SALZO "Hero" SS X-Wings

[Kuhn Global]

<div class='quotetop'>(Miniaturizer Ray @ Aug 31 2006, 01:28 PM) [snapback]1310698[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(-... . .- --.. @ Aug 31 2006, 03:54 AM) [snapback]1310354[/snapback]

This could be the definitive SS X-Wing kit.
[/b]

Are you involved with this project, beaz? Without wishing to sound too grouchy, this is still a long way from being what I would consider "definitive". I would have thought that you would have agreed.

The taller fuselage now appears to have an even more prominent downward dip towards the front - the CC kit always had this, but the ILM originals didn't. Some of the panel lines are still wrong, too.

The panels on the Saturn V engine halves are still much too thick. On the originals these panels were paper thin (and on the "hero" models, they were applied individually, rather than being part of the casting).

On every build-up of the CC kit that I've seen, it's very apparent that the cockpit canopy is a separate part. On the originals, the entire upper fuselage, including the canopy, was cast as one piece (no separate back end either, although most CC builders manage to hide that join adequately, so that's only an issue in terms of faithfully replicating the miniature, rather than appearance. On the other hand, the shape of the CC back end wasn't all that accurate, and its construction made modification difficult). A "definitive" SS X would address this.

The torpedo tubes may have been moved, but they still appear to be just recessed areas, rather than actual tubes, like the originals.

From the post about the "upgrade kit", it sounds as if the cockpit interior is unchanged (I may have misread this). This means that it's the Icons interior. The Icons interior is quite different from the original, and longer, too, so there are still problems with detail accuracy and dimensions, without even considering the "ethical" aspect of recasting.
[/b][/quote]


Oky Doky....

Until Mike can respond, I am the "go between" in the Q & A...lol.

Here is his response to the above post...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Thank you for pointing out the dip in the front, i am working on fixing that right now, i do appreciate it.

The panels on the Saturn V covers are thinner than they appear in the pic, there is a bit of a shadow that makes it look a bit thicker, i will double check this before molding.

The tail has been changed around and i am working on getting as close to Red 5 as i can, it will not have the same issue as version 1.

The canopy frame will remain separate simply because of the practicality for casting, similar situation with the torpedo tubes.

For the interior issue, i did not change it, any info anyone has on this would be great, the master that Scott sent me is not resin, so i am not sure that it's a recast, i do not know it's origin.

Just to be clear about this "hero" version, short of holding a real one in my hands i am trying to get this as best i can using the same ref pics that most people have.

Again thanks for the input, anyone who wishes to contibute ideas for this i would be very grateful and can post or email me direct at salzo1@aol.com
thanks
mike
[/b]

 

[CessnaDriver]

I think I will go ahead and finish my standard CC. And consider building a second hero version down the road as things gel with it. I have time invested in the fuselage already on the standard CC and time is precious.

 

[phase pistol]

Some of those pictures are quite pornographic. :lol

- k

 

[Kuhn Global]

Kewl.. rest assured that when I recieve these new kits, their write-ups will be straight forward and honest. The opinions will also reflect what is available in the X-Wing market...which is very little.

I will always keep and display my CC X-wings as I am very proud of them and the fact that my friend Scott produced them,... not to mention the fact that they are basically taken directly (dimensions anyway) from a real "pyro" studio model.

Mike allowed me to post these PRE-kit pics because my excitement kept me pestering him..lol.

Keeping in mind that Mike's kits are still in the works...

I am excited about these kits regardless of the good and clear points stated above. I am sure some will be used and applied. I also keep in mind that it is well known that some people will never be happy with what may be produced, so I rely on my own judgement and opinion.

Bottom line is that they will be awesome to have.

Here's a funny thought...lol... I wonder if the real "hero" red 5 was cast and offered,.. weather or not the "knowledgable fandom" would pick it apart as well, not knowing it was the real thing? :confused LOL... we live in a crazy and critical society people.. and yes... we're all individuals...for now...lol. :eek :lol

 

[Jestefarean]

Looking forward to getting one of these babies.

 

[Kuhn Global]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jestefarean @ Aug 31 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1310805[/snapback]</div>

Looking forward to getting one of these babies.
[/b]

I TOTALLY AGREE... Sweeeeeeeeeeet.

 

[Dobber]

Dang..... My lack of funds and space is killing me. I may have to break down and get one of these babies. I emailed him my interest as he asked. Congrates and Thanks Kurt.

Chris

 

[REL]

<div class='quotetop'>(Kuhn Global @ Aug 31 2006, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1310800[/snapback]</div>

Here's a funny thought...lol... I wonder if the real "hero" red 5 was cast and offered,.. weather or not the "knowledgable fandom" would pick it apart as well, not knowing it was the real thing? :confused LOL... we live in a crazy and critical society people.. and yes... we're all individuals...for now...lol. :eek :lol
[/b]

Yes they would. In fact on another board I saw dudes picking apart the studio model Enterprise A, the actual studio model, go figure. Not to mention the people that pick apart the PL Refit like crazy, it astounds me sometimes. For a garage kitter it will be nearly impossible to recreate the studio models unless they were handed the actual build plans the original model makers had. Even then, when duplicate models need to be made for sequels the new one's don't match the originals, at some point you have to say it looks great as a stand alone piece and be happy with it. From what I see this X Wing kick's ass and I like it.

 

[Lynn TXP 0369]

That is awesome..

Lynn

 

[Hand Solo]

Kurt said:


<div class='quotetop'></div>

Here's a funny thought...lol... I wonder if the real "hero" red 5 was cast and offered,.. weather or not the "knowledgable fandom" would pick it apart as well, not knowing it was the real thing? blink.gif LOL... we live in a crazy and critical society people.. and yes... we're all individuals...for now...lol.[/b]

Someday...some of these people will wake up and realize that there are things infinitely more important in our lives than this panel line or that little squiggle, or whether or not FS 31652 or FS 31653 should be used.

This is a very true observation, Kurt. Life is too short for this kind of criticism. Whatever did people do when all there was was MPC/ERTL?

 

[ralphee]

Good point by Kurt, Bob and REL, its something that can drive me insane seeing folk just pick apart a wonderful kit or build, life is too short guys, and hey if its not up to expectations, hell i say build your own. For builders of all sci fi, times have never been so good, there are so many kits being released here and there that are just so welcomed by myself and many others as the MPC days did kinda burn. I think Mike has done an impeccable job on this :thumbsup , it looks fantastic, only for it to be picked at already :rolleyes Im not baggin on anybody, just putting forward my opinion .....lee

 

[Miniaturizer Ray]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was picking apart the kit. The CC kit has always been a pretty good one, and these modifications improve it further.

I was really just saying that I found beaz's "definitive" comment surprising.

Like me, beaz has spent what I freely admit is an unhealthy amount of time poring over images of the X-wing studio miniatures, and probably knows what they look like as well as anybody.

Mike, I'll gladly offer any assistance that I can to make your X-wing kit the best that it can be. You can email me at cgideas@btopenworld.com. I'm actually probably a bit rusty about a lot of stuff - my X-obsession has tapered off over the last three years or so.

For those of you who may not have seen it, here's my CAD X-wing; a work in progress (although, to be honest, there's barely been any progress made since this rendering was made in April '03):

Given the caveat that I still don't have the dimensions nailed to my own satisfaction (look at the back of the canopy for one of the clearest problem areas), I think you can see that this particular member of "knowledgable fandom" has some idea of what he's talking about.

Quite incidentally, if you play video games (I don't) then you may be interested to hear that the X-wing on the cover of the Lucasarts game EMPIRE AT WAR is an older and much less accurate CGI X-wing that I also built. Those punks downloaded it from www.sci-fi3d.com (where I go by the username "Mister-X") without giving them - or me - credit. Heh, just kidding with the "punks" bit, I actually thought it was pretty cool that they used it .

 

[ralphee]

Thats an amazing 3-D T65 right there, awesome work indeed.

 

[Kuhn Global]

<div class='quotetop'>(Miniaturizer Ray @ Sep 1 2006, 12:12 AM) [snapback]1311004[/snapback]</div>

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was picking apart the kit. The CC kit has always been a pretty good one, and these modifications improve it further.

I was really just saying that I found beaz's "definitive" comment surprising.

Like me, beaz has spent what I freely admit is an unhealthy amount of time poring over images of the X-wing studio miniatures, and probably knows what they look like as well as anybody.

Mike, I'll gladly offer any assistance that I can to make your X-wing kit the best that it can be. You can email me at cgideas@btopenworld.com. I'm actually probably a bit rusty about a lot of stuff - my X-obsession has tapered off over the last three years or so.

For those of you who may not have seen it, here's my CAD X-wing; a work in progress (although, to be honest, there's barely been any progress made since this rendering was made in April '03):

Given the caveat that I still don't have the dimensions nailed to my own satisfaction (look at the back of the canopy for one of the clearest problem areas), I think you can see that this particular member of "knowledgable fandom" has some idea of what he's talking about.

Quite incidentally, if you play video games (I don't) then you may be interested to hear that the X-wing on the cover of the Lucasarts game EMPIRE AT WAR is an older and much less accurate CGI X-wing that I also built. Those punks downloaded it from www.sci-fi3d.com (where I go by the username "Mister-X") without giving them - or me - credit. Heh, just kidding with the "punks" bit, I actually thought it was pretty cool that they used it .
[/b]

VERY NICE Miniaturizer Ray.

My comment was not meant to be directed at you, but the masses who have clearly destoyed kewl items through their critical natures. You obviously have done your homework on Red 5 and I think your comments are valid and may even be used. After all,.. Mike IS listening to the comments on the board so this bird will be awesome.

I would LOVE to see more of your CAD stuff. AWESOME..

 

[CaptCBoard]

Oh, heck-- I might as well jump into this...

Actually, the only thing I want to say is the cockpit tub, while being a few generations away from the original, is the actual ILM piece. That is to say, what I wound up with was cast from the original at some point, though the original was actually two pieces. I added some nurnies at the back of the piece where there were some blank spots, but other than that, its the real deal. I only comment on this as I know where it came from and I would ask those who comment that the piece is wrong to please consider my information to be as coming from the horse's mouth instead of a second guess.

Now, I should also say I don't know what Mike is including in his kit these days, but what was included in the patterns that I sold him was the same piece that I'd been putting into my kits for years. If he's reworked it or replaced it, then my comments regarding this piece should be ignored. But, since I have not been made aware of any changes to this part, I have to assume its still the same one.

Scott

 

[Kuhn Global]

<div class='quotetop'>(CaptCBoard @ Sep 2 2006, 02:22 PM) [snapback]1311935[/snapback]</div>

Oh, heck-- I might as well jump into this...

Actually, the only thing I want to say is the cockpit tub, while being a few generations away from the original, is the actual ILM piece. That is to say, what I wound up with was cast from the original at some point, though the original was actually two pieces. I added some nurnies at the back of the piece where there were some blank spots, but other than that, its the real deal. I only comment on this as I know where it came from and I would ask those who comment that the piece is wrong to please consider my information to be as coming from the horse's mouth instead of a second guess.

Now, I should also say I don't know what Mike is including in his kit these days, but what was included in the patterns that I sold him was the same piece that I'd been putting into my kits for years. If he's reworked it or replaced it, then my comments regarding this piece should be ignored. But, since I have not been made aware of any changes to this part, I have to assume its still the same one.

Scott
[/b]

Hey Scott.

Yes,.. It appears that Mike offers the one and same cockpit as you originaly had. Actually, so we can be sure,.. if my RED 1's cockpit (that is in your posession at the moment so you can confirm this absolutely) is an original,... then it is of the same cast as the one I received from Mike that was used in my RED 5. They sure appeared the same to my eye.

What's amusing is that I have heard/read many things regarding your CC X from many untold different modelers that I have absolutely found to be false speculation of what they believe they know or have heard from those who have speculated wrongly. (whew..a run-on sentence.. :eek ) I find that very amusing for some strange reason...lol I well know that what people see in a film may be completely different in person... thus Hollywood magic exists.

I guess my bottom line is that with Mike's re-master of your original CC kit,.. it should eliminate the specualtive problems with BOTH options offered. So now it's a choice. :thumbsup :thumbsup ... and I will have both to show.

 

[Miniaturizer Ray]

<div class='quotetop'>(CaptCBoard @ Sep 2 2006, 09:22 PM) [snapback]1311935[/snapback]</div>

Oh, heck-- I might as well jump into this...

Actually, the only thing I want to say is the cockpit tub, while being a few generations away from the original, is the actual ILM piece. That is to say, what I wound up with was cast from the original at some point, though the original was actually two pieces. I added some nurnies at the back of the piece where there were some blank spots, but other than that, its the real deal. I only comment on this as I know where it came from and I would ask those who comment that the piece is wrong to please consider my information to be as coming from the horse's mouth instead of a second guess.
Scott
[/b]

Scott, I'm not accusing you of doing anything dishonest. If there were less of the unnecessary secrecy and exclusivity attached to this hobby, then we'd all be better informed. The fact is that the CC cockpit tub is not the same as the ILM tub. As you've admitted, there are extra nurnies on the back part. Some of the nurnies on the sides are different from the original ILM parts, probably because the original parts had been lost through multiple generations of casting (I know this, because I've identified most of the original ILM parts, and posted the information on Charles Anderson's Yahoo group. The side pieces are also longer at the back, which is not where the original ILM pieces were joined.

I've never personally inspected an Icons X-wing myself, but I asked somebody to compare the CC cockpit tub with the Icons tub and they told me that they were the same. More specifically, they compared the CC tub to a casting that Frank Cerney made of the Icons tub and offered as part of his "starter kit" back in the late 90's.

If the person I asked was mistaken, and the details in the two tubs are not the same, then I'd like to know about it, primarily for the sake of having correct information rather than wrong information, but also because, as you may or may not be aware, several people have constructed and offered for sale "accurate" cockpit interiors for the various scale X-wing kits, which are based on the details in the CC X-wing. I've been telling these people that they're copying the details from the Icons X-wing. If this is incorrect, then in future, I'll say that they're copying the detail from the CC X-wing, instead.

I wonder if the tub that you acquired might not also have originated from Frank's casting? Whoever you got it from wouldn't have actually been lying by claiming that it had a lineage back to the ILM parts. I believe that the half-rounds towards the rear of the top detail strip in the CC kit are still the parts that Frank used, rather than the (correct) Fujimi Elephant parts. Perhaps the strip and the tub came from the same source?

I've heard any number of X-wing stories (many of which conflict with each other) which are purportedly "straight from the horse's mouth". Sadly, the name of the horse - or the address of the stable where he might be found - is never forthcoming. In those cases where clear photographic evidence conflicts with what Mister Ed says, I'm inclined to believe the photos.

To be clear, I'm not bad-mouthing anybody, or their product. My only interest here is factual information about X-wing miniatures.

 

[seknewb]

<div class='quotetop'>(-... . .- --.. @ Sep 3 2006, 02:59 PM) [snapback]1312348[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Miniaturizer Ray @ Aug 31 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]1310698[/snapback]

Are you involved with this project, beaz? Without wishing to sound too grouchy, this is still a long way from being what I would consider "definitive". I would have thought that you would have agreed.
[/b]

Hey Ray. Not involved at all, just an interested observer. And I did say this could be the definitive kit. I actually agree with most of your observations about the patterns we've seen so far. Still, this latest effort from Mike advances the available offerings, and that's enough to be remarkable, IMO.

As for discussion of the origins of the CC kit, and heroes vs. pyros, let's keep in mind that the pattern for the pyro fuselage was in fact a hero fuselage. The pyro fuselages weren't from a different sculpt, but one-offs made from direct castings of the original pattern. Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember him saying at the time that his kit came out, his fuselage pattern was sculpted using the Icons model as a guide. The Icons model was derived from a constructed pyro model, so there is an undeniable ILM lineage there. Unfortunately, Icons chopped their fuselage pattern up to make it easier to build and mass-produce, and ended up removing enough material as to render the resulting model a bit spindly. The CC fuselage ended up correspondingly thin as a result.

You may remember that I'm fortunate enough to own a set of pyro castings (fuselage, wings, engines, guns, etc.) pulled directly from a mold that held the pyro miniature that Icons used to make their model. A one off of the pyro miniature, which itself was a one off of a hero. The fuselage casting I own is noticeably beefier than the Icons or the CC kit. Here are a few comparison pics, first with the CC fuselage:

and with an Icons fuselage:

The pyro castings I have include wing patterns:

and engine patterns:

And Ray, as much as I love looking at your amazingly accurate meshes, and with respect to the number of hours you've obviously invested in constructing them, the one thing that bugs me about all computer generated renderings of this ship, whether yours or ILM's, is that they are all too perfect. The original fuselage pattern was hand sculpted, and is actually just "organic" enough that the pure angulations and symmetries of any rendering will seem "off" to anyone who has spent the silly kind of time researching these miniatures that we have.

So, in past years, working closely together, several of us were able to contribute a number of key discoveries that greatly improved the accuracy of CC's and Mike's first-generation kits. Lately I've been wondering whether or not we might be able to contribute to the accuracy of Mike's new kit. Ray has made a great start, and I'm definitely willing to pitch in as well.

Mike, if you're interested, please feel free to contact me at: beazuhma@mindspring.com
[/b][/quote]




I'm not the expert on the X-wing that many of you are, but having said that, a very close friend of mine also has a copy of the original pyro model and the first thing I noticed about the fuselage was that it was so much beefier than the Icons or CC.

 

[Kuhn Global]

<div class='quotetop'>(-... . .- --.. @ Sep 3 2006, 11:59 AM) [snapback]1312348[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Miniaturizer Ray @ Aug 31 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]1310698[/snapback]

Are you involved with this project, beaz? Without wishing to sound too grouchy, this is still a long way from being what I would consider "definitive". I would have thought that you would have agreed.
[/b]

Hey Ray. Not involved at all, just an interested observer. And I did say this could be the definitive kit. I actually agree with most of your observations about the patterns we've seen so far. Still, this latest effort from Mike advances the available offerings, and that's enough to be remarkable, IMO.

As for discussion of the origins of the CC kit, and heroes vs. pyros, let's keep in mind that the pattern for the pyro fuselage was in fact a hero fuselage. The pyro fuselages weren't from a different sculpt, but one-offs made from direct castings of the original pattern. Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember him saying at the time that his kit came out, his fuselage pattern was sculpted using the Icons model as a guide. The Icons model was derived from a constructed pyro model, so there is an undeniable ILM lineage there. Unfortunately, Icons chopped their fuselage pattern up to make it easier to build and mass-produce, and ended up removing enough material as to render the resulting model a bit spindly. The CC fuselage ended up correspondingly thin as a result.

You may remember that I'm fortunate enough to own a set of pyro castings (fuselage, wings, engines, guns, etc.) pulled directly from a mold that held the pyro miniature that Icons used to make their model. A one off of the pyro miniature, which itself was a one off of a hero. The fuselage casting I own is noticeably beefier than the Icons or the CC kit. Here are a few comparison pics, first with the CC fuselage:

and with an Icons fuselage:

The pyro castings I have include wing patterns:

and engine patterns:

And Ray, as much as I love looking at your amazingly accurate meshes, and with respect to the number of hours you've obviously invested in constructing them, the one thing that bugs me about all computer generated renderings of this ship, whether yours or ILM's, is that they are all too perfect. The original fuselage pattern was hand sculpted, and is actually just "organic" enough that the pure angulations and symmetries of any rendering will seem "off" to anyone who has spent the silly kind of time researching these miniatures that we have.

So, in past years, working closely together, several of us were able to contribute a number of key discoveries that greatly improved the accuracy of CC's and Mike's first-generation kits. Lately I've been wondering whether or not we might be able to contribute to the accuracy of Mike's new kit. Ray has made a great start, and I'm definitely willing to pitch in as well.

Mike, if you're interested, please feel free to contact me at: beazuhma@mindspring.com
[/b][/quote]
Kewl.

That is the MOST fact I have seen regarding Scott's CC kit. This was a good and knowledgable post.

Great pics too.

As I understood things, the ICONS X is about a third gen piece from the original 'pyro' parts that were cleaned up by J.E.. Those REAL parts that he cleaned up were picked up from the original expolded pyro filming piece (after they blew it up of course) by G.M. or someone there at the time and placed in a box that was left behind by ILM when they moved,.. then later found, given too and cleaned up by J.E.. Somewhere after this ICONS came into the picture and did some of there own work to it. Of course this is all thrid person knowledge, but sounds right to me. Just like any of us,.. who can say for sure?. LOL. The real funny thing to me is that the only guys that CAN confirm anything ARE the only guys that probably shouldn't. LOL.

I am looking forward to hearing what Mike's further plans are.

My excitement with this is still HIGH..

Good post beazuhma. Nice calendar too.

BTW...Mini-Ray.... Your CG render looks great.

 

[Miniaturizer Ray]

<div class='quotetop'>(-... . .- --.. @ Sep 3 2006, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1312348[/snapback]</div>

and engine patterns:

[/b]

To clarify for everybody else, beaz, didn't we agree that that engine was most likely a fresh Phantom engine with parts sliced from an original X-wing Phantom engine stuck onto it?

There's a marked disparity between the crispness of the kit detail and the softness of the added detail, and the engine lacks the added scribed panel lines of the ILM original.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

And Ray, as much as I love looking at your amazingly accurate meshes, and with respect to the number of hours you've obviously invested in constructing them, the one thing that bugs me about all computer generated renderings of this ship, whether yours or ILM's, is that they are all too perfect. The original fuselage pattern was hand sculpted, and is actually just "organic" enough that the pure angulations and symmetries of any rendering will seem "off" to anyone who has spent the silly kind of time researching these miniatures that we have.[/b]

Not disputed, but most of the "angulations and (a)symmetries" of the Red 5 model are present in my model. I made a conscious decision that I wanted the fuselage to be straight, and that I wanted the upper left laser cannon to point forward rather than way off to the left, but other than that, I've attempted to recreate the original closely.

I can "warp" my fuselage and re-align the laser cannon for the purpose of photomatching. One of the things that you have to appreciate is that even using the most advanced rendering engines, the way that light interacts with surface geometry is an extremely crude approximation to the way that real light interacts with physical objects. My X-wing renderings aren't intended to be CGI visual effects, they use the simplest, fastest lighting setups that I can get away with and still garner the necessary information about where particular points are in three-dimensional space.