# First Galactica 78 Test Shot Pic



## Edge

I really, really hope they tone down the engraved lines.


----------



## Edge

While not perfect yet... she does look pretty darn good. The overall shape of the head looks nice.


----------



## Edge

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...tos_battlestar-studio_model_reference-113.jpg

Comparison shot of head during rebuild.


----------



## RSN

Saw it on Facebook, looks great. It will be interesting to display it alongside Monogram kit. It will highlight how much more detail was added to this all new tooling!!


----------



## Edge

Didn't know it would be any kind of a 'big' deal.

Thanks for reminding me, part of the reason, I hate the internet!


----------



## SUNGOD

Edge said:


> I really, really hope they tone down the engraved lines.





Certainly looks interesting. I'll reserve full judgement until the final shot but there's some nice detail on there.


----------



## Wattanasiri

So far...looks great.


----------



## robiwon

Even if the kit has the over done panel lines or other little "issues", it's definitely much better than what Monogram did. 

I have two Monogram Galactica's, one that was having lights added and resin side panels, and a completely stock unbuilt kit. I abandoned the lighted kit when this kit was announced. I'll build the other stock alongside this new one. It will be nice to see the two together!


----------



## JeffG

Looks great! As much as I love the re-imagined show, this is still my favorite Galactica ship. If they're the same scale, it'll be interesting to see the size comparisons to the nu Galactica and Pegasus. I know this version was a beast. Maybe a hair bigger (or longer) than Pegasus? Not sure.


----------



## Richard Baker

They are all in matching scale- should make a wonderful display!


----------



## JeffG

I think I just answered my own question.
http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/miscellaney/comparisons/compare.htm


----------



## Edge

robiwon said:


> Even if the kit has the over done panel lines or other little "issues", it's definitely much better than what Monogram did.
> 
> I have two Monogram Galactica's, one that was having lights added and resin side panels, and a completely stock unbuilt kit. I abandoned the lighted kit when this kit was announced. I'll build the other stock alongside this new one. It will be nice to see the two together!


There is no doubt it will be much better than the Monogram kit. I have one and it is just so wrong in even basic shape that, every time I like at it, it makes me sad.

I guess I just want this kit to be as close to perfect as it can be. I see what Moebius has done with other kits (Seaview, FS1 and LIS kits) and want this to be up to par with them.


----------



## iamweasel

While the Monogram kit was okay at best, this looks so much nicer so far and even if it has some minor issues I'd gladly add it to my collection.


----------



## Chrisisall

Edge said:


> I really, really hope they tone down the engraved lines.


I can work with whatever they provide.
Lemme compare it to my Revell re-do:



Oh yes, this will be SO much easier to work with!!


----------



## GordonMitchell

robiwon said:


> Even if the kit has the over done panel lines or other little "issues", it's definitely much better than what Monogram did.
> 
> I have two Monogram Galactica's, one that was having lights added and resin side panels, and a completely stock unbuilt kit. I abandoned the lighted kit when this kit was announced. I'll build the other stock alongside this new one. It will be nice to see the two together!


I have all the extras for the old monogram kit also but never got round to building it and likewise I am just going to build it as standard and have a comparison for the Moebius kit,panel lines or not it has to be a zillion times better,my thought on panel lines in this scale.......take the studio model and move it far enough away to be the same size as the proposed model and if you can see it model if you cant ....dont,but designers will be designers and thanks be for all their efforts whether we approve or not at least we get a decent representative and workable model
cheers,Gordon:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Let's see more of it that's what I say!


----------



## Chrisisall

SUNGOD said:


> Let's see more of it that's what I say!


I am reasonably psyched my own self. This one I'll light up!


----------



## robiwon

Hopefully we will get clear engine parts or molded open mesh for the engines. I had to grind away the backside of the Monogram part to light it.


----------



## Chrisisall

robiwon said:


> Hopefully we will get clear engine parts or molded open mesh for the engines. I had to grind away the backside of the Monogram part to light it.


Robi, can I get you to throw up a couple more pix of it all lit up?


----------



## WOI

Can't wait to see more pics of it,I would like to see it along side with
the NBG Pegasus along side the NBG Galactica alias The Rotting
Pussbucket as I would like to call it.


----------



## robiwon

Chris, I never finished the build. Here is a link to the original thread. One of my cats laid on the gator head and damaged the new bridge. It got put back in the box after that.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=312464


----------



## Chrisisall

robiwon said:


> Here is a link to the original thread.


Thanks. A shame, seems like you were getting close there. Gonna use the lights on the Moebius one then?


----------



## robiwon

It will stay as is, in the box. I'll add new lights to the Moebius kit. I may finish it one day.


----------



## Griffworks

Something to keep in mind is that this is a test shot. Let Modbius know your concerns in a polite fashion and they might well make the panel lines considerably thinner. No guarantees, obviously, but it would help influence their decision.


----------



## RSN

Griffworks said:


> Something to keep in mind is that this is a test shot. Let Modbius know your concerns in a polite fashion and they might well make the panel lines considerably thinner. No guarantees, obviously, but it would help influence their decision.


I spoke with Frank when the latest test shot was released. The panel lines will be pretty much what you see and most likely will not change.


----------



## robiwon

Knowing Moebius, I'm sure we will get clear engine parts. Please!!!!


----------



## TIEbomber1967

robiwon said:


> Chris, I never finished the build. Here is a link to the original thread. One of my cats laid on the gator head and damaged the new bridge. It got put back in the box after that.
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=312464


Wow...
Just how big was this cat?


----------



## ClubTepes

Griffworks said:


> Something to keep in mind is that this is a test shot. Let Modbius know your concerns in a polite fashion and they might well make the panel lines considerably thinner. No guarantees, obviously, but it would help influence their decision.


I learned from the 1/350 TOS E that the panel lines on test shots are thicker.
Don't worry, as they refine the mold, they will thin them out.


----------



## Rattrap

You know, for those of us who just don't want to trash the old Monogram kit, there we're a lot of Battlestars referred to by name that were destroyed in that first episode. Who's to say there weren't some refits between say, the Atlantia and the Galactica.

Just a thought.


----------



## Chrisisall

Or, one could always do a diorama of the Battlestar crashed on the planet from War Of The Gods....


----------



## Richard Baker

Chrisisall said:


> Or, one could always do a diorama of the Battlestar crashed on the planet from War Of The Gods....


:thumbsup:


----------



## Bishop37

Chrisisall said:


> Or, one could always do a diorama of the Battlestar crashed on the planet from War Of The Gods....


That wasn't a battlestar but it was "as big as a battlestar".


----------



## RSN

Bishop37 said:


> That wasn't a battlestar but it was "as big as a battlestar".


According to some of the cast I have talked to, it was supposed to have been the Pegasus and Apollo was trying to keep Sheba from seeing Cain's body in the wreckage. It was left vague enough to leave the door open if a story were to arise in the second season that would bring the Pegasus back, but that was the implied visual. Count Iblis tried to gain control of Cain's ship and failed, then moved on to the Galactica.


----------



## Richard Baker

I have heard that too. 
it makes sense the way they filmed Apollo/Sheba- she was a war veteran and knew there would be bodies in the wreckage, why prevent her from seeing a particular one?


----------



## seaQuest

In the interview with Glen A. Larson on the DVD, he said what was supposed to be seen were cloven hooves. It was filmed, but the network asked for the scene to be cut from the final print.


----------



## irishtrek

Richard Baker said:


> I have heard that too.
> it makes sense the way they filmed Apollo/Sheba- she was a war veteran and knew there would be bodies in the wreckage, why prevent her from seeing a particular one?


Any one war veteran or not is going to be more upset seeing the mangled and torn body of a loved one in any type of wreckage, it's just human nature.


----------



## Chrisisall

seaQuest said:


> In the interview with Glen A. Larson on the DVD, he said what was supposed to be seen were cloven hooves. It was filmed, but the network asked for the scene to be cut from the final print.


Yeah, so it's okay for God(s) to be advanced aliens, but don't show any Devil(s) killed by them... koo koo censors.:freak:


----------



## Bishop37

It's right about the cloven hooves, they were made but looked so ridiculous that they were cut out of the episode.

The reason behind the crashed ship was that it was a 'Ship of Darkness' crewed by demon-like creatures akin to Count Iblis's true form.


----------



## Chrisisall

Bishop37 said:


> The reason behind the crashed ship was that it was a 'Ship of Darkness' crewed by demon-like creatures akin to Count Iblis's true form.


Okay, THAT makes sense. I think now we have the whole possible story, thanks Bishop!


----------



## Bishop37

Some might find this interesting.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7587/k5b0.jpg


----------



## Chrisisall

Bishop37 said:


> Some might find this interesting.
> 
> http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7587/k5b0.jpg


That's excellent, Bishop! Thanks again. 34 yeas later, the story is complete for me! What a month, first that "delicatessan in stainless steel" comment in For Your Eyes Only is made clear, now this!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

I like the Pegasus/Cain story idea better. However I remember as a kid thinking the body in the wreckage was a creature that would show Iblis' true form. So I think it came across as intended.


----------



## RSN

Opus Penguin said:


> I like the Pegasus/Cain story idea better. However I remember as a kid thinking the body in the wreckage was a creature that would show Iblis' true form. So I think it came across as intended.


Agreed, why prevent Sheba, who is a warrior, from seeing a dead alien with cloven hooves, especially if it would show he who Iblis really was. It is human nature to protect someone from seeing a dead loved one. (The Colonials were human in the original series, as opposed to the lack of morals they had in the remake, in my opinion.)

The final cut does exactly what it is meant to, allow the viewer to make their own decision and allow for any storyline to take place in the future and not contradict what was seen and or said in this episode.


----------



## The_Engineer

Are you sure that the cloven hooves scene was cut from the original airing in the 70's? Or was it cut in the US but aired in Canada? I remembered watching the episode back then and they showed the shot for about 5 seconds and I couldn't see what it was showing, so I asked my brother what is it? and he replied that it was cloven hooves in the dirt. This seems to me that it the scene aired in the Canadian airing.


----------



## spock62

RSN said:


> ...(The Colonials were human in the original series, as opposed to the lack of morals they had in the remake, in my opinion.)...


Lack of morals? How did you come to that conclusion? Some of characters in the original series had "questionable" morals too.


----------



## RSN

spock62 said:


> Lack of morals? How did you come to that conclusion? Some of characters in the original series had "questionable" morals too.


Personal choice, that is all, on how I viewed how the humans interacted with each other. I was rooting for the Cylons in the new version.


----------



## Richard Baker

Back the test shot for a moment- is there any other photos of it besides that one of command heads in a plastic bag?


----------



## RSN

Richard Baker said:


> Back the test shot for a moment- is there any other photos of it besides that one of command heads in a plastic bag?


That is the only one Moebius posted on Facebook so far. Hopefully more will be coming soon. I really love the design of that ship. The opening shot in the film, with the entire fleet flying in formation with the music and Sensurround was awesome!


----------



## Chrisisall

RSN said:


> I was rooting for the Cylons in the new version.


I was rooting for my TOS DVD's during the new one.


----------



## RSN

Chrisisall said:


> I was rooting for my TOS DVD's during the new one.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

RSN said:


> That is the only one Moebius posted on Facebook so far. Hopefully more will be coming soon. I really love the design of that ship. The opening shot in the film, with the entire fleet flying in formation with the music and Sensurround was awesome!


I would expect new photos from JerseyFest this coming weekend.


----------



## Gary K

Like I posted on Facebook, a word to the wise re. the 1978 Galactica...

A friend of mine came over early Saturday afternoon to help assemble & critique the first test shot of the Galactica. All we needed to do was to glue the parts together (without the benefit of instructions, which haven't been written yet) to check the fit of the parts, as well as check their fidelity to the studio model - no filing, puttying, sanding, or painting. We took a break to eat & relax a bit, but the model wasn't assembled till 1:00 a.m. The new model is the same size as the original Monogram kit, but is MANY times more accurate and detailed. The head section, alone, has more parts than in the entire Monogram kit. Be warned - the model is a Chinese puzzle, and each part must be assembled in a precise order. If you deviate from that order in the slightest, I guarantee that you will be cursing a blue streak as you try to pry glued subassenblies apart so you can slip another part into position!

Gary


----------



## Helldogg

Pics??? Lol. I just want to say I am so thrilled about this I can hardly wait for it. I plan on buying a ton of these and the viper and raider.


----------



## Gary K

Helldogg said:


> Pics??? Lol. I just want to say I am so thrilled about this I can hardly wait for it. I plan on buying a ton of these and the viper and raider.


I don't know if Dave Metzner would want me to post pics yet, so I'll defer to him. 

Gary


----------



## irishtrek

Gary K said:


> Like I posted on Facebook, a word to the wise re. the 1978 Galactica...
> 
> Be warned - the model is a Chinese puzzle, and each part must be assembled in a precise order. If you deviate from that order in the slightest, I guarantee that you will be cursing a blue streak as you try to pry glued subassenblies apart so you can slip another part into position!
> 
> Gary


In that case I hope the instructions have built in warnings to avoid such a blunder.


----------



## Richard Baker

This actually makes me much happier about this kit. Monogram drastically oversimplified the model to reduce the part count and the result looked like a pool toy. Like the Tumbler, some subjects have complicated shapes and layered detail, to do them right you need to break it up into many smaller units.


----------



## Calamus

I wonder if there is any chance of seeing this kit this year?


----------



## Chrisisall

Thanks Gary!!


----------



## seaQuest

Bishop37 said:


> Some might find this interesting.
> 
> http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7587/k5b0.jpg


Okay, that gives me an idea of where those scenes were shot.


----------



## Edge

Paulbo said:


> I would expect new photos from JerseyFest this coming weekend.


If it's not a conflict of interests, please take lots of pictures!


----------



## Paulbo

Edge said:


> If it's not a conflict of interests, please take lots of pictures!


Once it's in PD there's no conflict of interest.


----------



## Edge

Did anyone get pics of the Galactica this weekend they would share?


----------



## John P

Ya know, I didn't see it on Frank's table! Or maybe I was just so awestruck by the Batman figure that I missed it.


----------



## Edge

Thanks John.

If nobody else came up with anything, I guess there is always iHobby in 2 or so weeks.


----------



## Paulbo

Frank was "travelling light" this weekend. The only buildup he brought was the Batman.


----------



## Edge

Thanks Paul. Repeat to myself: "It's only a model kit. It's only a model kit."


----------



## Chrisisall

Edge said:


> Thanks Paul. Repeat to myself: "It's only a model kit. It's only a model kit."


It's sometimes necessary to fool your conscious mind.:thumbsup:


----------



## ryoga

Yeah, but a hell of a model kit  Gotta have it ... Need it ... must .... get .. it ...

Hey Frank, am I getting paid for this?


----------



## Helldogg

Between this and waiting for the viper I am losing my mind. Want want want!!!!!


----------



## jzsauronzj

Gary K said:


> Like I posted on Facebook, a word to the wise re. the 1978 Galactica...
> 
> A friend of mine came over early Saturday afternoon to help assemble & critique the first test shot of the Galactica. All we needed to do was to glue the parts together (without the benefit of instructions, which haven't been written yet) to check the fit of the parts, as well as check their fidelity to the studio model - no filing, puttying, sanding, or painting. We took a break to eat & relax a bit, but the model wasn't assembled till 1:00 a.m. The new model is the same size as the original Monogram kit, but is MANY times more accurate and detailed. The head section, alone, has more parts than in the entire Monogram kit. Be warned - the model is a Chinese puzzle, and each part must be assembled in a precise order. If you deviate from that order in the slightest, I guarantee that you will be cursing a blue streak as you try to pry glued subassenblies apart so you can slip another part into position!
> 
> Gary


I have always been a fan of the quality castings Moebius Models produces. I love the fact that the individual pieces that make up the whole are always nice and "beefy" (aka: dense) because I get into micro-drilling things like flight panels and various areas of the kits in order to run fiber-optic lighting or LEDs. 

I just wish whoever compiles and lays out their assembly directions would take a lesson from the old school model companies and stop making "montage" looking direction sheets. The color photography is nice but come on already, what is so difficult about playing "storyboard" editor and making boxed and numbered steps? I worked in the special effects industry for years in Hollywierd in creature effects and model making and I still sometimes look at their assembly sheets and scratch my head thinking "was this layout artist dipping into Owsley's reserved LSD 25 stashed before he wrote these"?


----------



## Griffworks

Some new pics have cropped up from iHobby in Chi-Town: 


http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/...ci-Fi Reference/Moebius_Gal01_zps2218acac.jpg

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/.../Sci-Fi Reference/Moebius_Gal_zpsd929572e.jpg

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/.../Sci-Fi Reference/GeartLady02_zps94ad5a1a.jpg

I know a lot of folks aren't happy with what they're seeing, but I like it just fine. The only complaints that I have aren't going to stop me from buying at least two of this kit.


----------



## Chrisisall

Looks great to me, anything I end up not likin' I can change.


----------



## Griffworks

Exactly _my_ thinking, as well. The plate/grid lines aren't that big an issue for me. The only two things I don't like are the bridge and the seven little detail pieces that I'm soooo _very_ fixated on, which I mentioned earlier in this thread (or maybe it was another thread?). I've got resin bits to fix those, tho. Even if I didn't, they're still not a deal breaker for me.


----------



## SUNGOD

Griffworks said:


> Some new pics have cropped up from iHobby in Chi-Town:
> 
> 
> http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/...ci-Fi Reference/Moebius_Gal01_zps2218acac.jpg
> 
> http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/.../Sci-Fi Reference/Moebius_Gal_zpsd929572e.jpg
> 
> http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/.../Sci-Fi Reference/GeartLady02_zps94ad5a1a.jpg
> 
> I know a lot of folks aren't happy with what they're seeing, but I like it just fine. The only complaints that I have aren't going to stop me from buying at least two of this kit.






Lots of folks aren't happy? From what I've seen most people seem to think it looks good.

I'm reserving my full judgement until I see much clearer pics or even until I get one but again I haven't really seen many people complaining about it so far.


----------



## Griffworks

Not so much in this thread, but there have been others who aren't happy here and at other forums. I'm not saying folks can't have an opinion that's different from mine - I welcome diversity - so much as making an observation. You can't please everyone all the time. I'm pretty happy with what I'm seeing and have no reason to lament, cry, gnash my teeth or rend sackcloth just because a few things aren't to my perfect liking. 

Anyhow, I'm exceedingly happy that this kit is coming out and will definitely buy at least two, as I've already said.


----------



## robiwon

My only gripe is the height of the bridge. Looks like it might be a separate piece, it may just be a matter of shaving it down. Of course a resin replacement will probably show up as well. This kit looks so good I'm not wasting any more time on my modified Monogram kit.

This is the one kit I'm really looking forward to this year (or next).


----------



## irishtrek

Seems to me like folks were also complaining about the grid lines on TOS 350 Enterprise and look at how many have went and got them a kit of the 350 E.
My only 'complaint' is that the Galactica was supposed to be out this fall but now it won't be until next January.


----------



## electric indigo

75% of the kit look absolutely fantastic, and if I didn't already have a built Monogram Galactica, I'd buy this one in an instant. It's just that most of the remaining problematic areas are in the main focus points on the head, i.e. the gridlines, the bridge, the front details and the AA gun(?) behind the bridge.


----------



## phicks

irishtrek said:


> Seems to me like folks were also complaining about the grid lines on TOS 350 Enterprise and look at how many have went and got them a kit of the 350 E.
> My only 'complaint' is that the Galactica was supposed to be out this fall but now it won't be until next January.


"February-ish" was apparently Moebius' schedule statement at iHobby.


----------



## irishtrek

Huh??? February now instead of January?!?! What's next April????


----------



## Griffworks

I am truly sad to hear that you'll apparently be passing before the Moebius TOS _Galactica_ is released. To be so, _soooo_ close to achieving a goal in life, yet you'll now die because the kit isn't released in January. 

What a world... What a world....







Lighten up, man. I understand being a bit disappointed, but the survival of the Human Race doesn't depend on a plastic model kit being released by a specific time. I'd wager that, like most of the rest of us, you've got plenty of other kits in your stash that you can work on.


----------



## SUNGOD

electric indigo said:


> 75% of the kit look absolutely fantastic, and if I didn't already have a built Monogram Galactica, I'd buy this one in an instant. It's just that most of the remaining problematic areas are in the main focus points on the head, i.e. the gridlines, the bridge, the front details and the AA gun(?) behind the bridge.






They might not be Hasegawa or Tamiya thin but surely the gridlines aren't that bad? I'd rather slightly heavy engraved lines than a bare surface. At least it's proper detail and not bloody decals.


----------



## robiwon

"sigh"




Might I suggest everyone start their very own model company and design their own kits from now on?



EDIT- the above is NOT directed at any one person or post


----------



## Chrisisall

Speaking as one who spent _two months_ agonizingly accurizing an old Monogram kit, a couple of days fixing whatever little things there might be to change on this new kit will be a walk in the park.
*WE ARE KLINGONS!* errr... I mean, *MODEL-MAKERS*!


----------



## irishtrek

Griffworks said:


> I am truly sad to hear that you'll apparently be passing before the Moebius TOS _Galactica_ is released. To be so, _soooo_ close to achieving a goal in life, yet you'll now die because the kit isn't released in January.
> 
> What a world... What a world....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lighten up, man. I understand being a bit disappointed, but the survival of the Human Race doesn't depend on a plastic model kit being released by a specific time. I'd wager that, like most of the rest of us, you've got plenty of other kits in your stash that you can work on.


what's that, you say you're about to croak???? Some body call 911 NOW!!!!!:tongue:


----------



## Griffworks

I know... Doc sez it doesn't look good unless Moebius releases the TOS Galactica kit before Midnight, Central. 

I'm sure to be a goner....


----------



## robiwon

As Yoda said to Ben in The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke took off to rescue Han and Leia, "there is another". You should see what Mike Salzo has up his sleeve, and his sleeve is 37 inches long!


----------



## John P

irishtrek said:


> Huh??? February now instead of January?!?! What's next April????


No, _March _is after February.


----------



## irishtrek

I know March comes after February. It would be par for the course if the next release date they announce were April or even June.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but why will the Galactica be more than the Cylon Raider? The Raider seems like it is larger. Or am I mistaken? Regardless I am seeing a $20 difference so I am curious.


----------



## Richard Baker

The Galactica has a much higher parts count, IIRC there are more parts in just the command head that the entire older kit. Higher tooling costs, lots of sprus, more production time to cast....


----------



## electric indigo

Probably due to the multiple parts breakdown of the Galactica - I suppose all the vertical surfaces are separate parts. And the kit is not small at all.


----------



## fluke

Right on!!


----------



## Dave Metzner

about 90 parts


----------



## Chrisisall

Dave Metzner said:


> about 90 parts


I was expecting 1000, but okay.

:lol:


----------



## Captain_April

The old kit was like 12 parts, 90 parts sounds amazing! I will be waiting for this one.


----------



## irishtrek

Dave Metzner said:


> about 90 parts


The more the better.


----------



## JeffG

Many, many photos here. And it blows the old kit completely away!
http://culttvman.com/main/?p=30852


----------



## irishtrek

It even has the launch tubes. Oh, the details on that baby, yeah!!!!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall

JeffG said:


> Many, many photos here. And it blows the old kit completely away!
> http://culttvman.com/main/?p=30852


Lords of KOBOL that's a great job of detailing!!! I'm ashamed to say that it blows my Monogram fixer upper away. Only things I can spot to fix at a quick glance are some forward bridge panels & possibly the panel line depth- both easy as pie. 
HEY, SANTA.....!:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Most of the detail looks good but from what I can see the bridge section is the weakest part.

The close up photos are a bit fuzzy but compare the bridge section to this photo of the studio model...................



http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...tos_battlestar-studio_model_reference-276.jpg



and it looks quite lacking in detail plus maybe even highly innacurate. I know not all the detail can be reproduced but the bridge looks way too simplified.


----------



## Chrisisall

SUNGOD said:


> and it looks quite lacking in detail plus maybe even highly innacurate. I know not all the detail can be reproduced but the bridge looks way too simplified.


To be fair, it's a really tiny model compared to the studio version. A great deal of simplification is necessary on that small scale.
Look how simplified my scratch bridge is:


----------



## SUNGOD

Chrisisall said:


> To be fair, it's a really tiny model compared to the studio version. A great deal of simplification is necessary on that small scale.
> Look how simplified my scratch bridge is:







That's the problem but even then I think it's too simplified. The bridge is probably the focal point of the model and that particular part doesn't look like much of an improvement over the Monogram kit.


----------



## robiwon

From the close up on Cult's site, the bridge looks to be a separate piece. If that is the final kit part it should not be hard to lessen its height and add some detail. Again, I'm sure a resin replacement might be available sometime after the kits release. Or, maybe even a grown 3D piece.


----------



## jbond

Yep--worse case scenario you'll have to pay $15 for a replacement bridge or spend a few hours fiddling up the detail. I'm amazed by what they were able to achieve--and obviously they had to stop somewhere. For instance you can't possibly reproduce every aspect of those tank kits that line the engine block. But they did capture quite a lot of it--the underside in particular looks great.


----------



## Chrisisall

jbond said:


> I'm amazed by what they were able to achieve


Me too!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Richard Baker

Adding details and enhancements is part of the fun- I am glad we have a kit with the correct body shapes and proportions, everything else is depending on how far you want to take it...


----------



## irishtrek

Hey present day naval ships get upgraded from time to time and as a result the exteriors appear different over a ships life time so why not a battlestar???


----------



## Richard Baker

Considering what happened on the show some bridge armor would be a good idea.


----------



## RSN

I don't see anything wrong with the Moebius Galactica bridge that a little sanding and a few strips of styrene wouldn't fix. Shouldn't be too hard for anyone posting here to do. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

Are those _boat hulls _on the lower sides of the hull at the extreme aft end?! :lol:


----------



## BWolfe

John P said:


> Are those _boat hulls _on the lower sides of the hull at the extreme aft end?! :lol:


Yes, there were also Saturn V parts used, locomotive steam boilers and tons of other model kit parts used to detail the surface of the original studio model.


----------



## JeffG

Wouldn't surprise me if some resin aftermarket details become available.


----------



## Mr. Wabac

John P said:


> Are those _boat hulls _on the lower sides of the hull at the extreme aft end?! :lol:


Depending on what you are looking at it is likely drop tanks on the filming miniature. 
They definitely used a little bit of everything on the "G".
I noticed that the aft end of the main body has been molded with 8Rad turrets, which were added at some point after the completion of filming.
During filming, this area was covered by the turrets from a French battleship.

Overall, the Moebius kit looks to be a massive improvement over the Monogram version - no complaints.


----------



## John P

Mr. Wabac said:


> Depending on what you are looking at it is likely drop tanks on the filming miniature.
> They definitely used a little bit of everything on the "G".
> I noticed that the aft end of the main body has been molded with 8Rad turrets, which were added at some point after the completion of filming.
> During filming, this area was covered by the turrets from a French battleship.
> 
> Overall, the Moebius kit looks to be a massive improvement over the Monogram version - no complaints.


These things there. Look more like boat hulls than drop tanks.


----------



## Griffworks

As *Mr. Wabac* says, those are drop tanks. At least, they're listed as such on the reference color-callouts that I have somewhere on my HardDrive. Just like the parts along the upper side of the engines are from some Rocco tank models. I believe that the line down the middle is the fairing and want to say they were off of one of the Harrier kits...? Remember, most all of the kits used in the construction of the studio model were readily available in model stores in 1977-ish.


----------



## John P

Ah! yeah, the "keel" is what made me think hulls, but I've certainly seen drop tanks like that.


----------



## Griffworks

Gotcha. No insult intended, as I know what a prolific modeler and big fan of WWII vehicles and history you are.


----------



## John P

Oh, none taken. Correct info is what i was looking for.


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> These things there. Look more like boat hulls than drop tanks.


On the studio model, those are drop tanks from a Fujimi 1/48 scale F-15.


----------



## ClubTepes

Opus Penguin said:


> Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but why will the Galactica be more than the Cylon Raider? The Raider seems like it is larger. Or am I mistaken? Regardless I am seeing a $20 difference so I am curious.


Probably, the biggest reason I'm guessing is parts count.

The Galactica has a lot more parts.

While the Raider is pretty big. Its parts count is pretty low.

This can translate into volume of tooling material and time involved in creating the files used to cut those tools.

Remember, the true cost of a model kit is not the the volume of plastic, but rather the cost of the tooling. (and in some cases licensing).


----------



## John P

ClubTepes said:


> On the studio model, those are drop tanks from a Fujimi 1/48 scale F-15.


.... Hm. F-15 tanks are smooth. Maybe they added the strip.


----------



## Mr. Wabac

John P said:


> .... Hm. F-15 tanks are smooth. Maybe they added the strip.


I see what you are seeing now - the miniature uses the F-15 drop tanks and they are indeed smooth.
In fact, on the filming miniature there is also a small fin on the tank that was left on when attached to the model.

I am seeing what looks to be a ridge on the Moebius version, not sure whether it is lighting or image compression, but it shouldn't be there if it is actually molded on.


----------



## seaQuest

Griffworks said:


> As *Mr. Wabac* says, those are drop tanks. At least, they're listed as such on the reference color-callouts that I have somewhere on my HardDrive. Just like the parts along the upper side of the engines are from some Rocco tank models. I believe that the line down the middle is the fairing and want to say they were off of one of the Harrier kits...? Remember, most all of the kits used in the construction of the studio model were readily available in model stores in 1977-ish.


Heck, they probably went over to Kit Kraft in Studio City with a blank check.


----------



## Griffworks

Wouldn't that be a modelers dream come true? Walk into a well stocked hobby shop with a blank check and buy to your hearts content...? 



ClubTepes said:


> On the studio model, those are drop tanks from a Fujimi 1/48 scale F-15.


Thanks, I couldn't remember for sure! And not viewing the pics that everyone is on about from that site, I wasn't aware of the strip down the middle that John mentions, either.


----------



## electric indigo

They must have caused a notable peak in the tank kit sales with the engine section:

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...tos_battlestar-studio_model_reference-155.jpg


----------



## irishtrek

I can see the fins on those wing tanks in the link E I posted.


----------



## John P

Ah! And there's no "keel" ridge on the tanks in Indigo's picture of the original. It's only on the Moebius kit.


----------



## Chrisisall

Yes...


----------



## Richard Baker

Was this kit mastered in the computer like the Cylon Raider or was it a built/sculpted master using kit parts deemed to closely resemble the original ones in the new scale?


----------



## ClubTepes

Richard Baker said:


> Was this kit mastered in the computer like the Cylon Raider or was it a built/sculpted master using kit parts deemed to closely resemble the original ones in the new scale?


I'm pretty sure that the Raider wasn't 'Mastered' in the computer as it is my understanding that it was a laser scan of an existing Studio Scale Raider kit.
Supposedly a Salzo Raider.

Once you have a laser scan of something, you can go in, rescale it, fix any asymmetry and clean it up. Etc.
So 'Mastered' is a little incorrect. 

The Galactica...........


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> Ah! And there's no "keel" ridge on the tanks in Indigo's picture of the original. It's only on the Moebius kit.


I checked my test shot, and the "keel" is simply a minor moldinng seam - not part of the design. 

Gary


----------



## irishtrek

Gary K said:


> I checked my test shot, and the "keel" is simply a minor moldinng seam - not part of the design.
> 
> Gary


Which can be cleaned up with sand paper.


----------



## Richard Baker

ClubTepes said:


> I'm pretty sure that the Raider wasn't 'Mastered' in the computer as it is my understanding that it was a laser scan of an existing Studio Scale Raider kit.
> Supposedly a Salzo Raider.
> 
> Once you have a laser scan of something, you can go in, rescale it, fix any asymmetry and clean it up. Etc.
> So 'Mastered' is a little incorrect.
> 
> The Galactica...........


Just got the wrong impression from this thread:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=386274
Looked like a computer model in CAD to me but I guess that was just some laser scan/edit screen....


----------



## SUNGOD

JeffG said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if some resin aftermarket details become available.






That's going on the assumption that everyone likes resin.


----------



## SUNGOD

jbond said:


> Yep--worse case scenario you'll have to pay $15 for a replacement bridge or spend a few hours fiddling up the detail. I'm amazed by what they were able to achieve--and obviously they had to stop somewhere. For instance you can't possibly reproduce every aspect of those tank kits that line the engine block. But they did capture quite a lot of it--the underside in particular looks great.










The toolmakers have done a great job on the rest of the kit considering it's the same size as the old kit but I don't know what happened with the bridge. 

I can't even see where they got that basic detail from after looking at pics of the studio model.

I agree they had to stop somewhere but I think that's just too basic seeing as it's probably the most important part of the kit. I would have thought the toolmakers would have put more effort into the bridge for that reason.


----------



## Gary K

Richard Baker said:


> Just got the wrong impression from this thread:
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=386274
> Looked like a computer model in CAD to me but I guess that was just some laser scan/edit screen....


The Chinese start with a 3D laser scan, and then they create the multi-colored computer model with the parts breakdown for the kit. They did the same thing with the 1/32 Flying Sub model, which started as a scan of one of Greg Jein's castings of an 18-inch studio model.

Gary


----------



## robiwon

Could it be possible that the bridge is not the final look? This is just a test shot, maybe their not done with it yet?

Sungod, would you be interested in a 3D printed replacement bridge as opposed to resin?


----------



## Paulbo

Does anyone realize we're talking a 0.01 to 0.03 inch difference here? I *think* we all own files that will remove that much material without a monumental effort if so inclined.


----------



## Dave Metzner

You DO realize that the [email protected] 1/4105 scale is SMALLER than a postage stamp, don't you????
It is one piece made in a single cavity therefore the amount of detail and the type of detail that can be produced on the front face and sides of the part are limited by the fact that the part has to be ejected from the cavity. The only way that the detail seen in the actual shooting model could be produced would be to make each side of the bridge as a separate part or make the bridge in a tool with slides. The bridge is as you see it now and will remain as you see it now. I am not going to make it as four parts - We are not going to invest in slides. Sorry, but there are limits to the number of parts and the amount of technology that can be invested in a kit like this. And there are limits to the kind of detail that can be produced on the sides of a part that has to be ejected from a steel cavity!


----------



## Chrisisall

Dave Metzner said:


> there are limits to the kind of detail that can be produced on the sides of a part that has to be ejected from a steel cavity!


Totally get that dude! It's fantastic work.


----------



## Griffworks

I think that people on both sides of this issue need to take a deep, deep breath. It's not the end of the world if the end product has a bridge that looks like that, tho is obviously disappointing to some of us. Regardless, as Paul said, we've likely got some sort of tool that can easily take off the excess detail that we don't like, as well as fine grit sand paper and putty to smooth it out. 

Don't panic! _It's only a model_! If it's such a deal breaker for some of us to have to put a little effort into building the model, why don't you go have someone do the STL/CAD work for your own model and pay to have it grown the way you want it to fall together in the box. 

If it's not a big deal to you, you're like me - and the above isn't even slightly directed at you. 

On the other tentacle, people have the right to ask questions if they have them. you'd think that a kit producer would have thick enough skin as to not get that upset because people question things while it's still in the production stage. Getting short with people who are simply showing concerns - and will likely still buy the kit! - isn't the best way to show that you're listening to your customers, IMNSHO. 

Just sayin'. 



robiwon said:


> Could it be possible that the bridge is not the final look? This is just a test shot, maybe their not done with it yet?
> 
> Sungod, would you be interested in a 3D printed replacement bridge as opposed to resin?


ARVEY Model Products already has accurizing / replacement parts set for the old Monogram release of the kit which includes all of the main pieces/parts that are missing on that kit. It retails for $130, but you only need 8 parts, IMNSHO based off of the pics I've seen, if you want to really make the model pop. Perhaps if enough folks contacted Robert, he might consider offering a set with the bridge and the below highlighted part (which appears at seven locations on the studio model) to give the model that extra bit of "umph!". 



Or not. You can go to the ARVEY Model Products website and contact him thru the link there. I emailed him about this yesterday, but haven't received a response as of this writing.


----------



## Dave Metzner

Jeff,
Sorry if you don't appreciate my explanation for the reason that the bridge part in the kit is as it is. I thought that the explanation was fairly straight forward. It seems to me that often times, criticisms are made without any consideration of the nature of the process by which plastic parts are made

Even though I have, for the most part, tried to avoid posting here I do read these threads, you'll have to pardon me if I take some umbrage to the allegations, that have been made here, that parts of this kit are inaccurate because I / we just don't care.
We try our best to show these projects to folks who know the subjects better than we do and do our best to follow their guidance. There are times when we cannot make every change that our advisors ask us to make for any number of reasons. But we do our best to produce reasonably accurate representations of these ships within the time and budget that we have.

Also, I just grabbed my built - up test shot and the detail that you have circled in your photo as being missing is present on our model Please be aware that entire detail @ 1/4105 scale is roughly 4x7mm and the circle that would be the fan detail in the center is less than 3mm in diameter (I'll bet that the fan on the shooting model is about 16mm in diameter). Obviously our model does not have the detail definition as seen in the original shooting model - but that detail is represented on our model and it does appear in several locations on the model. 
Once again there are both budgetary and technical limitations to the amount of tiny detail that can be achieved on injection molded parts at 1/4105 scale and maintain a budget that will allow the kit to sell at any kind of reasonable price.


----------



## Griffworks

The main gist of my comment above was more to simply point out that you and Frank seem to be taking a lot of these comments folks have made personally. The tone of your post before mine is such that it makes out that you don't like anyone questioning or commenting on the kits, regardless their intent, and make out that they're all nitpicking the kit to death. 

Yes, I understand that the kit isn't released yet. Yes, _I_ know there are some things that your manufacturers in China can't do where fine detail is concerned without raising the costs above where you want the price point to be. A lot of folks don't know all of that, however. None of us will die if the kit doesn't meet 100% to our satisfaction. I'm actually very happy to buy at least two of them when they come out. Heck, I'll prolly buy three! 

My comments about the part being "missing" was the inner detail, BTW. That same inner detail is missing from the _Galactica_ and _Pegasus_ kits, as well. I've bought multiples of those kits, however - four _Pegasus_ and three _Galactica_ kits. That issue on my part doesn't "kill the deal" for me. It's only been an observation that I've made. Again, I won't die if that detail isn't fully represented. 

Anyhow, all I'm trying to say is that you've got a pretty excited customer base who are looking forward to this kit. I know you're frustrated by what you perceive as people unjustly picking apart the kit when it hasn't been released. As a representative of the company, tho, the impression is that you are taking it a bit too personally and getting a bit short-tempered in your posts - such as the comment last year about this being "HobbyWhine" with the comments people made about the Pegasus kit. 

However, I understand if there are - but there are definitely going to be a vocal minority who are going to be upset and "cry" about it when it happens. It's just how life is sometimes. You can't please everyone all of the time. 

I honestly look forward to this kit and hope that you'll understand where my comments are coming from, as well. I'm excited about the kit, as are others and I really, really hope there won't be any delays. You guys are doing great work and I think that the silent majority know that and are excited for it's release. I just want it to be the best you can offer. We're modelers and we like when we have to do a little something to a kit beyond just gluing and painting a kit. 

We're also not happy if we don't have _something_ to complain about, it seems.


----------



## John P

Me, I'm fine.


----------



## robiwon

Everyone has to admit, we got it pretty good these days. I remember going to the hobby shop and asking for the latest catalogs to see what was coming out. Invariably there would be a picture of a model car (I remember specifically the '84 Corvette) draped in a cloth to hide its shape with the name and a "coming soon" tag under it. My how times have changed!

The work done on the TOS Galactica is, bar none, fantastic. For myself, the issue with the bridge is a moot point. I'm a modeler and can fix anything made of plastic or resin. I am going to have access to a 3D printer very soon and I think this may be a cool project to do in a clear material. The bridge is definitely not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination. You guys do outstanding work.

My only questions are-

Can you get the Star Wars license away from Revell?
And Griff, what is this "file" tool you speak of? :tongue:


----------



## Griffworks

That file thing is what Paul mentioned. I think he might be talking about computers...? Maybe he's talking about reference files so we know how to paint the kit?


----------



## Richard Baker

A few strips/chips of styrene plastic and a little bit of time and the bridge can look as detailed as you wish.
That is what building kits fun!


----------



## harrier1961

I love Moebius kits.
Whenever somebody points out "mistakes" or I see some detail that isn't as fine as, oh Tamiya, I think to myself about the price of a Moebius kit vs Tamiya and say..."I'm good with that! Nothing that a little "modeling" wont change."

So, Dave, I'm good with your kits!!!

I'm actually liking the look of the TOS Galactica better than the NuBSG one more and more.
And, not to get off-thread - really, REALLY looking forward to the LIS Robot!!
We luv 'ya Dave!
And Frank!

Just my 2 cents.
Andy


----------



## WOI

There is one drawback to ordering from Avrey Models for any of those
conversion kits,you have to have a credit card to use to pay for them.


----------



## Griffworks

Uh... I'm not sure how that's a "drawback", considering you can use a CC or your PayPal account, if you have one. The only other option that would be available would likely be to pay by cashiers check or money order - both of which you could likely inquire about via their contact information on the main AMP page. Using the online payment is much faster and, since it goes thru PayPal, is secure. It also gives you the potential option, should you need to do so, to dispute the charge should you not receive your kit w/in a certain timeframe - I think you have up to 45 days to file your dispute. 

If you go the other route and mail in your payment, you have to wait for the payment to reach them, then for the check to be cashed and _then_ for the package to ship. 

All that being said, I know the owner of Commander Models, as well as Robert at ARVEY Model Products. Both guys are extremely competent and _very_ trust worthy. I'm not sure why it's a "drawback" to do the same type of business with them that pretty much every other online retailer offers as a payment option. In fact, I'm suspicious any more of an online retailer that won't take online payment via either PayPal or one of the other secure "shopping cart" software companies out there.


----------



## RSN

It is not always a matter of trust, some people, like me, have done away with credit cards and carry no debt, beyond my home. I have managed to get by with a debit card for over 10 years, but some may choose not to use them either. As for Paypal, for me it is not linked to my debit card, it goes straight to and from my bank, so no credit card is needed to use that service.

Sometimes it is best to just let a person make a statement and let it stand on its own and not try to tell them they are "wrong" when all the facts are not known.


----------



## Griffworks

...? _I'm_ the bad guy for asking the question about his "drawback" statement? I really don't see how it's a drawback. 

Alrighty, then....


----------



## robiwon

Sorry Griff, I was referencing paragraph 1 of post 142, sarcastically, it was early when I posted. LoL.

Can we get this thread back on topic before a lock and discuss how great this kit is going to be? Everyone needs to remember what we had before this, a Monogram kit and a multi hundred dollar resin kit...


----------



## Griffworks

Sure, no worries. I wasn't do anything other than pointing that out about the AMP parts. The parts and kits I've gotten from them in the past are very nicely cast. 

Unless you're referring to the "drawback" thing, which wasn't directed at you.


----------



## RSN

When I "Tricked Out" my Monogram Galactica, the two areas I improved was hollowing out of the center of the middle outrigger supports and the second was to widen the edge of the "head" toward the bow. With the Moebius kit, I will not have to put that type of "work" into my build. For that I am grateful to you, Dave and Frank and all involved with this kit as well!!

One little detail I added was a small tower with a domed top, on the engine section to replicate the observation blister from the episode "The Hand of God". Yup, the kind of Galactica Nerd I am!!


----------



## irishtrek

The Monogram Galactica and the Moebius kits may have different contours to the bridge module. Case in point an SR-71 from Monogram has different contours along the fuselage that are different from the Testors kits. Can't think of any other way to phrase it right now.


----------



## Chrisisall

RSN said:


> When I "Tricked Out" my Monogram Galactica, the two areas I improved was hollowing out of the center of the middle outrigger supports and the second was to widen the edge of the "head" toward the bow.


Nice work there!


----------



## RSN

Chrisisall said:


> Nice work there!


Thank you sir. I can't wait to build one where the head has the proper look to it, as the Moebius kit does. If I could do this with the old kit, any adjustments I might want to make will be far less work. :thumbsup:


----------



## spock62

Dave Metzner said:


> Jeff,
> Sorry if you don't appreciate my explanation for the reason that the bridge part in the kit is as it is. I thought that the explanation was fairly straight forward. It seems to me that often times, criticisms are made without any consideration of the nature of the process by which plastic parts are made
> 
> Even though I have, for the most part, tried to avoid posting here I do read these threads, you'll have to pardon me if I take some umbrage to the allegations, that have been made here, that parts of this kit are inaccurate because I / we just don't care.
> We try our best to show these projects to folks who know the subjects better than we do and do our best to follow their guidance. There are times when we cannot make every change that our advisors ask us to make for any number of reasons. But we do our best to produce reasonably accurate representations of these ships within the time and budget that we have....


Based on this response (which, in the case of the Galactica kit, I agree with), how can you make a case for the Mk VII kit which has quite a few errors including a cockpit that looks almost nothing like the one shown on the show, especially when the Mk II kit before it had such a good cockpit (as does the upcoming Viper Mk I)? Would making the cockpit more accurate have added significantly to the cost of that kit?

Don't get me wrong, I like the kit overall and am glad you guys are making these kits. Not trying to start an argument, but this was an issue with me and others on this board a while back, and all we got, for the most part, was grief from people who post here speculating why the kit was produced that way. I'm just curious as to why it was done the way it was.


----------



## Griffworks

Oh, and before I forget... In the area of aftermarket kits and parts, a certain GKM producer has said that he has 1/4105 scale shuttles that will eventually be released. He's got both the TOS (Mk I) and Mk II (TNS) shuttles that will be sold in sets of two. No idea when they'll be available nor a firm price. 

I've yet to see a shot inside of the landing bays of this TOS _Galactica_, but wager it wouldn't take too much effort to detail it and add a shuttle or two inside of each bay. That'd be extra kewel if the builder were to light their model.


----------



## spock62

Griffworks said:


> Oh, and before I forget... In the area of aftermarket kits and parts, a certain GKM producer has said that he has 1/4105 scale shuttles that will eventually be released. He's got both the TOS (Mk I) and Mk II (TNS) shuttles that will be sold in sets of two. No idea when they'll be available nor a firm price.
> 
> I've yet to see a shot inside of the landing bays of this TOS _Galactica_, but wager it wouldn't take too much effort to detail it and add a shuttle or two inside of each bay. That'd be extra kewel if the builder were to light their model.


You could also show them being launched out of the tubes on the sides of the bay too!


----------



## Griffworks

Uh... the shuttles? At the risk of "saying you're wrong", that just doesn't compute. The shuttles were always shown launch for the rear landing bay entries, not the tubes. The launch tubes are way too small for the shuttles and are triangular shaped, as seen whenever Vipers launch.


----------



## Richard Baker

irishtrek said:


> The Monogram Galactica and the Moebius kits may have different contours to the bridge module. Case in point an SR-71 from Monogram has different contours along the fuselage that are different from the Testors kits. Can't think of any other way to phrase it right now.


The Monogram kit is a badly proportioned pool toy- they got almost everything wrong and reduced the detail to nil...


----------



## edge10

Dave Metzner said:


> Jeff,
> Sorry if you don't appreciate my explanation for the reason that the bridge part in the kit is as it is. I thought that the explanation was fairly straight forward. It seems to me that often times, criticisms are made without any consideration of the nature of the process by which plastic parts are made
> 
> Even though I have, for the most part, tried to avoid posting here I do read these threads, you'll have to pardon me if I take some umbrage to the allegations, that have been made here, that parts of this kit are inaccurate because I / we just don't care.
> We try our best to show these projects to folks who know the subjects better than we do and do our best to follow their guidance. There are times when we cannot make every change that our advisors ask us to make for any number of reasons. But we do our best to produce reasonably accurate representations of these ships within the time and budget that we have.
> 
> Also, I just grabbed my built - up test shot and the detail that you have circled in your photo as being missing is present on our model Please be aware that entire detail @ 1/4105 scale is roughly 4x7mm and the circle that would be the fan detail in the center is less than 3mm in diameter (I'll bet that the fan on the shooting model is about 16mm in diameter). Obviously our model does not have the detail definition as seen in the original shooting model - but that detail is represented on our model and it does appear in several locations on the model.
> Once again there are both budgetary and technical limitations to the amount of tiny detail that can be achieved on injection molded parts at 1/4105 scale and maintain a budget that will allow the kit to sell at any kind of reasonable price.


Let me take this opportunity to apologize to you:

I was way out of bounds in what I said. It is obvious to even an old fool like me that a lot of care has been taken with this kit to make it a great kit. If it doesn't measure up to any level of perfection I wish it to have, that is a personal problem for me to deal with.

For the record, I have 3 Galacticas on pre-order and that number is only going up.

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## spock62

Griffworks said:


> Uh... the shuttles? At the risk of "saying you're wrong", that just doesn't compute. The shuttles were always shown launch for the rear landing bay entries, not the tubes. The launch tubes are way too small for the shuttles and are triangular shaped, as seen whenever Vipers launch.


My bad, seeing Mk I and Mk II, I completely ignored the "shuttle" part of the equation and assumed it was the Vipers! I'll have to dial back my speed reading in the future. You are correct, only the Vipers launch from the tubes.


----------



## Griffworks

LOL! No worries, I was definitely confused on that! After posting what I did, I started wondering if you were perhaps suffering from the same speed-reading malady that I do. 

BTW, any Vipers at this scale would be teensy, tiny! I've got some "grown" Vipers that I believe are 1/2500 scale, which I believe were given to me at WonderFest 2009. 


Seen with a Timeslip Creations _Olympic Carrier_-type passenger liner and part of the Moebius Pegasus flight pod to give an idea of scale. 

So, imagine a Viper being roughly 1/3rd the size (give or take) of what you see there. 

Teensy Tiny!


----------



## robiwon

I used both my Monogram Galactica and Base Star in my Grandparents pool as a kid.:thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks

They don't float for squat, do they...?


----------



## spock62

Griffworks said:


> LOL! No worries, I was definitely confused on that! After posting what I did, I started wondering if you were perhaps suffering from the same speed-reading malady that I do.
> 
> BTW, any Vipers at this scale would be teensy, tiny! I've got some "grown" Vipers that I believe are 1/2500 scale, which I believe were given to me at WonderFest 2009.
> 
> 
> Seen with a Timeslip Creations _Olympic Carrier_-type passenger liner and part of the Moebius Pegasus flight pod to give an idea of scale.
> 
> So, imagine a Viper being roughly 1/3rd the size (give or take) of what you see there.
> 
> Teensy Tiny!


WOW, they are small! So Vipers in scale with the Galactica kit would be slightly bigger then dust specks. Oh well, so much for my idea!


----------



## robiwon

Wow, those Vipers would be small. Because of the shape even doing them as PE would be difficult as well.

Oh, and the Base Star was a good floater. The Galactica sunk like a rock!

While we wait for this kit, I think I'm going to bang out my original Monogram kit I still have. Build it, paint it, weather a little bit. Should be a good one day build on a cold and dreary day here. I'll start a separate thread.


----------



## Paulbo

I designed Vipers for the Nu Galctica etch set, but they ended up as little more than blobs so I left them off the production set.


----------



## robiwon

Just built my Monogram kit and posted a thread in the scifi section. Compare that to the new Moebius kit. That should put some warm fuzzies in everyone about the new kit.


----------



## TIEbomber1967

Back on topic...
Here are some good photos of the detail on the original Galactica
http://culttvman.com/main/?p=30852

Looks GOOD to me.
Enjoy.


----------



## robiwon

Best shots yet of the new kit. I think we were pretty much all in awe when the link was posted back on page 7.


----------



## RSN

Frank posted some great new shots of the Galactica buildup on the Moebius Facebook page. Lookig at a late January delivery date!!


----------

