How exactly was this thread found? I mean, its 4 years old and buried under newer stuff...

Also, who among us actually cares about exact scale. If the Millennium Falcon is 'larger than life' by a millimeter, does it matter?

I did a search on model scale and this thread popped up. Then, I noticed that with the resurgence in interest in old videos that some of them had been newly posted - so I put up the link to the video being referred to in this thread.

I was doing the scale model search trying to get info on the ideas posted in other threads about trying to select a scale for mixing land and space games. 1/270 allows for using 6 mm figurines - as long as they are actually made to that scale. (I like that scale, by the way)

The real test is being referred to in most of the posts here. Do the cockpits make sense when you put a human sized figure in them! Then, are the larger ships sensible when compared to the ships that you can size to those cockpits....

Obviously, there is a problem with some of the allegedly 'true scale' models.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the inconsistencies are LFL's fault and not FFG's. FFG's miniatures are just shedding light on the fact that the ship designs don't necessarily match the scale of the ships. The G1-A is a big offender, in my opinion. I think the size of the ship is fine*, but the design of that huge cockpit is ridiculous, considering the size of the pilots inside.

*And obviously, the current size doesn't match the old Legends story about Zuckuss and 4-LOM picking up a hundred or so Rebels from a GR-75, but there's nothing we can do about that.

The real test is being referred to in most of the posts here. Do the cockpits make sense when you put a human sized figure in them! Then, are the larger ships sensible when compared to the ships that you can size to those cockpits....

Obviously, there is a problem with some of the allegedly 'true scale' models.

Yup, it's pretty clear in several cases.

I just don't get why so many folks are willing to blindly and vehemently defend absurdities because of some official stat. Yes, we all realize that (for the most part) FFG ha made models adhering to LFL's official numbers. No one is disputing that. But we are saying that clearly this results in several ships being widely out of "common sense" or "cockpit comparison" scale. This isn't an attack against FFG, or even LFL. But an observation about ship scale.

Besides, FFG has long since embraced sliding scales for the Epic ships, and presumably other ships as well. In fact, I can't recall FFG stating anything about their commitment to scale other than the Wave 1 initial release. Like, I've never seen FFG themselves say that they made an A-Wing according to the LFL official number. And, I think it's safe to assume that the upcoming Upsilon shuttle, for instance, is clearly downsized in a sliding scale (and not an accurate scale). If it were in accurate scale, presumably it's goofy wingspan would have made for a physically inconvenient model.

I don't get bothered by the ships not all being in the same true scale. I understand that FFG has violated it for practical reasons (Epic ships, Upsilon, possibly the YV) and in other cases because the LFL Gospel seems to be wrong (A-Wing, K-Wing, etc.). That's fine, and it doesn't affect the beauty or the fun of the game or the quality of the the components in any way. But it's silly to hard-line a stance that all the models are in an accurate perfect true scale "because LFL said-so" (which we don't even know if it's true post Wave 1 anyhow).

Or check out this Prince Harry in an Episode 8 A-Wing cockpit, which is pretty close to the RotJ A-Wing cockpit shots we see:

Actually it's quite along way off

check out pics of the original studio model here and compare the prince-who-is-also-a-pilot to the pilot

How exactly was this thread found? I mean, its 4 years old and buried under newer stuff...

Also, who among us actually cares about exact scale. If the Millennium Falcon is 'larger than life' by a millimeter, does it matter?

I did a search on model scale and this thread popped up. Then, I noticed that with the resurgence in interest in old videos that some of them had been newly posted - so I put up the link to the video being referred to in this thread.

I was doing the scale model search trying to get info on the ideas posted in other threads about trying to select a scale for mixing land and space games. 1/270 allows for using 6 mm figurines - as long as they are actually made to that scale. (I like that scale, by the way)

The real test is being referred to in most of the posts here. Do the cockpits make sense when you put a human sized figure in them! Then, are the larger ships sensible when compared to the ships that you can size to those cockpits....

Obviously, there is a problem with some of the allegedly 'true scale' models.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the inconsistencies are LFL's fault and not FFG's. FFG's miniatures are just shedding light on the fact that the ship designs don't necessarily match the scale of the ships. The G1-A is a big offender, in my opinion. I think the size of the ship is fine*, but the design of that huge cockpit is ridiculous, considering the size of the pilots inside.

*And obviously, the current size doesn't match the old Legends story about Zuckuss and 4-LOM picking up a hundred or so Rebels from a GR-75, but there's nothing we can do about that.

Indeed, and I'm willing to be very very lenient with non-film ships because we simply have no reference points for scale at all. Clearly the G1-A can no longer carry 90 passengers. I dunno if it still currently features multiple bedrooms and detention cells...but based on the model I'd have to guess probably not. Either way, we don't have any on-screen references to evaluate the ship upon, so whatever model we get is generally right in my book. Even TIE Fighters never really give us a good referent, since we don't know how spacious or non-spacious the cockpit really is or how much of the ball's total volume is cockpit versus other elements. Poe and Finn in the SF in TFA is probably the best we've gotten yet.

But for other ships where we have on-screen references (like A-Wing cockpits or A-Wings in hangar bays next to Y-Wings) we can make some inferences. Also, for ships like the K-Wing, we can safely assume that--despite having never seen it on screen--that the ball sponson turret under the front houses a human being, and that it would thus require a certain size to do so...which is clearly violated when juxtaposed to other known model sizes (namely cockpits).

The good news is the vast majority of ships then get a free pass on scale, because we don't have any screen references or other elements (eg ball gunners) to deduce from as frames of reference. So it's pretty telling, perhaps, that of the few ships we do have such reference points for (namely only Rebel fighters and the K-Wing and soon the Upsilon) that at least three of them seem egregiously off (the A, K, and Up).

Not really. Hold a Z-95 up to a YV-666 . Tell me how it's supposed to sit internally inside...even without the wings the Z's fuselage is too thick. Clearly one is too large or the other too small.

I think it was TCW that rescaled the YV-666 without bothering to take the Headhunter issue into account - and FFG had to follow TCW's lead.

Rebels A-wings are to scale with the miniatures:

I'm having trouble finding pictures to compare A-wing scale to X-wings sitting side by side in Return of the Jedi. The only shots I'm finding are matte paintings, which don't necessarily represent the scale of the models used in flight sequences.

I find it interesting that some insist on using the actual props as evidence.

Especially when everyone else knows that the scale/size of the props change to fit the scene shot in the film. These may or may not be close to the actual 'official' scale size. Looking at this evidence the Millennium Falcon in X-Wing is way too big and should be alot smaller, like what a few people are saying about the A-Wing. Or some just pick and choose their favorite "evidence".

I think if LFL says these are the scales, then that is the scale. My figures looks fine, I'm happy.

Why does it have to fit on a horizontal plane? What if the Z-95 is mounted vertically? Then there would be plenty of room. Is up and down an issue in space?

Looking at this evidence the Millennium Falcon in X-Wing is way too big and should be alot smaller, like what a few people are saying about the A-Wing.

The Falcon size issue (80ft TESB "full scale model" - but interior shots suggesting a much larger Falcon) has been known about for a while.

The "canon size" of 34.26m in TFA Incredible Cross Sections (34.75m in the Databank) was probably a compromise based on a wide range of factors.

The ships depicted in those two pictures doesn't seem to be the same model of ship, at all.

The Rebels A-Wing lacks that separation at the front, has different weapon mountings, has windows for a passenger, and you can clearly see the pilot looks smaller in that cockpit. Kanan travelled as a passenger in an A-Wing not so many episodes ago.

The ROTJ A-Wing seems to be a much smaller version. Definitely no passenger fits there.

Even when they Rebels tech data implies that they are the same ship, you don't need to pay much attention to realize that it is impossible that they are the same ship.

The A-Wing in Episode 8, the one with the British prince, doesn't seem to have room for a passenger either. So clearly that is either an evolution of the ROTJ model, or yet a different one.

My bet is that LFL screwed it up by claiming that the Rebels' A-wings are RZ-1 "A-wings" instead of the previous accepted variant R-22 Spearhead "A-Wings".

Presumably, they concluded that the ROTJ A-Wing was just unfeasibly cramped - so they're retconning it - so that "in reality" it is more roomy than it looks in the movie shots.

The Databank tells us that the A-Wings had armor and shielding reduced between Rebels and ROTJ to increase its speed - that would involve stripping stuff off it, probably including the lasers and replacing them with smaller ones:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/a-wing-fighter

Kanan's "passenger-capable A-Wing" is a trainer model:

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

the standard Rebels A-wings aren't two-seat.

But the A-Wings in the picture above DO have those windows and you can see plenty of room behind the pilot. A seat fits there.

But the A-Wings in the picture above DO have those windows and you can see plenty of room behind the pilot. A seat fits there.

The ships depicted in those two pictures doesn't seem to be the same model of ship, at all.

The Rebels A-Wing lacks that separation at the front, has different weapon mountings, has windows for a passenger, and you can clearly see the pilot looks smaller in that cockpit. Kanan travelled as a passenger in an A-Wing not so many episodes ago.

The ROTJ A-Wing seems to be a much smaller version. Definitely no passenger fits there.

Even when they Rebels tech data implies that they are the same ship, you don't need to pay much attention to realize that it is impossible that they are the same ship.

The A-Wing in Episode 8, the one with the British prince, doesn't seem to have room for a passenger either. So clearly that is either an evolution of the ROTJ model, or yet a different one.

My bet is that LFL screwed it up by claiming that the Rebels' A-wings are RZ-1 "A-wings" instead of the previous accepted variant R-22 Spearhead "A-Wings".

Those pictured are one man fighters, the two seater trainer is a different ship.

Various details being off are because Rebels are stylized to look like the OT concept art.

But the size matches official canon size, and this is not a coincidence. This has been decided - A-wings were supposed to be that large, perhabs they didn't look that big because the technics used back in the day couldn't convey it well enough.

R-22 Spearhead was just a silly retcon, identical to an A-wing, refered to as an A-wing, only happened because EU authors gave zero **** about the coherency, one person decided A-wings are post Yavin and another decided he really likes the A-wing and wants it in his work which is set before Yavin, and another person had to patch everything up by inventing the "this literally A-wing is not really an A-wing, it just looks like it but this is compeltey different ship" retcon.

For EU authors you mean George Lucas? The R-22 Spearhead "A-wing" appears first in the Star Wars Droids series, of his creation.

Yes, it was a retcon.

Yes, it showed A-wings before Yavin.

No, I don't find it silly that two different ships that are similar are called with the same "A-wing" nickname. It happens in canon also with the Incom T-65 and T-70 "X-wings", and with the Koensayr BTL-S3, BTL-B, and BTL-A4 "Y-wings".

OK, never watched Droids, I stand corrected:

R-22 Spearhead was just a silly retcon, identical to an A-wing, refered to as an A-wing, only happened because EU authors gave zero **** about the coherency, George Lucas decided A-wings are pre Yavin, but some EU author thought they know better, and A-wing didn't exist pre Yavin, some other authors followed and some others didn't, then another person had to patch everything up by inventing the "this literally A-wing is not really an A-wing, it just looks like it but this is compeltey different ship" retcon.

The difference between X-wings, Y-wings and "A-wings" is that X-wings and Y-wings have different, distinct versions created to be different versions from the get go, A-wing was only one and A-wings in pre-Yavin media were supposed to be normal A-wings when they were created, so they are identical, only later someone decided they are not really A-wings.

I am not the least put out by an ship having a number of variants (e.g. single seat - 2 seat) or evolving over time with changes to engines and armament. During WW2 the Supermarine Spitfire went through at least 9 variants; starting with a 1,300 hp power-plant & ending up with a 2.300 hp power-plant, and armament combinations from 8 light machineguns to 4 cannons with bombs. The P51 Mustang had even more variants and horsepower that ranged from 1,300 to over 2,000 and armament from light machineguns to cannons to rockets.

It is very reasonable to expect variations in starships as well, especially when operated for many years and in many locations across the galaxy. Notwithstanding that; 2-seaters must be big enough for two and the inside can't be bigger than the outside (unless Harry Potter is flying?).

Notwithstanding that; 2-seaters must be big enough for two and the inside can't be bigger than the outside (unless Harry Potter is flying?).

Well, Harry Potter, Dr. Who or the crew of the original Jupiter 2.

Notwithstanding that; 2-seaters must be big enough for two and the inside can't be bigger than the outside (unless Harry Potter is flying?).

Well, Harry Potter, Dr. Who or the crew of the original Jupiter 2.

I am not the least put out by an ship having a number of variants (e.g. single seat - 2 seat) or evolving over time with changes to engines and armament. During WW2 the Supermarine Spitfire went through at least 9 variants; starting with a 1,300 hp power-plant & ending up with a 2.300 hp power-plant, and armament combinations from 8 light machineguns to 4 cannons with bombs. The P51 Mustang had even more variants and horsepower that ranged from 1,300 to over 2,000 and armament from light machineguns to cannons to rockets.

It is very reasonable to expect variations in starships as well, especially when operated for many years and in many locations across the galaxy. Notwithstanding that; 2-seaters must be big enough for two and the inside can't be bigger than the outside (unless Harry Potter is flying?).

ME/BF 109 has also tons of variants.

And "From early 1944 some G-2s, G-3s, G-4s and G-6s were converted to two seat trainers, known as the G-12. An instructor's cockpit was added behind the original cockpit and both were covered by an elongated, glazed canopy".

Does the K-Wing ball turret definitively have a person in it? It could just as easily be a remote. Might even be smarter to have it as a remote.

That said, the A-Wing is clearly too big, regardless of whose measurements were used. But to be fair, any smaller and you start to lose details and increase fragility. So I guess it's a trade-off.

I am not the least put out by an ship having a number of variants (e.g. single seat - 2 seat) or evolving over time with changes to engines and armament. During WW2 the Supermarine Spitfire went through at least 9 variants; starting with a 1,300 hp power-plant & ending up with a 2.300 hp power-plant, and armament combinations from 8 light machineguns to 4 cannons with bombs. The P51 Mustang had even more variants and horsepower that ranged from 1,300 to over 2,000 and armament from light machineguns to cannons to rockets.

It is very reasonable to expect variations in starships as well, especially when operated for many years and in many locations across the galaxy. Notwithstanding that; 2-seaters must be big enough for two and the inside can't be bigger than the outside (unless Harry Potter is flying?).

ME/BF 109 has also tons of variants.

And "From early 1944 some G-2s, G-3s, G-4s and G-6s were converted to two seat trainers, known as the G-12. An instructor's cockpit was added behind the original cockpit and both were covered by an elongated, glazed canopy".

I don't mind the scales being off slightly, it does not bug me. If it was like Attack Wing, well I would not be playing. Actually, the scale is the reason I will not even consider Attack Wing. If it is around where it is supposed to be (smaller than ship X but bigger than ship Y around the size of ship Z,) I am happy.

One of my personal opinions on this topic is that the T-70 is closer to the size the T-65 should have been (when keeping A's, Z's and TIE's as is).

The G1-A is a big offender, in my opinion. I think the size of the ship is fine*, but the design of that huge cockpit is ridiculous, considering the size of the pilots inside.

And where does that put Slave I on the ridiculous scale!

:s