tkrestonva

Didn't Humbrol change their formulation from what was used in the mid-70s to reduce the use of hazardous materials, as a result changing the color somewhat?

I thought you needed a specialized tool use the split / bifurcated rivets.

Alternatively, you can vote via a mobile device (iPhone, etc.) and use the mobile skin designed for it.

If you're using brads (i.e. paper clips - you can get them from any office supply store) which is what I'm using, I seriously doubt they'll hold. They didn't hold for me on the sides, and I see no reason to believe they'll hold on the crotch. Although I do have the brad driven through the crotch strap, I reinforced the connection with a snap plate glued in place and hidden inside the crotch. If you have any scrap trimmings left, use that as raw material. If it's not flexible enough, then heat it until it's soft enough to bend into the appropriate shape, then glue it in place. As for the two snaps in the butt and one on the right side, just drive them directly into the armor. They have to be visible anyway and they are strong enough to be functional, so might as well do exactly that. My setup:

It looks like in that middle photo the trooper in the foreground has his full shoulder bridge intact. For the others, I'd agree - it looks like the flat part has been trimmed. In addition, the ANH Stunt requirements specifically state one way or another what is should be. It seems you can indeed make a case for doing it either way.

As long as the shoulder bridges are properly placed in the front, I wouldn't worry so much about the rear. Maybe you can shift the back plate down a bit (as long as you don't end up covering the kidney plate with the back plate), but otherwise it is where it is. If you look at screen caps from ANH, you'll find they're all over the place as well.

As was said, you shouldn't have a problem getting GML approval, although it depends on your individual GML as some are more stringent than others. Best thing to do is engage him/her directly. Having said that, there are a number of details about your suit that could be improved. Some have already been mentioned. Others include separating the kidney from the butt (i.e. cut your butt), swap out the ab buttons for accurately-sized (smaller) buttons, and it looks like your drop boxes can both be raised and brought in a bit.

Funny, but true.

Hello Dan. Please post an introduction here:-------- Also, look here for answers to your questions:-------- I just checked your 501st profile, and it appears you already have a set of TK armor. Are you looking to upgrade?

Sorry about your UKG clearance. The good news is since you used E6000, you can carefully pull apart the forearms, make the fixes, and reglue them. That's part of the reason why E6000 is so highly recommended over plastic weld, CA glue, ABS cement, etc. I just redid my own forearms to tighten them up and give them a more tapered look, so I know for a fact it can be done. I slipped an Exacto knife in the seam and worked it open by carefully slicing through the glue. Worked for both the exterior and interior cover strips. Once they are off, you can use your thumb or some Goo Gone (citrus-based solvent) to clean up the residue.

I know this has shown up here before, but it's still good reference material for building ANH stormtroopers. Just be sure you start watching at 6:12 and have the mute button engaged, thereby saving yourself some emotional trauma.

Agreed. Find a way to get your shoulder bridges fitted without eliminating such an important detail.

Giving this a bump . . . Now that the ANH Stunt requirements are up and the rest will be up by the end of the month, I think it's a great idea to have a published checklist as to which photos need to be supplied. Should also include details like photo angles, recommend lighting conditions, photo resolution, closeups, etc. In my day job, setting down requirements without also setting down how those requirements will be verified means that the job is only half-done. Rolf's submission seems like a good place to start. After all, why invent what you can simply plagarize? If anyone is wondering - I'd take this on but I'm already on the hook for tuning up the requirements language for the standards as they are approved, plus I don't have the photography background to make intelligent recommendations.

Kind of looks like an Episode 2 fem-clone but with a TK helmet and handplates.

Looking good.

I don't believe the EI requirements are that specific, so it looks like you can do what you like. Personally, I redid my shin backs and I'm very happy with the results.

HA! That made my evening.

Depends on how you define "best". First question - do you prefer screen-accurate or trooping-practical?

Could be that the shoulder bells are shallower on T/MC kits (don't know that for a fact, merely speculating). It could also be that you simply have broad shoulders. All things considered, not the worst problem to have.

Topic closed - per process, discussion has now moved to the Detachment Only area.

Topic closed - per process, discussion has now moved to the Detachment Only area.

Topic closed - per process, discussion has now moved to the Detachment Only area.

Consider me volunteering to do exactly as you are stating - review the wording and suggest changes. For the requirements that have already been decided, I would think it's as simple as replacing "should" with "shall". I know from professional experience that writing solid requirements takes time, is an iterative process, and almost always takes multiple points of view to see all the angles. EDIT: You have an email waiting for you.

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.

Yep, the Belgian Garrison built an AT-AT that was the centerpiece of the displays at C5. Granted it was 1/4 scale, but with enough time, labor, workspace, and prop-building talent (which those guys have an abundance of) a static model could be done. Hell, if they can build a static yet full-sized TIE Interceptor that you can actually climb into - why not the same for an AT-AT?