Centurion Requirements : ANH Hero Discussion

[Rich330[TK]]

These are the best images I can come up with to show the differences but I think it's pretty much accepted that there are no rivets on the sniper plate ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I had the large version of those promo shots but it seems I've only got the smaller versions at the moment. The high-res ones show it pretty clearly. The screen capture of Han is a good one too though.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Rick330

[Rich330[TK]]

Here we go ...

 

 

 

And here, no sniper plate, but a conspicuous lack of holes(?) ...

 

[john danter]

Cheers Rick, but I mean the other way around

 

I'm of the opinion they 'may' have glued both

Sniper plate AND Ammo Box

 

I haven't seen a clear rivet anywhere. Or am I missing something?

On iPhone ATM but will look at these later

[john danter]

Ah...

 

I can see it on the inside now

 

I'll now shut up and go away

[Rich330[TK]]

Cheers Rick, but I mean the other way around

 

I'm of the opinion they 'may' have glued both

Sniper plate AND Ammo Box

 

I haven't seen a clear rivet anywhere. Or am I missing something?

On iPhone ATM but will look at these later

 

I suppose we could ust ask someone who's seen the suit. I know a man who has and when he builds his armour he rivets that part on. Generally he's pretty much renowned for obsessive attention to detail

Edited April 8, 2011 by Rick330

[Rich330[TK]]

Ah...

 

I can see it on the inside now

 

Yay! Well spotted.

[john danter]

Yeah I know him too lol

[Rich330[TK]]

We're going a bit off-topic now but what I do find interesting is that the rivet looks round on the inside, i.e. not like the split rivets that I have on my suit.

Is it possibly some kind of cap rivet which isn't bifurcated? Applied with a gun, like a pop rivet but with a cap head?

[john danter]

Not off topic at all

It's clearly not a pin rivet in the standard sense

 

It looks like an eyelet type design (one that flattens out the other side) but one that's got a solid head....?

Never seen them before

 

Almost like the flat things you get on jeans, but they have a hook inside them that twists onto the back

[Rich330[TK]]

I have used something similar on my belt assemblies. They look like this ...

 

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-4igDjPF9U7BYwrb-Hl4WBhy-NfmcHdOLh2pFanz42hIOLuAX0w

 

I only really used them on my belts because they fit nicely under the rivet covers and you can control the amount of force you apply to them better than with pop rivets and a rivet gun becasue you just smack them with a hammer. That way you know you're not going to take a chunk out of your plastic belt.

 

Looking at them in a new light now, they look like a good alternative to "brads"/papaer fasteners for someone looking for something on the torso which replicates the look of the split rivets but isn't necesarily functional.

 

Plus, it looks like something similar might even have been used to attach the ammo pack. Would be cool if someone who has seen the Si-man armour in person and up close or any other original armour can shed some light on the matter.

This connection definitely looks round on the inside too, rather than having the two "legs" of a bifurcated rivet.

 

Curiouser and curiouser ....

[firebladejedi[TK]]

It's obvious to me why one side was glued and the other riveted.

 

The sniper knee plate was formed to fit directly on the shin and the plastic thin enough that when glued moulds perfectly to the shin. Something seen on some modern day replicas.

 

Whereas the thigh ammo pack was a flat piece that always wants to return to it's original shape when bent about the leg. Something again we see in modern day replicas. Simple fix - use rivets.

[john danter]

Yeah thats True Mark, very good point.

I got mine down with a heat gun and glue. I'll add the rivets then

For all we know it could have a curved shape, just like shoulder straps.

But yes, I agree there are little rivets inside the Si thigh. So I guess they must have used them

Edited April 8, 2011 by john danter

[Daetrin[Admin]]

Sounds reasonable. These days I'd like to think someone could sculpt on with a curve, and was it not Terry who did light scoring on the inside of the ammo pack that lended it easier to stay in shape? A good question is if someone could attach this easily without the need for a visible fastener, should we require a cosmetic fastener as unlike the others used in the movies, this is very hard to spot indeed, even looking at screen caps.

[john danter]

If you score it and bend with heat yes you can

 

Point is, on the inside you can clearly see some rivet thing

We just can't from the outside so it's debatable

 

Most of us have already riveted out ammo pack and if I'm honest, this is where the reluctance to say they weren't riveted was coming from (I'm too cynical )

 

But fact is, yes they had something there

[Daetrin[Admin]]

Understood John, but on screen caps we can also see gaffers tape too and I don't see the Legion allowing gaffers tape, large paint chips and bad paint jobs either. There is a point where we move into prop replication too far - as the intent is to recreate what is seen on screen, not what they looked like when not on film. If a detail is not visible on a screen cap, is that really the intent of this program? The screws on the undercut of the chest plate are of a similar ilk.

 

People will look at our suits in detail from a few feet away, a requirement not needed on the original film aside from a few troopers.

[firebladejedi[TK]]

Ifs that's the case why don't you just rewrite the standards saying these items can be attached by glue or screw?

 

Really all this hassle over 2 small rivets..

 

I've seen suits in the 501st where all strapping for each major limb has been screwed directly through the armour - yet none where all add-ons were all glued.

 

I know you keep saying this programme is not meant to be prop replication but what is it for? And what standards do you want to achieve?

[Rich330[TK]]

The points added to the programme for centurion status definitely do seem to go a long way towards prop replication and away from an idealised costume look.

 

We're looking to reproduce things like visible snaps and rivets which the prop department probably looked on as blemishes. These are the type of thing they will have hoped were not immediately visible on screen.

 

I always think if the prop department had had more time and money, the suits would have been different. They would have been produced in shiny acrylic capped ABS with no flaky paint, there would have been no visible fastenings on the outside and the ab buttons may have been functional illuminated buttons with LEDs etc.

 

Maybe the programme needs to be split into two categories; one for an idealised costume and another for prop replication.

 

Prop replication is a lot more straight forward though: you try and find out as much as you can about how the costumes were put together and what they looked like and try and reproduce it.

 

The rules for a programme for an idealised look are a lot more difficult to set out. There are potentially no limits on how to "improve" on the screen-used costumes. You have to speculate (as I did above) as to how the prop department would have done it with more resources. A fascinating project for someone with lots of imagination - you can look into incorporatign LEDs like some members have on their Gunner helmets, TIE pilot chest boxes and comm pads etc. - but it would be almost impossible to set out the rules.

 

I personally like the current slant of the programme. I have one idealised costume and don't currently want to go any further with it. That's why I so far like the new centurion guidelines very much.

For me it is a move towards replicating the screen-used costumes more closely whilst not quite being pure prop replication.

It's "practical prop replication" or "making wearable costume replicas look as close to the screen-used outfits on the outside whilst being as functional/comfortable/durable on the inside as the individual troper sees fit". "Accurate wearable props for 501st trooper" if you were.

[Daetrin[Admin]]

Apologies Mark, my comment was more rhetorical. To me the original vision of both EI and Centurion remain unchanged, but I like to understand how other people see it. Wish we could hang at a pub - using posts on a thread can be very limiting at times.

[Daetrin[Admin]]

It's "practical prop replication" or "making wearable costume replicas look as close to the screen-used outfits on the outside whilst being as functional/comfortable/durable on the inside as the individual troper sees fit". "Accurate wearable props for 501st trooper" if you were.

Yes - you've hit the nail perfectly on the head there Rick.

 

Kudos and I tip my glass to you

[Rich330[TK]]

Yes - you've hit the nail perfectly on the head there Rick.

 

Kudos and I tip my glass to you

 

Yes, but what size nail was it? Steel? Brass? And was it painted white or left in its natural metallic colour?

 

:lol:

[Daetrin[Admin]]

LOL - the irony is not lost. As Mark said (or alluded to IIRC) at a certain point the hairs are too fine to worry about splitting.

[carbonitekid]

Yes, but what size nail was it? Steel? Brass? And was it painted white or left in its natural metallic colour?

 

:lol:

 

 

Not to mention was it a "genuine" nail or a recast.

And did AA have a hand in its construction.

[tkrestonva[TK]]

I have a general request regarding the Centurion requirements across the board, as I'm currently in the process of making the necessary upgrades for ESB.

 

I see a lot of "should" statements listed. Part of my day job is reading/writing/interpreting requirements, and devising verification methodologies for requirements. Hence I'm accustomed to seeing the word "shall" when it comes to requirements. The use of the word "shall" is interpreted as a requirement that - barring the granting of a waiver by the end customer - must be adhered to. The word "will", although not as iron-clad as "shall", can be used in a similar context. I see the word "should" as being the equivalent of the word "may" in the requirements world, meaning that although the builder is encouraged to conform to this requirement, ultimately it is up to them and the end customer has no legal/contractual standing with which to enforce it.

 

As an example, take this statement from the recently-passed ANH Stunt requiremets list: There should be no seam on the front of the boot (e.g. CABoots are not allowed).

 

While everyone that has participated in these discussions knows that CABoots and the like are expressly prohibited, it could be argued that because of the way the requirement is written this cannot be enforced. In this context, if I wanted to be combative (and there WILL be those who attempt to use this exact argument) I'd argue that since the requirement is a "should" and not a "shall" or even a "will" then it's up to me whether or not I want to adhere to it - and you have no right to deny me Centurion status either way.

 

Bottom line: I'd really like to see the language tightened up to make it perfectly clear that with the execption of a handful of cases (for instance, the question of brads/rivets on the sniper plate), the Centurion requirements are not debateable for those who seek Centurion status. No adherence = no maroon rocker.

[firebladejedi[TK]]

I understand your idea - but if you don't conform surely the guy in charge of saying yay or nay will just say no?

[Daetrin[Admin]]

Great points Brian. Are you volunteering to identify and offer alternative wording then on each issue, or is your expectation that I'll run through them all on my own?