Reply to thread

Message

Well, I've been lurking on this thread long enough.

Everything looks incredible!

At first, when you widened the visor area, I didn't like it, because it didn't 'look' right. But after examining the source illustrations, I have to conclude that it is pretty damned close. You've done a great job, and if/when you decide to mold/cast these, I'm on board for a copy.

Question, though: Should there be two 'divisions' of the upper cheek, under the mandibles? It's hard to tell if McQuarrie was intending for the first division to be an actual separation, or if it's just supposed to be a shadow. There seems to be evidence for both.

Please keep up the good work!

[QUOTE="rubio95, post: 370925, member: 3701"] Well, I've been lurking on this thread long enough. Everything looks incredible! At first, when you widened the visor area, I didn't like it, because it didn't 'look' right. But after examining the source illustrations, I have to conclude that it is pretty damned close. You've done a great job, and if/when you decide to mold/cast these, I'm on board for a copy. Question, though: Should there be two 'divisions' of the upper cheek, under the mandibles? It's hard to tell if McQuarrie was intending for the first division to be an actual separation, or if it's just supposed to be a shadow. There seems to be evidence for both. Please keep up the good work! [/QUOTE]

This thread is more than 8 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

I am aware that replying to this thread may be considered spam, but I still want to make a reply.

Verification