X-WING & TIE PILOT HELMET progress pics

[teecrooz]

To the detractors, most people aren't looking for constructive criticism in show-off threads. Continuing to provide it when it isn't wanted is baiting/trolling.

I'm not sure how one would give constructive criticism when looking at items cast from originals. Sure the faceplate isn't set in the exact same position, but even Gino has acknowledged this.

 

[jedimaster]

This happens everytime Gino posts his work. Same old "where's the kink?" , "show us the original!" crap that is alway's posted. It's voight kampf at it's best.

 

[sskunky]

Right position or not it ain't cast from an original Tie pilot helmet. And I'm not baiting just stating fact.
The comp pic posted shows just that. Whether Gino will accept it or not, the facts are there for us to see. The camera doesn't lie.

It's a nice replica for sure but stop saying it is what it isn't.

 

[Amish Trooper]

As Gino like to make this statement in the CFO ROTJ armor thread in regards to the molds I would like to apply it here as it is a valid point and question.

"I would very much love to see them.
As far as I know or have seen they do not exist"

What he has shown us so far is a beautiful helmet and is one too appreciate but still doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned or that people want details. Isn't that essentially what the rpf is?

 

[GINO]

Is your question really in the interest of knowing whether the detail is on every helmet or not or is it more about hoping to find a way to criticize Gino's replica, because right now it seems you are more interested in the latter than the former...

This pretty much sums up the crux of the issue.
This is just one particular example of many.



.

 

[SeanB13]

What exactly doing you think I'm trying to bait you into, other than a discussion of your helmet?​

Isn't that why you posted it ???​

I asked about the kink, you kindly posted pictures of your newest version that does indeed have the kink that your earlier version didn't.​

Is that what you consider ''baiting''?​

Then the issue was brought up about the difference in your tubes being thicker, fuller and more round (?) (I guess you would call it), than the Screen Used helmets, which was clearly demonstrated in the side by side compilation that was posted by Keith.​

The comparison shows a definitive discrepancy in your helmet, which would seem to indicate that what you have is not the real deal, but a damn fine Fan-Made sculpt.​

I can't say if you sculpted it for sure, I assumed you did, so I gave you the credit for it, but if you didn't, who ever did, they did a damn good job.​

I'm not a Troll, so if my conclusions are false, and if it's proven to me that they are wrong, I'm more than willing to admit it, and then you can apologize for calling me a Troll.​

Fair enough, Gino?​

 

[tictoc]

I have always loved both the TIE and X wing helmets. These look great.

Just like when I was following a TooMuchGarlic thread when he posted a paint scheme of the Darth Vader helmet a while back ( I could have sworn it was all black too....), I also never noticed the hero schemes on the TIE helmets! Can't believe it took this long for me to see it.

I just noticed the background helmet looks like it has stripe detail on the top of the "ears." Is that a shadow, or did the background guy ears have those notches?

 

[GINO]

@seanb
What I've learned is that it doesn't matter what pics I post, they will never be enough for those with an axe to grind.
Nor do I feel inclined to jump at their requests.

I disagree that there is a discrepancy in the tubes or anywhere else for that matter, only that on my build in the pics the face isn't protruding out as far as the ones being compared to (big surprise). Any other differences are accounted for by trimming or assembly. Not the parts themselves.

You saying it was sculpted is clearly a bait.

PS Going through your post history, you sure seem to me to be a good candidate for a sock puppet.


.

 

[jedimaster]

Sock puppet...... That's what I was thinking!

 

[SeanB13]

@seanb What I've learned is that it doesn't matter what pics I post, they will never be enough for those with an axe to grind.

What axe would that be??? I don't even know you.​

I don't know why you're making these assumptions about me. I asked you about the kink, you showed pics of your newer version that has the kink that your older versions didn't, and that proved to me that you added the kink to your sculpt to add to its accuracy.​

I think that's awesome. I respect your attention to detail.​

I disagree that there is a discrepancy in the tubes or anywhere else for that matter, only that on my build in the pics the face isn't protruding out as far as the ones being compared to (big surprise). Any other differences are accounted for by trimming or assembly. Not the parts themselves.

I respectively disagree. Your explanation does not logically resolve the issue. There is a blatant discrepancy in your helmet and the Screen Used helmets. All the tubes on the SU helmets in Keith's photo comp. look almost identical, regardless of protrusion or trimming, yours is the only one that demonstrates this discrepancy.​

That isn't baiting, or axe grinding, it's factual, you just have to look at the pictures.​

PS Going through your post history, you sure seem to me to be a good candidate for a sock puppet.

I don't know what a sock puppet is, but in the context, it doesn't sound like a term of endearment.​

I have been respectful to you, why are you resorting to name calling and personal insults against me ???​

Let's just keep this discussion about the helmets civil. Please no more name calling or personal insults, okay, Gino? Can you do that?​

 

[Art Andrews]

PS Going through your post history, you sure seem to me to be a good candidate for a sock puppet.

Unless you have found something specific you would like to share with the staff, lets not go haphazardly throwing around accusations like this.

 

[Art Andrews]

Keith, I clearly see the discrepancy you are pointing out. You will get no arguments from me that it is there. However, when looking at the top two helmets (TIE on left, AT-AT on right) and the comparing them to Gino's, can we at least agree that their assembly is relatively similar but Gino's is quite different? From what I am seeing, compared to those two, Gino's faceplate is pushed up further into the helmet (showing less forehead) and it is pushed in at the bottom, (showing less of the tubes and lower rear of the face). If we can agree on that, wouldn't it stand to reason that if the ears remained in the same place and you pushed the faceplate down, it would begin to pinch the bottoms of the tubes and if you grabbed the helmet at the vocoder and pulled it out at the bottom, the pivot point would also end up further compressing the tubes? Now, I am not arguing whether this would result in the same look as the originals or not, but based on Gino's faulty assembly, I would think if he would make those changes, the look would be a lot closer to what we are seeing. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment?

As i said, i would like to see a better replica of the hero face. The tubes are just ONE of the reasons why i would.

I think the photos below show what i mean.

Keith.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

I've stayed out of this thread but I feel that I must make a comment.

Firstly let me say that I am impressed with what you have produced Gino, its an extremely nice looking helmet and one of the most impressive replica TIE's I have seen.
However I believe it is very important that you are absolutely clear as to your TIE's provenance, since earlier in this thread you indicated that it originates from a mould taken from an original TIE helmet (or alternatively a mould taken from an original Stormtrooper Hero faceplate).

The comments you made concern me since I have to say that I DO NOT believe that your helmet is cast from an original TIE (or Hero TK Faceplate) and given I have had significantly more access to original TIE helmets than anyone else on this forum - I believe I am well placed to make this comment.

Here is a copy of one of the comparisons Keith posted earlier, only a little larger so we can better see the differences. Note that all of the original helmets in this photo were handled by me and the photos of them were taken by me.

Though your helmet is very impressive, I believe the differences between it and the originals are vast and certainly not purely assembly issues. As Keith has said the faceplate on the TK Hero (and thus the TIE/AT-AT) is significantly different from the Stunt TK faceplate and IMO explains some of the differences between your helmet and the originals. I believe there could also be a size mis-match between the faceplate and helmet hemispheres.

Therefore, IMO you suggesting your TIE is cast from an "original" is a serious misrepresentation of what it in reality is. If I have incorrectly misunderstood your claims then I welcome your comments. However I do not wish to get into an argument about our past differences, I just want to ensure that these new replicas you are producing are correctly represented.

Cheers

Jez

 

[GINO]

Access to the originals clearly does not guarantee the person who had access either:

1. has more knowledge of that helmet
2. has the ability to correctly absorb/interpret what could be gained from that access

I do believe that to be the case in regards to your assessments (as well as some others that will go unmentioned).

Again, I do not agree with your assessments either.

And to be frank, you don't know what I have/haven't had access to.

I'm not interested in debating/defending against those who clearly are out to discredit me.
You are wasting your time.

The question was brought up. I answered it to the extent that I was willing to. Knew it wouldn't be good enough which is why I didn't lead in with it.



.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

So can we assume from your response that you still maintain that your helmet is cast from an original TIE?

Cheers

Jez

 

[ralphee]

Can somebody double check the frown, im not a Helmet guy, but Gino's frown centre on this faceplate, looks way more shallow than the ILM helmet.
Could be the difference in current finish fooling my eyes, but it just looked off?

Lee

 

[Allaerra]

I think both helmets are absolutely gorgeous, but the Tie is just amazing and one of the most stunning Tie replicas I have seen. Excellent:thumbsup.

 

[GINO]

I think both helmets are absolutely gorgeous, but the Tie is just amazing and one of the most stunning Tie replicas I have seen. Excellent:thumbsup.

Thanks Allaerra! :thumbsup


.

 

[KevVader]

Can somebody double check the frown, im not a Helmet guy, but Gino's frown centre on this faceplate, looks way more shallow than the ILM helmet.
Could be the difference in current finish fooling my eyes, but it just looked off?

Lee

As in most comparison pics, I think that is an illusion of lighting and/or angle.

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

Sorry about this Gino:
Humans have orthognathic faces, that is, faces that lie almost entirely beneath the anterior cranial fossa, whereas other apes (and primates in general) have prognathic faces that project forward of the anterior cranial fossa. Prognathism has been variously defined by different researchers, and is taken by some to refer only to projection of the lower facial skeleton (in which case projection of the upper portion of the face is referred to as “facial projection” rather than prognathism), and by others to refer to overall facial projection. By either definition, humans have less prognathic faces than chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Prognathism is usually measured with the craniofacial angle (also known as the sphenomaxillary angle), which is the angle formed in the sagittal plane between the most anterior points on the maxilla, sphenoid and foramen magnum (because these landmarks can be difficult to observe in intact crania, this angle is generally quantified as the angle between the Frankfort horizontal and a line passing through the osteometric landmarks sellion and prosthion). This angle is obtuse in the great apes and acute in modern humans
According to the center for Antrhopogeny.