Jump to content
GreenDragoon

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

Recommended Posts

Please stop assuming that the sizes, shapes, colors, capabilities, and anything else about any vehicle in star wars will be consistent over time. It was a sprawling multimedia franchise in the 90s, before the special editions were even announced. Especially before the advent of the story group details will be fuzzy.

Please stop trying to find consistency in original trilogy movie models. They famously made a new falcon for every movie! I get the drive to do so, but using the old, physical, models to try and find the the size of a new, computer, model is a fools errand! You will find only pain that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I read this thread and have concluded a few things.

1.) You all got too **** much time on your hands.
2.) So do I, cause I read this whole thing.
3.) If you really want to talk about FFG messing up sizes you need to look at the G-1A Starfighter. (Wookiepedia lists it as 15m long. The X-wing is 1`2.5m long... now look at the models and tell me the G-1A is even close to correct scale.)


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KryatDragon said:

Well I read this thread and have concluded a few things.

1.) You all got too **** much time on your hands.
2.) So do I, cause I read this whole thing.
3.) If you really want to talk about FFG messing up sizes you need to look at the G-1A Starfighter. (Wookiepedia lists it as 15m long. The X-wing is 1`2.5m long... now look at the models and tell me the G-1A is even close to correct scale.)


 

Roughly 120% what it should be. It's not perfect accuracy, but it's not massively off either. 

37310801695_317a9166d7_c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20% off seems like a BIG margin of error to me. Really big, almost unacceptable actually.
20% is a bit more than a 1cm of excess length and over .5cm in width. That's really big in a minis game.

A 20% size mistake in most things is unforgivable.
Do you want your shirts 20% bigger or smaller? Your pants? How about Bridges, maybe they should only hold a tolerance of +/- 20%.

Yes, I'm purposefully invoking a slippery slope and using hyperbole to illustrate that 20% is a ridiculous error on the part of FFG. It is a massive scale error.

(Also, today I had too much time on my hands... so... yeah.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.9.2017 at 7:08 PM, Captain Lackwit said:

You uh.

You guys worry too much, and are also way too ready to browbeat Disney for being lazy when compared to the EU.

Especially given any consistency in the EU was a godsend that we would cherish. Have we all forgotten that?

At least the EU tried.

Pablo Hidalgo recently stated that both Version of Han and Greedos Shooting are equally canon and that He doesn't Care about inconsistencies. In the vain of "It's up to Interpretation of everybody himself what Version of a Story is the correct one".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gabe69velasquez said:

Roughly 120% what it should be. It's not perfect accuracy, but it's not massively off either. 

37310801695_317a9166d7_c.jpg

I think one of the reasons it was done oversized, was that EU story where the Mist Hunter was used as a lifeboat to rescue a large number of Rebels from the transport Bright Hope:

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mist_Hunter

 

They managed to rescue 90 people:

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bright_Hope/Legends

 

Perhaps the maker of the model, had read the story and decided to up-size the ship a bit? Even then, they'd have to be packed in like sardines.

Share this post


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

Even then, they'd have to be packed in like sardines.

They were. It's mentioned in the story that they could somehow cramp 26 people into the three cells. When they decide to rescue all 90 Rebells it's stated that the ship is so packed it impacts maneuverability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RogueLeader42 said:

They were. It's mentioned in the story that they could somehow cramp 26 people into the three cells. When they decide to rescue all 90 Rebells it's stated that the ship is so packed it impacts maneuverability.

Because they were literally laying on top of the pilot and dashboard? Because that is gonna be the Star Wars equivalent of a clown car gone out of hand. They must have piled them up them like logs, or the rebels were all Ewoks and Ugnaughts. And even so...

EDIT:
Nevermind... I didn't say anything...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3079633/51-passengers-6-seater-minibus-China.html

 

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


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

Because they were literally laying on top of the pilot and dashboard? Because that is gonna be the Star Wars equivalent of a clown car gone out of hand. They must have piled them up them like logs, or the rebels were all Ewoks and Ugnaughts. And even so...

EDIT:
Nevermind... I didn't say anything...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3079633/51-passengers-6-seater-minibus-China.html

 

I was about to mention that during my time in Rome I learned how many people you can cramp into a small city bus ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 6:23 AM, RogueLeader42 said:

At least the EU tried.

Pablo Hidalgo recently stated that both Version of Han and Greedos Shooting are equally canon and that He doesn't Care about inconsistencies. In the vain of "It's up to Interpretation of everybody himself what Version of a Story is the correct one".


Ladies and gentlemen.

WE HAVE REACHED PINNACLE DENIAL.

Share this post


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


Ladies and gentlemen.

WE HAVE REACHED PINNACLE DENIAL.

How many of the EU have you exactly read?

Everything used to fix inconsistencies (retcons, canon hirachy, etc.) is better than "Lalala, I don't care!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RogueLeader42 said:

How many of the EU have you exactly read?

Everything used to fix inconsistencies (retcons, canon hirachy, etc.) is better than "Lalala, I don't care!"

I've read quite a fair bit. Enough to know that we still have arguments about scale to this day, even though there are occasionally definitive answers some choose to ignore because it doesn't suit their agenda.

The EU is a mess, and I'm glad we've left all the bad stuff from it behind, we needed to. So much of it was essentially plague material.

Now am I gonna sit here and say the quality control of Disney's books is the best? Of course not, but you know what? It's still just starting and we still have a bunch of chances to get a lot of good things right. "Aftermath" was really quite awful for example, but I've heard nothing but stellar things about, "Tarkin".

You act like I'm not even a fan of EU material, but let me tell you that you couldn't be more wrong. The thing is, I can admit there was a serious bout of dumpster fires for a very long time. Dark Empire for instance, just isn't that good. New Jedi Order? Absolute hamhanded trash.

Do not even get me started on the Vong, or the 137 ABY period. Cade Skywalker has to be the edgiest damned character I have ever seen, or at least very very close. He puts Shadow The Hedgehog to shame, genuinely.

And you want me to sit here.

REALLY SIT HERE.

And just accept that the (KO/SW)TOR era really took place four-to-three thousand years ago WITH LITTLE TO NO TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT?
 

If so you're out of your mind, man.

Don't sit here and question whether or not another fan has his chops, none of us are very far ahead of each other on this forum. Guarantee 80% of the X-Wing players on a nerdy internet forum know their EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 3:45 PM, gabe69velasquez said:

Roughly 120% what it should be. It's not perfect accuracy, but it's not massively off either. 

37310801695_317a9166d7_c.jpg

Do the rear mounted spoiler wings on the Mist Hunter techinically make it a TIE?  Of course it also has X-wing guns and looks like a Hind.  So, a ‘standard’ugly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2017 at 7:39 PM, GreenDragoon said:

There is some misinformation going around here, and it's rather frustrating to see how many people dupe their own excitement because they don't understand what the trailer showed us.
The false claim is that FFG made the B/SF-17 model way too small, and numbers from twice the size or 1/450 scale are being thrown around. The most ridiculous claim I've seen was that it should be the size of the rebel transporter at, which is a factor of 2.36 (or it would mean that FFG misscaled, using 1/637!).

These numbers are simply wrong.

Please take a look at this screenshot from the TLJ trailer:

VxqDTYP.png

You see two X-Wings that are marked in green and blue. The Green is closer to the camera, the blue is further away. Their lengths are compared and projected to the keel of the bomber.

Green is 1.17 times as large as blue (182 pixel vs 156px). Now take a look at the next picture, from an earlier frame in the trailer:

7MMIJIL.pngthis is the blue X-Wing that's just emerging from BEHIND the bomber.

We see an overlap, so the bomber is closer to the camera. That necessarily means that the absolute maximal size of the keel at the green position is 45mm. Any larger than that and it would be too large. An early estimate has it at 26mm, using the preview picture. So we already see, with absolute certainty, that the thrown around complaints of "should be twice the size" and "1/450" are wrong.

Now let's look at the first frame of the space battle. I copied the same bar to this picture, keeping the image at 1440x600 so it is comparable.

xLwsSgI.png

This green X-Wing is to me very clearly behind our reference keel. Now the maximal size of the keel up there is 45mm, and the maximal factor is new 1.5 and not 1.73 anymore. Because the keel length up there is at least 30mm if the bottom is 26mm (1.17 * 26mm, with 1.17 being the ratio of green to blue). But this X-Wing is still behind the bomber. And far enough behind it that an A-Wing fits between the two!

Then we have a third X-Wing (red bar shows his length) that is clearly in front of the bomber. Yellow is 1.5 times green, indicating how large the X-Wing would have to be if he were on the same height as the keel and if the keel really is 30mm. Red is the actual size of the X-Wing shown in the trailer. If red and the bomber would be on the same height (we know that's wrong!) then the keel at the green position would have to be just 26mm long (ratio of red to green times 45mm of XWing length). This 26mm keel length would put the overall model at 82mm, so that is the minimal size.

Now we have a minimal and a maximal size, between 82mm and 142mm. The true size for an in-scale model is somewhere within this range. So a scale of 1/400 is the clear minimum, and 1/230 the maximum.
But maximal size is clearly less than 142mm because there's an A-Wing between the bomber and X-Wing, meaning the X-Wing is behind the bomber from our viewpoint.
(e:) The model is estimated to be 96mm. I won't even try to fiure out how far the green X-Wing is behind the bomber. But we can do one more thing: if the bomber would be exactly between the red and the green X-Wing, then his correct model size would be 99mm.
I believe that there is more space between bomber and green (due to the A-Wing also being there), but we can't tell for sure. However if it was then the correct model size would be below 99mm, and that is exactly what we have.

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!

well ball turrets and cockpit size is the relevant measure. cgi messes up all the time, particularly with ships in motion, but if  the crew doesnt fit you know its too small.

we know there is a person in each of the little balls on the keel and tail, and we know each of those balls should be bigger than an x-wings cockpit glass is long. we know this because a human is sitting in both and the length of the glass is a fairly minimum amount of space to contain 1 person inside, which is about 2 meters. if the ball turrets are 2 meters wide, then the scale is around 1/450. 

this is like the Upsilon all over again. the cockpit is less than a meter thick in 1/270, so the scale is factually wrong. we see 6 ft tall adam driver standing up with headroom on the Upsilons bridge, so we know FFG just warped the scale of a 3+ meter cockpit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 7:23 AM, RogueLeader42 said:

At least the EU tried.

Pablo Hidalgo recently stated that both Version of Han and Greedos Shooting are equally canon and that He doesn't Care about inconsistencies. In the vain of "It's up to Interpretation of everybody himself what Version of a Story is the correct one".

When you push your lore master to the breaking point...

Share this post


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

well ball turrets and cockpit size is the relevant measure. cgi messes up all the time, particularly with ships in motion, but if  the crew doesnt fit you know its too small.

we know there is a person in each of the little balls on the keel and tail, and we know each of those balls should be bigger than an x-wings cockpit glass is long. we know this because a human is sitting in both and the length of the glass is a fairly minimum amount of space to contain 1 person inside, which is about 2 meters. if the ball turrets are 2 meters wide, then the scale is around 1/450. 

this is like the Upsilon all over again. the cockpit is less than a meter thick in 1/270, so the scale is factually wrong. we see 6 ft tall adam driver standing up with headroom on the Upsilons bridge, so we know FFG just warped the scale of a 3+ meter cockpit. 

Your posts are fascinating. You are so wrong but so convinced to be right.

Look at Azraspe‘s post if you want to go by ball turret, which puts the entire ship between 27 and 36m, and clearly on a large base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-09-11 at 11:52 AM, 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.

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

37026064081_eb201b1f85_b.jpg

 

For the record, the actress pictured is 1.71m tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

For the record, the actress pictured is 1.71m tall.

Not really: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4511652/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

She is 1.57m or 5' 2".

star-wars-portfolio-06-2017-ss04.jpg

We assumed a height of 1.60 m to round up, and maybe account for boots and helmet.

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 0:39 AM, GreenDragoon said:

(e:) The model is estimated to be 96mm. I won't even try to fiure out how far the green X-Wing is behind the bomber. But we can do one more thing: if the bomber would be exactly between the red and the green X-Wing, then his correct model size would be 99mm.
I believe that there is more space between bomber and green (due to the A-Wing also being there), but we can't tell for sure. However if it was then the correct model size would be below 99mm, and that is exactly what we have.

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!

Wow thanks for this work! 

 

Share this post


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

Not really: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4511652/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

She is 1.57m or 5' 2".

star-wars-portfolio-06-2017-ss04.jpg

We assumed a height of 1.60 m to round up, and maybe account for boots and helmet.

Perhaps you are having a problem telling the two actresses apart..  

Kelly Marie Tran plays Rose Tico, while her sister - a resistance gunner named Paige Tico, is played by Veronica Ngo, who is 1.71 m tall.

Edited by That Blasted Samophlange

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...