Still not seeing it. The main hanger bay of Home One (based on the size of the shuttle inside it) is only slightly larger than the small secondary bay on the SD.

Also, I was comparing a constructed set (a model) that was then supposed to be inside a completely different structure (another model). How is that flawed? Unless you're claiming the Home One model was built with its hanger bay fully constructed inside it, complete with the shuttle? Otherwise you're doing exactly what I said, using the exterior shot of the actual "outside" of a fictional model not constructed to any kind of scale, and then taking the measurements of the fictional and totally separately designed "inside" of the landing bay. "Well, we see the hanger bay is this large from inside, and the opening on the model that represents it is this percent of the ship on the outside, ergo..." And how are you figuring the inside of the landing bay anyway? By the sizes of the ships in it? There is a hot debate about the size of the ships in the bay, and the Falcon itself was 3 different sizes, so you can't figure it that way. If you base it off the size of an actual set built, and then figure the ship sizes off that, okay. But then suddenly you end up with ships that can't possibly be the sizes they are saying they are elsewhere in the movies.

I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something, you absolutely are using the models as a source of scale to compare them to each other. And that in and of itself is unreliable since they aren't to scale with each other. They are however big they need to be for each shot.

I disagree I'm on the opposite spectrum. It's fine if you want to believe it's a certain size. You seem to have ignored my point that you can't really "prove" it is. I'll read the forum (already started) but so far it's supporting me, not you. "They built a model." Great. I can build a model too, and use it to prove the Home One was 18 feet long and was secretly a TARDIS (see that third Mon Cal in the back right? He's a Time Lord. Because reasons). Building your own evidence to prove you're side is right isn't how you prove something.

As to the size of the ship, I'm only saying "This is what you have and if you want to play it in a match, this is the model you use." Unless of course your opponent is fine with you using your proxy. Which means that neither side gets to care about what scale is "correct" and just that they like the look of the model. And that's all I meant by why argue about it?

" honestly the answer is probably because 'plot armour' the same reason the rebels won the day against "a HUGE fleet and A legion of his best stormtroopers" ~~ Lurtz

This is humorous to me because it is the exact same reason the Home One is whatever size they say it is.

I doubt the Empire's sensors couldn't detect a ship substantially larger than the others. I expect that if it is larger than the rest, it was intentionally left to be destroyed last for pretty much the reasons I already stated (all of which are supported by the portrayal of the Emperor). Just my opinion. Just as your "... in fact really the indisputable evidence..." is so far nothing but others opinions.

Now don't let all this give you the wrong idea about me. I would love to have a fleet of Star Wars ships fully to scale with each other, from the SSD on down. It's a dream of mine, so don't just toss me into the "you don't care about scale" column.

I've just seen too many discussions of scale and size and "reality" turn into bitter, heated, b***h-fests where everyone is screaming they can "prove" some imaginary concept based on made up "evidence." I'd rather put that energy into playing the game.

If you've found a miniature to the scale you think it should be, I'm happy for you.

--edit--

Followed and read your link.

"Home One is really huge. It's actually one of the most accurately measurable big ships due to the docking bay that we see the Falcon, Lambda shuttle, and various fighters in. It's not in the same class as Executor, but definitely a whole lot bigger than an ISD."

" The only Star Wars canon that we actually care about is what you see on screen during the Original Trilogy. Throw everything else you know (or think you know) about Star Wars out the window, because we're going to trample all of that under our feet and stamp it into a gooey mess in the pursuit of perfectly capturing the look and feel of those movies like has never been done before."

Huh...looks like I was exactly correct in what I said earlier; they based their measurements exactly as I proposed they did. Screen caps of the movie, and extrapolating from there. Except to do that, you have to know beyond doubt the actual size of one of the ships, and we don't. They argue "well, the bay opening has to be this big, because the shuttle is shown in and leaving it and the shuttle is at least this big by our figures." Every calculation is based on an assumption, not a fact. Even if you had the exact measurements of the sound stage used for the hanger set, that isn't to scale with the totally separate construction of the model. We're back to the fact that those are two different "set pieces" that no one checked with each other to be sure they were scaled (just like the interior/exterior shots of houses in sit-coms). And using the shot as "fact" presumes the model of the shuttle was superimposed into the shot at the right degree of scale to what it was leaving; you don't know that it was. Hence my earlier remark that this is all based on the assumption they are shown at the correct scale to one another.

All your link "proves" is people can find ways to justify whatever they want to be, to be.

Honestly, the closest "accurate" way I can think of, off the top of my head, to figure how big something is in Star Wars, is count and contrast the windows drilled into them. I think I read somewhere that they used the same drill bit for the windows, but no promises.

There was one model that was deliberately made to scale with another, to avoid having to deal with more work after the filming, and that was the 3rd ISD model, made for shots with the SSD.

The SSD was 8.5 times longer than the model made to be in shots with it.

That amusingly is one that people seem to most want to argue about.

Making the SSD 13,600m, instead of the 19,000m it has grown too.

you're going all over the place, you say you're comparing models but you started with this.

"All of this is based on one very flawed and incorrect assumption; that the studio models are all made scale to each other. "

heres the important part. " All of this is based on one"

thats not true, I have gone over at least 3 different arguments for the size. most are washy at best, the same could be said for arguments that it is 1300m but there is one argument that from an engineering stand point is indisputable.

you argue there about perception for a sec, etc. not gonna go into how thats a bad rabbit hole.

ok here how you're misunderstanding me. the scale of the model is irrelevant as long as we have a point of reference and specific information. Let me give you an example.

Lets say greyhound buses dont exist in the world but somebody makes a 1/270 scale model of one. Lets say also that this model he made came in a box describing what the object was used for and gave a very important clue to its size. there was a person clearly fitting going through the side door.

Now we get the range you see. we take what we know about human anatomy and the range of height people can come in (on the average, which is a larger range than the 'hotly' disputed lambda shuttle) and we say the door has to be from this size to this size depending on the average height of the human.

because we have the model we can then measure what the height of the door is and thus get a RANGE of what the total size may be based on how much we have to scale the door up to fit measurements.

its the same with the Home One and the Lambda.

You keep referencing the Falcon, and other ships, and even discussing how perspective can distort how big something is. This is not about perception and I think you're missing the point there.

by the way the Home Ones Range, was figured to be between 3.2km at the lowest end and 3.8km at the highest. that forum i linked you, Which supports your view???? hahahahhahhahaha what? than why did they have to make it 3.7km long? please again read the entirety of the material, or dont but then why claimed you have?

Mel chose to do his models in 3.2km I dont know why he decided on that number exactly over 3.7km but it is still within the range of allowance given the size discrepancies.

Also I wont claim to know anything about star destroyers and other model sizes and what they should be etc. havent done my research on those, and until about a year ago I was ignorant on this particular topic as well.

Btw if youd like to continue to argue about this, your approach will not do. Chucknuckle has the superior tactic, just tell me that the models were 'made wrong' essentially and then you can say whatever you want. sky is red, vader was a girl, Lucas didnt say it so it aint true. etc

the important thing is if you wanted a 20m about tall lambda shuttle to get into the starboard hangar of this Home One model, it would need to be between 3.2 and 3.8km.

Lets say greyhound buses dont exist in the world but somebody makes a 1/270 scale model of one. Lets say also that this model he made came in a box describing what the object was used for and gave a very important clue to its size. there was a person clearly fitting going through the side door.

Now we get the range you see. we take what we know about human anatomy and the range of height people can come in (on the average, which is a larger range than the 'hotly' disputed lambda shuttle) and we say the door has to be from this size to this size depending on the average height of the human.

because we have the model we can then measure what the height of the door is and thus get a RANGE of what the total size may be based on how much we have to scale the door up to fit measurements.

its the same with the Home One and the Lambda.

The key is assuming the model maker didn't just make the door the wrong size...

EDIT: Anyway, can't we all just agree to disagree and move on? If someone wants a bigger Home One, then more power to them. It's no skin off anyone else's nose.

" the important thing is if you wanted a 20m about tall lambda shuttle to get into the starboard hangar of this Home One model, it would need to be between 3.2 and 3.8km. " ~~ Lurtz

They didn't have to make it that large, they chose to based on their assumptions. The way they figure the size is GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The answers are only as reliable as their information, and their information is almost entirely manufactured.

I think we're talking past each other. I said the forum supports my position because in their own words, it does. They flat out state they use the films as their source of measurement, and that source is not a good one even using engineering. How do you "prove" the length of the ship? Oh, in scale to the hanger bay. Okay fine, how are "proving" the landing bay? Oh, the size of the shuttle in relation to the bay. Fine, how do you know the composite effect showing the shuttle leaving is right? Maybe they screwed the shot up and the lambda was supposed to be half the size it was, wouldn't that make Home One 7K long? How do you even know for a fact the shuttle is 20 meters high?

I'm sorry, but you "avoiding" perception is not a rabbit hole, it's a cornerstone. The entirety of your position is that these things appear to be certain sizes. There is plenty of on screen footage to disprove the basis that the Lamba is 20m tall based on Vader's height, the measurements of the ramp he descends, and that ramp in relation to the rest of the shuttle. If the larger size is predicated on the 20m shuttle, and it's not 20m, then the stance is wrong. These aren't facts, they're presumptions, and you have yet to show me any defense they're otherwise. Avoiding something you can't dispute by dismissing it doesn't negate a point.

To my knowledge, the shuttle wasn't built full size, just the ramp. So we're right back to a set piece, being part of a larger set piece, being compared to an even larger set piece, none of them scaled together properly, and then using the largest as a "defined" measurement when this was not done during the construction process. They made models or sets, perhaps claiming some were certain sizes, but they weren't done with near the exactness you and others are trying to work out.

This is not much different from the wrong scale figure being put into the entirely different scale A-Wing model, fueling hours of debate how big the fighter "should" be. Is it a cramped snubnose like the model shots show, or the roomy cockpit of a larger fighter like the live action shots show?

There was little to no effort put into the models of the films, or the effect composites, to keep them to any set and "realistic" scale, and the films are the source of the data being used as gospel. You're putting more thought and reality into it than the creators, and that's why the numbers differ.

Even if I concede your points, you admit you lack info on the Star Destroyer, but are saying Home One is longer than they are. Wouldn't you have to go through the same steps comparing the Lambda to the Star Destroyer to get it's "real size" before you can say that? Even if the Home One is "supposed" to be over 3km long, what if the average Star Destroyer works out to 5? You seem to be only going through half the work for the conclusion you're making?

Essentially, I'd need to see someone start with the factual, known height of a character (not assumed average -- maybe imperial officers are 4'2", maybe they're 6'9"...they're fictional, why use real world averages?). Take that known factor and compare it to the ramp shot of the Lambda. Micro-measure the ramp section as it relates to the rest of the Lamba. Now compare the "factual" size Lambda against every other ship in the films to get their "real" sizes, and then work backward from there to get the "real" sizes of the other ships, size of the pilots be damned.

I think you'll find almost nothing is the size it's "supposed" to be.

Lastly; " Btw if youd like to continue to argue about this, your approach will not do. Chucknuckle has the superior tactic, just tell me that the models were 'made wrong' essentially and then you can say whatever you want. sky is red, vader was a girl, Lucas didnt say it so it aint true. etc" ~~ Lurtz

Uhm...I did say that. I said they're not to scale with each other and that they didn't take size into consideration when they made them or did composite shots. They made interiors and crammed them into exteriors incapable of holding them. I'd call that wrong. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well enough.

Anyway, everyone is welcome to their own outlook. We don't have to agree on the "real world" size of make believe toys to enjoy them, and the universe they represent.

Heres your lambha shuttle.

http://silodrome.com/lambda-class-t-4a-shuttle/

Blueprints from Lucasfilm for ROTJ

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/taosw/lambdablue2.jpg

Just a cross section but helpful

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/c/c9/CCS_Lambda.jpg/revision/20160224041206

again its going to be in the 20 meter height range because if it wasnt it would be a Tardis. also there was a scale set. also schematics.

I dont know why you keep talking about everything having to be the same scale, obviously that would not work for detail purposes and thats why cinematography is important. but im not talking about perspective which you keep bringing up.

So you think the A wing "model" in the hangar scene is too small was it?

If you have specific gripes, post links.

another photo of set

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/60/5a/c0605aa56d747f241412abb5647ae8e2.jpg

also you totally missed the point of that thread i guess..... im at a loss. give you one final example on that.

Star citizen is a new game coming out, looks awesome highly recommend you give it a looksie.

In it they have fully realized ships with interiors that are explorable/walkable and in that vein certain ships fit into other ships of certain sizes.

What that thread proves, based on the work that the Lambda model was the same interior and exterior size as the films given we have LOTS of reference and schematics the Home One has to be a certain size for the Lambda to enter starboard hangar.

Last try to explain myself, after that I agree to disagree.

" I dont know why you keep talking about everything having to be the same scale, obviously that would not work for detail purposes and thats why cinematography is important. but im not talking about perspective which you keep bringing up."

I fully realize you can't make every model to scale with every other model and that is why cinematography matters. This is also where perspective comes in. When you composite shot 2 or more ships that are not the same scale as each other, you don't have an exact ratio to compare the two. You have to adjust the perspective of one to the other to create the illusion of comparative size. It's how you fit a life size hanger set into a model. This perspective supports my earlier statement (which you ignored) about the effect shot putting the shuttle into the Home One. What if the composite shot was done wrong (to show the ships to actual scale to each other), and it was supposed to be half the size that we see? Then the Home One doubles in length. You can dismiss this just by saying it wasn't done wrong, and you're going with what it shows, and that's fine. But if you do that, then you have to take it for given that every effect shot is right, and there were no mistakes made anywhere. Which brings up the A-Wing issue again.

To which..." So you think the A wing "model" in the hangar scene is too small was it?

If you have specific gripes, post links."

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/124494-a-wings-too-big-or-y-wings-too-small/page-5

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/126912-armada-a-wings-and-scale/page-6

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1356682/star-wars-rebels-season-2-finally-settles-wing-sca

And..." Like other ships ( Executor , for example), the size of the A-wing is in dispute. Fans argue that the 9.6 meters and the derived width and height are too big, because visual evidence from Return of the Jedi seems to suggest the A-wing is very small compared to other starfighters; close-up shots of A-wing pilots show that the cockpit is cramped, and suggest the entire ship cannot be very large.

A size analysis of the studio model used for Return of the Jedi suggests that the length of the ship is half as long as the documented 9.6 meters. Star Wars Technical Journal (Volume Three) states the model is 60 cm long and the pilot figure a 1/8 scale action figure, which results into a length of 4.8 meters. However, it should be noted that it is entirely possible the 1/8 figure was only used because it fit in the cockpit of the model.

Another way to determine the size by comparing the headroom of the pilot with the relative size of the cockpit to the entire fighter, would be to compare the cockpit film set with the studio model.

The size comparison chart found in the 2011 reference book Millennium Falcon Owner's Workshop Manual also depicts an RZ-1 A-wing. By using the well documented sizes of the Millennium Falcon and the X-wing as a scale, the resulting A-wing size is roughly 7.0 meters.

Although it is unknown on what the original 9.6 meter figure is based on, like the issue on Home One , the official length remains 9.6 meters until a canon source states otherwise." ~~ http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/RZ-1_A-wing_interceptor/Legends

Just for a couple.

Next, I want to thank you for the links to the set piece. Wasn't familiar with it, and was truly tickled to see it! Still, devil's advocate...

" again its going to be in the 20 meter height range because if it wasnt it would be a Tardis. also there was a scale set. also schematics." This doesn't automatically follow. You've proven the set piece was that size. What if (and this is purely in humor so don't get tetchy), in the Star Wars universe, Darth Vader is only 3 feet tall? Or what if he was 8 feet tall? Show me in the movies where it states the height of any character? There goes your premise of the shuttle provably being 20 meters. Sure, the life size set was that big, to fit real world actors. It's a bit like Hobbits after that.

Lastly:

" What that thread proves, based on the work that the Lambda model was the same interior and exterior size as the films given we have LOTS of reference and schematics the Home One has to be a certain size for the Lambda to enter starboard hangar."

...except it doesn't; it proves a size ratio exists between Home One and the Lambda. Which brings us back to "it's not real and they didn't get the sizes 'right.'"

I appreciate the work they've done and the resources they've used. I honestly do. But...they're using real world measurements as the basis when in film it's never given. They've calculated that if a Home One was built to scale with the blueprints for the shuttle set, it would be the size they say in real life. Bravo. And I mean that, honestly, not being snide.

But Home One isn't in the real world. Nor are the shuttle or Vader. You can't take a measurement source from outside the universe and apply it to inside said universe and claim you are still accurate.

Just, stay in good humor a moment and follow this. I agree that with their number crunching and attention to minutia, they did good work and have proven, from a certain perspective, that Home One must be larger than what they claim.

However, what this thread equally "proves" is simply that the Lambda can not be 20 meters tall, because it fit the hanger of a ship stated to be only around 1Km. Thus, it also equally proves Vader is only about a meter tall, due to the scale of Vader to the shuttle, and that Ewoks and Jawa are just plain dang short! Just depends how you chose to look at it. You can roll your eyes and say I'm just being silly, even stupid, at this point. But it ends up the same position you're putting forward: "the measurements they applied to things are wrong." I'm just anchoring to a different number as the one that is "right."

At best, they've taken the Lambda and made it the key for figuring out the size of everything in the real world. But... this drags you into the nightmare of doing what I said earlier; applying this same formula to every other ship in the Star Wars universe. And the more you try to apply it, the more you'll only end up "breaking" the universe you say you love. Heck, I'd wager that by the time you applied it to everything, you'd find just as many measurements wrong as you would if you went with Vader only being 3 feet tall and scaled up from there.

Is the Home One miniature too small? Is the Star Destroyer scaled right? Is anything actually "correct" or is the shuttle the only thing they got right in the whole series? Does it change anything either way?

Star Wars is horribly flawed. More so than I think many realize. But that's what loving something is...accepting it, flaws and all, not trying to "fix" it.

*shrugs* That's all I have to say on it.

--edit--

Oops...okay, I say more later. My bad.

We do know how tall Darth Vader was, based on his actor. David Prowse was 6'5 and internet sources have Darth at 6'8 perhaps boots or padding but there is your range right there.

Though that doesnt matter because there exists a 1/1 lambda. Appharently you dont like that fact and so its 'opinion' or unimportant or whatever. If scale means so little to you why keep argueing with me about it?

"It's how you fit a life size hanger set into a model. This perspective supports my earlier statement (which you ignored) about the effect shot putting the shuttle into the Home One."

I fail to see what I ignored, please make your point again consicely. I recommend bullet points.

As for the A wing i honestly dont see the problem. It appears to me that the A wing should be around 9.6m long, that makes sense to me, ffg may have gotten it out of scale or something. It appears there is a dispute over its length and you link threads about those disputes.... ok. Do you want me to do the research and give you my opinion? Without looking much into it id say 9.6m for a fighter craft isnt crazy 9.6m is even on the small side for fighters. Something like a real world Saber.

Again without goin to much into that it sounds right and i still dont see the problem.

So say exactly what you think is wrong about the A wing. Either the ffg model. Which i dont own or other

Really the only source you give me there is "star wars technical volume 3" somehow i doubt thats gonna stand to scrutiny.....

But i dont have that manual and so i cannot check this claim. If you have page scans i would love to see those. Though again this doesnt matter too much to me.

Reason why is there is again a range. At the smallest the A wing is 4.6m or whatever they claim, I would on gut feeling really dispute that one but it could be accurate I would have to look into it. But at its largest it is 9.6m

So thats a range of 5.3m not insignificant but not crazy. Its the difference between a super duper small fighter say a bit bigger than a car, and a fighter on the smaller side. Again to use the F Saber example.

Now again, and this goes back to your darth being 3 foot.

Though its interesting that 6'5 equals 3 foot where you are from (i do find this humorous) there is a range for the Home One. Ive said this a few times. Let me reiterate

3.2km to 3.8km thats a nice range that takes into account Alot of factors. But you know whats not in that range, 1300 meters......

Again if you're going to argue that darth vader or whoever and whatever you want doesnt have an knowable height because its whatever you say it is and thus not what i claim, than you should tell me tight now because your not argueing with evidence at all.....

"However, what this thread equally "proves" is simply that the Lambda cannot be 20 meters tall, because it fit the hanger of a ship stated to be only around 1Km. Thus, it also equally proves Vader is only about a meter tall, due to the scale of Vader to the shuttle, and that Ewoks and Jawa are just plain dang short"

............ 'face palm'

I dont have to apply anything to everything? Why do i HAVE to? To make you happy?

Again the reason the Home One is has a great basis for the scale is because of relative objects not perspective which you chide me for, wrongly, but continue to use yourself. The case of vader for instance.

I dont think they got things as wrong as you think. I think companies that came in and tried to puff up the stats for everything mainly got things wrong. WEGs for instance since you keep bringing up the executer.

Also do you know where that 1300m length you and others are fond of came from? I do, it wasnt lucas film or any official sources. Is thaf what you think the size is?

*epic facepalm* We have got to be talking past each other. Or having two separate conversations.

1. " We do know how tall Darth Vader was, based on his actor. David Prowse was 6'5 and internet sources have Darth at 6'8 perhaps boots or padding but there is your range right there."

No. You don't know that. You don't know that at all. Darth Vader is a fictional character , existing completely free of the height of the actor that played him. The basis of your argument folds instantly when applied to pretty much any fictional character played by Russel Crowe, Tom Cruise, or anyone that has played a Dwarf or Hobbit in Lord of the Rings. Or are you going to tell me Paul Rudd was really only millimeters tall when he played Ant-Man? All you're proving is David Prowse is that height when he wears a cosplay of Vader. Good for you. Also, what the internet says Darth Vader's height is has nothing to do with using only movie stated canon which is what the thread you linked said they were doing. You show me in the movie where they say "Oh wow, check it out Lord Vader, when David Prowse dresses up in your spare suit, you two could be twins!" and I'll agree you can use that as source material for your stance.

2, " Though that doesnt matter because there exists a 1/1 lambda. Appharently you dont like that fact and so its 'opinion' or unimportant or whatever. If scale means so little to you why keep argueing with me about it?"

You're right. A 1/1 Lambda built to the scale of Earthly humans exists, to make a movie about fictional places, people, and ships that do not . Take this line of reasoning and go backward. The 1/1 set built for Hobbits would only be about 5' 5" high because that's how tall Hobbits are; the source material says so. Except it's not, because a fictional population played by real people will always be on sets built to the scale of the real people, not the fictional ones. They're not from Earth, and no where (to my memory) in any movie canon scene do they state the given height of anyone in Star Wars. It's just your opinion that they're the same. Feel free to correct that if I am wrong. And the argument you put forward is, according to your own source, using only movie stated canon.

3. "... Do you want me to do the research and give you my opinion?" ... " Really the only source you give me there is "star wars technical volume 3" somehow i doubt thats gonna stand to scrutiny....."

You asked for links to verify, presumably to prove I wasn't making it up. I cited several threads and there were multiple sources contained in just that one over-all quote (note, the quote itself isn't from the tech manual you site).

4. "A gain if you're going to argue that darth vader or whoever and whatever you want doesnt have an knowable height because its whatever you say it is and thus not what i claim, than you should tell me tight now because your not argueing with evidence at all....."

I never once said his height wasn't knowable because it was whatever I said it is. I said Darth Vader doesn't have a stated height according to in movie canon . I'm not saying it's not what you claim because I'm making up a height. I'm saying your thread's own cited source never states it. You have no in world evidence at all. A claim that Vader is 3 feet tall (something I didn't do, by the way, I jokingly said what if because it totally changes the size of the shuttle) is just as valid as your claim he is 6'5" because it is never stated in movie canon . Your claim he is 6'5" is based on invalid evidence that an actor in a costume in the real world was that height when playing a totally fictional character. Again, whose height is never given in film canon . So in fact sir, you are making up his height (or citing people who did).

5. " I dont have to apply anything to everything? Why do i HAVE to? To make you happy?"

No, it's a crazy little thing called consistency . It's sort of the basis of your whole argument. You know, how the Home One has to be a certain size to be consistent with the shuttle? And that the Home One is bigger than a Star Destroyer? Except you never did give us the size of a Star Destroy consistent with a 20 meter shuttle to have an accurate comparison of them, leaving your claim entirely unproven. The shuttle bay on the Star Destroyer is the smaller forward bay. On the mini, it's rather comparable to the main bay on the Home One, so at a glace, I'd have to say the two are pretty close to correctly scaled if the shuttle is your only "evidence."

6. " I dont think they got things as wrong as you think."

Fair enough. I have my opinion, you have yours. On my side is the scale issue of the A-Wing, the Executor, the Falcon (if kept to scale with the actors, ends up being 3 different sizes in the films), your own Home One, B-Wings, very possibly the Star Destroyer itself based on the shuttle measurements, and probably more if I bothered to look. On your side is Home One; with the admission you really haven't looked past that.

To sum: You don't get to move the goal posts. You're using only canon or you're not. You cited a thread which states they use only the films as canon to "prove" your stance. You then repeatedly use data from real world sources and claim that they are factually equivalent to entirely fictional data that is never clearly stated in film canon. To wit, we know Gimli is played in real life by John Rhys-Davies. John Rhys-Davies is 6'1". Ergo, we know Gimli must be 6'1" tall (using only the films as sources but bringing in the height of the actor as proof?).

The link you gave me providing "indisputable evidence" that your claim is provably valid states they use exclusively in film canon only. Yet you argue using real world actor heights, set construction, and blueprints based on real world conditions. None of which are stated in the films. The only source they are using. Tossing out all but the films means the only thing they proved was that the numbers assigned outside the films don't work. Something is wrong.

Bringing in the outside material to give measure to the fictional universe (blueprints, actor heights, sets, etc.) allows people to do what you're falsely saying they did, which is give real world sizes to these fictional worlds. And yes, you are falsely claiming this because unless I missed something, they state more than once they are not using anything that isn't in the movies when creating their Home One. So the "evidence" of blueprints, actor heights, sets, etc. are inadmissible unless they are clearly stated as existing in the films themselves (i.e. an onscreen actor actually speaking the line "The Lambda shuttle is 20 meters high" or "Lord Vader is the exact same height the Earth human David Prowse would be if he wore his armor"). All they can prove is the sizes don't match if we say they are what non film canon sources say they are. Using only film canon sources you have this: The shuttle clearly did fit the bay on Home One, so we know Home One is x many times larger than the Lambda. We also know Vader fit in the shuttle, so we know the shuttle is x many times larger than Vader. But we don't have any numbers. Not till you apply data that doesn't exist in film canon.

When you try to make it real , you only end up proving what we already knew...it's not.

" Also do you know where that 1300m length you and others are fond of came from? I do, it wasnt lucas film or any official sources. Is thaf what you think the size is?"

I think its size is whatever FFG and Lucasfilm says it is. Just as I think the length of a real world Home One divined (probably correctly, I might add, as I touched on in my last post?) using the real world sources of actors (who are not the fictional characters they represent), sets (built for real world actors, not the fictional characters they represent), and blueprints (made to real world measurements to build real world sets for real world actors who are not the fictional characters they represent) has absolutely nothing to do with how big the completely fictional Home One in the films is. Just my opinion.

​You strike me as a sharp chap, Lurtz. I definitely don't want to post this until I very clearly say that I do understand, and would absolutely use, several of the points you have. You and the folks in that forum have done a lot of work, and a bang up job of it. I've seen some of Mel's work and from what I've seen, I'd say he puts a lot of effort into trying to keep things "accurate" and "to scale."

Some of your statements make me unsure if you've read my posts fully, or if I'm not articulating some points quite well enough. I think this would be a very fun conversation in person instead of hindered by being text only.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this one, and that's absolutely fine. We both have our reasons, and I'd dare go so far as to say we're both valid. Me if we stay in movie canon, you if we step outside it. As Sir Alec Guiness said, "... you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

And personally, no matter what the "correct" scale, I'm always up for bigger miniatures.

Rather than throwing these huge walls of text at eachother, perhaps look at it from a different angle. Due to the inconsistencies in the movies, I believe almost everyone has a different view of the ship's sizes. For me the CR-90 always looked closer to 250 meters compared to the ISD in the opening scene. The Nebulon-B I estimated at 750 meters or so, Home One at 3km+ and the normal MC cruisers at roughly the same length as an ISD. The Executor I prefer at about 10-12 kilometer.

To this day, I prefer these relative sizes to the official sizes. But the official sizes need to be there even if they don't make sense, simply because there are too many interpretations of the size possible. I'm quite happy with the approach of Armada to make the ship sizes closer to one another for that reason, though its far from perfect for me. The CR-90 is too large imho compared to the Nebulon. The Nebulon compared to the victory is about right, though I'd have preferred it a cm longer, and the Victory looks appropriately small next to the ISD. The Assault Frigate looks way too large and bulky, yet the MC-80 looks too small compared to the ISD imho. But they could have done a lot worse.

Agreed.

The key is assuming the model maker didn't just make the door the wrong size..

That's exactly what happened. I thought this was settled a year ago.

Here's what the door should have looked like:

Here's what the door on the model looked like. It was clearly made too small.

Even so, if your favorite ship is the Home One, then you should actually want the Home One to be a small as possible, not larger than it should be. Making the ship bigger doesn't increase it's weaponry or firepower. It only makes the ship relatively weaker. A four times increase in mass without a four times increase in weaponry make the ship less effective and much crappier.

Dear FFG,

If you can somehow work your black magic to make your ships appear like the above, I will gladly hurl my wallet and other liquid personal assets at you.

Sincerely,

Fanboy.

ok dokie, getting a bit better with the numbers. Try to be more concise now.

Let me show you.

1. " We do know how tall Darth Vader was, based on his actor. David Prowse was 6'5 and internet sources have Darth at 6'8 perhaps boots or padding but there is your range right there."

No. You don't know that. You don't know that at all. Darth Vader is a fictional character , existing completely free of the height of the actor that played him. The basis of your argument folds instantly when applied to pretty much any fictional character played by Russel Crowe, Tom Cruise, or anyone that has played a Dwarf or Hobbit in Lord of the Rings. Or are you going to tell me Paul Rudd was really only millimeters tall when he played Ant-Man? All you're proving is David Prowse is that height when he wears a cosplay of Vader. Good for you. Also, what the internet says Darth Vader's height is has nothing to do with using only movie stated canon which is what the thread you linked said they were doing. You show me in the movie where they say "Oh wow, check it out Lord Vader, when David Prowse dresses up in your spare suit, you two could be twins!" and I'll agree you can use that as source material for your stance.

Haha ok, it doesn't matter as ive said, you continue to ignore. Darth Vader's height is irrelevant (Next to the power of the Dark Side!)

The only things that are relevant are the models of the Lambda at 1/1 and the Home One model. 2 things that did exist in the real world.

2, " Though that doesnt matter because there exists a 1/1 lambda. Appharently you dont like that fact and so its 'opinion' or unimportant or whatever. If scale means so little to you why keep argueing with me about it?"

You're right. A 1/1 Lambda built to the scale of Earthly humans exists, to make a movie about fictional places, people, and ships that do not . Take this line of reasoning and go backward. The 1/1 set built for Hobbits would only be about 5' 5" high because that's how tall Hobbits are; the source material says so. Except it's not, because a fictional population played by real people will always be on sets built to the scale of the real people, not the fictional ones. They're not from Earth, and no where (to my memory) in any movie canon scene do they state the given height of anyone in Star Wars. It's just your opinion that they're the same. Feel free to correct that if I am wrong. And the argument you put forward is, according to your own source, using only movie stated canon.

no rabbit hole for me thank you. Im arguing mainly from models and their relative size based on what they could accomplish in the film. I gave you the Lambda which you said didn't exist, and instead of giving me that point you are now arguing that I need Vaders height and that I also need to figure out every other height/size in star wars.

3. "... Do you want me to do the research and give you my opinion?" ... " Really the only source you give me there is "star wars technical volume 3" somehow i doubt thats gonna stand to scrutiny....."

You asked for links to verify, presumably to prove I wasn't making it up. I cited several threads and there were multiple sources contained in just that one over-all quote (note, the quote itself isn't from the tech manual you site).

I asked about the hangar scene specifically....

yes, someone isnt really reading my posts at all.

So you think the A wing "model" in the hangar scene is too small was it?

If you have specific gripes, post links.

The reason I Can do this with the home one, is because there is a 1/1 model of the shuttle. And a Home One model. And they interact in the movie. and btw there is no reason to doubt the star destroyers mile long length. cursory research into the topic leads one to discover there really isnt any controversy on that size. glad you figured out the difference of millimeters, which it would be at that scale. some eye you got there.

Thats assuming that the FFG star destroyer has the correct aperture sizes. which it may, again I wont get into that without doing my research because I dont know. You apparently just know these things though (even thought they are unknowable, convenient)

6. " I dont think they got things as wrong as you think."

Fair enough. I have my opinion, you have yours. On my side is the scale issue of the A-Wing, the Executor, the Falcon (if kept to scale with the actors, ends up being 3 different sizes in the films), your own Home One, B-Wings, very possibly the Star Destroyer itself based on the shuttle measurements, and probably more if I bothered to look. On your side is Home One; with the admission you really haven't looked past that.

Ugh... You've yet to say EXACTLY what your issue is the with A wing. The Executer is another one WEG basically invented a number for, i describe this in the thread. The Falcon (I would ask you what the ranges are on those sizes but I dont care enough and you've shown zero understanding of the concept.

never said anything about B wings..... Nah star destroyer is consistent.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#dimensions

Two separate studies come to the same uncontroversial answer.

To sum: You don't get to move the goal posts. You're using only canon or you're not. You cited a thread which states they use only the films as canon to "prove" your stance. You then repeatedly use data from real world sources and claim that they are factually equivalent to entirely fictional data that is never clearly stated in film canon. To wit, we know Gimli is played in real life by John Rhys-Davies. John Rhys-Davies is 6'1". Ergo, we know Gimli must be 6'1" tall (using only the films as sources but bringing in the height of the actor as proof?).

The link you gave me providing "indisputable evidence" that your claim is provably valid states they use exclusively in film canon only. Yet you argue using real world actor heights, set construction, and blueprints based on real world conditions. None of which are stated in the films. The only source they are using. Tossing out all but the films means the only thing they proved was that the numbers assigned outside the films don't work. Something is wrong.

Bringing in the outside material to give measure to the fictional universe (blueprints, actor heights, sets, etc.) allows people to do what you're falsely saying they did, which is give real world sizes to these fictional worlds. And yes, you are falsely claiming this because unless I missed something, they state more than once they are not using anything that isn't in the movies when creating their Home One. So the "evidence" of blueprints, actor heights, sets, etc. are inadmissible unless they are clearly stated as existing in the films themselves (i.e. an onscreen actor actually speaking the line "The Lambda shuttle is 20 meters high" or "Lord Vader is the exact same height the Earth human David Prowse would be if he wore his armor"). All they can prove is the sizes don't match if we say they are what non film canon sources say they are. Using only film canon sources you have this: The shuttle clearly did fit the bay on Home One, so we know Home One is x many times larger than the Lambda. We also know Vader fit in the shuttle, so we know the shuttle is x many times larger than Vader. But we don't have any numbers. Not till you apply data that doesn't exist in film canon.

When you try to make it real , you only end up proving what we already knew...it's not.

Its about relative height Not how tall Gimli is but how tall he is to something we know the height of, I never advocated vaders height meant anything you brought it up, and continue to do so in an attempt to tell me what my argument is. obviously you dont consider props from the actual film to be a good source to find out about them. I say they are the best, but i guess a lightsaber is 50 foot tall and and 2 foot tall in Arow land. Strange place. I might tell you thats inconsistent, but really its just not a good point of argument.

" Also do you know where that 1300m length you and others are fond of came from? I do, it wasnt lucas film or any official sources. Is thaf what you think the size is?"

I think its size is whatever FFG and Lucasfilm says it is. Just as I think the length of a real world Home One divined (probably correctly, I might add, as I touched on in my last post?) using the real world sources of actors (who are not the fictional characters they represent), sets (built for real world actors, not the fictional characters they represent), and blueprints (made to real world measurements to build real world sets for real world actors who are not the fictional characters they represent) has absolutely nothing to do with how big the completely fictional Home One in the films is. Just my opinion.

​You strike me as a sharp chap, Lurtz. I definitely don't want to post this until I very clearly say that I do understand, and would absolutely use, several of the points you have. You and the folks in that forum have done a lot of work, and a bang up job of it. I've seen some of Mel's work and from what I've seen, I'd say he puts a lot of effort into trying to keep things "accurate" and "to scale."

Some of your statements make me unsure if you've read my posts fully, or if I'm not articulating some points quite well enough. I think this would be a very fun conversation in person instead of hindered by being text only.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this one, and that's absolutely fine. We both have our reasons, and I'd dare go so far as to say we're both valid. Me if we stay in movie canon, you if we step outside it. As Sir Alec Guiness said, "... you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

And personally, no matter what the "correct" scale, I'm always up for bigger miniatures.

its from WEG's... Lucasfilm never gave Home One a size. You claim FFG is cannon but then you use staying in Movie cannon as an example of you knowing the correct answer. Listen if it makes you happy to believe that everything has every size and no size at all, that stars can fit in pockets and ewoks are the size of skyscrapers that fine I dont recommend engineering but thats fine. But than why post in a thread called "Ship Size"

Hedge: storyboards are not final concepts and change greatly over the course of production. They are also at the mercy of the artist personal take on the image and are not based on schematics. Also That may be an earlier not final storyboard. And thats the only thing youve linked. Chuck got it right when he said he "thought" the modelers got it wrong, you claim you know..... thats nice. what position did you work on the movie?

Im fine with the model lenght. Just tought it need some more grith to the ship