Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

3DThe Corellian Hawk

2

Posts

  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    Super pretty WIP shot there!
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Superb stuff. I love the shot showing the engine and landing gear details. :thumb:
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    As an experiment I kitbashed the ship into the Falcon configuration. I'm actually surprised how good it looks. What does everybody else think?
    109209.jpg109210.jpg
  • kvorshkkvorshk171 Posts: 76Member
    I really like both configurations. I like seeing the new one a little more. Fresh ideas and all. Great detail work!
  • stfanboystfanboy67 Posts: 388Member
    Awesome! Going for the B-29 cockpit? :)
  • Vortex5972Vortex5972321 Posts: 1,202Member
    The newer one feels more solid.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    YT-1400? Not bad, but I like the other configuration better.
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Yes, I'm sticking to the other configuration - this was just an experiment. The proportions and design features just don't work as well on a Falcon configuration.
  • kvorshkkvorshk171 Posts: 76Member
    Yes, I'm sticking to the other configuration - this was just an experiment. The proportions and design features just don't work as well on a Falcon configuration.

    Couldn't agree more.
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Came up with another ship design entirely - I'll probably still finish the Outrider ship but this interests me more as the design is more wholly my own.

    Obviously its still inspired by the Falcon and you can see its a similar size to the Falcon. I intend it to be just as beat up and dilapidated as the Falcon as well. I was also influenced by the Narcissus shuttle from Alien as well as 1970's wedge shaped car designs.
    109336.jpg109337.jpg109338.jpg109339.jpg109340.jpg
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Interesting. It's like a more sleek and less "chunky" Corellian freighter.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Loving the detail on your sensor dish there, overall design looks really interesting too. I'd be tempted to work the escape pods either side with that wedge that goes across between them back into the design to some extent to give the design a little more of the Corellian YT1300 freighter design lineage. Definitely be interesting to see where you go with it.
  • SanderleeSanderlee1 Posts: 0Member
    I like it. It's what might happen if a Corellian design firm was contracted to build the Scout from Traveler. :D
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    TALON_UK wrote: »
    Loving the detail on your sensor dish there, overall design looks really interesting too. I'd be tempted to work the escape pods either side with that wedge that goes across between.

    Well, those definitely aren't meant to be escape pods - more likely they're intended to be docking ports, but on mine I'm putting the quad laser turrets in those locations.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Well some of the earlier blueprints for the Falcon had those details down as escape pods, though some newer plans have them as docking rings, so the jury is out on that one I guess. My main point was that the hull ridge that joins those details together across the middle of the ship might make it look a little more Corellian. Putting the turrets there could prove interesting.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    I always assumed it was a combination docking port and escape pod. On a small ship, combining functions makes a lot of sense.
  • MartocticvsMartocticvs444 Posts: 524Member
    Nice looking beasty so far :)
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    I always assumed it was a combination docking port and escape pod. On a small ship, combining functions makes a lot of sense.

    Well as someone who has a vague knowledge of basic engineering principles I cannot even begin to say how much is wrong about such an assumption seeing the utterly vast differences in functional requirements for an airlock and an escape pod. It would be like combining the functions of the door and the exhaust system on your car.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Well as someone who has a vague knowledge of basic engineering principles I cannot even begin to say how much is wrong about such an assumption seeing the utterly vast differences in functional requirements for an airlock and an escape pod. It would be like combining the functions of the door and the exhaust system on your car.

    That's funny, because I have a book (Star Trek, not Star Wars) where somebody uses an airlock as an escape pod. Hey, I never said it was a good assumption. I probably just got confused by the thing where some schematics show it as a pod and some show it as an airlock. So, I guess I just mentally connected them as some module that could be jettisoned in an emergency. (I'm not an engineer)

    On the subject of escape pods, here's one that bugs me, though. In Star Wars, we see C3PO and R2-D2 enter the pod. You can clearly see that they're entering through the end of the pod because the inside is cylindrical shaped. Yet, when the pod ejects from the ship, the engines are facing the ship and there's no visible hatch or view port at that end of the pod. The engines prevent the possibility of there being a hatch back there. Also, the engines would have extended back past where they entered the pod. So, there's no way they entered the pod through the back. Yet, based on the way it exits the ship, they apparently did. (and, it exits out of a tube, so don't try to say it rotated somehow) Also, as the pod is falling towards Tatooine, they're looking back at the ISD through a circular view port. Yet, as I stated, there's not one in the back, there's just engines. Even not being an engineer, there's no way that scene works as filmed.
  • SanderleeSanderlee1 Posts: 0Member
    Not to mention the "that's funny, the damage doesn't look that bad from here" line ... when the Blockade Runner is far too small to see.

    But, let's not thread-hijack. Maybe in the SW-verse it's possible (or even standard practice) to make airlocks also function as escape pods. From our technological perspective, that'd be weird ... but, their tech is so radical, so standardized, and so ubiquitous that it might be something they do. Or not. :D

    Ultimately, the ship is what you make it. And so far, it's a good one!
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    On the subject of escape pods, here's one that bugs me, though. In Star Wars, we see C3PO and R2-D2 enter the pod. You can clearly see that they're entering through the end of the pod because the inside is cylindrical shaped. Yet, when the pod ejects from the ship, the engines are facing the ship and there's no visible hatch or view port at that end of the pod. The engines prevent the possibility of there being a hatch back there. Also, the engines would have extended back past where they entered the pod. So, there's no way they entered the pod through the back. Yet, based on the way it exits the ship, they apparently did. (and, it exits out of a tube, so don't try to say it rotated somehow) Also, as the pod is falling towards Tatooine, they're looking back at the ISD through a circular view port. Yet, as I stated, there's not one in the back, there's just engines. Even not being an engineer, there's no way that scene works as filmed.

    Actually it does make sense, you're just making a lot of incorrect assumptions. The entry to the pod is through a rectangular hatch in the side. We only saw the inner hatchway to the blockade runner which was circular.
    See original Joe Johnston sketch from the time when the Blockade Runner was, at a smaller scale, intended to be the Millennium Falcon. Imagine this sketch flipped vertically to get an idea of the orientation of the escape pods inside the blockade runner, where they were moved to the bottom of the ship so as not to conflict with the ship being trapped inside the star destroyer hangar bay.

    http://www.synicon.info/SW/br/pod-br.gif

    The small circular "window" 3P0 and R2 look out of is actually a view screen in the side wall of the pod. (it would have to be, the escape pod is shown as having no external windows)
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Sanderlee wrote: »
    Not to mention the "that's funny, the damage doesn't look that bad from here" line ... when the Blockade Runner is far too small to see.

    That was a joke, 3P0 was looking at the star destroyer, mistaking it for the blockade runner.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Actually it does make sense, you're just making a lot of incorrect assumptions. The entry to the pod is through a rectangular hatch in the side. We only saw the inner hatchway to the blockade runner which was circular.
    See original Joe Johnston sketch from the time when the Blockade Runner was, at a smaller scale, intended to be the Millennium Falcon. Imagine this sketch flipped vertically to get an idea of the orientation of the escape pods inside the blockade runner, where they were moved to the bottom of the ship so as not to conflict with the ship being trapped inside the star destroyer hangar bay.

    http://www.synicon.info/SW/br/pod-br.gif

    The small circular "window" 3P0 and R2 look out of is actually a view screen in the side wall of the pod. (it would have to be, the escape pod is shown as having no external windows)

    I think there were actually a few continuity errors there to be honest. The circular viewport seen within the pod definitely looked like a window rather than a viewscreen, plus when you look at the crashed pod on location in Tunisia it has a round hatch at one end of the half buried pod rather than a curved rectangular hatch as seen on the miniature model. So I think it was pretty clear that there was a continuity disconnect between the principle photography escape pod assets and the ILM model here.

    Anyhow, back to the work at hand and that Corellian Hawk. Time for an update?

    :thumb:
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    TALON_UK wrote: »
    I think there were actually a few continuity errors there to be honest. The circular viewport seen within the pod definitely looked like a window rather than a viewscreen, plus when you look at the crashed pod on location in Tunisia it has a round hatch at one end of the half buried pod rather than a curved rectangular hatch as seen on the miniature model. So I think it was pretty clear that there was a continuity disconnect between the principle photography escape pod assets and the ILM model here.

    I guess the pod's heat shield could come off to provide an alternate method of egress, say if the pod happened to land in such a way that the main side hatch was obstructed. There's no way to tell from the film whether the circular viewport in the pod was a screen or a window but if we examine the evidence that the pod has no circular windows visible on the exterior, it MUST therefore be a viewscreen. This is all backed up by the Incredible Cross Sections which is afterall officially sanctioned.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    OK, I watched that part the movie again, and I see now that we don't actually see the hatch for the pod. I'd thought the second hatch we see R2 get up close to before 3PO enters the pod was the pod hatch, but it could be a pressure hatch inside the ship. I just never thought of it that way and thought it was supposed to represent the exterior of the pod.

    The circular viewport could be a screen, but I'm a bit dubious of that. But, it's not worth debating when it could be a screen. The pod does have a small dark rectangle on it side that could be a window, but that's obviously not what they were looking out of. In the book, 3PO was looking through the window at Tatooine, but there are a lot of differences between the book and film.

    I believe there is an explanation for the front end of the pod being able to be blown off to make an emergency exit. That actually makes a lot of sense and is supported by the on screen evidence.

    And, yeah, the whole "The damage doesn't look as bad from out here" thing is just a tongue in cheek moment. 3PO lives his life aboard that ship and was (if I remember correctly) routinely memory wiped. So, he had no idea what the outside of the ship looked like, which is why he thought the ISD was the ship they were on. I've always found that funny. :lol:
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    The Incredible Cross Sections book is a valuable resource that I often consult myself when looking to verify the lore accuracy of something related to Star Wars, but I'm not talking about an in-universe explanation here, I'm talking about the actual filming of the movie and some obvious continuity errors that occurred. It is hardly the first or last time you'd find such issues in the movie series, and is easily done, especially in the earlier entries. The cross sections book does a good job of ret-conning the asset to make the on set version of the pod match up with the studio prop. If you look at behind the scenes shots of Sandtroopers investigating the pod crash site you'll see the life size model of the pod bears little resemblance to the ILM miniature.

    77.jpg

    Though I do like how the cross section book dealt with it and amalgamated the discrepancies seen in the movie into a believable whole.
    109352.jpg
    77.jpg 119.7K
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    TALON_UK wrote: »
    The Incredible Cross Sections book is a valuable resource that I often consult myself when looking to verify the lore accuracy of something related to Star Wars, but I'm not talking about an in-universe explanation here, I'm talking about the actual filming of the movie and some obvious continuity errors that occurred. It is hardly the first or last time you'd find such issues in the movie series, and is easily done, especially in the earlier entries. The cross sections book does a good job of ret-conning the asset to make the on set version of the pod match up with the studio prop. If you look at behind the scenes shots of Sandtroopers investigating the pod crash site you'll see the life size model of the pod bears little resemblance to the ILM miniature.

    77.jpg

    Though I do like how the cross section book dealt with it and amalgamated the discrepancies seen in the movie into a believable whole.

    Well I do believe they made every effort to make the film as technically plausible as it could be and it all hangs together a lot better than most sci-fi films before, and indeed after it do. It's amazing they pulled it off as well as they did, on a production as frantic and problematic as the original Star Wars was.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    It always amazes me everything they were able to do with the budget they didn't have. Close Encounters of the Third kind cost nearly twice what the first Star Wars did to make, with a lot less aliens, space ships, special technology and special effects in general.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Heh, and don't get me wrong and think I'm dissing Star Wars in any way. I think it is pretty obvious I have a lot of love for these films, just pointing out that there are errors in there, not that they detract from my enjoyment of these classic movies.
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    It always amazes me everything they were able to do with the budget they didn't have. Close Encounters of the Third kind cost nearly twice what the first Star Wars did to make, with a lot less aliens, space ships, special technology and special effects in general.

    Actually I think it's fairly obvious why Close Encounters took twice the budget. On the whole the effects in Close Encounters are a lot more complex and advanced than Star Wars. Close Encounters integrates opticals and live action at a level far in advance of what Star Wars did. I'll bet you didn't even notice half the effects shots in Close Encounters because a lot of them are of mundane things, like suburbia, or seemingly straightforward outdoor scenes. But the film tackles things Star Wars didn't attempt, like interactive lighting in composites, atmospheric effects, interaction between live action and opticals - it has effects integrated into the film at a much deeper level. Close Encounters was the first film to use motion control on set - in Star Wars that was confined purely to the effects house. The original Star Wars has very few shots that integrate live action - almost all of the shots are cut-aways. The film was written to exploit low hanging fruit effects wise. I'm not taking anything away from their effort and a lot of it was truly groundbreaking, but Close Encounters for me really is more impressive, especially in hindsight.

    It is also something of a myth that Star Wars had "no" budget - it wasn't expensive by any stretch but it was still a fairly generous budget for the time, especially for a sci-fi film. It cost more than 2001: A Space Odyssey and that only predates it by 9 years...
Sign In or Register to comment.