Welcome back to the semi-regular whenever the heck I feel like it series where we engage in fundamentally futile discussions about the pointless minutiae of Star Wars as it relates to Star Wars Legion.

In this "episode", the topic is size and, to a degree, scale. I'll preface this by saying that there's nothing wrong with taking an "eh, close enough" approach to this kind of thing, and there's also nothing wrong with sticking strictly to the presently-stated canon numbers for things. That said - I personally can't stomach "close enough" unless it's the only option, and personally a lot of the presently-stated canon, much as with our previous topic on Imperial ranks & insignia, seems to make about as much sense as a chocolate teapot.

One of the things people seem most interested in with Legion is making cool terrain, and a lot of folk agree that some of the coolest terrain consists of landed or crashed starships. The trouble is, even if you put aside the debate over what scale to use when converting the "real" ships down to LegionScale(I use 1:47 myself for reasons I've gone over a lot before, but to briefly recap - it gives a 1.8m "scale human" of 38.3mm which matches up well with the figures, and is nigh enough spot-on for the FFG T-47 and AT-ST in a neutral pose, and my "acceptable range" is 1:46-to-1:48 for actual kits), the supposed "real" sizes are all over the joint.

Two things illustrate this really well, conveniently one Rebel and one Imperial. The Rebel one is the A-Wing and the pretty huge discrepancy between the claimed size and the actual appearance of the ship, which has already been covered well and thoroughly by Jonathan Campbell over at rebelscale.com, but the TL;DR is this - 9.6m, based on every actual appearance of the ship bar Rebels(which I'm personally inclined to either dismiss entirely as they often distort proportion and scale on that show as part of the art style, or else use the differences between the Rebels A-Wing and the later RotJ ship to peg the former as the R-22 Spearhead, a precursor to the RZ-1 A-Wing), is at least two and a half metres too long, it should be around 7m long, and even as they insist on the 9.6m thing ILM/Lucasfilm also contradict that themselves, since the RZ-2 Resistance A-Wing is stated to have a "slimmer and longer" chassis than the RZ-1 but has a stated length of 7.68m .

So, based on the not-canon but actually-consistent-with-the-facts ~7m measure, and using 1:47 scale, a LegionScale RZ-1 A-Wing "should" be ~149mm long, and based on that the best match if you're looking for a model is the old AMT/ERTL A-Wing kit from the 80's which clocks in at ~152mm.

The other illustrative example is the TIE series which is just...ugh ?

The humble TIE/ln, the basic but iconic TIE Fighter is really the only "safe" baseline we have on this one, since its actual size was reconsidered as part of the creation of digital assets for Rogue One so as to actually account for the cockpit filming set and size of a real pilot, rather than the number being based on the original filming models which were not constructed to the same scale as the Rebel ships despite them using the same pilot figure inside painted grey(you never actually see the cockpit interior in any exterior shots anyway). Its size has varied from 6.4m, which was seemingly a rough ballpark from an old RPG, to 8.99m, which appears to be the size FFG used for the X-Wing ships(and why, to my eye, they look too big next to actual X-Wings), to the new final and actually based on some considered evidence number from Rogue One of 7.24m. Huzzah, problem solved, we can all go home.

Hah, no.

Because there isn't just the TIE/ln to consider, and when you look into the other TIE ship sizes, the numbers look more like vague guesses than anything approaching logic. The Advanced x1(Vader's TIE) is pegged at 11.05m, the TIE Interceptor at 11.45m...but both ships pretty clearly use the same cockpit and canopy structure as the basic TIE/ln. The Bomber, meanwhile, is ostensibly 7.9m in length, yet its wing-panels are extended versions of the ones used on the Advanced ? Literally, in fact - the TIE/sa filming model for ESB was built by ILM using parts from a model kit of the TIE Advanced released after the first movie.

So, I decided to try and reconcile all this nonsense. First and foremost, I'm using the "constant canopy assumption" from the aforementioned rebelscale website, because it's entirely reasonable given the Empire's use of standarisation and mass-production, and because using it generates reasonably consistent results. I dug into EA's Battlefront 2 videogame files and took high-res images of the 3D models for the four TIE craft at issue, then I scaled them relative to each other based on them all having the same size of cockpit canopy, and finally I took all of those images and rescaled them together in GIMP on the basis of 1cm=1m using the 7.24m length of the TIE/ln, which resulted in this:

And hey, look at that, it all seems to work. All the fighters end up with cockpit balls and struts of about the same size, and the bomber's wing-panels look like bulked up and extended versions of the Advanced's, as they should. Based on the above, the numbers end up as ~5.85m for the TIE Advanced, ~6.9m for the TIE Bomber, and ~9.2m for the Interceptor. Converted into "LegionScale" that gives lengths of ~125mm, ~147mm, and ~196mm respectively, with the basic TIE/ln clocking in at ~154mm.

Unfortunately if you're looking for models for most of those, you'll struggle. There's a spot-on Revell Level 3 "Anniversary Edition" TIE Fighter(it's marked as 1:65 for some reason, but at 155mm long they must have been partaking rather heavily when they decided to go with that; kit number 06051). and otherwise you're out of luck. The Revell TIE Advanced is closer to 1:40 scale, and the closest Interceptor is the old ERTL kit which only barely scrapes 155mm. There are no official kits for the TIE Bomber at all, that I've found. Still, the numbers might be useful for anyone 3D printing or scratchbuilding/papercrafting, as I suspect I'll end up having to.

Thoughts? Objections? I suspect obsessing over things to this degree puts me in a fairly small minority, so I'm interested to hear from folk who have a slightly more "normal" attitude - how do you approach the subject of size & scale, do you have a system of your own that's maybe a touch less OTT, or is it all about just what looks good enough for the old MK1 Eyeball?

I use a mix of both the good ole eye test and breaking out the ruler. I do want everything to look correct to scale. From a automotive modeling background this is a refreshing change of pace. As far as ships go to turn into terrian I've picked up revells a wing and that's it. Just bought a 3d printer and that'll be some of the first things I do is make more terrain.

This is more of a size comparison thing than a scaling thing.

The naval term "Destroyer" would usually refer to a smaller combat vessel, but is used here to describe the largest ships in Starwars.

That usage makes sense when one considers the fact that most other ships are referred to as either "Corvettes" or "Frigates", which are both ship classes smaller than a Destroyer.

The smaller "Cruisers" are using the term in the older usage of a small ship which would scout ahead for the main fleet, while the larger Cruisers are more fitting of the early WW2 usage.

The Quasar-fire should technically be an "Auxiliary Carrier" based on its relative size, while the Venator is scalewise perfect for an early "Fleet Carrier".

The outlier for all of this is the Executor, which should be classed as a "Battlecruiser".

The problems with the sizes of the Ties stem from the assumption that the Studio Models were all built to a consistent scale (1/24)

It depends on whether you consider the studio ties to be 1/16 or 1/24.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but if I understand correctly and got my reference materials correct, some interviews in magazines around the time of the films mentioned the ties were built originally as 1/16 models.

Later I think they were scaled as 1/24 models mainly due to the pilots in there being 1/24 and the assumption that they were built to the same scale as the X-wings, which were supposedly 1/24. While 1/24 pilots were used, the ILM guys often went with a "close enough" approach, especially since you couldn;t even see the pilots.

Fine Molds and AMT seem to have based there sizes on a 1/16 studio model. Based on that there stuff that is close to 1/48 range is in the 1/50 range give or take

Fantasy Flight Games came along and "officially" scaled the studio models at 1/24, giving us a larger tie relative to the X-wing and the older tie toolings. This makes the Fine Molds 1/48 tie more like in the 1/65 range

Revell kind of did a hybrid, they based the figures off the size of a 1/16 studio model, but then when calculating scale for the box/web site, went the 1/24 studio model route. They released a tie originally labelled as 1/57, that actually had a pilot in it is closer to 1/40 scale. The Level 3 Tie Fighter they said was 1/110, but it is clearly close to the same size as the bandai 1/72 tie

Bandai followed suit with the sizes established by FFG, so their 1/72 Tie Fighter's are noticeably larger than the previous Fine Molds 1/72 Tie Fighters (which wind up being closer to 1/to the 1/110 range now)

I will say, the Bandai and FFG sizing fit more with the implied room for the pilot that the full size set has, but personally, feels a little large compared to the X-wings and Y-Wings

So in the end, it depends on whose source material you think is correct in order to determine whose tie is most true when downscaling from the studio models.

With the A-wing the same thing happened. There was one that had the oversized articulated figure in it (that supports that smaller size A-Wing), and another, the same size that had a much smaller figure in it (which lines up with the larger size that Bandai and the FFG seem to have gone with). The full size set seems to be somewhere in between

Things get even worse with the Millennium Falcon. The full size set interior can not fit in the space that the studio model would have if it was given a scaled down interior

Basically, ILM provided special effects. They probably never dreamed of the day where that stuff would be analyzed with such close scrutiny.

In the end I tend to take the scales of Star Wars stuff with a grain of salt. Close enough is often the best you can hope for without driving yourself bonkers trying to reconcile it all

Well, yes, all that is a given but the whole point of this series of topics is to at least try and construct some kind of reasoned baseline; I figure since I'm doing all of this work anyway, I might as well share it and discuss it. And with the TIE, it really has been reconciled. With Rogue One the "filming model" assets from ANH were rebuilt digitally by ILM and this time they did it properly, accounting for the size of the cockpit filming sets and using lots of reference to the hangar scenes with the full size props, so for my money the TIE/ln is "fixed" now, all I'm trying to do is make the other TIE series ships consistent with it using the best logic and assumptions available.

If it's any help, the Tie Bomber was actually built from parts of the MPC Tie Advanced kit

The wings had some additional trimming added to them to, but scaling it based on the window frame should work

On 6/22/2018 at 2:38 AM, Yodhrin said:

Well, yes, all that is a given but the whole point of this series of topics is to at least try and construct some kind of reasoned baseline; I figure since I'm doing all of this work anyway, I might as well share it and discuss it. And with the TIE, it really has been reconciled. With Rogue One the "filming model" assets from ANH were rebuilt digitally by ILM and this time they did it properly, accounting for the size of the cockpit filming sets and using lots of reference to the hangar scenes with the full size props, so for my money the TIE/ln is "fixed" now, all I'm trying to do is make the other TIE series ships consistent with it using the best logic and assumptions available.

You should do the work if it's fun for you. But it's reasonable to propose that substantial variation, even in the size of something as regimented as military vehicles, would happen in a game-universe as big as Star Wars. "Oh yeah, those are the 322D-1T7 model, they were a bit smaller. Only 20,000 of them were ever made."

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

You should do the work if it's fun for you. But it's reasonable to propose that substantial variation, even in the size of something as regimented as military vehicles, would happen in a game-universe as big as Star Wars. "Oh yeah, those are the 322D-1T7 model, they were a bit smaller. Only 20,000 of them were ever made."

But again, the point of this isn't to establish the exact dimensions of the "322D-1T7" sub-sub-subtype or any kind of absolute "do this or you're wrong" standard, it's to establish a baseline for the basic, mass-produced vehicles that people can use as a point of comparison when considering model kits based on their own tolerance for scale variance, and for people planning to 3D print vehicles who want to get them as close as possible, because as it stands if they were to print out a TIE Interceptor and a TIE Fighter based on the stated sizes, the former's cockpit ball and struts would be inexplicably about 20% larger despite them being literally exactly the same parts both in-fiction and out. If they were to print a TIE Advanced the cockpit ball would be half again as big, again despite it being based on the same components and using exactly the same filming set for the cockpit.

People can choose to explain or not any actual differences in physical size of miniatures however they like, but the point of this is it would be better if that was a choice rather than a necessity.

7 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

... it's to establish a baseline for the basic, mass-produced vehicles that people can use as a point of comparison when considering model kits based on their own tolerance for scale variance, and for people planning to 3D print vehicles who want to get them as close as possible, because as it stands if they were to print out a TIE Interceptor and a TIE Fighter based on the stated sizes, the former's cockpit ball and struts would be inexplicably about 20% larger despite them being literally exactly the same parts both in-fiction and out. If they were to print a TIE Advanced the cockpit ball would be half again as big, again despite it being based on the same components and using exactly the same filming set for the cockpit.

Yeah I really appreciate this!

I'd love a spreadsheet that list the cannon dimensions for each vehicle, the adjusted scales that look right, and then the various available model kits. I did something like that a while ago for Star Trek ships (also a source of scale issues) for playing Attack Wing, and it was really useful for assembling fleets that looked 'right' together in ways that were never filmed (for example I ended up with like two different manufactures of imported Japanese models for the Ent-D and the Excelsior and 3D prints for the original Enterprise).

Once you have the data it's easy to then adjust as suits your budget and eyeball. I've been oggling many of the models and toys folks post on the other scale thread, but at $70-$90 for some of these items, I'd rather put that money into terrain or minis. For vehicles and such I'll probably have to go the 3D printed route.