Jaitea
Master Member
OK, I thought this would be a better place to discuss the hull curvature & all thats wrong with the FineMolds (now Revell Master Series) 1/72 Falcon
This conversation started on the Bandai release thread.....but it has started to take up too much space,...& is unfair to all those who are keen to keep up to date with the Bandai kits.....
....really what I was trying to put across was that the FM kit is too shallow......its side walls are a shade too high,...thus effecting the hull curvature;
Heres a snippet of the conversation:
Now I don't disagree with what Dedalus is saying,....yes theres less of a curvature on the FM......but what I'm saying its because the model is too thin,....thats what makes the curvature less:
This is Maruska's drawing of the 32" which I have scaled to the FM size:
This is the same drawing with the overall thickness reduced down to the FM's thickness,......then free transforming the wall thickness inside that thinner body to make the walls slightly taller,....you can see that the curvature softens because of the lower body & taller walls:
Thanks for looking
J
This conversation started on the Bandai release thread.....but it has started to take up too much space,...& is unfair to all those who are keen to keep up to date with the Bandai kits.....
....really what I was trying to put across was that the FM kit is too shallow......its side walls are a shade too high,...thus effecting the hull curvature;
Heres a snippet of the conversation:
....from it we can see that the FM kit;s thickness is 5mm flatter than the scaled 32" plans
The sidewalls are also 1mm thicker.....This has a knock on effect,......knocking off the angle of the cockpit walkway:
J
Joining the dots, between the overall height at the centre of the ship, to the height of the sidewalls = hull curvature
If the overall height is too low, & the height of the sidewall is too high,....you get a reduced angle to make a curve.......if on the other hand the measurements were correct......you'd have the angle and enough distance from centre to hull edge to make the correct curve
It really is that simple
Getting the fundamental dimensions wrong, knocks everything else out......FM has moved or fudged the rest of the ship about to make areas fit, all because of the height of the ship
J
Um, wow. No, curvature is not the difference between two points. Try that again. The distance between those two points can be perfectly straight, and there would be no curvature at all. The turrets could be an inch too tall, with the sidewalls being half as thick, but if the distance between them is absolutely a straight line, there would be NO CURVATURE at all. You seem to be describing SLOPE. The curvature is affected to some degree by the difference in height, but the difference in height is not a measure of curvature. If the curvature starts out by the turret as "flat" or parallel to the ground, say, then it would different from starting out as more angled toward the sidewalls (a "head start", say). I wish I could draw a picture if it would help, but I just don't know how to do that and post it. I guess I could draw it on paper and take a picture but even then I've had issues recently with posting pics.
My point is that, to me, the the FM is more of a straight line than the DeAgo kit. (And I'm not saying it's an exact straight line, nor have I analyzed the DeAgo kit to see if it's accurate to the curvature of the real 32-inch model.)
Now I don't disagree with what Dedalus is saying,....yes theres less of a curvature on the FM......but what I'm saying its because the model is too thin,....thats what makes the curvature less:
This is Maruska's drawing of the 32" which I have scaled to the FM size:
This is the same drawing with the overall thickness reduced down to the FM's thickness,......then free transforming the wall thickness inside that thinner body to make the walls slightly taller,....you can see that the curvature softens because of the lower body & taller walls:
Thanks for looking
J
Last edited by a moderator: