# My Ban Dai 1/144 Falcon build.



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

My favorite Falcon kit ever released so far! Hopefully we will see a 1/72 or larger version of this one...because (I believe...and I could be wrong...) it was scanned from the 5' Falcon... I weathered it to scale and will Light it next...


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

That is great. The best version of the revised Falcon I've seen so far.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Turned out really nice, great job so far!

I do have my fingers cross for an Original Trilogy Falcon that makes the 'chimpmunk cheeks' optional, but we'll see what happens.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

With a name like *Captain Han Solo*, I suppose it really is _your_ Falcon!

Worthy of a filming model. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Carl-


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

hal9001 said:


> With a name like *Captain Han Solo*, I suppose it really is _your_ Falcon!
> 
> Worthy of a filming model. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:
> 
> Carl-


Many sincere thanks guys! More to come!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm not really doubting, but do we know for a FACT, that it was scanned from the 5' Falcon?

It seems logical that...... for this film, the 5 footer was scanned to make the CG model.

And its also logical to assume, that Bandai, as part of their licensing agreement, were given the CG files, from which they would have made the tooling files.

But I am wondering if there was a paper trail of that info.

Another thing to assume, is that the 5' Falcon had some asymetrical issues (as most hand made things do), that would have had to have been removed in order to make this kit.

For example, Moebius never bothered to remove any of the asymmetrical issues on a lot of the kits that they've produced.
Things in their TOS Galactica and Cylon Raider kits are horribly obvious.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Nice model. :thumbsup:

FYI -- you might want to check the colour temperature of your studio lights: one is warm and one is cool. It would be good if they matched.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> I'm not really doubting, but do we know for a FACT, that it was scanned from the 5' Falcon?
> 
> It seems logical that...... for this film, the 5 footer was scanned to make the CG model.
> 
> ...


Well, as a fan of the original 5' Falcon from day one, I can confidently say this is a model of that Miniature(thankfully). As for a 100% solid fact it was scanned from the 5' miniature,*NO*, we can't assume or be 100% certain. However I am sure someone may have evidence of your suggested "paper trail" if there is one.

It is my _belief_ that Ban Dai DID use the files that were used for that CGI falcon used in the new Film, which were based off of the original 5' Miniature.
Upon close inspection, it does have most of the details of the 5' miniature,INCLUDING the slight toe in and Stubby cockpit.With other details here and there only a 5' Falcon nerd would appreciate. Due to the small scale, however some details were compromised, such as the thickness of the cockpit window frames and the horrible window inserts for the upper and lower gun ports.(I will be replacing those along with the current radar dish).

I personally never assume anything in regards to this stuff!

Most film miniatures have asymmetrical issues,if not all and most would not hold up under the over analyzing,rivet counting flash light Nazis who seem to have the dominate voice in the "hobby".

The model is the closest to the 5' Falcon produced up to now(hopefully a larger 1/72or 1/48 will come soon).


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

SteveR said:


> Nice model. :thumbsup:
> 
> FYI -- you might want to check the colour temperature of your studio lights: one is warm and one is cool. It would be good if they matched.


Thanks!

I set the lighting on my subject matter to personally suite _my_ taste. I like to throw a little artistic monkey wrench into my photography as to set it apart from the boorish typical bench top pictures, or the typical, by the book shots...Your sincere suggestion is, however ,appreciated anyway.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Very nice work!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

ClubTepes said:


> I'm not really doubting, but do we know for a FACT, that it was scanned from the 5' Falcon?
> 
> It seems logical that...... for this film, the 5 footer was scanned to make the CG model.
> 
> ...


This is the sort of thing that gets discussed in Japanese hobby magazines, but with the recent deaths of Hyper Hobby and Dengeki Hobby (Hyper Hobby has relaunched as a 'geek stuff' magazine and Dengeki went Web Only) I'm not sure if Hobby Japan would carry that interview. Dengeki usually had the inside track being a defacto arm of Bandai, tracing back to the days of B-Club Magazine.

Anyway, knowing Bandai's usual practices, what I would assume would be that the digital files were part of the information they used, but they also likely went and looked at actual models and then created their own original cad-cam files, built from their own original build digital model.

They would do that because of whatever in-house software they use to cut the tooling. That software may not be a standard commercial product. I mean, it PROBABLY is, but that's one of those 'how can you ever find out?' kinds of things. 

Rapid prototyping and fast track tooling has been a priority of theirs for several years now. I heard they can go from sketch to final kit in about three months, the big limitation is lead time to solicit to the hobby trade. Retailers and wholsellers don't like ordering blind. 

Still waiting for that Bandai Original Trilogy Falcon to be announced.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Most film miniatures have asymmetrical issues,if not all and most would not hold up under the over analyzing,rivet counting flash light Nazis who seem to have the dominate voice in the "hobby".


Careful, I count myself as one of those rivet counting 'Nazis' you seem to be bashing.

If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be getting this new era a more accurate models like the 1/350 Enterprise and bigger Space 1999 Eagle.

You'd have nothing but 'box scale' sci-fi kits because "Only kids build sci-fi".

Any 'rivet counter' pushes the industry to create better and better model kits.
People love to bash rivet counters without acknowledging what they do for the hobby.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Wow! - I don't even like Star Wars and I'm tempted to get me one of those. Gorgeous model, best Falcon paint job I think I've ever seen, and photos that someday will be confused with studio photos of the miniature and used by someone as reference shots. Outstanding all around.
But thank the Great Hairy Spirit in the Sky for rivet counters. Rivet counters are giving us Ban Dai. Not rivet counters are giving us Revell and Moebius. (Tho' to be fair, Moebby is slowly improving, lurching two steps forward and one step back all the time. But, jeez, if they could have found some rivet counters early on. Revell... is there any hope?)


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Captain Han Solo said:


> My favorite Falcon kit ever released so far! Hopefully we will see a 1/72 or larger version of this one...because (I believe...and I could be wrong...) it was scanned from the 5' Falcon... I weathered it to scale and will Light it next...


Great job on the Falcon. I finished mine as well. I think this is a really great kit. All of my discolored panels are from the decals, and pastel and wash weathering.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=491025


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Han Solo View Post
Most film miniatures have asymmetrical issues,if not all and most would not hold up under the over analyzing,rivet counting flash light Nazis who seem to have the dominate voice in the "hobby".
Careful, I count myself as one of those rivet counting 'Nazis' you seem to be bashing.

If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be getting this new era a more accurate models like the 1/350 Enterprise and bigger Space 1999 Eagle.

You'd have nothing but 'box scale' sci-fi kits because "Only kids build sci-fi".

Any 'rivet counter' pushes the industry to create better and better model kits.
People love to bash rivet counters without acknowledging what they do for the hobby.


I was not bashing anyone. Just pointing out that Film miniatures are mostly crude(With notable exceptions of course), And would never pass the scrutiny of...eh, Passionate modelers.(That includes me).
Accuracy is a somewhat vague perception.

Do you want a model of the actual miniature(Personally I do) Or..
Someone's IDEA of what the subject matter should be.

As far as the attitude out there that only kids build Sci Fi, I personally couldn't care less. I build a variety of subject matter, but I know what you mean.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

For me all the different scaled filming miniatures (with detail fudges), matte paintings and CGI of a subject are all meant to represent an 'ideal' of that subject- each is an inaccurate reflection of that source.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

This is a variant of the discussion we had with the new 22" Eagle kit. Here's my take.

I want a kit (toy, whatever) that represents what I see on the screen (movie/TV/etc.). The old Remco Seaview toy from the '60s, even Aurora's beloved kit of same, did NOT represent what I saw on TV. The Aurora kit, close, close but as we all know far from accurate and MILES away from representing the major filming miniature. We won't even touch on the subject of different size of miniatures (and how often they don't match) and the constant problem of live action prop/set pieces and scale/detail issues. (note I don't say 'full size' as, again, often there are compromises created by time and money and just plain not caring that much  )

What we see, the filming miniatures in action, are processed images meant to create the illusion of reality. As such, I have little interest in 'warts and all' models meant to copy a filming miniature. I prefer the illusion of reality. Based on my own personal viewing of some of the Star Wars miniature back in the stone age of 1984 I sure don't want, say, a Snowspeeder with no cockpit detail and partial crew figures. 

This doesn't mean I don't have regard for those that DO want a perfect copy of a filming miniature. Detail is important. To me, the most important thing is, does it look like what I saw on the screen.

The old, old MPC Falcon didn't look like what I saw on screen. It was close, it wasn't miserable but those fat, thick detail parts along the rim just ruined it for me. In the old days I thought the answer was to trim some from the parts and smoosh the hull parts closer together. My ignorance was vast.  

This Falcon looks like what I see in the movie. I have insanely unrealistic expectations that Bandai will give us an Original Trilogy Falcon that has the extra landing gear 'chipmunk cheeks' as optional parts. This may never happen. 

What I don't like, where my problem in all this is, when the 'must reflect the filming miniature exactly' camp is the only voice listened to. I've never seen anyone build the 1/350 Enterprise with the left side undetailed and with a trench cut into the hull for lighting effect wiring. (mind, I AM amused that for the nacelle bussards they did replicate '60s era Christmas tree bulbs for clear light source parts  ) I've never seen anyone build a Flying Sub with holes in it for the Lydecker rig or the drain holes for flying out of the water. There's obviously a line the 'filming model uber alles' camp won't cross. They, too seek an idealized replica. 

This Bandai kit of the Falcon pushes most of my buttons. I approve.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Do you want a model of the actual miniature(Personally I do) Or..
> Someone's IDEA of what the subject matter should be.


Depends on the studio miniature. 
There is never an easy answer.
There are always differences between miniatures and 'full size' sets. 
I prefer models to be treated as 'real' subjects. So some amount of compromise is needed to blend the two, but also trying to keep as faithful to the miniature as possible.

Every miniature reaches a point where..... because it was built to appear on screen, and only needs to meet certain requirements.
In the case of the 5' Falcon, it has a 'cockpit' that nowhere near matches the set.

I'm sure most people would want a model that has an accurate cockpit in it rather than a representation of the LED's and gauge board that appear on the 5' model.
So right there, there is divergence from the studio model.

Same in the case of the 11' Enterprise.
Most people would be confused by a model that only had detail on one side because thats how it was on the studio model.

There are groups for those types of modelers who like to recreate 'studio scale' models, but they don't make up the majority of the hobby. But I do respect the work that they do.

All that being said, this Bandai model is fantastic, it tries to stay as faithful to the 5 footer as possible, BUT is DOES sway and make accommodations for the sets. 
A perfect blend in my personal opinion. 
And therefore it does diverge from what you said about it being accurate to the studio model in making those accommodations and is therefore Bandai's IDEA of what the Falcon SHOULD be. 
Its the right size for 1/144 vs. Fine Molds too small 1/72 and 1/144 offerings.
One can only hope that Bandai produces one in 1/72.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Another shot of my 1/144 Ban Dai Falcon build.


----------



## Guns Akimbo (Nov 4, 2013)

I love this version of the Falcon...I just received one kit and have another on order. That being said, it does appear to me that she's been on a Slim-Fast diet; compared to past iterations, she looks like she's lost a little weight along her beltline...the "sidewalls" seem to be a hair narrower, bringing the upper and lower hulls closer together. The engine exhaust seems narrower as well, something I noticed in all of the trailers, and the movie itself.


----------



## jlwshere (Mar 30, 2007)

The model is the closest to the 5' Falcon produced up to now(hopefully a larger 1/72or 1/48 will come soon).[/QUOTE said:


> I don't know how these decisions are made and there is nothing I would like to see more than a larger version of this awesome model!
> 
> But doesn't it seem logical that if they had intended to make a larger version, it would have premiered with the other models or at the least have been announced with the others?
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

jlwshere said:


> I don't know how these decisions are made and there is nothing I would like to see more than a larger version of this awesome model!
> 
> But doesn't it seem logical that if they had intended to make a larger version, it would have premiered with the other models or at the least have been announced with the others?
> 
> ...


Bandai gets kind of funny with larger scale 'big box' kits. The story of the 'Domelze III' from Space Battleship Yamato 2199 is instructive. It's the largest ship in the show, something like 3 times the size of the Yamato, and it's important to the story but the sheer size of the thing intimidated management at Bandai. The Yamato brand manager had a prototype made up to test the waters, had it shown at various hobby shows and fan gatherings and the public vote was unanimous that it should be made. Not only fans, because that voice can be ignored with proper P.R. spin, but retailers expressed excitement, even tho the thing was so big, they wouldn't be able to stock more than one. 

After about 6 months of discussions and meetings, it was green lit and sold surprisingly well, to the point that it has yet to hit 'discontinued' status.

http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN991395/Sci

Big ship. Builds up to near 3 feet long. It's intentionally designed to separate in the middle for storage when built. 

Their other 'giant' kit was a Yamato in 1/350, replete with motion and sound gimmicks. Huge, and expensive. That was an 'ego' kit, a thing they made just because they could. 

The usual 'giant' kits tend to be the 'Perfect Grade' Gundams and Evangelion kits. These come out every once in a while but the lines never go to the depths, the deep catalog, of robots in the Gundam world. (for that see the more affordable HG lines)

Then there's the 1/48 scale Gundams. http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN962027/Gun

So, Bandai COULD make a 1/72 Falcon, but they have to be convinced. The suits get very twitchy when MSRP of a kit nears 10,000 Yen. You know and I know that a 1/72 Falcon with the same attention to detail and quality as this 1/144 kit is a license to print money, but the gray men in their gray offices don't see it. I expect the Japanese modeling community will start making some polite noises soon, and don't forget that the 2016 Hobby Shows are going to happen soon. We may well see a big Falcon to join that big Star Destroyer we've seen on display.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## jlwshere (Mar 30, 2007)

Steve H said:


> Bandai gets kind of funny with larger scale 'big box' kits. The story of the 'Domelze III' from Space Battleship Yamato 2199 is instructive. It's the largest ship in the show, something like 3 times the size of the Yamato, and it's important to the story but the sheer size of the thing intimidated management at Bandai. The Yamato brand manager had a prototype made up to test the waters, had it shown at various hobby shows and fan gatherings and the public vote was unanimous that it should be made. Not only fans, because that voice can be ignored with proper P.R. spin, but retailers expressed excitement, even tho the thing was so big, they wouldn't be able to stock more than one.
> 
> After about 6 months of discussions and meetings, it was green lit and sold surprisingly well, to the point that it has yet to hit 'discontinued' status.
> 
> ...


Good info... Thanks. Then I hope they go for 1/48! All that detail just begs for a large scale! But I hope they give is the option of 3 or 5 landing gears, if they go with a larger scale, whatever that scale may be.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Only issue with having the 3 or 5 landing gear option (which I do hope they do) is that the lower hull has to be replaced with one that also has the two jaw-boxes. The two open equipment bays were moved outboard to allow for the new gear housings.

I personally expect they will issue a 1/72 Falcon- they know how many FineMolds (and now Revell) kits have sold and I believe the numbers of their 1/144 look pretty good.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> Only issue with having the 3 or 5 landing gear option (which I do hope they do) is that the lower hull has to be replaced with one that also has the two jaw-boxes. The two open equipment bays were moved outboard to allow for the new gear housings.
> 
> I personally expect they will issue a 1/72 Falcon- they know how many FineMolds (and now Revell) kits have sold and I believe the numbers of their 1/144 look pretty good.


Given the way Bandai engineers their kits, they could easily re-tool the lower hull so that there's a 'gap' to be filled with a panel correct for either the 3-gear or 5-gear Falcon. were the equipment bays otherwise identical other than location? If so, that's even easier.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Given the way Bandai engineers their kits, they could easily re-tool the lower hull so that there's a 'gap' to be filled with a panel correct for either the 3-gear or 5-gear Falcon. were the equipment bays otherwise identical other than location? If so, that's even easier.


I like that idea- 
If they can sell the Falcon as buildable in all three versions it would be fantastic!
Add some magnets and you can change it as you like...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I like that idea-
> If they can sell the Falcon as buildable in all three versions it would be fantastic!
> Add some magnets and you can change it as you like...


That could probably be done, if Bandai followed this idea. 

Here's my question, and maybe Captain Solo has the answer, ARE there any significant changes to the Falcon between the O.T and TFA, other than the big antenna? What I can see is that the different colored panels seem more emphasized now and there's more weathering. There may be more subtle things not obvious to my eye, lacking the kind of detailed close-up pics and the like. The detailing along the top of the cockpit tube seems...more emphasized or something as one thought. 

And that's probably the most significant issue. I make the brash assumption that the TFA Falcon exists only as a digital model (live action setpiece notwithstanding of course). Is it reasonable to compare a physical miniature with a digital one? Is it actually possible, to do so fairly?

I mean, many plastic model kits died to detail the 5 foot Falcon. A digital model, they can create any shape, no more 'found' detail, it could be actually purpose driven. I imagine it would take much more work to digitally duplicate, say, the transmission part of a 1/25 scale AMT Corvette kit connected to a landing gear leg from a Monogram 1/48 scale B-17. They might just do a lumpy box attached to a generic piston thingie. 

So could it be done? Would a 'all in one box' kit be able to properly represent the Falcon's evolution?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

My 1/144 Millennium Falcon build. This model features the original dish and mount. The mount was adjusted via a pin vise and brass pin to allow the dish to move, I also added an aluminum tube to allow the entire assembly to be removable so as to re attach the new dish.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Steve H said:


> That could probably be done, if Bandai followed this idea.
> 
> Here's my question, and maybe Captain Solo has the answer, ARE there any significant changes to the Falcon between the O.T and TFA, other than the big antenna? What I can see is that the different colored panels seem more emphasized now and there's more weathering. There may be more subtle things not obvious to my eye, lacking the kind of detailed close-up pics and the like. The detailing along the top of the cockpit tube seems...more emphasized or something as one thought.
> 
> ...


Strictly speaking, there was a physical scale model of the TFA Falcon, though only at the concept stage, that may have been a modified Fine Molds 1/72 kit:

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3616122/falcon_back.0.jpg
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3616120/falcon_front.0.jpg

The digital model has different plumbing on the side panels, as represented on the Bandai kit.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

I should have said this is a work in progress as I continue to upgrade the model.

Although I love the Shapeways, Round dish, support and Viewport frames for the gun wells, I wanted something different for the six exhaust ports on the rear deck. I used the superb Photo etched grills from Green Strawberry.
They really make the rear deck pop. I painted my model per the 5' Miniature seen in Star Wars(1977).

More mods coming up,including SCALE lighting...


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

I think I have to agree about those photo etched grills on the rear of your Falcon. They add a depth and complexity that just isn't there with the molded on ones.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

The photo etched grills were a judgement call...There was a risk of them looking to large and out of scale. Happily the finished effect is what I wanted to achieve.

More upgrades to come! I realized how that bow tie dish the Falcon currently wears, throws off(in my opinion), The look of the ship...The circular one,as deemed by the original artists at ILM, looks better. Having said that however, I have retained the original dish and can easily swap it out if I choose.

Next up...lighting. As anyone knows who follows or likes my work, I don't like to light models for the sake of lighting them. And a major pet peeve of mine is over lighting...So although the rear engine grill will be lit, I am figuring out how to correctly install SCALE lighting in the cockpit. Han Solo and Chewie shouldn't need welder's goggles to fly the Falcon!(At least they won't in my Falcon!)


----------



## TonyT (Oct 19, 2013)

Looks great! I think that the dish is a personal taste thing...as well as a timeframe thing...as in before Lando breaking off the round dish or after a new one was installed...I have never seen a Falcon model without a dish...maybe there needs to be a Lando mod version! 
I look forward to seeing your lighting.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

LIGHTS!!!

As previously mentioned, over lighting models is a pet peeve of mine, So I went about lighting my Falcon... 
I did not light the Gun Ports...why? Because to my eye it looked wrong. I intentionally toned down the cockpit lighting to scale as well..


----------



## INVAR (Mar 28, 2014)

Very nice. I will try my hand at lighting this kit, which will be my first lighting effort ever.

Are you stateside? I love the photo etched grills from Green Strawberry, but I am admittedly nervous about purchasing something from a supplier that I never heard of before.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

INVAR said:


> Very nice. I will try my hand at lighting this kit, which will be my first lighting effort ever.
> 
> Are you stateside? I love the photo etched grills from Green Strawberry, but I am admittedly nervous about purchasing something from a supplier that I never heard of before.


Well, In regards to Greenstrawberry, I personally had no issues and my parts arrived quickly.And Yes, I am stateside.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

New cockpit?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Some beauty shots of my 1/144 Bandai Falcon build...


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Turned out REAL nice. Well done, sir!


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Turned out REAL nice. Well done, sir!


Many thanks!


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Boring bench shots...


----------

