In light of all that, I suppose I have to concede that the FFG star destroyer does match (closer than I thought) movie used props making it movie accurate.

I am still yet to see one that matches the FFG ISD to the ISD Avenger from Empire Strikes Back. H owever, all this suggests now is that ILM wasn't necessarily consistent with its model designs between movies or even different models when scaled up or down. (Isn't that why they made a distinction between the ISD I and ISD II?)

I'd be curious to see the Rogue One ISD I renders, as those would be the new standard (I'd imagine.)

Silver lining to all this, people have been asking for new Imperial ships, perhaps this would open up the floodgates for new models of star destroyers! Similar to how the US Navy has dozens of Arleigh Burke destroyers setup in multiple different flights across the same class, the ISD could easily have a few separate models per class (e.g. ISD Ia or ISD IIc.)

This would also make it easy to explain why the Empire had (pretty much) only Star Destroyers making up it's Navy, they just modified the base structure during construction for different purposes.

Okay. So. Since this is my topic:

1. WEG is never wrong. Ever. I am devoted to that ancient religion. Nuff said!

2. I like the FFG ISD. Best $35 I ever spent!

3. I dig how we get worked up over minutiae.

4. A wrinkle here and there but I have to say this is a great community and I commend you all.

5. Hit the black and roll those dice! Full speed head and **** the FAQs!

It could be worse.....

.....a lot worse!

FFG could have made the Giraffe

40 minutes ago, Raging Celt said:

1. WEG is never wrong. Ever. I am devoted to that ancient religion. Nuff said!

Amen, dear Brother, amen.

Bunch o'thoughts

I used to run almost constant WEG campaigns. In my little corner of the world I was kinda the SWD6 expert. WEG did a phenomenal job taking junk EU silliness and supplementing and working it into practical, "realistic", usable lore.

But some of it jumped the rails and some of it was very inconsistent and some very contradictory.

However, when I'd get 1am phone calls from GMs trying to resolve things and deal with detail oriented players, I'd tell them what I think works well here:

It's a big Galaxy.

Stormtroopers in one sector should occasionally have used different equipment, have a different chain of command, use different call-signs etc than another unit on the other side of the Galaxy.

By the same token, it makes sense for some ISD Is to have been refitted to ISD II standards. It makes sense for some ISDs to have been built in regional KDY yards that were older VSD or Venator slips enlarged for the Imperator but still required a more narrow design.

There should be endless variations and refit packages and mission profiles.

It's why a Chimaera model with a different sculpt and different stats makes sense and would add to the game

That being said, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the dagger hulls from ESB seem to have been a thing (And I hope it is... I like that look and prefer it)... but having recently spent more time trying to get proper shots of an ISD than a person should, I can tell you it only takes about 10 degrees off center to radically alter a dorsal or ventral shot and make the hull look much more narrow than it is (because not only is it a triangle, but it has very sloped sides).

It would be easy to recreate the above 3 ISD shot with our FFG models. If someone could find an in-film dorsal shot it would help quite a bit in confirming a more narrow ISD II.

Maybe we can dream for a Chimaera true ISD I profile command variant, and a narrow full ISD II model (which, btw, should have a stronger broadside and a weaker front arc). They really would be different enough to justify a new expansion each, IMO.

The model's gone on exhibition in the past - but being so large, it would be very difficult to get above it and take a photo. Star Wars Technical Commentaries had pics of Avenger on exhibition, but no dorsal or ventral shots.

10 hours ago, Gadgetron said:

In light of all that, I suppose I have to concede that the FFG star destroyer does match (closer than I thought) movie used props making it movie accurate.

Kudos to you for being able to admit when you are not as correct as you thought on the internet. (Not joking - this hardly ever actually happens. I mean this as the most sincerest of thanks and compliments)

Few can, and few do so, even when confronted with evidence.

I am always pleased to be a part of this community!

I might add, thank you all for keeping this mostly civil.

We discussed some things, found evidence that supported two different points of views and no one called names, yelled others down, or insisted that both ideas couldn't be right (in fact if anyone did, it was probably me... Sorry... clearly the dagger has a place along side the cheese wedge).

Thanks all, hopefully discussions can avoid being hostile like we've seen in some other threads and diverse opinions and prefrences aren't yelled down by people being territorial or running a persecution complex.

As far as I'm concerned, FFG can make any design of Imperial Star Destroyer as long as it's not the Giraffe!

Dagger, cheese wedge, white, grey and broadsides are all fine by me. Let's even have a Chimaera paint job on one, or a stencil to DIY it.

But please no Giraffe!

55 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

I might add, thank you all for keeping this mostly civil.

We discussed some things, found evidence that supported two different points of views and no one called names, yelled others down, or insisted that both ideas couldn't be right (in fact if anyone did, it was probably me... Sorry... clearly the dagger has a place along side the cheese wedge).

Thanks all, hopefully discussions can avoid being hostile like we've seen in some other threads and diverse opinions and prefrences aren't yelled down by people being territorial or running a persecution complex.

Maybe we are getting "too old for this ****"

Very well said, Lobo.

7 hours ago, Ell said:

Maybe we are getting "too old for this ****"

If getting old means playing nice with friends then I'm in. If it means giving up my metal and plastic count me out!

On 1/25/2017 at 5:33 PM, Gadgetron said:

Won't address perspective shots? I've asked numerous times for someone to post those perspective shots that make the FFG ISD match the Avenger ISD! No one has!

Unfortunately this side shot doesn't address the beam of the ship, it may be a similar sized bridge in this shot, but the beam is going to throw off the scale.

This is why I post the ISD photos from the front and why I'm asking people who say that they're the same use those perspectives.

It's not "perspective" so much as "depth of field". Which is very, very hard to do well on a miniature of our size, to get the same effect.

As a a very obvious example of it, though - you've heard of the "dolly zoom", right?

That is a good way of showing what kind of effect zoom distortion can cause (which is what is happening in the ISD shots you keep showing with the 'huge bridges').

22 hours ago, Ironlord said:

I think it was the Colliding Star Destroyers (ships on the far right and far left)

[]

that set the precedent for "ISD 2 is slimmer than ISD1". The middle ship has a slight roll, making it look narrower than it really is - but the other two are about right.

Eh...it's more than the 'middle ship has a slight roll'. Seriously... look at the shadows in that shot .

Or, heck, nevermind the shadows - look at the semi-globes on the bottom! Those are supposed to be round!

The camera lighting being on the left can explain the shadows up to a point - but I can agree that all are rolling slightly - the middle ship having rolled the most.

@ xanderf

I still don't see the Empire Strikes Back ISDs as matching the FFG. The collision image still makes them appear to be more streamlined, same with the earlier Avenger posts, it just appears to have heavier lighting from the left. I think its just coming down to different models being built for, and used in, the different movies. The ESB destroyers appear narrower than those in the other movies, this happens to be the design I have come to prefer, and why I wanted the FFG ones to match.

Empire Strikes Back also sees more use of the Star Destroyers (and more close ups for details) than the other 2 movies, perhaps this is why most outside sources have used those particular props as their template because of the abundance of stills to refer too.

That said, I have conceded that the FFG model is based on movie used props, in fact, the most incorrectly proportioned part of the FFG ISD is one that I never even noticed!

9 hours ago, Raging Celt said:

If getting old means playing nice with friends then I'm in. If it means giving up my metal and plastic count me out!

Count you in. Never give up!

If you really want to get all the gory details about the various Star Destroyer models from the films, like scale, size, configuration, perspective tricks built in, colors, etc, you can go to http://www.therpf.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10 and search for any Star Destroyer threads.

Be warned, though, it's a strange, obsessive world you're about to step into.

A safer way might be to see if Bandai has a Star Destroyer model out yet, because they are trying really hard to be as accurate as possible to the actual props (digital or physical) and have an official license for the models.

21 minutes ago, Kharnvor said:

If you really want to get all the gory details about the various Star Destroyer models from the films, like scale, size, configuration, perspective tricks built in, colors, etc, you can go to http://www.therpf.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10 and search for any Star Destroyer threads.

Be warned, though, it's a strange, obsessive world you're about to step into.

A safer way might be to see if Bandai has a Star Destroyer model out yet, because they are trying really hard to be as accurate as possible to the actual props (digital or physical) and have an official license for the models.

It's my OCD that triggers this discussion.... So I'll be in good company there!

What I REALLY want, is for bandai to make a FFG comparable scale ISD I and II!

I think the one they already have is a little too small (or a lot too small), unfortunately: https://stormtrooperlarry.com/2016/06/29/review-bandai-star-destroyer-model-kit/

If they do another it'll probably be much bigger.

Post 3 here shows the X-Wing scale ISD http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=254528

On 1/25/2017 at 9:44 PM, Lobokai said:

Okay all... Ell... the model you were using is based off the old WEG schematics, which are sadly wrong (I love WEG, but they made a longer narrower hull from their imagination). BTW, beautiful job getting that up on the stand and painted up like you did!

I found a render that matched near perfectly with photos of the production models (because I needed a straight on rear shot, the rest are compared to the real thing)... as said above I then took shakey/slightly off the way they should have been taken pictures... it took 45 minutes of playing with mostly Star Wars movie set photos and my photos to line them up properly (I was watching TV too). I also figured I'd take on two birds with one stone and show how perspective can radically alter the apparent size of a command structure by taking two pictures with my camera to illustrate that effect (bottom right).

I think we can now definitively say, that within the realm of 5% (at most) that we have a match from the true canon Star Wars cinematic production ISDs and the model FFG produced for Armada.

And, BTW, this also puts the much maligned FractalSponge render dead on too... just saying... but I do not think that was their reference. You can see in the rear shots and in the front part of the lower superstructure that the FFG and ILM models have some agreements with each other that the FS render does not, Fractal also has a slightly shorter command bridge than the ILM model, and the FFG model agrees with the ILM dimensions. So Fractal is really really close, but I believe the FFG model was taken from ILM workshop photos and the couple surviving models and not the FS render.

There's perspective effect on the starboard side photo of the reference:

The upper side edge of the hex module should be approximately twice the length of the sensor globe, that's what matters.

6 hours ago, Kharnvor said:

I think the one they already have is a little too small (or a lot too small), unfortunately: https://stormtrooperlarry.com/2016/06/29/review-bandai-star-destroyer-model-kit/

If they do another it'll probably be much bigger.

Post 3 here shows the X-Wing scale ISD http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=254528

I already have that small one, I really want that one scaled up to Armada size!

I need 2 of those x-wing scale Destroyers...

Okay. While we endlessly debate the variety of the ISD can I just say two things?

1. Krennic.

2. Boarding parties (and Hammerhead vettes).

(I cheated but I started this post so I am allowed!)

I still get the feeling if we start getting multiple ISD models they are pretty much done with Armada, out of ideas, and it will be in its death throes. We don't need models in a case like this, just a ship card, which could come in some variety of expanded play pack.

2 hours ago, Darthain said:

I still get the feeling if we start getting multiple ISD models they are pretty much done with Armada, out of ideas, and it will be in its death throes. We don't need models in a case like this, just a ship card, which could come in some variety of expanded play pack.

Well, I'd argue we at least still need an ISD I model.

That they lumped the two together, that was just lazy.

52 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

Well, I'd argue we at least still need an ISD I model.

That they lumped the two together, that was just lazy.

No objections from me. I'm still predicting a "Rogue One White ISD"

3 hours ago, Darthain said:

I still get the feeling if we start getting multiple ISD models they are pretty much done with Armada, out of ideas, and it will be in its death throes. We don't need models in a case like this, just a ship card, which could come in some variety of expanded play pack.

How? Thats a BOLD claim to make.

The ISD I is a canon Imperial ship. So is the tector. The former is strikingly different visually from the current ISD II and for what we know of the latter it could be very different as well.

The Imperials only have the Quasar left otherwise whereas the rebels have three new ships they are surelu getting models of.