There is some misinformation going around here, and it's rather frustrating to see how many people dupe their own excitement because they don't understand what the trailer showed us.
The false claim is that FFG made the B/SF-17 model way too small, and numbers from twice the size or 1/450 scale are being thrown around. The most ridiculous claim I've seen was that it should be the size of the rebel transporter at, which is a factor of 2.36 (or it would mean that FFG misscaled, using 1/637!).

These numbers are simply wrong.

Please take a look at this screenshot from the TLJ trailer:

You see two X-Wings that are marked in green and blue. The Green is closer to the camera, the blue is further away. Their lengths are compared and projected to the keel of the bomber.

Green is 1.17 times as large as blue (182 pixel vs 156px). Now take a look at the next picture, from an earlier frame in the trailer:

this is the blue X-Wing that's just emerging from BEHIND the bomber.

We see an overlap, so the bomber is closer to the camera. That necessarily means that the absolute maximal size of the keel at the green position is 45mm. Any larger than that and it would be too large. An early estimate has it at 26mm, using the preview picture. So we already see, with absolute certainty, that the thrown around complaints of "should be twice the size" and "1/450" are wrong.

Now let's look at the first frame of the space battle. I copied the same bar to this picture, keeping the image at 1440x600 so it is comparable.

This green X-Wing is to me very clearly behind our reference keel. Now the maximal size of the keel up there is 45mm, and the maximal factor is new 1.5 and not 1.73 anymore. Because the keel length up there is at least 30mm if the bottom is 26mm (1.17 * 26mm, with 1.17 being the ratio of green to blue). But this X-Wing is still behind the bomber. And far enough behind it that an A-Wing fits between the two!

Then we have a third X-Wing (red bar shows his length) that is clearly in front of the bomber. Yellow is 1.5 times green, indicating how large the X-Wing would have to be if he were on the same height as the keel and if the keel really is 30mm. Red is the actual size of the X-Wing shown in the trailer. If red and the bomber would be on the same height (we know that's wrong!) then the keel at the green position would have to be just 26mm long (ratio of red to green times 45mm of XWing length). This 26mm keel length would put the overall model at 82mm, so that is the minimal size.

Now we have a minimal and a maximal size, between 82mm and 142mm. The true size for an in-scale model is somewhere within this range. So a scale of 1/400 is the clear minimum, and 1/230 the maximum.
But maximal size is clearly less than 142mm because there's an A-Wing between the bomber and X-Wing, meaning the X-Wing is behind the bomber from our viewpoint.
(e:) The model is estimated to be 96mm. I won't even try to fiure out how far the green X-Wing is behind the bomber. But we can do one more thing: if the bomber would be exactly between the red and the green X-Wing, then his correct model size would be 99mm.
I believe that there is more space between bomber and green (due to the A-Wing also being there), but we can't tell for sure. However if it was then the correct model size would be below 99mm, and that is exactly what we have.

You want to know a fun fact? The Scurrg for example is at a scale of 1/428. So way more out of scale than the B/SF-17 even in the worst case scenario!

Good bit of deduction so far, my dear Watson.

I knew they'd undersized the Scurrg, but to realize they scaled it as aggressively as an Imperial Raider just takes the cake.

Especially when one sees what it's doing to the meta in its current incarnation, I'm really wishing they'd made it a Large sized gunboat of some variety, dangit.

Seriously? Look at the FFG Model. The BS-F17 has two external ball turrets (that house gunners) and a bubble turret (that houses half of a dorsal gunner's body, like the Ghost). On the FFG model, both ball turrets and the bubble turret would fit inside the FFG A-Wing cockpit. So explain to me how it's in scale? Unless of course the A-Wing cockpit is supposed to be able to house 2.5 human beings...

Q.E.D: the FFG model is woefully undersized, as is the K-Wing (note how incredibly tiny the K-Wing's ventral ball turret and dorsal bubble turret are compared to an A-Wing cockpit or any other cockpit). The Upsilon is incredibly underscaled too, as others have pointed out elsewhere.

FFG made a really big fuss about all of the miniatures being in "true scale" back when Wave 1 first dropped. But notice how they never really mentioned or touted scale again, except for a note about the 'sliding scale' of Epic ships? It's because we've been getting increasingly more and more ships that are pretty far off of true scale (A-Wing, K-Wing, Upsilon, YV-666, and now the BS-F17, to name a few of the most obvious).

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Seriously? Look at the FFG Model. The BS-F17 has two external ball turrets (that house gunners) and a bubble turret (that houses half of a dorsal gunner's body, like the Ghost). On the FFG model, both ball turrets and the bubble turret would fit inside the FFG A-Wing cockpit. So explain to me how it's in scale? Unless of course the A-Wing cockpit is supposed to be able to house 2.5 human beings...

Q.E.D: the FFG model is woefully undersized, as is the K-Wing (note how incredibly tiny the K-Wing's ventral ball turret and dorsal bubble turret are compared to an A-Wing cockpit or any other cockpit). The Upsilon is incredibly underscaled too, as others have pointed out elsewhere.

FFG made a really big fuss about all of the miniatures being in "true scale" back when Wave 1 first dropped. But notice how they never really mentioned or touted scale again, except for a note about the 'sliding scale' of Epic ships? It's because we've been getting increasingly more and more ships that are pretty far off of true scale (A-Wing, K-Wing, Upsilon, YV-666, and now the BS-F17, to name a few of the most obvious).

The rebel ships are horrendously out of scale anyway. One more reason for the empire

Yeah, the A-wing is a really bad benchmark to go by. Use a T-65 or Y-wing cockpit instead, and you get a much clearer idea of how small humans (and other sentient species) are in comparison to these vehicles. I'm not saying the A-wing is the wrong scale in this game, but the design of it's cockpit canopy is definitely misleading.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Seriously? Look at the FFG Model. The BS-F17 has two external ball turrets (that house gunners) and a bubble turret (that houses half of a dorsal gunner's body, like the Ghost). On the FFG model, both ball turrets and the bubble turret would fit inside the FFG A-Wing cockpit. So explain to me how it's in scale? Unless of course the A-Wing cockpit is supposed to be able to house 2.5 human beings...

This is a long lasting debate. FFG used the canon measurements of the A-wing provided by LFL, that do not match the size of the pilot model in Return Of The Jedi's A-wing.

This is how big a canon A-wing is:

Observe that the pilot has plenty of room there compared to this:

So yes, those ball turrets fit comfortably inside an A-wings cockpit nowadays.

It's been established that the ROTJ A-wing was supposed to be this bigger size from the beginning, but the size of the pilot in the model was totally out of scale by more than double what it should have been.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Unless of course the A-Wing cockpit is supposed to be able to house 2.5 human beings...

Close.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/a-wing-trainer-rz-1t

The Star Wars Databank entry for the A-wing says it's 9.6 meters long. And then uses a picture of the ROTJ model.

It is easy to measure the length of the ship in that picture and compare it with the diameter of the head of the pilot doll to calculate the total size of the pilot, assuming it has an average human height relative to the head (7.5 heads):

If the pilot doll were in the right scale, that guy would be a monster almost double as tall as Chewbacca!
He should be able to bring his legs out from the bottom of the ship and walk like the Flintstones with their cars...

That or he is the guy with the biggest head in the Alliance.

Can't wait for "Goliath Squadron" detailing the adventures of the massive giants from Squivshivm V that joined the Alliance to become pilots.

I've always thought that the models were based on the film models which were never "true" universe scale. It's the scale that makes filming models in movies look the best.

also, I get a weird feeling this is all a bunch of hoopla. When we see the last Jedi I think we will find FFG did a good job.

While we are on the topic, FFG, can you make my U-wing a small base ship please?

2 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So explain to me how it's in scale?

My post literally did.

Your complaint is completely unsubstantiated unless you can show me how you deduce the size of the ball turrets.

Just look at how misleading it can be!

Even the Ghost has two ball turrets that are very different in size, the frontal and the dorsal turrets.

Man.. I too wish the U wing was a small based ship. In the film it seemed to be a nippy ship but in-game it is just a slow moving cow.

6 hours ago, Azrapse said:

This is a long lasting debate. FFG used the canon measurements of the A-wing provided by LFL, that do not match the size of the pilot model in Return Of The Jedi's A-wing.

This is how big a canon A-wing is:

Observe that the pilot has plenty of room there compared to this:

So yes, those ball turrets fit comfortably inside an A-wings cockpit nowadays.

It's been established that the ROTJ A-wing was supposed to be this bigger size from the beginning, but the size of the pilot in the model was totally out of scale by more than double what it should have been.

NOPE.

12 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

There is some misinformation going around here, and it's rather frustrating to see how many people dupe their own excitement because they don't understand what the trailer showed us.
The false claim is that FFG made the B/SF-17 model way too small, and numbers from twice the size or 1/450 scale are being thrown around. The most ridiculous claim I've seen was that it should be the size of the rebel transporter at, which is a factor of 2.36 (or it would mean that FFG misscaled, using 1/637!).

These numbers are simply wrong.

Please take a look at this screenshot from the TLJ trailer:

You see two X-Wings that are marked in green and blue. The Green is closer to the camera, the blue is further away. Their lengths are compared and projected to the keel of the bomber.

Green is 1.17 times as large as blue (182 pixel vs 156px). Now take a look at the next picture, from an earlier frame in the trailer:

this is the blue X-Wing that's just emerging from BEHIND the bomber.

We see an overlap, so the bomber is closer to the camera. That necessarily means that the absolute maximal size of the keel at the green position is 45mm. Any larger than that and it would be too large. An early estimate has it at 26mm, using the preview picture. So we already see, with absolute certainty, that the thrown around complaints of "should be twice the size" and "1/450" are wrong.

Now let's look at the first frame of the space battle. I copied the same bar to this picture, keeping the image at 1440x600 so it is comparable.

This green X-Wing is to me very clearly behind our reference keel. Now the maximal size of the keel up there is 45mm, and the maximal factor is new 1.5 and not 1.73 anymore. Because the keel length up there is at least 30mm if the bottom is 26mm (1.17 * 26mm, with 1.17 being the ratio of green to blue). But this X-Wing is still behind the bomber. And far enough behind it that an A-Wing fits between the two!

Then we have a third X-Wing (red bar shows his length) that is clearly in front of the bomber. Yellow is 1.5 times green, indicating how large the X-Wing would have to be if he were on the same height as the keel and if the keel really is 30mm. Red is the actual size of the X-Wing shown in the trailer. If red and the bomber would be on the same height (we know that's wrong!) then the keel at the green position would have to be just 26mm long (ratio of red to green times 45mm of XWing length). This 26mm keel length would put the overall model at 82mm, so that is the minimal size.

Now we have a minimal and a maximal size, between 82mm and 142mm. The true size for an in-scale model is somewhere within this range. So a scale of 1/400 is the clear minimum, and 1/230 the maximum.
But maximal size is clearly less than 142mm because there's an A-Wing between the bomber and X-Wing, meaning the X-Wing is behind the bomber from our viewpoint.
(e:) The model is estimated to be 96mm. I won't even try to fiure out how far the green X-Wing is behind the bomber. But we can do one more thing: if the bomber would be exactly between the red and the green X-Wing, then his correct model size would be 99mm.
I believe that there is more space between bomber and green (due to the A-Wing also being there), but we can't tell for sure. However if it was then the correct model size would be below 99mm, and that is exactly what we have.

You want to know a fun fact? The Scurrg for example is at a scale of 1/428. So way more out of scale than the B/SF-17 even in the worst case scenario!

Good job with the calculations. I appreciate your efforts. I do believe though that you've brushed aside that A-wing too easily.

I believe it's angled to cut in front of the bomber and therefore the closest ship to the bomber. So building on the work you did:

A-wing calculations:
133px long
17px tall
[(133^2)+(17^2)]^[0.5]
=134.08 px

Bomber calculations:
length, front to top turret (close) = 380 px
length, front to top turret (farther) = 192 px
380 px / 192 px = 197.9%
Enlarging full bomber image by 198% then
Bomber Full length = 620 px

620/134.08 = 462.4 %
A-wing = 9.6 meters
Bomber = 44.39 meters

Bomber: 44.39m / Falcon: 34.75m = 27.7% larger

I suspect given that the Falcon goes over its base that this miniature is slightly too small, slightly not "WAY WAY OFF."

You're welcome.

So assuming the A-wing is cutting in front of the bomber,

this is the 44.39 meter ship comparison with the 34.75 meter Falcon miniature.

Half the size of the GR75 and too small to fit on two bases.

Only scaled it down a bit to fit it on one base.

The visible pilot in the closer bomber makes sense now, comparing the cockpits.

32 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

I do believe though that you've brushed aside that A-wing too easily

It is well established though that the A-Wing is not in scale. So using him as reference will necessarily lead to a false result. Hence your numbers are all off.

You, too, are welcome.

47 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

NOPE.

Nope what? The EP VIII A-wings are clearly a different model from that in ROTJ and Rebels.
Look at the little windows behind the canopy: In the Rebels' model, they are part of the hull. In the picture with that prince guy, they are part of the canopy.
The Ep8 model could be bigger, smaller or the same. We don't know, and we cannot use those pictures to get an idea of the size of the ball turrets in the bomber.

Perhaps a better way would be to use the picture of the ball turret

How tall is that character to get an idea of the diameter of that turret ball? She is short, so perhaps she could stand on that ball frame if it would be possible?
She is 1.57 meters tall (so it says IMDB) so lets assume that she can stand in there just comfortable before sitting? So let's say the turret ball is 1.6 meters of diameter.

Then we can compare the size of the turret with the size of the whole bomber:

If 22px = 1.6m, then 284px = 20.65m

So they would be 20 meters long, that is shorter than two X-wing in line.
It seems that after all FFG's miniature isn't that out of scale?

EDIT:
For it to be 44 meters long would mean that the ball turret needs to be 3.4 meters of diameter, which is clearly absurd by looking at the picture of Rose sitting in the turret.

I don't see why people use Rebels as their standard for scaling. This is the same cartoon that has represented Star Destroyers as giraffe-necked, TIEs as stubby-winged, and humanoids as having big anime-like eyes. Why would A-Wings be the only thing in the show that is to scale, despite being radically different from both the RotJ and the Episode 8 variant A-Wings on film screens?

If you want to use Rebels as your gold standard for scaling that is fine, but personally I don't find it persuasive.

The fact still remains that you could fit both bubble turrets from the FFG Resistance Bomber model into an X-Wing's cockpit, but the X-Wing cockpit should be far too small to accommodate two spherical cases that entirely surround humanoids sitting in gunner chairs. Now, maybe in Episode 8 we'll find that those dumb Hatchimal Porgies or whatever man all the gunning bubbles, but that seems unlikely given that the LEGO Resistance Bomber set comes with so many human crew and no Hatchimals.

1 hour ago, Azrapse said:

Nope what? The EP VIII A-wings are clearly a different model from that in ROTJ and Rebels.
Look at the little windows behind the canopy: In the Rebels' model, they are part of the hull. In the picture with that prince guy, they are part of the canopy.
The Ep8 model could be bigger, smaller or the same.

LOL, you do know Rebels is a cartoon right, they use a cartoon style that warps the dimensions of everything, like the Giraffe Destroyers.

I like your ball measurements though, assuming the close up is the bottom one and not the top one.

1 hour ago, Azrapse said:

Perhaps a better way would be to use the picture of the ball turret

How tall is that character to get an idea of the diameter of that turret ball? She is short, so perhaps she could stand on that ball frame if it would be possible?
She is 1.57 meters tall (so it says IMDB) so lets assume that she can stand in there just comfortable before sitting? So let's say the turret ball is 1.6 meters of diameter.

Then we can compare the size of the turret with the size of the whole bomber:

If 22px = 1.6m, then 284px = 20.65m

So they would be 20 meters long, that is shorter than two X-wing in line.
It seems that after all FFG's miniature isn't that out of scale?

Even assuming your 1.6 meter estimate is correct, I seriously doubt that this ships is really only 20.65 meters.

I can get a more accurate ball measurement from the closer bomber.

If 1.6 m = 43px, then 622 px = 23.14 m
If 1.7 m = 43px, then 622 px = 24.59 m
If 1.8 m = 43px, then 622 px = 26.03 m
If 1.9 m = 43px, then 622 px = 27.48 m
If 2.0 m = 43px, then 622 px = 28.93 m

35 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

I like your ball measurements though, assuming the close up is the bottom one and not the top one.

Even assuming your 1.6 meter estimate is correct, I seriously doubt that this ships is really only 20.65 meters.

I can get a more accurate ball measurement from the closer bomber.

If 1.6 m = 43px, then 622 px = 23.14 m
If 1.7 m = 43px, then 622 px = 24.59 m
If 1.8 m = 43px, then 622 px = 26.03 m
If 1.9 m = 43px, then 622 px = 27.48 m
If 2.0 m = 43px, then 622 px = 28.93 m

The picture of Rose in the turret seems to match the lower turret by lookight at the structure the turret hangs from. It has that circular indentation that can be seen in the other picture I posted, the one that seems to be focusing on the turret from an oblique perpective.

Even in your most generous estimation of the turret ball being 2 meters diameter (I seriously doubt Chewbacca would fit there, but let's go with these numbers), you say the bomber would be 29 meters long tops. That is almost 6 meters shorter than the Falcon.
And this is again assuming a turret size that is a bit beyond credibility. The smaller the turret is, the smaller the bomber. And in any case, we are already very comfortably close to the size in FFG's model preview.

Let's accept it. By using forced perspective, the trailer made us think these things are almost like Nebulon-B frigates big, when they are just oversized B-wings.

3 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

The picture of Rose in the turret seems to match the lower turret by lookight at the structure the turret hangs from. It has that circular indentation that can be seen in the other picture I posted, the one that seems to be focusing on the turret from an oblique perpective.

Even in your most generous estimation of the turret ball being 2 meters diameter (I seriously doubt Chewbacca would fit there, but let's go with these numbers), you say the bomber would be 29 meters long tops. That is 5 meters shorter than the Falcon.
And this is again assuming a turret size that is a bit beyond credibility. The smaller the turret is, the smaller the bomber. And in any case, we are already very comfortably close to the size in FFG's model preview.

Let's accept it. By using forced perspective, the trailer made us think these things are almost like Nebulon-B frigates big, when they are just oversized B-wings.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true

38 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I don't see why people use Rebels as their standard for scaling. This is the same cartoon that has represented Star Destroyers as giraffe-necked, TIEs as stubby-winged, and humanoids as having big anime-like eyes. Why would A-Wings be the only thing in the show that is to scale, despite being radically different from both the RotJ and the Episode 8 variant A-Wings on film screens?

If you want to use Rebels as your gold standard for scaling that is fine, but personally I don't find it persuasive.

The fact still remains that you could fit both bubble turrets from the FFG Resistance Bomber model into an X-Wing's cockpit, but the X-Wing cockpit should be far too small to accommodate two spherical cases that entirely surround humanoids sitting in gunner chairs. Now, maybe in Episode 8 we'll find that those dumb Hatchimal Porgies or whatever man all the gunning bubbles, but that seems unlikely given that the LEGO Resistance Bomber set comes with so many human crew and no Hatchimals.

It's actually not just us that are using Rebels as a standard. It's a canon source. Meaning, two seater A-Wings (not a whole new model, but a modified version of the basic model) is a fact in Star Wars, so can be used for estimations, despite misgivings about the animation style. Plus, the newer interpretation of A-Wing size is what appears to be the basis of FFG's model.

Just now, SabineKey said:

It's actually not just us that are using Rebels as a standard. It's a canon source. Meaning, two seater A-Wings (not a whole new model, but a modified version of the basic model) is a fact in Star Wars, so can be used for estimations, despite misgivings about the animation style. Plus, the newer interpretation of A-Wing size is what appears to be the basis of FFG's model.

Strictly, FFG's A-Wing predates Rebels' A-Wing as I recall. The A-wing came out in 2013, Rebels' A- Wing first appeared in 2015 (Fire Across the Galaxy?) goes

And the 9.6m figure goes right back to West End Games in 1987 or so.

The first two-seater A-Wings go right back to the Droids cartoon in 1985.

It may be a case of "WEG used Droids as the reason for its big A-wing, Legends (and newcanon) kept the WEG figure, FFG copied the WEG figure - Rebels drew, again, from the WEG figure and the Droids two-seater.

16 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Strictly, FFG's A-Wing predates Rebels' A-Wing as I recall. The A-wing came out in 2013, Rebels' A- Wing first appeared in 2015 (Fire Across the Galaxy?) goes

And the 9.6m figure goes right back to West End Games in 1987 or so.

The first two-seater A-Wings go right back to the Droids cartoon in 1985.

It may be a case of "WEG used Droids as the reason for its big A-wing, Legends (and newcanon) kept the WEG figure, FFG copied the WEG figure - Rebels drew, again, from the WEG figure and the Droids two-seater.

Exactly, and try as we might the fact still remains that the RotJ A-Wing, arguably the most canon A-Wing since it predated Droids, WEG, Rebels, and TLJ is clearly a small craft.

Maybe the A-Wings in those other sources are larger, but they are probably different models/variants. That being said, while TLJ A-Wing is longer than the RotJ A-Wing, it's not clear that the cockip-to-pilot ratio is much different than RotJ (and clearly nowhere near where it's at in Rebels). But the matte backgrounds and the cockpit/actor shots and the film models from RotJ all suggest a smaller Rebellion era A-Wing in use during the Battle of Endor, which also happens to be where all of the X-Wing pilots (Gemmer, Jake, Arvel, and Tycho) are from -- since they were all in Green Squadron during Endor. FFG's model was clearly supposed to be the RotJ model, not least of all because it pre-dated Rebels and TLJ by years. They used the official LFL numbers, which were clearly incorrectly derived to represent the RotJ Rebellion Era A-Wings. TLJ A-Wings being longer isn't a problem, since presumably they're a different model and as different from an Endor A-Wing as a T-70 is from a T-65.

But A-Wings are moot and we can set their controversial scale aside entirely if we want, since you still shouldn't be able to fit two entire external bubble turrets into an X-Wing cockpit, and yet it looks like you can from the FFG Resistance Bomber model.

17 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Strictly, FFG's A-Wing predates Rebels' A-Wing as I recall. The A-wing came out in 2013, Rebels' A- Wing first appeared in 2015 (Fire Across the Galaxy?) goes

And the 9.6m figure goes right back to West End Games in 1987 or so.

The first two-seater A-Wings go right back to the Droids cartoon in 1985.

It may be a case of "WEG used Droids as the reason for its big A-wing, Legends (and newcanon) kept the WEG figure, FFG copied the WEG figure - Rebels drew, again, from the WEG figure and the Droids two-seater.

And that's fine. By newer interpretation, I meant post-RoJ.