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?

[tipperaryred[CMD-DCA]]

Always great to have the feedback Gary, especially from vendors who bring a very different perspective to most of our staff and members.

For the helmet I'll suggest another compromise version, and I promise it's not awkwardness, there is method to my madness. 😅

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

Firstly the Del text has always been a bit sprawling down the page(s), and it is quite off putting for new builders.  So wherever possible I don't want to give a new line to every small detail.  But even more importantly I'd like to keep those two points together, because they are actually related.  The screws are one of the quickest ways to spot an OT TIE helmet, and for many members it can sometimes be a challenge to differentiate between a OT TIE, R1 TIE and an Inferno.  I think it's important that members know that if they see screws in a TIE helmet, it is likely an OT helmet and therefore should not be clearable even if they removed the screws.  On the subject of "should" however, I can absolutely imagine some of our members arguing that point, so I absolutely agree with your suggestion of "are" instead.

For the armour sides and the flight suit fabric, I think the problem is the same one for both.  In an ideal world we know the closest material, but want to give GMLs and builders the flexibility to use something that has the same appearance, but is either more accessible or easier to wear.  You correctly point out that a small number of GMLs might not look past the one example we give, but I don't believe that this would be a correct interpretation on their part.  The visual references should always be the first consideration, and if a costume looks right while also meeting the flexible definition of "a suitably heavy fabric", then a GML would be failing in their duties if they failed a flight suit just because it wasn't made of a material that is explicitly given as only an example.  Adding black denim into the list of examples won't necessarily help solve that problem, it will only give awkward people two things to fixate on instead of one.  We can't realistically list every possible material that each part could be constructed from just to account for an awkward minority who might misread it.  In my experience the vast majority of GMLs want to help their members get their costumes over the line, so we want to give them the flexibility in the new text to allow this.

In saying all that (my apologies for this turning into a small essay!), there's no reason at all why we can't tweak the text a little further as you suggest, and try to reduce the chances of the worst case scenario happening!  I'd also be happy to put "non-textured leather" in as an example in the context of the new text below.

 

"One-piece flight suit is made out of a canvas or similar suitably heavy material fabric.  A canvas style fabric is most suitable, but other fabrics consistent with the visual references are entirely acceptable."

 

"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 is best achieved with material matching the rest of the hard armor parts, but more flexible options are also accepted so long as the visual appearance matches the rest of the armor (eg. non-textured black leather)."

 

[Pilot Bay]

Firstly, all very well said and I do not disagree with any of your counter points.

It is refreshing to see that feedback on this forum is welcomed and by all accounts, being discussed and not argued

As I am only one person, I would agree with your text suggestions above, and appreciate you taking my inclusions into account. I think it would help people building these kits and give them a few more options.

[tipperaryred[CMD-DCA]]

Honestly mate, it makes our life so much easier when people do jump in on CRL builds or revisions with new perspectives.  There are few worse feelings as a DCA than spending months or even years on a CRL, with only 2 or 3 people contributing, only for the finished CRL to go live and folks start queuing up to list the mistakes 😅

So genuinely, thanks a million for the input, and if you get a chance to check back in again before we finish this revision, please do let us know if you have any more feedback.

[tipperaryred[CMD-DCA]]

Jumping back in, we have the shoulder pouch next.  I made a couple of grammatical and clarifying tweaks already, but the substance doesn't need any changes as far as I can see.  The reference to the oiler pouch in Level 2 doesn't seem to add anything to the basic clearance text except to refer to it as an "oiler pouch" instead of a "pouch".

 

Shoulder Ammo Pouch
There is an MP-40 style ammo pouch attached to the left shoulder and it must be filled.
The pouch is black in color and made of canvas, or canvas-like material.
Closure straps are made of black leather or leather-like material.
There is a small oiler-style pouch on the bottom of the pouch at the right side.
All pouch stitching is black.

OPTIONAL Level two certification (if applicable):
Attachment is not seen. No straps are visible. Magnets or another source of firm mounting are advised.
Oiler pouch is attached to the bottom right side of the right pouch. (Is this adding anything to what is written above?)

[LostinNV[501st]]

On 4/22/2025 at 1:08 AM, tipperaryred said:

To be fair, there was so much to fix from the original CRL that it's understandable things got missed in the last re-write, even if they came up in the last discussion.  But you're 100% right that this needs some more serious work to simplify it down while fixing mistakes.  I'll contribute my own re-write on top of your own after I have a chance to revisit all the reference images later today, but straight away I agree with a lot of what you've fixed above.  In particular the references to "ribbed" straps and leather "loops", which were very confusing.  We want this to be simple to read, consistent, and allowing the trooper the maximum flexibility and accessibility to build while remaining accurate.

Is it worth having an additional discussion over the sheer level of detail we are including in the CRL itself?  Whenever I show the CRL to someone interested in an Inferno build, there is usually a worried intake of breath from them as the scrolling continues, and continues, and continues...  Compared to the majority of other CRLs, Del's is packed with a lot of dense detail which is great for scratch builders and vendors, but is going to be off putting for a lot of troopers.  It may be worth going back to basics and deciding what information belongs in which of the following places:

• CRL basic clearance section.
• CRL Level 2 clearance section.
• The forum discussion thread (ie. here).

I think the best example of this might be the exact measurements we have throughout the CRL.  These probably originated with Anton's vital research into the sizes of components in the 3D model, which was essential into getting the relative sizes correct.  However does ever trooper need to ensure that the cover strips on their vest mag inserts are "5/32" x 1/2" x 2.63""?  Some details like this can probably be left in the forum, while others can definitely be re-written to be easier to read.  The main concern is always that costume parts look correct relative to each other when worn by a specific trooper, not that there is a single set of "correct" absolute measurements that can be worn by troopers of all sizes and shapes.

For someone that is right in the middle of a build for this costume right now I can't agree more with the middle paragraph above. Some of the " exacting" changes might make this costume completely unattainable due to the complexity of the writing and materials.  For instance the "Flyye" branded magazine pouches are completely out of stock everywhere regardless of what material they are made from. 

[IcyTrooper[CMD-DWM]]

Just as a note, measurements are only for reference and proportion basing when they are in the L1 details of the text. Specific branded gear/items are usually relegated to the L2 details as a detachment detail and not a basis for basic approval.

Checking into the "Flyye" text, the mention was for what NOT to use, rather than what to use.

[tipperaryred[CMD-DCA]]

Absolutely, the FLYYE vests have been specified as inaccurate for a long time now.

My earlier point on measurements was more a wider point about trying to slim the CRL text down a little, which we've been trying to do here where we can.  I've lost count of the number of members I've tried to sell on an Inferno only for them to scrap the idea after 5 seconds of scrolling down the CRL text.  So if we can take some of the extraneous parts out, especially where they are already readily available here on the forums, I think that can only be a benefit.