# Moebius Interstellar Ranger my build



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

Work in progress, with lot more to do but I'll post as I go. Hopefully I'll finish it before winter comes. 

This kit is lovely but leaves much to be desired. The detail level is lacking compared to what 1/72 scale models can do these days, and they got some parts inaccurate. Although the overall proportion of the ship is spot on thanks to the CG data they based the model on. My goal is to make 

Done so far - 
Punctured and opened up the cockpit windows
Placed magnets make landing gears detachable and the hatch openable. 
(to be continued)


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

- Done
Made closed landing gear cover, also detachable by magnets
Applied bandage tape on the sided and nose are to reproduced the thermal blanket that the movie version seem to portray. 
Closed think panel lines for the purpose of re-engraving. 

- To do
LED lighting for the ship lights, interior and the engine
Cockpit and airlock reproduction with papercraft. (not skilled enough for scratch build  So not too accurate, but it'll look like that it has interior
Custom decals for hatch and other parts for more detailed look.
VTOL louvers (Didn't get paragrafix photo etch part. It'll be simpler plastic version) 
Surfacing, painting, decaling and finish up! 

It'll be fun months working on it. Lots of first experience for me (LED, decal printing, papercraft...) so I'm sure I'll make mistakes as I have already but pleasant process nonetheless.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

Excellent !


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

Wow - ambitious! 

This will be a fun build to watch. 


Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

First build I've seen where the kit's short-comings are being addressed. I agree, the overall shape is really good, but the accuracy/detail level is pretty bad, especially considering that it was based on CGI files.

The build is off to a great start, I'm looking forward to seeing your progress.


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Enjoying your work in progress reports.

You are doing what I'd like to do if I owned the kit...Maybe one day.

Looking forward to future reports.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

Thank you everyone. I'm having fun for sure, albeit slowly. I'm not a skilled modeler, meaning that I don't know the highend skills to scratch build new parts and all but I plan to use whatever resources I have to make it presentable. At least a model that I would like to own 

One of the thing I'm doing is making a 3D model of it to make papercraft interior and custom decals. I captured the kit with auto desk's 123D catch app on iPhone and using it as template.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

^ I chuckle every time I see that they replaced the Meatball with a version that was clearly inspired by the "worm". Eat this, NASA.

Great idea with the thermal blanket texture, it looks really convincing.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

I wish this kit had the windows opened up......


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

RMC said:


> I wish this kit had the windows opened up......


Here's a few more things to wish for in this kit:
a) Clear parts for windows that are recessed in the hull, not flush like the opaque, molded on windows given.
b) Window frames that are _flush_ to the body and segmented with round retaining bolts as opposed to raised with "dimples".
c) Mid and rear reaction control jets that actually matched the movie version.
d) Panel lines at the rear of the ship, behind the "wing".
e) Complete panel lines at the mid-section of the ship, were the windows are.
f) Panel lines that are missing at the nose of the ship.
g) Grilled openings at the front edges of the "wing".
h) Option to build it in flight, landing gear retracted.
i) Display stand to use with (f).
j) Complete markings.
k) Thin, finely recessed panel lines, not the wide trenches given.

Mostly, I wish Moebius would put some more effort into their $30-$40 sci-fi hardware kits. It seems when they get these kits around 80% correct, they call it a day and cut the molds. A new-tool kit that just came out should not have this many mistakes/omissions.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

spock62 said:


> Here's a few more things to wish for in this kit:
> a) Clear parts for windows that are recessed in the hull, not flush like the opaque, molded on windows given.
> b) Window frames that are _flush_ to the body and segmented with round retaining bolts as opposed to raised with "dimples".
> c) Mid and rear reaction control jets that actually matched the movie version.
> ...


Spot on observations. I was actually a bit surprised that all the kit reviews on internet was quite generous for this. Low expectation perhaps? 

This kit was announced while or after movie came out and originally to be released on Q1 this year, but ended up delayed to end of Q2 so I imagined that they were busy developing the kit and raced against time as buzz for the movie dwindled down. The movie was quite big but it's not a franchise nor the ship was featured prominently as I hoped, (very few dynamic flying shots), so considering that this wasn't going to be a classic steady seller like Eagle or vipers I'm glad they exit. Still no excuse for cutting corners but as a fan of this spaceship I cannot complain too much


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

The $30-$40 price point doesn't just cover the cost of making the molds, there's also the licensing costs to consider. 
Also, having the original computer files doesn't mean it is any easier or cheaper to produce a kit, particularly one with as complex a shape as this....sure, you could 3D-print it from those files but turning it into a multi-part styrene kit is something else entirely.
Given that the movie was popular enough to spawn a kit but hardly in the same league of popularity as Batman or the Marvel movies, Moebius have to strike the balance between putting out a reasonably detailed replica which will sell enough to offset the costs of production (and hopefully make a profit) or producing a FineMolds-style superkit which has limited appeal, a higher price than most will consider paying, and which loses them money.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype said:


> Spot on observations. I was actually a bit surprised that all the kit reviews on internet was quite generous for this. Low expectation perhaps?


I'll say it again, I think Moebius nailed the overall look of the ship. I'm glad they are making kits like this. But, the mistakes and omissions on this kit are just silly. It's sloppy workmanship on their part and it seems to be a common occurrence with many of their Sci-Fi kits.

As for the generosity of the reviews for this kit, I think there are several reasons for this:
a) Sites that review mostly military kits are not that familiar with Sci-Fi subjects and therefore don't subject them to the same scrutiny that they would military subjects.

b) A lot of people on the Sci-Fi boards/forums seem give Moebius a pass because they are just so thankful that any Sci-Fi subject is being produced.

c) A lot of people on the Sci-Fi boards/forums are huge fans of Moebius kits, the company and Frank. They give Moebius kits a pass because their fans, period.

d) Some people are just not detailed oriented. As long as the kit "looks right" (and the Moebius kit does), they're fine with it. It's guys like us who research the original props/miniatures/CGI on the internet and find these errors.

e) Finally, Sci-Fi kits were and still are, the red-headed stepchildren of the model kit hobby. Like you wrote, some people's expectations are low, based on what they're used to from the past.



miniature sun said:


> The $30-$40 price point doesn't just cover the cost of making the molds, there's also the licensing costs to consider.
> Also, having the original computer files doesn't mean it is any easier or cheaper to produce a kit, particularly one with as complex a shape as this....sure, you could 3D-print it from those files but turning it into a multi-part styrene kit is something else entirely.
> Given that the movie was popular enough to spawn a kit but hardly in the same league of popularity as Batman or the Marvel movies, Moebius have to strike the balance between putting out a reasonably detailed replica which will sell enough to offset the costs of production (and hopefully make a profit) or producing a FineMolds-style superkit which has limited appeal, a higher price than most will consider paying, and which loses them money.


Yes, I'm sure the kit wasn't cheap to produce. What kit is? As far as losing money on making a "superkit" (which I'm _not_ asking for), according to Frank on his Facebook page, the kit is selling rather well, so well that he's considering producing other ships from the movie.

Also, if money was tight, instead of using limited cash to produce the 1/144 Rangers, maybe they should have used that cash to refine the 1/72 Ranger instead.

Finally, look at my original list. With the exception of the display stand, everything that I listed is pretty much a given in just about any 1/72 aircraft/spacecraft kit on the market today. For instance, the kit has engraved panel lines on about 50% of the body, was it that costly to do the other 50% of the body? Imagine buying a 1/72 aircraft kit with only the wings having engraved panel lines and not the fuselage, how do you think that would go over in the modeling community?

I'm not saying that this is a bad kit, but I have a reasonable expectation that a modern, new-tool kit will have the basics like clear parts for windows, 100% complete engraved panels and details that actually match the original movie version. I'm _not_ expecting every nut and bolt to be shown, but what is shown to be *correct*. I don't think I'm asking too much. 

Funny, if other companies goof up on their offerings (i.e. Revell, Round 2), people are quick to pounce and pass judgement, sometimes unfairly. But, if anyone makes an honest critique of a Moebius kit that is short of 100% praise, well, that just won't fly. Why?

Sorry, notype, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. Looking forward to your updates!


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

Lack of healthy criticism is never good for anything and I think this is a very good discussion to have. This was my first Moebius kit and I didn't know what to expect. Although I'm not a seasoned scale modeler I'm more used to Bandai's gundam and macross kits which are obviously more mainstream and have huge market especially in Asia and therefore show a lot of state of the art injection technology applied. But even compared to an old Revell 1/72 kit the Ranger was, as Spock62 has said a step or two down in terms of quality. Still happy that they released it, and even more stoked that other ships may see the light of the day (1/72 Lander? 1/144 Endurance?!) I sure hope that whatever the next Interstellar kit would be an upgrade from Ranger. (I don't want to open up even more windows from Lander!!)


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype: Don't know if you've seen this, but the CultTVman site has a lot of detailed, clear photos of the full-sized ranger, some of the best I've seen. It should be a big help with your build.

http://culttvman.net/main/interstellar-ranger-reference-photos/


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

*Ranger, from CG to Kit*

Because Moebius boasts that the kit was based on the VFX's CG model, I wanted to dig a bit in that area. The merit is apparent, that the proportion of the ship is very accurate. Ranger does not have a complex shape but more subtlety to the overall design which would've been tricky to capture without the CG blueprint. 

What I now guess is that the kit also inherited what CGI model's limitation. Interstellar was mostly miniature VFX show with the most CGI focused on blackhole/wormhole effect, and CGI spaceships were mostly reserved for the far away flying shots. When you know that you never go close to a CG model, the detail level drops down according to the economics of the vfx and the surface details are deligated to texture maps. I think a lot of skipped details like panel lining was because they were bump maps in cg model. 

Wrong RCS nozzles on the other hand was probably a pure manufacturing limitation, because it'd be very costly to reproduce those them pointing at different directions. 









Bandai perhaps could figure out how to make this in single injection?









This was a simple cheat to approximate the holes, but they look like they exist to crash the ship.  I filled them up with putty for now but without a concrete plan for how to make them accurately. Any suggestions? :drunk:

My biggest disappointment was the docking hatch, which is completely wrong from the hatch we see during the docking scene. 









What I expected, more of less.









What I got from the kit. No latches, and the hatch door upside down. (Locking mechanism is shaped \ / , instead of / \ ) Even the decals are wrong. Movie had caution lettering up and the nasa logo (or the American flag) below, but the decals are opposite. 

However, I found out that the kit wasn't completely inaccurate. In fact it was quite faithful to the movie. 









As you can see, the set prop they used for opening hatch was different from the docking scene, and the kit is based on that prop. In other shots you can see that the prop has flag and logo on top like our decals. 

First I thought it was a different Ranger (because there are two), but it's simply a continuity negligence. 









Same ship on the same planet, but the hatch is changed back to the docking version.

So the movie had this continuity discrepancy, and the kit followed the wrong version. I am certain of it because the CG ship also seems to have followed it. 









You can tell that the locking mechanism is \ / orientation.

Sci-fi model kits' accuracy often becomes a moot point because there is no perfect original. Like Ranger, Millennium falcon have two or three different originals depending on which miniature you choose. I'm not defending Moebius because I'm still unhappy for the inaccuracy, but this is simply my inductive reasoning for how and why it happened.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

spock62 said:


> notype: Don't know if you've seen this, but the CultTVman site has a lot of detailed, clear photos of the full-sized ranger, some of the best I've seen. It should be a big help with your build.
> 
> http://culttvman.net/main/interstellar-ranger-reference-photos/


Thanks. Yes I saw these and they have been helpful. I wish there were more of them out there


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

I am really digging the passion and effort put into this
project! :thumbsup:


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

Haha thanks. I guess I have way too much time on my hand, when I actually don't :roll eyes:

BTW are some images missing from the previous post?


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

notype said:


> BTW are some images missing from the previous post?


Looks like it to me.
I'm keeping my eye on this thread to see what you end up doing (I was trying to think of what to use for the thermal wrap and your idea seems the best). I'm not sure if I'm just going to do the best paint job I can and leave it at that, or go all out. Meanwhile the kit just stays in the box waiting to be built...
Awesome job, looking forward to your progress.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype said:


> Because Moebius boasts that the kit was based on the VFX's CG model, I wanted to dig a bit in that area. The merit is apparent, that the proportion of the ship is very accurate. Ranger does not have a complex shape but more subtlety to the overall design which would've been tricky to capture without the CG blueprint.


 I agree, this is where the CGI comes in real handy.



notype said:


> What I now guess is that the kit also inherited what CGI model's limitation. Interstellar was mostly miniature VFX show with the most CGI focused on blackhole/wormhole effect, and CGI spaceships were mostly reserved for the far away flying shots. When you know that you never go close to a CG model, the detail level drops down according to the economics of the vfx and the surface details are delegated to texture maps. I think a lot of skipped details like panel lining was because they were bump maps in cg model.


 Was considering this myself. But, if that's the case, how come there _are_ panel lines shown on the lower sides and bottom? Does CGI have layers, like a CAD drawing, that can be turned on and off? If so, maybe the layers that had some of the panel lines were off, and the factory didn't notice? Then again, I'm sure Moebius had access to photos of the ship, how else could they come up with the orientation of the full-sized props hatch for example. To me, this falls on the team at Moebius, they shouldn't just rely on CGI file, but also check photos and make corrections as needed from _both_ sources. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of Moebius to do the kit correctly.



notype said:


> Wrong RCS nozzles on the other hand was probably a pure manufacturing limitation, because it'd be very costly to reproduce those them pointing at different directions.


 Moebius could have solved the problem by molding those areas as separate parts, like they did with the umbilical connection panels (parts 21 & 22, named incorrectly on the instruction sheet). Any cost added could have been solved by not including the 1/144 Rangers. The 1/72 Ranger should have taken priority IMO.



notype said:


> This was a simple cheat to approximate the holes, but they look like they exist to crash the ship.  I filled them up with putty for now but without a concrete plan for how to make them accurately. Any suggestions? :drunk:


My idea was to do like you, putty them over with either an epoxy putty or thick super glue. Then, using the photos as a guide, drill in pilot holes, use a larger drill bit to enlarge the holes and finally use a round, pointed file to create the "funnel" effect of the thrusters. Maybe someone else has a better way?



notype said:


> So the movie had this continuity discrepancy, and the kit followed the wrong version. I am certain of it because the CG ship also seems to have followed it.


 The kit's hatch is OK, not bad, but not great. Since I wanted to model the kit based on the full-sized version, I guess it would work for me. I much prefer the photo-etched version on the ParaGrafix brass sheet, but I really don't want to spend the cash for this. This sheet also solves the problems of the window frames/windows too, so maybe I should reconsider!



notype said:


> Sci-fi model kits' accuracy often becomes a moot point because there is no perfect original. Like Ranger, Millennium falcon have two or three different originals depending on which miniature you choose. I'm not defending Moebius because I'm still unhappy for the inaccuracy, but this is simply my inductive reasoning for how and why it happened.


I hear you, it's the nature of the beast, so to speak, when talking about Sci-Fi kits. Still, Moebius needs to step it up when it comes to it's QC (quality control) regarding getting the details right. They had the CGI file. I'm willing to bet they had photos of the full-sized prop and miniatures. Having all that info, there really is no excuse for a new-tool kit to come out with such inaccuracies.

As for the kit at hand, I had started to do what your doing, making it more accurate. Wasn't going to go as far as you (opening windows, filling in and redoing existing panel lines), but I did start to add missing panel lines and was toying with the idea of using medical bandage material for the thermal blankets, like you did. 

Unfortunately, either due to the tool I used for panel lines (Squadron) or my general ham-fistedness, the panel lines didn't come out they way I would have liked. So, I puttied them over, shot a coat of primer and found that...I needed to do more putty work. Annoyed at this point, I decided to just order a new upper body part from Moebius ($5.95 w/shipping included). Got the part in about 3 days (I'm about 30 minutes from their office), but put the kit aside, since I have 2 other builds to finish and I kind of got burnt out on the Ranger. Almost finished with one build, maybe I'll start on the Ranger again....


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

spock62 said:


> how come there _are_ panel lines shown on the lower sides and bottom? Does CGI have layers, like a CAD drawing, that can be turned on and off? If so, maybe the layers that had some of the panel lines were off, and the factory didn't notice? Then again, I'm sure Moebius had access to photos of the ship, how else could they come up with the orientation of the full-sized props hatch for example. To me, this falls on the team at Moebius, they shouldn't just rely on CGI file, but also check photos and make corrections as needed from _both_ sources. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of Moebius to do the kit correctly.


I'm not saying they just blindly followed CG model, and of course they should have had access to the movie props for reference, (perhaps even direct access) and I completely agree that Moebius didn't do their due diligence to best reproduce the miniature. I think among the panel lines that wasn't modeled in the CG mesh they picked and chose which ones to engrave and which ones to ignore. In a way I don't mind them skipping the lines around the window, as they are very thin and shallow and I would've hated having to fill them up and re-engrave. (If you can't get it right, don't do it at all  )



spock62 said:


> Moebius could have solved the problem by molding those areas as separate parts, like they did with the umbilical connection panels (parts 21 & 22, named incorrectly on the instruction sheet). Any cost added could have been solved by not including the 1/144 Rangers. The 1/72 Ranger should have taken priority IMO.


Yes. Separate parts would've been great. And still don't understand why separate umbilical panel which barely has any mold.  Rather have had all the RCS nozzles as separate parts with correct mold, but I don't know if that would've cost about the same as 1/144 bonus. 



spock62 said:


> My idea was to do like you, putty them over with either an epoxy putty or thick super glue. Then, using the photos as a guide, drill in pilot holes, use a larger drill bit to enlarge the holes and finally use a round, pointed file to create the "funnel" effect of the thrusters.


Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think there would be any other way. 



spock62 said:


> The kit's hatch is OK, not bad, but not great. Since I wanted to model the kit based on the full-sized version, I guess it would work for me. I much prefer the photo-etched version on the ParaGrafix brass sheet, but I really don't want to spend the cash for this. This sheet also solves the problems of the window frames/windows too, so maybe I should reconsider!


As for the upside down hatch, it wasn't the full scale that always had the wrong hatch. It had the correct one, but only in the scene where the hatch slid open they swapped with the rig that had the wrong design. In my opinion it's fairly big mistake on continuity check, but it didn't take me out of the movie so I guess it's ok. My problem is that the kit happened follow that mistake the production made. 

On a side note, what we know as the full size prop was NOT full size but ⅞ scale. So in Miller's planet actors get in and out of smaller ship, which makes those scenes also technically incorrect but again movie still works. Just a bit disappointed that Nolan focused on scientific accuracy but cut corners on spaceships.  

I also looked into the paragrafix sheet but skipped for the same reason. (And umbilical panels are backwards) 



spock62 said:


> ...Still, Moebius needs to step it up when it comes to it's QC (quality control) regarding getting the details right. They had the CGI file. I'm willing to bet they had photos of the full-sized prop and miniatures. Having all that info, there really is no excuse for a new-tool kit to come out with such inaccuracies.
> 
> ... I decided to just order a new upper body part from Moebius ($5.95 w/shipping included). Got the part in about 3 days (I'm about 30 minutes from their office), but put the kit aside, since I have 2 other builds to finish and I kind of got burnt out on the Ranger. Almost finished with one build, maybe I'll start on the Ranger again....


Could you drive 30 minutes and tell them to step it up please?  haha j/k
BTW I didn't know you could order just parts. Where can I do that? One of my landing gears disappeared through wormhole it seems. 
And looking forward to your build as well. I wish more people would make this kit but it's not easy to find completed model on the internet.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype said:


> Could you drive 30 minutes and tell them to step it up please?  haha j/k
> BTW I didn't know you could order just parts. Where can I do that? One of my landing gears disappeared through wormhole it seems.
> And looking forward to your build as well. I wish more people would make this kit but it's not easy to find completed model on the internet.


Yeah, not sure if Frank would appreciate my input!

Getting replacement parts is easy, just email them (http://www.moebiusmodels.com/contactus.html) the part number, name of part, kit name, kit number and your home address. After emailing me back the cost, I paid them thru PayPal...

...or, if you want, I can just send you the part you need, as I'll be building my Ranger gear up (and using a Round 2 stand!). PM me the part number/s you need and your address and I'll mail them out to you in an envelope. No charge.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

spock62 said:


> Yeah, not sure if Frank would appreciate my input!
> 
> Getting replacement parts is easy, just email them (http://www.moebiusmodels.com/contactus.html) the part number, name of part, kit name, kit number and your home address. After emailing me back the cost, I paid them thru PayPal...
> 
> ...or, if you want, I can just send you the part you need, as I'll be building my Ranger gear up (and using a Round 2 stand!). PM me the part number/s you need and your address and I'll mail them out to you in an envelope. No charge.


Wow that is an amazingly generous offer. Thank you so much!!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype said:


> Wow that is an amazingly generous offer. Thank you so much!!


Sent you a PM. Part will be in the mail today.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

spock62 said:


> ...Moebius needs to step it up when it comes to it's QC (quality control) regarding getting the details right. They had the CGI file. I'm willing to bet they had photos of the full-sized prop and miniatures. Having all that info, there really is no excuse for a new-tool kit to come out with such inaccuracies...


Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's not forget Moebius has licensors to deal with. The folks at Moebius could work day and night to get all of the details right, but if the licensor wants the rear hatch to be upside down, or wants the decals to be different from the ones on the actual props, or whatever, Moebius' hands are tied and they get stuck taking the blame for an inaccurate kit. I'm not saying I have any direct or indirect information that this is the case here, but I do know Frank Winspur has discussed such problems in the past.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

Zombie_61 said:


> Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's not forget Moebius has licensors to deal with. The folks at Moebius could work day and night to get all of the details right, but if the licensor wants the rear hatch to be upside down, or wants the decals to be different from the ones on the actual props, or whatever, Moebius' hands are tied and they get stuck taking the blame for an inaccurate kit. I'm not saying I have any direct or indirect information that this is the case here, but I do know Frank Winspur has discussed such problems in the past.


I think that's a valid point and who know what went on behind the scene. 
However I have hard time imagining the Ranger would be that case, probably with the exception of NASA spelled UASA due to trademark issue I assume. If anything I would've encouraged them to make the hatch correct position as shown in the majority of the movie so that you don't draw unwanted attention to the discrepancy. After all I only noticed the movie mistake thanks for the kit 

More likely scenario I picture is this. The CG model they based the kit on had the same wrong hatch, so as far as Moebius is concerned it is cannon. It also is slightly easier to make mold for thanks to omission of the high detail latches, so it was nobrainer to follow this version. 

But again I am not complaining here, only observing what this kit is. I still like this kit and glad that Moebius produced it. I would be complaining if Bandai had made a Ranger kit with full interior and movable seats and I cannot get it due to regional licensing deal :drunk:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's not forget Moebius has licensors to deal with. The folks at Moebius could work day and night to get all of the details right, but if the licensor wants the rear hatch to be upside down, or wants the decals to be different from the ones on the actual props, or whatever, Moebius' hands are tied and they get stuck taking the blame for an inaccurate kit. I'm not saying I have any direct or indirect information that this is the case here, but I do know Frank Winspur has discussed such problems in the past.


Can't say your wrong, can't say your right. I know Frank had those sort of problems with Marvel when he was doing figure kits based on their properties. If I recall correctly, the reason he dropped the Marvel license was because of the grief Marvel gave him regarding the posing of the figures. But, I doubt that's the case with the Ranger. Why would the licensors _want_ the kit to look wrong? Makes no sense.

I think it's down to two reasons, a) they followed the CGI religously and never bothered to check photos of the props and b) trying to keep the cost down. They seem to nickel and dime most of their sci-fi hardware kits...and the kits suffer for it.

Funny, on the Moebius Facebook page, before the Ford pickup truck came out, someone was asking when the kit was going to arrive. Franks response, in part: _"We'd love to have had it out years ago, but loads of production issues. *Just not going to put something out that has glaring errors that we can easily fix.* *As I find myself asking so many with questions on it, "would you rather have it right, or have it now" is how we've look at it."*

_Too bad he doesn't seem to feel the same way about kits like the Ranger.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

spock62 said:


> _"We'd love to have had it out years ago, but loads of production issues. *Just not going to put something out that has glaring errors that we can easily fix.* *As I find myself asking so many with questions on it, "would you rather have it right, or have it now" is how we've look at it."*
> 
> _Too bad he doesn't seem to feel the same way about kits like the Ranger.


Like you said before sci-fi kits seem to get lower bar for accuracy standard, from both manufacturers and modelers probably because there is no real original per se. I hope that some highend Star wars kits and replicas would change that notion a bit.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype said:


> Like you said before sci-fi kits seem to get lower bar for accuracy standard, from both manufacturers and modelers probably because there is no real original per se. I hope that some highend Star wars kits and replicas would change that notion a bit.


Don't get me wrong, Moebius has put out some very nice kits. The recent original series Cylon Raider and Galactica kits (even though it has some minor errors) come to mind. Just wish they put that kind of effort into _all_ their kits.

Also, US companies like Round 2 and Pegesus are doing very good sci-fi kits.


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

spock62 said:


> US companies like Round 2 and Pegesus are doing very good sci-fi kits.


I was curious about that. Are they kit manufacturers? They seem to do a lot of reselling of other kits. But the more sci-fi kit companies, the better. I hope some one would make the skyfighter kit from the V original miniseries


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

notype said:


> I was curious about that. Are they kit manufacturers? They seem to do a lot of reselling of other kits. But the more sci-fi kit companies, the better. I hope some one would make the skyfighter kit from the V original miniseries


Yes, both are kit manufacturers. Pegasus has a variety of new-tool kits from classic '50's movies, '60's TV shows, original designs and the Terminator movies. I have a few of their kits and they're very good. Here's the link to their website: http://pegasushobbies.net/catalog/

R2 has various kit brands under one roof. While they do reissue a lot of old kits, they also produce new-tool kits. The new MPC 22" Space 1999 Eagle that's being talked about on this forum, is one of them. They also produce new-tool Star Trek kits. Link to their website: http://www.round2models.com/


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

Small update. I made a 1/72 TARS paperpapercraft to sit inside the cockpit. Too small to fold them nicely but hopefully it'll work for a quick glance through the windows


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

Outstanding!

Here are a couple of interior shots from the Interstellar website that might help with your interior.


Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## notype (Sep 5, 2015)

veedubb67 said:


> Outstanding!
> 
> Here are a couple of interior shots from the Interstellar website that might help with your interior.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I'm already all over the place in that virtual tour site  
http://endurance.interstellarmovie.net

I'm doing 3D modeling for interior papercraft, but from test folding TARS I know that they would be too small so I'm simplifying it more.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*strange looking ship*

saw the movie at the theater, it was hard making out some of the dialog so I bought the disc when it came out and had to use the close cap to make sense of what was going on in some parts, I never did get a clear view of the Ranger, many thanks for the heads up on the Cult site


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

I'm really hoping that some aftermarket company will produce an interior 
for this model kit I think it would be successful since this subject sorely
needs one.

fortress


----------

