With speculation running for future Imperial ships I wonder if the Chimera with underbelly repaint is on the docket?
Chimera ISD
Was the ship in rebels actually the Chimera?
Boy so many of us hope so. An ISD I sculpt with command emphasis would be really nice/needed. Maybe a light nerf to flagships that aren't medium or larger and an ability to do the hyperspace assault (because those ISD I's in Rebels are dropping in all the time).
Was the ship in rebels actually the Chimera?
Confirmed by Hidalgo. That was indeed the Chimera.
Considering so many of the ISD's were custom fitted after their initial build to suit their individual purpose, I could see FFG releasing another couple of ISD's with altered paint/models and differing stats as well as a couple of extra titles per pack.
By Emperor black bones she was Chimaera not Chimera!!!
And you call yourselves Thrawn fans? Phi
I REALLY hope that because the new ISD will be produced under Disney (the prior sculpt was already in the production process when Disney took over... I think...) that they will be a new and accurate sculpt, not the stubby hulled micro bridge we have now.
I would totally buy multiple new ones if they did! The Chimeras paint job would just be a bonus!
By Emperor black bones she was Chimaera not Chimera!!!
And you call yourselves Thrawn fans? Phi
It's the autocorrect...
Edited by GadgetronI REALLY hope that because the new ISD will be produced under Disney (the prior sculpt was already in the production process when Disney took over... I think...) that they will be a new and accurate sculpt, not the stubby hulled micro bridge we have now.
I would totally buy multiple new ones if they did! The Chimeras paint job would just be a bonus!
By Emperor black bones she was Chimaera not Chimera!!!
And you call yourselves Thrawn fans? Phi
It's the autocorrect...
Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to correct a word is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
And you call yourselves Thrawn fans? Phi
It's the autocorrect...
Word.
(Besides anyone that pays any attention to my posts understands my typos are legendary. Yeah. Let's go with that.)
Ech fellas do i really have to put " <nerdRage> ... </nerdRage> " and amount of smileys that teenage girl woudl be ashamed, so that everyone catch the nerd rage?
I REALLY hope that because the new ISD will be produced under Disney (the prior sculpt was already in the production process when Disney took over... I think...) that they will be a new and accurate sculpt, not the stubby hulled micro bridge we have now.
I would totally buy multiple new ones if they did! The Chimeras paint job would just be a bonus!
So you want FFG to give us the Giraffe Destroyer?
I REALLY hope that because the new ISD will be produced under Disney (the prior sculpt was already in the production process when Disney took over... I think...) that they will be a new and accurate sculpt, not the stubby hulled micro bridge we have now.
I would totally buy multiple new ones if they did! The Chimeras paint job would just be a bonus!
So you want FFG to give us the Giraffe Destroyer?
Nah, the ISD I from the movies (Rogue One or A New Hope) will do fine.
Though the current FFG Star Destroyer isnt even as accurate as the Giraffe Destroyer from Rebels (Its barely more accurate though.)
Edited by GadgetronWe have a very possible theory of how they will NAME the next expansion - They can simply call it the Chimaera. However that doesn't change the name of they ship that will appear on the ship card.
Basically you'll need the cheaper version to represent the ISD1's that are at Scariff - relaxed, stationary ISDs that weren't expecting a fight.
And you'll need the more expensive version to represent the Chimaera. And early model ISD1 fully manned and deployed.
I don't think it would be difficult to pain a Chimaera on the bottom of the ship, but you've got to wonder what the real benefit of that would be - how often do you EVER see the bottom of ships during a game? It would literally ONLY be viewable during setup/teardown. I think it's more likely that people will paint that on their ISD1s as a custom job.
I don't think we see the dorsal side of the Chimaera in that episode, so it's entirely possible that the custom paint encompasses that side as well. Either it's a couple of tentacles stretching up around or a modified duplication of the ventral side scheme.
Wow, if you look at the scale chart in the Rogue One visuql guide, you'll notice the bridge is actually the right scale. The hanger below should be just slightly further back but thats not a big concern.
Wow, if you look at the scale chart in the Rogue One visuql guide, you'll notice the bridge is actually the right scale. The hanger below should be just slightly further back but thats not a big concern.
I suggest you watch the movie and look again at the scale, the bridge is WAY to small, it should be appropriately 1/3 the width of the ISD beam. The FFG bridge is barely even 1/4. so either they made the beam way too wide, or the bridge way to small. Either way, the ship is too stubby on top of that.
Look at the scale chart which IS the same CGI model used in thr film and the bridge is not that huge.
ISD 1 Devastator
ISD II Avenger
If you cant see the MASSIVE difference in ISD shape, be it bridge, beam or whatever, then you might need corrective lenses and should think about not driving in low light, because this one is pretty obvious... Just pick up an FFG ISD and look at the bridge and beam, its all off by miles. If they hadn't stretched the beam all crazy and shortened the nose it wouldn't be as noticeable.
Sorry for use of links, it wouldn't let the photos post for some reason.
My guess is that, since some of Fractalsponge's designs were given to Lucasfilm Licencing - it was from there, that the FFG ISD came from - basically, they started with a Fractalsponge Imperator, and blunted the bow a little.
Was the ship in rebels actually the Chimera?
Confirmed by Hidalgo. That was indeed the Chimera.
Which scene are you referring to?
You can see the outline - barely - in two main places.
The first is in "Iron Squadron", just as it Hyperspaces in as "Reinforcements". Its tough to see, but you can kind of see the contrast of one of the necks.... But even on my screen, its tough.
And then the next is just recently, again, in "Warhead", its much clearer
@Gadgetron
If you google image search "FFG imperial star destroyer" you'll find an isometric of the armada model and a RotJ screen shot. Dead ringers. No difference.
My guess is that, since some of Fractalsponge's designs were given to Lucasfilm Licencing - it was from there, that the FFG ISD came from - basically, they started with a Fractalsponge Imperator, and blunted the bow a little.
Edited by Gadgetron@Gadgetron
If you google image search "FFG imperial star destroyer" you'll find an isometric of the armada model and a RotJ screen shot. Dead ringers. No difference.
http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/databank_superstardestroyer_01_169_d5757b90.jpeg
Not quite the ones I found earlier. But really close. At most the bridge is a little smaller on our model, but if the movie camera rotated up or the model shot down, it's practically identical.
Armada ISDs are really close to RotJ ISDs
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdventral1.jpg
Here's the film production model... It's length to width ratio is >1.46... Our model is < 1.5. So within the real of human error (mine) in taking measurements... That's the same
Spacing of everything underside matches up just as well. No reason to think it doesn't follow on top. Though again, I concede a seemingly smaller superstructure
Edited by LobokaiAt most the bridge is a little smaller on our model, but if the movie camera rotated up or the model shot down, it's practically identical.
I did the calculations for "scaling up" and if the ISD had been life size, its bridge would have been 273m. Pretty close to other estimates.
Also - the ship in the foreground is an ISD1, not an ISD2 - you can tell by the turrets.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdventral1.jpg
Here's the film production model... It's length to width ratio is >1.46... Our model is < 1.5. So within the real of human error (mine) in taking measurements... That's the same
That's the ISD1 ventral, I read. ISD2 is a bit narrower - presumably, that's what the complaints mostly stem from - comparisons of the FFG model to the ISD2 rather than the ISD1.
Edited by Ironlord