[501st Trooper Status Requests (Include link to your 501st profile in your request!)]

TK-50148 requesting 501st access

 

http://www.501st.com/members/displaymember.php?userID=14948&costumeID=124

[RTA]

I'm not in favor of recasting. I just don't know what recasting really is and why all of you are saying that RTA is a recast. I thought, that recasting is making exact copy of something (e.g. armor or helmet) using some special technics like dropping part in silicon, and then making mould using that silicon form. I thought that recasted armor is something like chinese imitation - poor quality, low details and so on. Sorry guys, but for me, this all quarrel about RTA looks rather like Apple's patent war. E.g. Apple's accusations against Samsung, because Samsung Galaxy S shape is similar to iPhone. Same situation with Apple iPad and Samsung Galaxy Tab. If we go this way of thinking, each next new created armor should be different that those already on the market. Maybe RTA should look like this one:

[RTA]

Troopermaster, could you please explain me why do you say that the RTA is a recast? Is it because the RTA is similar to your armor? Or maybe because you don't believe that SID and Mariusz have sculpted their moulds from scratch? When you look at these pictures (https://picasaweb.go...9071516/TMVsRTA), you can actually say that these armors are similar. But when you look closer, you will notice, that RTA is slightly bigger. OK, someone said that this is result of recasting by dropping armor in silicone. But please look at this photo. Upper and lower edge is completely different.

Or for instance those parts, RTA is much bigger.

 

I would like to quote something:

Here is a thing. My friend and I are talking about having a go at sculpting some armour. Principally we are talking about using photographs and the films as our main resources. having said that I have an fx suit and an mrce helmet and I can just see it being used as a reference for basic shape. Not deliberately but you know how it is.

 

What is the general opinion, could this be classed as recast? depending on how it turned out, would it be fairer to say that it is fx derived? even though the intention is obvously to create a brand new set of moulds as a new sculpt.

 

Also having seen some old posts on other forums deriding troopermasters work as a recast in what way could you evidence your own work. Personally I would be gutted to create a suit only for it to be decided that its got to be ripped of as 'the suit is too hard for anyone to create from scratch'.

I cant see a photographic record as ever being quite good enough.

 

discuss

 

 

Garreth

Using them as reference is fine, dropping them in silicone is considered to be recasting. I would say a photo record documenting the sculpt would be fine.

 

Have a look around the forum there are so many threads on this subject. It can get a little boring for a lot of us as these issues have been beaten to death so many times!

 

Have fun.

 

Joe

http://www.whitearmo...?showtopic=9072

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me it's same situations as with RTA armor. Unfortunately, RTA armor authors didn't read that topic and this is the reason why they didn't prepare full photographic documentation of sculpting process.

However, photos published by Locitus show the process of sculpting some parts. This does not look like dropping armor in silicon. From what I know, they have had more pictures from the sculpting process, but they have lost them due to HDD failure. You may say that this is silly explanation. But seriously, all of you have backups of your photos?

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but nobody forbid me to express my opinion. I should mention that I'm not a member of 501 legion or Polish Garrison. I want to buy a Stormtrooper armor and RTA seems to be a good option.

 

Finally, I have small favor. If you want to write that I'm stupid because I'm writting these things, please explain why do you think so. That's all.