Techne

Looks great. My only personal observation--not really related to the requirements--is that maybe the paint on the blaster is a little overly flaked off and weathered, especially on the right side (the side that we can see the bolt and charging handle). But that's kind of a subjective reaction.

Looks good...the one thing I would mention, and this isn't required for EIB, just something to consider in general, is to possibly use some ABS paste to smooth over the transition from your kidneys to your ab shims. I did it for mine and thought it made a big improvement.

Congrats! Great work.

You're coming along really fast, looks great. It would be tough to have painted boots, I don't know how you'd keep them from wearing down like they did in your test. Love those wands! Lots of multi-talented people around here.

Looks sweet!

That looks reasonably good. I agree with 5th horseman--test fit it. Cut some off, a little to the outside of your line and see how well it matches up with the face. Then cut down some more, to the line or whereever seems appropriate. You want to make sure there's enough overlap to bolt your ears through.

Looks really nice, good luck!

Good luck Tom. Good to see another ATA Centurion applicant. Not too many changes to make, it will be worth it.

I ended up making a couple other changes due to comments in my Centurion thread and figured I might as well update my build thread so it's current. Some of this may be useful for others trying for Centurion. I should point out that I put my armor up for Centurion right before the newest version of the CRL came out, so I was judged by the old CRL and not the new one. So some other details may not pass muster under the new CRL. For instance, the drop boxes are not supposed to have flat covers in the back now. It was suggested, although not required, that I ease the transition between my kidney plates and my side shims. I covered the lines between the kidneys and shims with ABS paste and sanded it down. This took a few rounds of adding ABS and then sanding. For some reason I got a lot more bubbles in the ABS paste this time. In any case it all worked out. Then there was a rather lengthy discussion of the cover strips on the backs of my thighs. My argument there is probably best summed up in posts #30 and 33 of that thread, and can essentially be described as "the cover strips should be as thin as they can be in order to fit the user, while still covering the entire raised ridge," and it did get some support, but in the end the decision was that the cover strips do NOT need to cover the raised ridge. First I made a model of what a canon-width strip would look like (right leg), in comparison with my original wide one (left leg): and then after some further discussion and compromises on both sides we agreed to go with this, in which I made the thigh cover strips the same width as the calf cover strips (which are also wider than canon but can't be altered due to the positioning of the holes and the gap between the shells of the calves): Ultimately I stil think that covering the raised ridge is the optimal way to go, but I am OK with this compromise and appreciate that the DO, Gazmosis, worked with me on this. Here's the final product:

Aw shucks. [blushes] Thanks!

Thanks for both!

Chris Wildrick 31198 EIB Letter

Chris Wildrick 31198 Centurion Letter

Thanks all you guys. I appreciate the kind words and I'm really happy to join the Centurion ranks alongside all of your great builds. Gazmosis, here's a couple action shots, use whichever works better. Unfortunately my lighting options aren't as good in the winter when I'm stuck indoors.

Hope I made it worth your while! Thanks! That's certainly good news! Thanks very much. It's school tomorrow, but I may need a drink to celebrate anyway! And #108...that matches my street address, so it seems like it was meant to be. And no problem, I figured I'd have to do a final full-frontal shot...just wanted to wait until I was sure there were no more changes to make first! [it may be a few days before I get the pic done] Whoo-hoo!

Those field training exercises pics are great. What a fun, awesome group to be a part of. And I can't belive that that's yet another section of this website that I had never looked at before!

1.5" thigh cover strips, which match the calf strips:

Steve, I really appreciate you working with me on this. I think I can live with this, and in fact I am kind of looking forward to seeing how it looks--and I am glad that it works for you too. I will make the changes over the next few days and put up the pictures. Thanks again!

The calf strips themselves are 1-1/2". The calf shells themselves don't quite come together in the back and have somewhat of a space between them.

Steve, thanks for your willingness to discuss this and possibly compromise a bit. I am getting over my feelings on this a little and can probably deal with a thinner thigh strip even if I don't really think it's the best thing to do (partly because my wife is telling me to gve it up already!). Let me just argue once more for the hell of it in favor of the wider thigh strip, in response to your points: while I agree that the cover strips are documented with what I understand to be a fairly standard width, and I also agree that the raised ridge on the back of the thigh is not in the original armor as far as I can tell, I'd also argue that it is precisely because of this that it makes sense to cover it up. In other words, since there's not supposed to be a raised ridge on the back of the thighs, it's inaccurate for it to be visible--just as inaccurate, I'd argue, as it is for the thigh strip to be wider than the standard width. Given a choice between these two inaccuracies, I think it makes more sense to cover the ridge and hide it from view. This is because in all the other spots we have a raised ridge, the cover strip covers the ridge. So, looking at the armor, if you see a raised ridge and suddenly it's not covered, it doesn't make sense. I would argue that the flat raised ridge visually implies that it should be covered, regardless of its position on the armor, and that it only makes sense to follow the implication of the design, especially since it makes it consistent with the rest of the armor. And again everything I've found on this topic on this site, before this, seems to support this approach. Anyway. But let's say I go with the 1-1/8" strip. Again, I think I can perhaps live with it even if I think it's not as good. The thing on my mind with 1-1/8" is that it's still smaller than the calves' strip (1-1/2"), and I'm kind of concerned that that's going to look a little wonky. How about 1-1/2" on the thighs? I can try out some models with paper to test various widths to see how they look proportionally, but I've only got so much ABS left and can't make too many more strips, so I want to make sure the next strips I make (if we can't agree that the originals are the best) are the last ones.

I understand where you guys are coming from. (And by the way congrats on becoming DO, Gazmosis. I guess I'm officially talking to you now.) Hell, I agree, Gazmosis (and 5thHorseman), the wider cover strips are more visible than the exposed flat ridges would be. But to me, if that's the distinction, that seems more like a question of taste..."I would build it the other way if it was my armor"...more than a question of what should and should not be required..."this is or is not up to Centurion standards of excellence." The whole question of fit is something else, but I still think of it according to my definition of fit, which is, "given that the flat ridges should be entirely covered, the cover strips should be made as close to accurate size as possible and still fit." From my point of view, the thicker thigh backs are what is meant to improve the fit of the thighs, and the cover strips are just cut to fit the thighs the way they are. But I don't make the rules. It all boils down to me to a basic case of truth in design. The flat ridges are obviously intended to be covered by the cover strip. You can tell just by looking at them when they're not covered up that they look wrong, that they're intended to be covered. I'm a big believer that you've got to go with the intent of the design. Design is based on utility; the shape of the ridge is made that way so it fits the strip; if the strip doesn't fit, the design essentially becomes a visual lie. Does a wide strip look bad? Yes, it's visually cumbersome. Does a thin strip, which doesn't cover the wide flat ridge, look even worse? Yes, to my mind. A cumbersome visual is better than a false design. Is the uncovered flat ridge more visible from a distance? No. The wide strip is more distracting...at first. But when you look up close the ridge is sure visible, and it creates a clear flaw that just sticks in your eye once you notice it. You can't un-see it. And not only is it against the truth and intent of the design, visually it creates a set of multiple parallel lines that aren't anywhere else in the suit, something that throws off the aesthetic of all the limbs. Of course the wide cover strip does the same, but it's not as bad. The strip on the calves, I have to reiterate, really just physically can't be changed. There is a gap between the halves there, and also if it was made thinner, the holes it's covering would be visible. I could only cut it in from the outside side, and then it would be off-center. Anyway, I've argued all this before, so I'll move on to some pictures. As a last-ditch effort, I went ahead and switched one of the thigh's cover strips over to be 7/8" wide, which is the width of the strip on the front, and ATA's recommended width. Here are pictures of my original strip and the new thin strip, side-by-side for comparison: At first glance, the thin strip looks great, much better than the other one. And then you look closer, and it just looks silly. The proportion between the outside of the ridges and the width of the strip is goofy. And that raised ridge is just asking to be covered. I just don't like the look, or knowing that the strip is not doing its job. I did cut the tops off the strips on the claves, as SCtrooper had mentioned. The gap between the halves is showing there now, so I'll have to do something about that, regardless. So anyway, assuming that my arguments and these pictures don't convince you, I guess I've got two choices. I can convert the strips so they're both thin, and do I-don't-even-know-what to the calves, and presumably get Centurion...but not be happy with my own armor because I made it look worse, from my perspective. Or, I can keep the wide strips, be happy with the armor, and withdraw my Centurion application, which itself would be tremendously disappointing and frustrating. I'm going to have to meditate on this for a while.

I'll be out of town for the holidays and will fix the tops of my strips when I get back. Darth Aloha, can I get an official response on the strip widths? Thanks. I'll see what I can do, although I did already do some heat bending on them. Thanks for your input!

If I had used velcro, I wouldn't have to worry about visible holes, but the strip would still have to be the same width in order to cover the raised ridge. So basically it wouldn't matter which way I had attached them. I have to admit I had missed this detail completely. I thought they were supposed to go up to the top, and the only reason some of them were cut at the bottom of that ridge was because most of the actors had cut the back of the ridge off for mobility. But looking at more examples, you're clearly right. This, I will definitely fix.

Bump

Craig, I don't think it's required to have strapping between the bicep and forearm as long as they both stay in place, but it's pretty common. You can find some more examples in these threads if you're interested: http://www.whitearmor.net/forum/topic/13288-howto-assemble-arm-armor/ http://www.whitearmor.net/forum/topic/12064-interior-strapping/ http://www.whitearmor.net/forum/topic/19372-correct-bicep-to-forearm-connection-anhesb-video-and-photo-references/