 | | Re: 600 dpi scans of 2000 Catalog Insets —John VanZwieten
|
| | | Thanks, Jeff! You've managed to lower my opinion of the MF even further! Notice that the bottom hull appears to use the smaller inverse hull pieces. So the upper hull won't even match the shape of the lower. Blech! And it looks like the back is just (...) (25 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 600 dpi scans of 2000 Catalog Insets —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | By the way--thanks a bunch for the scans! It's not your fault what the scans show :-) -John Van (25 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 600 dpi scans of 2000 Catalog Insets —Jonathan Little
|
| | | | (...) John, You mentioned in your last post about how the back looks the same as the front and how nothing special was done about the engine. I might be wrong, but I think that the close-ups that Jeff scanned show the side of the Falcon. You can (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 600 dpi scans of 2000 Catalog Insets —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | (...) Not only that, but it's the side, angled from the front. It needs to be the side opposite from the cockpit - otherwise, that escape pod would be launching from where the loading ramp is. The front of the ship (with the mandibles) is (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 600 dpi scans of 2000 Catalog Insets —Paul Davidson
|
| | | | (...) as the (...) wrong, but (...) Falcon. You (...) the side (...) from (...) Quite right. But it looks like Han is going to die of space exposure pretty quickly if he ever uses the escape pod. :) Paul Davidson (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
