Del Meeko CRL Change proposals FEBRUARY 2025

[Pilot Bay]

11 minutes ago, tipperaryred said:

Thanks for the input Gary!  To address each in order:

1)  The line about the OT style pilot helmets is two separate sentences.  The first says exactly what you suggest, "Original Trilogy TIE Pilot style helmets are not permitted".  We don't want to leave any grey areas there - if it is an OT helmet, it shouldn't clear even basic clearance.  The second sentence about not having any screws visible is supplementary to that.  To put it another way, we aren't saying OT helmets aren't allowed BECAUSE there should be no visible screws.  We're saying OT helmets aren't allowed AND there should be no visible screws.

2)  I think this could be a useful piece of clarification.  In truth it is very difficult to get a clear visual reference on this part of the costume, but where we do see it, it does appear to look very similar to the rest of the armour.  I would be happy to suggest wording along those lines, "This is done with a third plate that bridges the gap between the front and back armor parts, and matches the rest of the torso armor in appearance".  That way folks aren't tied down to using the exact same material, but can use something more practical so long as they ensure that it blends in.  Would that read better?

3)  In fairness what we know as "canvas" comes in a huge variety of types.  My own flight suit is made from canvas and is extremely comfortable to wear, in almost all weather conditions (in Ireland at least!).  The key part here is that we want to leave vendors and troopers alike some degree of flexibility in what they can wear.  At the end of the day we are looking at a simulated texture used in a game, which was never in canon worn by a real human being.  The only things we can go on are the appearance and the fit.  As far as the appearance goes, there is a very noticeable weave that closely resembles canvas, hence the guidance we give.  The fit does not have a lot of bunching or hanging that would be associated with lighter materials, so again is consistent with something like canvas.  However the key part of the text is, "or similar heavy material".  If you find a type of denim that fits right, doesn't hang or bunch, and looks similar in appearance to what we see in the game, there is nothing in the CRL text stopping a GML from clearing that.

Thanks again, and please do jump back in if you want to follow up on any of that further or spot some other areas worth looking at.

Hey, thanks for responding!

Full disclosure, I am a maker and a GML. So I see things from both ends here. As makers, my wife and I follow the CRL's very closely when creating every kit we do. Hence my questions above are reflective for me for both reasons. As a GML, I have had people "argue" ( And often rightly so) on how the text is worded compared to what the example shows. I am always trying to advocate updating such text to specifically include OR omit certain things in description to alleviate any potential option to be able to argue one way or the other, either from a GML POV or Applicant.

To my OT Helmet question, I felt like it read in the way that if no screws were visible, then OT "could" be acceptable. I was just trying to say to make it absolutely apparent that OT helmets are NOT acceptable, even for basic. With wording that also says, AND no screws can be visible. that seems to break it up more specifically think maybe? Or better yet, break up this text to be on separate lines in the description? With the no screws following the OT helmets are not acceptable on the same line can be inferred they can be acceptable. Just put the No screws can be visible on it's own line, maybe even further down in the description. Maybe I am reading too much into it.... It just reads to my mind that if screws are not visible, that is the only caveat to them not being acceptable. I mention this again since as a GML I have had people ask me that very question for clarification in the past.

For the armor side bridges, the first few armor kits I did I used non-textured black leather. It looked good and was more comfortable than a additional piece of plastic to fill that gap. If this would be acceptable, perhaps mentioning that in the CRL would alleviate any questions from GML's in the GML section on the 501st forums.

As to the suit material, I would love to know where to get soft canvas!!!!! Still waiting on the stretchy denim swatch, but if there is a place to get decent canvas that is comfortable, I am all in. I just think a lot of GML's will be stuck on the mention of Canvas (And overlooking the comment that says "Or similar material) and be looking for that specifically, despite there being other materials, like black denim for instance, that they may be wary of approving.

Thoughts?

[tipperaryred[CMD-DCA]]

Thanks for getting back again Gary 🙂 I'm doubling up on GML duties too, so I can certainly see that side of it as well.  Solid point on the screw wording - if you feel it's still a little ambiguous then definitely no harm adding an "and" or an "also" in there to remove any doubt.  Perhaps something like,

"Original Trilogy TIE Pilot style helmets are not permitted. There should also be no screws visible on the helmet."

For the other two points, we could potentially make some minor tweaks like below:

"One-piece flight suit is made out of a canvas or similar suitably heavy material fabric (eg. canvas).

Perhaps just reordering the sentence like that to give prominence to the "suitably heavy fabric" will be enough to point GMLs in the correct direction?

As for the armour:

"Chest and back plate meet flush at the sides under the arms. This is done with a third plate that bridges the gap between the front and back armor parts.  This may be achieved with a solid plate or a non textured fabric, so long as the visual appearance matches the armor."

If we make this tweak, then perhaps it would make sense to make the solid plate option a Level 2 requirement?

What do you think @Blackwatch?

[Pilot Bay]

I am honored to participate here.

 

I think separating these two points should eliminate any issues.

"Original Trilogy TIE Pilot style helmets are not permitted. There should also be no screws visible on the helmet."

On the same line, it still appears that the no visible screws is the only reason for it's dis-allowance. I think this would be better:

"Original Trilogy TIE Pilot style helmets are not permitted." (This should effectively omit OT TIE helmets for this)

"There are no screws visible on the helmet."

Words like "Should" can still infer a possibility. I mention this so strongly as I have had people argue that the CRL said, Can, should, may, etc....

As to the suit fabric, this is better that you posted above:

"One-piece flight suit is made out of a canvas or similar suitably heavy material fabric (eg. canvas)

Let's add black denim or other similar material to that. Otherwise, I think a GML, rightfully so, may see just the word "Canvas" and not vary from that. OR in the least, cause more posting on the GML forums looking for detachment input. I think it if it not mentioned as a potential option, it likely will NOT be viewed as potential by a GML as a viable option. How about this:

"One-piece flight suit is made out of a canvas or similar suitably heavy material fabric (eg. canvas, denim, etc...)

=And as to the connector "plates" you added this:

This may be achieved with a solid plate or a non textured fabric, so long as the visual appearance matches the armor."

I think using the word "Fabric" will cause all kinds of different stuff trying to be used. Non-textured leather looks fantastic, and matches most makers plastic. Still appears mostly firm and is still flexible and comfortable, especially for the amount that is needed to achieve the look. I am OK with using the word leather in place of "fabric" so it still looks like what the material "should" be. I think "Fabric" opens it up to too many options, and then following arguments!!! Then perhaps hard plastic for LVL 2 if it is warranted I suppose.

What do you think?