Jump to content
GreenDragoon

Size comparison of the B/SF-17 to the T-70 X-Wing

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


Exactly, and try as we might the fact still remains that the RotJ A-Wing, arguably the most canon A-Wing since it predated Droids, WEG, Rebels, and TLJ is clearly a small craft. 

Maybe the A-Wings in those other sources are larger, but they are probably different models/variants.  That being said, while TLJ A-Wing is longer than the RotJ A-Wing, it's not clear that the cockip-to-pilot ratio is much different than RotJ (and clearly nowhere near where it's at in Rebels).  But the matte backgrounds and the cockpit/actor shots and the film models from RotJ all suggest a smaller Rebellion era A-Wing in use during the Battle of Endor, which also happens to be where all of the X-Wing pilots (Gemmer, Jake, Arvel, and Tycho) are from -- since they were all in Green Squadron during Endor.  FFG's model was clearly supposed to be the RotJ model, not least of all because it pre-dated Rebels and TLJ by years.  They used the official LFL numbers, which were clearly incorrectly derived to represent the RotJ Rebellion Era A-Wings.  TLJ A-Wings being longer isn't a problem, since presumably they're a different model and as different from an Endor A-Wing as a T-70 is from a T-65. 

But A-Wings are moot and we can set their controversial scale aside entirely if we want, since you still shouldn't be able to fit two entire external bubble turrets into an X-Wing cockpit, and yet it looks like you can from the FFG Resistance Bomber model.

And yet sources don't distinguish between Rebels and Rotj A-Wings. in fact, many sources point out that they are the same. Whether the size in RoTJ was suppose to be accurate or not, it has obviously been retconned to the bigger size, for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

And yet sources don't distinguish between Rebels and Rotj A-Wings. in fact, many sources point out that they are the same. Whether the size in RoTJ was suppose to be accurate or not, it has obviously been retconned to the bigger size, for better or worse.

Uh... no. 

FIRST, Retconning the size of the RotJ A-Wings would require going back during a "Special Edition" release of RotJ and re-sizing the A-Wings we see in the matte backgrounds and the pilot 'cockpit' set shots.  What we have alternatively is just a number from an official source that was derived in some manner.  That's entirely irrelevant to what we see on screens.  Just because an official source once reported an incredibly high iron content in spinach, it didn't mean that spinach was suddenly an iron-rich source of nutrition (the myth that spinach was as iron-rich as some believed and the reason that Popeye consumed it to get his muscles was because a decimal place error that misreported the value by ten-fold).

SECOND, it has not been confirmed that the A-Wings in Rebels and the A-Wings in RotJ are the same models.  For starters, they are visually quite different, most notably that the lateral armaments are entirely different.  In fact, pre-Disney there was a difference because everyone recognized the major size discrepancies.  The larger A-Wings that pre-dated the Battle of Yavin (e.g. in the Droids Cartoons, or the two-seat Rebel Trainers in PC Games, etc.) were R-22 Spearheads that were nicknamed "A-Wings" by Rebel pilots because of their general shape.  The smaller A-Wings used by the Alliance at Endor were RZ-1 Interceptors, and were also nickanmed "A-Wings" by Rebels pilots because of their general shape.  The two designs came from different manufacturers, and the craft were otherwise quite different with variations in size and performance.  Like, we call a Lexus and a Honda "sedans" because of their general aesthetic resemblance even though there are many underlying differences.  It's completely possible the A-Wings used in Rebels are a larger, clunkier, less effective version of the craft we see in RotJ.  Perhaps, after Phoenix squadron repeatedly gets mowed down, the next generation of A-Wings retain the basic shape and layout, but cut the size of the craft drastically down and update the armaments to make them more effective as a fast, dedicated interceptor by the time Endor rolls around (several years after Rebels), especially because at this point the T-65 is filling a basic generalized fighter role in the Rebel Navy that may have obsoleted the offerings of the larger Rebels era A-Wings.

Let's face it, Disney has been pretty lazy with regards to recognizing the subtler aspects of the canon they inherited, so just because they may be conflating all "A-Wings" into the same ship shouldn't mean much.

Also, let's talk about those new canon comic books, because the Battle of Endor A-Wings throughout this official new canon source are absolutely in line with the RotJ A-Wings and nowhere near the Rebels dimensions:

latest?cb=20160206041210

Edited by AllWingsStandyingBy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Azrapse said:

The picture of Rose in the turret seems to match the lower turret by lookight at the structure the turret hangs from. It has that circular indentation that can be seen in the other picture I posted, the one that seems to be focusing on the turret from an oblique perpective.

Even in your most generous estimation of the turret ball being 2 meters diameter (I seriously doubt Chewbacca would fit there, but let's go with these numbers), you say the bomber would be 29 meters long tops. That is almost 6 meters shorter than the Falcon.
And this is again assuming a turret size that is a bit beyond credibility. The smaller the turret is, the smaller the bomber. And in any case, we are already very comfortably close to the size in FFG's model preview.

Let's accept it. By using forced perspective, the trailer made us think these things are almost like Nebulon-B frigates big, when they are just oversized B-wings.

36978406336_114aacbdfe_o.png

I'm 5'8" so my mid point is between my belt and my bellybutton.
Assuming she is 1.57 meters tall, the half measure of 0.785 meters is 375 px  
then the 1222px height is 2.558 meters.


 If 1.6 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 23.14 m
 If 1.7 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 24.59 m
 If 1.8 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 26.03 m
 If 1.9 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 27.48 m
 If 2.0 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 28.93 m
 If 2.1 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 30.37  m
 If 2.2 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 31.82 m
 If 2.3 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 28.93 m
 If 2.4 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 33.27 m
 If 2.5 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 36.16 m
 If 2.558 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 37.00 m long.

This is result is much closer to this revised image...

37026064081_eb201b1f85_b.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Uh... no. 

FIRST, Retconning the size of the RotJ A-Wings would require going back during a "Special Edition" release of RotJ and re-sizing the A-Wings we see in the matte backgrounds and the pilot 'cockpit' set shots.  What we have alternatively is just a number from an official source that was derived in some manner.  That's entirely irrelevant to what we see on screens.  Just because an official source once reported an incredibly high iron content in spinach, it didn't mean that spinach was suddenly an iron-rich source of nutrition (the myth that spinach was as iron-rich as some believed and the reason that Popeye consumed it to get his muscles was because a decimal place error that misreported the value by ten-fold).

SECOND, it has not been confirmed that the A-Wings in Rebels and the A-Wings in RotJ are the same models.  For starters, they are visually quite different, most notably that the lateral armaments are entirely different.  In fact, pre-Disney there was a difference because everyone recognized the major size discrepancies.  The larger A-Wings that pre-dated the Battle of Yavin (e.g. in the Droids Cartoons, or the two-seat Rebel Trainers in PC Games, etc.) were R-22 Spearheads that were nicknamed "A-Wings" by Rebel pilots because of their general shape.  The smaller A-Wings used by the Alliance at Endor were RZ-1 Interceptors, and were also nickanmed "A-Wings" by Rebels pilots because of their general shape.  The two designs came from different manufacturers, and the craft were otherwise quite different with variations in size and performance.  Like, we call a Lexus and a Honda "sedans" because of their general aesthetic resemblance even though there are many underlying differences.  It's completely possible the A-Wings used in Rebels are a larger, clunkier, less effective version of the craft we see in RotJ.  Perhaps, after Phoenix squadron repeatedly gets mowed down, the next generation of A-Wings retain the basic shape and layout, but cut the size of the craft drastically down and update the armaments to make them more effective as a fast, dedicated interceptor by the time Endor rolls around (several years after Rebels), especially because at this point the T-65 is filling a basic generalized fighter role in the Rebel Navy that may have obsoleted the offerings of the larger Rebels era A-Wings.

Let's face it, Disney has been pretty lazy with regards to recognizing the subtler aspects of the canon they inherited, so just because they may be conflating all "A-Wings" into the same ship shouldn't mean much.

Also, let's talk about those new canon comic books, because the Battle of Endor A-Wings throughout this official new canon source are absolutely in line with the RotJ A-Wings and nowhere near the Rebels dimensions:
 

Sounds like we need an R-22 Spearhead "A-Wing" and an RZ-1 Interceptor "A-Wing II", with the Rebels craft being some sort of prototype for the latter?  (I've never actually seen Rebels, so hopefully I'm following the conversation properly).

It'd be like conflating a P-47 and an A-10 just because they're both Thunderbolts, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

36978406336_114aacbdfe_o.png

I'm 5'8" so my mid point is between my belt and my bellybutton.

 

 


I feel like her bellybutton would be a bit lower than where you've drawn the indicator.  Secondly, the bellybutton is not likely a mid-point anyways.  Regarding Torso-to-Leg length ratios, there are some generalized differences between men and women, and of course individual variations (relatively speaking, women tend to have longer legs, proportionally than men, while men tend to have longer torsos, proportionally, which means women tend to carry more of their height in their legs than men).




A another means of comparing the physical models, looking at the FFG model rendering, it looks like the ball turrets are going to be about as big or slightly smaller than the closed "intakes" of a T70.  Which I think is going to be too small.  If the Bubble Turret is about the same circumference as a closed T70 engine intake circle on the FFG model, then you'd have to have a person like the Gunner above sitting as comfortable and as spaciously in a T70 intake as we see here, and it'd be far too small for that.  A person would probably barely be able to sit like that inside the T70 Intake, let alone have the half-foot of clearance under their feet or the 3ft of clearance above their head, as we see with the Resitance Bomber Bubble Turret.

p5whpz8prbjlmjizjx6y.jpg
 

Edited by AllWingsStandyingBy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Uh... no. 

FIRST, Retconning the size of the RotJ A-Wings would require going back during a "Special Edition" release of RotJ and re-sizing the A-Wings we see in the matte backgrounds and the pilot 'cockpit' set shots.  What we have alternatively is just a number from an official source that was derived in some manner.  That's entirely irrelevant to what we see on screens.  Just because an official source once reported an incredibly high iron content in spinach, it didn't mean that spinach was suddenly an iron-rich source of nutrition (the myth that spinach was as iron-rich as some believed and the reason that Popeye consumed it to get his muscles was because a decimal place error that misreported the value by ten-fold).

SECOND, it has not been confirmed that the A-Wings in Rebels and the A-Wings in RotJ are the same models.  For starters, they are visually quite different, most notably that the lateral armaments are entirely different.  In fact, pre-Disney there was a difference because everyone recognized the major size discrepancies.  The larger A-Wings that pre-dated the Battle of Yavin (e.g. in the Droids Cartoons, or the two-seat Rebel Trainers in PC Games, etc.) were R-22 Spearheads that were nicknamed "A-Wings" by Rebel pilots because of their general shape.  The smaller A-Wings used by the Alliance at Endor were RZ-1 Interceptors, and were also nickanmed "A-Wings" by Rebels pilots because of their general shape.  The two designs came from different manufacturers, and the craft were otherwise quite different with variations in size and performance.  Like, we call a Lexus and a Honda "sedans" because of their general aesthetic resemblance even though there are many underlying differences.  It's completely possible the A-Wings used in Rebels are a larger, clunkier, less effective version of the craft we see in RotJ.  Perhaps, after Phoenix squadron repeatedly gets mowed down, the next generation of A-Wings retain the basic shape and layout, but cut the size of the craft drastically down and update the armaments to make them more effective as a fast, dedicated interceptor by the time Endor rolls around (several years after Rebels), especially because at this point the T-65 is filling a basic generalized fighter role in the Rebel Navy that may have obsoleted the offerings of the larger Rebels era A-Wings.

Let's face it, Disney has been pretty lazy with regards to recognizing the subtler aspects of the canon they inherited, so just because they may be conflating all "A-Wings" into the same ship shouldn't mean much.

Also, let's talk about those new canon comic books, because the Battle of Endor A-Wings throughout this official new canon source are absolutely in line with the RotJ A-Wings and nowhere near the Rebels dimensions:

latest?cb=20160206041210

Spearheads are no longer canon, therefore does not explain the size difference. 

The A-Wings in Rebels are referred to as RZ-1 as well. Heck, even the trainers have that name. Check the official SW database. 

The comics are an interesting point, but that shot you used could fit the new size as well with artistic liences, something you've used against Rebels. Do you have more shots showing size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best comparison for the Resitance Bomber will be to see how the Ball Turrets of the physical model stock up against the "engine intake" of a T-70 model.  If, as I suspect by guestimation, that the ball turrets are roughly the size of the engine "intake" on a T70 it'll mean that the Resistance Bomber is significantly smaller than it should be, since:

l2EY9gL.jpg


We'll just have to wait until we have the phystical models in hand to make a better estimation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

36978406336_114aacbdfe_o.png

I'm 5'8" so my mid point is between my belt and my bellybutton.
Assuming she is 1.57 meters tall, the half measure of 0.785 meters is 375 px  
then the 1222px height is 2.558 meters.


 If 1.6 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 23.14 m
 If 1.7 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 24.59 m
 If 1.8 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 26.03 m
 If 1.9 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 27.48 m
 If 2.0 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 28.93 m
 If 2.1 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 30.37  m
 If 2.2 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 31.82 m
 If 2.3 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 28.93 m
 If 2.4 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 33.27 m
 If 2.5 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 36.16 m
 If 2.558 m = 43px,  then 622 px = 37.00 m long.

I guess you are a male, so using your anatomical proportions is not the most adequate.
Let's have a look at this:

female_proportions_front.jpg

For a female, the midpoint is just slightly above the pelvis.
Now, Rose is not only sitting on that picture, but she is manning a turret and she is probably leaning a bit forward.
So in the picture, her upper body is looking a bit shorter than it probably is if she sat straight.
The laser cannon is obscuring her pelvis, but I assume that it is not at where your 375px measurement ends. It must be a bit lower. I'd say roughly at the same height as her knees, because of her sitting position, if not lower because her legs look a bit bent.

BomberSize2.jpg
This assumed position of the pelvis, plus a little extra on top to guess for her "sitting straight", gives me 463px.
That would be half the height, given the anatomic proportions above, so her total height must be double that: 926px. And she is 1.57m tall.

Comparing that with your 1222px measurement of the ball turret, makes the turret 2.07m tall.
Then, using your estimations on the length of the bomber relative to the turret, it makes it about 29 meters long.

We can discuss this all day long, but at least we can agree that the bomber is between 29 and 37 meters long, or very close to that.
If we go for a middle point, that's 34 meters. Exactly the length of the Falcon. The Falcon overflows its base mostly on the front, while this bomber probably does from the back, since because of the shape of the ship and where they have placed the peg, most of its mass will "float" over the rear half of the base.

We can nitpick a meter extra here or a meter less there. But at least it is clear that this is not an Epic sized ship and belongs to a Large base.

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Spearheads are no longer canon, therefore does not explain the size difference. 

The A-Wings in Rebels are referred to as RZ-1 as well. Heck, even the trainers have that name. Check the official SW database.


That's kind of my point: Disney messed up and was lazy/hasty with the source materials they inherited, which is why we now have A-Wings that could house an Olog-Hai Troll of Mordor in their cockpits and ones that were a snug fit for a human now allegedly being identical craft, when clearly they are not.

As to more comic pictures, the size is like that throughout.  Here's another example:
STWJOURNEY2015002_int3-41.jpg


I realize comics can have some artistic freedom (though those look very RotJ to me, even down to the RotJ weapon armaments and not the big cylinder cannons of Rebels).  So I'm not saying that clearly A-Wings are small because of the comics, but just pointing out to those who use Rebels as the gold standard because it's new that here's another new and official canon source that clearly shows much smaller A-Wings during the Battle of Endor era, which seem to confirm very closely to those seen on screen in RotJ -- it seems pretty fair to say these are not the bigger, bulkier, less sleek cylinder-cannoned craft we see in Rebels

Edited by AllWingsStandyingBy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

More shots:
 

SE.jpeg

star-wars-shattered-empire-lt-bey-150732

 

While the top one is suggestive, I still think it fits what we see in Rebels than in RotJ based on this image: 

latest?cb=20120629194348

The pilot in the comic (I'm assuming Shara Bey?) looks like she has more width to the cockpit and definitely more length. Plus it looks like a second seat could be fit in the comic version where as the movie version does not.

the bottom image matches interior shots of A-Wings from Rebels pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:




As to more comic pictures, the size is like that throughout.  Here's another example:
 

So - longer than a TIE fighter then, as per the middle shot? Even using small Rogue One TIEs (7.24m rather than 8.99m) that A-Wing still looks big.

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

We can discuss this all day long, but at least we can agree that the bomber is between 29 and 37 meters long, or very close to that.
If we go for a middle point, that's 34 meters. Exactly the length of the Falcon. The Falcon overflows its base mostly on the front, while this bomber probably does from the back, since because of the shape of the ship and where they have placed the peg, most of its mass will "float" over the rear half of the base.

We can nitpick a meter extra here or a meter less there. But at least it is clear that this is not an Epic sized ship and belongs to a Large base.

Alright @Odanan, you still think it's Epic Scale?!?

37026064081_eb201b1f85_b.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


That's kind of my point: Disney messed up and was lazy/hasty with the source materials they inherited, which is why we now have A-Wings that could house an Olog-Hai Troll or Mordor in their cockpits and ones that were a snug fit for a human allegedly being the same craft, when clearly they are not.

As to more comic pictures, the size is like that throughout.  Here's another example:
STWJOURNEY2015002_int3-41.jpg


I realize comics can have some artistic freedom (though those look very RotJ to me, even down to the RotJ weapon armaments and not the big cylinder cannons of Rebels).  So I'm not saying that clearly A-Wings are small because of the comics, but just pointing out to those who use Rebels as the gold standard because it's new, well here's another new and official canon source that clearly shows much smaller A-Wings during the Battle of Endor era, which seem to confirm very closely to those seen on screen in RotJ -- it seems pretty fair to say these are not the bigger, bulkier, less sleek cylinder-cannoned craft we see in Rebels.

Like I commented on Ironlord's images, those comic images look more capable of the second seat of the trainer than the RotJ version. Yeah, the A-Wing Chassis doesn't look as "fat" as in the cartoon, but that can be explained as style changes. 

Even if Disney was lazy and took easy to grab numbers for things, it looks like they are committed to it, therefore can't be discounted as just an error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

Alright @Odanan, you still think it's Epic Scale?!?

37026064081_eb201b1f85_b.jpg

 

That images shows an X-Wing T-70 between two Res. Bombers, which means it's larger than it should be in comparison with the Bomber behind (and smaller in comparison with the Bomber ahead).

So yes, I still believe it is much larger than the miniature.  And you know what? Someday wookieepedia will have the stats of this ship and we will be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

 

You want to know a fun fact? The Scurrg for example is at a scale of 1/428. So way more out of scale than the B/SF-17 even in the worst case scenario!

In the above list, the TIE fighter is listed as 7.24m. That figure was only introduced with Rogue One. Around the time X-Wing Miniatures came out - the length was revised from its Legends figure of 6.3m, to a much larger 8.99m. Using that size, the TIE scale is much closer to the listed 1/270 scale that's supposed to be standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Let's accept it. By using forced perspective, the trailer made us think these things are almost like Nebulon-B frigates big, when they are just oversized B-wings.

I didn't get the impression from the trailer that they were anywhere close to that big. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Parakitor said:

Yeah, the A-wing is a really bad benchmark to go by. Use a T-65 or Y-wing cockpit instead, and you get a much clearer idea of how small humans (and other sentient species) are in comparison to these vehicles. I'm not saying the A-wing is the wrong scale in this game, but the design of it's cockpit canopy is definitely misleading.

A-wing is way off...

https://tierfoncampaign.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-wing-issues.html?m=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez. These are basic ratios and math using an establish reference point (the length of a T-70). Setting aside a small ±5% bit of variance for pixel width, human error, etc., his calcs are incontrovertible. Things like the K-wing which have no film reference point and the much debated length of an A-wing have no place here. I also thought the B/SF-17 was too small, but Green Dragoon's post brooks no further debate. Thanks for taking the time to do the work, dude.

(Btw, based on my own independent little mock-up, I got 97mm excluding gun barrels based on the render.)

Edited by Wondergecko
Typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Wondergecko said:

Geez. These are basic ratios and math using an establish reference point (the length of a T-70). Setting aside a small ±5% bit of variance for pixel width, human error, etc., his calcs are incontrovertible. Things like the K-wing which have no film reference point and the much debated length of an A-wing have no place here. I also thought the B/SF-17 was too small, but Green Dragon's post brooks no further debate. Thanks for taking the time to do the work, dude.

(Btw, based on my own independent little mock-up, I got 97mm excluding gun barrels based on the render.)

Thanks!
Wave 13 has spawned some of the most ridiculous controversy I've seen so far. So much rejection by players that is entirely rooted in these players' misunderstanding and ignorance.

I have no problem with people arguing their viewpoint, to the contrary: I appreciate it very much if it is reasoned well. But hating on a ship because it is some few millimeters out of scale is a ridiculous new level of entitlement. And it is even more ridiculous if another ship of the same wave was made so large that it doesn't fit into standard packaging anymore, causing it to ship with a larger volume and that is of course a huge influence on their pricing.

But no, the impression was that the Resitance Bomber is a captial ship, and the few cents of additional plastic between small or large base is clearly the only way to determine ship cost...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...