Round2 Acquires Star Wars License
- Thread starter edge10
- Start date
Dedalus5550
Sr Member
Yeah. Won’t take long where it’s too close the price of the PG, maybe over.
Analyzer
Master Member
That is what I always assumed it was, a rear view mirror
like here
Fett_Ish
Sr Member
It always bothered me that the Falcon is not visible from the cockpit,and I think that a tie has a very limited visibility from the cockpit. To see left or right one would have to press their cheek against the glass and even then you would just see a big panel…so the scale must be 1/24th. What were we talking about?
rbeach84
Sr Member
I forgot!!
(old school...)
;^D
Oh, wait, stuff about the new re-issue of the AMT TIE and the Interceptor, scale cockpit etc. I think...
Lets face it, spacecraft would not be piloted like airplanes and such, the velocities involved would require the assistance of sensors beyond the limited human(iod) set. Manuevering spacecraft is more akin to "driving" a submarine and a cargo ship. Limited visibility and lots of mass to anticipate trajectories for... meaning the 'pilot' has to be **way ahead** of the craft. Point: windows are silly and pretty useless. In some ways, Flash Gordon was closer to the truth of it... remember the crew huddled over the 'scanner'?
In my re-imagined Millennium Falcon, the two defense "gun" positions wouldn't have any direct vision ports other than a tiny bubble for the gunner's head to stick into that was used only as a backup for the 'normal' artificial 'virtual' vision provided by external viewing systses dotted around the skin of the ship. Everything would be essentially automated with 'organic' management authority of the targeting and engagement processing. Anything else would be pretty well ineffective.
Same logic would need to apply to a craft like a TIE fighter, which has little useful field of vision. The viewpoints might only be used for manual manuevering when docking or moving through the hangar space, not for actual space combat.
Anyone who has ever played X-Wing is well aware of how impossible it is to track the action visually - which is why it takes so long to advance!
Cheers!
R/ Robert
(old school...)
;^D
Oh, wait, stuff about the new re-issue of the AMT TIE and the Interceptor, scale cockpit etc. I think...
Lets face it, spacecraft would not be piloted like airplanes and such, the velocities involved would require the assistance of sensors beyond the limited human(iod) set. Manuevering spacecraft is more akin to "driving" a submarine and a cargo ship. Limited visibility and lots of mass to anticipate trajectories for... meaning the 'pilot' has to be **way ahead** of the craft. Point: windows are silly and pretty useless. In some ways, Flash Gordon was closer to the truth of it... remember the crew huddled over the 'scanner'?
In my re-imagined Millennium Falcon, the two defense "gun" positions wouldn't have any direct vision ports other than a tiny bubble for the gunner's head to stick into that was used only as a backup for the 'normal' artificial 'virtual' vision provided by external viewing systses dotted around the skin of the ship. Everything would be essentially automated with 'organic' management authority of the targeting and engagement processing. Anything else would be pretty well ineffective.
Same logic would need to apply to a craft like a TIE fighter, which has little useful field of vision. The viewpoints might only be used for manual manuevering when docking or moving through the hangar space, not for actual space combat.
Anyone who has ever played X-Wing is well aware of how impossible it is to track the action visually - which is why it takes so long to advance!
Cheers!
R/ Robert
And a ship's tracking systems would 'walk' fire from one gunnery emplacement to the next automatically as the ship maneuvered and the attacker's position changed.
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
On slightly related subject, are we assuming that R1 engineered the new big TIE kit with the possibility of replacing the wing panels and releasing it in a few years as a 1/24th TIE Interceptor? Because if they can repop the K'tinga as the Kronos One, it seems like a no brainer to reuse the cockpit sprues for a TIE-I.
TazMan2000
Master Member
I would think it would depend on how well the new big TIE sold, but if it did sell well, then roughly half the work is done on the Interceptor. They released each version of Space 1999 Eagle, so why not each version of TIE?
TazMan2000
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
It's hard to imagine the TIE selling less than the K'tinga or the Eagle. I mean, it's a top five OT Star Wars ship. I was just thinking to myself that I should plan to get two kits so I can convert one of them into the TIE-I but then thought, "Wait, R2 is probably already planning to do that." As much as I would love the challenge of scratch building the Interceptor's panels, I already have multiple projects on the bench. 
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
If we eventually get a 1/24 Interceptor, it probably makes sense for R2 to make their upcoming Bomber kit 1/24th as well to make a nice line-up. For that matter, if the TIE inner cockpit pieces are on separate sprues they could be reused in a 1/24 TIE X-1 along with the bomber wing panels. The bomber kit would, of course, need to be engineered so that the bomber extension pieces on the panels are separate from the "Vader" wing panels, but, hey, then R2 would be a lot closer to having the ingredients needed for the X-1.
I wouldn't hold my breathe on that.
It seemed more likely the bomber would be in scale with the existing AMT TIE and TIE Interceptor. Whatever scale that is.
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
Probably true, but a guy can dream...
Would R2 take the Eagle and Hawk approach and release a larger scale version first and then a smaller scale second? I mean, if you're doing a new tool, and you already have a 1/32nd TIE (incorrectly called it 1/24 earlier) and potentially a 1/32nd TIE-I, wouldn't it make sense to make your new tool kit part of the "studio series" and price it at $130ish before shrinking it to 1/48 and pricing it at $60ish?
You might think so...
Jamie seems like a really nice guy, but I don't get the impression he thought this out, that well. Just my lousy $0.02.
Robert McLain
Sr Member
WhooHoo!
Edit: Nice to see the size of that kit. It's HUGE.
Last edited:
It's 1:32 scale... is that studio scale for a TIE? Anyway, I've been watching HPIGuys Workshop for years, he has such an infectious approach to model building, he makes even the complex seem straightforward.
