Bandai release schedule

...I have no doubt that Bandai could make an exact replica, part for part, of the ANH devastator (and this version would be my preference) but I suspect most people would want the more detailed TESB version. Either way, I'd gladly pay another $370 for one!

Yes please! A Devastator in scale with the Zvezda would be awesome, and different enough to not be a "me too" release. Or even better base it on the Rogue 1 version, just get ILM's digital files.
 
Yes please! A Devastator in scale with the Zvezda would be awesome, and different enough to not be a "me too" release. Or even better base it on the Rogue 1 version, just get ILM's digital files.


I could totally get on board with a devastator. There's something about those tank turrets that really get my heart pumping.
 
The owner of Hobbyworld USA said on a Facebook group last night that he's expecting a shipment of Bandai PG Falcons and will be selling them for $299. He doesn't expect his supply to come in for another couple of weeks, though.

Any word on this? I haven't seen it on the website nor on Facebook--though I don't totally understand Facebook and just use my wife's account to look at things occasionally.
Thanks,
Mike Todd
 
Along with the Falcon stuff in the beginning, the whole "what a pilot" sequence with Poe's X-wing snapped me out of the movie. I don't remember anything too bad from the battle at the end

I didn't like it when I saw it, but maybe the new X-Wings are more maneuverable. I don't know. I'm more worried about having a decent story this time.
 
The Last Jedi kits for the 1:144 Falcon, 3 pack mini Falcon+ 2 Xwings, and Blue Resistance fighter are apparently out now.

23722340_10214141422905367_4348317793937358446_n.jpg


23755366_10214141422665361_9059787217899905441_n.jpg
 
For those worried about physics in Star Wars, how does an X-wing or TIE fighter turn at all? I don't see anything like flaps or changes in thrust direction. Flaps wouldn't work in space anyway, but these ships seem to work just as well in space or atmosphere.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
 
I agree, the ship movements in TFA were crap. Totally fake looking, overdone CGI.
Just last night I saw a trailer for TLJ, Poe’s x-wing made a 180* ‘drift’ turn....so it looks like we are in for more of it.
Ugh.

That’s called a hook maneuver. Actually very realistic and possible with modern fighter jets with thrust vectoring. Only difference would be the speed it’s done at, alloys in the Star Wars universe are presumably more advanced( able to endure more structural stress). Lastly our jets have 1 or two engines and an X-wing has 4, with Poe’s having 5 which makes it even more possible. Especially being in space where it takes very little to change your attitude, but redirecting course after the attitude adjustment would take a lot of energy, but with 4 engine with that booster on top of it, it should relatively easy.
 
For those worried about physics in Star Wars, how does an X-wing or TIE fighter turn at all? I don't see anything like flaps or changes in thrust direction. Flaps wouldn't work in space anyway, but these ships seem to work just as well in space or atmosphere.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Engine thrust vectoring and in space thrust vectoring and something similar to what modern satellites have which is called a reaction wheel centripetal force to change the crafts attitude.
 
From what I remember in the Cross Sections book, , the cylindrical housings in the front of the X-Wings engines is not an intake, but a set of four gyroscopic turning assists. I have no idea how the T-70 equivalent is supposed to work though.
 
So is Trek. Just sayin'.

TazMan2000
Nope, trek is science fiction. SW his science fantasy.

Regarding movement of SW fighters, George modeled then to fly like airplanes, as rediculous as that would be in space. It's what we're used to though. Since then, we've all been to air shows where we've seen real airplanes do maneuvers like the skid Poe executes in the new TLJ trailer. It's just an extension of what we've become used to - I have no problem with it.

I might have a problem with all the 50G maneuvering he was doing over Maz's castle in TFA, though. That just ignored momentum, and looked like a video game.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
I’ve always figured the starships in SW are made of some kind of hyper materials, otherwise such small vehicles shouldn’t be able to withstand the stresses of space flight and the accelerations involved. The falcon just doesn’t have ROOM for the internal bracing that should be necessary to avoid the engines tearing the ship apart, therefore it must be made of something far more durable than the alloys known to science in our galaxy.

To say nothing of containing the energies involved.
Considering the rust and other damage, I'm not so sure.

And running into the ground would be a much larger stress on it than a tie fighter blast.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
Why is anyone actually talking about G forces? We already know they can control gravity because they aren't floating around in their ships. If G forces were a problem, they would smash into the window when the ship decelerates and pops out of hyperspace! Yet people are wondering about atmosphere G forces?! I think it's obvious they have that covered. I remember in the X-Wing books they even talked about dialing down the artificial gravity (forget what they called it) so they could feel the maneuvers a little because it was hard to tell how you were moving if you had zero feedback.
 
Nope, trek is science fiction. SW his science fantasy.

While even George Lucas admits that SW is fantasy, Star Trek treads the grey area between the genres. I don't want to get into a debate on this, since there are many sites out there that already have discussions about this. Let's agree to disagree.

Regarding unrealistic maneuvers...I'm sure if you took pilots from WW I and told them what future modern aircraft with their pilots can do, they wouldn't believe it either.

TazMan2000
 
Why is anyone actually talking about G forces? We already know they can control gravity because they aren't floating around in their ships.

Of course, there is an in-universe explanation for super high G maneuvering; all your arguments are correct. My issue is that the style of flight in the SW universe was originally conceived to be similar to what we knew. Aircraft performance differs throughout history, to be sure, but one thing that hasn't really changed is the pilot's ability to handle G. So, a P-51 from WW2 and a modern F-22 have very similar performance restraints in that case. When you see those two aircraft fly together, you can visibly see that.

Now, again, I understand a technology in-universe that can counter onset of G's. It would have been required for the hyperspace jumps all along. But that said, the first six movies obeyed physics that they probably otherwise wouldn't have had to, in order to give us something familiar to relate to. Now in TFA, they changed that. I don't see a reason for that change. The down side of the change is that the special effects of 1977 look more realistic than those forty years later.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Talking about science in Star Wars? This ain't Trek folks. Star Wars has never ever tried to have realistic physics/science. It's space fantasy.
The Star Trek transporter and warp drives aren't based on anything that are likely to be developed. They are just ways to help tell the stories.

The universal translater is another far fetched idea. I could buy eventually being able to sort of translate a language after analysing the language, but it wouldn't start working on the first word spoken. Certainly not when the crew is trying to be incognito on an alien planet. No one seems to notice anything odd about the words being spoken or the physical movements of their mouths. Unless an incredibly small device can override what the aliens see and hear, I don't see how the crew wouldn't be obviously talking a different language.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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