# Moebius Classic BSG Viper / Full Size Prop comparison



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Now that I'm using Photobucket to post pictures, I decided to post photos of both the Moebius kit and the Full Sized Prop (FSP) to show the differences between the two that I mentioned in another thread. After looking over the kit and the photos, I feel the kit is based more on the FSP then the miniatures, although both the FSP and miniatures are similar in most areas.

I'm not doing this to knock Moebius or anyone who works there. I just wanted to show, in pictures, what I was trying to explain on the other thread. 

I only concentrating on a handful of areas of the kit, a) details between side of engines/exhausts, b) details between exhausts, c) main landing gear wells/doors and d) recessed fuselage details.

Here's the photos:

http://s806.photobucket.com/user/tom6210/library/?sort=6&page=1

I'm working on the kit now, which will hopefully be finished soon. When it is, I'll post some pic's.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

An excellent study! Thanks for taking the time to do this!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Got it now.
Wonder how those same features look on the filming miniature..


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks starseeker, glad to hear my small efforts are of some use.

Richard: I've just added 3 photos of the filming miniature. The areas I pointed out on the Full Sized Prop are basically shown the same on the miniature.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Look at you being all that and posting pictures!!!! Glad you were able to get PB going. It's going to be so much easier to post pics and links now, and no limits.

Oh, and nice comparison of the filming props and the kit. There do seem to be a lot of differences. But at least they look to be fixable.

With as much detail as the filming miniatures have, I am surprised these were not painted better. Of course the best comparison would be to the SW miniatures since were talking the same time frame. It's just surprising at how these were painted.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

robiwon said:


> With as much detail as the filming miniatures have, I am surprised these were not painted better. Of course the best comparison would be to the SW miniatures since were talking the same time frame. It's just surprising at how these were painted.


They did look surprisingly good on screen. Same for the Raiders.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

robiwon said:


> Look at you being all that and posting pictures!!!! Glad you were able to get PB going. It's going to be so much easier to post pics and links now, and no limits.
> 
> Oh, and nice comparison of the filming props and the kit. There do seem to be a lot of differences. But at least they look to be fixable.
> 
> With as much detail as the filming miniatures have, I am surprised these were not painted better. Of course the best comparison would be to the SW miniatures since were talking the same time frame. It's just surprising at how these were painted.


Getting started with Photobucket was a pain-free experience. To edit the photos, I use IrfanView, which was already loaded onto my computer. Having photos makes it a lot easier for people to see what I'm on about as opposed to reading my rambling messages!

As for the model, yes you could fix the errors, but it wouldn't be an easy process. Mine will be finished OOB.

Regarding the filming miniatures, from what I've read, most had indifferent build quality, some having blacked out canopy windows (like the original Monogram kit). There is a photo of one that looks to be a "hero" model, but most look to be rather basic builds with quick and dirty paint jobs. Guess they producers figured that since the TV sets in 1978 had small screens and low resolution, it wasn't worth putting too much time into making perfect Vipers!

Here's the link to where I found the photos: http://www.byyourcommand.net/cylongallery/index.php?cat=41

The site is a good source of info for the original series.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Most filming miniatures are only good enough for the camera's eye- they have to be built fast and cheaply to keep on schedule and budget. When the Prequels were filming using digital cameras ILM discovered they had to raise the game considerably- what passed as OK before looked terrible now.
I like comparing the Studio Models to the 'full scale' props- a lot of times the full scale prop has to imitate a small kit part and does not pull it off very well. I think BSG was one of the first to feature the props on screen as much as the miniatures, most of the time the props were just for Hangar scenes before the big SFX Battle.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The light levels in filming are an issue too I think--to maintain depth of field on miniatures you have to blast them with a lot of light, at least back in 1978. That means any paint details, like weathering, need to be a little exaggerated so they're not completely washed out by all the light.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Low Rez TV back then was also an influence- models needed to have heavy detail to cast enough shadows so you could see it- that is why the Galactica was greeblied out with such large parts.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Try watching the show on a 15" B&W set back in '78! Talk about low rez.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Being younger than my brother I was relegated to watching BSG on a very small desk top B&W TV on my modeling desk. He got to watch The Greatest American Hero in the living room.


----------



## goose814 (Feb 26, 2002)

In regards to the main gear doors, in addition to the correction you mentioned about the aft portion being too short, the main gear doors should also include the portion adjacent to the engine section with the pipes.

You can see it on the studio model here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/goose814/025w_001_zps0ad93788.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/goose814/026w_001_zps8a434c2e.jpg

As well as the blueprints for the full size mock-up here:
http://www.galactica.tv/images/stori...ueprint-09.jpg


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

goose814 said:


> In regards to the main gear doors, in addition to the correction you mentioned about the aft portion being too short, the main gear doors should also include the portion adjacent to the engine section with the pipes.
> 
> You can see it on the studio model here:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/goose814/025w_001_zps0ad93788.jpg
> ...


Good catch!


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

Spock62

Nice work here.

To me it looks like the whole engine section was stretched rearward, but the elongated trapezoidal detail part on the sides of the engines and the parts aft of it weren't (and probably couldn't be - all of that would probably have needed to be completely rebuilt on the 3D model). If you care about these kinds of details (and I do) this kit is approaching un-buildability - for me this is the point where it would be easier to scratch-build entire sub assemblies rather than correct the existing kit parts.

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

spock62 said:


> Try watching the show on a 15" B&W set back in '78! Talk about low rez.


That is large compared to the way I saw most TV programs up until 1979. In the mid 60's until the early 70's we had a 9 inch B&W TV. My dad splurged abd bought a 12 inch set in either '73 or'74. My Grandmother, who I eventually moved in with bought a 19 inch color TV in 1978 so I did see a few of the Galactica episodes in color.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

ViperRecon said:


> Spock62
> 
> Nice work here.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mark. Unfortunately, I believe your correct, if you want a truly accurate model of the Viper, (using the full size prop or miniature based on your preference), a good portion of the Moebius kit would have to be scrapped. If your willing to overlook the glaring errors, it does build into a nice looking Viper. Mine is being built OOB, I'm putting my efforts into fit and finish.

It's unfortunate that, some 34 years after Monogram produced their Viper kit, Moebius really didn't raise the bar all that much. While there are some good points (angled plating on top of fuselage, somewhat accurate landing gear, engraved panel lines), overall for every one step forward, they took 2 back. 

Even the instructions, while improving in clarity, have taken as step back in regards to no longer using Testors paint numbers as reference. Now all they give you are generic color call outs, gray, pale gray, etc. That's really no help since there are a lot of different types of gray paint out there! Plus, the completed model is shown painted incorrectly compared to the prop/miniatures on the show! Not a big deal for those of use with many kits under our belts, as we tend to do research on color schemes anyway, but for the casual modeler, what instructions they give you is not much help. 

IMHO, there's really no excuse for messing up major details when photos of the "real" ship are easy to find. Details that would cost just as much to do correctly as they cost to do incorrectly. And generic paint references are so 1970's. I'm happy they make these kits, but I just wish they sweated the details a little more.


----------

