Scale, schmale. I got into this game because I was reading about the Kenner Blockade Runner that had a prototype made but was never mass produced. That made me want a CR-90 model and the X-wing Miniatures model was the best looking one I could find. Then, I was like, "cool, you can play a game with it too"! XWM reminded me of playing with my old Kenner ships. 100 models later...

The Kenner toys of my youth were grossly out of scale but I had so much fun playing with them. I still collect the Hasbro toys. Close enough is good enough for me. I have fun designing custom X-wing Epic Play scenarios that use models of varying scale. I try to keep it within reason but I'm no scale junkie, that's for sure.

Having seen the film (I loved it unabashedly) I would say that based on the interior shots of the cockpit and the ordnance silos (not to mention the ball turrets) I would say that the X-wing mini is on point for scale. If it's really supposed to be bigger then none of the movie shots make sense.

It's hard to be a scale fanatic in X-wing because the numbers have always been kind of wonky and conflicting over the years.

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

because the numbers have always been kind of wonky and conflicting over the years.

Correct. Star Wars has always been some guys making some stuff look neat, and then over the next 20 years some more guys who want to make some neat stuff try to make up some other stuff to bridge their stuff to the old stuff and "make sense".

On 12/18/2017 at 8:22 PM, DagobahDave said:

Resistance bomber: length 29.67 meters, width 15.3 meters, height/depth 21.65 meters.

VCX-100: length 43.9 meters, width 34.2 meters, height/depth 14.5 meters.

The TIE Silencer model in XWM has also been confirmed to match the dimensions we've seen on Wookieepedia pretty closely.

did you watch the film? they show 3 xwings flying in the foreground, background, and directly behind from multiple angles. using them as known quantities for triangulation, it absolutely proves that the bombers are bigger.

Its ineresting that the people who swear FFG is always right about scale say that the A-wing is correct and Bomber is correct. one disproves the other. If the A-wing is 30 feet and the bomber is 90, then why is the A-wing 1/10 the length in the film?

10 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

did you watch the film? they show 3 xwings flying in the foreground, background, and directly behind from multiple angles. using them as known quantities for triangulation, it absolutely proves that the bombers are bigger.

Its ineresting that the people who swear FFG is always right about scale say that the A-wing is correct and Bomber is correct. one disproves the other. If the A-wing is 30 feet and the bomber is 90, then why is the A-wing 1/10 the length in the film?

They really don't look far off in the film, or screen caps taken from it.

22 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

Its ineresting that the people who swear FFG is always right about scale say that the A-wing is correct and Bomber is correct. one disproves the other. If the A-wing is 30 feet and the bomber is 90, then why is the A-wing 1/10 the length in the film?

They are correct as is that's the size that LFL gave them. Don't give beef to FFG, they use the official sizes provided to them.

42 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

did you watch the film? they show 3 xwings flying in the foreground, background, and directly behind from multiple angles. using them as known quantities for triangulation, it absolutely proves that the bombers are bigger.

Its ineresting that the people who swear FFG is always right about scale say that the A-wing is correct and Bomber is correct. one disproves the other. If the A-wing is 30 feet and the bomber is 90, then why is the A-wing 1/10 the length in the film?

@Wondergecko Posted this picture in another thread:

It's from the official visual guides.

If you compare the B/SF-17 bomber with the Millennium Falcon then the scale used by FFG seems perfectly fine. Right?

5 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

@Wondergecko Posted this picture in another thread:

It's from the official visual guides.

If you compare the B/SF-17 bomber with the Millenium Falcon then the scale used by FFG seems perfectly fine. Right?

Nice depiction.

11 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

If the A-wing is 30 feet and the bomber is 90, then why is the A-wing 1/10 the length in the film?

Resistance A-Wings aren't 30 ft - more like 25 - only the " OT-era A-wing" is over 30 ft long (current figure).

And the bomber is 97ft, not 90.

Ok and at the end of the day are you going to stop playing the game because the ships may or may not be the right size????? Really???? Just wondering. I have one bomber (no haven't seen the film yet) and it came in a big box but so did the Silencer, so who cares (ok some of you do) if the mini is the right size, scale or not, as I said are you going to stop playing the game just because the mini isn't the right size?

21 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

using them as known quantities for triangulation, it absolutely proves that the bombers are bigger.

No, not really. Check here

By the way, while the scale is right, the details on the bomber miniature are dead wrong. Like, beyond the overall shape, there's almost nothing right about it.

9 minutes ago, Wondergecko said:

By the way, while the scale is right, the details on the bomber miniature are dead wrong. Like, beyond the overall shape, there's almost nothing right about it.

It's always something with you guys.

I've been googling images of both the Miniature and the Movie - and nothing really stood out as majorly out-of-place. Maybe someone could post shots which showcase the differences.

On 12/23/2017 at 4:35 PM, Vontoothskie said:

did you watch the film? they show 3 xwings flying in the foreground, background, and directly behind from multiple angles. using them as known quantities for triangulation, it absolutely proves that the bombers are bigger.

Out of curiosity, did you do the math involved in the triangulation?

Or is it more of "this math could probably be done" sort of argument?

I personally don't care at all about the scale in X-wing. It's all representative anyway. I mean, does it bother you that the falcon's weapons have a threat range only 3.75 times the length of its hull? Does that absurdly short range not bother you?

There isn't a consistent scale in X-wing and there never has been. The continuation of that is neither surprising nor noteworthy.

On 12/18/2017 at 5:54 PM, HolySorcerer said:

They screwed up the dial too. It should only have a green one forward, and red one banks.

Lol. Truth.

19 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

It's always something with you guys.

Yeah, I'm big on the miniatures looking like the spaceships in my spaceships miniatures game. Kind of a big part of it for me.

8 hours ago, Wondergecko said:

Yeah, I'm big on the miniatures looking like the spaceships in my spaceships miniatures game. Kind of a big part of it for me.

Out of curiosity, can you post some pics outlining the differences?

9 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Out of curiosity, can you post some pics outlining the differences?

Sure thing! Might be a little later today, but before showing pix, it boils down to that all of the panels are complete guesswork by FFG, the cockpit area is all wrong (even the windows are not even close), the wings should be canted down and have lasers on the tips, that bubble on the top rear is actually flat topped and should be a dual laser turret, the whole bottom section is thicker, and there are a bunch of sensors on the top (little spines & greebles) they just skipped. It sounds nitpicky, but people aren't upset because the ship is new to us and we can't intuit its proper shape from familiarity -- if they got the cockpit shape of a T-65 X-wing completely wrong or gave a TIE fighter rectangular wings everyone would be up in arms.

...but the scale is correct!

On 24/12/2017 at 1:08 AM, Azrapse said:

@Wondergecko Posted this picture in another thread:

It's from the official visual guides.

If you compare the B/SF-17 bomber with the Millennium Falcon then the scale used by FFG seems perfectly fine. Right?

Are those pictures really showign accurate scale, though?

Because in the top image it's presented as being physically smaller than the All-Terrain MegaCaliber6 (lol). In the bottom image it's presented as being bigger than the AT-AT.

Just like the film itself, there doesn't appear to be much internal consistency there...

21 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Are those pictures really showign accurate scale, though?

Because in the top image it's presented as being physically smaller than the All-Terrain MegaCaliber6 (lol). In the bottom image it's presented as being bigger than the AT-AT.

Just like the film itself, there doesn't appear to be much internal consistency there...

Wait, aren't AT-M6's (good lord, that name.) supposed to be decidedly larger than the AT-ATs of the GCW? You can even see them walking side by side in the trailer and movie, the AT-AT just about reaches the chin of the M6.

Just now, DampfGecko said:

Wait, aren't AT-M6's (good lord, that name.) supposed to be decidedly larger than the AT-ATs of the GCW? You can even see them walking side by side in the trailer and movie, the AT-AT just about reaches the chin of the M6.

Yep, hence my confusion. But of course, we're just seeing part of the visual guide's page there, maybe we're missing some context.

8 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Yep, hence my confusion. But of course, we're just seeing part of the visual guide's page there, maybe we're missing some context.

Yes, the AT-M6 is about 150% the size of the AT-AT (and roughly equivalent in size to an AT-ACT), and we're being shown a Resistance Bomber (which is larger than an AT-AT but smaller than an AT-M6) next to both to bridge these differently scaled sections. It makes sense!

Eh, while it might be a bone to pick with the product overall, I wouldn't pick on minis details with FFG specifically. If they could have more accurate detail, they probably would - but since this is a physical print which would be months in advance of the film it's entirely possible that they didn't have access to the final renders used in the film, the printer may have had to work only with concept art or less detailed models. Again, somebody at LFL has to look at this product and go "this is fine" before they can ship it, and supposedly they can be pretty detail oriented in their handling of licensed products.

1 hour ago, UnitOmega said:

Eh, while it might be a bone to pick with the product overall, I wouldn't pick on minis details with FFG specifically. If they could have more accurate detail, they probably would - but since this is a physical print which would be months in advance of the film it's entirely possible that they didn't have access to the final renders used in the film, the printer may have had to work only with concept art or less detailed models. Again, somebody at LFL has to look at this product and go "this is fine" before they can ship it, and supposedly they can be pretty detail oriented in their handling of licensed products.

I think we tend to give FFG a little too much credit here. They release these minis before they have all the details because it will be more profitable if they hit shelves when there's hype. Basically, the quality of the miniatures suffer so they can make more money.