This new release from Bandai will be an import (like the Fine molds Star wars stuff) and will be out (planned) several months before the new Polar lights kits. Crazy huh?
....now if only they'd make kits in 2500th...(sigh!)
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Why do you do them in 2500th scale? Far too small - for my liking that is.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My fleet is over 50 Federation ships, 27 Dominion alliance ships, 7 Klingon , 4 Romulan, and 1 So'Na ship. I'd need a stadium (or at least a biig house) to build them in, say 1400th.
Besides...there is a shadow army of us 2500th-ers still building and producing kits.
....and 1400th has been done to death with only the Federation ships represented: ZERO alien designs!
Posted by iam2xtreme (Member # 836) on :
i'm sure the amt galor and vor'cha classes were 1/1400. plus i think federation models sell a couple..... then again i might just be wrong.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
the Galor was 1/1000, IIRC.
Posted by iam2xtreme (Member # 836) on :
Ah ok. i trust you know more than me. the words modelling newbie describe me very well.
I was right about one thing though. Starcrafts produce a pack of 3 jem'hadar fighters in 1/1400 scale available from federation models.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The AMT Galor is 1/1000 (assuming 481m for Galor) and the Vor'cha is 1/1400. The Klingon BoP in the TNG Adversary Set is also 1/1400 (assuming 110m for BoP).
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
How about the Ferengi Marauder and the D'Deridex Warbird of the three-piece adversary set? What was their scale?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: How about the Ferengi Marauder and the D'Deridex Warbird of the three-piece adversary set? What was their scale?
They're 1/3730 -- effectively 1/3 the scale of the 1/1400 ships. Because of the size relationship, the Klingon BoP model works well as either a 1/1400 normal BoP or a 1/3730 K'vort-class cruiser.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
They should have done a Ferengi Marauder in 1/1400th scale as a seperate kit. I wonder why no one did that. Does nobody like that design enough to buy the model?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I would much prefer and love to see a 1/1400 Warbird. It would be as big as the studio miniature but I could live with that. With any luck it would be cheaper than those Greg Jein replicas they were selling a while back too. Oh well, I know it will never happen.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
That list would be a lot more useful if it showed the length of the ship/model as well as the scale. Not everyone agrees on Trek ship lengths. Defiant, anyone?.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Oh yes, how long is the Defiant anyway? ***puts on his most innocent face and opens the gates of hell*** Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'd say it was long enough Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Actually, I checked the scale listed for the AMT Defiant on Starship Modeler's list and it's correct. I'll say nothing more, except that their entry for the Klingon BoP is incorrect. The full size AMT KBoP is in reality the same scale as the AMT Defiant. I'm assuming it's more than a coincidence.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
It's an evil plot, engineered by the Pah-Wraiths, no doubt! Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
yes, quite evil, BOP sizes. i think modelers have more on their minds though.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Strange... well I guess it's easier to show scale and detail when blowing up model kits. Wait... damn coffee got to me again.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
But you are right.
By the way, have we ever seen a really good CGI explosion? Not only on Star Trek I mean. I don't recall one in all the films and tv-series I have seen.
As great as CGI can be sometimes, when it comes to explosions there's still nothing better then blowing up stuff for real. And it's more fun too... Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: By the way, have we ever seen a really good CGI explosion? Not only on Star Trek I mean. I don't recall one in all the films and tv-series I have seen.
The destruction of the Defiant was impressive IMO.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Yes, it was not too bad, if you compare it to other CGI explosions.
But in order to really judge CGI you should compare it to something real like the BOP-Explosion in TUC/reused in Generations.
At the moment there is no way for CGI to match something like that.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I agree TUC BoP explosion was excellent but I wasn't impressed that they reused it in Generations. And although most real/physical ship explosions were good, there was a fair share of crappy ones too.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
with both mediums, ship explosion depend on how much effort is put into them.
you could model a great CGI explosion, with all sorts of pieces individually modeled and textured on well mapped courses, but it might be so time consuming as to take your whole budget
physical model explosions are only as good as the size and detail of the model and the skill put into them. the BOP in TUC splintered and flew apart well, probably because the individual explosives were well placed and well timed. this isnt always the case, but again setting that up and doing it until you get it right could eat up your whole creative budget.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
my problem with reusing the BOP explosion in Generations was that it just seemed like what it was: a tacked on effect that came from something else and looks it. tacky.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I don't think they have mastered CGI explosions. Many interviews with effects people say that they still film 'real fire and explosions' and digitally incorporate them into the final product.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't think computer generated explosions and other signs of damage are inherently worse than their physical counterparts. What's important, I think, is the attention to detail. Consider the death of the Enterprise. Lots of detail, even though we never really get to see much of the interior of the ship as it's blowing up. We even get to see a tiny Klingon blasted out of the bridge! But compare that to the poor Vor'cha being lovingly dismembered in...oh, one of those war episodes. You can just imagine the Klingons in the front portion going "Ok, so we've got about a fourth of our ship left, but it's the fourth with the big cannon. Bonus!" Well, something like that.
Having said that, my favorite damage effect ever is probably seeing the Borg carve up the Enterprise in "Q Who". Detailed down to the quickly dispersing puff of escaped atmosphere!
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: my problem with reusing the BOP explosion in Generations was that it just seemed like what it was: a tacked on effect that came from something else and looks it. tacky.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think someone who had never seen TUC would consider for a second that it was stock footage. IMO it was bad in that the death scene for the enemy vessel was identical for two movies in a row -- blatant and quite simply unacceptable.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
My thoughts exactly.
And I too remember hearing some VFX guy talk about their problems in creating realistic CGI explosions. He said that it was just not technologically possible today to do realistic explosions in CGI. And even if it were possible, the cost would be much higher than blowing up a model - whatever the amount of detail.
And talking about the DS9 battle scenes: The exploding Vorchas in all the earlier episodes were models, not CGI, remember? Even the ones being destroyed by the Jem'Hadar suicide attacks in...don't recall the epsiode name.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: And talking about the DS9 battle scenes: The exploding Vorchas in all the earlier episodes were models, not CGI, remember? Even the ones being destroyed by the Jem'Hadar suicide attacks in...don't recall the epsiode name.
"Tears of the Prophets", 6th season final. Really, are you sure they were physical models? I was under the impression that the entire battle was CG.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
As i recall the reason the hulls splintered so well was cuz the models they were blowing up were cheap plastic, the Playmates Light and Sound Vor'cha toy.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
So they had CG Jemmy bugs ramming into Playmates Vor'chas? Interesting. I knew they used Playmates ships in "WotW" but I hadn't heard that for "TotP".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Exploding Klingons, Puffs of atmosphere... how do you see these things... DVD!?!
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Don't know, can't see that either. I think the "puff" of atmosphere in "Q Who" was just the dust kicked up when the Borg pulled out that section of the saucer.
And yes, TOTP it was. Had forgotten the name. Yes, they did use the Playmates models. Some VFX guy said so in an interview for Star Trek Monthly, a UK Trek magazine. He said they were cheap and made for a great effect. I think we can agree to that... Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, the atmosphere (It's just smoke, really) can clearly be seen leaking out as the section of hull is pulled clear. I have no eagle eyes! Also, the flying Klingon is very obvious. (Though, to be fair, I have no proof that it actually was intended to be a Klingon, but it looks very much like a person.)
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Thanks for the info, Austin. I'm gonna have to watch it again sometime and take a closer look. The interview wasn't with David Stipes was it? I think he was the VFX Supervisor on that episode.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I liked how the bussard collectors light went out... well flickered out. Should it have flickered out or just have 'lost radiance'? Why causes the 'light' in a bussard collector anyway?
I remembered when I first saw that shot... I gasped! It was pretty cool. DS9 continually had Motion-picture standard effects.
Andrew
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
@Dax: I'm not sure if it was David Stipes but it is a possibility. I will have to look it up which means sifting through all of my back-issues of Star Trek Monthly...this could take some time.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Austin, don't worry about it, it's not that important. I was just thinking that if I mentioned Stipes' name it might jog your memory.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Save your pennies, kids! According to HobbyLink Japan (via Starship Modeler), the price of the Bandai Enterprise will be 6500 yen, or $54 at a rate of 120 y/d.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)