The Nashtah Pup being a Z-95 was invented for X-Wing Miniatures. Tales of the Bounty Hunters described it as something very different (a 2-man mini-shuttle with hull-mounted ports for a pair of lasers, which when detached had room for a pair of dead Wookiees to be stuffed inside), and the deck plan Kael linked to shows a wingless shuttle that's a far better fit for that description.

Presumably FFG was just trying to incorporate some of the Hound's Tooth's Legends fluff into the game without needing to turn that tiny little picture into an actual ship.

The Nashtah Pup being a Z-95 was invented for X-Wing Miniatures. Tales of the Bounty Hunters described it as something very different (a 2-man mini-shuttle with hull-mounted ports for a pair of lasers, which when detached had room for a pair of dead Wookiees to be stuffed inside), and the deck plan Kael linked to shows a wingless shuttle that's a far better fit for that description.

Presumably FFG was just trying to incorporate some of the Hound's Tooth's Legends fluff into the game without needing to turn that tiny little picture into an actual ship.

Eh, it doesn't look that different from a Z-95 with the wings snipped off...

Anyway, the point is the canonically , however it works, the YV-666 *IS* the size of the mini we got at 1/270 scale.

The *canonical* size of the Upsilon-class, if done at 1/270, does not look like the size of the Upsilon mini we got. It seems closer to the 1/350 scale of the other 'Epic'-scale ships, IMHO.

The YV-666 is also not to scale...! Seriously, where does Bossk fit in his Nashtar Pup? In the glove compartment...?

The glove compartment isn't accurately named and everybody knows it.

Yeah - especially compare it to the Quadjumper in that pic.

It dwarfs the Quadjumper, here - looks like you could easily place two Quadjumpers back-to-back in the body of the Upsilon.

Then look at the pic, above - Quadjumper mini looks quite a bit larger than the Upsilon.

No doubt, this is definitely in the wrong scale...

Keep in mind perspective; the image in the OP has the Quadjumper a lot closer to the lens.

Yeah, the perspective can make a huge difference, especially photographing miniatures when there aren't any good size references in the surrounding environment.

We're worried about this, but the A-Wing is clearly way too huge and the Y-Wing way too small.

But we do know the wings move!

The defender is down scaled as well. It was before we had medium sized small ship packaging.

We're worried about this, but the A-Wing is clearly way too huge and the Y-Wing way too small.

But we do know the wings move!

Y-wing is 16 meters long, it puts it at 60mm in 1/270 and this is the length of the miniature.

A-wing is more problematic, because in some shots in RotJ it clearly is shorter than 9,6m, but this is the official length now, used for the miniature and also in Rebels for example.

Looking at the pics of the shuttle in the display case...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpHYi0jUEAIhqBn.jpg:large

....that doesn't look nearly in scale to the other ships? In the movie, the body of it looked about twice as high as a TIE Fighter's cockpit sphere. Here...looks no bigger than the TIE cockpit. Smaller, even?

Image from TFA Incredible Cross Sections:

Does look a bit shorter in height than the Falcon is long - which might suggest it's really Epic scale.

Yeah - especially compare it to the Quadjumper in that pic.

It dwarfs the Quadjumper, here - looks like you could easily place two Quadjumpers back-to-back in the body of the Upsilon.

Then look at the pic, above - Quadjumper mini looks quite a bit larger than the Upsilon.

No doubt, this is definitely in the wrong scale...

I think the issue might be that the Quadjumper is too big (based on that pic at least) rather than the Upsilon is too small. In that pic, one wing of the shuttle is about 1 1/2 times the width of the Falcon. The FFG Falcon is a little wider the width of its large base. Each wing of the FFG Upsilon looks like it's about 1 1/2 times the width of the large base. So I think it's in line with that comparison image, maybe a tad too small.

Also notice that the entire main body of the Upsilon should be the length of the front portion of the Falcon from turret to nose tip. In other words, from peg to a bit in front of the base. If you imagine the Upsilon attached to the peg by the engine, I think it's about that long. So it seems to be the right size.

The Quadjumper looks too big based on that image, because the X-Wing is slightly longer than the small base and the Quad looks to be significantly smaller than an X-wing in the comparison. Which makes very little sense - in the movie minimum 2 people and BB-8 were planning to fit in there. If the Quad were scales to the comparison image in that book, the cockpit wouldn't look big enough for two people, unless somebody is cooped up in the back.

Two people can fit into a TIE eyeball, the Quadjumper seems ot have much more internal space.

You want to know what ship is actually out of scale?

G-1A star fighter.

Model is 6.5cm long... in scale that puts it to 17.55m
It should have been 15m long only.

The G-1A mini should have been about 1cm smaller.

X-wing T-65s are right in scale.

The A-wing mini is 3.6cm long which is equivalent to 9.72m, which is just a touch over the 9.6m it is in canon.

The Y-Wing mini is 5.9cm long which is equivalent to 15.93m... which is either accurate or way off... one measurement in Legends is 16m, but in canon the length is given at 23.4m... so... yeah...

The Quadjumper is listed at only 7.98m. So... it should be really close to 2.95cm as a model... we shall see.

I was bored. I did the maths...

ugh. Being an architect myself, I'm a stickler for scale. The different scale for epic does already bother me a bit, tho I understand why it might be necessary. Hope this one is not too far off scale.

I'm a drafter who is absolutely not a stickler for scale because there are more practical things in play than having a consistent scale.

The models are the precise size provided by Lucasfilm, who are the only ones who know the exact cutest sizes. Wookieepedia is often incorrect and visual guides are historically error ridden. The models we get are correct because they're sized by the people who know best. The models reflect the canonical size of most of the ships. That said, the images in the article are almost assuredly not to scale with eachother, but the models will be.

Went to a convention panel with Jay Little, original designer of the X wing Core Set. He discussed that in the process of producing the models for the Core Set, Lucasfilm had to do research and revisit the original archives to determine the size of a TIE Fighter in relation to an X wing, because you cannot make an accurate comparison based on photos or the films. This would have been as late as 2011. In general, for most products they produce, they have not gone out of the way for products to be in scale with one another, with a few exceptions. Little went on to say that process continues with each ship released. They address the sizing of each expansion on a case by case basis, as to be honest, the "official canon size" of a most of the ships has changed over time. The models we get are the official canon size of the ships at the time they are produced in view of Lucasfilm, and all other sources are secondary, although it SHOULD coincide with the dimensions in current auxiliary materials like the visual guides or cross section books, for the most part, as these are also now fully approved by Lucasfilm also.

Everything is to scale as determined by Lucasfilm.

You want to know what ship is actually out of scale?

G-1A star fighter.

Model is 6.5cm long... in scale that puts it to 17.55m

It should have been 15m long only.

The G-1A mini should have been about 1cm smaller.

X-wing T-65s are right in scale.

The A-wing mini is 3.6cm long which is equivalent to 9.72m, which is just a touch over the 9.6m it is in canon.

The Y-Wing mini is 5.9cm long which is equivalent to 15.93m... which is either accurate or way off... one measurement in Legends is 16m, but in canon the length is given at 23.4m... so... yeah...

That's... strange. Are you sure the 23,4m figure applies to the BTL-S3/A4 and not BTL-B?

Over 7 meters is quite a bit of a difference, but the Clone Wars variant had considerably longer engines and gun barrels:

I'm a drafter who is absolutely not a stickler for scale because there are more practical things in play than having a consistent scale

But as a drafter, admit it, you measured your CR90 just to check right? 150m / 333.3mm / 450 scale.

I'm a drafter who is absolutely not a stickler for scale because there are more practical things in play than having a consistent scale

But as a drafter, admit it, you measured your CR90 just to check right? 150m / 333.3mm / 450 scale.

When I go home, i'm done working.

I'm a drafter who is absolutely not a stickler for scale because there are more practical things in play than having a consistent scale

But as a drafter, admit it, you measured your CR90 just to check right? 150m / 333.3mm / 450 scale.

When I go home, i'm done working.

I can't imagine that, I use AutoCAD for designing starships, deckplan calculations and layouts, and other fun.

I'm a drafter who is absolutely not a stickler for scale because there are more practical things in play than having a consistent scale.

Yeah, and as I said, I understand the argument for practicality. Still bothers me, tho. I'm just OCD like that about certain things (tho I'm pretty laid back about others...? go figure).

Full disclosure, I'm also a drafting teacher, so part of my job description is to be a stickler for scale and chastise my students for getting it wrong in their drawings.

I can't imagine that, I use AutoCAD for designing starships, deckplan calculations and layouts, and other fun.

ditto!

I'm a drafter who is absolutely not a stickler for scale because there are more practical things in play than having a consistent scale.

I'm particularly interested in the scale question of scale since it's the primary reason I started buying these in the first place. I had a small collection of Titanium ships from the '90s that I considered getting back into when the TFA series came out, but the lower quality of the new Titaniums plus the fact that the FFG models were in a constant scale won me over to start collecting FFG. The game itself is secondary

Everything is to scale as determined by Lucasfilm.

I don't think you quite understand how 'scale' works.

Nobody is arguing that the model isn't the right "length" - the question is just whether it's the 'right length' when evaluated at the 1/270 scale that most of the FFG X-Wing Miniatures SKUs are at, or the 1/350 scale that the other FFG X-Wing Miniatures SKUs are at.

First?
Should I remind you the horribly cramped YV666? Or maybe the oversized Firespray mini? Or better yet a X-BOX-HUGE Aggressor?

Nah, certainly the first is Ren xD

I think it's pretty to-scale.

Everything is to scale as determined by Lucasfilm.

I don't think you quite understand how 'scale' works.

Nobody is arguing that the model isn't the right "length" - the question is just whether it's the 'right length' when evaluated at the 1/270 scale that most of the FFG X-Wing Miniatures SKUs are at, or the 1/350 scale that the other FFG X-Wing Miniatures SKUs are at.

These are the 1/270 versions as determined by Lucasfilm at the time of their release, as Lucasfilm are the only ones who really know how big stuff is.

Upsilon-class command shuttle

Technical specifications

Height/depth: 37.2 meters (with wings extended)

YT-1300 light freighter

Technical specifications

Length: 34.75 meters

Here's my own results based on a different approach. I used autocad's align command to scale your picture to the Millenium Falcon's known scale. Based on that, considering that Epsilon has its "wings extended", and that height is measured as a projection from wingtip height to base (unseen, but approximated), I found the miniature would represent a 26.41m height in normal Xwing scale (1/270).

Because we know the shuttle is supposed to be 37.2m in height, tho, we calculate

26.41 = 270

37.2 = x

And we get an X = 380.38.

Thus, the shuttle's scale would be 1/380, which is rather close to epic (1/350) scale, and all inaccuracies considered (from the picture, perspective, photoshopping, approximated base location and measuring), 1/350 might very well be the intended scale for this model.

No, the Upsilon shuttle is to perfect 1/270 scale.

Perspective is a b*** gentlemen, you cannot perform measurements on picture with perspective.

This picture is the one I have found with least perspective:


Measuring the width of the plastic large ship base, at the point where the peg hits the plastic I get 148 pixels wide.
Measuring the height of the right wing (from our perspective) from bottom to top (along the back side furthest away) I get 256 pixels.

As the width of a large ship plastic base is 8 cm .

The height of the Upsilon shuttle wing is: 256/148*0.08*270 m = 37.3 m which is close to the 37.2 m official wing height with wing extended.

/Thread