Chef

What Andry said... The shorter ones came from a picture that had some glare on the back of the helmet, making them appear shorter.

You mean you don't get that?? I have to say, my strap at the back is adjustable. It can velcro in a number of different spots up the back of the bund.

I again doubt that the connection method has anything to do with how they sit. They are UNDER the belt. So the tightness of the belt will dictate how close the bund/cod is in relation to your abdomen. that bagginess is most likely due to the length and how it's secured as it goes underneath the crotch. If you look at the chap on the far right of the picture above, you can see the cod clearly goes in at the belt, and is tight with his body. It then goes out baggy and comes back in again under his crotch. Which for me would indicate that there was some method of fastening the bottom section of he cod to the suit, rather than just being pulled up G-String style by the elastic on the back. If it was purely just the elastic, the very nature of 'linear spring tension' would mean an equal force exerted over the length of the item, so it would pull an equal tightness over all of it, pulling that baggy section in (unless he is endowed with an incredibly big package... which is why mine looks so baggy! hehehehe), and moving the bottom of the cod, backwards under his crotch. I'll try and elucidate. If you pull an elastic band at both ends... it forms a straight equal line between those two points. At no point do you get a loose part. If you then secure a point in the middle (if you're blessed with three hands!) and move that point so one side becomes under more tension, and the other part goes back completely removing the tension and goes loose. You'll have a baggy bit and a part under tension. But the point being there is a 3rd securing point in the middle. This cannot happen without that 3rd point. **** Scout Bunds... also now a lesson in mechanics ****

Fnar Fnar.... Well. yes. Essentially the thing with screen caps is that you can find anything to suit your viewpoint. There are people who will show you the flip and use it to justify that the boot holster can be on either side! I fully agree that the cod section does go under the bund. I don't doubt the evidence that my eyes show me. But it could attach with velcro behind, could be sewn, it could be on braces (ouch!), it could be sewn to the vest. The attachment method again is largely moot. But the guidelines are pretty unambiguous. Which precludes the bund sitting over the top of the belt to allow a visible set of the undersuit underneath. Having big gaps of black showing does look a bit sloppy in my opinion, much the same as bicep armour around the backs under your armpits and drop boxes hanging down to your knees! For me... it's more the SHAPE of those parts, rather than the attachment process. By my rough maths and scaling, if you assume each rib is 1", the bit that comes out of the bottom of the belt is roughly 9" wide (at the point it exits the bottom of the belt). Obviously it will be a little wider as it goes up to join the bund/vest at which ever point it joins them. And even more obviously... the scale will depend on the individual. But essentially the cod width is roughly twice that of the ribbing section, then shaped down to the crotch. Which is a lot wider than you'd think. So, get that bit right, and the look will suddenly be a lot better.

I never said it would affect things like the soft parts... I was merely highlighting the point that there "were" differences between the costumes. So if the armour was made differently, it's entirely possible that some of the soft parts were too. But it's all speculation on our part. I am more than aware of that. But we'll all end up going round in circles. We have a testimony from Gino that they were separate. We have a testimony from some LFL guys that they weren't... Who do we believe? Please... Tell me. So in short, until we get some definitive pictures to show exactly how it was (I'm looking at you here, Gino), the point it purely speculative and we can argue the toss until the cows come home. I also understand that Gino probably can't enlighten us on this one because of one reason or another. So we're back to purely conflicting testimony, and I'll ask above. Who do we believe? But what we do know is that in the film, and as per the current 501st Guidelines... There is to be NO part of the black undersuit showing above the belt line. (what we see in promo shots or the 'walk around' whilst nice, is largely inadmissible), so naturally the bottom edge of the bund 'must' sit under the belt. Not on top of it as you see in the walk around or that promo shot. That's the long and the short of it. (sorry for the crap picture. Taken on a camera of a TV screen shot. Yes it shows the greeblie down... I've loads showing both ways! before anyone starts) So effectively the join can't be seen, as it is under the belt. SO... it then comes down to the shape and size of the 'tongue' part. Yes, it's bigger than you'd imagine and certainly not just a triangle. That's without a doubt. So this is about getting that part right. Not necessarily about how it joins. As always, the focus of the argument just isn't on the right part... Here's one I made up for someone's Storm Commando based on the new information. My "No Toe" design. It looks a bit odd on me because it's too big, but you get the idea. So whether it's sewn to the bottom of the bund, attached via velcro to the bottom of the vest, or to the back of the bund, or both... It's difficult to say, because you can't actually see the joining method, because it sits behind the belt.

You say that Mickey... I am lead to believe that some of the 'stunt' suits were actually made of rubber rather than all vac formed. I would have to do some serious digging to find where I saw that snippet of information. But I've definitely seen it somewhere.

I wonder whether they just confused the differentiation between codpiece and cummerbund. Or put it this way. If the cod section is attached to the VEST, which Gino attests to, then it is technically 1 piece. Maybe they've just misunderstood. Who knows... Just throwing it out there. As for the source material. There is the promo material, that shows a black space above the belt line. (ignore my annotation) If that cod section extended above the belt line or was attached to the bund, that dark spot wouldn't be there. I'm sure there is probably more. There is also the possibility that some were separate (for what ever reason) and some were not. But it certainly creates the question "does it need to be two piece to create the look??" If you ask Gino, he would say "yes"... If you ask these LFL guys, they'd say "er no... it wasn't so it can't!" But out of all of it.... I love it. Scout's... Difficult to the last!

Yup.. take one of the pockets from the backside and fold it in half. Use that as the collar flap. Works a treat and is the perfect size. Another good tip for fitting the suit a little better is to turn it inside out. Pin the legs a little tighter to make it more fitted. Then run the machine down the pin lines. Overlock the edges and cut off any excess. Turn the right way out. Hey presto!

Sorry Mike... Had Steve on the brain for some reason.

And don't forget CC.... I bet only 5% of you know who that is... It's like Fight Club!

I'd hazard that the last two are bullish*t and Pile of Sh*t... heheheheh. Steve will have filled you in on the others.

It's a good job I didn't send you this!!

Silk purse from a sows ear!

I'd tell your neighbour to stop being a busybody, and what the heck is she doing opening your post! At least you got it.

It's a phenomena I call Exposure Blindness. When the vast majority keep using a certain set of items, then it becomes the norm. No matter how incorrect it is. And when it becomes the norm, if something that 'is' accurate is presented, they will say that it's not right. Because it's different from the accepted norm. Happens a great deal. But having measured the DP against a correctly scaled image of the EFX, I think that it is correctly sized, apart from the dome, which is approximately 5mm too low. The problem with the vinyl lids that DP and Rubies punted out is that they become so vastly misshapen in transit and storage that they become unrecognisable. They do take a lot of work to put straight, but once it is done, you'll find that they are a superb looking lid. But you have to put the work in. Obviously this doesn't help those of us with a slightly larger melon. But it does kick those larger lids that say 'screen accurate size' on the label. The sure fire way to work it out is that we have 'known' sizes on the lid. The 3M bolts (22mm), the snout (it's about 45mm without measuring it). So from this, you can work out every other size on the helmet. Those numbers cannot lie, and they are what will give you the answer.

Primer grey is fine. Paint the aerator flat black if you've done the outer part in that colour. Remember to match up your bolts in the same colour too.

Berghaus Mule 100 for me. Yeah, it's a soft bag, but it's wheeled, has a carry strap, handles and can turn into a rucksack too. I can fit all my gear in it the helmet goes in a helmet bag. It also fits perfectly into the luggage compartment in my bus.

Asa rule of thumb, I always use 75% of the distance between your crotch and your knee. When the patch curves upwards, that tends to just clip the top of the knee armour. But it's not an exact science. Just don't make it like a merkin or a pair of John Wayne's riding chaps.

Take yourself outside and have a word.....

A good back-hand usually sees them off!

Pros.... They're AWESOME. Cons... They're AWESOME.

well, I like them.... Whether they're better than the scissors or not I can't say, never used them. But they do cut other stuff. Which as you say... is a bonus.

What you put under the shoulder bells is entirely up to you. It could be kinky pink for all we care, as long as you can't see it when the costume is all on.

You can never have too many tools. I don't use lexan scissors, I use aviation snips. And I have them in left hand, right hand and straight.

Building your own boots is not particularly complicated, and the final result is much more consistent with the screen used boots than the ones produced by the chap you have messaged. And it will work out WAY WAY cheaper. It's all about time. Getting stuff from the UK to the US is always going to be a non starter really due to the exchange rate and shipping costs. Fact of life and we can't get around that. Just as an example, a gallon of gas (petrol) over here costs over $8 (equivalent). So naturally stuff over here is more expensive. Which ever boot you get, you'll need to get a holster. They come with the armour set. Now I know these boots are in the UK, and the associated problems as above exists, but of you can find something similar your side of the pond, then you're on to a winner. Maybe some of the local guys can assist in a decent supply. http://www.ebay.co.u...=item3cac15ec14 The critical thing you're looking for is a sole that is a SINGLE COLOUR, not one that has a change in colour part way up. The change in colour will need painting out. The boot tutorial is nice and easy to follow So if costs are your primary driver, then make your own. The ones by ZhongVader should be fine for standard clearance depending on your GML, but they would not get you Lancer as they stand. Hope this helps. Rob,