ImperialFighter

Ronster said:

So Imperial Fighter the engine on the right is actually meant to be an engine for the left??? (That is talking about it as we are looking at it)..

No, Ronster.  That's *not* what I was saying in my previous post, at all.  :(

However, I'll take another stab at describing things for you (along with some pics) 

First of all, this CGI shot correctly shows how the 'circular' turbine rims should look: -  The 'half-moon' section of the 2 UPPERMOST turbines on each side of the X-Wing have *thick* rims at the top of them, and *thin* rims on the bottom 'half-moon' section of them...while the 'half-moons' of the 2 BOTTOM turbines on each side of the X-Wing have that reversed, with the *thick* rims on the bottom 'half-moon' sections instead -

...and this full-scale prop below is correct too, and matches the way things are in the shot above -

...and to be specific, the *thick* 'half-moon' section rims are WIDER than their corresponding *thin* 'half-moon' sections on the 'circular' turbines too.  Or look 'mis-aligned', if you prefer that description.

But...in the shot below (which you originally brought up), as well as *wrongly* having the wings in an open 'deployed' angle at this point...it also seems that this particular 'cockpit' prop *wrongly* has *thin* rims on it's wider, top 'half-moon' sections here, where it's 2 uppermost turbines are concerned. -

Hope that clears things up.

Ronster said:

I can tell you this much it seems they put a correct sided engine on when we get to Luke flying through the Blue sky and fluffy Clouds of Bespin but no interior spindle detail to the engines on a bright sunny day???

Sorry Ronster, but I don't agree with the first part of your point here -  I can't be bothered grabbing a screenshot (it comes immediately before Han & the gang are led into the 'carbon chamber', if anyone wants to look), but it looks to be the same *wrong* 'cockpit' prop as above, due to it having the same *thinner* top 'half-moon' section on it's uppermost 2 turbines...unlike the correct 2 shots I posted.  That's going by the GOUT version anyway, as the SE version is hard to make out due to being darkened, as you say. 

Ronster said:

Because of the Bluescreen washout of R2 and that they had to re-color his panels they did not bother to add the blue background lights to the 2 square lights throughout all the re-colored R2 shots.

I thought this was potentially a good spot Ronster...until I checked.  It turns out those 2 Artoo lights are *not* always blue.  See where Luke takes off from Hoth in his X-Wing, as just one instance. 

Ronster said:

On those exterior side shots of R2-D2 all the top surface detail of which R2 resides within seems to have been ripped off this particular version of the x-wing. 

I can't say I agree with this either, Ronster.  The detail on the X-Wing model pic you showed doesn't look much like the prop's detailing in the 'side-onwards' Artoo shots, if you ask me. 

However, I do reckon there's a bit of difference on the top section of the X-Wing where Artoo sits...when it comes to his 'side-onwards' shots and the full-sized 'swamp' prop.  Again, no biggie if I'm right.

Ronster said:

I think that there is not anything else really to go over now in this film, I mean I have looked at this film with uber scrutiny and it still holds up well, there is nothing that totally is killing it.

If you don't find something else Ronster, then I'm a banana!  ;)

But even though there has been an incredible amount of interesting little flaws and anomilies brought up on this lengthy thread (*many* of which I hadn't noticed before, personally), there are *still* one or two involving 'Dagobah' that I know haven't been brought up yet.  That's my fault, and I still hope to stick them on here before too long, as 'observations'.  :)

Trouble is, I had taken a lot of time to draft up heaps and heaps of small screenshots (more than 60 over several posts!) ready to show along with my descriptions...and lost them *all* due to a damned shakeup with 'Imageshack's storage, before I could post them.  :(

And I've no doubt that there will be quite a few little flaws that adywan will touch up that no-one's noticed yet either!  :)

Ronster, that was a good shot of the full-size prop 'turbines' you posted back there.

One last observation on this - Remember that 'bottom' portion of the (uppermost) turbine which you originally queried and highlighted with a red outline?

Well, the strange thing is...while it is indeed just a 'thicker' rim portion of the turbine's lower half compared to the thinner rim at the top half, it seems that it's the *opposite* way round in the full-size X-Wing shot you've just shown in your last post - compared to Luke's 'cockpit' prop, the uppermost turbine on the full-size X-Wing prop has the 'thicker' rim portion on the *top* half, instead of the bottom half!  Did the blueprints (or the builders) get mixed up a little, I wonder? :)

*Note* - and just to confuse things further, a lot of non-movie X-Wing images inaccurately show the 'circular' rims of the turbines as being the *same* thickness in both the top and bottom halves.

brimforge said:

ah well, that solves some questions, so only one turbine is "wrong" ;-)

but about that ring, it is correct and slightly moved, meaning unlike in the screenshot of the game X-Wing, the turbine front is not a clean circle (but it would be if the bottom rim was as broad as the top one)

Heh, I see how it reads that way, brimforge.  Just to confirm, I meant that *both* 'turbines' are equally wrong in those shots of course.  ;)

As far as the 'circular rims' of the turbines go, they *aren't* a perfect circle as you say...although I've seen some X-Wing images where they are wrongly shown to be.  (I actually amended my last line in the post you quoted, to clarify that various 'google' images of them seem to vary)  

But here's an image which gives a decent look at how the top and bottom halves of the 'circular rims' are intended to be slightly mismatched with each other - http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150309054138/starwars/images/b/b2/X-wing_2_Fathead.png

Ronster said:

If you really wanted to go the whole hog on this part, on the side view Luke would Bank / slide away and descend to the planet Dagobah on that side view leaving the camera behind. Something like that would be very modern and of more worth more than a lot of little fixes of the minute.

An interesting notion there Ronster, but it's all the tiny little fixes (of what could be argued as inconsequential by some) which are adding together to make this 'Revisited' project so fantastic, I'd say.  :)

Ronster said:

adywan said:

(although the wings on the set were actually set to the open position and cut off mid way along the wings)

If what you are saying is the case then the engine is in the wrong position i.e. to high?

Are we talking a different kind of fix? Or just leave it as it is? Either way I am not pushing, I just felt that something was not right with this, and if what you are saying is true for which I believe you are telling us valuable information here about it. Then well I kind of feel like you have Answered very well but also raised a few other questions because the engines pivot up higher in attack (open) position. So even if nothing get's changed with it, it's now better to know a bit more about what is going on.

One last thing I had a look after what you said and then I noticed...

Is that the arm, that they use to shake the x-wing? Gimble arm or what ever it is to create movement?

Ronster, as adywan points out, it seems that Luke's X-Wing 'cockpit' prop did indeed have it's (cut down) wings set in an 'open' position...unlike the full-sized prop seen during the Dagobah swamp scenes.

(something along the lines of these particular behind-the-scenes cockpits, for instance) -

So you're right, that would make the prop 'engine turbines' slightly 'higher' in these shots than they would have been if they had been (correctly) closed when the X-Wing headed down to Dagobah.

But this unfortunately means that the middle 'horizontal' detail of the engine turbines also have an incorrect 'slanted angle' in these shots, because the wings are in the 'open' position. (this image gives a good idea of what I mean) -

(and here's your example pic again, which shows the incorrectly 'angled' engine detail a little better, without being obscured by your red outline) -

It's one of these little things that I've never actually noticed before, and I'm not sure it's something that can be rectified without a lot of additional work.  No biggie in the scheme of things, then.  :)

I also think that the small section you highlighted in your pic above just happens to be part the *lower section* of the engine turbine itself - but the strange thing is that it looks a bit 'thicker' than the top section.  I always thought that the rim of the 'circular' engine turbines was roughly the *same* thickness at the top and bottom...so that might just be down to the prop buiders, as some of their stuff is 'off' compared to the miniature work in a few instances.  On the other hand, the thickness of the top and bottom sections of the engine's 'circular rim' seem to vary when 'googling' various X-Wing images anyway.

adywan said:

No, you would not see the turbine in any of the R2 shots. Nothing was removed from the set piece in order to film these shots. Due to the angle of the shots and the lens used, it would be out of shot. As for seeing the guns, well no you certainly wouldn't see any of those as the wings are closed ( although the wings on the set were actually set to the open position and cut off mid way along the wings) . So there is nothing to fix regarding any of these.

 Good to see this issue put to bed finally. :)

adywan said:

Once the sculpt is complete, it will be cast and a resin duplicate made and then painted

Ah, of course.

Thanks for clarifying. :)

Sure looks like a 'carbonite' surface to me.  Great stuff!

Inspired use of good 'ol plasticine for this.  I've never tried spraying it before, but I take it any paint applied to it will not react before you're done filming it?

The AT-AT miniature looks excellent so far adywan, and so does the lighting on your half-finished Falcon over on the Facebook page! - https://www.facebook.com/swrevisited

doubleofive said:

Tobar said:

I think the shot was setup in a way so that the front engine wasn't in the shot but was still physically there.

Also, I imagine if we look hard enough we can find a ton of shots where the camera is behind the fourth wall and therefore the shot shouldn't exist, so why not have an invisible engine?

And these bring me right back to my initial thoughts on the previous page where I showed the Kenny Baker/Artoo behind-the-scenes pic. 

I'm so confused!

So in no particular order, there seems to be a total of 4 ways to look at this shot, judging by all the comments -

1.  The engine turbine was removed from the full-scale X-Wing section for some reason, but *would* have been visible in the shot in a similar position as Ronster's mock-up showed. 

or

2.  The engine turbine was removed from the full-scale X-Wing section because the camera was placed in a spot where the engine would have originally been...so we *wouldn't* see it in the way that Ronster's mock-up showed (the 'invisible fourth wall' option as doubleofive suggests).

or

3.  The engine turbine *wasn't* removed from the full-scale X-Wing section, but the camera was positioned in a spot where it just ended up being unseen and just out of the frame (as Tobar and others suggest)

...and it could be argued that it was either just out of the frame somewhere at the *bottom* of the shot...or just out of the frame somewhere at the *right* of the shot (as yoda1138's diagram showed).

or

4.  Irrelevant of whatever the truth, Ronster's mock-up to include the engine looks quite good...and would make for a nice addition (and this was the one I ended up agreeing with, until I realised that doing the same with the 'shakey' Artoo shots would likely be too difficult)

Until adywan decides, take your pick everyone. :)

Bingowings said:

The mock up visually makes sense to my eyes and doesn't take Artoo out of the main focus of the shot.

It's very much up to Ady what he does but it seems to make sense to me.

Yes, agree that this addition wouldn't distract from Artoo as the focus whatsoever.

The more I look at Ronster's mock-up, the more I like the idea of the engine turbine being added in a somewhat similar way to the shot.  It just looks *right* to see it included it in the frame, and would make for a nice addition.

Unfortunately, as it might prove too tricky to *also* add a matching hint of it to the slightly closer, but very 'shaky' Artoo shots that come soon afterwards as the X-Wing enters the clouds/mist...then I'll happily accept it as being just 'offscreen'.

yoda1138 said:

yoda1138 said:

regarding the engine talk, i noticed this.. see image mock up..

 As its still being discussed, i wonder if my post may have been missed regarding the perspective/ vanishing points. I personally believe the shot filmed was correct in the beginning with no engine removed to film R2. Maybe a wide angle lens was used? if you follow the green line on the right, look at the panel line behind R2 on the deck of the ship. it follows the green line, as do the windows follow the lines on the right. the red hoops are where i'd assume the engine fronts would have been on the ship. actually, i should have but the right hoop a tad lower, as the shot of the xwing is not dead on side view or we wouldn't see the top of the deck at all.  Though, i do think Adys addition of the engine looks aesthetically pleasing.  Thats my 2 cents.

I hadn't missed it yoda1138, so much as I wasn't 100% certain what all the marks on your image were meant to be indicating.  It was a little confusing without any description, but you've cleared things up a bit better now...and I see your analysis is similar to what I was trying to get across in my previous post. :)

So for final clarification...I agree that the engine turbine nearest to us could be argued to be unseen and just offscreen, due to this shot being filmed with an unusual 'distorted' perspective...and the largest red 'oval' on your diagram correctly shows roughly where it might be using this way of looking at it, unlike brimforge's pics.  And on the other hand, if adywan decides to take some 'artistic licence' for visual purposes...then I reckon that Ronster's version shows roughly the best angle/positioning to fit it into the existing shot.

brimforge said:

I happen to have a model-kit X-Wing at hand to pose this view ...

and the fact is, that the turbines would be both wrong in this shot!

they should be "mirrored", meaning, the front one needs to be more visible and the back one is nearly in the picture.

somehow the cockpit-window is slightly warped, we think to see the side-view, but in reality, the X-Wing is turned to the right (or the body is bent to the other side ...)

Leaving aside whether or not we should actually see a foreground 'engine turbine' or not for now...your pics have actually helped me to pin down something else that seemed a bit confusing about the full-size X-Wing section in that shot, brimforge. :)

On re-reading your comments above which you wrote in response to Ronster's mock-up, it seems that you were trying to get across how 'wrong' it looked in general.  You were correct, from a certain point-of-view (!)...and I'll need to show all these pics again to try and describe what I reckon now -

As you said, *both* of the engine turbines would be wrongly positioned in the way that Ronster's mock-up currently shows, judging by your model pics.  

And as you say, we are not seeing a directly 'side-on' view of the X-Wing in that original shot at the top, due to the fact that we can actually see a rear view of the cockpit.  And because of this, you were again correct that we'd be more likely to see the nearest engine turbine *far more prominently* in the foreground of the shot (than the one added by Ronster), and would perhaps see *less* of the existing one seen behind Artoo...due to this particular angle where the camera is positioned somewhere *behind* the cockpit a little.

In fact, going by your pics brimforge, I would have personally been satisfied to see any foreground engine turbine added at *either* of the angles/positions shown in your top 2 model examples...as due to the way your models are photographed, it seems as if Ronster's positioning was incorrect.

Except...your pics have helped to reveal that issue which was confusing me about the X-wing in the original shot...and I've now decided that the angle/positioning of Ronster's added engine turbine looks much more natural to me than the angle/position of the foreground ones in your pics, after all. 

That's because it's quite obvious to me now that the movie camera's point-of-view seems to have given a strange kind of perspective to the X-Wing section in that shot, almost like a subtle 'fisheye' lens kind of distortion would...as not only are we seeing the rear of the cockpit on the left of the shot, but we are also seeing a very different perspective of the X-Wing section on the right of the shot compared to your snaps - while the cockpit lines are angled in one direction on the left side of the shot...the lines of the top section details where Artoo is situated are very differently angled in the opposite direction on the right of the shot!  

And due to the direction of the curved lines seen on the existing engine turbine behind Artoo...we would need to see something that's similar to the angle of the added engine turbine shown by Ronster, so that it matches the 'distorted' perspective we see...rather than what's seen in your pics, as the angles wouldn't match with the existing one.  I hope that all makes sense to you and everyone else.

Of course, even if you agree with me that any 'foreground' engine turbine would indeed be of a similar look/angle to the one Ronster showed...I *still* say that it wouldn't necessarily need to be seen in that shot, and could just be imagined to be 'offscreen' and just slightly out of view, due to the camera's point-of-view and it's distortingly, angled perspective of this X-Wing section... ;) 

brimforge said:

sorry, wrong!

as I wrote above and none cared, I took it upon me to repose the shot with an live-model of the X-Wing, and the result differs very strong, the front engine should be visible, more or less like in Ronsters picture ...

I will post some pics later, but the result would mean, that in studio for better visual the front engine was removed, so to have a better closeup of R2 ;-)

None of the miniature/kit images I looked at really helped me in this instance brimforge, as I couldn't find one taken of that portion of the X-Wing from that exact *angle*...and they didn't really convey the actual size of the large gap between where the Artoo and engine would be on the full-sized studio version.  Also, I'm not sure how accurately-proportioned some of the models I looked at are.  In addition, there may be a bit of difference between how things look when filmed by a movie camera compared to how things look when someone takes a snap of a small model, but I'll be interested to see your pics. 

As your last sentence above suggests, if the camera POV isn't positioned in a vantage point somewhere in the gap between Artoo and engine, then I can alternatively look on it's vantage point as being positioned somewhere where the engine would *physically be* instead.  Either way, I agree the engine would have been 'removed' from view because we wouldn't actually see it from either of these POV's I've described. 

But equally, I like the look of Ronster's mock-up too...although I'm not sure how many similar instances adywan would end up having to do this throughout the original trilogy, or if he'd want to do all that additional work, if so.

Ronster said:

Something I can confirm though is that the wing and engine was removed on the side closest to us to film the side shots of R2-D2.

It's around there somewhere in the nearfield of the bottom right of the image if it would not have been removed for filming

This is an interesting issue, but again I see this in a slightly different way to Ronster.

If you study the original shot at the top (without getting distracted by Ronster's mock-up below it), or watch the movie...it always looks to me that because this is quite a 'close-up' camera POV of Artoo, then the viewpoint could be imagined as being either filmed from a point-of-view that's in-between the gap between Artoo and the (unseen) X-Wing engine nearest us...*or* from a point-of-view that's actually filmed from where part of the engine would have been situated, if it wasn't for the camera being positioned there instead.  Either way, we *wouldn't* see the X-Wing engine where Ronster has placed it, the way I normally look at it.

This shot below kinda gives an idea of the gap between Artoo and the engine on the real-life prop, and may or may not help to judge the camera point-of-view of the Artoo 'close-up' I usually choose to see -   

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't be against seeing a portion of the engine added, if adywan thinks it would make for a visually-appealing 'cheat'/additon.  In fact, I quite like the look of Ronster's mock-up, despite not 'seeing' the shot that way normally. 

I'm not sure if the *angle* of Ronster's added engine is correct...but I'm fine with the approx. height he's shown in his mock-up.  Unlike Monroville's 'open-winged' pics where the engines end up higher than Artoo's dome, the wings are actually *closed* when the X-Wing is heading towards Dagobah at this point...and the top of the engines seem to be just slightly higher than the top X-Wing section that Artoo fits into.

As far as the official CGI goes, this shot gives a good idea of how things look (just hold something straight across the top of both circular engines to confirm their height in relation to the X-Wing's top section, when the wings are closed) -

And assuming these blueprints are reasonably accurate, you can 'magnify' the diagrams here to see their side-views in relation to Artoo's position -  http://zabel.kiev.ua/swmodels/starwars/x-wing2sidebw.jpg

So yeah, the approx. height positioning of Ronster's engine looks pretty good to me, if it was ever to be added.

(By the way, it's interesting to note that that the R2 units protrude out of their X-Wing positions at different heights in some shots - see the 'A New Hope' CGI shot above compared to the top 'close-up' of Artoo, for example.  The full-size Artoo/X-Wing 'close-ups' in 'A New Hope' also had the top of his legs showing just as that CGI shot shows, yet we only see his 'dome' in the top shot that Ronster mocked up.  No biggie in the scheme of things however, as not much can be done about that)  

Ronster said:

 

Holy crap!

Luke Vs the Face huggers :)

Yes, ol' 'Nobby's motion looked as satisfyingly icky as the Alien queen's egg-laying.  Love it.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure if the artwork shows it laying lots of eggs, or actually 'slurping' on some weird, 'spore'-like Dagobah plant-life... :)

unamochilla2 said:

Video is up at VF:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/star-wars-the-force-awakens-vanity-fair-cover

So we *may* end up getting a subtle glimpse of Jar Jar's long-dead bones eh?  I guess those that like him can just imagine it's just some *other* poor Gungan...but plenty would enjoy this particular 'cameo' I'm sure. :)

(nothing beats seeing him blown up on Alderaan by the Death Star however, as per adywan's extended 'deleted' scene!)   

Scrolling along the handful of pics at the bottom of this link, it was interesting to see some of the creature/alien designs that J.J. has in store for us.  Seems like we're getting another hive of scum and villainy along the way, and a very 'old school'-looking type at that.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Don't like the name, but I'm glad they didn't give her breast-accentuating armour.

Yeah, we sure dodged a bullet there!  Glad they had the sense not to do that.

Well, between these recent character pics and snippets, I think I've now seen as much as I want to about this next movie, without ruining things too much for myself. 

I reckon I've now seen about the same amount of stuff I came across about ROTJ before seeing it all those years ago, without knowing how all the various characters or storyline fitted together for that.  But it's *really* time for me to avoid this particular thread now before December methinks...along with all the books and general avalanche of merchandise that'll appear before it. 

I'm sure it won't be easy to dodge everything that appears...and that includes any future trailers to come...but I do know one thing...I *definitely* don't recommend that anyone listens to the 'soundtrack' CD beforehand, nor read it's track listings either!  I'm certainly keeping that side of things fresh for myself, no matter what! :)

So I'll say ta ta to this thread, and good luck to anyone else planning the same at this point.

Ronster said:

1. Would we be able to see the upper gun of the x-wing on the side view cockpit as It enters the atmosphere through the blue haze?

2. Would the crashed x-wing miniature have smoke rising from the engines?

Ronster, I thought you might be onto something there, so thought I'd check it out...but on having a quick look at a couple of differing side-on blueprints, it looks from them that the uppermost part of the top closed guns would either be in line with the back corner of Luke's downwards-angled, side cockpit window (which is hidden by his head), or just ever so slightly below it. 

So assuming the camera POV is pointed somewhat directly side-on to the window and Luke's head (which is how I see it personally), then no, I reckon it *wouldn't* be visible.

And I guess the smoke seen rising from the new X-Wing miniature is needed no matter what, so that it matches up with the smoke seen in the full-size version shot immediately afterwards.

___________________________

My own thoughts regarding the extended 'Nobby' shot, are that I agree with those who think it works well...given that it happens to be a kinda 'establishing' shot of what Luke has gotten himself into, and the fact that it gives a moment of additional time to soak the whole vista in, and study it's contents. 

I'm loving the additional atmosphere of weirdness and potential danger that 'Nobby' has given to the location, and the new 'flying critters' came out great too.  Their new flightpath draws you further into the back of the shot I reckon, and the whole background looks very natural now, especially with the subtle 'light-ray' shining through the trees.  It's an *actual* swamp on 'Dagobah' now!...or at the very least, it looks like they built an absolutely enormous set which stretches way into the distance now.  Marvellous stuff.

May the 4th be with you anyway, Ronster. ;)

Stunning work once again throughout that clip.  

All the new elements in the 'crashed X-wing' shot look marvellous, and real pleased to see ol' 'Nobby' in action at last.  She turned out great! :)

Vaders helmet replacement looks the biz too.

One of the little things I was curious to see, was whether or not the Falcon's RED front lights would be on when it's parked inside the 'asteroid cave'...to match how things look later on when it's parked on the Bespin City platform.  So that's been answered at the end of this clip now it seems.

Great preview adywan.  May the 4th be with everyone here.

Just to add some thoughts on how Chewie looks - while J.J. hasn't seemed to have tinged his fur with any grey whatsoever to suggest he's 'aged' somewhat like his ol' sidekick Han has (and why should he?, considering Wookiees can supposedly live for hundreds of years)...the thing that struck me most about his brief appearance in the 2nd teaser, was the fact that he looked so 'well-groomed'.

But I reckon it's the fact that Chewie was just *so* straggly-looking throughout ROTJ, that I kinda still expected to see him be a little scruffy in his appearance since we last saw him all those years ago...rather than the very 'slicked-back' look he had when we first saw him in the original movie.

However, when I checked, he was a little bit more groomed again by the end celebrations of ROTJ...and it's good to see he's managed to look after himself a little better ever since. :)

_______________________________________________

Uh oh...seems like we now have a date when the 'spoiler' deluge will *really* hit everywhere -  http://www.io9.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-toys-and-merchandise-will-1701856594

Ronster said:

I would like to touch on something you mentioned earlier about the mandibles face being under the ring (well it is in the ESB and ROTJ version anyway) I am not sure I have no time today to really check this but will do soon. But as I have been saying about height gain and if the cockpit in the ESB & ROTJ versions is actually also higher.

Ronster, not sure what you mean by the 'ring' (unless you mean the circular cockpit window at the front), but I was actually suggesting the top edge of the 'mandible' looked as if it was slightly below the level of the *side* cockpit windows (no matter which movie version of the cockpit section you wish to refer to).

And here's another interestingly-angled mock-up I came across, which shows what I mean quite clearly -

Now I really must move on from this particular issue...as my kids are missing me. ;)

___________________________________________________

@ RicOlie_2 -  yes, that 'birds-eye-view' Falcon image was just something I randomly googled for reference.  However, I did a quick check for you...but although there seems to be a couple of similar graphics out there in the same style, I can't find where they originated from to begin with.

@ Anchorhead & adywan -  thanks for the info. about that 'missing spar'.  Interesting to hear that the full-size cockpit originally had glass (or perspex?) in place too.

Sorry Ronster, I'm still not convinced.  I don't think we'd see the 'mandible' in the 'slug' POV shot you've shown at the bottom of your post either...as I stiil think it would be too 'angled away' to the left of that cockpit view to be seen...and would still be hidden by the lower interior cockpit wall section on the left of that shot.

And that goes for *all* the shots looking out of the altered ESB/ROTJ cockpit too, as well as the cockpit seen in the original movie.

I just think the 'mandible' is too 'angled away' from the interior cockpit POVs seen in the movies, and I find looking at a 'birds-eye' view of the Falcon's shape helps to judge it better -

However...if it turns out adywan ends up showing the 'mandible' in any of his final OT:Revisited Falcon cockpit shots, then I'll be the first to admit to you that I was mistaken on this issue. :)

By the way...while it was neat that adywan added in the 'missing spar' to the original STAR WARS Falcon cockpit windows, does anyone happen to know why the makers *added* it to the design of the ESB cockpit version in the first place?  Just curious.

Still, all this talk of the Falcon's cockpit gives me an excuse to show this awesome version I recently came across - http://imgur.com/UizeGTo

Nice link there Anchorhead.  The full-scale Falcon sure looks good in some of those mocked-up POV angles the artist showed.

Assuming his cockpit POVs are fairly accurate too, this guy's mock-ups definitely confirm for me that the nearest 'mandible' to the cockpit would *not* be visible in any of the actual cockpit camera POVs we see in the OT movies.

But these mock-ups sure make me hope we get a camera POV in J.J.'s movie that *does*! :)

Looking forward to seeing 'ol 'Nobby' in motion (along with the flying critters), along with how the 'Dagobah' background turned out.

Anticipation rising. :)