-
Posts
125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by GandalfTheImperial
-
-
hoo-hoo But you see, I know I'm right. You see, this is a argument between definition, and wording, vs just trying to justify something with things that contradict a poorly worded page ;P
-
Also, that's 1. on collins dictionary.Hi Gerard,
The word that you are misinterpreting is REPLICA.
While you have your dictionary out, you should also look up that word:
replica |ˈreplikə|
noun[/size]an exact copy or model of something, esp. one on a smaller scale: a replica of theEmpire State Building.[/size]
• a duplicate of an original artistic work.
Note the wording "an exact copy or model". This does not mean it has to be made out of the same materials. A model of the Empire State Building does not have to be made of steel and concrete to be a replica.
The "scratch-built look-alike" you want to make is allowed and described quite accurately by the current CRL wording.
You should spend a little time reading thru the forums here and you will see hundreds of examples of how other members around the world are making their blasters and what they are making them out of (many of which are scratch-built). That will show you a great many ways to go about making your own Replica.
Good luck with your project and remember that there are always many good folk here ready to help you out along the way!
here's 2
duplicate, facsimile; imitation.
-
This is turning into a softcore flame war.
-
Je*** I get what you guys mean, but what you guys say is what contradicts the bl**** page.Well all I know is I have a scratch built DLT-19 and I can use it just fine. You came here unclear on the wording and have been advised numerous times what it means. If you don't want to accept that is fine. I for one will not waste anymore time trying to help you understand.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Contradict is my main point.
The Page, again, contradicts what you guys say.
-
I know what replica means, but if someone says "replica mg-34" I'm going to think of a full, life size replica of the prop, an imitation firearm.Hi Gerard,
The word that you are misinterpreting is REPLICA.
While you have your dictionary out, you should also look up that word:
replica |ˈreplikə|
noun[/size]an exact copy or model of something, esp. one on a smaller scale: a replica of theEmpire State Building.[/size]
• a duplicate of an original artistic work.
Note the wording "an exact copy or model". This does not mean it has to be made out of the same materials. A model of the Empire State Building does not have to be made of steel and concrete to be a replica.
The "scratch-built look-alike" you want to make is allowed and described quite accurately by the current CRL wording.
You should spend a little time reading thru the forums here and you will see hundreds of examples of how other members around the world are making their blasters and what they are making them out of (many of which are scratch-built). That will show you a great many ways to go about making your own Replica.
Good luck with your project and remember that there are always many good folk here ready to help you out along the way!
Now, defining one word, that makes two, os a bad way to go. Especially if two words can make up one meaning.
Replica Firearm here means an imitation firearm, as I've explained.
A replica mg-34 is a imitation firearm in my mind, but a replica dlt-19 is a prop in my mind.
why? A replica weapon is a reasonable facsimile or copy of a weapon, even if it is not capable of discharging a projectile or substance, or a Category A, B or C weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or a hand grenade that is inert.
This has been imprinted in my mind for years, that's why I say a fully automatic replica firearm isn't legal here.
That's why I was confused, you see, we don't share the same definitions alot of the time ( Although I did use the oxford definition of based just earlier)
-
Are we seriously going over this again. Wording isn't clear, because the commas represent it in a different way, and 'based' is used incorrectly because, AGAINYou are over thinking it way too much. The wording is clear enough. It can be real, a replica, or scratch built. Whatever route you go it just needs to look like whatever blaster you are doing.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
looks like a real or replica doesn't make sense using the definitions you've provided.
based on simply means made from or originating. Not looks like.
using the correct definition, it would mean made from a real or replica etc.
We've just admitted they've worded it incorrectly.
And the scratch built thing came from the e11, if you look back, I was talking about the t-21 and dlt-19 saying based off of a real or replica.
AGAIN! using the definitions you;ve tried to explain to me, all said "looks like" which based off doesn't mean, and again, contradicts the whole sentence
looks like a real or replica. nope
made from a real or replica. Yes that makes sense.
Again, the reason I've argued about this was because a replica mg-34 would refer to a metal replica firearm outside of this community. a replica prop is different.
sratch-built wasn't meant to come into play. But since you mention it
Who can get there hands on a real, or replica prop, without scratch building it? i don't know that many vendors, so again, it wouldn't make sense
If scratch built isn't part of "replica" then, again, it only makes the whole real or replica thing harder to get tier 1 approval for the wep.
-
Yes. Although because I've been reading up too much law, everytime i hear 'replica' in any relation to guns, I automatically assume metal replica or permanently inoperable firearm. That's just how it is in Australia If it's a urethane cast or rubber cast, we just call it a prop.Okay heres the wording:
"Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster."
Maybe it would be better written as:
- Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun
- scratch-built
- a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster
Does this clear up the issue?
-
I don't think we're seeing eye to eye.<br><br>
This is what I'm talking about.<br><br>
This E-11 requirements says :Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster.<br><br>
Now, first of all, a replica sterling smg is always "based" off of a sterling sub machine gun.<br><br>
So if it was worded the way you guys think it means or should mean, then it would be typed as such:<br><br>
The e-11 can be scratch-built, made from a real, or replica sterling machine gun or created from a modified commericial stormtrooper blaster.<br><br>
the original way they worded it was:<br>
Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster.<br><br>
Nothing differentiating the pauses between items.<br><br>
So, using the verb definition of Based<br><br>
it would mean Originating from a real or replica sterling smg, or a modified commerical toy blaster.<br><br>
Now again, it's the way they typed it, that doesn't make sense to me... And I'm not a straight A student ( Actually, I've just graduated grade 12 on thursday, last week... Yay!)<br><br>
Another example.<br><br>
DLT-19 : Based on a real or replica MG-34 machine gun<br><br>
Based on a real or replica mg-34...<br><br>
Again, a replica is already based on the real deal... so what?<br><br>
So using the verb definition again, it would make more sense.<br><br>
Originating (made) from a real, or replica mg-34.<br><br>
I know I'm making alot of commotion, I was just confused by what the requirement meant by 'based'<br><br>
hopefully this clears it up.<br><br>
If they meant 'looks like' and not has to be made from<br><br>
then again, why <br><br>
Looks like real or replica mg-34 etc.<br><br>
a replica already (should) look like the real thing...<br><br>
If they wrote ' Looks based off of MG-34' and removed the real or replica, then it would have made much more sense to me.<br><br>
Again, sorry for the commotion, just confused.
-
Then why is the e-11 worded as:Based on as in looks like, not has to be made from
Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster.
Who makes a blaster based on a modified toy stormtrooper blaster?
Or who makes a blaster based on a scratch built blaster?
The way they worded it was very poor, and gives the feel of the definition 'has to be made from'
-
I don't think that was what I was referring to. Scratch building one is possible yes,I must say I didn't find it too difficult, I scratch built both my DLT-19 and T21 mainly from pvc pipe and wood with plans found online. Really it depends how far you want to go with the costume, you can purchase ready made blasters if you can't build yourself.
But for the blaster to be accepted, it requires it to be based off the real or replica gun (as far as it is worded, it means it has to be made from it)
-
Not sure exactly what you mean about certain weapons not being accepted, Gerard. As stated in each CRL above the "Accessories" area, it says:
Items below are optional costume accessories. These items are not required for approval, but if present appear as described below.[/size]
So as you can see, weapons are optional. But, if you are going to carry one, it does say (in the ANH Stunt CRL, for example): [/size]
Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster.[/size]
The key word there is based.[/size]
There are MANY Troopers who carry home built DLT-19's, T-21s, etc., many made for less than $100.00 in materials! Although there may be small differences in them, the overall look needs to stay the same for continuity purposes, but I have never heard of any weapons being "unacceptable" for basic approval, and even Hasbro toy E-11s are acceptable at EIB level with some inexpensive mods like the Doopydoos kit: [/size]http://www.doopydoos.com/stormtrooper-e11-hasbro-blaster-conversion-skin-kit-mk2-2636-p.asp [/size] And large weapons are certainly not a requirement for costumes such as the HWT, Stunt or Hero. I know of several HWTs who rock their E-11s, which is totally fine! If you go TD, though, those weapons may be required at their top levels.[/size]
P.S. I edited your post edited to remove the extra <br>'s characters.
But that is exactly my point, based is the keyword.
Based
verb
1.
use (something specified) as the foundation or starting point for something.
meaning it has to originate from the real or replica firearm for the blaster to be approved.
-
*deleted*
-
I know i don't necessarily need a blaster to be approved, im just saying the requiremnts are kinda unnecessary.<br><br>
also, based, despite being keyword, when combined with real or replica, means it has to be made from one of those items, Otherwise what's the point of having real or replica, since based on a lewis or mg-34 would be much more simpler and doesn't contradict "based"
-
tried to edit it to remove th <br>'s ... not working...
-
So, as everyone knows, the 50st have very strict entry requirements for accuracy. But is it fair for some people?
Such as the weapon requirements.
DLT-19 : Based on a real or replica MG-34 machine gun.
Not everyone in the whole world can obtain a replica, nor the real deal, especially here in Australia. A replica of any Full Automatic firearm is illegal in all but 1 state (which I don't live in)<br><br>
Even applies for the T-21 a.k.a the lewis.
Based on a real or replica Lewis Mark I machine gun. For this prop the magazine disk and bipod of the original gun are left off.
It's just not possible to obtain such things. And this isn't even for centurion.
How come scratch built look-alikes aren't accepted?
I personally would want to be able to troop in a centurion TD one day, but seeing these strict guidelines is really driving me away from this mob.
Sorry if this topic really grinds your gears. -
Nope, not without modifications...
-
I own a hand belt sander... It's a heap of s**t to use on objects, whether it's clamped or not. Table top best way to go.
-
People say the same thing about power rangers. Like seriously, how could you hog a series that was designed for kids, and cry when it wants to attract mature audiences../ this world is scary...See I don't understand how anyone can hate a precursor. It's not anh armor. It's just a concept that won't survive past rogue one. Look at concept cars. A company comes out with a goofy design in 2017. Nine of those designs will see a car until 2021 or so. Look at a 2017 sports car and go back to 2013 for their concept. Most people say ' oh I'm glad they didn't use that feature' . Which is what were saying about RO tk suits. Did they evolve from clones? Yes. Can you see remnants in anh tks? Yes.
My iPad keeps autocorrecting >.<
-
Truthfully? I hope no one is working on a Stromtrooper R1 armor and that no one will ever be, considering how awful it is. About the helmet, someone started an interest thread over the RPF but interest was kinda low. I think the member was Reelprops in collab with TheRocketeer.
That's your opinion, that you're making to sound like everyone else's... A lot of members like it, even I like it... You can sit... Excuse me for my rude behaviour, but seriously, awful? It looks comfortable for stunt actors, and is a much better symmetrical sculpt than eFX. You're post is kinda ignorant
-
I was sculpting a rogue one helmet, but I ran into problems with my faceplate having thin spaces, when I started filing into the area, it created a stress point, where the slightest pressure took chunks off. Buying more plaster to fix it though ;P
-
I'm pretty sure you can sit down without cutting the ab plate... Prob depends on strapping... And I don't think it's 501st approved...
-
Try Tamiya gloss white... Heard it's close... Most people would usually just repaint it since it has scuffs...Anyone found a spray paint that matches the white? It is a "cool" white which favors the blue over a "hot" white that favors yellow. So far I've tried Rustoleum X2 coverage and Krylon Super Maxx. The Rusto was closer but not perfect.
BTW, that's one disturbing profile pic xD
-
Received the helmet a few days ago/ Didn't like it at first, ( cause wasn't accurate) but the more I wore it and looked at it, the more I loved it... Beautiful piece... But I had to take the hard hat adjustment strap thingymajig to actually fit snug around my head... The nose piece still sits lower than the bone and hurts...
-
For those of you who cant fit into the BS Stormtrooper helmet: I noticed that there are screws for the fat interior of the helmet. They did the same thing with the Kylo Ren helmet. You can unscrew it and take it out I'm pretty sure. Though I don't have one, but this is something I saw in pics.
That's not the problem, you have like a inch of kibble at the back part of the helmet, which reduces how comfortably your face can sit in there... I dont blame em... i personally think it's stronger method than vacuumforming. As everyone knows, or should know, vacuumforming is the cheapest, lightest option out there..
Is the 501st requirements fair?
in Off Topic
Posted · Edited by GandalfTheImperial
A replica weapon is a reasonable facsimile or copy of a weapon, even if it is not capable of discharging a projectile or substance, or a Category A, B or C weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or a hand grenade that is inert.
I never said a replica was the real thing, I just said a replica here is an imitation firearm. Thanks for proving my point even further, lol.
See what I'm getting at?
You explain what a replica is.
Which just proves my point, why they're not allowed here...
huyhuy