New Luke ROTJ v2 3d model comparison and analysis

;)I'll fight you to the ground.

lol only reason I say that is because just a few months ago I saw this picture for the first time on another thread and got all excited

U know me with new pictures. Anyway someone in the thread said it was a early fan made and even named the username... it escapes me now...
 
I always assumed that's how it was done.

We know they started with the wooden lathed master, that was then cast.

View attachment 772062

The pommel was rounded like that with the angles-- so they slice it, then drill down the holes from the center bit, clean them up, then sandwich it back together and attach it to the rest right?....


Might be an old topic but what's the deal with the cast's pommel section with this? Has it ever been divulged? The cast pictured with the buck here has always puzzled me. I remember ages ago reading on here that the pommel cubes were a separate construction and was sandwiched together. Dunno if this picture was the thing that gave the idea credence, but it gives me ideas that the pommel cubes were milled separately, like a ring, and then slipped over the stump and capped with the "pommel cap".

I made a simple drawing of this idea some time back:
attachment.php


Might be an explanation for the pommel's wonkiness?
 

Attachments

  • PossiblePommelPutTogether.jpg
    PossiblePommelPutTogether.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 1,179
Last edited:
Poppa— I assumed the cast piece is shaped like that for the pommel to be attached, like your drawing implies.

Scott— what I’m suggesting could still work even as one piece, right? You’d know better than me. :)
 
It also looks like the space between the pommel cubes is the same thickness from one to the next. Like, if you look at the edge of the cube ring, in between the cubes, the model makes a curve as if it was milled out with a round thing. The original prop looks like it matches the arc of the pommel, making sharp corners with the cubes.

granted, I'm not sure how a machine would make that.

View attachment 772052View attachment 772053

It's 3-4 passes with an end mill per notch -- one or two passes (depending on diameter of tool) with the end of the tool cutting the flat at the base of the notch between cubes, and then the other two passes with the side of the end mill cutting the sides of the cubes.

I think that small arc present on the 3d model could be resolved by taking off a few thousandths of the diameter of the section just above it to create a slight step, and then cutting that same section just a little wider by cutting into the start of the cubes section. That way the curved edge (which must occur at the transition between a flat and curved surface) falls onto the tiny step (as is visible in the reference pics) between the start of the cubes and that band just above it, rather than the edge of the flat surface in between the cubes. I'm not sure if that makes sense but I'll try to draw up a quick model.
 
It also looks like the space between the pommel cubes is the same thickness from one to the next. Like, if you look at the edge of the cube ring, in between the cubes, the model makes a curve as if it was milled out with a round thing. The original prop looks like it matches the arc of the pommel, making sharp corners with the cubes.

granted, I'm not sure how a machine would make that.

View attachment 772052 View attachment 772053

It's 3-4 passes with an end mill per notch -- one or two passes (depending on diameter of tool) with the end of the tool cutting the flat at the base of the notch between cubes, and then the other two passes with the side of the end mill cutting the sides of the cubes.

I think that small arc present on the 3d model could be resolved by taking off a few thousandths of the diameter of the section just above it to create a slight step, and then cutting that same section just a little wider by cutting into the start of the cubes section. That way the curved edge (which must occur at the transition between a flat and curved surface) falls onto the tiny step (as is visible in the reference pics) between the start of the cubes and that band just above it, rather than the edge of the flat surface in between the cubes. I'm not sure if that makes sense but I'll try to draw up a quick model.


Here's what I meant about the step at the edge of the pommel cubes. I'm not sure which is right after staring at the V2 and shared stunt pics a bit more.

pommel cubes.png

Here is a real-world example where I accidentally did one side of the cubes with the step and the other without on a saber made ages ago. Harder to tell a difference without the clean lines of a computer model:

my cubes.JPG
 
Last edited:
Here's what I meant about the step at the edge of the pommel cubes. I'm not sure which is right after staring at the V2 and shared stunt pics a bit more.

View attachment 772219

Here is a real-world example where I accidentally did one side of the cubes with the step and the other without on a saber made ages ago. Harder to tell a difference without the clean lines of a computer model:

View attachment 772222

looks exactly how it should
 
Hi Dan.
Would be possible to have the render in that exact position but without the draw lines?
I think i have seen some few mistakes but need to be sure. The lines dont let me see it correctly?
Thanks!
 
Not that you are taking votes, but I agree with what a few others have mentioned in this thread.. not a fan of the "FX" style build. The V2's I've held and painted from you were absolutely perfect not just due to the outward appearance but the weight and over all presence. Hollowing it out makes it a much less desireable piece to us fans of static hilts as they can come across feeling light and cheap... I'm also not sure how it can be claimed to have complete accuracy with such integral changes. 9 or 10 different pieces? Surface accuracy maybe...

I always end up missing the run anyways and picking one up second hand, but I was really hoping to be on board finally for one from the get go. I really hope you consider a build closer to your second run with the updated model for a future run.
 
Last edited:
Hollowing it out makes it a much less desireable piece to us fans of static hilts. I'm also not sure how it can be claimed to have complete accuracy with such internal changes. Surface accuracy maybe...

Here's the thing though. Unless you have the original prop AND have taken it apart, no one know what it looks like inside or how it's constructed. The prop however IS hollow, at the very least with a bore capable of fitting a motor and wires. IMO, this isn't (or won't be) any less accurate than any other of Dan's iterations.

IMO, it's pointless to argue about internal accuracy.
 
This thread is more than 4 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top