Round2 Acquires Star Wars License

[Analyzer]

All calculations of scale were based on the size of the filming models. ILM has decided those are "officially" 1/24. The new TIE kit was made to be 3/4 the size of the filming model. This worked out to 1/32 scale.

According to my calculations the old MPC Vader's TIE works out to 1/48 scale. It's pretty much 1/2-Studio-Scale (or 1/2-SS).

Maybe someday we will get either a proper 1/32 Vader Tie?

Also wanted to say you did amazing work, especially on the interior. I think it was the first time I actually learned, saw, or even knew that the "modesty" plate was actually angled. I was also glad to see a pilot not banging his head on the top hatch (like the Revell and Fine Molds kits)

 

[Robert McLain]

Loving this kit so far. The only hiccup I've found is that the yellow decals almost disappear against the gray hull color. Just a sliver of the center of each yellow marking is barely visible......they're pretty much un usable. No worries though, if this is all I can find wrong with this beauty that's fine by me. Maybe Jason can scale his decals down to 1/32 scale. I'll have to touch base with him.

Robert

 

[Hunk a Junk]

I'm sure Charles and others know the answer to this, but what are the proportional differences between the standard TIE cockpit ball and Vader's X-1? Specifically, would it be possible to used the 1/32 Tie kit as a starting point to scratch build the rest of the X-1 around the ball? It would need new wings and the hyperdrive section, but that's why I have a 3D printer!

 

[star-art]

Michael aka Greeble_gremlin knows a lot more about the Vader TIE than I do, but it's my understanding it was built right on top of a regular TIE casting. It's a good bet they also used the same armature as a regular TIE so the wings should be in the same position. That should help with the proportions.

Hopefully they will do the right thing by you guys.

I understand Michael's frustration, believe me, but I've worked with R2 for a long time and Jamie Hood has always been good to work with. They left our names off the box this time and, while that was unfortunate, it wasn't done on purpose. They've promised to rectify this if/when the opportunity comes to order the next batch of kits from the factory. They even posted about this on Facebook and showed us the revised artwork that is to appear on all future kits:

Maybe someday we will get either a proper 1/32 Vader Tie?

Also wanted to say you did amazing work, especially on the interior. I think it was the first time I actually learned, saw, or even knew that the "modesty" plate was actually angled. I was also glad to see a pilot not banging his head on the top hatch (like the Revell and Fine Molds kits)

Thank you! I, too, hope we get a Vader's TIE (and TIE Interceptor) based on this new pattern. Their lead times are pretty long though so it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

RE: The "modesty panel," this is the only replica out there (that I know of) to recreate this detail correctly. As pointed out earlier here in this thread, however, this detail was apparently quite different on TIE models that were built for Return of the Jedi. It seems those had modesty panels that were more flat across. This could be why all the existing replicas out there have been done this way. It's my guess that the TIE(s) most commonly seen on public display up until now have probably been from Jedi so maybe that was the reference others were using to make their replicas.

Like I said earlier, I studied only verified ANH TIE filming models and ignored all the others. Thanks to Millenniumf I'm starting to learn more about the differences between models made for ANH vs. ROTJ. So far, we've found that the top hatch was a bit smaller overall and the tank treads around the perimeter were completely different. The laser cannons were also quite different on at least one model and this appears to be the easiest difference to spot.

 

[edge10]

Another difference is the greeblie between the guns. Instead of a raised U shape it is now a rectangle or perhaps a trapezoid.

 

[star-art]

I'm not seeing any difference there:

 

[edge10]

I was comparing it to this one:

Maybe there was damage?

 

[star-art]

Aha! Now I see what you mean. That area has been trimmed. I'm guessing the castings for these models didn't come out of the molds pristine and ready to go. Instead, they probably came out rough and required a good bit of cleaning up. It seems this greeblie (which was cast in place) had to be modified when they fit the front canopy frame in place. It's quite possible each different model has at least some little variations like this.

 

[ggriffaw]

Were the small decals only on certain ANH models? I don't see any in some of the photos.

 

[Analyzer]

Funny, it looks like the greeblies below there are not exactly centered at the "6 o'clock" position, either that or the canopy is not centered on 12 and 6. Seems shifted over and off center.

I can't un-see the lack of symmetry now
I guess that is the quirks of scratch building stuff no one was ever supposed to scrutinize this much

 

[star-art]

Were the small decals only on certain ANH models? I don't see any in some of the photos.

I haven't studied the decals, but I'd guess they probably varied quite a bit from one model to another. After all, you'd never see details like that on screen, so there would be no reason for them to be consistent.

Funny, it looks like the greeblies below there are not exactly centered at the "6 o'clock" position, either that or the canopy is not centered on 12 and 6. Seems shifted over and off center. I can't un-see the lack of symmetry now I guess that is the quirks of scratch building stuff no one was ever supposed to scrutinize this much

Indeed, the filming models were full of odd details like that. I like to think of it as "character." I also like to think of my recreations as "portraits" only in 3D instead of 2D. As such, I always try to get the best "likeness" I possibly can.

Sometimes when you remove stuff like that this it can affect the likeness. That's why I try to include as much of it as I can. If you look closely at my renders you'll see I recreated quite a bit of the original "wonkiness" in my CAD model, but most of that was removed for production. I guess some people might not appreciate that sort of thing so it was probably a good move on their part.

 

[Analyzer]

Sometimes when you remove stuff like that this it can affect the likeness. That's why I try to include as much of it as I can. If you look closely at my renders you'll see I recreated quite a bit of the original "wonkiness" in my CAD model, but most of that was removed for production. I guess some people might not appreciate that sort of thing so it was probably a good move on their part.

Can't please everyone and I appreciate both sides of the coin, but I think you are right, most casual builders who are not obsessed with the studio models might be quick to point out "quirks" as "mistakes"

Me personally, I like adhering to the studio models for the most part, but on the flip side, I really prefer having things like the cockpits or interiors better representing the full size sets. I am sure not a popular opinion, especially amongst Studio Scale modelers, But I am also one of the "freaks" who build aircraft in the flying position

Millennium Falcon and Tie Fighter for instance. I think the Bandai PG Falcon did a great job with marrying the two, and likewise the Round 2 Tie is the same way. A nice blend of exterior and interior accuracy

Sure there may be idealizations that happen, but overall it still captures the look.

 

[StevenBills]

Dang, all this talk makes me want to go out and buy a second TIE kit for the stash!

 

[star-art]

Can't please everyone and I appreciate both sides of the coin, but I think you are right, most casual builders who are not obsessed with the studio models might be quick to point out "quirks" as "mistakes"

That's very true! I tend to draw the line at any features or details the average person might look at and automatically think it's the result of sloppy workmanship on my part. That's because they'd have no way of knowing I actually went to extra effort there to recreate some sloppiness that was present in the original! LOL

 

[edge10]

Everyone knows these things were created to exacting standards, so geeks could marvel at them, over 45 years later!

 

[Millenniumf]

Aha! Now I see what you mean. That area has been trimmed. I'm guessing the castings for these models didn't come out of the molds pristine and ready to go. Instead, they probably came out rough and required a good bit of cleaning up. It seems this greeblie (which was cast in place) had to be modified when they fit the front canopy frame in place. It's quite possible each different model has at least some little variations like this.

Looking at it closely, it seems likely to me that the casting on that particular area had a bubble in it (thin ridges like that can be tricky) and they just filed it square so it wouldn't be as noticeable. Other RotJ TIEs came out fine in this area, so it's probably a fluke of casting instead of a conscious decision.

 

[LadyFerry]

Michael aka Greeble_gremlin knows a lot more about the Vader TIE than I do, but it's my understanding it was built right on top of a regular TIE casting. It's a good bet they also used the same armature as a regular TIE so the wings should be in the same position. That should help with the proportions.



I understand Michael's frustration, believe me, but I've worked with R2 for a long time and Jamie Hood has always been good to work with. They left our names off the box this time and, while that was unfortunate, it wasn't done on purpose. They've promised to rectify this if/when the opportunity comes to order the next batch of kits from the factory. They even posted about this on Facebook and showed us the revised artwork that is to appear on all future kits:

View attachment 1736722



Thank you! I, too, hope we get a Vader's TIE (and TIE Interceptor) based on this new pattern. Their lead times are pretty long though so it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

RE: The "modesty panel," this is the only replica out there (that I know of) to recreate this detail correctly. As pointed out earlier here in this thread, however, this detail was apparently quite different on TIE models that were built for Return of the Jedi. It seems those had modesty panels that were more flat across. This could be why all the existing replicas out there have been done this way. It's my guess that the TIE(s) most commonly seen on public display up until now have probably been from Jedi so maybe that was the reference others were using to make their replicas.

Like I said earlier, I studied only verified ANH TIE filming models and ignored all the others. Thanks to Millenniumf I'm starting to learn more about the differences between models made for ANH vs. ROTJ. So far, we've found that the top hatch was a bit smaller overall and the tank treads around the perimeter were completely different. The laser cannons were also quite different on at least one model and this appears to be the easiest difference to spot.

Will you be considering releasing a pre-painted display model of the TIE Fighter at Round 2, for those of us who are quite useless at assembling and painting models, just as you did with the three incarnations of the pre-painted Eagle Transporters?

 

[star-art]

You'd have to ask them. While I helped to design this kit, it was as an independent contractor. I don't actually work for Round 2.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Will you be considering releasing a pre-painted display model of the TIE Fighter at Round 2, for those of us who are quite useless at assembling and painting models, just as you did with the three incarnations of the pre-painted Eagle Transporters?

There are quite a few people on here who take commissions to build/paint models. I'm not sure what they charge though.

 

[LadyFerry]

You'd have to ask them. While I helped to design this kit, it was as an independent contractor. I don't actually work for Round 2.

I actually emailed Round 2 a few months ago about this, but heard nothing back.