaled up by about 15% to work. It rattled me, but it works so much better now... Except that all the commercial model kits out there adhere to those unworkable sizes.
As you said, "how much does it matter to the individual"? In the case of those A-Wings, above, enh, I can live with it. In the case of this? Oh HELL no -- it throws off two entire eras of starships and I will never be able to unsee it. So I have been taking steps to address it through other avenues and creative thinking. I like the challenge, and also the odd unanticipated brainstorm that makes things work better than they ever did before...
Yeah, it's suggestive -- but trickery. There's a hexagonal recess in the outside of the rear hatch, and there's a smaller hexagonal "window" in the interior that we can see the outside through. But it's a viewscreen. It's mounted high up, and doesn't line up with the external feature.
star-art
Sr Member
They DID build a new TIE interior cockpit set for Jedi. Whether that footage ended up in the movie, I don't know. I've seen one photo of it, with a pilot sitting in it, being filmed on stage. It was quite different in appearance from the original 1976 set.
Bandai did a very good job with their 1/72 interior, but I believe the one I designed for R2 is even more accurate and authentic when compared to the 1976 interior set. I was able to somehow find a way to get the exterior and interior portions to work together in a manner that was authentic to both the filming model *and* the interior set. That was no easy task!
In order to do this, however, I had to sit the pilot up quite high inside the "ball" portion of the ship. This was necessary in order to match the photos and footage of the interior set where you can see how the hatch is not that far above the pilot's head. R2 was not totally satisfied with this solution, so they enlarged my interior to shift the pilot down quite a bit. It was a fair compromise. In the end, however, it meant the pilot figure in their kit is now actually larger than 3/4 the size of the original 1/24 pilot figure used in the filming miniatures.
As for the rear viewport, that created a continuity problem in the original film. On the filming model, that "window" is centered in the ball at the back. On the cockpit set, however, it was far above center. In the movie, you can clearly see stars moving behind the pilot as well as through the top hatch openings. Those portions of the set had bluescreen material which was used to composite in background footage. But, the rear opening simply does not line up with what was on the exterior of the ship.
If I remember correctly, Bandai left the interior window open and the exterior one closed. I opted to do the same thing for R2. In the end, n order to save on parts they molded both closed.
Bandai did a very good job with their 1/72 interior, but I believe the one I designed for R2 is even more accurate and authentic when compared to the 1976 interior set. I was able to somehow find a way to get the exterior and interior portions to work together in a manner that was authentic to both the filming model *and* the interior set. That was no easy task!
In order to do this, however, I had to sit the pilot up quite high inside the "ball" portion of the ship. This was necessary in order to match the photos and footage of the interior set where you can see how the hatch is not that far above the pilot's head. R2 was not totally satisfied with this solution, so they enlarged my interior to shift the pilot down quite a bit. It was a fair compromise. In the end, however, it meant the pilot figure in their kit is now actually larger than 3/4 the size of the original 1/24 pilot figure used in the filming miniatures.
As for the rear viewport, that created a continuity problem in the original film. On the filming model, that "window" is centered in the ball at the back. On the cockpit set, however, it was far above center. In the movie, you can clearly see stars moving behind the pilot as well as through the top hatch openings. Those portions of the set had bluescreen material which was used to composite in background footage. But, the rear opening simply does not line up with what was on the exterior of the ship.
If I remember correctly, Bandai left the interior window open and the exterior one closed. I opted to do the same thing for R2. In the end, n order to save on parts they molded both closed.
Thanks for that, star-art. I love learning why things are the way they are. I didn't realize they actually built the TIE cockpit set for ROTJ. I've never seen even the one pic. I'd love to see how you got things to agree. One thing I'd dearly love for my 1:48 and 1:72 TIEs is better interiors.
The back window makes sense to me, as it is. In less critical situations, the pilot can crank around and look behind. If it were down behind the small of his back, what would be the point? Since they didn't even try to make it the same size as the exterior hexagon, I don't see it as a discontinuity. Feature, rather than bug.
The back window makes sense to me, as it is. In less critical situations, the pilot can crank around and look behind. If it were down behind the small of his back, what would be the point? Since they didn't even try to make it the same size as the exterior hexagon, I don't see it as a discontinuity. Feature, rather than bug.
