# Cylon Raider kit pictures



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

From the HobbyLink Japan website: http://www.hlj.com/product/moe941


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

When I saw the thread title I thought that it was pictures of the unboxed kit (you know, the sprues). That's what I get for assuming, and we all know what happens when you assume!
Oh well...
Still, the kit does look good doesn't it? Thanks for the link.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

TIEbomber1967 said:


> When I saw the thread title I thought that it was pictures of the unboxed kit (you know, the sprues). That's what I get for assuming, and we all know what happens when you assume!
> Oh well...
> Still, the kit does look good doesn't it? Thanks for the link.


Same here, but pictures are still nice.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I love the level of detail Moebius has achieved- areas I thought were just flat have new life- this is going to be so much fun to paint and weather.
Not too concerned about parts on the spru photos- Moebius has a good approach to parts breakdown


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Oh, I can so hardly wait for this kit. I don't care if it's not to scale, it's beautiful. Thanks for the photos!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Of course it's to scale, what do you mean?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That's right. As John stated above, the Raider is now 'in scale' with the Viper kit - both being 1/32. It is also now 'studio scale' - in that it is the same size as the Raider studio models used in the production of visual effects for the series.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Go to Hobbysearch for even bigger photos:

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10252275

Easily Moebius' best kit from the Galactica series.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

electric indigo said:


> Go to Hobbysearch for even bigger photos:
> 
> http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10252275
> 
> Easily Moebius' best kit from the Galactica series.


Bigger is better! Thanks for adding the link.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

John P said:


> Of course it's to scale, what do you mean?


Sorry! - I got completely confused as to what forum the scale discussion took place at and I thought I was there. D'oh! The gist of all the other discussions is that the Raider seems to have been between 54 and 56 feet wide, which would make thia model about 1/39 scale. You can guesstimate those dimensions by overlaying the full-size cockpit blueprint on top of the miniature. This is a sloppy version I made myself just to confirm what others were saying:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/j...TOSRaiderSize_zps13930055.jpg.html?sort=6&o=0

So all I meant to say is, I am very stoked about this kit. I really don't care about the scale issues, and I'm actually sorry I mentioned it here. (Ah, someone would have eventually.) But at 17" this is going to be a monster and I'm very, very happy.


----------



## Johnnycrash (May 28, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> That's right. As John stated above, the Raider is now 'in scale' with the Viper kit - both being 1/32.


But it's NOT. That's what he meant. The Raider should have a 21" wing span. This kit is ONLY 17". That makes it 2/79 scale (1/39.5). NOT 32. Doesn't seem like much, but that's 19% smaller. So, a Cylon, properly proportioned (6'6") to fit into this Raider (1/39.5) would only be 1.97" tall. In 1/32, that comes to only 5'3". If you try and put 1/32 properly proportioned Cylons (6'6") in this Raider, it's going to get REAL cramped fast.

Good looking kit for sure. And pretty big. But not 1/32.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Its funny when people try to figure out exactly, down to the last millimeter, something that never existed in real life.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Which is why I was horrified to realize I'd made that comment here...

And it's closer to 1500.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Which is why I was horrified to realize I'd made that comment here...


:tongue:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

I have to say, I started a fight with a kid who came over my house to play and tried to play with my 12" GI Joe's together with my Star Wars action figures. I could never allow mismatched scale to play together. *OR ELSE* 

I'm still pissed about the Toy Story army men hangin' around Woody....

:tongue:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm usually more of stickler too, especially with Trek ships, but I gotta say this little discrepancy doesn't bother me at all. The model is already too darn big anyway.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

John P said:


> I'm usually more of stickler too, especially with Trek ships, but I gotta say this little discrepancy doesn't bother me at all. The model is already too darn big anyway.


Too big?!! You Sir, are a heretic!


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Darn, that's beautiful! Frank is God-like.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

With SF subjects I don't think scale is as important as correct shapes, proportions and depiction/location of details until you start trying to display things together. Then, if the those first things are wrong AND the scale is off, you have additional problems (unless you are deliberately using differing scales to create forced perspective illusions). Otherwise, when you say an SF kit is in scale the response is often legitimately, "In scale with what?"

I should mention as an aside that "studio scale" is often taken to be around 1/24 for fighters and does work out to around that in many cases, but the term is misleading. True studio scale is all over the place - with compositing you don't have to worry too much about a ship's scale relative to other ships you are filming. A better term would be "studio size".

Now, if the Viper is also actually 1/39.5 or very close then they can be considered "in scale" to one another (and I haven't bothered to take measurements on the Viper so I don't know what its true scale is). The Viper's detail problems are well known by now - Johnnycrash and I have described them elsewhere and Spock62 has done a good job examining them even further and deeper in another thread here...

Since I won't be displaying my TOS Moebius Raider with the TOS Moebius Viper, all I care about is if shapes, proportions and depiction/location of details is correct (or at least better than Monogram/Revell's Raider). If it's "studio size" then that's pretty cool too but for me it's a secondary consideration.

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

John P said:


> ...The model is already too darn big anyway.


I couldn't agree more. The original Raider is one of my favorite sci-fi ship designs, but the kit's size will probably prevent me from buying one. I understand why some people think bigger is better, but I'm not one of 'em. Sorry Moebius and Round 2, but you're missing out on sales because some of us don't live in a warehouse.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

Well, it's not very thick and kindof flat-ish... It might be hard to fit on a small shelf but you could mount it on a wall fairly easily (such that you view it from the top of the ship).

I agree in principle, though. I don't have a lot of display room either.

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

ViperRecon said:


> . Otherwise, when you say an SF kit is in scale the response is often legitimately, "In scale with what?"



I get that a lot from the Mundanes. Most recently to the 1/350 TOS Enterprise - "1/350 of WHAT, it doesn't exist!" My answer is that the ship or vehicle was usually designed to be a certain size in the show or movie, and the model is in scale to that assigned size. The Enterprise was quoted as being 947 feet long by its designer. The model is 1/350 scale to that.

We have a bit more leeway with vehicles whose sizes were never officially mentioned.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

It's an age old complaint when it comes to scifi kits. Bigger or smaller. Some people want bigger, some want smaller. Some want studio scale and nothing else. I think the 17 inch size is just about perfect for me. But isn't for a lot of people.

Studio Scale is a misleading title that has been debated for a long time as to what it actually means. Studio Scale does not refer to a specific "scale" such as 1/24, 1/32, etc. It refers to the correlation between a model built by a modeler and the actual filming miniature. If the fan built model is the same physical size as the filming miniature the said model is Studio Scale. In other words, if the filming miniature is two feet long and the fan built model is also two feet long, then it is Studio Scale. 
Since the Monogram Raider was seen on screen in BSG, then it is a Studio Scale model as well. The MPC X-Wing was used in ROTJ, so that kit is also Studio Scale along with the popular two foot resin kit.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Then there is the issue of the full size mock ups for fighters always being much smaller than they should be. What do you base the model on? How it looked in the sfx shots, how it looked as a mock up with actors, etc.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

djnick66 said:


> Its funny when people try to figure out exactly, down to the last millimeter, something that never existed in real life.


Sure, the Cylon Raider was never truly built into a flyable craft like a F-15 Eagle or other 'real' objects.

But a set of the cockpit WAS built. 
It had REAL dimensions and those dimensions accommodated REAL people.
The set blueprints are not hard to find and you can see for yourself what everyone is talking about.

The sad fact is that, that REAL set won't fit into a 'studio scale' Cylon Raider. Which the Moebius kit is based on and the same size as.

HOWEVER, the cockpit WILL fit into a Monogram Cylon Raider at 1/64 scale.

In order for the Moebius raider to be 1/32 scale, (and fit that REAL set) it needs to be exactly twice the size of the Monogram kit.

While I'm very happy that Moebius is producing TOS Battlestar Galactica kits,
I don't believe that they should put any scale on the box and simply call it 'studio scale'

There was a rumor floating around that they were trying to get it scaled up 12% to be closer to 1/32, but I'm not sure where that went.


What I find funny, are people who get all worked up about detail and accuracy, but don't care how big something should realistically be.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> ...What I find funny, are people who get all worked up about detail and accuracy, but don't care how big something should realistically be.


My guess is that this is because many of us grew up building sci-fi and figure kits during the 60s and 70s when scale was either a "guesstimate" or "something that fits in the box", so as long as the finished kit was reasonably accurate we didn't really care how big it should "realistically" be; we were just happy to have a kit (or kits) of our favorite ships and/or characters.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I agree with ClubTepes, model companies should not put a scale on a fictional spaceship model kit. 

Unless the subject existed as a complete full size prop they should just skip the "scale" altogether. Most (if not all) full size props don't match 1 to 1 with the filming miniature in proportion or detail anyways. Unless the company is replicating a direct copy (in size) of a filming miniature then Studio Scale should be left out as well.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

robiwon said:


> I agree with ClubTepes, model companies should not put a scale on a fictional spaceship model kit.
> 
> Unless the subject existed as a complete full size prop they should just skip the "scale" altogether. Most (if not all) full size props don't match 1 to 1 with the filming miniature in proportion or detail anyways. Unless the company is replicating a direct copy (in size) of a filming miniature then Studio Scale should be left out as well.


I wouldn't go that far and not put scales on all sci-fi kits.

Zombie, I agree with you that many of us grew up in the era of 'box-scale' for sci-fi kits.
But rather than desensitize my desire for a 'scale' in a kit, it only heightened it.

There are always intentions as to how big one of these fictional objects should be.
The designers of these subjects have ideas of how big they should be.

Those who say they aren't 'real' and therefore be any size are using that notion as a poor excuse.

Everything 'real' at one point only existed on paper just as our favorite sci-fi subjects do.

Some of these objects are well defined in their proportions and sizes, while others you have to follow the clues to figure out what the size IS MOST LIKELY TO BE.

In the case of the Raider, the best clue that I'm aware of is the cockpit set.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

spock62 said:


> From the HobbyLink Japan website: http://www.hlj.com/product/moe941


Large or small, this looks to be a beautiful model. Cannot wait!


----------

