StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Y'all are going to love this:

+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... tart=01260

Date Posted: Feb 23, 2007 10:05 AM

Isn't the Tri-droid from Ep. III much taller than 3.7 meters, as described in the databank?

Tasty Taste wrote:That's why they're described as "scalable."

The out of universe explanation is that in the age of CG, trying to figure out exact dimensions based on film shots can drive you crazy because things get resized for the sole purpose of looking pretty in the composition of a shot. So a vehicle might have certain dimensions in one shot and different dimensions in another shot. When the CG model is created, the artists come up with approximate dimensions. Lacking any harder calculations from the films, we often go with the artists' original dimensions.

Who would have thought "in the age of CG" it would be HARDER to keep things onscreen a consistent size?

[sarcasm] Thank God, there is no discussion on sizes of vessels from the PT. And thank God, that the OT was made with solid models.[/sarcasm]

Hah, I commented on Wookieepedia that this was the Executor/Home One debate for the Prequels. >P

What's the Tri Droid? The Tri Fighter?

I don't really think Chee's saying something outlandish in making this comment- this stuff does happen with CG all the time- people make mistakes. It's caused huge scaling problems in Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1, for example.

That's not to say that you can't come up with hard data from the best parts to do it from the films, of course.

Vympel wrote:What's the Tri Droid? The Tri Fighter?

I think it could be. Link.

It's actually more convenient. If they go with the artists' original dimensions, then the 17.6km Executor, 500 mile DS2, and 100 mile DS1 are all slam-dunks. But it does suggest a certain laziness when they made the films, and unfortunately, given what I know about how 3D modeling and graphics software works, it's not really surprising. I was amazed at how "loose" the modeling is in the graphics world when I tried looking at typical software packages, compared to CATIA and Pro/E and other kinds of real 3D modeling software. Hell, even MasterCam blows away the 3D software in terms of its precision.

Darth Wong wrote:It's actually more convenient. If they go with the artists' original dimensions, then the 17.6km Executor, 500 mile DS2, and 100 mile DS1 are all slam-dunks. But it does suggest a certain laziness when they made the films, and unfortunately, given what I know about how 3D modeling and graphics software works, it's not really surprising. I was amazed at how "loose" the modeling is in the graphics world when I tried looking at typical software packages, compared to CATIA and Pro/E and other kinds of real 3D modeling software. Hell, even MasterCam blows away the 3D software in terms of its precision.

What do you mean? If you make a precise 3D model, it'll stay precise even in animated shots. Their explination wasn't that the modelling was shoddy, but that they'd distort things so that it would look 'cool'. The ease or difficulty of modelling something didn't figure into his explination.

They should theoretically be able to keep things all perfectly on-model in 3D if they'd just have a technical editor size the scenes properly before you hand them off to the animation department.

Vympel wrote:What's the Tri Droid? The Tri Fighter?

No, it's the large droid from Mygeeto. Which is shown to fire downwards at UT-ATs and the clones, which are dot-like in comparison.

There's also the smaller anti-personnel tri-droid on Utapau, which might fit the dimensions better.

VT-16 wrote:

Vympel wrote:What's the Tri Droid? The Tri Fighter?

No, it's the large droid from Mygeeto. Which is shown to fire downwards at UT-ATs and the clones, which are dot-like in comparison.

There's also the smaller anti-personnel tri-droid on Utapau, which might fit the dimensions better.

Oh, it's those droids and they're supposed to be 3.6 meters in height?!

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tri-droid Link for edification...

Covenant wrote:What do you mean? If you make a precise 3D model, it'll stay precise even in animated shots. Their explination wasn't that the modelling was shoddy, but that they'd distort things so that it would look 'cool'. The ease or difficulty of modelling something didn't figure into his explination.

Real 3D modeling software uses real-world units. When you put two models together or place them in a scene, they are always inserted at correct size, positioned in accurate 3D space because of the way the software works. And the models are generally watertight. Graphic modeling software just treats them as graphical objects, not real ones, so you generally don't model by entering data points. You do it almost by hand. And there aren't a whole lot of constraints on assembling objects into a scene, either.

Why can't they just get in touch with the ILM guys? I'm sure they'll be more than glad to help.
The ISD - Executor scale difference is of course the classic example of when this should have been done.

I mean, in the case of this Tri-Droid artillery platform (damn this is huge) and the Executor, it's so obvious how much larger it is than the clone humans in the scene in the first case, and the ISDs in the second.
It's blindingly obvious.

It's obviously a mistake. Why not just edit three characters in the Databank and fix it?

It's obviously a mistake. Why not just edit three characters in the Databank and fix it?

Stubborness and simply not giving a shit. LFL (or at least SW.C) has made it more or less clear that they don't care about "technical realism" or that sect of fansom, and won't change unless they have to (for example, like having Dr. Saxton actually consult on, or author a book).