SpaceWelder

I feel like I had this same conundrum. I think I landed (in my opinion) that they are gusseted with perhaps a knife or BDU pleat. I ended up doing a gusset with the bottom gusset sewn to stay tight to the leg, with an inverted box pleat. YMMV, but that got approved for me

@Blackwatch and I have had our differences in the past, but this is one of my core beliefs as far as our responsibilities to representing our characters. I'm in the entertainment industry and "30 feet away on a galloping horse" is a commonly used phrase. We do not have that luxury and should be very aware that what was done on set is not necessarily supportive of bringing these characters into the real world.

...and Maridun. #imperialarmyengineer

I came back to bring up this point that @Jankes beat me to, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the real, distilled, down-to-brass-tacks heart and soul of SpecOps is that we are the haven for the expanded universe characters? At face value we may seem like we are where every character-turned-gloss-black belongs, but that we pull from comics and video games and the unconventional places is really what makes us special. Granted, as more and more characters become canon, more and more classifications will become apparent (such as the IA troops we are discussing now) but if we were to relinquish our status as THE place for misfit costumes, then we do become little more than the Gloss Black Detachment, no?

My opinions below in no particular order or organization: -A separate Detachment seems lofty for four costumes. -I see the instinctual connection with the IOC officers and would be fine joining up with them, but to echo what others have said, that entire Det would have to be renamed to include the enlisted (Imperial Army Corps feels appropriate). -Any sort of in-Det subdivision seems like needless organization to me. As someone mentioned, we have a spot in this forum. Seems plenty to me. -Someone mentioned the division between armored and non-armored costumes. I'll admit, looking at photos of shiny black armor next to shabby mud-olive grunts it's easy to feel "un-ceptional." But from a business management perspective, the Det needs costumes at all skill levels and price points. -In summary, my personal/individual vote would be this 1-Remain Status Quo and change nothing, or 2-Transfer us to IOC and completely rebrand that Detachment (which I'm guessing they would be completely against)

Thanks @IcyTrooper! I'll keep digging and see what I can find. The image file calls him an "Imperial Operative." Sick.

I stumbled across this today and was hoping someone could educate me on what it is exactly. I don't play the game it's from (Fantasy Flight Games' Star Wars RPG). Could this be turned into a CRL? That is to say, are these characters based in any sort of useable canon? This guy looks rad from the image and thought I'd explore. TIA! https://swsheets.com/c/h2jmuduo8-istvan-sabo-tae EDIT: Here is a second reference after a reverse image search. https://www.starwarsrp.net/threads/sith-imperial-combat-engineer-armor-pattern-mk-i.133282/ EDIT: And after a little more digging, the original artist is Brian Matyas from a website called Artstation. Which makes me think it's just concept fan art that has worked its way into the role playing games. EDIT: Actually, Brian Matyas is a Senior Concept Designer for Lucasfilm. So maybe there's SOME merit to this as a costume? In any case, I welcome any discussion /insight. Thanks again!

No sweat! Just a fit-and-finish opinion, certainly nothing meant by it. Happy to see more technicians out here! Dju get your goggles yet? They're clutch on a sunny outdoor troop

Looking Good Bud! If you're looking for feedback, here's my 2 cents: -hem or roll up your cuffs (I think I remember an edit to the CRL allowing for a slightly rolled cuff?) Don't want to look like you stole your big brother's coveralls -adjust the harness so the horizontal pack strap sits a little (25-50mm?) higher. The references have a good look at the back. I tried to relate the horizontal to the cap of my shoulder as it's supposed to be, then the placement of the arm patches becomes clear. I think the top of the patch should approximately align with the bottom of the horizontal. (Hence, raising the horizontal a touch.) -Hide the hooks from the harness to the belt a bit more? I forget if this is a Level 1 or L2 thing. I'm no GML, but that's my eye for detail if you're interested. You'll be a Specialist in no time!

Of course, thank you!

Is the rear view in the reference thread the best primary source image we have of these back boxes? Anyone seen any screen shots that give a more detailed view? Different vendors all seem to be similar but wondering what's out there that's not second or third hand. Thanks in advance!

FWIW, this is the same vendor as blasterfactory.com. Pricey, yes, but good quality and cool to have an all metal blaster.

Why do I see a Sapper in your near future Well done, congrats!

Yeah you’ll have this wrapped up in no time. For what it’s worth (because I agree, the CRL clearly says “rectangular”, but) my chamfered pocket flaps did get approved. As @Blackwatch says, a lot of the details on this one seems to be up to the GML. Couple specialist coins in a couple months, not too shabby

APPROVED. Application photos can be found here- https://imgur.com/a/crpsEX0 Sources- Coveralls- https://www.dickies.com/coveralls-overalls/flex-long-sleeve-coveralls/48274.html?dwvar_48274_color=BK#gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9L7ao4TO6wIVB7zACh2DXQbfEAAYASAAEgIihfD_BwE&start=1 and https://www.dickies.com/shorts/13-loose-fit-cargo-shorts/WR888.html?dwvar_WR888_color=BK#start=1 Patches- https://www.endorfinders.com/costume-accessories/imperial-army-patch Hat - https://www.tvstoreonline.com/star-wars-imperial-officer-twill-cap/ Belt- https://tacticalgear.com/condor-g-i-style-nylon-pistol-belt-black?hp=y&sku=con-pb-002&pa=428809534827181&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIle_egYTO6wIVg8DACh39cQI4EAQYByABEgLIBvD_BwE#/27125/653/1&dl=b Harness- https://www.strapworks.com/Flat_Nylon_Webbing_p/fnw2.htm Pouches- https://www.strapworks.com/Heavyweight_Polypropylene_p/hwp3.htm and https://www.strapworks.com/Heavyweight_Polypropylene_p/hwp4b.htm Boots- https://www.drmartens.com/us/en/p/10295001 Gloves- https://www.galls.com/lawpro-unlined-leather-search-gloves?PMOPV1=BLK&PMOPV2=LG&PMSRCE=GAPLA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0qqO2IXO6wIVENbACh0uOQvbEAQYASABEgLszfD_BwE Goggles- https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082J4Z2PH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Thanks to everyone who's followed along. Hopefully I'll get to buy a round for you all.

No doubt. It's not lost on me that I have beaten my head against a wall with these boots despite the advice from you all. For better or worse, that's the cost of experience, I'm ok with that

Boots 4.0 - After some trial I've decided I can't rightly do the lace cover like I had envisioned. Making the cover is easy enough, but getting it to sit tight and flush to the boot body is another matter that I don't think I can achieve with my equipment. I still think a tight combat boot is the proper silhouette, but that's my neurosis to bear. So until I stumble across an actual bootmaker who can recreate what I'd like to see I'll be lowering my bar a bit Before I get to cutting anything apart, I'd like to run this boot past the group. The link is here: https://workboots.com/dr-martens-icon-2295-wellington-steel-toe-black. Dr.Marten's 2295. These seem to be essentially what people call Engineer Boots, yeah? I feel like by ripping off the pull tabs and debranding as much as possible they're a good solution. One hiccough is the shaft height. They stand 11" tall including the sole. I'm hoping the "Measurements given in this document are intended to be approximate and generalized; not criteria for approval." clause works to my favor here and this is my argument for such a drastic departure from the 8"-9" spec. Looking at the artwork, if I zoom into the side profile of the boot until the length from toe to heel is 4", the height of the shaft is 3.5" or .875x the length. My boots are about 13" long. 13 x .875 = 11.375. So the ratio of length to height is pretty accurate. I know previously I said I agree with the 8"-9" spec and maybe that's good for someone smaller than a size 13? (@Blackwatch knows what I'm talking about) I *think* I could roll down the shaft and resew them shorter if I have to (blousing the pant leg over the boot to hide the height looks wildly incorrect in my case) but I'd like to hear your perspectives before doing that. Like I said, I feel like 11" looks correct for my lanky build. Thanks for the help. Sorry to make an entry level costume such an ordeal

Harness and Pouches- Being a glutton for a challenge and a slave to accuracy, I decided to build my own pouches off the artwork. I used additional widths of webbing to maintain the same material look. Wider widths were available in polypropylene as opposed to the nylon used for the main harness. FWIW, the polypro melts much better than the nylon for any sewing gaps/finishing. Currently just filled with foam blocks for mass.

Completely agree. In fact, I'd think the two thin bands of webbing that reinforce the heel to the tongue are, as well, too decorative. I'll be covering the webbing section in the same upholstery vinyl that I make the lace cover out of. Yeah, understood. @Kessel has done a great job hunting boots down, they just don't fit what I believe the boot to be (not to take anything away from anyone else that wants to use them). It's just that that thread seems to be the current weather vane of the Det's opinion of what these boots should be. I also agree with you. Frankly, I don't think the sole is negotiable being that it is drawn flat many times, but you guys make the rules. I just want to make a costume that I am happy with that fits within those rules. Yeah, if you look at most "jungle boots" they've got monster truck treads on them. Thanks again. I'll keep you posted!

Here's the link: https://www.rothco.com/product/rothco-gi-type-sierra-sole-combat-boots

Boots- Ok, so continuing the discussion here. @Raider , @IcyTrooper , and @Blackwatch thanks for your patience with me. Replying to @Raider about making a discreet lace cover with the right base boot, I have to push back a little bit in defense of the Rothco 5975. If the tread is the sticking point I'm gonna need some clarification because it seems to me like it's the same toothed-though-excusable tread as the majority of the commuters. And, again, I'm not saying the commuters shouldn't be admissible, I'm just confused why the tread on the combat boot would be subject to different scrutiny. I agree that (at least for Level 1 approval, which is what I'm resigning myself to) sometimes the lesser noticeable details need to be relaxed and (as far as the commuter and hopefully the 5975) the tread is a decent place to do that. That being said, if the tread on the 5975 can be excused (again, just for Level 1 approval) then I am confident I can meet the other parameters to make it match the art. Lemme know what you think.

Hey guys, I'm gonna move my dispute over to my WIP thread. @Ronan, sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thread!

I've let this simmer for a bit and at the risk of becoming the Dets new PITA, I do have a suggestion. Bear with me if you like. TL/DR at the bottom. First, I'll concede the philosophical differences we have about the laces. If we ever get back to gathering, it would make for a lively debate. First drink is on me. Next, here's what we do have evidenced in the art: 1- A tight ankle. There are contour lines on the inside of the right boot just above the ball of the ankle. 2- A below the calf height. I think we're on track with the 8"-9" spec. 3- A small heel lift. Most boots have this so as long as it's not some weird high heeled french riding boot it shouldn't be hard to find 4- Relatively little tread profile. 5- Some kind of reinforcement/stitching around the back of the heel. 6- Some kind of reinforcement/stitching along the the top of the foot/tongue of the boot. For these parameters I suggest a combat or combat-style boot with a low profile cover where the laces either are or are completely removed. I've begun working on a prototype of such a lace cover and will share if the idea has traction. Specifically, the Rothco 5075. If the toe cap is a point of contention, the 5975 is another option though is fails parameter #4. They are still very much in production, easy to find, and at a very reasonable pricepoint especially when considering it's a boot that I'm guessing most of us could wear outside of trooping. Look, most importantly I want my costume to be right, but if you want more people to join the ranks, they also need to be easy to find. Scouring the internet for one-off auctions and out-of-stock international providers for a boot that fits two out of six evidenced parameters doesn't make sense to me. I get the pushback at this point, the commuters were floated and some have purchased and painted them. Grandfather them in if you like. TL/DR - We should be pushing a combat boot with a lace cover rather than the commuter style. Thanks for reading.

With respect, the silhouette of the commuters that I posted clearly does not match the art.

Goggles- Got mine here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082J4Z2PH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 They look good. Probably ok for torch work but PLEASE don't actually try to arc weld with these. Breakage safety aside, you'd fry your retinas I didn't like the blue thread in the band and wanted it to be a touch thicker so I swapped it out for some all black 3/4" elastic and sewed the ends around the tri-glide to prevent fraying. Check another piece off the list