marktoots

All I extended the deadline for comments on the draft CRL due to allow the continued discussion over the paint finishes, etc. General consensus is that there are some panels/details on both the helmet and upper body armour that are colour contrasted using an alternative black paint finish to the gloss black. This is subtle but the evidence indicates that it is there. So this will remain in the draft CRL at this time. There was also discussion around the ribbing and specific sizing. While I feel it is wholly appropriate to have the sizing in the CRL I understand that it will be difficult for people to achieve the exact dimensions and this could impact on their clearance. As such I have changed the wording to indicate that the sizing must be approximately ?? mm. I have not made any further changes to what is basic or level 2 clearance. This I level to the Spec Ops Command Staff. I believe that this draft CRL is now complete (excluding a couple of photos) and I will therefore submit it to the Command Staff for their review. Thanks to everyone that has contributed to the development of this build. Special thanks goes to Tom Campbell for providing the model and parts photographs. Have fun with your builds.

I agree with Derrek on this one. The colour variation is too consistent across all the reference material to be a matter of a protective film being forgotten. General consensus across the social media groups is that there are paint finish/colour variations and I think this has some weight. Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

In general terms I agree about proportioning the costume appropriately in general terms to suit the wearer .i.e. overall size of armour but this may become impractical if we go down to the width of webbing, etc especially for those who largely purchase rather than make their costumes. Taking the webbing as an example, scaling the webbing on the chest rig means that the main rig itself needs to be appropriately sized which may mean that the magazines will not fit. Another where it would be difficult to size to suit the wearer is the belt coponents. Unless of course there is easy access to a 3d printer.

This discussion is great and as as a result I propose to delay the submission of the CRL for CS review until Sunday to allow it to continue. On the subject of the paint. While I suspect the costume makers would not have gone to this level of detail there are techniques out there which are widely used in car customization which create ghost images in the lacquer. In all but certain conditions the paint looks to be of a consistent finish. Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

The following two reference photos were taken at SWCE and may help to clarify why the variation in paint was detailed. You agree that asymmetric panels on the helmet have variations in order to provide definition. I read somewhere that this is done to provide depth to black thing in filming. It maybe a trick of the light but if you look at the chest armour on this manaquin at SWCE you can see that the panel on the right side (as you look at it) is reflecting/absorbing the light differently to the breast or right hand panels. It is also different to the shoulder bells and biceps next to it. This could be explained away as light reflection if it did not show up from a different angle but the second photo shows the same thing. I have been trying to understand why this is the case, and through discussions with a number of different people it was concluded that this was down to subtle variations in paint colour or finish. The photo below was not taken at SWCE and comes from "The Prop Den" fb page. I believe that it was the costume on display at a con in the US around the same time as SWCE. Again the same panel is reflecting/absorbing the light differently to those around it. It seems to much if a coincidence that this effect is seen on multiple costumes in different lighting conditions and from different angles. However I may have missed something that can explain it other than paint variations? Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

The stock is correct it just looks as though the shoulder butt is the wrong way up. Trying to confirm at the moment because there are a couple of different references that show it either way. Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

It's up to you mate. For information I actually make them already as part of my belt kits. And Jim has had a set off me to so I am happy to do you a set if you want? Would need to get some more leather for the pouch though Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

I agree with you on that Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

I'll have a chat with Tom. It certainly looks like it is the wrong way up when compared to the SWCE costumes but interestingly the photo in the visual guide also looks to have the stock upside down! With regard to the grenades I think the red leds should be optional like the leds on the blaster and lid Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

So the search continues. Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

That is the flash light used on the E-11D and is also mounted on the side of the DLT barrel but there are two flash light type units mounted below the barrel that are piped into the main body of the weapon. These are the ones that I believe are being asked about here!? Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

I have updated the wording regarding the crutch strap linking the butt plate and cod piece. Tom provided reference pictures from SWCE and the promo photos showing that it is used on the screen costumes. Thanks mate.

Formatting corrected Jim. Ultimately it is up to the Detachment CS and the LMO as to whether the gasket shorts are at basic or level 2 clearance. However, I personally agree with Tom in that there is plenty of reference material indicating that the gasket material is used to cover the butt/groin area of the body (most likely as shorts) so moving these to level 2 dilutes the costume to much IMHO.

Sorry. Last edit I made to add some more photos seems to have screwed the formatting. I'm out at the moment but will sort it when I get back. Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

Ah, gotcha Nick. I'm curious to understand how would you achieve the sewn together look of the neckseal/apron join?

I want to understand whether the neckseal issue is truly down to it being attached to an apron or whether it is confused by the reference picture? Pretty much all the neckseal's I have seen used have an apron on them (the photo below is from the TK crl). For the TK the apron is described as and extension to prevent the neck from being seen. However, in the case of the DT it becomes part of the detailing of the costume (as per the screen used costumes). Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

Hey Derrek. In an attempt to address your concerns: Rather than being unique to this CRL the balaclava description was taken from already cleared CRL's for stormtroopers, etc. so I just replicated it here. With regard to the neckseal all the visual evidence we have indicates that it is stitched to the apron and personally I am not sure how you can achieve the same effect with a separate neckseal? Also Stormtrooper neckseal's come with some form of apron attached as a matter of course (may even be part of the CRL) so I don't believe it will be a problem. I agree that the wording for the shorts material maybe a bit restrictive but the material used should IMHO achieve the same look. I am happy to modify the wording to accommodate this but I don't think that it should be diluted any further as the visual effect will be lost. Ultimately, though that is down to the CS to decide.

Sorry to hear the news about your son mate. I wish you all the best with the continued fight and will be thinking of you over the coming months. Best wishes. Mark Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

Height can be gained through internal shoe raises so I would not want the CRL to be diluted too the point where platform soles are acceptable Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

I understand where you are coming from and based on evidence from the ST CRL the rib sizing is likely to be removed so moving it to level 2 is a reasonable compromise. I'd be interested in other opinion on this? Also, if we are going to simplify the basic clearance to remove the ribbing sizes do we also reduce the boot requirement to a boot with flat sole for basic clearance and move DM's with flat sole to level 2 or greater? Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

Submission of DT CRL for CS Review. I intend on submitting the CRL for formal Command Staff review on Thursday 5th January, so if anyone has any comments/feedback can you please provide them on this thread by midnight PST on Tuesday 3rd January 2017 so I have time to consider and incorporate them as appropriate. Should there be no feedback provided by that point then I will assume that it is acceptable to the members. Thanks

Just need to add some more photos and descriptions of the chest rig and modified DLT, and this will be done!

Hey Korry. I am guessing a dime is a small coin but the profile of the matting looks right so I would say that material is correct.

Additional CRL Photos - Thighs: Right Thigh Armour: Left Thigh Armour: Additional CRL Photos - Shins: Right Shin Armour: Left Shin Armour: Additional CRL Photos - Pauldron: Additional CRL Photos - Ammo Pouches: Additional CRL Photos - Chest Rig and Grenades: