Lancer
Sr Member
ah but you assume I'm talking about miniaturizer ray, I'm not. the certain person was quite forthright in his opinions, musical, 3D, did a superman logo and got married recently and that's all i'm saying.
but he did an amazing Red 5
x-wing drawings?
- Thread starter vistaVision
- Start date
ah but you assume I'm talking about miniaturizer ray, I'm not. the certain person was quite forthright in his opinions, musical, 3D, did a superman logo and got married recently and that's all i'm saying.
but he did an amazing Red 5
Miniaturizer Ray
Well-Known Member
He knows who you're talking about. He's talking about the person who actually built that model, which really isn't all that amazing; Stonky's looks much better. If you move the wings apart slightly on the Mister-X x-wing (for I am also he), then yours will look just as amazing as that other guy's. Let's not talk about that anymore.
The unsullied originals can be obtained here. If you want to make them look like those other pictures, load 'em into Paint Shop Pro, or Picasa, or something, blow out the highlights, crush the shadows and make the colours look like New York hot dog condiments (regular ketchup, of course, but the yellow mustard, not the dark). I believe the other colour that you're looking to get in there is called "cornflower blue".
parabellum
Member
View attachment 20494
I'll try to draw cross sections of X-Wing Fuselage in my spare time.
not every 8 inches, but at each critical transition points.
in full scale dimension.
If anybody is wlling to share 3D model they have created, that would be
great. I only need the fuselage section, and can handle only .3ds files.
if not, I have to assume 1:48 finemolds kit is pretty accurate.
one funny thing about fine molds kit is, that it has little background story
on X-Wing in their assembly instruction booklet. and gives the total
length of X-Wing at 12.5 meter (in Japanese text). which is the value
you see the most in most of the reference books.
yet, if you actually measure the length of kit and multiply by 48.
you get 13.1 meter.
ok, preliminary cross section drawing is up.
I just orderd digital caliper. when I receive it this Saturday, more precise
measurement will be possible.:lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ9Sew4MuZc
angry
I'll try to draw cross sections of X-Wing Fuselage in my spare time.
not every 8 inches, but at each critical transition points.
in full scale dimension.
If anybody is wlling to share 3D model they have created, that would be
great. I only need the fuselage section, and can handle only .3ds files.
if not, I have to assume 1:48 finemolds kit is pretty accurate.
one funny thing about fine molds kit is, that it has little background story
on X-Wing in their assembly instruction booklet. and gives the total
length of X-Wing at 12.5 meter (in Japanese text). which is the value
you see the most in most of the reference books.
yet, if you actually measure the length of kit and multiply by 48.
you get 13.1 meter.
ok, preliminary cross section drawing is up.
I just orderd digital caliper. when I receive it this Saturday, more precise
measurement will be possible.:lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ9Sew4MuZc
angry
Last edited:
modeleers
Sr Member
I'm very grateful to have any info & drawings of this. I've started on the 1/6th X-Engine (thanx Parabellum!) & at 16 x 4 inches she's B I G & screaming for details.
I was surfing the RC world for servos for the canopy & found functional exhaust-cans (aKa Turkey-Feathers) in several scales.
My friend & I are also looking into a type of mini-elevator for the R2 cockpit(?) area.
I was surfing the RC world for servos for the canopy & found functional exhaust-cans (aKa Turkey-Feathers) in several scales.
My friend & I are also looking into a type of mini-elevator for the R2 cockpit(?) area.
Last edited:
parabellum
Member
http://www.therpf.com/showpost.php?p=1120858&postcount=24
All Drawings are now in GIF format. JPEG creates too much defects and bigger than GIF in this type of bitmap.
Fuselage Length is 244mm
wingspan 222mm with out the tip, blaster etc.
total length is 271mm
I'll be updating the drawing with more details.
If someone wants certain area updated first, let me know.:angel
I have difficult time printing the image to precise 7.5" by 10" with 0.5" margin all around on letter size paper.
If you have good luck printing the image with correct scale, please let me know
which software you used to get the right size.angry
All Drawings are now in GIF format. JPEG creates too much defects and bigger than GIF in this type of bitmap.
Fuselage Length is 244mm
wingspan 222mm with out the tip, blaster etc.
total length is 271mm
I'll be updating the drawing with more details.
If someone wants certain area updated first, let me know.:angel
I have difficult time printing the image to precise 7.5" by 10" with 0.5" margin all around on letter size paper.
If you have good luck printing the image with correct scale, please let me know
which software you used to get the right size.
angry
Last edited:
vistaVision
Sr Member
Parabellum, thanks! All of the drawings you've posted here are beautiful! When I started this thread this is what I was looking for. And thanks to everyone that has contributed. It's very cool that so much information and hard work is so freely shared. I hope that everyone continues to work on making their models and drawings more and more accurate. Seems there are enough variables to keep everyone busy for some time.
Marcus
Marcus
I'm no longer convinced the overall length of the Hero miniatures is a solid 20." My apologies as well, when I finally got the Maxi fuselage separated and reassembled I cannot get a measurement greater than 19 3/4 without adding material. Unfortunately I do not have calipers precise enough (yet) to get a measurement from the Saturn V part that could help Ray's work. And thank you for for sharing the extensive analysis which has been most helpful to me while working.
I have spent a ridiculous amount of time making photo comparisons... mostly just visual analysis and nothing nearly as scientific as whats already happening here. Though my apples to apples method can be helpful. When I scale a photo of the MB overtop in profile to a HD grab the overall length matches. Other things are happening here as well, height lines up accordingly, and the shape in profile aligns.
Except I'm finding my measurements were not accurate at the beginning. No matter what I do, I cannot get the MB to be any larger than 19 3/4. Now that I have it apart and reassembled I am finding there were places where extra flash was preventing the parts from sitting properly. Looking at my notes I can see I never had a measurement larger than 19 7/8" which is slightly less than I stated originally. Given the segmented construction of the rocket, and the fact that 2 of those parts are idealized injection molded styrene, it makes me question this as a source of accurate length reference. Still, the photos align!
Furthermore, the photos of the pyro master reveal that the flat back of the nose (like red 3) meets the surface of the front of the vac ed styrene bottom. This begs many questions; would the heroes have been constructed the same way? The same photo reveals the front of the hero buck (top) has been cut away to meet the curved surface of the nose. So this means its the styrene bottom that determines the final position of the nose, and not the top. Then again who says they lined up the back of the styrene with the back of the Hero buck. There is plenty of variation at this location on the models.
Back to Miniaturizer Ray's great work. I'm just at the bottom end of, if not below, what could be the calculated length from the photos. But as mentioned, this is based on the Saturn V part, which has been trimmed... and the variance in this part itself needs to be accounted for as well... and a great excuse to upgrade to new digital calipers. Still, I am at less than the minimum length on the range of derived measurements.
What I'm saying is its probably nothing more than a guess... but I'm thinking maybe the length is consistent. But I am making a huge assumption that the Hero parts were joined in the same way as the Pyro master. It'd would be great to know just a little more... exact length of the nose cone part out of the mold, or at least some specifics to how the nose was finally joined on the heroes.
Can anyone share the angle of the surface that creates the thin flat step on the top back of the fuselage? I am having a difficult time trying to accurately size width of the flat line, and am wondering if the angles (when viewed from the back)that create the step are different also.
I have spent a ridiculous amount of time making photo comparisons... mostly just visual analysis and nothing nearly as scientific as whats already happening here. Though my apples to apples method can be helpful. When I scale a photo of the MB overtop in profile to a HD grab the overall length matches. Other things are happening here as well, height lines up accordingly, and the shape in profile aligns.
Except I'm finding my measurements were not accurate at the beginning. No matter what I do, I cannot get the MB to be any larger than 19 3/4. Now that I have it apart and reassembled I am finding there were places where extra flash was preventing the parts from sitting properly. Looking at my notes I can see I never had a measurement larger than 19 7/8" which is slightly less than I stated originally. Given the segmented construction of the rocket, and the fact that 2 of those parts are idealized injection molded styrene, it makes me question this as a source of accurate length reference. Still, the photos align!
Furthermore, the photos of the pyro master reveal that the flat back of the nose (like red 3) meets the surface of the front of the vac ed styrene bottom. This begs many questions; would the heroes have been constructed the same way? The same photo reveals the front of the hero buck (top) has been cut away to meet the curved surface of the nose. So this means its the styrene bottom that determines the final position of the nose, and not the top. Then again who says they lined up the back of the styrene with the back of the Hero buck. There is plenty of variation at this location on the models.
Back to Miniaturizer Ray's great work. I'm just at the bottom end of, if not below, what could be the calculated length from the photos. But as mentioned, this is based on the Saturn V part, which has been trimmed... and the variance in this part itself needs to be accounted for as well... and a great excuse to upgrade to new digital calipers. Still, I am at less than the minimum length on the range of derived measurements.
What I'm saying is its probably nothing more than a guess... but I'm thinking maybe the length is consistent. But I am making a huge assumption that the Hero parts were joined in the same way as the Pyro master. It'd would be great to know just a little more... exact length of the nose cone part out of the mold, or at least some specifics to how the nose was finally joined on the heroes.
Can anyone share the angle of the surface that creates the thin flat step on the top back of the fuselage? I am having a difficult time trying to accurately size width of the flat line, and am wondering if the angles (when viewed from the back)that create the step are different also.
Basherthrasher
Member
Here,Paul. Maybe this will answer your question. Look at the nose of the X-wing in the back. This has a partial nosecone on it. Maybe they changed the buck to make these easier to assemble making the process go faster.
I know it isn't much help,but this should give you an idea that the nosecones weren't moulded into the fuselage. This is probably because they felt it would be too weak,and would break off when removed from the mould? This may,or may not be the reason for the split down the middle for the pyro models. Maybe it was a stronger joint from side to side,with the top,and bottom halves joined? Who knows for sure what their reasoning for doing the nosecones the way they did back then?
Without actual measurements from the original models,all anyone can do is guess. The Maxi-Brute is closer to the real thing than all these manufactured versions since,as they all used some type of CAD program to guess the original dimensions,and none of them are the same!
I know it isn't much help,but this should give you an idea that the nosecones weren't moulded into the fuselage. This is probably because they felt it would be too weak,and would break off when removed from the mould? This may,or may not be the reason for the split down the middle for the pyro models. Maybe it was a stronger joint from side to side,with the top,and bottom halves joined? Who knows for sure what their reasoning for doing the nosecones the way they did back then?
Without actual measurements from the original models,all anyone can do is guess. The Maxi-Brute is closer to the real thing than all these manufactured versions since,as they all used some type of CAD program to guess the original dimensions,and none of them are the same!
Lancer
Sr Member
hang on. hold the phone.
the way I read that, you're mister X? or have I read that wrong?
ILMwannabe
Active Member
Yeah, that's the same measurement I got from my Estes Maxi Brute. I suspect the main dimensions on the Estes were taken from an actual ILM model, but we don't know if it was a "hero" or "pyro", and I wouldn't trust all the other, more subtle dimensions. As has been said before, the ILM fuselage shape is also a "sculpture" and it would be painstaking to try to duplicate every single angle, curve and nuance. I've already noticed slight differences in the Estes on the lower half, where the slender forward section meets the aft, thicker section. Based solely on available pictures of Red Five, I would say the Salzo V3.1 has the closest overall fuselage shape - better than the Maxi-Brute in many respects.
parabellum
Member
using dimensions provided by miniaturizer.
I did several measurement for most of the reasonably orthographic top view
of x-wing studio miniature photos available at http://www.modelermagic.com
Comparison of x-wing meshes photos after aligning A section and F section.
I did several measurement for most of the reasonably orthographic top view
of x-wing studio miniature photos available at http://www.modelermagic.com
Comparison of x-wing meshes photos after aligning A section and F section.
Last edited:
Miniaturizer Ray
Well-Known Member
You read it right.
I expect most of us have the kits. The problem is that those parts are all castings on the miniatures, and we don't know how much smaller the castings are than the original kit parts. There's also the additional problem that I already mentioned of not knowing exactly how much variation there was in the size of the original kit parts.
Seriously, I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact length of "the" X-wing. As ILMwannabe just said, the master pattern was asymmetrical to start with, and the miniatures that are derived from it are a bit warped, bent and twisted making each of them unique. I have a hunch - and it is purely a hunch - that the forward fuselage of Red 5 is trimmed a little shorter than Red 3, for example.
If you want to go with "idealized" drawings, which seems to be the concensus, then you're not going to get a bang-on match to any of the actual miniatures.
OylPslyk
New Member
wow, now i see i need to shorten my original nose, rather than elongate it the way i did. :eek
i stretched that thing out because i just thought it made it look more angry or fierce. but in the end as mentioned earlier right is right... when i get a chance i'll open the file back up and correct that nose
Miniaturizer Ray
Well-Known Member
parabellum, could I just politely ask that you make new posts, rather than completely replace the content of your older posts; the way you're doing it makes following the flow of the thread quite hard.
For what it's worth, which may be nothing, I had a bash at matching the "orthographic" view with my files. What I haven't included in this screenshot are all the reference markers that I have for the wings, engines, laser cannons, etc, for the sake of clarity. I can actually get a much closer looking match than this by just matching the fuselage (and I could probably finesse this to get a slightly closer match, but my eye problems make it hard work) but that would be cheating, in my opinion. Trying to match everything (except the now broken wing, of course), I get this:
This suggests that the photo was taken with a 50mm lens, about 34 inches away from the miniature:
The accuracy of the camera position is probably in the order of inches, here, rather than hundredths of a milimeter
As I've said, all of this is guesswork. It's easy to just tilt the camera one way or the other and radically alter the overall apparent length due to foreshortening, but, at the moment, I'm guessing that the nose in that shot looks slightly shorter than it ought to as a result of lens distortion.
For what it's worth, which may be nothing, I had a bash at matching the "orthographic" view with my files. What I haven't included in this screenshot are all the reference markers that I have for the wings, engines, laser cannons, etc, for the sake of clarity. I can actually get a much closer looking match than this by just matching the fuselage (and I could probably finesse this to get a slightly closer match, but my eye problems make it hard work) but that would be cheating, in my opinion. Trying to match everything (except the now broken wing, of course), I get this:
This suggests that the photo was taken with a 50mm lens, about 34 inches away from the miniature:
The accuracy of the camera position is probably in the order of inches, here, rather than hundredths of a milimeter
As I've said, all of this is guesswork. It's easy to just tilt the camera one way or the other and radically alter the overall apparent length due to foreshortening, but, at the moment, I'm guessing that the nose in that shot looks slightly shorter than it ought to as a result of lens distortion.
parabellum
Member
I don't know whether this has been discussed here or not.
but I couldn't find any mention of it using the search.
what is the angle at which the Strike-foils open?
I hear pyro models open up more than hero or the other way around.
is it 20 degrees + 20 = 40 degrees?
seems little odd.
left one is at 15 + 15= 30 degrees.
:angel all line drawings are updated with more detail.
goto http://www.therpf.com/showpost.php?p=1120858&postcount=24.:rolleyes
but I couldn't find any mention of it using the search.
what is the angle at which the Strike-foils open?
I hear pyro models open up more than hero or the other way around.
is it 20 degrees + 20 = 40 degrees?
seems little odd.
left one is at 15 + 15= 30 degrees.
:angel all line drawings are updated with more detail.
goto http://www.therpf.com/showpost.php?p=1120858&postcount=24.:rolleyes
Last edited:
Here's a pic that illustrates this better.
The hero models had a nose armature mounting point, possibly the mould layout was just anticipating that. Or maybe the final nose design wasn't decided when they made the fuse mould.
Conventional explanation is that when pyro work was tried with a model or models built using hero construction, it/they blew apart unconvincingly into top and bottom halves, wherease pyro-construction types blow apart sideways, i.e. towards the camera, looking less phony.
I can't recall the source for that, but I believe it. The styrene vacformed bottom half of a hero-construction model would have different properties to the urethane foam upper half, making the explosion difficult to control even if there was a way to bond the halves more strongly.
