15 minutes ago, Nihm said:

AT-TE seems outta wack. In Rebels it had to crawl up the AT-AT legs and shoot up into it's neck :/

Something is off

I just went and re-watched that scene. You're absolutely right. Either they rendered that AT-TE extremely small, or those weren't average AT-ATs. But, again, all my numbers are based of the wiki pages with the canon measurements. I'll just assume those were another AT-AT variant.

6 hours ago, AldousSnow said:

Day one of my vacation, so I thought I'd whip this up. These are some commonly talked about ships. These are all in 1/48 scale and sit on a 6ft by 3ft play area. These are for terrain purposes, morbid curiosity, or a closer look at what we can and cannot expect to be released as playable minis.

From Left to Right: Imperial Shuttle, T47 airspeeder, AT-AT, U-Wing, X-Wing, Sandcrawler

If there's any ships you want me to add, let me know.

Where are you getting the sizes from? The snowspeeder seems too big relative to the AT-AT from what’s depicted in ESB.

All sizes are from wiki. And to be honest, the above photo of the demise of a snowspeeder makes the scale seem spot on. Thank you for proving the reference size is good.

52 minutes ago, AldousSnow said:

I just went and re-watched that scene. You're absolutely right. Either they rendered that AT-TE extremely small, or those weren't average AT-ATs. But, again, all my numbers are based of the wiki pages with the canon measurements. I'll just assume those were another AT-AT variant.

Apparently those weren't the AT-ATs we see in Empire. They were a different type like the AT-ACT in Rogue One.

1 hour ago, AldousSnow said:

I just went and re-watched that scene. You're absolutely right. Either they rendered that AT-TE extremely small, or those weren't average AT-ATs. But, again, all my numbers are based of the wiki pages with the canon measurements. I'll just assume those were another AT-AT variant.

As far as I understand it, that's essentially how Lucas handled inconsistencies back in the day. And it looks like that still might be the pattern.

26 minutes ago, AldousSnow said:

All sizes are from wiki. And to be honest, the above photo of the demise of a snowspeeder makes the scale seem spot on. Thank you for proving the reference size is good.

It helps that the placement in your picture the snowspeeder is lined up with one of the feet of the AT-AT.

These are incredibly useful, thanks!?

If you are taking requests: Millennium Falcon, Slave 1, Bespin Cloud Cars? lol

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

As far as I understand it, that's essentially how Lucas handled inconsistencies back in the day. And it looks like that still might be the pattern.

It helps that the placement in your picture the snowspeeder is lined up with one of the feet of the AT-AT.

Yes which is how you can plainly see that the snowspeeder in the graphic is too big.

Updated for the Falcon, Slave 1, and Bespin Cloud Car

8 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Yes which is how you can plainly see that the snowspeeder in the graphic is too big.

You're welcome to start your own thread. I'll be very interested in the size references you pull from the internet. Link me when your ship infographic is done. I love when the community works together. Thanks

3 minutes ago, AldousSnow said:

You're welcome to start your own thread. I'll be very interested in the size references you pull from the internet. Link me when your ship infographic is done. I love when the community works together. Thanks

And I’m welcome to provide critical analysis of the flaws inherent in relying on the figures drawn from various sources that apparently contradict the visual evidence of the movies. But thanks for your permission to do what I like.

7 minutes ago, Derrault said:

And I’m welcome to provide critical analysis of the flaws inherent in relying on the figures drawn from various sources that apparently contradict the visual evidence of the movies. But thanks for your permission to do what I like.

Dude take it down about three notches. Aldous put this together in his own time and it is a useful reference he is providing free of charge.

Your picture shows the front and back of the speeder extending past the edges of the walkers foot. It looks to be almost exactly the same size as the speeder in the infographic.

Maybe this explains why you think u-wing is only as long as an at-st is tall?

Just now, devin.pike.1989 said:

Dude take it down about three notches. Aldous put this together in his own time and it is a useful reference he is providing free of charge.

Your picture shows the front and back of the speeder extending past the edges of the walkers foot. It looks to be almost exactly the same size as the speeder in the infographic.

Maybe this explains why you think u-wing is only as long as an at-st is tall?

Thanks for the assist. I already blocked him, but I really thought this would be a cool reference for everyone. Some people just can't be happy. I've actually learned a lot myself making this. I kinda want some cloud cars now lol

9 hours ago, AldousSnow said:

Thanks for the assist. I already blocked him, but I really thought this would be a cool reference for everyone. Some people just can't be happy. I've actually learned a lot myself making this. I kinda want some cloud cars now lol

Any reference to scale always draws a crowd. My comments are based on my own confusion with the way articles and visual proof get out of synch. Your time is appriciated and please don't think a comment expressing doubt is directed at you personally.

Peace \/

@Nihm You were right though. Went back and watched the scene you were talking about. Either that’s a smaller than normal variant of the AT TE or a larger variant of the AT AT. The TE should be 1/2 the height, not 1/5 the height as shown in the episode.

Hmm maybe we will see the tx225.. it looks like it would be fine on a 100mm base.

6 hours ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

Dude take it down about three notches. Aldous put this together in his own time and it is a useful reference he is providing free of charge.

Your picture shows the front and back of the speeder extending past the edges of the walkers foot. It looks to be almost exactly the same size as the speeder in the infographic.

Maybe this explains why you think u-wing is only as long as an at-st is tall?

I was just pointing out a visible flaw as compared to the actual in movie size of the vehicle (go ahead and rewatch Rogue One and Empire Strikes Back and look at the scales compared to humans) and asked for the references. He quoted a wiki then told me to buzz off in a very passive aggressive way.

How is thanking him bad again? I don’t owe him a thing. And his data is both suspect and lacking any citation misleading for a casual viewer who doesn’t bother to fact check. But yeah, go ahead and lay into me for questioning the source materials employed.

This is an amazing resource, thanks for putting it together!!

Seeing the size of the Falcon has got me wondering about a board with objectives on the interior of a ship. If you could get it to scale you could just have a hinged top. Not sure if that would actually work though, but I like the cinematic feel of a group of rebel troopers getting caught in the narrow falcon hallways by Vader.

1 hour ago, OMGBRICK said:

@Nihm You were right though. Went back and watched the scene you were talking about. Either that’s a smaller than normal variant of the AT TE or a larger variant of the AT AT. The TE should be 1/2 the height, not 1/5 the height as shown in the episode.

As i mentioned earlier, Disney actually created a new variant AT-AT just for Rebels. The "Early Galactic Civil War Variant." Either the animators wanted a bigger, more imposing AT-AT for Rebels, or the Lucasfilm Story Group forgot the relative dimensions of an AT-AT, AT-TE, and Gozanti.

@Derrault You seem to be seeing a flaw where there is not one. In your provided screenshot, the rounded portion of the foot is only covering from the engine housing to the front of the cockpit, which is roughly how the foot is lined up in the created reference image.

12 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

As i mentioned earlier, Disney actually created a new variant AT-AT just for Rebels. The "Early Galactic Civil War Variant." Either the animators wanted a bigger, more imposing AT-AT for Rebels, or the Lucasfilm Story Group forgot the relative dimensions of an AT-AT, AT-TE, and Gozanti.

Relics of the Old Republic's Trivia Gallery confirms that yes, they were aware at the time that their AT-AT is "far larger" (though the pic is of early concept art).

http://www.starwars.com/tv-shows/star-wars-rebels/relics-of-the-old-republic-trivia-gallery

The Concept Art gallery itself has a good comparison pic showing the scale, compared to the AT-DP and a person:

http://www.starwars.com/tv-shows/star-wars-rebels/relics-of-the-old-republic-concept-art-gallery

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

I was just pointing out a visible flaw as compared to the actual in movie size of the vehicle (go ahead and rewatch Rogue One and Empire Strikes Back and look at the scales compared to humans)

Rogue One's aren't AT-ATs either - they are the somewhat larger AT-ACT:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/at-act-walker

Oh! That's a mcquarrie walker!

28 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

As i mentioned earlier, Disney actually created a new variant AT-AT just for Rebels. The "Early Galactic Civil War Variant." Either the animators wanted a bigger, more imposing AT-AT for Rebels, or the Lucasfilm Story Group forgot the relative dimensions of an AT-AT, AT-TE, and Gozanti.

@Derrault You seem to be seeing a flaw where there is not one. In your provided screenshot, the rounded portion of the foot is only covering from the engine housing to the front of the cockpit, which is roughly how the foot is lined up in the created reference image.

I would say the toes on the movie image line up from the end to the front minus the prongs, that puts the toes of the red AT-AT at being about 1-2 feet too short.

@Ironlord I meant the size of troopers to the U-Wing, as we actually see them disembark.

6 minutes ago, Derrault said:

@Ironlord I meant the size of troopers to the U-Wing, as we actually see them disembark.

The "canon length" of the U-Wing, foils forward, is 24.98m. The "canon height" of the AT-ACT is 31.85m (34.9m long). The "canon height" of a regular, non-Rebels AT-AT is 22.5m (20m long).

Are you arguing that the U-Wing size is wrong - and if so, is it too small or too large? Or is it that the regular AT-AT should be just a little bigger?

53 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I would say the toes on the movie image line up from the end to the front minus the prongs, that puts the toes of the red AT-AT at being about 1-2 feet too short.

The toes for the rear foot aren't visible in the red image, which is I will point out is at a slightangle, otherwise the feet wouldn't be as visible. Hence why I only referred to the rounded section. A difference of 1-2 feet translates into 1/4-1/2 of an inch at 1:48 scale. Which in my opinion is very accurate for someone using their free time to make mock ups from images they can find online. Perhaps the image used is where the slight discrepancy arises.

@Ironlord That tracks. Good to know it was on purpose (which I'm not super surprised by, Disney tends to be very deliberate).

@devin.pike.1989 Yeah, Rebels used a bunch of M cQuarrie's art for inspiration. It's a very nice homage in my opinion.

4 hours ago, Nihm said:

Any reference to scale always draws a crowd. My comments are based on my own confusion with the way articles and visual proff get out of synch. Your time is appriciated and please don't think a comment expressing doubt is directed at you personally.

Peace \/

Its all good. Nihm, you always have good and interesting things to say on these boards. Andddd you were right. We discovered a 4th type of Imp walker because of you lol

@AldousSnow ... Thanks for doing this. Much appreciated.