That's not inconsistent with what I'm saying [unless you mean four feet wide]. Whoever claims the FFG A-Wing is in scale is effectively saying that bubble canopy is actually eight feet long . Look at that pilot's head. That is not a goddammed eight-foot long bubble canopy.

The TIE Advanced in that image is not to scale.

Assuming the pilot is to scale and not simply a model that fit. Based on the movie shots FFG's A-wing looks about right relative to the other ships.

I've seen enough behind-the-scenes from ILM to be confident that the A-Wing was designed to be 5m long or less. The movie shots you were referring to (discussed earlier in this thread) don't have a clear consensus, and you're ignoring every other point of fact.

By the way, this is a movie shot:

Movie canon A-Wing cockpit is no wider than 1m, and not much longer front to back. I'm sorry, but the FFG model is out of scale. That's all good with me; I own 8 of them, and the scale is still probably closer than any previous toy or game piece. But it still isn't scale, and as long as you insist otherwise, you are wrong.

That's not inconsistent with what I'm saying [unless you mean four feet wide]. Whoever claims the FFG A-Wing is in scale is effectively saying that bubble canopy is actually eight feet long . Look at that pilot's head. That is not a goddammed eight-foot long bubble canopy.

The TIE Advanced in that image is not to scale.

Assuming the pilot is to scale and not simply a model that fit. Based on the movie shots FFG's A-wing looks about right relative to the other ships.

I've seen enough behind-the-scenes from ILM to be confident that the A-Wing was designed to be 5m long or less. The movie shots you were referring to (discussed earlier in this thread) don't have a clear consensus, and you're ignoring every other point of fact.

By the way, this is a movie shot:

Movie canon A-Wing cockpit is no wider than 1m, and not much longer front to back. I'm sorry, but the FFG model is out of scale. That's all good with me; I own 8 of them, and the scale is still probably closer than any previous toy or game piece. But it still isn't scale, and as long as you insist otherwise, you are wrong.

Interior sets mean nothing. They were built to look good on camera. They have very little to do with the model other than looking vaguely similar. People don't fit in the Falcon, so, what is out of scale, Chewie?

I love how the guys who are arguing it's to scale all refer back to that flyby image and just claim LFL is right, while the guys who claim it isn't to scale actually show proof of how small the A-Wing actually is in more than one or two images, but like, six different ones.

Interior sets mean nothing.

1) It's not just the interior set. The interior set confirms what the a-wing model used in ROTJ shows: the pilot is a tight fit in the cockpit, and the a-wing is small. The ONLY source for the 9.6m a-wing is some random EU source said "this is how long it is", it has no support at all in the movies.

2) Interior sets mean something when we're talking about things that are visible on-camera. The Falcon set issue you're talking about is something that is only visible in outside shots and is never shown on-screen. All it proves is that the set designer didn't bother with keeping the scale correct for things that aren't visible, as long as the final result looks right from the angles that are actually used. For example, matte paintings aren't the same scale, a cockpit frame might be smaller than the correct scale but filmed from closer to the camera to make it appear larger, etc. But this issue doesn't happen with the a-wing cockpit. The relevant parts of the set are all things that are clearly visible on-screen, are the result of a deliberate choice by the set designer to show a small cockpit.

Interior sets mean nothing.

1) It's not just the interior set. The interior set confirms what the a-wing model used in ROTJ shows: the pilot is a tight fit in the cockpit, and the a-wing is small. The ONLY source for the 9.6m a-wing is some random EU source said "this is how long it is", it has no support at all in the movies.

2) Interior sets mean something when we're talking about things that are visible on-camera. The Falcon set issue you're talking about is something that is only visible in outside shots and is never shown on-screen. All it proves is that the set designer didn't bother with keeping the scale correct for things that aren't visible, as long as the final result looks right from the angles that are actually used. For example, matte paintings aren't the same scale, a cockpit frame might be smaller than the correct scale but filmed from closer to the camera to make it appear larger, etc. But this issue doesn't happen with the a-wing cockpit. The relevant parts of the set are all things that are clearly visible on-screen, are the result of a deliberate choice by the set designer to show a small cockpit.

It shows that Chewies feet dangle in space while the Falcon is flying around or that one of them is out of scale, unless your contention is that Chewies legs don't exist while flying the Falcon? That interior shot would be too small for the scale they use with the models. Interior shots aren't designed to scale, they never were. They're designed to show you have a pilot in a cockpit and he takes up the whole screen. That's how every cockpit ever is made for camera filming. They ARE NOT TO SCALE. If you want to use outside shots of pilot heads in cockpits, or relative size next to other ships, fine. But the interior sets have NOTHING to do with scale.

I honestly don't give a crap one way or another about the supposed scale of a fictional ship in a fictional movie. It's an argument for argument's sake. But using that particular bit of evidence irks me because it's irrelevant, even in this inane debate.

But just to reiterate your own tiresome argument:

All it proves is that the set designer didn't bother with keeping the scale correct for things that aren't visible

EXACTLY. Just like how the exterior of the A-Wing is NEVER VISIBLE from the cockpit shot, and so can be a completely different scale than the interior. Just like the Falcon. Just like any partial set vs. a bunch of models that were never built in full scale.

All it proves is that the set designer didn't bother with keeping the scale correct for things that aren't visible

EXACTLY. Just like how the exterior of the A-Wing is NEVER VISIBLE from the cockpit shot, and so can be a completely different scale than the interior. Just like the Falcon. Just like any partial set vs. a bunch of models that were never built in full scale.

Technically speaking, the A-wing's vertstabs are visible from the cockpit set.

Assuming that, regardless of actual size, both sides of the argument accept that the A-wing is the same proportionately, actual dimensions can be calculated by comparing the canopy frame(with human size reference) to the vertstabs.

(disclaimer: I am not enough of a math wiz to do the actual calculations, sorry)

All it proves is that the set designer didn't bother with keeping the scale correct for things that aren't visible

EXACTLY. Just like how the exterior of the A-Wing is NEVER VISIBLE from the cockpit shot, and so can be a completely different scale than the interior. Just like the Falcon. Just like any partial set vs. a bunch of models that were never built in full scale.

Technically speaking, the A-wing's vertstabs are visible from the cockpit set.

Assuming that, regardless of actual size, both sides of the argument accept that the A-wing is the same proportionately, actual dimensions can be calculated by comparing the canopy frame(with human size reference) to the vertstabs.

(disclaimer: I am not enough of a math wiz to do the actual calculations, sorry)

Nope, you can't, because they can't agree on how big the ship is, one side could say they're futher back than the other and the perspective of the camera would make them look the same size.

There isn't anything you can use to get the actual size of the model out of that. The best thing is try to find frames of the awing where you can compare them coming on screen at the same moment as another ship.

The devil in the details, and I'm sure it's somewhere in this gerd forsaken thread, is that the models were built at different scales than each other so it's pointless. This whole argument is pointless. They didn't care enough when filming to get perfect scale between models, they just wanted cool ships. Only much later when people get to be anal retentive about minute, unimportant details does this ever come up.

It shows that Chewies feet dangle in space while the Falcon is flying around or that one of them is out of scale, unless your contention is that Chewies legs don't exist while flying the Falcon?

No, my argument is THAT PART OF THE SET IS NOT VISIBLE ON-SCREEN . It doesn't exist in the movie, therefore it doesn't matter. This is like looking at a "behind the scenes" look at the matte painting of the death star and claiming that it proves that the death star is really a 2d disc, not a sphere.

They're designed to show you have a pilot in a cockpit and he takes up the whole screen. That's how every cockpit ever is made for camera filming.

And you're wrong about that. Other ships in the Star Wars movies have more cockpit space around the pilot. For example, here's a similar shot of an x-wing cockpit. Notice that there's significantly more space around the pilot:

The simple fact is that the people who designed the a-wing made a deliberate choice to create a tiny fighter with a cockpit that is barely big enough to hold the pilot. Both the interior set and external ship model agree on this size.

EXACTLY. Just like how the exterior of the A-Wing is NEVER VISIBLE from the cockpit shot, and so can be a completely different scale than the interior.

Except the exterior IS visible. And not just the fins and stuff in the background, the canopy frame and the back of the pilot's headrest are exterior parts of the model. We can them compare the relative size of the pilot to the canopy frame in the interior set with the relative size of the pilot to the canopy frame on the exterior model, and they're pretty much the same. For the 9.6m length to be even close to accurate one or the other would have to show a small pilot with a lot of space around them in the cockpit. And neither version shows this, they both have a cockpit that is a tight fit around the pilot, which means a ship that is much smaller than 9.6m

I know jedi training is exhausting but... i mean , really... asleep at the wheel Luke... is that a good example to set to all the other pilots?

Put your X-Wing and A-Wing side by side.

Now look at the shot of the interior.

Does that actually look like it matches up to you people?

I gave up on this argubate the last time it came up as it just goes round in circles.

I gave up on this argubate the last time it came up as it just goes round in circles.

But its Thursday! Scale Day according to the schedule.

Isn't is possible they have dimensional manipulation technology that never gets mentioned? Perhaps the A-Wings (and other ships, perhaps) vary in size depending on the mission.

If this was a couple of year ago all it would have taken would be for enough people to state that that's the truth, and then it would have been made canon, and certain posters here would have asserted that ti was correct.

... I think the a-wing model is too large, the y-wing is slightly too small, and the hwk model is about half the size it should be...

A fair assessment in my eyes too and what i said in my OP last time i opened up this can of worms (except the bit about the HWK)

Put your X-Wing and A-Wing side by side.

Now look at the shot of the interior.

Does that actually look like it matches up to you people?

What do you mean 'you people'?

Put your X-Wing and A-Wing side by side.

Now look at the shot of the interior.

Does that actually look like it matches up to you people?

Put your X-Wing and A-Wing side by side.

Now look at the shot of the interior.

Does that actually look like it matches up to you people?

Yep and look how much larger they all are next to the Falcon

You are right though, in that shot it looks like A-wings are fairly large, which would indicate that they are being flown by giants.

It also looks like their thrusters are larger than the y-wings spars. Which is interesting in itself.

Are you saying RotJ is wrong?

Are you saying RotJ is wrong?

Me?

No, I am just saying if we put all the images together from RotJ, then we end up with an A-wing that has thrusters larger in circumference than a y-wings spars, and that is flown by giants.

I am cool with that.

I gave up on this argubate the last time it came up as it just goes round in circles.

But its Thursday! Scale Day according to the schedule.

Every day is Scale Day.

I love how the guys who are arguing it's to scale all refer back to that flyby image and just claim LFL is right, while the guys who claim it isn't to scale actually show proof of how small the A-Wing actually is in more than one or two images, but like, six different ones.

I think my comments keep getting covered in snow. There more than one scale model for the A-Wing and it looks like that model not shown in this topic is the one used at the SW homepage for the A-Wing file. That model has a pilot that is small enough in scale in relation to the A-Wing that it would be the list offical LFL size of a A-Wing.

The funny thing is it shows both scale versions of the A-Wing in Star Wars complete vehicles. This makes me believe even more there very well is a upper and lowercase A-Wing so to speak. OR as one poster put it, the smaller ones were moded from Arrow heads to be "A-Wings" while the larger ones are the massproduced fullscale true A-Wing.

Put your X-Wing and A-Wing side by side.

Now look at the shot of the interior.

Does that actually look like it matches up to you people?

Yes thats probably the other scale model I saw. Or its flowen by Zentradi