# Questions about R2 New Releases



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

I've noticed the newly tooled 1/1000 scale models coming. Specifically the Romulan BOP and USS Reliant. 

Quick question: 

Are they more screen accurate or just miniature repops? This thread is not intended to be a R2 bashfest. I just have not seen any news on the new kits. 

Thanks in advance for your knowledge.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

I haven't heard anything about a Romulan BOP but the 1/1000 Reliant is an all new tooling. It should be as accurate as all of their 1/1000 offerings. (Pretty Accurate)


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

They are both all-new tooling.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

For every single kit R2 puts out in 2 or more different scales I've yet to see one that has simply been resized.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

I know for a fact that the Romulan BOP will be as accurate as possible to the studio model. 

Gary


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> I know for a fact that the Romulan BOP will be as accurate as possible to the studio model.
> 
> Gary


So, really a Romulan BOP in 1/1000? Classic Trek? Won't that be a fairly tiny kit?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes it will.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steve H said:


> So, really a Romulan BOP in 1/1000? Classic Trek? Won't that be a fairly tiny kit?


There is something to be said for an all-encompassing(ship- design-wise) scale. I like the idea of doing almost every subject in 1/1000th, though I would have preferred 1/700th - but that ship sailed many moons ago during Polar Lights' first incarnation.

Having everything available in one scale is attractive.

Plus it will generate some revenue so that hopefully they'll be able to do a 1/350th D-7 and 1/350th K'Tinga in the future, as well as other bigger ships.

The smaller scale releases will hopefully make it possible to offer the larger ones, as well as be fun to have in their own right.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> So, really a Romulan BOP in 1/1000? Classic Trek? Won't that be a fairly tiny kit?


Small, yes. But not as small as the 1/2500 scale RBOP.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There is something to be said for an all-encompassing(ship- design-wise) scale. I like the idea of doing almost every subject in 1/1000th, though I would have preferred 1/700th - but that ship sailed many moons ago during Polar Lights' first incarnation.
> 
> Having everything available in one scale is attractive.
> 
> ...


Hey, I get it. (sez the guy looking longingly at all the 1/1000 scale Space Battleship Yamato 2199 kits he hasn't bought yet) I 100% approve of this kit.

But might R2 have gotten a higher pricepoint kit by maybe combining the Romulan BOP with a 1/1000 Klingon BOP? Wouldn't that have been an interesting 2-pack set? 

Either way, glad to see it. Waiting for the announcement of a 1/1000 Enterprise D.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Hey, I get it. (sez the guy looking longingly at all the 1/1000 scale Space Battleship Yamato 2199 kits he hasn't bought yet) I 100% approve of this kit.
> 
> But might R2 have gotten a higher pricepoint kit by maybe combining the Romulan BOP with a 1/1000 Klingon BOP? Wouldn't that have been an interesting 2-pack set?
> 
> Either way, glad to see it. Waiting for the announcement of a 1/1000 Enterprise D.


Not sure. Might be a good idea. However I'm guessing each of these will probably be around the $19.99 mark. R2 might be shooting themselves in the foot by bundling at 1/1000th scale.

I personally never liked the old 3 ship set that AMT used to make back in the day. It was smaller then 1/1000th but the thing that I disliked the most was the quality of the TOS Enterprise was so bad. 

I think they have bundled some 1/2500th ships in the Cadet series.

But if 1/1000th is a bit too small for your particular tastes, then 1/2500th probably wouldn't be appealing to you . . .

I do remember someone from R2 commenting - not sure if it was Jamie or someone else - that they could do two of the smaller scale kits for what it takes to produce a 1/350th TOS E or Refit.

If buying a few TOS Romulan BOP's, TOS Bridge kits, or other Trek stuff helps them crank out a 1/350th D-7 in the future, I'm will to do my part!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Again, I'm glad that R2 thinks having a 'fleet scale' is a good idea, and I am in favor of the 1/1000 Romulan BOP (as if my opinion matters in the least  )

I guess my 'Old Mr. Crankybutt' woke up when I saw this. Just, for the sake of peering into my foggy thought process, consider this:

This will be a small kit. Likely about 20 pieces. MSRP seems to be $19.99.

Fine, it's the real world. But you know, kits like that used to be a free giveaway with cereal boxtops , or bagged and peg carded for a buck. 

*sigh* Twenty Bucks for a tiny little kit. 25 bucks for a darn 'action figure'. Five bucks for a comic book. None of this is sustainable.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

I've been wanting a Romulan ship at that scale, so yay!

I wonder if it will be properly scaled or if they will go with what was used in the 1:2500 TOS set? That one is a bit larger than it should be compared to the D7 and Enterprise in the set.




Steve H said:


> Fine, it's the real world. But you know, kits like that used to be a free giveaway with cereal boxtops , or bagged and peg carded for a buck.
> 
> *sigh* Twenty Bucks for a tiny little kit. 25 bucks for a darn 'action figure'. Five bucks for a comic book. None of this is sustainable.


Dad used to make $100 a week. And that could support an entire family.
But yeah, one average salary can't do what it used to...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Again, I'm glad that R2 thinks having a 'fleet scale' is a good idea, and I am in favor of the 1/1000 Romulan BOP (as if my opinion matters in the least  )
> 
> I guess my 'Old Mr. Crankybutt' woke up when I saw this. Just, for the sake of peering into my foggy thought process, consider this:
> 
> ...


I bought my first AMT 18" Enterprise in the sixties for $2.50- now I see the same kit repopped for 'considerably' more. I try not to think about that too much, it can suck the fun out fast.

I really like them getting the same scale thing finally- box scale was so frustrating for me. One plus is that I have a couple of Yamato 2199 kits also in 1/1000- it will be fun to compare fleets.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

I certainly don't mind paying a little more for accuracy. This is an investment. I appreciated the ultra-accuracy of the 1/350 TOS ship sitting on the shelf.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I'm happy for the TOS Romulan ship, but I have to admit, I was kinda hoping that there would be something like a 1701-D or E in 1/1000. Even a K'Tinga would have been cool. But hey, R2 knows their business better than I, so I take what I get...


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

I keep telling Jamie Hood that a 1:350 scale Romulan BoP and a 1:24 scale Galileo would be swell ideas, but neither one is gonna happen anytime soon. 

Gary


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Hey, at least I hear that there's a Galileo in 1/32 coming....


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Dr. Brad said:


> Hey, at least I hear that there's a Galileo in 1/32 coming....


Wha - why didn't anybody tell me?? 

Gary


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

Dr. Brad said:


> I'm happy for the TOS Romulan ship, but I have to admit, I was kinda hoping that there would be something like a 1701-D or E in 1/1000. Even a K'Tinga would have been cool. But hey, R2 knows their business better than I, so I take what I get...


A 1/1000 Enterprise D would be 2 feet long, and the saucer would be bigger than TOS 1/350 saucer. I'd like to see it too, but it's important to realize that it would be a large and expensive undertaking that isn't comparable to their other 1/1000 Trek kits.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Prologic9 said:


> A 1/1000 Enterprise D would be 2 feet long, and the saucer would be bigger than TOS 1/350 saucer. I'd like to see it too, but it's important to realize that it would be a large and expensive undertaking that isn't comparable to their other 1/1000 Trek kits.


Agreed.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

IIRC, there was a Johnny Lightning diecast TOSBOP done in 1/1000 scale, so perhaps some of that preliminary design work already exists to be repurposed (although it is ALWAYS great to see Gary K will be involved in a project!):hat:
Tom


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Bwain no more said:


> IIRC, there was a Johnny Lightning diecast TOSBOP done in 1/1000 scale, so perhaps some of that preliminary design work already exists to be repurposed (although it is ALWAYS great to see Gary K will be involved in a project!):hat:
> Tom


Nope - no repurposing here! It's all from scratch. 

Gary


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Prologic9 said:


> A 1/1000 Enterprise D would be 2 feet long, and the saucer would be bigger than TOS 1/350 saucer. I'd like to see it too, but it's important to realize that it would be a large and expensive undertaking that isn't comparable to their other 1/1000 Trek kits.


Yeah, I always knew it would be huge. Probably never going to happen.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*big kits*

kinda like the 1/350th kits, thing is, you finish it, look at it, and think, I could do better, ......not like you can just toss a hundred dollar kit and start over, but its so cool up there on it shelf:thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Prologic9 said:


> A 1/1000 Enterprise D would be 2 feet long, and the saucer would be bigger than TOS 1/350 saucer. I'd like to see it too, but it's important to realize that it would be a large and expensive undertaking that isn't comparable to their other 1/1000 Trek kits.


That sounds like it would be a pain to display!!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think we live in an age where I wouldn't say "that would NEVER happen" with a kit, in most cases anyway. Except maybe the Moebius 1/35 scale Chariot/Space Pod kit. 

Anyway, I always figured a 1/1000 Enterprise D would be roughly the size of the 1/350 NX-01 but yeah, that saucer, that would be a damn beast. I might suggest looking at the Japanese style of 'frames that panels attach to' rather than two massive clamshells of styrene might be a thing to consider, were anyone thinking of making the project happen. 

Either way, there would need to be some damn impressive engineering to keep that saucer on the warp section. That is, if having the ability to separate the parts is desired. 

N E WAY. How many folks are gonna buy a bunch of 1/1000 Romulan BOP and make fleets? That would probably call for some non-canon markings to tell them apart...


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Gary K said:


> I keep telling Jamie Hood that a 1:350 scale Romulan BoP and a 1:24 scale Galileo would be swell ideas, but neither one is gonna happen anytime soon.
> 
> Gary


If only...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I would hope a 1/350th K'Tinga would be considered before those 2 seeing as whenever a poll's done it usually comes out on top of peoples Trek wants list.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, we ARE getting a 1/32 Galileo. That's fine by me.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

SUNGOD said:


> I would hope a 1/350th K'Tinga would be considered before those 2 seeing as whenever a poll's done it usually comes out on top of peoples Trek wants list.


This. There are few kits I'd spend $100 on, but a /1350 K'Tinga would be at the top of a short list.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

I just cant imagine people choosing a K'tinga over Reliant in 1/350 But only time will tell


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

RMC said:


> I just cant imagine people choosing a K'tinga over Reliant in 1/350 But only time will tell


I think most of us would have a hard time choosing between the two actually. I hope R2 makes both, some day.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*either would be fine*

both sounds good and I would be happy with either but the Klingon ship edges out the Reliant slightly.


----------



## Scott1768 (Jul 19, 2011)

I'd like both as well, but if I had to choose, I'd take the battlecruiser. I can always kitbash the Reliant.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RMC said:


> I just cant imagine people choosing a K'tinga over Reliant in 1/350 But only time will tell






Well I can because whenever there's a poll the K'Tinga always comes out on top.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

The simplicity of the TOS Romulan makes it an easy engineering project relative to the other ships...and perhaps might be offered at a lower price!


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> Well I can because whenever there's a poll the K'Tinga always comes out on top.


really? ....and I thought the K'tinga folks were voting more than once....But they would not do that !

R2 seemed to think that the Reliant was more popular !


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RMC said:


> really? ....and I thought the K'tinga folks were voting more than once....But they would not do that !
> 
> R2 seemed to think that the Reliant was more popular !







And how do you come to those 2 conclusions?


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

To heck with more 350 scale ships. I want to see all of the Enterprises in 1/1000 scale (C, D, and E!) and Deep Space Nine in a 1/2500 scale! Those would be impressive builds!


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> And how do you come to those 2 conclusions?


well because R2 is coming out with a 1/1000 scale Reliant....:wave:


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

RMC said:


> well because R2 is coming out with a 1/1000 scale Reliant....:wave:


... and it's coming out BEFORE the model that won the "5 kit vote" from a year (or so) ago.
Galileo won the vote, but we're getting the Reliant NOW. They were probably work1ng on the Reliant before the vote. They were DEFINITELY planning on making it, no matter how the voting turned out.
It's popular, and I would buy a 1:350 Reliant before a K'tinga.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I would buy either of them, regardless of what order they would be released in.
Of course, anything beyond the original 1701 is gravy - it being my one, true "grail" kit.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RMC said:


> well because R2 is coming out with a 1/1000 scale Reliant....:wave:




That's probably because they can use parts from the refit.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> That's probably because they can use parts from the refit.


They could only use the nacelles, and at that they would have to be retooled to be top-mounted instead of side mounted. The 1:1000 Reliant is a completely original sculpt with its own set of casting molds.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

They can't use any refit parts on the Reliant. that's like saying they could use the Jennifer Love Hewitt molds to make a Sarah Michelle Geller kit, just because they're both girls with similar parts.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> They can't use any refit parts on the Reliant. that's like saying they could use the Jennifer Love Hewitt molds to make a Sarah Michelle Geller kit, just because they're both girls with similar parts.





You keep saying that John but the front of the saucer and nacelles look very similar to me with only the middle section being different.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

GSaum said:


> They could only use the nacelles, and at that they would have to be retooled to be top-mounted instead of side mounted. The 1:1000 Reliant is a completely original sculpt with its own set of casting molds.






Ok but they could probably use the original pattern (with modifications) for the nacelles at least.

Still doesn't prove the Reliant's more popular than the K'Tinga though.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> Ok but they could probably use the original pattern (with modifications) for the nacelles at least.
> 
> Still doesn't prove the Reliant's more popular than the K'Tinga though.


if the K'tinga is so popular then why is R2 doing a kit of Reliant ??
remember R2 is a company who has done the sales market research and I am positive they know more than you on the subject matter...why dont u get it ?

look I like the K'tinga too But your contrary position is not a winner


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RMC said:


> if the K'tinga is so popular then why is R2 doing a kit of Reliant ??
> remember R2 is a company who has done the sales market research and I am positive they know more than you on the subject matter...why dont u get it ?
> 
> look I like the K'tinga too But your contrary position is not a winner









But just because they've released a new Reliant in a small scale doesn't necessarily mean they've done that because it's more popular than the K'Tinga. They recently reissued the old K'Tinga also plus that new Cadet series one anyway.

I admit the Reliant came a close second on the last poll but what was first?

That's right it was the good ole K'Tinga! And it usually comes out on top in polls too.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

SUNGOD said:


> You keep saying that John but the front of the saucer and nacelles look very similar to me with only the middle section being different.



Jamie has said on the R2 blog that nothing from the refit can be used on the Reliant. It has to be a completely new tool.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, 
but I believe the Galileo was delayed due to some life issues delaying
the development. Completely understandable.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

mach7 said:


> Jamie has said on the R2 blog that nothing from the refit can be used on the Reliant. It has to be a completely new tool.
> 
> I don't want to speak for anyone else,
> but I believe the Galileo was delayed due to some life issues delaying
> the development. Completely understandable.











I'm surprised they didn't tool the refit so they could use parts from it to create the Reliant. The Reliant always looked like another variant of the Enterprise A to me. 

The nacelles might be the wrong way round and the saucer section different at the back but I wonder if the kit had been tooled in a certain way the 2 kits could have shared the same parts.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

:beatdeadhorse::beatdeadhorse::beatdeadhorse::beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> I'm surprised they didn't tool the refit so they could use parts from it to create the Reliant. The Reliant always looked like another variant of the Enterprise A to me.
> 
> The nacelles might be the wrong way round and the saucer section different at the back but I wonder if the kit had been tooled in a certain way the 2 kits could have shared the same parts.


But they couldn't really do that. Maybe the saucer section from the bridge forward is close enough, but the bridge and decks immediately below it, and the engines themselves are different. There are very few, if any interchangeable parts. I agree that it might look like there are, but it's really not the case.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Scarlett Johansen look _just _like Alyson Hannigan! Well, come on, they both have breasts and legs and arms!

(Okay, extreme example)

Would you really WANT to have the little refit kit's saucer divided in fore-and-aft Halves and have a seam across the beam? And have the engines with openings for optional upper _or _lower mounting bulges, requiring the unused hole to be covered?

Remember, the filming model of the Reliant was built from scratch. They didn't pull molds off the Enterprise to make the saucer or the engines; they just made it to look like it was built to the same design specs.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

…


I'm still thinking about John P's analogies.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> They are both all-new tooling.


Thanks, Trek Ace. Not sure what happened to this thread. Kinda turned into a wish list sorta thing. I recently built the AMT 1/537-ish scale Reliant circa 90's repop. And the old Bird Of Prey, too. That one was so old, the decal shattered when it hit the water. My awesome daughter did a computer drawn decal for me that I sized and used. I thought it would be interesting to build a Reliant that had nicely tooled nacelles and a BOP that had a screen accurate decal.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

GSaum said:


> They could only use the nacelles, and at that they would have to be retooled to be top-mounted instead of side mounted. The 1:1000 Reliant is a completely original sculpt with its own set of casting molds.


OK, folks like us in the know are fully aware that the _studio_ models are unique from each other and thus are dimensionally different. 

but...

Is it not obvious that the saucer and nacelles are intended to appear as common design elements? If so, an idealized Reliant kit could and should use the same basic saucer and nacelles, period. If I were king that is the Reliant kit that I would want.


----------



## oggy4u (Sep 27, 2007)

The best news I could ever read on this site would be a 1/350 K'tinga especially with the Qu'nos 1 parts. The current Round 2 re-release is simply the old, inaccurate Ertl ship . I 'd vote for a new K'tinga every time.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Dr. Brad said:


> But they couldn't really do that. Maybe the saucer section from the bridge forward is close enough, but the bridge and decks immediately below it, and the engines themselves are different. There are very few, if any interchangeable parts. I agree that it might look like there are, but it's really not the case.





Look at these photos...............


http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/USS RELIANT PAGE.htm


the front part of the saucer and nacelles are almost identical to the Enterprise A. They could have included the saucer from the Enterprise A and told people to cut off the rear and then add the new rear parts plus the nacelles to the underside instead of on the top of the Enterprise A main body. The nacelles could have been tooled in a way that would allow them to be joined from the top or bottom by the use of plug in parts to cover up either the top or bottom holes for the 2 supports.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> Scarlett Johansen look _just _like Alyson Hannigan! Well, come on, they both have breasts and legs and arms!
> 
> (Okay, extreme example)
> 
> ...





I don't see why not. Lots of kits have interchaneable parts so more variants can be made from the same moulds and the line on the saucer could have been on one of the grid lines. Same with the nacelles. 

I would have thought it would have been easy in tooling terms to make it so the nacelles could be attached either from the top or bottom and it might have saved R2 money instead of having to tool up all new saucers and nacelles.

As for the filming miniature do we know for certain it wasn't made from some of the same moulds as the Enterprise A? Even if it wasn't the saucers front and nacelles are virtually identical


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

KUROK said:


> OK, folks like us in the know are fully aware that the _studio_ models are unique from each other and thus are dimensionally different.
> 
> but...
> 
> Is it not obvious that the saucer and nacelles are intended to appear as common design elements? If so, an idealized Reliant kit could and should use the same basic saucer and nacelles, period. If I were king that is the Reliant kit that I would want.





I'd say it's obvious too. As soon as I saw the Reliant I thought that's just an Enterprise A without the main body, some new parts for the rear of the saucer and some upside down nacelles.

Just like a Tie Interceptor is another variant of the Tie Fighter with different wings


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Like a dog with a bone...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

You guys need to go apply for a job at PL and tell them how they're doing everything wrong and you can straighten them right out, and they can make a lot of money by putting out model kits that people need to saw in half to build. :lol:


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

John P said:


> You guys need to go apply for a job at PL and tell them how they're doing everything wrong and you can straighten them right out, and they can make a lot of money by putting out model kits that people need to saw in half to build. :lol:



amen !


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> I'd say it's obvious too. As soon as I saw the Reliant I thought that's just an Enterprise A without the main body, some new parts for the rear of the saucer and some upside down nacelles.
> 
> Just like a Tie Interceptor is another variant of the Tie Fighter with different wings


:freak:


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

lol "How to give Trekkies a heart attack 101"


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> You guys need to go apply for a job at PL and tell them how they're doing everything wrong and you can straighten them right out, and they can make a lot of money by putting out model kits that people need to saw in half to build. :lol:










The way you say that makes it sound like it's impossible or ridiculous but some model kit instructions actually say to cut parts off. Some like Hasegawa use a knife symbol.

Seeing as the front of the saucer and nacelles are virtually identical.............why couldn't they have tooled up some new parts for the middle section, instructed people to cut along the grid lines (which are there) and tooled the nacelles so they could be attached from the top or bottom? The cut saucer section could then be attached to the new parts via loacting points on the new parts.

Maybe I'm stupid but I can't see why that couldn't have been done and the same with the larger 1/350th refit. Surely that way they could have done the Reliant in both scales without having to make an all new kit from scratch?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

GSaum said:


> :freak:





What's that's supposed to mean?


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> Look at these photos...............
> 
> 
> http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/USS RELIANT PAGE.htm
> ...


I suppose they could have, but for some modellers that are less than skilled that might not go so well.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Dr. Brad said:


> I suppose they could have, but for some modellers that are less than skilled that might not go so well.





I think most modellers could do that. The instructions could say which precise grid lines to cut along. Couple of minutes with a saw and Bob's your uncle.

One nicely hacksawed saucer ready to stick onto the new body parts.


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> I think most modellers could do that. The instructions could say which precise grid lines to cut along. Couple of minutes with a saw and Bob's your uncle.
> 
> One nicely hacksawed saucer ready to stick onto the new body parts.


beat me w/ a wet noodle, but as in their slotcars ... R2 isn't up 2 par w/ Moebius , Pegasis or Atlantis 4 that matter in fit/quality.....
2 bad...got some models i'm drooling over....
have a good 1 Dude's (& Dudett's) :thumbsup:

Bubba 123 :wave:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Why are we _complaining _that they made a _whole new kit_? :freak:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

John P said:


> Why are we _complaining _that they made a _whole new kit_? :freak:


:thumbsup:


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

John P said:


> Why are we _complaining _that they made a _whole new kit_? :freak:


Not complaining...
Just BS'ing
Hey, that's what we do out here, and we do it well

:thumbsup:


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

John P said:


> Why are we _complaining _that they made a _whole new kit_? :freak:



my question exactly !.............:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> Why are we _complaining _that they made a _whole new kit_? :freak:







I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that because of the similarities of the refit and Reliant I'm surprised the refits in both scales weren't tooled so that a Reliant could be done from them also. And I think it could have been done.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that because of the similarities of the refit and Reliant I'm surprised the refits in both scales weren't tooled so that a Reliant could be done from them also. And I think it could have been done.


I just don't think that's practical. You have to remember that Round 2 has a financial responsibility to reach the customers who fit the "least common denominator". A majority of modelers don't customize their kits with photo-etch, lighting kits, or would even try to chop up a kit and convert it into something else. It doesn't make sense from a business point of view. Also, given that the saucers themselves even have differences, what you suggest simply isn't practical.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I've got a lot of airplane models that are engineered to be modular, so they may be releaed with common parts for different versions. Alternate panel detail, fuselage inserts, alternate fuselage sections, panel lines that need to be filled for one version. The parts don't always fit well and always require extra attention, often leaving seams that don't belong, and are often a pain in the ass to fit. Many kits also come with ALL the extra parts to make the different versions - alternate wingtips, alternate cowlings, two or three different propellors... leftover parts, wasted plastic, and the kit costs more than it needs to.

I don't LIKE modular kits.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> I've got a lot of airplane models that are engineered to be modular, so they may be releaed with common parts for different versions. Alternate panel detail, fuselage inserts, alternate fuselage sections, panel lines that need to be filled for one version. The parts don't always fit well and always require extra attention, often leaving seams that don't belong, and are often a pain in the ass to fit. Many kits also come with ALL the extra parts to make the different versions - alternate wingtips, alternate cowlings, two or three different propellors... leftover parts, wasted plastic, and the kit costs more than it needs to.
> 
> I don't LIKE modular kits.






But that's what 99% of model companies do otherwise it's not cost effective. I've got a Hasegawa P40 and some model reviewers moaned on and on about that kits modular nature which put me off at first. 

When I built it I didn't have any problems.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

GSaum said:


> I just don't think that's practical. You have to remember that Round 2 has a financial responsibility to reach the customers who fit the "least common denominator". A majority of modelers don't customize their kits with photo-etch, lighting kits, or would even try to chop up a kit and convert it into something else. It doesn't make sense from a business point of view. Also, given that the saucers themselves even have differences, what you suggest simply isn't practical.





I know the rear's different because of the extra body parts but maybe someone could show me the differences on the actual saucer both top and bottom?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Why?!?!?!


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> ...maybe someone could show me the differences on the actual saucer both top and bottom?





John P said:


> Why?!?!?!


Why not?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> Why?!?!?!





As chiang says........why not!


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

15 or so years ago I wrote PL or R2 or whoever it was at the time a letter. Told them they should create a 'ships of the fleet' series all in scale, and 1/1000 might be nice but whatever. 

I think I called them too and talked to their PR guy about the idea of a series of ships in scale. 

Don't say companies never listen.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

So, in a desperate attempt to change the topic, I have a serious suggestion for a new Trek kit. With all of the 2500 scale ships, I think it's only logical that the next kit in that scale should be Deep Space Nine. It would be much larger than the current kit, and would make for an excellent display along with a small Federation fleet. Anyone else want to see this?


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

GSaum said:


> So, in a desperate attempt to change the topic, I have a serious suggestion for a new Trek kit. With all of the 2500 scale ships, I think it's only logical that the next kit in that scale should be Deep Space Nine. It would be much larger than the current kit, and would make for an excellent display along with a small Federation fleet. Anyone else want to see this?


The reason I like 1/2500 is that they don't take up tons of space. A true scale DS9 would negate that. I'd MUCH rather see a 1/2500 Voyager, NX-01, and JJ-Prise (real scale, not the ridiculous it's big because I said so scale). 

I know all of the aforementioned are available in resin, but they are extremely expensive and not conducive to lighting.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I can see advantages to 1/2500 for limited space, but for capital ships I just need something with more 'heft'- I like to squint down the sides and see perspective. !/1000 is great for the smaller ones, meaning TOS/Movie Era, but when you get to TNG the size of the ships makes 1/1400 more practical.
I really do like R2's focus on making ships in matching scale instead of the traditional box scale we had to live with for so many years.


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

The 1/1000 scale kits are the new Cat's Meow!!


----------



## chood73 (May 5, 2014)

After building a couple of 2500's, the 677 voyager was a TREAT! I'm only 40, but DAMN those little parts! Aarrggghhhh


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

WOI said:


> The 1/1000 scale kits are the new Cat's Meow!!


Absolutely and for that reason I really hope we see the Enterprise C, D and E in that scale!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Me too! At least the D!


----------



## JediDad (Dec 5, 2009)

Gary K said:


> I keep telling Jamie Hood that a 1:350 scale Romulan BoP and a 1:24 scale Galileo would be swell ideas, but neither one is gonna happen anytime soon.
> 
> Gary


Keep telling him :thumbsup: Oh man I would love to see a 1/350 BOP!!!!


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

The AMT BOP is already in 1/350


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

JediDad said:


> Oh man I would love to see a 1/350 BOP!!!!





Landru said:


> The AMT BOP is already in 1/350


I'm pretty sure JD is referring to the Romulan BOP


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

One word: GALILEO.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

chiangkaishecky said:


> I'm pretty sure JD is referring to the Romulan BOP


Hmmmm.

The large Klingon Bird of Prey kit is really 1/420 according to a length of 360 feet.
But fudging it to 1/350 seems more realistic as I have mine displayed next to a 1/400 scale 747 and it (the BOP) looks unrealistically huge.

The old Romulan BOP could be called non-scale as the hull is way too short.
But it certainly seems like it could pass for 1/350.
There is no real consensus as to how big it really is.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> The large Klingon Bird of Prey kit is really 1/420 according to a length of 360 feet.


Wrong or right, R2 has decided it's 1/350
http://www.round2models.com/models/star-trek/klingon-bop/product



ClubTepes said:


> The old Romulan BOP could be called non-scale as the hull is way too short.
> But it certainly seems like it could pass for 1/350.
> There is no real consensus as to how big it really is.


Apparently, R2 isn't waiting for consensus and has set their relative scales when they put out their recent 1/2500 TOS set

http://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/star-trek-original-series-set

Looks like they're using a reasonable conceit where the old AMT RBOP was the roughly same scale as the old AMT TOS E and I don't see 'em varying from their decided path so if they should ever put out a 1/350 RBOP it gonna be bigger than the old AMT RBOP.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

chiangkaishecky said:


> Wrong or right, R2 has decided it's 1/350
> http://www.round2models.com/models/star-trek/klingon-bop/product
> 
> 
> ...


Did a quick glance on that article.
They have the Length of the K'Tinga as 246, making the scale seem 'off'.
In actuality, the K'Tinga is smaller than the D-7 at 216 (or 214 or something) meters. So the kit scale is likely correct.
I'll re read about the romulan.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

chiangkaishecky said:


> Wrong or right, R2 has decided it's 1/350
> http://www.round2models.com/models/star-trek/klingon-bop/product


Which is fine, because as I said, the original drawn length for the Klingon BOP was 360'.
I also said, that I had my kit displayed next to a 1/400 scale 747, and the BOP looked out of scale (Too big).

Also, in ST:IV, where everyone was outside the bridge bulb at the end, that set piece was likely built to a reduced size (which is done quite often), which would make people think the ship is smaller than it supposed to be - if you go by those drawings.

So in a rare case, (VERY RARE as my friends will tell you) Fudging the scale makes logical sense in regards to this kit.

Just because a scale is on a box, doesn't mean that its correct.
I can give A LOT of examples.
As a quick example, AMT/Ertl originally released the TNG Enterprise 'D' in 1/1400 scale (which is correct).
For a subsequent release (Generations Box), they rescaled it as 1/650. To match the scale of the 18" Enterprise kit (which by the way is also wrong. As it is commonly thought of as 1/650, when it is in actuality, 1/635).

AMT/Ertl wasn't the only ones. I'm not saying that they are.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> Which is fine, because as I said, the original drawn length for the Klingon BOP was 360'.
> I also said, that I had my kit displayed next to a 1/400 scale 747, and the BOP looked out of scale (Too big).


You're right but I'm pretty sure JediDad was referring to a 1/350 Romulan BOP



ClubTepes said:


> Also, in ST:IV, where everyone was outside the bridge bulb at the end, that set piece was likely built to a reduced size (which is done quite often), which would make people think the ship is smaller than it supposed to be - if you go by those drawings.


You're right but I'm pretty sure JediDad was referring to a 1/350 Romulan BOP



ClubTepes said:


> So in a rare case, (VERY RARE as my friends will tell you) Fudging the scale makes logical sense in regards to this kit.


You're right but I'm pretty sure JediDad was referring to a 1/350 Romulan BOP



ClubTepes said:


> Just because a scale is on a box, doesn't mean that its correct.
> AMT/Ertl wasn't the only ones. I'm not saying that they are.


You're right but I'm pretty sure JediDad was referring to a 1/350 Romulan BOP


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

How does one determine scale with a ship like the BOP?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If I recall, the size of the Klingon BOP really depends on which depiction is under discussion.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Landru said:


> The AMT BOP is already in 1/350


That's Klingon bird Of Prey.:wave:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> That's Klingon bird Of Prey.:wave:


Ahem. Check the scale.


----------

