Using illustrator I scaled each image so it's base would measure the appropriate length.

Not claiming these images are actually accurate. there is some distortion thanks to the perspective of the camera.

The silencer is indeed in what I would estimate is the $30 tier remembering that the Aggressor is also in this range and should have really been on a small base.

The bomber is pushing a new low for the $40 tier but maybe it will feel bigger or more complex in person. I question the measurements I did on this one.

either way I'm sure these models will look amazing in person and be worth the cost.

Edit

I updated the measurements of the bomber a little bit trying to use it's paneling as good measurement guides

That raises another interesting point: The trailer shows that the X-Wing is roughly the size of the keel, right?

That means the model is too small, but not by as much as we initially thought!

all photos, even digital are tricky to measure thanks to perspective and the lense used.

I'm sure they are getting the scale as right as it can be with these.

Sure it's difficult. But look at this example

The X-Wing with the white line is clearly around the same height or even behind the bomber with the white line, right? Because these lines are exactly the same length - I copied them

I updated the op photo. I had previously tried to update it but failed.

I think the scale looks pretty dang close.

So I just measured my T70 which is overall almost 45mm.

On the picture with the white bars I think the X-Wing is behind the bomber, so we'd expect the keel to be below those 45mm in length. And honestly: being off by 1cm is justifyable in my opinion.

At least those 1/450 floating around seem to be way more off than the actual model...

The Hounds Tooth basically has just as much plastic as the Falcon but it's oriented differently. I would say the Resistance Nebulon Jr Bomber is roughly the size of the Hounds Tooth. I guess that makes it 40 bucks?

6 hours ago, TylerTT said:

all photos, even digital are tricky to measure thanks to perspective and the lense used.

I'm sure they are getting the scale as right as it can be with these.

nope. FFG made the Upsilon so small that the bridge section is 1 meter tall on the outside.... so assuming the ships hull is 1 foot thick, that makes the interior of the bridge(which we see kilo standing in with headroom) is 1 foot tall.

just put the upsilon next to an A-wing and tell me FFG is trying on scale.

The A-wing is in 1/240, the Upsilon is in around 1/450. They dont even care anymore

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Sure it's difficult. But look at this example

The X-Wing with the white line is clearly around the same height or even behind the bomber with the white line, right? Because these lines are exactly the same length - I copied them

Why are we (by "we" I'm including us in another thread too) measuring the size based on the bombers in the background? The closest bomber in the foreground along with the nearest X-Wing seems to be the most accurate scale depiction I can see. That X-Wing is not at all very far from the camera, so we can determine the size of the bomber based on it. Also, look at the cockpits. We can estimate the size of the cockpit on the bomber and the cockpit on the X-Wing.

These bombers should have been the size of the Gallofree Medium Transports, not smaller than YT-1300s.

7 hours ago, TylerTT said:

Using illustrator I scaled each image so it's base would measure the appropriate length.

Not claiming these images are actually accurate. there is some distortion thanks to the perspective of the camera.

The silencer is indeed in what I would estimate is the $30 tier remembering that the Aggressor is also in this range and should have really been on a small base.

The bomber is pushing a new low for the $40 tier but maybe it will feel bigger or more complex in person. I question the measurements I did on this one.

either way I'm sure these models will look amazing in person and be worth the cost.

Wow. So the Silencer is something more equivalent to a twin-engine fighter like the Mosquito, P-38, or He 111. It's a fighter, but a BIG one.

39 minutes ago, Ziusdra said:

Why are we (by "we" I'm including us in another thread too) measuring the size based on the bombers in the background? The closest bomber in the foreground along with the nearest X-Wing seems to be the most accurate scale depiction I can see. That X-Wing is not at all very far from the camera, so we can determine the size of the bomber based on it. Also, look at the cockpits. We can estimate the size of the cockpit on the bomber and the cockpit on the X-Wing.

These bombers should have been the size of the Gallofree Medium Transports, not smaller than YT-1300s.

Look close at the picture, front to back:

bomber - xwing - bomber - awing - xwing - bomber - bomber

So very clearly the xwing with the white line is behind the bomber with the white line. And that means the ywing is larger than we think.

And that means the bomber is not too small.

To put this in numbers: if the xwing is 45mm and they were on the same height, then the bomber keel length would be 45mm at maximum. It is around 30mm (rather 37mm IMO), so we would be seeing a difference of 50% (or 18%). But we see that there is first an awing and then the xwing, so clearly it is less.

And THIS finally means that the model is actually very close, and that your estimate based on cockpit is extremely misleading.

33 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Wow. So the Silencer is something more equivalent to a twin-engine fighter like the Mosquito, P-38, or He 111. It's a fighter, but a BIG one.

Well, it is more than 17 metres long. So it is close to the Panavia Tornado. 170% length compared to the Mustang, but shorter than an F-22. Just 5m shorter than a B-17, incidentally.

It's big for Star Wars.

Resistance Bomber is half the size it should be.

12 minutes ago, Odanan said:

Resistance Bomber is half the size it should be.

why do you think so?

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Sure it's difficult. But look at this example

The X-Wing with the white line is clearly around the same height or even behind the bomber with the white line, right? Because these lines are exactly the same length - I copied them

the t70 in front of the bomber is barely bigger than the keel, and perspective makes closer objects look bigger, therfore the keel is bigger than an X-wing. the keel on the FFG image is half that

10 hours ago, TylerTT said:

I updated the op photo. I had previously tried to update it but failed.

I think the scale looks pretty dang close.

a large base is slightly less than a T70 long, so no. the FFG scale is wildly off. just compare cockpits. the bombers cockpit is supposed to be bigger than falcon sized, instead its x-wing sized. no way multiple humans are in there

6 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

the t70 in front of the bomber is barely bigger than the keel, and perspective makes closer objects look bigger, therfore the keel is bigger than an X-wing. the keel on the FFG image is half that

a large base is slightly less than a T70 long, so no. the FFG scale is wildly off. just compare cockpits. the bombers cockpit is supposed to be bigger than falcon sized, instead its x-wing sized. no way multiple humans are in there

I think you misunderstand what my argument is and what is going on. I put two white bars of exact same length onto the picture. One on a T70, the other on the keel that is CLOSER to us.

As you correctly mentioned, closer objects look larger. That means the T70 with the white bar IS larger than it looks. So he is larger than the keel.

As I wrote before:

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

To put this in numbers: if the xwing is 45mm and they were on the same height, then the bomber keel length would be 45mm at maximum. It is around 30mm (rather 37mm IMO), so we would be seeing a difference of 50% (or 18%). But we see that there is first an awing and then the xwing, so clearly it is less.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Look close at the picture, front to back:

bomber - xwing - bomber - awing - xwing - bomber - bomber

So very clearly the xwing with the white line is behind the bomber with the white line. And that means the ywing is larger than we think.

And that means the bomber is not too small.

To put this in numbers: if the xwing is 45mm and they were on the same height, then the bomber keel length would be 45mm at maximum. It is around 30mm (rather 37mm IMO), so we would be seeing a difference of 50% (or 18%). But we see that there is first an awing and then the xwing, so clearly it is less.

And THIS finally means that the model is actually very close, and that your estimate based on cockpit is extremely misleading.

no, look up perspective. also look at cockpits, because comic books have shown the interior of the cockpit and it bigger than the Falcon. that cockpit is supposed to be 5+ meters around at the cylinder part, because that little round window in front is nearly 2 meters across they did the same thing they did with the upsilon, they just shrunk it down until it fit on the base.

people sure have some awful definitive ideas about the size of a thing whose only reference photo is floating in space with no reference to how far the objects are from one another.

7 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

no, look up perspective. also look at cockpits, because comic books have shown the interior of the cockpit and it bigger than the Falcon. that cockpit is supposed to be 5+ meters around at the cylinder part, because that little round window in front is nearly 2 meters across they did the same thing they did with the upsilon, they just shrunk it down until it fit on the base.

But we know one is behind the other, and that's all that's necessary for the question.

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

a large base is slightly less than a T70 long, so no. the FFG scale is wildly off. just compare cockpits. the bombers cockpit is supposed to be bigger than falcon sized, instead its x-wing sized. no way multiple humans are in there

did you mean small base? a t-70 is 46.14mm long a large base is 80mm

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

why do you think so?

Because of

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

the t70 in front of the bomber is barely bigger than the keel, and perspective makes closer objects look bigger, therfore the keel is bigger than an X-wing. the keel on the FFG image is half that

a large base is slightly less than a T70 long, so no. the FFG scale is wildly off. just compare cockpits. the bombers cockpit is supposed to be bigger than falcon sized, instead its x-wing sized. no way multiple humans are in there

this. ^

9 minutes ago, Odanan said:

Because of

this. ^

But that's very likely just wrong

A large base is 80mm a T-70 is 46mm it's emperically wrong to say a t-70 is longer than a large base.

Wait a second- you put the line on that almost obscured T-70 behind the A-Wing zipping by the keel, right?

Is this the reason for the confusion in some of the comments, that the keel is compared to the T-70 in front instead of the A-Wing right behind it?

45 minutes ago, DampfGecko said:

Wait a second- you put the line on that almost obscured T-70 behind the A-Wing zipping by the keel, right?

Is this the reason for the confusion in some of the comments, that the keel is compared to the T-70 in front instead of the A-Wing right behind it?

Yes.

same length, X wing is very clearly further in the back. That means the keel has to be smaller and that means everyone here is overestimating the size