The TIE Striker kinda reminds me of a Kinder Surprise with wings.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Kinder_Surprise_halved.jpg

Okay, maybe that's me not knowing film nomenclature well, but I think you are contradicting yourself in a few places in this short post.

The majority of the ships are built out physically before being remodelled and mapped into any CGI.

There aren't many full-scale models, because only a couple are needed for interaction, and because they're bloody huge (not to mention a time consuming build...).

They are using practical models for the movie, as they did with TFA. It's why the ships actually look good, and the actors can actually interact with them.

Shooting models, however, are very common. They'd be more around the size of 4ft long... ish, but they vary.

No such things in TFA as far as I know, last time such models were used was The Phantom Menace. But you know that already:

Granted, the actual dogfighting scenes in TFA were totally CGI (and noticeably so...), but there are always shooting models of the ships.

If not for "space" battles, where were those shooting models used? For non-combat shots of starships? I haven't seen any "shooting models" of TFA, if you have pictures I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

That's as distinct from the Michael Bay method of shooting the whole movie in front of a greenscreen, and adding everything in post. The are a hell of a lot of practical effects in TFA compared to a lot of other releases over the last few years.

A shooting model is anything that appears on camera at some point. It doesn't need to be full size, per-se. The cockpit shots, like you said, are a great example. Individual wings to appear in hanger bays, etc. A less common practice is to build a shooting model, then map it for transfer to CGI. It's a bit like creating a master for prop making. The confusion in the term probably comes from the original movies literally using stop-motion and dynamic rigs to shoot the dogfights (fun fact: a lot of Top Gun was shot the same way).

In terms of interaction, many scenes can be shot with forced perspective, using smaller scale models. They don't physically touch them, necessarily, but the fact that they're physically there means they can be interacted with (pointed at, blown up, event triggered, etc. all comes under interaction). That can all be done with green screen too - heck, I can do that with a webcam on my laptop - but there's a better sense of realism from physical props; the give away is often the actor's eyes or hand movements.

As for mentioning the Michael Bay effect; building out a model isn't as common as you'd think anymore. The likes of Avatar and Transformers saw the creation of virtual cameras; green screen studios with a sort of augmented reality tablet running the scene behind the actors, acting as the camera controls. It was innovative as hell, and the technology is amazing, but the fact remains you're injecting real characters into a pre-rendered, post-polished world - you'll never quite get that perfect interaction between actors and environment because the environment (save for a few green painted boxes) isn't actually there. This sort of shooting was avoided during TFA, as Abrams dislikes that style. He made a conscious (and very public) decision to using practical effects wherever possible, despite cost. Some of the prop makers working on the project pretty much credit him with saving the UK practical effects industry.

Those designs just look really really lazy.

I love how people are calling the TIE Striker lazy and yet would be crying tears of joy if the TIE Defender was put on-screen.

It's an Imperial fighter, it's going to look like a TIE. It's actually one of the more unique-looking TIE variants from the movies too.

It's lazy because of how the TIE ball was simply cut in half and they added a cylinder between the two parts, leaving the hatch with half part in each edge.

The Tie Defender is also lazy cuz its the 3 Interceptor panels flipped and connected the Tie ball from behind. If it weren't for the fact that it's the most OP ship you get to pilot in one of the best SW PC games in the 90s no one would remember it. Seriously, take off those rose-tinted glasses.

I'd hazard to even say that the design of the Tie Striker looks elegant in comparison.

Looking at it this way, the Interceptor is also lazy - all they did was change the shape of the wings...

Why do ties have solar panels anyways!? They're such a lazy design and if they were rebel ships we'd be calling them H-wings!

A shooting model is anything that appears on camera at some point. It doesn't need to be full size, per-se. The cockpit shots, like you said, are a great example. Individual wings to appear in hanger bays, etc. A less common practice is to build a shooting model, then map it for transfer to CGI. It's a bit like creating a master for prop making. The confusion in the term probably comes from the original movies literally using stop-motion and dynamic rigs to shoot the dogfights (fun fact: a lot of Top Gun was shot the same way).

In terms of interaction, many scenes can be shot with forced perspective, using smaller scale models. They don't physically touch them, necessarily, but the fact that they're physically there means they can be interacted with (pointed at, blown up, event triggered, etc. all comes under interaction). That can all be done with green screen too - heck, I can do that with a webcam on my laptop - but there's a better sense of realism from physical props; the give away is often the actor's eyes or hand movements.

As for mentioning the Michael Bay effect; building out a model isn't as common as you'd think anymore. The likes of Avatar and Transformers saw the creation of virtual cameras; green screen studios with a sort of augmented reality tablet running the scene behind the actors, acting as the camera controls. It was innovative as hell, and the technology is amazing, but the fact remains you're injecting real characters into a pre-rendered, post-polished world - you'll never quite get that perfect interaction between actors and environment because the environment (save for a few green painted boxes) isn't actually there. This sort of shooting was avoided during TFA, as Abrams dislikes that style. He made a conscious (and very public) decision to using practical effects wherever possible, despite cost. Some of the prop makers working on the project pretty much credit him with saving the UK practical effects industry.

As the said in the Rogue One story reel, by using real sets there was also a much better feel for where to place the camera's, how to frame the shots.

A shooting model is anything that appears on camera at some point. It doesn't need to be full size, per-se. The cockpit shots, like you said, are a great example. Individual wings to appear in hanger bays, etc. A less common practice is to build a shooting model, then map it for transfer to CGI. It's a bit like creating a master for prop making. The confusion in the term probably comes from the original movies literally using stop-motion and dynamic rigs to shoot the dogfights (fun fact: a lot of Top Gun was shot the same way).

In terms of interaction, many scenes can be shot with forced perspective, using smaller scale models. They don't physically touch them, necessarily, but the fact that they're physically there means they can be interacted with (pointed at, blown up, event triggered, etc. all comes under interaction). That can all be done with green screen too - heck, I can do that with a webcam on my laptop - but there's a better sense of realism from physical props; the give away is often the actor's eyes or hand movements.

As for mentioning the Michael Bay effect; building out a model isn't as common as you'd think anymore. The likes of Avatar and Transformers saw the creation of virtual cameras; green screen studios with a sort of augmented reality tablet running the scene behind the actors, acting as the camera controls. It was innovative as hell, and the technology is amazing, but the fact remains you're injecting real characters into a pre-rendered, post-polished world - you'll never quite get that perfect interaction between actors and environment because the environment (save for a few green painted boxes) isn't actually there. This sort of shooting was avoided during TFA, as Abrams dislikes that style. He made a conscious (and very public) decision to using practical effects wherever possible, despite cost. Some of the prop makers working on the project pretty much credit him with saving the UK practical effects industry.

As the said in the Rogue One story reel, by using real sets there was also a much better feel for where to place the camera's, how to frame the shots.

True, thats something you notice with the prequels when they aren't in a real-ish setting: The camera angles are pretty basic. Shows how little experience there was with CG back then.

Something we didn't thought about the TIE Striker. With the shape of the cockpit and those wings it has to be quite HUGE. Much bigger than any of the fighters

I love it in top down view. So cool.

Something we didn't thought about the TIE Striker. With the shape of the cockpit and those wings it has to be quite HUGE. Much bigger than any of the fighters

That U wing isn't to scale. It's a troop carrier and is much bigger than most fighters. Probably closer to the LAAT or larger. Can't add the pic because I'm on my phone, but here's a link to some concept art from Celebration 15:

http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/1181313/Star_wars_Rogue_One.JPG

It has a large crew compartment in its underbelly that can carry quite a few troopers. Undoubtedly larger than the TIE Striker.

Yes, in that concept art. But the cockpit and the engines match the X-Wing and the Y-Wing. And in this set photo it is too small to carry troopers:

Yes, in that concept art. But the cockpit and the engines match the X-Wing and the Y-Wing. And in this set photo it is too small to carry troopers:

Yeah that crash site looks a bit small, to be sure, but I'm betting this is in the belly if aU wing:

http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Space-Monkey-Featured.jpg

Looking at it this way, the Interceptor is also lazy - all they did was change the shape of the wings...

The interceptor IS a lazy design. But nobody wants to admit it. Instead they want to bang on about ewoks and jar jars.

Something we didn't thought about the TIE Striker. With the shape of the cockpit and those wings it has to be quite HUGE. Much bigger than any of the fighters

That U wing isn't to scale. It's a troop carrier and is much bigger than most fighters. Probably closer to the LAAT or larger. Can't add the pic because I'm on my phone, but here's a link to some concept art from Celebration 15:

http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/1181313/Star_wars_Rogue_One.JPG

It has a large crew compartment in its underbelly that can carry quite a few troopers. Undoubtedly larger than the TIE Striker.

I'm not sure about that. I get that it's a troop carrier but that top down view looks fairly accurate, your picture shows about 6 people in there and if you riped the seats out of my fiesta you'd get 8 people in there like that.

Yes, in that concept art. But the cockpit and the engines match the X-Wing and the Y-Wing. And in this set photo it is too small to carry troopers:

I don't see how that's too small to carry troops, the troop section is like a pod on the bottom. Have a look at your double bed, you could sit 8 people on it i bet? And i'm sure you could fit your bed between those 2 sets of engine thingies.

Just look at the group of people standing behind it, they could all fit it there.

The thing about this image



Is that this little creature (lets say he is 1.50m) is taller than the window. And by the shape of the ceiling you can tell that compartment is not the belly of the U-Wing, is the entire interior of the U-Wing. So probably behind the camera there is a seat for a pilot and that's it. So it's a tight space unlike the Concept Art.

Maybe mine is a bit small, but it is close to what it should be.

Yes, in that concept art. But the cockpit and the engines match the X-Wing and the Y-Wing. And in this set photo it is too small to carry troopers:

I dunno... Judging by the people standing around, I'd peg the distance between those engines at around 4m... A Blackhawk helicopter isn't much wider, if at all & it holds a full squad with door gunner depending on the configuration.

I can definitely see this as a troop carrier.

Don't worry, there is enough space.

The interior doesn't seem to line up with the exterior

The thing about this image

Is that this little creature (lets say he is 1.50m) is taller than the window. And by the shape of the ceiling you can tell that compartment is not the belly of the U-Wing, is the entire interior of the U-Wing. So probably behind the camera there is a seat for a pilot and that's it. So it's a tight space unlike the Concept Art.

Maybe mine is a bit small, but it is close to what it should be.

IDK who made that model (was it you?) but that is not even close to the right size.

Don't worry, there is enough space.

Point and case.

I dunno why so many are talkin about the U-Wing like it's tiny. It's got a big cockpit. Got an even bigger belly.

Case in point.

I'll call this new Tie a half-interceptor.

Is it neccessary? no!

I'd love it if they had featured the Tie Bomber instead.

And this shuttle? nah!

The thing about this image

Is that this little creature (lets say he is 1.50m) is taller than the window. And by the shape of the ceiling you can tell that compartment is not the belly of the U-Wing, is the entire interior of the U-Wing. So probably behind the camera there is a seat for a pilot and that's it. So it's a tight space unlike the Concept Art.

Maybe mine is a bit small, but it is close to what it should be.

IDK who made that model (was it you?) but that is not even close to the right size.

Don't worry, there is enough space.

Point and case.

I dunno why so many are talkin about the U-Wing like it's tiny. It's got a big cockpit. Got an even bigger belly.

And it's the troopship in the trailer right?

We have only a few months before this discussion is completely moot. Let's conjecture more about it while we still can!!!!

The thing about this image

Is that this little creature (lets say he is 1.50m) is taller than the window. And by the shape of the ceiling you can tell that compartment is not the belly of the U-Wing, is the entire interior of the U-Wing. So probably behind the camera there is a seat for a pilot and that's it. So it's a tight space unlike the Concept Art.

Maybe mine is a bit small, but it is close to what it should be.

IDK who made that model (was it you?) but that is not even close to the right size.

Don't worry, there is enough space.

Point and case.

I dunno why so many are talkin about the U-Wing like it's tiny. It's got a big cockpit. Got an even bigger belly.

I dont know what you are talking about, my 3D model fits that interior quite OK. Its more similar to the size of the ship than the Concept art version. In that version you could see humans inside the ship through the window. In both my model and the interior shots you can see that the window is much smaller.