Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Subscribe
  1. Member Since
    Oct 2016
    Messages
    33
    Oct 22, 2016, 1:18 PM - Star Destroyer Proportions #1

    Hello guys, this is my first post. Anyways, this has been on my mind since I was a kid, and after briefly looking in RPF forums I didn't see a thread specifically on this, so I decided to make my own. I remember purchasing the Star Destroyer MPC kit and later AMT/ERTL years ago and being disappointed in the proportions and how it didn't appear like the movie SD. The sides where too thick, it appeared to short or fat in length and width, the side detail of course lacking, the neck angle was off, etc etc. Since then I have desperately wanted a movie accurate SDII kit.

    Below I found 2 studio scale models photos from as close to the same side view as I could find. One is a behind the scenes shot with Lucas and a SDII, and the other grabbed from the SW Technical Commentaries also a SDII. Using Photoshop, I roughly outlined the side silhouettes for both. After overlapping them, and confirming they are very close (the Lucas photo camera angle is slightly higher thus the engine placement appears a bit lower but overall everything else lines up) I then decided to show the differences between a Studio model kit side profile vs a AMT/ERTL kit side profile, a Randy Cooper Model, Diecast SD model and a few schematics. This is just for people's reference, and while not 100% scientific, I hope it illustrates the differences.

    First, studio models:
    Lucas with a SDII, red outline establishing silhouette. Camera is pretty straight on, but is slightly from a top angle.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SD with Lucas + red outline.jpg 
Views:	315 
Size:	1.68 MB 
ID:	675670


    Here is 2nd studio model kit with Luca's SD red outline on top of it to compare that the studio models are close. They are, despite the slightly higher angle from the Lucas SDII which the red outline compares by the engine placement.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2nd Studio Scale model with Lucas outline.jpg 
Views:	274 
Size:	2.28 MB 
ID:	675671


    The same 2nd studio model with it's own blue highlight
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2nd Studio Scale model with blue outline-1.jpg 
Views:	231 
Size:	1.93 MB 
ID:	675672

    Below will now be a comparison vs kits.

    _____________________________________

    Confirming the studio models lineup, I will now use the red & blue outlines as a basic guide comparing them against a AMT SD kit, and various others:

    First:
    AMT/ERTL kit that appears to be stock. One can easily see the differences when compared with studio kit outlines; bridge to high, the neck angle wrong, super structure off, too thick etc. I didn't highlight the sides on the studio kits, but the AMT kit side is too wide as well.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	default SD kit with redblue.jpg 
Views:	277 
Size:	590.2 KB 
ID:	675688

    Next: Diecast Disney SDII. I bought this specifically because I could tell it was very accurate when I first saw promo photos of it. Once lined up with the red/blue outlines it confirmed my thoughts, it was very accurate to a studio kit despite being a toy. Pitty it is so small, but I might buy another one just because it is so accurate.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	diecast with redblue.jpg 
Views:	246 
Size:	537.9 KB 
ID:	675684

    Here is a Randy Cooper SD and while this kit is absolutely fantastic (and expensive), and it does appear to have the right wedge shaped angle, it does seem Cooper's kits superstructure + bridge are too tall. I'm also not sure if he's corrected this in later kits, but at least from this one model, it appears slightly off. Everything else lines up though, and it seems if the superstructure and bridge were lowered just a smidge, it would be pretty close to the studio kit.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Randy Cooper kit with redblue outlines.jpg 
Views:	212 
Size:	367.8 KB 
ID:	675685

    Schematic from Essential Guide, way off. Neck angle wrong, bridge to far back, the V angle formed by the top half and lower half by the engines appears to narrow as well.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	schematic 2 with redblue.jpg 
Views:	190 
Size:	211.7 KB 
ID:	675686

    I saw this posted on another RPF form as a schematic, and this too is off.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	schematic with redblue.jpg 
Views:	202 
Size:	302.6 KB 
ID:	675687

    Anyways, this wasn't super scientific, and just thought I would share. I realize I could have outlined more features on the studio models, and I may later on. Based upon a few photos, it seems like the Rogue One Revell SDI released in a week will be pretty accurate, despite being pegged as a kids model/toy. I will post updates once I get that. Thanks all!
    Last edited by jusdrewit; Oct 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM.
  2. Junk Pilot's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2005
    From
    Newcastle, NSW, Australia
    Messages
    1,350
    Oct 22, 2016, 4:12 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #2

    How about these digital renders? How do these ones stack up?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	64.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	255.2 KB 
ID:	675827

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ortho 3.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	403.2 KB 
ID:	675828
  3. Member Since
    Oct 2016
    Messages
    33
    Oct 22, 2016, 5:25 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #3

    Junk Pilot said: View Post
    How about these digital renders? How do these ones stack up?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	64.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	255.2 KB 
ID:	675827

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ortho 3.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	403.2 KB 
ID:	675828
    Here's the first render:
    I realized I can overlay the red/blue outlines either aligning with the bottom of the rendered SD hull, or try and match it with the top of the renders superstructure. I did both. The first has it aligning with the bottom, so you can see the top portion is too tall if measured that way.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	64 with redblue.jpg 
Views:	1310 
Size:	1.64 MB 
ID:	675832

    Here's same render but with the outlines this time overlayed along the top portion. This does show that the render's bridge neck angle is good and correct size, bridge looks good, superstructure looks good and proportioned, length is good, but it seems as with the first image above, it's too thick at the widest part of the hull.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	64 2 w rb.jpg 
Views:	1314 
Size:	1.64 MB 
ID:	675831

    Last render. I did the same method as above, render on top has outlines aligning with the bottom. Appears too tall, and the engine portion seems to far recessed in my opinion.
    In the below render, I aligned with bottom. With this alignment, looks like the render has a good neck angle, superstructure, length, but just too wide again. Just my 2 cents.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ortho 3 w rb.jpg 
Views:	1311 
Size:	1.77 MB 
ID:	675833
  4. TazMan2000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2009
    From
    Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
    Messages
    1,413
    Oct 22, 2016, 5:46 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #4

    For a first (or second) post, you did quite well. Most just ask for the studio scale blueprints and then we never hear from them again. Incidentally, they don't exist. At least not to my knowledge. Most here have made up their own blueprints from exactly the way you have been weeding out the bad from the good.
    Not only is the side profile off on many "official" blueprints, but the top view is as well. There is a bottom view available but as of yet I haven't located a top view ever.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpeg 
Views:	179 
Size:	93.2 KB 
ID:	675848

    TazMan2000
  5. Member Since
    Oct 2016
    Messages
    33
    Oct 22, 2016, 6:21 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #5

    TazMan2000 said: View Post
    For a first (or second) post, you did quite well. Most just ask for the studio scale blueprints and then we never hear from them again. Incidentally, they don't exist. At least not to my knowledge. Most here have made up their own blueprints from exactly the way you have been weeding out the bad from the good.
    Not only is the side profile off on many "official" blueprints, but the top view is as well. There is a bottom view available but as of yet I haven't located a top view ever.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpeg 
Views:	179 
Size:	93.2 KB 
ID:	675848

    TazMan2000
    Thanks TazMan, appreciate it. Yeah, it's baffling that for a ship that's been around 30+ years there seems to have a lack of definite official blueprints and is instead filled with incorrect schematics.Thanks for the attachment, that will be helpful if I ever attempt a modification on a SD kit or do a scratchbuild.
  6. JediMichael's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2013
    From
    I live on earth.
    Messages
    1,529
    Oct 22, 2016, 7:18 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #6

    I'm pretty sure that the underside pic is from the SD1, as I remember seeing the detail like that in the first one. BUT, still double check just to make sure.
  7. star-art's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2002
    From
    Cascade Mountains USA
    Messages
    789
    Oct 24, 2016, 2:00 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #7

    I wish more people would pay attention to stuff like this. I've seen so many models where incredible effort has gone into the details and finishing and yet the overall structure and proportions were way off compared to the original. It's shame because these models often look really good, but in shape some appear to be more like caricatures than realistic replicas.

    The reason so many replicas of this ship are too tall is the fact people get the hull angles wrong. First, in cross section, the upper hull is like the "roof" of a1950s house. In other words, the "pitch" of the roof is quite shallow. Second, when you look at this ship from the rear, the "point" at the very back of the hull (in the center) is much closer to the camera than the left and right outboard ends. This causes perspective distortion that makes the "maw" -- or "opening" created by the two hulls (top and bottom) -- to appear much taller than it really is.

    Thus, if you start your project by tracing a photo of the ship from the rear, you will start with the wrong angles for the hull. The rest goes from there, and you can see how people might end up with the ship being way too tall in the side view.

    One other thing I see quite often when recreating this subject is the engines sticking out too far to the rear. The original had the main bulkhead where the engines attach quite far inside the rear opening. Pictures are "flat" and so they make it hard to judge the true distance. It wasn't until I saw the original model in person that I realized just how far back inside the hull those engines go. . .

    - - - Updated - - -

    BTW, in the pic posted above of the bottom view, on the left is the original 4-foot model from ANH and on the right is either a replica of the ANH model or a pic of the 8-foot model from ESB. Even though they basically scaled up the original model 2X, the shape and proportions of the two versions were actually quite different. This is most noticeable in the bridge and superstructure.
  8. Member Since
    Oct 2016
    Messages
    33
    Oct 25, 2016, 12:14 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #8

    star-art said: View Post
    I wish more people would pay attention to stuff like this. I've seen so many models where incredible effort has gone into the details and finishing and yet the overall structure and proportions were way off compared to the original. It's shame because these models often look really good, but in shape some appear to be more like caricatures than realistic replicas.

    The reason so many replicas of this ship are too tall is the fact people get the hull angles wrong. First, in cross section, the upper hull is like the "roof" of a1950s house. In other words, the "pitch" of the roof is quite shallow. Second, when you look at this ship from the rear, the "point" at the very back of the hull (in the center) is much closer to the camera than the left and right outboard ends. This causes perspective distortion that makes the "maw" -- or "opening" created by the two hulls (top and bottom) -- to appear much taller than it really is.

    Thus, if you start your project by tracing a photo of the ship from the rear, you will start with the wrong angles for the hull. The rest goes from there, and you can see how people might end up with the ship being way too tall in the side view.

    One other thing I see quite often when recreating this subject is the engines sticking out too far to the rear. The original had the main bulkhead where the engines attach quite far inside the rear opening. Pictures are "flat" and so they make it hard to judge the true distance. It wasn't until I saw the original model in person that I realized just how far back inside the hull those engines go. . .

    - - - Updated - - -

    BTW, in the pic posted above of the bottom view, on the left is the original 4-foot model from ANH and on the right is either a replica of the ANH model or a pic of the 8-foot model from ESB. Even though they basically scaled up the original model 2X, the shape and proportions of the two versions were actually quite different. This is most noticeable in the bridge and superstructure.
    I whole heartedly agree, which is why I've personally held off upgrading an old SD AMT/ERTL kit using shapeway parts to fix the Bridge, the waist, the structure etc. No matter how much you pretty it up, the hull angle will always be off and IMO that just throws off the whole model.

    I really hope the Zvezda model kit corrects this, although the SD on their box art has a too steep angle for the hull. The few photos they've posted I can't determine 100%, but I'll remain hopeful.

    I should get my hands on the Revell Rogue 1 SD this week, so we'll see how that one goes. Based upon early YouTube reviews however, it really looks the the proportions at least are pretty accurate. Detail might be another story however...
    Last edited by jusdrewit; Oct 25, 2016 at 1:07 AM.
  9. blakeh1's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2011
    From
    Jamison, Pennsylvania
    Messages
    1,961
    Oct 25, 2016, 9:35 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #9

    Here is the Revell one from nearly the same view

  10. TazMan2000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2009
    From
    Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
    Messages
    1,413
    Oct 25, 2016, 9:53 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #10

    Yes, distortion in photos plays a big part in getting inaccurate measurements. Very few photos found on the internet are at perpendicular angles to the sides or top. A little guess work has to be in the calculations unless someone has the exact measurements of the studio models. Even the books, about the studio models come in to question and are proved wrong by measuring the digital picture against the size of a "known" part. Error does creep in, in those calculations as well. What's funny, is that even the ILM model shop makes changes to the models of the same subject when modelling them in different scales. So if you're off by an inch or so (in a 3 foot model), who cares. It's still pretty damn close. The best way to make something accurate, is to get as much proven info you can get on your subject and leave room for a bit of juggling of the parts. You might assemble the rear engine bay of the SD, and hold it up to compare it to the studio model photos and realize you are out.

    TazMan2000
  11. Member Since
    Oct 2016
    Messages
    33
    Oct 25, 2016, 3:04 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #11

    blakeh1 said: View Post
    Here is the Revell one from nearly the same view

    http://i.imgur.com/uOwzpP2.png
    Looks pretty good, decent angles and bridge and structure. The height angle of the hull also appears correct, doesn't appear to 'tall' or short and not distorted. The back angle slop where the engines are might be a little steep from that photo. Here's another picture of it off a YouTube review:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_2016-10-24-22-37-44.jpeg 
Views:	146 
Size:	95.9 KB 
ID:	676845
  12. Member Since
    Sep 2010
    From
    preston england
    Messages
    72
    Oct 27, 2016, 7:51 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #12

    Hello mr Jusdrewit,
    here is one I made earlier at about five feet long its quite big, its on display at my local hobby shop but has been bought by a private collector and is waiting collection, I used a small A 4 drawing from the internet to construct the model which is all scratch built, I think many people can over think and measure models and then try to recreate something which was built on a day to day basis with out that much forward planning going into the final model, just have fun and get building time is moving on all the while that you are pondering that exact angle and proportion, just have fun model making. My own model may not bear any resemblance to the ( real thing ) but some one liked enough to pay for it so just go for it, I look forward to seeing your model on these pages soon.

    regards Barrie ( the old guy )
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2676.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	3.22 MB 
ID:	677381   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2709.jpg 
Views:	64 
Size:	40.1 KB 
ID:	677382   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2680.jpg 
Views:	78 
Size:	49.9 KB 
ID:	677383  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2701.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	55.2 KB 
ID:	677384   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2664.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	61.4 KB 
ID:	677385   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2707.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	39.0 KB 
ID:	677386  

  13. Richard Baker's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2015
    Messages
    367
    Oct 28, 2016, 9:48 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #13

    Big question is how accurate is the new mesh Disney/ILM created for the Rogue One movie when compared to the original filming models.

    That mesh is becoming canon soon and has been provided to different model companies as a guide in producing model kits of the ship.
  14. robn1's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    From
    Woodbridge, VA
    Messages
    6,376
    Oct 28, 2016, 10:30 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #14

    Richard Baker said: View Post
    Big question is how accurate is the new mesh Disney/ILM created for the Rogue One movie when compared to the original filming models.

    That mesh is becoming canon soon and has been provided to different model companies as a guide in producing model kits of the ship.
    The Rogue One SS is based on the 4'/ANH model with extra detail and lighting. The Zvezda and Revell kits are clearly based on the 8'/ESB model.
  15. Richard Baker's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2015
    Messages
    367
    Oct 28, 2016, 10:39 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #15

    Both Revell and Zvezda claim their models were based on meshes provided by Disney unless I am remembering it wrong.
  16. robn1's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    From
    Woodbridge, VA
    Messages
    6,376
    Oct 28, 2016, 11:45 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #16

    Richard Baker said: View Post
    Both Revell and Zvezda claim their models were based on meshes provided by Disney unless I am remembering it wrong.
    You gonna believe them or your own lyin' eyes?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rogueone-tsr1_h1080p.mov_snapshot_00.44_[2016.04.08_15.09.jpg 
Views:	236 
Size:	114.4 KB 
ID:	677792
  17. TazMan2000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2009
    From
    Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
    Messages
    1,413
    Oct 28, 2016, 3:30 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #17

    I think that "based on meshes provided by Disney" means as much as "based on a true story" means in movies. Technically, it doesn't mean at that is "is" a true story, it just has some facts that are taken from real world events and put into a sequence with various details added or omitted to make a movie marketable. So "technically" Star Wars could be based on a true story. Farm boy...recruited by an old soldier...go off to fight a war.
    So in this case, the model companies used the meshes as a reference, not a tool to make a mold. That's why we see small detail errors, additions, deletions and changes. There is a bit of give and take when it comes to model manufacturing.

    TazMan2000
  18. Member Since
    Oct 2016
    Messages
    33
    Nov 2, 2016, 12:57 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #18

    Just received my Rogue One SD today. Here it is built completely stock. I will paint it, weather it, fill in some seam lines later and possibly add fiber optics.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14895481_10154160683963666_1360362638_o.jpg 
Views:	96 
Size:	377.0 KB 
ID:	679560
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14895659_10154160683903666_683980642_o.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	358.5 KB 
ID:	679561
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14907713_10154160683818666_1415975462_o.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	327.2 KB 
ID:	679562
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14923945_10154160683738666_1974946385_o.jpg 
Views:	84 
Size:	262.0 KB 
ID:	679563
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14954263_10154160683713666_1144548829_o.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	377.2 KB 
ID:	679564
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14954536_10154160683868666_507390803_o.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	497.0 KB 
ID:	679565
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14958053_10154160683983666_1574803022_o.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	368.1 KB 
ID:	679566

    And finally a comparison, using studio model outlines as reference.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Rogue One SD comparison.jpg 
Views:	132 
Size:	2.86 MB 
ID:	679568

    It's not too bad, even built stock IMO. This can definitely be customized and prettied up nicely I think. It's far better than the AMT kit we've had for decades. Time will see how good the Zvezda kit is and how pricey, but for the time being this isn't a bad lil kit for a simple kids model. The waist is a tiny bit too thin, but after dealing with the too fat waist band on the AMT kit, I don't mind and that be remedied. The panel lines are too big, but the proportions aren't too bad.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	14958938_10154160707208666_554124651_o.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	160.8 KB 
ID:	679567  
  19. JediMichael's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2013
    From
    I live on earth.
    Messages
    1,529
    Nov 2, 2016, 8:21 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #19

    If thats the Rogue One SD, then they messed up the radar (what ever its called) part. Thats from the ESB SD, not ANH like it should be.
  20. Member Since
    Dec 2014
    From
    Vreden
    Messages
    613
    Nov 3, 2016, 2:17 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #20

    The radar can be cut off and glued into place in the upright position. (I know it, I got my piece yesterday).

    BTW, I made a review here: http://www.phoxim.de/forum/index.php?topic=32105

    Sorry it is in German, but the pictures speak for themselves.
  21. LRZ's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2014
    Messages
    36
    Nov 4, 2016, 1:47 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #21

    The new Revell kit.
    (excuse the light and background)


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2122b.jpg 
Views:	132 
Size:	1.11 MB 
ID:	680204

    More pics over here:
    http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php...=1#post4115266
  22. Member Since
    May 2013
    From
    Germany
    Messages
    417
    Nov 4, 2016, 4:50 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #22

    I wonder if they manage to make the washed-out panel lines larger than the actual panels in their next kit, being on such a good way to finally achieving this. The panelling looks horrible. But still, on the plus side, it does have the landing gear.
    Last edited by thorst; Nov 4, 2016 at 5:00 AM.
  23. Richard Baker's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2015
    Messages
    367
    Nov 4, 2016, 9:19 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #23

    JediMichael said: View Post
    If thats the Rogue One SD, then they messed up the radar (what ever its called) part. Thats from the ESB SD, not ANH like it should be.
    IIRC that top rectangular tracking unit has two modes- flipped vertically for active pursuit/tracking and horizontal (normal), When we first saw the ISD chasing after the Corvette it was full active mode, the remaining times the ISDs were just in fleet actions.
  24. JediMichael's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2013
    From
    I live on earth.
    Messages
    1,529
    Nov 4, 2016, 11:25 AM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #24

    Richard Baker said: View Post
    IIRC that top rectangular tracking unit has two modes- flipped vertically for active pursuit/tracking and horizontal (normal), When we first saw the ISD chasing after the Corvette it was full active mode, the remaining times the ISDs were just in fleet actions.
    I've never read that it did that. There is no evidence on the model that it moves up and down like that. It would be interesting if Rogue One showed it changing modes.
  25. Richard Baker's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2015
    Messages
    367
    Nov 4, 2016, 1:46 PM - Re: Star Destroyer Proportions #25

    I forget where I read that, might have been one of the technical books, but it makes sense looking at the structure- both are nearly identical between ISD-I & ISD-II except for position and then when you put into context.

Similar Threads

  1. Death Star/Star Destroyer inspired Star Wars Bathroom
    Darth Doo, Star Wars Costumes and Props
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Apr 17, 2014, 2:57 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Feb 20, 2014, 10:33 AM
  3. Original Star Wars Star Destroyer - Kits
    Flintlock, Studio Scale Models
    Replies: 295
    Last Post: Oct 1, 2012, 2:12 PM
  4. Imperial Star Destroyer Star Wars model
    DizRalthirill, General Modeling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 18, 2012, 6:38 PM
  5. Star Destroyer proportions.
    Sumatra, Studio Scale Models
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Aug 15, 2009, 3:35 PM