StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The most widespread diagram/schematic/blueprint of the X-Wing is probably the one from EGVV. However, I am uncertain about the accuracy of this diagram, particularly given the egregious errors on the Star Destroyer and Executor diagrams. I've stumbled across one other diagram, created by a fan, but it seems to have some large inaccuracies too.

Does anyone know if the EGVV diagram is accurate to the studio model(s) or where I might find an accurate set of diagrams?

What do you mean by accurate? Accurate to the dimensions? Accurately described and detailed features? There's a cut-away in the SW ICS, as well.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What do you mean by accurate? Accurate to the dimensions? Accurately described and detailed features? There's a cut-away in the SW ICS, as well.

Proportionally accurate orthographic diagrams, preferably a four- or five-view (i.e. top, optionally bottom, side, front, back). I'm less concerned with the nitty-gritty details (i.e. if a pipe is omitted, I'm not going to shed any tears) and more with the gross porportions (i.e. angles, dimensions, where the end of the laser cannon is relative to the canopy, etc.). Reference drawings, essentially.

I found this Xwing

It appears to be accurate as far as I can tell. It does offer a number of views.

That's The EGVV diagram, Deathstalker.

Crazedwraith wrote:That's The EGVV diagram, Deathstalker.

To clarify, I'm not opposed to the EGVV diagram...if someone can confirm its accuracy. That's what I don't know -- with so many inaccurate diagrams in that book, I'm hesitant to give this particular one the benefit of the doubt.

Comparing the EGW blueprint to the shots of the models here modelpics it seems reasonably accurate.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if the filming model, the visual effects model, and the CGI 1997 X-wing all have slightly different proportions.

Yeah, considering how badly they screwed up things like the Death Star and Tantive IV in ROTS, it wouldn't surprise me either (unless that was just a team that didn't care/didn't have time to pay attention to such details responsible for the latter).

But then we have the inconsistencies with the Falcon and the TIE fighter cockpits, so I guess they've always had such problems.

The biggest problem with the EGVV diagrams, beyond the question of accuracy, is their inconsistency with one another (i.e. where the canopy ends, how long the nose cowl is, placement of the engines, etc.). I worked up the following animated GIFs to illustrate these discrepancies. The first frame of each GIF is the diagram as shown in the EGVV. The final frame is the corrected version I've created, using the de-skewed top image as a benchmark for feature placement.




(Click for larger version. Please do not link to these files. If you want to use them, save them and re-post them yourself.)

In the front image, I repositioned the S-foils for cruise position based on the orientation of the laser flashback suppressors in the top image. I didn't make this change for the side image, since the lasers are already skewed due to their angling.

So, these diagrams should at least be consistent with each other, even if they're not accurate to the studio model(s).

I found this Xwinganalysis Haven't read it all, but the author has put some thought into it.