Check ths out:
ARGONAUTS Vinyl 1/72 Scale Ywing..and the Fine Molds.
ARGONAUTS Vinyl 1/72 Scale Ywing..and the Fine Molds.
Ywing 1/72 comparison
- Thread starter BrundelFly
- Start date
division 6
Master Member
Didn't someone in one of the other Fine Molds thread say something about their models not being true scale?
How to they compare to the old MPC/Ertl snap together model?
How to they compare to the old MPC/Ertl snap together model?
Um, if you mean the FM Falcon it was probably me, I'm forever bitching about that. :lol
My guess is that as with the Falcon, FM have worked to the LFL 'style guide' scaling of the "real" ship here. Many of the LFL official stats for, well, just about anything are heavily minimised, for some reason.
I'd say Argonauts just went with a straight scaling-down of the studio-scale bird, as MPC probably did with many of their kits. 24 divides three times into 72, so they shrank it to 33.33% of SS. Just a guess as I don't have either an Argonauts or an SS Y. But from these pics the FM Y is clearly a lot smaller than that....damn, this is depressing! I knew on opening the box that the FM Y was a fair bit smaller than I expected, but I never dared to take a ruler to it...didn't WANT confirmation of the sub-scale FM disease.
From memory I think the MPC Y-wing works out to about 1/96-ish - about one quarter the size of the SS model.
I guess my hopes for the new "1/48" FM TIE just flew out the window...
Last edited:
hugescale
Well-Known Member
The Tie Studio Model is approx. 4 times larger then the FM Tie. If the Studio Model is 1/24 scale, that would make the FM kits 1/96 scale. Same with their 1/72 falcon. I think, their upcomming 1/48 scale Tie will be more like 1/64. But I still hope ...
I think he's talking about the FM Y-Wing having another piece that goes onto the front of it to make up the nose/front end of the 'head'.
People keep throwing the 1/24 around because the pilot figures in them are 1/24. That doesn't mean anything about any intent on scale for the ships. There are formulas that would determine how the ships would be filmed to appear to be the correct size/speed, but there's a lot of wiggle room in this for these models. I don't recall anything that says they were meant to be 1/24 representations.
People keep throwing the 1/24 around because the pilot figures in them are 1/24. That doesn't mean anything about any intent on scale for the ships. There are formulas that would determine how the ships would be filmed to appear to be the correct size/speed, but there's a lot of wiggle room in this for these models. I don't recall anything that says they were meant to be 1/24 representations.
Last edited:
Well, we know the Astromech's diameter exactly - both original Rebel fighter types use them. Do the math.
And the T-65 snub fighter is so tiny compared to other ships in the franchise, there was simply no need to scale the "life size" prop down to keep it small enough for the soundstage, like they were forced to do on the Falcon for example.
Besides, the set design made sure the X-Wing (as the hero ship literally and thus excessively used in the films) is properly sized, and since there is not any flab in the fuselage design you could spare, especially in the cockpit area (hull width!), there was no way to make it smaller anyway.
therefore, you can take the Elstree prop for reference as well - and based on its known dimensions it confirms the scale of 1/24 for the ILM miniatures.
Last not least, both Grant McCune and Steve Gawley said independently all four single seaters - X- & Y-Wing, TIE ships - were built in the same scale, making composite shots like the trench run footage easier etc. , and it was also common practice to use standard scales for filming miniatures (they had the 1/350 scale in mind constructing the original ISD, and 1/24 is another pretty traditional scale, eh?) which is another statement in that same interview (published in Cinefex, 1977 IIRC).
Period.
Cheers!
Falk
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
I agree that the fact that the filmmakers put the same 1/24 scale pilots in the X-Wing, TIE-Fighter and Y-Wing miniatures says everything they wanted to convey about scale of those particular machines.
After all, the only thing about this galaxy far, far away that we can truly relate to is that it's apparently populated in part by humans just like us. We know the size of the humans in this fantasy universe, so the only way we can truly comprehend the scale of anything in that realm is to have a sense of how large it is compared to a human.
Some people get hung up on the "measurements" of these things printed in books after the films came out, as if that stuff really means anything. You even hear people talk about "canon" as if the stuff made up for the books about fictional machines in a fantasy domain represents some kind of official, quantifiable truth.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you really want to know the scale of any of the miniatures in the movies what you really need to figure out is the scale of the people who are supposed to be inside.
After all, the only thing about this galaxy far, far away that we can truly relate to is that it's apparently populated in part by humans just like us. We know the size of the humans in this fantasy universe, so the only way we can truly comprehend the scale of anything in that realm is to have a sense of how large it is compared to a human.
Some people get hung up on the "measurements" of these things printed in books after the films came out, as if that stuff really means anything. You even hear people talk about "canon" as if the stuff made up for the books about fictional machines in a fantasy domain represents some kind of official, quantifiable truth.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you really want to know the scale of any of the miniatures in the movies what you really need to figure out is the scale of the people who are supposed to be inside.
VERY true!!
and...ITS MAKE BELIEVE STUFF that we are "arguing" about! hahaha its CRAZY!!
and...ITS MAKE BELIEVE STUFF that we are "arguing" about! hahaha its CRAZY!!
"which is another statement in that same interview (published in Cinefex, 1977 IIRC)."
Cinefex didn't go into publication until 1979, but I'd still love to see old interviews, cool.
So the thought is that they were paying attn to scale, as opposed to simply getting pilot-like figures in there in case the light hit off of the models and were needed to be seen as 'occupied'.
Back to the orig topic: Frank, did you get a chance to dig through the YWing parts tree to see if there is a 'front end' to be added. Mine are a bit away, I'm sure folks have one to look into.
Cinefex didn't go into publication until 1979, but I'd still love to see old interviews, cool.
So the thought is that they were paying attn to scale, as opposed to simply getting pilot-like figures in there in case the light hit off of the models and were needed to be seen as 'occupied'.
Back to the orig topic: Frank, did you get a chance to dig through the YWing parts tree to see if there is a 'front end' to be added. Mine are a bit away, I'm sure folks have one to look into.
Yes, scale was an issue. Though wasn't it the case that the TIEs didn't get figures until ESB? Anyway, it also carries through to some other construction - in most cases the models were put into construction *before* sets and mockups, and were used as the primary references for those.
So for example, the reference used for the Elstree Tydirium mockup was a lot of photos of the larger ILM model; this was drawn up into the construction blueprints published in the Art Of. (Sadly, they weren't that accurate in outline and THOSE were used as the primary reference for the MPC model kit, which was why it was such a funny shape. Actually the same is true for at least a couple of the matte paintings.)
Scale of the mockups could be fiddled with but that applies mainly to bigger stuff as Falk points out. Interior sets generally had to be full-size for obvious reasons. What interior sets merge the two elements? Cockpits. The Falcon's is pretty small on the exterior mockup but the interior cockpit set was a ten-foot-diameter tube. That fits well with the big Falcon model at close to 1/24 even though it lacks figures to confirm this.
Incidentally this gives a 'real' ship length of around 128 feet, which is a way better fit for most of the interior sets than the old (sixty foot? ha ha) official length.
In the case of the Y-wing the mockup was partial making it less useful as evidence. But the models had the figures and despite the odd compositing error, the relations of the ships to other ships as seen on screen establish upper and lower limits. For example, Vader's Executor could never have been only five miles long, because it is never seen without flanking Star Destroyers that are clearly MUCH LESS than 1/5 of the bigger ship's length. In fact it was intended to be about 11 miles long and the visuals reflect this fairly consistently. An error of interpretation then arose from one of the first ESB publications - original quote was "larger and more impressive than the five Imperial Star Destroyers surrounding it" > "larger than five Star Destroyers" > "as long as five Star Destroyers" > "five miles long". Some fans have vigorously defended this incorrect scaling, why for the life of me I can't fathom. For actual on-screen imagery to be considered less important than a late-80s role-playing game guidebook just seems incomprehensibly weird to me.
Anyway, to my mind, the models and their intended scales are THE ultimate source reference, trumping all others. Except maybe in the case of the really small OT ships where figures were exaggerated for visibility.
Curse those muddied waters. :lol
So for example, the reference used for the Elstree Tydirium mockup was a lot of photos of the larger ILM model; this was drawn up into the construction blueprints published in the Art Of. (Sadly, they weren't that accurate in outline and THOSE were used as the primary reference for the MPC model kit, which was why it was such a funny shape. Actually the same is true for at least a couple of the matte paintings.)
Scale of the mockups could be fiddled with but that applies mainly to bigger stuff as Falk points out. Interior sets generally had to be full-size for obvious reasons. What interior sets merge the two elements? Cockpits. The Falcon's is pretty small on the exterior mockup but the interior cockpit set was a ten-foot-diameter tube. That fits well with the big Falcon model at close to 1/24 even though it lacks figures to confirm this.
Incidentally this gives a 'real' ship length of around 128 feet, which is a way better fit for most of the interior sets than the old (sixty foot? ha ha) official length.
In the case of the Y-wing the mockup was partial making it less useful as evidence. But the models had the figures and despite the odd compositing error, the relations of the ships to other ships as seen on screen establish upper and lower limits. For example, Vader's Executor could never have been only five miles long, because it is never seen without flanking Star Destroyers that are clearly MUCH LESS than 1/5 of the bigger ship's length. In fact it was intended to be about 11 miles long and the visuals reflect this fairly consistently. An error of interpretation then arose from one of the first ESB publications - original quote was "larger and more impressive than the five Imperial Star Destroyers surrounding it" > "larger than five Star Destroyers" > "as long as five Star Destroyers" > "five miles long". Some fans have vigorously defended this incorrect scaling, why for the life of me I can't fathom. For actual on-screen imagery to be considered less important than a late-80s role-playing game guidebook just seems incomprehensibly weird to me.
Anyway, to my mind, the models and their intended scales are THE ultimate source reference, trumping all others. Except maybe in the case of the really small OT ships where figures were exaggerated for visibility.
Curse those muddied waters. :lol
P.S. I gather Chris T got a Falcon scale revision through to about 114 feet - good one, Chris.
Does anyone have a really firm length for the 5-footer? My 128' is based on a random guess that the 32-incher was scaled down by half, which is a lazy way to go...
Sorry for the derail.
Does anyone have a really firm length for the 5-footer? My 128' is based on a random guess that the 32-incher was scaled down by half, which is a lazy way to go...
Sorry for the derail.
Last edited:
NAZGÛL
Sr Member
Im building the FM Slave 1, and its to big compaired to the studiomodel. It is based on the Jango version, wich is bigger.
I got a chance to compaire it with the Revell (wich is a smaller copy of the FM vesrion).
The figures are about the same scale (Revell less bulky then the FM), so ironically the Revell might be closer to a 1/72 compaired to the studio model.:lol
I got a chance to compaire it with the Revell (wich is a smaller copy of the FM vesrion).
The figures are about the same scale (Revell less bulky then the FM), so ironically the Revell might be closer to a 1/72 compaired to the studio model.:lol
Thanks, Beaz. I took shots of Vader's ship at MoM; here's a couple now for good measure. 
It's a furphy that's been repeated here a couple of times recently though, so I was being a little rhetorical.
Or I just couldn't remember. One or the other.
Oh - ten foot diameter for the TIE cockpit set too, I think, yes?
It's a furphy that's been repeated here a couple of times recently though, so I was being a little rhetorical. Or I just couldn't remember. One or the other.
Oh - ten foot diameter for the TIE cockpit set too, I think, yes?
Last edited:
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
Don't forget about the 5' falcon. It was also built as 1/24/25 scale per the seating in the cockpit.
Jamie, that's what I was referring to. But what is its exact length? I don't trust the Chronicles figures, they largely derive from the George Lucas Museum-era measurements which were iffy to say the least. 64 inches? Anyone know for sure?
I've always taken it as being 1/24 tho; given it had to appear in scenes with the fighters it makes sense for the fighter-scale rule to apply here as well...
I've always taken it as being 1/24 tho; given it had to appear in scenes with the fighters it makes sense for the fighter-scale rule to apply here as well...
Last edited:
Stu Pidasso
Active Member
Getting back to the OT, how good/detailed is the old Argonauts kit?
Im at a loss...as to WHICH I like Better. FM or the ARG.
3d-builder
Sr Member
Regarding the Falcon dimensions, to me the measures in the 'archives' book seem to be quite accurate. Meaning when I did research with alot of the known kit parts & drew a working blueprint these dimensions worked for me.
1/24th was always the scale intended for the 5' I always thought?.
Stu
1/24th was always the scale intended for the 5' I always thought?.
Stu
