# Interstellar Film Range 1/72nd scale from Moebius Models



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I just got out of seeing Interstellar and it's a great film. I look forward to building this model from the film as well...

https://www.clubmoebius.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=960


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

The ship does some pretty cool stuff in the movie; looking forward to building it!


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

I hope they can release a Lander kit as well. It featured a fair amount in a number of scenes. Going to have to scratchbuild an interior for the Ranger. That gimballing cockpit deserves it.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

And here are some reference pics.....

http://spaceref.com/interstellar/visiting-interstellars-spacecraft.html


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Yes, thanks for that link. I will definitely be buying this kit.


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

So this begs the question, who is going to produce the outer ring assembly as a garage kit? How cool would that be?


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't what the "outer ring" assembly is, but I'm sure it's cool!


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Dr. Brad said:


> Haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't what the "outer ring" assembly is, but I'm sure it's cool!


The model in the original post is only a landing craft. The main ship is a larger ring structure.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Here are pics of some props from the movie, including the Lander. If Moebius doesn't make a kit, you can easily reproduce the design as a papercraft model.

http://hollywoodmoviecostumesandprops.blogspot.de/2014/11/anne-hathaways-interstellar-spacesuit.html


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks for the new link. I've been thinking of doing a plastic sheet model of the Lander once I had good enough references. The making/art of book still hasn't shown up locally in Oz.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Endurance being as modular as it is, with many common sections. This should not be a hard model to produce no? I hope it happens!


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

LOVED this movie! I know this is an old thread, but any news on this? Checked the link and it still says pre-order.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

harristotle said:


> LOVED this movie! I know this is an old thread, but any news on this? Checked the link and it still says pre-order.


Check out the thread in the Moebius forum: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=433346

Sounds like the kit will be available in June.


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

spock62 said:


> Check out the thread in the Moebius forum: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=433346
> 
> Sounds like the kit will be available in June.


Thank you!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

you'll love it! 

its a great little kit


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> you'll love it!
> 
> its a great little kit


You've got one!? 

Your picture confirms my fears though... no interior. $35 is a decent chunk of change for a model that still needs to have an interior scratch built.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

it was a test shot.

You're correct. No interior. But you also get two smaller rangers that you can add to a 1/72 Saturn rocket to replicate the launch vehicle (not pictured)


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> it was a test shot.
> 
> You're correct. No interior. But you also get two smaller rangers that you can add to a 1/72 Saturn rocket to replicate the launch vehicle (not pictured)


I'd rather have the interior, but having the smaller Rangers does make me feel better about the price point. Thank you!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> it was a test shot.
> 
> You're correct. No interior. But you also get two smaller rangers that you can add to a 1/72 Saturn rocket to replicate the launch vehicle (not pictured)


big OOOps on the scale.

obviously not 1/72. they're much smaller 1/144, I think


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> big OOOps on the scale.
> 
> obviously not 1/72. they're much smaller 1/144, I think


That makes sense, the main Ranger model in the set is 1/72 correct?


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Is there a good stand for gear up display?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Yes, the main kit is *roughly* 1/72 scale. Frank and I discussed the MANY, MANY shortcuts that were made in bringing Ranger to the screen. No two representations agree on what the actual size is - the two ships would never fit on a Saturn 5, for example.*

I'm not sure about the stand - my test shot did not come with one.

* And what ever happened to the second one? We never see it dock and there was nobody aboard to pilot it even though it's seen that it needs to be manually brought in for docking.


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

It could be automatically docked but didn't they disable that function to prevent Matt Damon from boarding?


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

miniature sun said:


> It could be automatically docked but didn't they disable that function to prevent Matt Damon from boarding?


I think you're right.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Keeping Damon from boarding is always a good idea. 
Actually I am getting over that with The Martian coming up.
Hopefully more realistic looking spacecraft kits from that too!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> Yes, the main kit is *roughly* 1/72 scale. Frank and I discussed the MANY, MANY shortcuts that were made in bringing Ranger to the screen. No two representations agree on what the actual size is - the two ships would never fit on a Saturn 5, for example.*
> 
> I'm not sure about the stand - my test shot did not come with one.
> 
> * And what ever happened to the second one? We never see it dock and there was nobody aboard to pilot it even though it's seen that it needs to be manually brought in for docking.


Based on what I've read, the rocket used to carry the Rangers into space is probably NASA's SLS, currently being developed to send the Orion spacecraft into space. http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/sls_launchpad2.html

Since the film is supposed to be in the "near future", I'm assuming that the SLS would be the only rocket they have to use.

To me, it's doubtful that they'd use the old Saturn, since all of the remaining Saturn's are museum pieces and, I assume, hard to make flight worthy again.

So, that means that using the Revell/Monogram kit as is, wouldn't be accurate. Then again, since the launch rocket wasn't clearly shown, who's to say it's wrong!

As for the second Ranger, I assumed that was on piloted by it's onboard computer which docked it onto Endurance, though this wasn't shown or explained in the movie.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

spock62 said:


> Based on what I've read, the rocket used to carry the Rangers into space is probably NASA's SLS, currently being developed to send the Orion spacecraft into space. http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/sls_launchpad2.html
> 
> Since the film is supposed to be in the "near future", I'm assuming that the SLS would be the only rocket they have to use.
> 
> ...


I was keeping that in mind the second time I watched the film.
I just naturally assumed that the rocket was a modern one.

But when Moebius added the 1/144 Rangers that could go onto a 1/144 Saturn V, my interest was piqued.

Paying attention on the second viewing, I noticed the engine fairings typical of a Saturn V.
The SLS has none.

So the nice thing is........ That if you choose to put the little 1/144 rangers onto a Saturn V, it will be accurate.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> I was keeping that in mind the second time I watched the film.
> I just naturally assumed that the rocket was a modern one.
> 
> But when Moebius added the 1/144 Rangers that could go onto a 1/144 Saturn V, my interest was piqued.
> ...


Well, there goes my original theory! I checked out the launch sequence again (courtesy of YouTube), and the first stage *does* have engine fairings similar to the Saturn V. Further research lead me to these two sites: http://interstellarfilm.wikia.com/wiki/Endurance and http://www.space.com/27694-interstellar-movie-spaceships-infographic.html

On the Wikia site it says that the Endurance was assembled in orbit _"using old, expendable boosters from Project Saturn and the Space Launch System."_

The Space.com site mentions the astronauts riding into space on a rocket that _resembles_ NASA's SLS, but without the booster rockets on the sides. 

But, since it has engine fairings, it could be an old Saturn V...or a modified SLS. Since the movie doesn't give an explaination of just what launch vehicle is used, either one could be correct.

Also, isn't the rocket shown only 2 stage, not 3 like the Saturn V?

Anyway, I guess that since future NASA has limited resources, they make do with what they have...including refurbshing old Saturn V's and/or SLS's.

As for the second Ranger, it's hard to tell, but it looks like there is some sort of bracing between Rangers 1 & 2 (seen when the astronauts first dock onto Endurance). This would indicate that when they manually docked Ranger 1, Ranger 2 also docked at the same time, being that they are both attached. I assume the brace between them is jettisoned shortly after docking is completed.

The movie doesn't show the launch vehicle fairing that the Rangers attach to (as per the Moebius kit). Perhaps it jettisons just after the second stage is jettisoned and just before the Rangers dock with Endurance (somewhat like the panels of the Lunar Module "garage" that are jettisoned after the CM/SM separates, allowing the CM/SM to dock with the LM). 

For me, I'd purchase a Revell/Monogram Saturn V, slightly modify it, and call it a day!


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The launch vehicle is a Saturn V, it had three stages and was more accurate than the obscenity used in Apollo 13. 

The Airfix Saturn kit would be preferable to the Monogram/Revell.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

robn1 said:


> The launch vehicle is a Saturn V, it had three stages and was more accurate than the obscenity used in Apollo 13.
> 
> The Airfix Saturn kit would be preferable to the Monogram/Revell.


I agree that the launch vehicle shown in the movie is most likely a Saturn V. As to it's accuracy, it's hard to tell from the limited screen time.

In the movie, both the 1st & 2nd stage separations are shown and announced by the astronauts. In the scene showing the 2nd stage separation, you see a portion of the upper part of the launch vehicle. It could be a third stage or and interstage adapter (that the Rangers/aerodynamic fairing attach to). Notice there is no engine ignition of this stage after separation from the 2nd stage. Also, the astronauts don't mention the 3rd stage or it's ignition. It could be that they didn't bother to show this in the movie, but I think this means that what you see is an interstage, thus making the launch vehicle 2 stage, like what NASA did with the Skylab launch vehicle. Besides, why would they need 3 stages to reach Endurance? It's probably in a low Earth orbit, so I would think 2 stages are sufficient.

At any rate, that's the way it looks to me. If anyone has definitive answers to this, please post!

Of course, you can make the model any way you want, since, at this point, who can say which is wrong or right!

And yes, the Airfix kit is much better then the Revell/Monogram kit. In fact, it's on sale at http://www.airfix.com/us-en/shop/space-and-sci-fi/apollo-saturn-v-1-144.html for $34.99 plus shipping ($5.00 to ship to my home in Florida). Not a bad deal.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I just pulled out my Dragon 1/72 Skylab stack (talk about a disappointing model) and the upper fairing that covers the Skylab docking adapter and "windmill" solar array seem to be a pretty good match size-wise to go with the Moebius kit.

It would take some doing, but one could buy 2 Ranger kits, the Dragon stack and customize the fairing.

Not planning on doing it myself, just throwing it out there.

EDIT: P.S. This does not, however, mean that a 1/72 scale interior would fit inside Ranger.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> I just pulled out my Dragon 1/72 Skylab stack (talk about a disappointing model) and the upper fairing that covers the Skylab docking adapter and "windmill" solar array seem to be a pretty good match size-wise to go with the Moebius kit.
> 
> It would take some doing, but one could buy 2 Ranger kits, the Dragon stack and customize the fairing.
> 
> ...


Funny, I was thinking the same thing regarding the Dragon kit, but it's more then I'd be willing or able to spend! But, I'm sure someone out there will do it.

Regarding the interior, do you mean the the interior used in the film is bigger than could actually fit in the full sized Ranger?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Yes, the interior's much larger ... and the exterior is smaller than 1/1 scale. Movie magic.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

They may have been meaning to suggest a Saturn V, but there were clearly only 3 engines in the film. I don't think it was a Saturn V, but another kind of 2 stage booster. I have been watching the film repeatedly and it is clear: 3 engine bells, not 5.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

robn1 said:


> The launch vehicle is a Saturn V, it had three stages and was more accurate than the obscenity used in Apollo 13.
> 
> The Airfix Saturn kit would be preferable to the Monogram/Revell.


Odd, given the obscenity is total CGI taken from NASA blueprints, IIRC.

I'll have to look at the film again, as the way the Ranger fairing is made, led me to believe there was only one Ranger on it and not two. Hmmmm.

Edit: Looking at movie. Still of engine nozzles shows a triangular configuration. This matches with the finned fairing visible in the launch pic, a 120 degree second fairing is not visible. If it were a Saturn V with a quad fairing, one every 90 degrees, we would see a 2nd one to the right, as well. Looking at the still of the Ranger on the rocket, and following the fairing lines, it appears a second Ranger cannot fit. However, Cooper does say, "Rangers?"


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Ok. I was wrong. Managed to do frame by frame and saw the 90 degree lay out of two of the finned cowlings on the first stage. Still not sure it's a Saturn V, though, given the 3 engines.

Also, after the 2nd stage detaches, we see the Rangers in orbit. And while not totally obvious, as the camera is right on the blade of the upper Ranger, it is clear that another Ranger is mounted below. During the docking sequence, the mounting device for the other Ranger is visible, just dark. Guessing it's jettisoned? Or stowed.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I read that the idea was they actually used a museum piece Saturn V as this was the scraping the bottom of the barrel last chance. So as wild as that sounds, it would probably have been a hybrid of future tech and sixties.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

I should also point out that the movie plays fast and loose with the scale of the Ranger. The primary filming miniature was 1/15 scale and was a tad over 50" long. Doing the math, that makes Moebius' large Ranger at 1/72nd. Problem is, the 1/144 scale Rangers for the Saturn V are not 1/2 the size of the larger model - they are smaller. 

The movie used a "full size" prop Ranger that wasn't - more like 80% of full size. Those dimensions got passed on to Moebius at first, but they caught the error when hey opened the digital file. All of the launch stuff was done digitally by Double Negative, not by New Deal. Likely they just took the model and scaled it to fit.

I have the kits on the bench now, and I have to admit the design kinda grows on you if you like futuristic real space stuff......

Gene


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

The Rangers are to me like the prettier younger sister of the POTA Icarus. 
So no problem falling in love there for me. LOL


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Soon, I hope.... Patience, please, David!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

CessnaDriver said:


> The Rangers are to me like the prettier younger sister of the POTA Icarus.
> So no problem falling in love there for me. LOL


More like the "new and improved" version. After all, the PotA ship crashed and sank; this one _surfed_.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I thought the Dragon 1/72 Saturn V was supposed to be the "Ut!" in utmost of the best of the available kits. It's not? Dang, was thinking of getting it someday.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

charonjr said:


> I thought the Dragon 1/72 Saturn V was supposed to be the "Ut!" in utmost of the best of the available kits. It's not? Dang, was thinking of getting it someday.


Here's a review of the kit: http://www.martins-models.co.uk/Sales/72/SaturnV/saturnv.htm 

Sounds like Dragon got a lot wrong!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I can't speak directly to Dragon's Apollo stack version of the Saturn V, but their Skylab stack is a hot mess - only half of the docking module is included*, no solar panel "wing" bumps, they kept the 3rd stage engine instead of replacing it with the different Skylab end-cap, etc. etc. and that's WELL before you even start thinking about counting the rivets.

* The aeroshield is provided half clear, half opaque so I guess they figured that people would only be looking at it from exactly square to the clear side so they didn't have to make the entire docking module.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> I can't speak directly to Dragon's Apollo stack version of the Saturn V, but their Skylab stack is a hot mess - only half of the docking module is included*, no solar panel "wing" bumps, they kept the 3rd stage engine instead of replacing it with the different Skylab end-cap, etc. etc. and that's WELL before you even start thinking about counting the rivets.
> 
> * The aeroshield is provided half clear, half opaque so I guess they figured that people would only be looking at it from exactly square to the clear side so they didn't have to make the entire docking module.


Yes I agree.
In a word, I would say that the Dragon 1/72 scale Saturn V (SUCKS).

I wanted to make the Apollo stack, but could only find the Skylab.
So I checked the instruction sheets from the Apollo kit, to make sure that they shared the same parts - which they do.
And then I purchased the Apollo 10 kit separately. Since they share the same mating surfaces, interchanging them is no issue (except for markings configurations - and the fact that Dragon SHOULD have made more parts specific to Skylab, The SIV-B stage is a lot different).

There is so much wrong and missing, I don't know where to begin.
Since getting the kit, I purchased David Week's Saturn V drawings (which are awesome) and visiting a REAL Saturn V (Huntsville Alabama).

I could have forgiven missing detail due to maintaining a parts count and a price point. But to get dimensional data wrong when so much information is available is unforgivable.

I likely have now done more research on Saturn V's than what Dragon did, in the creation of their kit.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

charonjr said:


> Ok. I was wrong. Managed to do frame by frame and saw the 90 degree lay out of two of the finned cowlings on the first stage. Still not sure it's a Saturn V, though, given the 3 engines.
> 
> Also, after the 2nd stage detaches, we see the Rangers in orbit. And while not totally obvious, as the camera is right on the blade of the upper Ranger, it is clear that another Ranger is mounted below. During the docking sequence, the mounting device for the other Ranger is visible, just dark. Guessing it's jettisoned? Or stowed.


As I write this, I don't have the film on Blue-Ray to look at.....

But from a straight on angle, 5 engine bells can look like three.

Just saying. 
Everything else looks SOOOOOOO much like a Saturn V.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

ClubTepes said:


> As I write this, I don't have the film on Blue-Ray to look at.....
> 
> But from a straight on angle, 5 engine bells can look like three.
> 
> ...


I just ASSumed it was a Saturn V until this thread....

The only shot I could find....


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Here's a photo of the "mounting brace" that I mentioned in an earlier post. You can see it under the Ranger. I believe this attached the 2 Rangers, so as the astronauts dock Ranger 1, Ranger 2 is also docked at the same time.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

hubert said:


> I just ASSumed it was a Saturn V until this thread....
> 
> The only shot I could find....



Yes, that is clearly the first stage of a Saturn V.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

spock62 said:


> Here's a photo of the "mounting brace" that I mentioned in an earlier post. You can see it under the Ranger. I believe this attached the 2 Rangers, so as the astronauts dock Ranger 1, Ranger 2 is also docked at the same time.


I tried to make it a little more visible...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I think part of my perception of a single ranger had to do with the initial docking sequence that used the rear porting and not the bottom which must be there for later scenes to work. Just got a blu-ray writer for my pc. Will do some frame grabs for posting about the Saturn V, including one that is a fraction of a second later than the one posted above, showing the two rocket cowls.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

charonjr said:


> I think part of my perception of a single ranger had to do with the initial docking sequence that used the rear porting and not the bottom which must be there for later scenes to work. Just got a blu-ray writer for my pc. Will do some frame grabs for posting about the Saturn V, including one that is a fraction of a second later than the one posted above, showing the two rocket cowls.


You mean this shot?


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Also here's a shot of the 2nd stage separation.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

bigdaddydaveh said:


> So this begs the question, who is going to produce the outer ring assembly as a garage kit? How cool would that be?


Don't know if anyone said this already but- you could fiddle with some old ink cartridges and get a pretty convincing ring...just sayin' :freak:
Jim


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

Hunch said:


> Don't know if anyone said this already but- you could fiddle with some old ink cartridges and get a pretty convincing ring...just sayin' :freak:
> Jim


That's a good idea


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

or download this paper model

http://www.papercraftsquare.com/interstellar-endurance-spacecraft-free-papercraft-download.html

then spray mount to plastic card...


Jim


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Based on the photoetch set that ParaGrafix is about to release http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=449529, it seems that the Moebius kit doesn't include clear window parts ("windows" appear to be raised areas molded onto the body). 

I guess that Moebius is trying to keep the cost of the kit down, but leaving out clear parts for windows, especially when they make up a good portion of the upper surface of the ship, is short sighted in my opinion. That's fine for the 1/144 Rangers, but at 1/72, painted windows LOOK like painted windows.

I'm glad to see this kit produced, but, no interior, no stand and no clear window parts is a bit much!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I'll probably be getting a flightpose stand for this sucka, unless a custom acrylic solution gets offered that looks good.


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

spock62 said:


> That's fine for the 1/144 Rangers, but at 1/72, painted windows LOOK like painted window.


Ever try using Transparent Smoke? It give a good illusion of tinted windows.

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

veedubb67 said:


> Ever try using Transparent Smoke? It give a good illusion of tinted windows.
> 
> Rob
> Iwata Padawan


Yes, on clear plastic. I guess it might work on opaque plastic, depending on the color of the base coat it is sprayed over. Have you used it that way with good results?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

You can buy tinting film at most auto supply stores for a couple of dollars- sticks to clear and darkens enough suggestions of shapes look good.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks for everyone's tips, but, to my knowledge, using film or paint to simulate tinted windows on a model, requires that the item tinted is clear to begin with. Using either on opaque plastic won't give you the same effect. 

Smoke paint such as Tamiya's and tinting film are both transparent, so you'll see what's underneath them. If applied over clear, the effect works fine. But, if the area is opaque, I don't see how it would give the same effect. Might as well use gloss black/dark blue paints to simulate the windows.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Moebius just provided clear window parts, like just about every other 1/72 kit out there that has some sort of glass/canopy! 

Heck, I have 1/144 modern day jet fighter kits that include clear parts for the canopies, even though most have no cockpit details to speak of!

Just seems like a giant step backwards for Moebius. I mean why spend the time/money to engineer a finely detailed model (based on the build up that someone posted, the kit DOES look really good) and sort of sabotage it by not providing clear parts for the windows, especially when a good portion of the top of the ship is glazed and the darn thing is in 1/72 scale? 

Again, I'm still looking forward to the kits release, but, to me, it's a disappointment that it wasn't engineered to include clear parts for the windows.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm guessing Moebius won't be including an interior with this kit. No interior, no need for transparent windows. That doesn't bother me one bit, because the tinting on the windows of the full-size Ranger mock-up and filming miniatures was so dark that you couldn't see through them anyway.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Just to remove any doubt - from having a test shot sitting on my desk as I write this AND having had several discussions with Frank and Dave at Moebius AND having a copy of the instructions on my hard drive I can definitely state that ...


*No Interior*
*No Clear Windows*

And I hope I not speaking out of turn here, but one thing Frank mentioned about the lack of interior is that there is no possible way to reconcile the interior set with the interior as seen in the movie. It's not just a matter of the scales being completely wrong, but the proportions aren't even the same. 

I would guess (*and this is purely a guess*) that they decided to leave out the interior and get criticized for that rather than include an interior that can't possibly be anything close to accurate and get REALLY CRITICIZED for that.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

so.... you telling me there's a chance.....

(runs and hides)


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

As I mentioned before, there is a difference, visually, between _opaque_ windows _painted_ black and _clear_ windows _tinted_ black. Even a darkly tinted clear window retains some of it's transparency, which makes it look far more realistic then the opaque version.

Based on what Paul wrote, I have no problem with the kit not having an interior. But, I do believe that clear window inserts should have been provided. The kit should look OK with the window areas painted black. But, it would have looked a heck of a lot better with clear windows tinted black.

If Frank/Dave were looking to save costs, why not ditch the 1/144 Rangers in favor of clear window inserts and the clear stand (you know, the stand that's included in just about every one of Moebius's Sci-Fi hardware kits)?

IMO, their automotive kits and figure kits are very will done. The Sci-Fi hardware kits, on the other hand, are a bit of a hit or miss. They seem to take the hardware kits to about 80%, and then leave it at that, unlike the other types of kits they produce, leaving it to the scratch-builders amoung us (and those that can afford aftermarket sets) to makeup the other 20%.

But, by not including clear parts, he's made it that much harder for a scratch-builder to include an interior, it's just something else he/she has to worry about. And it also a bit of a kick in the butt for us OOB builders out there.

What's next, going old-school, providing a schematic, a block of wood and a carving knife and saying "Cut away anything that doesn't look like the spaceship"? I can understand trying to cut costs, but, I think Moebius is going a bit to far.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

When I built my Runabout I kept the windows clear but painted the entire inside flat black. You could even look at an angle and see the side window from the front but nothing else.


----------

