Bay 327 / Docking Bay 94 ?
- Thread starter MARK M3
- Start date
I'd like to do docking bay 327, but I'm wondering how a display like that would even work. If it has 3 walls and a ceiling, that restricts the viewing angles of the display to basically just the front. I'm wondering how it would look if the ceiling was clear acrylic, but the red bits on the ceiling in the photo were still glued on to the acrylic. That way you can look down at the display but wont lose the details of the gantries and whatnot.
![Screenshot_20171218-104552[26805].png](https://therpf-f28a.kxcdn.com/forums/data/attachments/445/445619-b194621e2fa01bbe2cf0c78101d5406e.jpg "Screenshot_20171218-104552[26805].png")
Honestly, if you like both the 327 and 94 display options, the 94 would probably be a lot easier to make, in terms of having good viewing angles.
Honestly, if you like both the 327 and 94 display options, the 94 would probably be a lot easier to make, in terms of having good viewing angles.
Britcinescribe
Well-Known Member
I’m in the process of building Bay 327 now for my 1:350 Falcon. I’ve been very diligently doing the research on it since the beginning of the year. I’ve got the lower walls down. Most people assume they’re generic, but while there is a little repetition in the wall modules, most of them are fairly unique. Without being immodest, I believe the deck plan I’ve put together is the most (or, rather, only) accurate one on the internet. ILM’s John Knoll made a CG recreation for Star Wars Celebration, but I discovered a lot of errors in both the deck and his walls, in dimensions and details. He did go out of the way at the beginning of his presentation to say it wasn’t a specific bay, but it pretty much was.
The problem is, there are two versions of the FX-added Bay, built around the Elstree stage prop. Neither are accurate. The Peter (Harrison) Ellenshaw matte painting, which is woolly and nebulous, and the Special Edition matte painting, which is just a ghastly bodge job. The Elstree set can’t even be properly built as a miniature model set as every Lego and diorama recreation has done it so far, because the angles are incorrect. The lit docking maw shouldn’t have been visible from a down angle, because it’s meant to be a forced perspective set. Stinson Lenz and I discussed this at the beginning of the year. We traded some information, and he got inspired enough to create a new CG re-creation of what the bay should actually look like.
https://deeplyobsessed.blogspot.com/2018/02/actual-depth-of-docking-bay-327.html
I’ll put up all my information on the build here once it’s done. Some really talented guys are pitching in on this one. My Falcon is taking up a fair bit of time, and real-world stuff is slowing my build down. Korben has been doing his Bay 94 for the same amount of time I’ve bern doing mine, and he’s much further along.
The problem is, there are two versions of the FX-added Bay, built around the Elstree stage prop. Neither are accurate. The Peter (Harrison) Ellenshaw matte painting, which is woolly and nebulous, and the Special Edition matte painting, which is just a ghastly bodge job. The Elstree set can’t even be properly built as a miniature model set as every Lego and diorama recreation has done it so far, because the angles are incorrect. The lit docking maw shouldn’t have been visible from a down angle, because it’s meant to be a forced perspective set. Stinson Lenz and I discussed this at the beginning of the year. We traded some information, and he got inspired enough to create a new CG re-creation of what the bay should actually look like.
https://deeplyobsessed.blogspot.com/2018/02/actual-depth-of-docking-bay-327.html
I’ll put up all my information on the build here once it’s done. Some really talented guys are pitching in on this one. My Falcon is taking up a fair bit of time, and real-world stuff is slowing my build down. Korben has been doing his Bay 94 for the same amount of time I’ve bern doing mine, and he’s much further along.
