Studio Scale Y-wing

I totally understand and acknowledge your points. The only problem I have and that you would have to acknowledge based upon your definition, is that there is no such thing then as a studio scale y-wing yet produced. No one has reproduced every piece as you are suggesting. I've seen dozens of models listed under studio scale that are not 100% accurate that you guys have contributed and supported as studio scale. Yes they are close, but who is the judge? What makes that studio scale? They only had most of the pieces correct. BTW way I'm not taking my position based upon this Y-Wing on this thread. I know it is not studio accurate. I'm just discussing the term SS in general.

The judge in this case was Ray!

If you can't see the difference between a Nice N Y and Rays then thats fine for you....but it doesn't meen we have to have the same standards in accuracy. Its about trying to achieve the closest we can, when trying is put to one side in favour of idealising then thats the builds choice and they are their own judge. Since Ray had stated according to info above that its not an accurate representation then by his own words he judges this as not being studio scale.

If I show you a picture of an upturned fishbowl and call it a studio scale Ion canon, you would not just except it as so cos its close in size, you would judge it on the efforts and precision in replicating the original, so even you would sit here and say the same thing...it works both ways, and there is no judge overall just our own desires and what we want to achieve...

Your argument re 100% and nothing ever really is, is pretty much redundant as it contradicts you suggesting that Rays is studio scale !!! I you want to take everything to its absolute most extreme scenario to prove a point then theres no point, just put the passion into your builds instead, that what a lot of us do when it comes to the hunt, and I guess thats a big part of this sub bollox, its the hunt. Take away the hunt and its Cracker Barrel for tea again!!

Guy Cowen said:

The judge in this case was Ray!

If you can't see the difference between a Nice N Y and Rays then thats fine for you....but it doesn't meen we have to have the same standards in accuracy. Its about trying to achieve the closest we can, when trying is put to one side in favour of idealising then thats the builds choice and they are their own judge. Since Ray had stated according to info above that its not an accurate representation then by his own words he judges this as not being studio scale.

Click to expand...

I do understand the difference between the two builds. I'm not comparing this build to that one. I just feel the term SS is a loose term and many people have their own ideas of what it means. The "Masters" or ILM team obviously never referred to there builds as SS, but filming miniatures. Guys like you and me came up with the idea of replicating these works of art and coined that term. I believe it is a term that has evolved over time. The point is I love you guys! I love this website! I appreciate all the feedback you have given me since I've posted my stuff and I respect your opinions. I love knowing that there are other people who are as big as fans as I when it comes to replicating this genre that we all love and adore since we were children. I will shut up because I do not wish to alienate those relationships. Keep up the great work!

Mike

Mike
It's a lot of money to spend on a kit that as Julien pointed out is not screen accurate, and it depends upon what your definition of "studio scale" is. In order to calculate the approximate dimensions on any of the studio scale model, you need to find the original kit pieces and unfortunately, very few original kit pieces are used on this Y-Wing. In regards to all the Y-Wing's having different detailing, that is true. However, they all do share about 80% or more of the same kit pieces in the exact same location.

Vinyl Guy said:

Mike
It's a lot of money to spend on a kit that as Julien pointed out is not screen accurate, and it depends upon what your definition of "studio scale" is. In order to calculate the approximate dimensions on any of the studio scale model, you need to find the original kit pieces and unfortunately, very few original kit pieces are used on this Y-Wing. In regards to all the Y-Wing's having different detailing, that is true. However, they all do share about 80% or more of the same kit pieces in the exact same location.

Click to expand...

$700.00. [emoji33] Did I read that right?

"Studio scale" is more sharply focused on exactness to scale and detail than the general modeling forum , as more and more information about the originally used studio models has been found, thoroughly and carefully researched and then shared here in various build threads. This is so anyone who wishes to can now construct an exact copy of the screen used model and try to exactly replicate the scale , the construction materials / techniques used and finish the painting schemes so it is as close to the original as possible.
Models built to these exacting standards require a huge amount of time , effort and money. Its the diiference between rebuilding and restoring a vintage car using all the original parts dug out of scrapyards and old garages or ordering a ready to build but much cheaper kit car with a fibre glass body and a modern engine .The kit car may look on the surface quite similar, but its arguably a fake and as such it won't command the same respect (or prices!!!) from the people that REALLY know what the original was all about and why they admired it so much to put all that effort into restoring it to its former glories.
Its the same on this forum. People have spent years researching individual models to get as close as they can to the original so they are virtually indistinguishable to that first model . So it can come across as slightly disrespectful if somebody comes in with a build that to all intensive purposes looks quite like the original model , but have infact eventually just done their thing with whatever was available to them without much regard for all the costly research and investment that has been done before . The same inventive and flexible qualities that can make a great general modeller really don't cut the same mustard here.
Its a difficult thing to accept sometimes but if you read some of the threads here it will become more understandable when you consider many of these builds take years and cost hundreds of dollars/pounds in kits/ parts to finally replicate that screen used model. It requires a deep passion and commitment that is beyond the patience of many to finish them, so please be aware if you don't want to accept that this level of attention to detail is essential to your version of a build then its best to take it to the general modeling section where it will be just as admired.
I'd rather not see any more people here potentially banned over an argument that has been done so many times before. Studio Scale is limited to a period of model building that is sadly disappearing as more and more models are CGI designed and screen used. Hopefully the people posting here will stop it from becoming altogether extinct

dear lord the studio scale debate... the term was coined originally to refer to the same size and using the same materials/parts as the original filming miniature. The Hobby has progressed a lot since then. I think there were like 10-20 of us when the term was coined and those 10-20 people knew what it meant. Since then its been applied to other models of the same "size", a little erroneously - as Tox points out. One "tries" to be a replica while the other tries to be a kick-***** model. its a subtle difference to be sure. 90% of the time it doesn't matter - but for that 10% its very critical since you're trying to represent something as if it was actually filmed.

Make sense?

Jedi Dade

CutThumb said:

"Studio scale" more sharply focused on exactness to scale and detail than the general modeling forum as more and more information about the originally used studio models has been found, thoroughly and carefully researched and then shared here in various build threads. This is so anyone who wishes to can now construct an exact copy of the screen used model which exactly replicates the scale , with the construction materials / techniques used and the painting schemes so it is as close to the original as possible.
Models built to these exacting standards require a huge amount of time , effort and money. Its the diiference between rebuilding and restoring a vintage car using all the original parts or getting a kit car with a fibre glass body and a modern engine .The kit car may look similar, but its arguably a fake and as such it won't command the same respect (or prices!!!) from the people that REALLY know what the original was all about and why they admired it.
Its the same on this forum. People have spent years researching individual models to get as close as they can to the original. So it can come across as slightly disrespectful if somebody comes in with a build that to all intensive purposes looks quite like the original model , but have infact just done their thing with whatever was available to them without regard for all that costly research. The same inventive and flexible qualities that can make a great general modeller really don't cut the mustard here.
Its a difficult thing to accept sometimes but if you read some of the threads here it will become more understandable when you consider many of these builds take years and cost hundreds of dollars/pounds in kits/ parts to finally replicate the screen used model.It requires a deep passion and commitment that is beyond the patience of many, so please be aware if you don't want to accept that this level of attention to detail is essential to your version of a build then its best to take it to the general modeling section where it will be just as admired.
I'd rather not see any more people here potentially banned over an argument that has been done many times. Studio Scale is limited to a period of model building that is sadly disappearing as more and more models are CGI designed and screen used. Hopefully the people posting here will stop it from becoming altogether extinct

Click to expand...

Thats more like it:thumbsup
I just want to say scratch building the Y's fuselage is quite a task,Ray has done a very good job on it and it looks sharp,just what a waste,it'll look great if its using original donor kit parts on it

Don

Studio Scale is screen accurate to the model in question. At any time!

And YES the ywing's are all the same with the difference being some parts being moved around. Seems most were cast off a master. Gold leader,MOM and Triangles...Gold L being the base as it has the most details added to it. The core details remain the same for all of them including the Red Y which is the real odd duck. But only so far.(It was onlt finished so far before it was sent to London) The model in the OP's post has nothing to do with Studio Scale. Studio Scale is exacting to the individual model as in size and DETAIL.

So...the MPC X-wing is studio scale and this Y-wing is not? I'm thinking this because those X-wings were used in the filming of ESB.

If the model was used on screen then it is Studio Scale regardless of scale/size.

Dedalus5550 said:

So...the MPC X-wing is studio scale and this Y-wing is not? I'm thinking this because those X-wings were used in the filming of ESB.

Click to expand...

DARKSIDE72 said:

If the model was used on screen then it is Studio Scale regardless of scale/size.

Click to expand...

So now we have to have a semantics discussion about the word "scale" I guess. And there's the irony of those years when I tried to "correct" the MPC X-wing and spent too many weeks trying to make it match the the pics I had when the the model from the movie was already there.

I thought I didn't want to get into this--an unarmed man in a battle of wits--but Mike just released the V4 X-wing which, among other things, has a modified fuselage, IIRC. And there are other mods among those X-wings. Some are more about construction--which pieces are molded together and which are not--while others are actually details. So which of those X-wings are banned from this area of the forum? Or can we have a more common sense definition of "studio scale" or a third area called "studio accurate"? And people can monitor the forum and threads until someone finds any detail (or an agreed upon definition of "too many" details) that is inaccurate and move it over to the "correct" area. Let's envision a site where there is one thread for absolutely screen accurate models like the MPC X-wing, and another for everything else, like the FM kits, the Revell kits, and the fore-mentioned Y-wing, and several of the Salzo/CC X-wings. (And who knows what else.)

This area worked fine till people came and tried to re-educate it.

All the issues you have are with ethics not modelling, theres is an ethic behind studio scale and thats simple "trying" to achieve as close as we can with the info to hand or found. If you went to drag up older versions of the X-wing as not studio scale then I recommend you don't come here and stop being so narrow minded and argumentative !!!!

There was plenty of MPC kits used in the trilogy iif you attempt to do the mods that Ilm did it will make them studio scale, if you just by an MPC and build it its studio scale but hardly worth a mention!!!! If you buy a Vader Tie and mod it into a interceptor then your getting closer to what its all about .


Seems that your hope that we think everything we do is perfect is your way of causing an argument. Like I said, take away the ethics of the study and research and its just a general model of!!!!

If a model does not achieve the results due to lack of info or talent it doesn't stop it being worthy of discussion as long as the ethics to reproduce ILM's work was there in the first place. When there is obviously a blatant disregard for that aspect of the hobby then why even bother discussing it here?

Dedalus5550 said:

Mike just released the V4 X-wing which, among other things, has a modified fuselage, IIRC. And there are other mods among those X-wings. Some are more about construction--which pieces are molded together and which are not--while others are actually details. So which of those X-wings are banned from this area of the forum? Let's envision a site where there is one thread for absolutely screen accurate models like the MPC X-wing, and another for everything else, like the FM kits, the Revell kits, and the fore-mentioned Y-wing, and several of the Salzo/CC X-wings. (And who knows what else.)

Click to expand...

Mike's V4 is a studio scale model like the CC, V1, V2, V3 were.
A studio scale model will never be perfect, but each time a new model pop up, it becomes more accurate, look at the X-Wing.
The V3 fuselage was made using as ref one original pyro fuselage, and it is very very close (I have a casting of a pyro X-Wing fuselage so I was able to compare both) but it was missing some curve on the sides of the fuselage that Mike recreated with is V4.
Parts breakdown could be different from the original but all in all what is the most important at the end is the size, details and the paintjob (I'll go back later on the painting). The X-Wing is one of the most documented ship and most the parts have been ID'ed, the missing ones are in the cockpit. So yeah the V4 is SS, that's the most accurate X-Wing ever offered taking a side castings of the original, he even proposed the different version (engine cans, Phantom inserts etc) so you can reproduce the bird you want ! And you can even reproduce Blue Leader / Red 2 with some extra work (this one has a different butt than the other X-Wings, no extra work for the engine because Mike offers them too).

I was talking about the paintjob. It is also very important, a MPC X-Wing would fit just fine here if you reproduce the (crappy) paintjob ILM did on those birds. But if you do any other paintjob or modifications that were not on the screen used or production used MPC X-Wing so it belongs to the general forum.

Mike, you really should be able to answer the X wing question yourself as you have (or had ) a V2 of your own. I should point out of the fifteen threads you have created none of them include a build. You've raised plenty of questions,and people have tried to help, which is why I went back and checked them. You actually had an issue with Franks Pyro ,which as I had bought one ,I attempted to answer as this was a screen accurate pyro.Infact you definitely seem to have an issue with SS overall and seem keen to share that opinion.
This is from a General ModeinglHasbro Y wing thread
" I mean is it fairly accurate and so forth? Any idea what scale it would work out to be? Would it compare in scale to the SS X or Y? I know it can be dangerous to talk about scale regarding SW stuff sometimes, and if the CW Y was never made into a physical model, that can be a problem, too--that's why I just wonder if it's kind of close.
Thanks,
Mike Todd .

There is nothing "dangerous" about discussing scale at all, unless you choose to disregard the answers you have been given which seems a particular trait for yourself as you continually query the answers given. Again for you're guidance read "What this forum is all about" at the top of the SS forum page. Its wriiten by the moderators . Discuss it with them if you don't feel it is correct.

I also note you state that you have "lost interest in modelling" as your reason to sell your "Red Jammer"in the Junkyard thread. If so why are you so intent on rasing a question which is virtually guaranteed to raise an issue here for a hobby you no longer have any passion for? I should also note that the sale was unsuccessfull after many weeks and finally withdrawn. I'd suggest e bay if you cannot find a buyer here.

Its clear that Studio scale is not your thing and I'm sorry ,despite all the help and guidance you have been freely given that you cannot make it work for you, hence your loss of interest in it. However, that being the case please leave those that are dedicated to recreating the craft they WANT to build to the standards they EXPECT of the SS forum alone and join the General Model thread. You've been here since 2009, only slightly less than me and a few others here . For somebody so keen on raising the importance of scale in a model, I'd have expected to see AT LEAST ONE build here to support that arguement.

Jan 13, 2005, 2:32 PM - What this forum is all about... #1
Studio Scale Modeling Forum

This forum is designed for the discussion of screen used or replica studio scale models. By that we mean models that match the size and scale of minatures created during filming. Also on topic would be kitbashing, scratchbuilding, discovering original parts and and other tips in relation to the replication of studio scale models.

Well the def is almost 10 years old ............ for this forum on this site where people keep getting in
a tizzy about it. Ask them to change it if they do then you can all be happy.

i understand you guys are doing more than whats in the def......so ask them to change it.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they can leave this one here for the wack azz SS builders like me .......LOL
I got plenty of bastardized cobbled bits of plastic to fill the halls when yall leave......LOL
Until then I love you guys .......I really do!! LOL

MonsieurTox said:

Mike's V4 is a studio scale model like the CC, V1, V2, V3 were.
A studio scale model will never be perfect, but each time a new model pop up, it becomes more accurate, look at the X-Wing.
The V3 fuselage was made using as ref one original pyro fuselage, and it is very very close (I have a casting of a pyro X-Wing fuselage so I was able to compare both) but it was missing some curve on the sides of the fuselage that Mike recreated with is V4.
Parts breakdown could be different from the original but all in all what is the most important at the end is the size, details and the paintjob (I'll go back later on the painting). The X-Wing is one of the most documented ship and most the parts have been ID'ed, the missing ones are in the cockpit. So yeah the V4 is SS, that's the most accurate X-Wing ever offered taking a side castings of the original, he even proposed the different version (engine cans, Phantom inserts etc) so you can reproduce the bird you want ! And you can even reproduce Blue Leader / Red 2 with some extra work (this one has a different butt than the other X-Wings, no extra work for the engine because Mike offers them too).

I was talking about the paintjob. It is also very important, a MPC X-Wing would fit just fine here if you reproduce the (crappy) paintjob ILM did on those birds. But if you do any other paintjob or modifications that were not on the screen used or production used MPC X-Wing so it belongs to the general forum.

Click to expand...

If the new Salzo gets your thumbs up, I really really can't wait for mine to get here now.

You're making this into something far more difficult than what it is.Studio Scale means one thing. Replicating a model used on screen. Same size/scale, same parts (not scratch built),without the parts one will never nail the size I might add, same paint job.

There has been an obvious EVOLUTION over the years of models but only to make them better.

The Salzo x-wings are the closest to the real deal and are prized amongst the enthusiasts. Have a bit more respect before you start throwing names around. What have you done for the hobby?

Dedalus5550 said:

So now we have to have a semantics discussion about the word "scale" I guess. And there's the irony of those years when I tried to "correct" the MPC X-wing and spent too many weeks trying to make it match the the pics I had when the the model from the movie was already there.

I thought I didn't want to get into this--an unarmed man in a battle of wits--but Mike just released the V4 X-wing which, among other things, has a modified fuselage, IIRC. And there are other mods among those X-wings. Some are more about construction--which pieces are molded together and which are not--while others are actually details. So which of those X-wings are banned from this area of the forum? Or can we have a more common sense definition of "studio scale" or a third area called "studio accurate"? And people can monitor the forum and threads until someone finds any detail (or an agreed upon definition of "too many" details) that is inaccurate and move it over to the "correct" area. Let's envision a site where there is one thread for absolutely screen accurate models like the MPC X-wing, and another for everything else, like the FM kits, the Revell kits, and the fore-mentioned Y-wing, and several of the Salzo/CC X-wings. (And who knows what else.)

Click to expand...