Just now, It’s One Of Ours said:

I think Han and Chewie’s space-monster-zoo-ship in episode 7 would probably qualify as the Star Wars equivalent to an ocean-freighter.

More a semi, really. A proper freighter should really be closer to a star destroyer in size. Freighters are BIG.

6 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

More a semi, really. A proper freighter should really be closer to a star destroyer in size. Freighters are BIG.

Good point. Maybe Han and Chewie’s ship is more like a semi... Or 6... Welded together to make the space-monster-zoo?

35 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

As for the size of the HWK, I’ve accepted captain lackwits arguments, but I’ve said it before, the scenes from the original DF game still make it look a lot bigger to me.

Doesn't matter though, video game visuals are THE ABSOLUTE WORST source to judge something’s size, the limitations of the medium require radical distortions, especially of interiors.

Agreed. Vehicles in video games could be anysize, as most characters don't even have feet, and are little more than two arms and a shotgun.

35 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

More a semi, really. A proper freighter should really be closer to a star destroyer in size. Freighters are BIG.

Freight is defined as goods transported by truck, train, ship, or aircraft. That makes my postal carrier’s van, that delivers packages a freighter, though that is generally a term for bulk transportation.

Small trucks can be driven without different drivers liscences here in Canada (5 ton I believe). There is also the fact that Star Wars DOES have external cargo pods. Perhaps be Moldy Crow’s turret replaced the external clamp for cargo?

4 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Perhaps be Moldy Crow’s turret replaced the external clamp for cargo?

Or it could have clamps on the bottom. There is room for the smaller containers between the propulsion units.

1 hour ago, Forgottenlore said:

More a semi, really. A proper freighter should really be closer to a star destroyer in size. Freighters are BIG.

The old West End RPG had a freighter (or tanker) five times the size of a star destroyer, the Black Ice.

1 hour ago, Forgottenlore said:

As for the general “freighter” terminology in Star Wars, don’t assume the word means exactly the same as it does on earth, think of it more as “cargo hauler”. The HWK is a pickup, or maybe even an el Camino, the falcon is a utility van (souped up, with lots of bells and whistles taking up the “cargo space”), the gr-75s are u-hauls, above that you’ve still got 10-wheelers, semis, land trains, and actual ocean going freighters.

looking at nautical terminology, i'd argue that the HWK is equivalent to the Mail Steamers of the 1800's and early 1900's. these were often small fast powered boats not much bigger than a Launch , used to carry time sensitive messages and small cargo's large distances, even across oceans. (there were also larger slower vessels, used for less urgent mail, obviously)

the HWK-290 series makes sense as a Courier. it is small, fast, and with a good hyperdrive. and doesn't need a big crew.

the Moldy Crow is an uparmed one, probably making it closer to the concept of a Motor Launch, which was a type of armed small craft used before and during WW1 that was basically a predecessor to the PT boats of WW2.

50 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Or it could have clamps on the bottom. There is room for the smaller containers between the propulsion units.

we've seen external clamps used in Rebels fairly extensively, even by ships that have decent internal space (like the Gozanti and C-roc) so it would make sense that the HWK could do something similar. agreed that the volume you could carry is probably a bit limited. though Hondo's Sentinel shuttle shows that you could also clamp stuff to the top of the ship as well.

10 hours ago, Green Knight said:

Can someone explain to me why the HWK, while clearly smaller than most freighters/transports, is Small base?

Surely it's at least as big as say an ARC?

Purely a holdover for 1st ed?

Not that it matters game-wise, the size is what it is, just wondering.

FFG got the scale of a number of ships wrong, so while the HWK is in scale with the X-wing, it isn't in scale with the a-wing. The Arc is actually scaled a little smaller than it should be in relation to the HWK. plus the ARCs wingspan gives ita lot more board presence, abd the hwk is built for speed and maneuverability. hence medium base? its all kinda relative

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

it isn't in scale with the a-wing.

Hipster opinion incoming, but FFG got the A-Wing right.

The smaller size everyone apparently believes to be right for the A-Wing is based off scaling comparisons that are physically impossible; namely, the pilot's head in the filming model.

The thing is, the pilot was a large action figure that had to have its legs cut off to fit in to the A-Wing at that scale. They would have been dangling out the bottom like the Flintstones' car otherwise. If you scale the cockpit based on the human size model built for shooting the cockpit interiors, you come to something much closer to the scale FFG used for the A-Wing.

All other comparisons people use to justify the smaller scale are of dubious reliability. The other big one is the hangar scene, and comparing it with the Y-Wing. But that's a matte paining for the set - totally 2D - and the forced perspective creates some issues.

FFG hasn’t gotten ANY scales wrong. If you want to complain about scale issues, at least place the responsibility where it actually belongs, on Lucasfilm. FFG is simply creating the sizes they are told are official.

And while we’re at it, film models and sets are never consistent. Trying to calculate a “proper” size base on on screen images is nothing but a foolish exercise in frustration. Fictional things are however big the IP owner says they are, if an on screen depiction doesn’t match that, then the depiction is wrong (either on accident or deliberately because of some behind the scenes reasons).

GuacCousteau’s approach is much better. Does the given size accommodate what’s supposed to be there? Do enough people fit, are corridors able to be tall enough, etc..?

29 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

FFG hasn’t gotten ANY scales wrong. If you want to complain about scale issues, at least place the responsibility where it actually belongs, on Lucasfilm. FFG is simply creating the sizes they are told are official.

It's one thing to be given the numbers, but FFG do still need to design and produce the models. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim they share some of the responsibility and credit, or to use "FFG did this" or "FFG did that" as a shorthand for the entire process of FFG -> LFL -> FFG -> back to LFL for final approval -> shelves etc.

31 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

And while we’re at it, film models and sets are never consistent. Trying to calculate a “proper” size base on on screen images is nothing but a foolish exercise in frustration. Fictional things are however big the IP owner says they are, if an on screen depiction doesn’t match that, then the depiction is wrong (either on accident or deliberately because of some behind the scenes reasons). 

I mean, yeah that's generally true.

But there are exceptions, depending either on the relative scales driving the perceived issue or due to the filmmaking techniques employed.

A great example is ANH, actually. When designing the X-Wing and Y-Wing props, the modelmakers knew they needed both smaller scale models for the action scenes and a large studio model for the hangar scenes. So to ensure consistency they actually built the X-Wing and Y-Wing filming models at something so close to a standard model kit scale that it's obvious they were intending for that scale. This means that the big prop used with all the actors in the hangar was almost identical in terms of proportions, and things like the visible R2 astromech dome line up perfectly in scale. With a manageable, simple scale in place it was easy for ILM to keep consistency when compositing the shots. It was also helped by them essentially overlaying the model work on footage of actual WW2 dogfights and I think the dogfight scenes from Dambusters, so a lot of the perspective work was already done for them.

Because the same filming and studio models were used throughout the trilogy (though I think the ESB full scale X-Wing had some work done to make it more detailed and better match Luke's Red 5 paintjob), the X-Wing is remarkably scale consistent across all its shots.

Interestingly the TIE Fighter, which obviously didn't require a full size studio model has not been quite so consistent and there has been a bit more of a debate about its size relative to the X-Wing (compared with the official stats, the TIE Fighter filming models don't sit in a recognised standard scale).

Beyond that, there are times when the difference between two things is so large that a rough comparative scale can be drawn consistently. This was the case with the Super Star Destroyer, the OG Star Wars size debate.

While you're absolutely right that there's no way the SSD was portrayed in perfect scale to everything around it through all the shots it appears in, it is obviously consistent within a given margin of error.

So although all the issues with gleaning scale from film you mentioned are true, it is still consistent and obvious in all the shots it appears in that the Super Star Destroyer is very roughly as long as 8-10 Star Destroyers.

So when the first official figures came out to less than half the lower end of that estimate, it was really obviously wrong.

It's so famously, obviously wrong that it's one of the few things that finally got corrected.

But when it gets down to much, much smaller scales (seriously the A-Wing debate amounts to a difference of less than 5m) then yeah, trying to get laser accurate proportions from movie stills is as futile as you say.

Just to cap off this wall of text, I know people hate these size threads and moan about them regularly, but I love them. Technical nitty gritty of Star Wars spaceships. Evidence analysis. Historical research. Long buried notes from the people who worked on the films. It's all good stuff.

People should know what they're getting into from the title of this thread.

In regards to the a-wing and on screen accuracy, the model matches up with Rebels quite well, while some styling occurs in the show, Rebels is canon, and has shown the capabilities and size of the a-wing more than Return of the Jedi has and consistently.

9 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

Ah, there you are. I was starting to think I was going to have to tag you.

Hahahahaha, you know me.

9 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

As for the size of the HWK, I’ve accepted captain lackwits arguments, but I’ve said it before, the scenes from the original DF game still make it look a lot bigger to me.

Doesn't matter though, video game visuals are THE ABSOLUTE WORST source to judge something’s size , the limitations of the medium require radical distortions, especially of interiors.

UNLESS

We have this.

And this.

The absolute best shots of how large the HWK-290 is actually supposed to be. I also don't buy for a second that it's a Corellian design, but an Incom one instead. Has all the lines to match and has exactly zero Corellian design cues.

2 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

FFG hasn’t gotten ANY scales wrong. If you want to complain about scale issues, at least place the responsibility where it actually belongs, on Lucasfilm. FFG is simply creating the sizes they are told are official.

And while we’re at it, film models and sets are never consistent. Trying to calculate a “proper” size base on on screen images is nothing but a foolish exercise in frustration. Fictional things are however big the IP owner says they are, if an on screen depiction doesn’t match that, then the depiction is wrong (either on accident or deliberately because of some behind the scenes reasons).

GuacCousteau’s approach is much better. Does the given size accommodate what’s supposed to be there? Do enough people fit, are corridors able to be tall enough, etc..?

Except for, y'know. The TIE Silencer.