Lancer spec: Chest back elastic width and belt closure discussion

[Pandatrooper]

Hi all, I've seen the question pop up here and there and thought we should start a topic about these questions / clarifications.

 

According to the Lancer specs here,

http://forum.bikerscout.net/index.php?showtopic=1364

 

"- The TD box must be secured by one single black tie wrap as seen above, with side buckle to fasten belt hidden under the box out of sight attached with 50mm (2") white cotton or nylon belt secured each end of the belt with a sinlge rivit."

 

In this photo, the belt is overlapped with Velcro.

In this photo without the thermal detonator on (used for a book) you can see the belt overlaps but there is no buckle.

 

I know that there are differences between the screen scout and often what was used for museum / LFL touring exhibit displays, but do we think there is enough info here to warrant a Lancer spec update?

 

Also, the Lancer specs state that the chest to back elastic should be

"Side under arm chest/back straps should 50mm (2") white webbing ( off white if using off white pouches/drop boxe straps) , but for trooping practicality 50mm white elastic will be accepted."

 

According to this pic, the under arm chest strap is clearly narrower than the belt (which I think we agree is 2" wide) and similar but potentially slightly wider than the drop box straps.

 

 

In this pic, we can also see that the under arm strap is slightly wider than the drop box straps.

 

 

Here, we can see clearly the under arm strap is not as wide as the belt strap.

 

So what do members think? Should we update the Lancer specs the belt overlap? What about the under arm strap? It looks narrower than the belt, and possibly the same or slightly wider width than the drop box straps, which are 1 1/2".

 

Let's discuss!

[Heavy]

Do you mean, that for Lancer, there shall be no side buckle on the belt ??

 

I think for the straps the measures are fine...

 

I´m about to start my build soon, and I would hate to make it wrong for Lancer Spec., so please make this correction fast, if there is going to be one...

 

I have got the makita clips, so check on that

[Pandatrooper]

Yes, thats what I would like to discuss. Should the specs be changed to a velcro overlap closure at the back of the belt or should it stay as a buckle?

[bwattsup]

You give some pretty compelling evidence for making the change Terry. Are there any pics with a buckle? I haven't had a chance to scrutinize the other aspects of the uniform. I've been stuck in "helmet and boot world" for awhile now. Lol

[Chef]

I'd agree with Terry on this one...

 

Having trawled through numerous screen shots, I'd say that no buckle exists and the velcro closure is how it was on Screen.

 

I'd also concur that the chest strapping is not 2" (50mm) wide. That does seem mighty massive. And if you take someone like Ian Maginn, who is a bit on the short side (and Andy for that matter), 2" is about 1/5 of their total height!

 

 

I'd say it's more like 1 3/4" (44mm) but I'm not sure how available this size is....

Just checked and 45mm seems to be readily available.

 

There are a few other things I'd like to see on the Lancer page... but that's really for another time.

[4505Marcel]

It could be said the side strap is marjonally thinner than the belt so we could go in at 45mm and split the difference.

 

Trouble with the buckle the only clear picture on the belt is either the MOM, and we know thats rubbish really, screen suit or throw together no one knows, same witt the book picture.

 

Now looking closely at the screen grabs, I agree a clip cannot be seen there, now is it because it wasnt there or was it smaller (no likely looking at the belt thickness) but we cant say 100% it wasnt there.

 

Ive been meaning to change mine for a long time to just lap as I feel it would be easier to dress, as sometimes slipping the clip in can be a pain.

 

Would I take out the clip from the lancer specs no, not without 100% proof. It is also a part that is hidden so does it really matter, that would come down to a troopers preference again.Clip or lap, that could be re worded to either is fine.

 

At the end of the day Im loving troopers are finally getting down and dirty with details, I got nigh on stoned for adding a vest and riding patches to the CRL and they were clearly there lol. So this feel me with pride as our new scouts are pushing for more all the time

 

Good on you !

[4505Marcel]

_{Lancer was always about fit and finish, I do not really want to go into different levels of accuracy like the TKs. Lancer is enough, its easy to nail obvious parts. But parts that are then hidden, can remain choice at this point I think untill proven.}

 

_{Something that a read a month or so back on the forums that upset me, was troopers complaining we are too anal. This is the quote...}

 

_{I think all these award things 'can' lead to elitism. We've fought this on the BlizzardForce detachment for this very reason.}

_{Some have stated they tend to think the BSN and FISD have been fragmented due to the inclusion of these levels/awards.}

 

_{That really shocked me as I felt we are probably one of the least anal detachments with a more family feel, we have to be very carefull if views like this are flying around, this was a odd to me seeing as hardly any troopers bother with lancer in the first place so how can that quote be true}

[Southscout]

I fully agree. I guess there could be some issue with on how the TD is fastened, but if it's required I think we will see more innovative solutions.

 

What I however can't understand is why we specify the clip in the lancer CRL. It's not seen anywhere, so it's probably thought up by someone who made their armor a while back and then it became a sort of standard. Maybe the text should just go away, "Fastened in the back with no visible part" is basically the requirement.

 

And I agree with Marcel, it's fun to be in a detachment where we are getting really detailed. It will be fun over the coming years here when we start to see more 3D-printing of armor parts, more detailed screenshots maybe etc. Tip of the lance, as it's said

[Heavy]

I would like the overlap for the belt as for Lancer spec. , because I haven´t been able to find any ref. pics where we can see the side buckle...

 

Regarding the chest strapping - 45 is perhaps more accurate, so now I have to buy some new strapping for that or when will this go on air ?

 

I´m really interested in making my armor the best and most accurate way, so I´m surfing the internet for ref.pics. and are looking my SW movie over and over again for details

 

And the discussions in here are great for getting advice - so thanks everyone

[Chef]

Ultimately... you do not NEED to go for Lancer status.

 

Obviously, if you make it as screen accurate as you can, you should breeze Lancer status anyway, and really it's this that people should aim for, and not the badge.

 

 

Marcel... I wouldn't worry about John's comments. This place is hardly 'elitist' and I don't think we're fragmented at all. If anything this is one of the more laid back "busy' detachments there is.

Spec Ops is horizontal, but then there are only a few people there.

 

I do think personally.... (and I'm not expecting any discussion on the subject, it's purely my opinion).... that there are some inconsistencies within the Lancer program, hence the reason I've never applied.

 

 

But I do think that discussion of these 'finer points' is truly necessary, for people to gain a better understanding of the costume and allow them to build it 'right' from the start.

Whether the detail is included in the Lancer wording, for a sake of clarity, is really down to you chaps to decide.

[Heavy]

You´re right Rob, I don´t have to - but putting a lot of money and work in a custome, I just want to make this armor as screen accurate as I can.

 

When I set myself a goal, I´m in it all the way, so following the Lancer Spec. is (I guess) a nice pointer in the right direction, ye ?

 

Do I get a badge, if I go Lancer ? I didn´t know that... weee

[Pandatrooper]

I think the issues with the 501st, FISD etc. and the "elitist" comments need to be taken in stride.

 

There's a difference between being detailed / accurate and elitist. There's plenty of detailed builders on various forums, but its when the comments go too far especially to new members wanting to join that make certain people elitist, creating a negative experience.

 

You're absolutely right, there's no requirement to go for Lancer. But if there's even a new Biker Scout joining with minimum requirements, why not point them to accurate measurements from the get go so they aren't steered wrong? The worst is when someone cuts or drills into their armor to mount something. Would it pass 501st? Possibly. Would it be easy for them to fix if they wanted to upgrade later or sell it? No.

 

 

I'm glad with every costume or prop I have built, I have always tried to do it in a modular way, that allows some kind of upgrade later should I want it. For my first TK, I used EIB Expert Infantry specs for the minimum CRL, then applied for EIB and passed easily because my build thread was interactive and the community could provide feedback. That's why communication between all parties is so important.

 

Back on track, I agree with the feedback so far - perhaps either belt closure is fine as long as it's not visible. And the under arm strap could have a slightly narrower than 2" width. Let's keep the conversation going!

[Chef]

Heidi... that's my point... You're going for Screen Accuracy... not Lancer. It just so happens that when you do.... You'll be at Lancer spec anyway.

So you're approaching it in the right frame of mind in my opinion.

You can follow the Lancer spec as a guide, but as has been shown by the belt closure thing, the exact wording of the text may not be entirely accurate. The only real way to be sure, is research and scrutiny of the screen footage.

 

 

Badge... Well, you get a Lancer Tag on your screen avatar, and you can buy a Lancer patch, that only Lancer approved people can buy.

[Heavy]

Good to know Rob that I´m doing it right... I haven´t put anything together yet. Just gathering a lot of info/pics and the small details, that I´m going to need for the armor. Don Jarr greblins for exampel is also ok...

 

The box with the armor is standing in my bedroom, so I´m just waiting for my suit to get here from MC, and Marcel is on the other soft parts and boots

 

So a clear note on the straps measurements is kind of a must soon, so I don´t have to replace them...

[4505Marcel]

_{Rob you say there is more issues with lancer, please do share mate, we cant correct unless things are brought up and discussed. At the end of the day this is all of our forum, so everyone needs to have a say}

[Chef]

Well.... for me...

 

I'd like to see Screen Caps posted up for each of the detail parts to show exactly what the Lancer regulations are referring to.

 

We talk about fit and finish for the gaining of approval....

 

I'll run two scenarios past you to illustrate my issue

 

1: Jim (sorry Grif... I'll use you as my mule) submits his costume for approval.

He's got MonCal armour, but hasn't changed his t-bits around....

 

He's rejected.

 

2: Jim again submits his costume.

This time he's got SC armour, and his t-bits the right way round.

 

He's approved.

 

 

Now... Is there any Screen Cap evidence to suggest that the T-Bits 'have' to both face forward? I've not been able to find anything conclusive.

 

And... now no disrespect to Jeff, but the profile on his Biceps, just isn't screen accurate.

 

 

So, you reject one application based on a supposition that something should look like it does, and accept another when it clearly contains a part that is not screen accurate.

 

Surely, if you're going to be picky over the width of strapping, then glaringly obvious incorrect parts, like any of the MG armour (which should be banned in it's entirety in my opinion), SC Biceps, SC Knees (early ones, as I know he has updated the bucks for these) and the such likes should really be rejected too and the owner have to source more accurate parts.

 

Stuff like the Chin Cup... Any screen evidence to back up that one was used. The only bit I can find suggests it wasn't. (I know you can see one on pictures of the lid when one came up for sale or the such likes.... but can you see it on screen?).

 

Allowing anywhere between 1-6 stripes on the tank.... when on screen, only 1, 4 or 6 were ever seen.

 

For me, it's the inconsistency of the rules.

One inaccuracy is acceptable, yet another is not.

 

I don't mind jumping through hoops, but where there appears to be not much in the way of logic behind them, then I start to question why my feet are off the ground.

 

If it's striving for screen accuracy, then stick to what can be seen on screen.

 

That's it really.

[Griffin-X]

I like being a mule, sometimes.

[4505Marcel]

Trouble is we can only get so much space so adding screen caps would be too hard unless Jim can alter that. I had to leave some pics out as it said I was out of space.

 

Your right the about MG armour it would need extensive alterations to make lancer that is is it ever could. I dont believe we have had a member cleared in MG have we? I could be wrong.

But the CRL does say close represenation on armour, no one makes armour that is 100% accurate so nothing would get cleared, so we have to be as close as we can be.

 

The chin cup is seen on the screen helmet like you say, but when the helmet is on it does hang past the bottom of the lid. But it cant been seen extending past the lid on screen and it should be obvious being white, so yeah that is odd. But are we not having a conversation and presing forward of a belt fastener that also cannot be seen or a fabric material again which could or could not be there, the shine could be camera flash on a matt fabric? It is a real deal helmet an it does have a chin cup, why would they make one and stick it on aftewards that also seems strange? I personally dont use mine as I find it knocks on the lid when talking which wins me up. I dont use any strap at all on my MLC.

 

Theres things like the T bits, chin cup and afew details that were always there and agreed on long before my time, and so these wernt altered when I tweaked the CRL. Im not against altering it again if everyone can agree. I only have about a week left of being DL and being able to do this so things need to move forward quickly

[Chef]

Can you not remote host the pictures like on PhotoBucket?? That way they take up no forum space, or is it different for embedded stuff in the machine parts of the website?? I don't know.

 

I'm not saying anyone has with MG armour.. it's to illustrate the point.

But the thing is, there IS more accurate stuff out there than the likes of SC biceps and old knees, and this is my issue. If people are being told their strapping isn't the right thickness, or their pouches are too far apart or their flak vest hangs too low, then they should also be told that their armour isn't up to scratch.

 

If they want to go Lancer... then they should be prepared to make it screen accurate, even if that means sourcing updated armour parts or modifying their existing ones. THAT is getting as 'close as you can'.

 

I think if you scrutinise the screen caps, especially the blu-rays, certain details can be picked out like the belt fastening. The argument is there for the bund material because you can definitely see a slight colour/texture difference on screen, and this is just backed up by the other supporting material.

 

But there is nothing (that I have found... so please feel free to find it and make me eat humble pie), that suggests the t-bits are handed and there ever was a chin cup used on screen. I can find a picture that in my opinion suggests that one wasn't used.

 

 

I only have about a week left of being DL

 

and the rest.....

[4505Marcel]

The argument with the armour is, anyone can say any part of a certain makers armour is not 100% accurate, only way we could do that is to use a studio mold. Now the likes of SC especially with the new knees, as they needed the lip ect for the strapping is close to accurate, as is most of the armour makers out there (MG aside)

That is where fit and finish comes into play, parts need to then be tweaked again to suit the trooper. I am as happy as can be at this point with what the quality vendors are offering, giving us a very close representation of what we are trying to portray.

The reason we can go more specific with the strap sizes, is we can see roughly what we need by the screen grabs and guage what they are. It is then easy to put a label on them to get us that little bit more uniform if you like

[Griffin-X]

For forum disk space, we have more now with the newly upgraded server. I can increase the upload limits for the ADMIN and CRL staff too. But I do agree that remote hosted images are a better way to go. You guys let me know what I can do to help.

[Southscout]

Screengrabs can help us, and also the MOM pictures, but since parts are moving around and missing in some shots etc, with the Lancer spec we should not only strive for accuracy, but also consistency. I.e a standard with what we believe is the correct look, and where everyone who reaches it looks the same to a great extent.

 

So whenever something is not exactly 100% proven, a concensus has to be reached on how we want a certain part to look (for instance with the T-bits) for the Lancer status. I think that everyone still wants it, but maybe it should be given a bit of an overhaul to reflect the latest findings.

 

Just my two cents.

 

EDIT: and when the book "Making of Return of the Jedi" comes out late this year, all hell will break loose again

[batninja]

Sorry to resurrect an older thread, but based on the screen caps provided...if I decide to use a Velcro closure instead of a clip, am I disqualified from Lancer?

[Griffin-X]

The clips were used on the TD, not the closure. The Velcro closure is correct.

[batninja]

Sorry about that; I meant 'buckle', not clip. The Lancer specs (at this time) specify a buckle to close the belt, instead of the Velcro method. I intend to use Velcro unless it disqualifies my Lancer approval.