CT The lost pilots and scenes from the Endor space battle in Return of the Jedi

Here is the image from the Paris exhibit Hernalt was referring to earlier (I made pictures myself, but have misplaced the camera card). Visibility of the small bridge balcony is rather good, the width of the conning tower would be around 357 meters.

Iron_lord wrote

Then how did Saxton manage to get 289m out of it? (the figure in Complete Locations - the book on which he was a Consultant)

I cannot answer that. And his webpage - http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#executor - doesn't provide an answer, either. Nevertheless, I'd like to believe that for Complete Locations he reconsidered the issue and made a new calculation, this time, however based on the (accurate) larger bridge module.

A couple of posts earlier I wrote:

The big balcony bridge is only 12.2 m wide on the Avenger conning tower, but once I multiply that number with 107% (270 m x 107% = 289 m) I'll get a balcony bridge width of 13 m which is closer to the actual studio set dimensions of 12.8 m.

The way it looks to me

1. Dr. Saxton realized that the small balcony bridge would ultimately suggest an sSD length of 14.6 miles. He also realized we didn't get a clear front view in the final film of the sSD's conning tower in ROJ (Adywan still has to perform this mental maneuver...)
2. He then re-examined the conning tower with the large balcony bridge (which he dismissed earlier, unfortunately), applied the dimensions of the studio set width (12.8 m) and now arrived at a conning tower width of 289 m for the conning tower with the large balcony bridge module
3. Considering the whole VFX sSD model (your figures in post # 93) he now arrived at a total length of 19.06 km / 11.84 miles

Using the Falcon attached to Avenger's conning tower in ESB I arrived at a conning tower width of 270 m (17.8 km / 11.06 miles), which is more compliant with ILM "11 mile figure", IMHO, but using the large balcony bridge and the known width of a studio set ultimately appears to be a more reliable method, especially keeping in mind that the in-universe dimensions of the Falcon (once we consider its interiors...) can be debated.

Personally what matters to me is

1. The 11+ miles length figure of the super Star Destroyer has been proven and established beyond a shred of doubt
2. It has been established that the conning tower with the large balcony bridge is the accurate match for both the Avenger- and the Executor-class (while the one with the small balcony bridge is rather a candidate for this enigmatic Tector-class of "larger" Star Destroyers)

Regarding the retroactive insertion of balcony bridges on the Devastator-class Star Destroyers in Rebels, I don't like it at all. The original model just featured one rectangular block and the early (and built!) Executor bridge studio set for ESB just featured a flat bridge with three windows (a concept that at least survived for the "first catch of the day" scene in ESB). In short I consider balcony bridges for Devastator-class Star Destroyers erroneous (and diplomatically expressed this in a letter I sent Dave Filoni and team last year, proposing to use these early ESB concepts, instead).

P.S.

Assuming that the conning tower with a width of 357 m (i.e. tower model with small bridge module) was actually intended for the larger Star Destroyer / Empire main communications ship, would yield a length for that "leviathan" of approximately 2,112 m or 1.24 miles.

 

You appear to be confirming that the two models, the five bridge model, and the smaller central SSD model, are one in the same. That's what I did not form into a conviction until I saw them in the B&W images up above. I had merely been suspicious. So, it doesn't matter which one was built first. The snag in your theory is the neck plates which the SSD has. It is probably easier to add the larger bridge over top the smaller central bridge, and then add some extra bridges for good measure. But I would think the neck plates might be harder to apply than those extra bridges, and so they would not want to have to take them off once they were done shooting with the SSD. They might want to just get some shots with five bridge and then it is consigned to history because it is permanently vamped with SSD neck plates. The neck plates are out of frame in those images so this is still an open question.

Lt. Hija. Somewhere in this mess you mentioned that the Nebulon B was broadsiding the exact same model prop that was used for the Falcon to fly by in ESB. I've confirmed that, and I've also confirmed that this exact same model is used when the TIEs chase a Y-Wing around the thick / high / deep / detailed edge of an Imperial vessel. This occurs immediately after "She's gonna blow" and immediately before "I'm hit". This research never fails to amaze me with Lucas' touch for variations in shooting angle, depth of field, lighting, what part of the model is shot, and now obviously, what side of a ship a certain model is used to represent.

The model as first used in ROTJ has quite a bit of extent left to the left hand off screen. So its horizontal extent fills the screen. And it is shot only at the upper half of the total model, with the effect of making a 'thinner' edge. This optical effect, combined with the other ISD in the upper part of the screen, combined with consistent lighting hue and shadow angles from aft, recommends to the viewer to think that the TIEs are chasing the Y-Wing around a regular ISD port edge, somewhere midships. And now indeed from a greater more self-conscious frame of reference it is the model used for ESB Executor's starboard bow edge. So that literally means TIEs were chasing the Y-Wing around this SSD's port edge, somewhere undetermined. The somewhere is up for debate, considering that the physical model is only so many feet long and was shot from both vantages to exclude an unwanted edge and include the intended leading edge. None of these images are mirrors of each other, so they all have the same handedness or they are all mirrored. I would love to see a photo of this model at ILM.

The broadside with Nebulon B uses some optical witchcraft to stretch the model and give the Nebulon B model a run for its money. Lighting was carefully considered - the shadows line up from a source to the upper left. A contortion of thought could achieve an impression that this was the Endor system star, where this set of on-screen vessels are all pointing away from the DSII, and consequently over the planet, but still more slightly 'east' of the stellar light source, that they are something like 90 to 100 to 110 degrees away from DSII in a clockwise direction. The light source lasts for a sumptuous several seconds, so that is kind of too long to assign to an ongoing, steady state explosion of a capital ship. From an artistic perspective these ships are going to look good no matter what angle. It can be observed, however, that the Nebulon B model has crenelations that lend themselves to a sensuous silhouette that would not be achieved with the opposite light angle. Anyway this will require more analysis. I'm glad I did not waste time analyzing these capital ship engagements later than the EMCS. This exact sequence is possibly my choice sequence of the whole offering, specifically because of the grandeur and obvious momentum of the vessels involved, the most obvious likeness and analogue to the pummeling in the age of sail, and last but not least, the tiny story of the blockade runner in lower left that appears to have lost its drive and is just sitting there waiting on fate. If that was self-consciously the SSD, why is it making steam away from the DSII. So that's kind of a fruitless sub narrative. The scales used between the ESB shot, the first and second ROTJ shots demonstrates the the ILM people intended that this model represent different size ships. So there are lots of possible interpretations and sub narratives and a great many of them are probably as daft as some others.

You made a reference to a possible tactic by the Imperials of using TIE bombers specifically to disable drive systems. Thinking about this, it seems to dovetail with the mandate to 'keep the Rebels from escaping', so long as the TIE bombers don't actually destroy targets that the Emperor's new toy can use. Now, the epiphany is this: I have been wondering how or why what I think of as Home Two, sub-flagship under the command of Acting Vice Admiral General "Same Uniform as Madine", was not making way into the actual conflict with the ISDs once the Liberty's destruction made it obvious that capital assets near the DSII were forfeit. When this second DSII victim 'Home Two' was first introduced, which is the famous scene of the incoming wave that got a youtube video, five Nebulon Bs were flying backwards right in front of it, and it was clearly under steam heading away from the DSII. But Home One clearly got out of the immediate area because it is positioned in the novel as close enough for Ackbar to single out a specific ISD by pointing at the Imperial line. The first time we see Home Two it is relatively close to DSII, and by the time we see Home Two for the second and last time, it has made steam away, but not by much, from the DSII. Your theory enables a sub narrative that it may have had its drive systems partially disabled early on, and could not make distance. It's not the only Rebel cruiser left in the area. I mentioned way up that there's a Freedom class very near the DSII in the distance, and that one can also be explained by this sub narrative of TIE bombers.

 

Hernalt wrote

I would love to see a photo of this model at ILM

Looks like you and me are the only people in the world that show interest in the outer edge of the super Star Destroyer, given the absence of ANY pictures on the worldwide web of that particular model (LOL).

Images were featured in From Star Wars to Indiana Jones, Star Wars Chronicles and Sculpting a Galaxy. I do not have the time right now to scan all the pictures, but will eventually do so at some point in time.

At least we got some screencaps from ESB: http://starwarsscreencaps.com/star-wars-episode-v-the-empire-strikes-back-1980/78/

 

It looks I made some math errors. Above is the front view of the ESB Star Destroyer model (the small Falcon model was attached to the back of its conning tower).
The Falcon's width / circular diameter is approx. 24.4 meters, the diameter of the top domes is roughly the same. The conning tower's width would only be 208 meters.
I then re-examined the pictures (and screencaps) with the large conning tower model and the large bridge balcony module, which has to be 12.8 m wide, according to the life-size studio sets. Despite perspective distortions I arrived - again - at a conning tower width of roughly 200 m.

So both the Falcon model attached to the conning tower in ESB and the large bridge balcony module in ROJ "agree" on a conning tower width of around 200 meters.

IMHO, we are taking that crude miniature conning tower on the 277 cm sSD model way too serious. Instead of 4.2 cm it should have just been 3.2 cm wide to justify the official ILM figure of 11 miles / 17.7 km.

 

That wasn't the only one - they created another one as well in TESB for the close-up:

http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starw...2-AUGUST_1980-Star-Wars-Empire-FX_Page_07.jpg

Sidebar quote for the relevant picture:

/Assistant cameraman Rich Fichter watches as Scott Marshall and model supervisor Lorne Peterson add finishing touches on an oversize section of a star destroyer conning tower to which the Millennium Falcon affixes itself.

The TESB Star Destroyer tower picture the quote references:

http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starw...2-AUGUST_1980-Star-Wars-Empire-FX_Page_08.jpg


You can tell when they switch from one pair of models to another:

When I look it up I get 25.61m - still a little small if the tower's assumed to be 270m wide, but not badly so.

 

Iron_lord

I'm aware of the different VFX models used. Your top image shows the large set with the smaller Falcon built for ESB (this aft-view-only set was also used for the Executor and discarded after filming because they didn't know where to possibly store it), the one below a still smaller Falcon model attached to the back of the conning tower of the VFX Star Destroyer model built for ESB.

Looking at the www.starwarsscreencaps.com on my screen I got a diameter of the Falcon of 6 cm and 5.2 cm for the shield power generator globe for the top image, but an equal diameter of 3.5 cm in your image below.

In your top image the globe is further away from the Falcon in front, thus it inevitably appears smaller than it is (compare the outer port side edges of the conning tower, i.e. the one to the front is shorter than the one to the back...).

In my upcoming plan view sketch (to illustrate the issue) I went with 24.4 m Falcon diameter and 24 m for the globe, but still arrive at a conning tower width of "only" 203 m / 666 feet and - - a Star Destroyer length for the Avenger-class of only 1,270 m according to the most accurate top view blueprint I'm aware of.

Since we've already seen that the 1 mile figure must apply to the Devastator-class of Star Destroyers (because of the Tantive IV being tractored inside the loading bay), it would seem that it only applies for that class of Star Destroyers, which then would ultimately qualify as a "larger" Star Destroyer (compared to the Avenger-class).

Since the opening shot of the Executor's arrival at Hoth only placed two Devastator-class models next to the Executor for conning tower size reference, we could perhaps agree that Executor's conning tower must be at least 270 m wide and the statement "same conning tower size" included Devastator-class Star Destroyers exclusively.

 

Problem with "Avenger-class is only 1270m" is that the ship from which the shuttle deploys in ROTJ is very clearly an Avenger-class - yet is much bigger.

 

Iron_lord

That's going to be my homework over the weekend, i.e. to compare Lambda class shuttle disembarking from the Avenger-class Star Destroyer in ROJ with the forward loading bay and the overall size. But regardless the outcome, we already have two clues for a smaller Avenger-class, the Falcon attached to its back and the compatible front view with the large balcony bridge module...

 

Somebody else already did the work, here:



http://www.weaponsofstarwars.com/star-destroyers-length


When models produce such varied sizes, compromise figures may be necessary.

 

I can destroy this question now. Here is an image from the Paris exhibit (I don't remember if Lt. Hija called dibs on this or not.) I argued elsewhere that the image presented in the five bridge sequence was a mirror image to the actual ILM model. That argument is correct. This following image is not a mirror image (it's always good to exercise the method of first principles) because we can read the left justified fonts of various museum labels. Therefore the angle that the camera was actually taking on the five bridge is actually the angle one can imagine of looking up at this museum display from the lower left. Such an angle will avoid the neck plates as the model moves into frame longer than would occur if the camera angle was from the lower right of this model. One can confirm this by making a mirror image of this image and then matching up the lines of two unique structures. One is the thick vertical pipe on the real-world starboard, the other is the three boxes immediately under the real-world port side neck.

Therefore the economy of explanation goes to you, and it makes most sense that they filmed all necessary sequences with this SSD design conning tower, complete with SSD neck plates, and then had no need to remove *any neck plates for their next use of it, for all they had to do was snap on or temporarily glue on some new/different/larger bridges. And then that excluding framing of the five bridge was artistically justified because they filled the upper frame by the dominating Mon Cal cruiser that dwarfed this conning tower. I.e., there was no need, and actually not very much room left in the bottom of the frame, to show the neck, let alone 'try to hide' the neck plates. So this is a conservation of all the evidence. Then they popped off those restraining bolt bridges, and the rest is history.


From:
Flikr, various searches on star destroyer ILM models.

 

That's pretty close to my hypothesis - first film the SSD sequence - then film the "multi-bridge" sequence.

I wasn't sure that they were "popped off" after filming of the multi-bridge sequence was done - but if there's pics of the Executor prop post-ROTJ, sans bridges, that would prove they did.

 

Iron_lord wrote

Somebody else already did the work, here: http://www.weaponsofstarwars.com/star-destroyers-length

Actually he did not. The (mirrored) image on the website is the bottom view of the Devastator, not the Avenger!

The giveaway is the quad gun on the outer edge and the cover piece on the other side that hides the socket for the mounting pipe. I'll check my own materials for a reliable bottom view of the ESB Star Destroyer model later.

I wasn't sure that they were "popped off" after filming of the multi-bridge sequence was done - but if there's pics of the Executor prop post-ROTJ, sans bridges, that would prove they did.

The large balcony bridge model was there post-ROJ. Tim Ketzer (probably the only person in the world that has these pictures) took a picture of the conning tower model in the ILM archives he presented at a convention as part of his slide show. Being quite aware of the issue, then, my eyes just popped when I saw the large balcony bridge model on the tower model and in glorious resolution for the first (and unfortunately also last) time in my life.

 

One thing that puzzles me - all of Saxton's images of the Avenger model show vanes on top of the domes:


http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exhibit/avenger.html

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

whereas the second movie image of Falcon on Avenger is vane-free:

There is also a noticeable indent toward the bottom of the vertical edge - it's not straight all the way down - there's a slight zigzag, which doesn't look to be present on other Avenger tower shots.

The front image:

also seems to have vanes.

So, what did they use to create that "vaneless" movie shot?

The Devastator has that indent:



maybe they gave the model a makeover - changing the domes and the greebling?

 

You are right, the port side globe does lack vanes, but if you take a look at the starboard side globe (in the above scene) you'll notice the shadows cast by the base of those vanes. I couldn't explain why. The vanes in the Star Destroyer exhibit shots appear somewhat thicker. IIRC, some broke off the original model and had to be replaced, but if memory serves, several guys in the modeling community were not happy about the "new" vanes.

Now, here is a graphic visualization for the conning tower size relations:

 

It may be that the vanes just simply were too small to show up when the SSD model was optically composited against blue-screen. Such concerns dogged modelmaking during the pre-CGI days -- it's why the X-Wings ended up having polygonal cockpit glass with visible struts instead of rounded glass like the Naboo fighters.

 

True.

Saxton's figures were:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html

Calculation of the size of Lord Vader's ISD at the start of Return of the Jedi, based on the known width of the Lambda-class shuttle, is one mile to within the measurement uncertainties. The result is 1.68±0.18 km. This method yields an absolute upper limit of 2.06 km and an absolute lower limit of 1.63 km.
[Data: (1) With wings in docking mode the shuttle is 14.3m wide and 22.3m tall. (2) Star destroyer length is 28.8 times the width of the secondary (forward) docking bay. ]



Two distinctive apertures on the ventral surface of a star destroyer are docking bays: partially enclosed volumes where smaller ships can be conveniently moored in vacuo without gravity. The aft docking bay (primary bay) is approximately 185m long and 160m wide. The foreward (secondary) bay is a few times smaller, with dimensions of about thirty-seven by fifty-six metres.

28.8 x 56 = 1612.8m.

That might work. Close inspection of some of the studio bridge shots from the back do show the zigzag after all:

Spoiler

The original Falcon was slightly less than life-size: 80 ft long and only 70 ft wide; (Harrison Ford: The Films) - but for TFA they updated it.

There's plenty of people who insist that they didn't go far enough and that the Falcon should have been more like 200 ft long - but that doesn't really fit, either.

Saxton managed to get Devastator domes of 41m diameter - and applied those to the Executor:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html

Under the assumption that an Imperator is 1600m long, measuring pictures of the Devastator model determines the globe diameter as 41m with an uncertainty of about two percent.

However, Devastator domes are proportionally larger compared to the tower, than any other domes, and are a slightly different shape.

 

Illuminated Rosetta Stone "G" shape easily visible in lower left of this ROTJ frame:


"G" structure emerges into upper left of frame 16 frames into the ESB shot that this frame is from:


"G" structure emerges into upper right of frame 23 frames into the ROTJ shot that this frame is from:

From
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/galor-class-cruiser-vs-nebulon-b2-frigate.222565/page-2

As far as I can tell, the following is the ILM prop / model. This image is upside down and the "G" structure is lower half, center. I did two rotations and saved it as another image to do the comparisons. What I hope remains to be found and can be found is the extension of this model that shows the bow of the Executor, in the last frames of the Executor, where the structure splits into the upper and lower shells. So far I cannot match that shot to any of these structures as presented.

From:
http://stardestroyer.net/tlc/Cannons/index.html

For the first image, the use of the upper half of this model to indicate/suggest an Avenger-class ISD-II port midships trench wall indicates/suggests that the width of a Y-Wing is between 1/8 and 1/6 that height. (So an MF would be 1/4 and 1/3 that height.)

For the second image, the use of the full height of this model to indicate/suggest the ESB Executor starboard bow trench wall indicates/suggests that the height of the MF is on the order of 1/30 that height.

For the third image, the use of the full height of this model to indicate/suggest an Avenger-class ISD-II port bow trench wall indicates/suggests that the height of the Nebulon B stern section is roughly 1/2 that height.

There's a probably a number of ways to consume or interpret these specific uses of this model in ROTJ to represent something other than specifically an ISD-I or ISD-II. The presence of the obvious ISD-II's in the background pointing in the same obvious direction serves as a manufacturer's recommended suspension of disbelief. The cheapest suspension is to just say, "Yeah, I'll buy it that that's a plain old ISD," and then be done with it. Other suspensions of disbelief exist. More than one suspension of disbelief exists for the conning tower spheres. More than one suspension of disbelief exists for the ISD-like long upper surface the MF flies over.

In the third use of the ESB-era Executor trench model, it might be difficult to think that this is the actual SSD that the Nebulon B is trading broadsides with. We can easily watch the ending of ESB and compare the scaling between the MF and the Executor starboard bow, and the scaling between the MF and the Nebulon B. There are still unresolved issues of perspective, depth of field, tricks of the camera. A persuasive argument might be made that this is the SSD. My eye would lean towards the possibility that there is another class that isn't the SSD and isn't an ISD. (Which is what my eye does seeing the long ISD-like upper surface.)

 

You might not want to get too close to those images ... at Celebration VI I saw some photos of the models up close, including one poor little GI Joe army man with his head poking out of the Executor.

 

I wonder - was it a modified Avenger surface - or does the absence of dome here:

suggest that it's the Devastator model that comes with removable belly dome?

 

ATMachine
I have run across that image many times trying to pry secrets, and it is one of the most cheeky insurrections of the model making staff.

Iron_lord
In the pursuit of an answer to this specific question concerning keels and bulbs and flat spaces on ventral surfaces, I am for the time being trying to get an answer to the following question. Can you or anyone identify the ship that is on the right side of the frame, face on, with a hexagonal arrangement of bulbs / bulges / cockpits / engines / guns / nacelles / whatever, a generalized tan color scheme, with a dash of reddish hues along the sides, and apparently lit by a light source above / overhead , off screen.. This ship is the key with respect to the present elephant in the room, the Tector question, which is displacing arguments for the EMCS, which is the ground zero for the Lost Rebels major scene. So, I could really use an answer on what that ship is. I do not think, but I cannot bet my life, that that ship is in the same class as the Braha'tok class gunship, which can be clearly seen in this shot in lower middle left.

And while this frame is up, does anyone have an ID for the dagger shaped background ship in the far lower right? (Doesn't matter this instant but may prove useful.)

 

Not sure - but it wouldn't be the only time a Star Wars movie ship image never got followed up with more detail:

Could the "dagger" be a B-wing without the wings unfolded?

 

I don't know how he arrived at these figures, but I think partially the low resolution screen shots are to be blamed for. Turns out that the Star Wars Chronicles is to be blamed for putting a bottom view of the Devastator model and passing it as the ESB model.
But there is a picture of the ESB model resting on its "stern" in a studio (the only high-res bottom view, IIRC) and the front bay's width is 1/26 of the overall length. In real life the bay would be approx. 62.4 meters wide, so the opening shot in ROJ suggests a Star Destroyer length of 1,622 meters / 1+ mile.

Fact remains that

1. the ILM model makers suggested a conning tower width of 203+/- meters for the Avenger in ESB, based on the Falcon attached to its back (Star Destroyer length 1,270 meters)
2. the ILM model makers emphasized a conning tower width of 203+/- meters for this class of Star Destroyer by creating a corresponding balcony bridge module for the large tower model (but simultaneuosly suggesting an alternate and wider conning tower for other Star Destroyers by featuring a balcony bridge model on the tower model only half as wide)
3. the ILM VFX composers suggested a Star Destroyer length of 1+ mile when they put Vader's disembarking Lambda-class shuttle in the way they did.

I think it's fact, that the Avenger and her siblings are Star Destroyers just 1,270 meters in length, the visible evidence is irrefutable.

Devastator's 1 mile figure is pretty waterproof and therefore possibly a hint, that the "larger imperial ship" mentioned in screenplay and novelization points to that class of Star Destroyers (mostly outphased by this point of time and probably the Empire's gravest strategical error - I always considered her design and big guns to have been specifically designed for broadside exchanges - had the Empire had more of these at the Battle of Endor, I wonder how it may have turned out...).



IIRC, there was only the starboard side socket to mount the Devastator model. That image without the ventral bulge could just be a production shot where the bulge hadn't been put on, yet (I have a Falcon model shot with black background where the entire quad gun section hasn't been added, yet). Notice the apparent absence of pencil lines (to suggest plate separation) on the keel of the model.

Hernalt

Beautiful compilation of screenshots from the outer edge and the model view From Star Wars to Indiana Jones.

What I hope remains to be found and can be found is the extension of this model that shows the bow of the Executor, in the last frames of the Executor, where the structure splits into the upper and lower shells.

I'd pay real money for that. Have been looking for this one for years, but I guess unless you get acces to the Lucasfilm vault, we won't see it (and don't mention the super Star Destroyer's "Broadway", would love to see the enlarged upper surface model...).

Regarding its use in ROJ I'm somewhat undecided. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if they tried to pass it as the outer edge of a regular Star Destroyer, but since we all saw that unique outer edge in ESB I always thought it belonged to the super Star Destroyer - until I read that part about the Empire's main communications ship in the novelization.

Can you or anyone identify the ship that is on the right side of the frame, face on, with a hexagonal arrangement of bulbs / bulges / cockpits / engines / guns / nacelles / whatever, a generalized tan color scheme.

I'm afraid to say "Yes". That "thing" made it into the film? Wow! I think it's one of your classic ILM "jokes". You can see it at 1:12 in the ROJ videomatics / the image below. Looks like some kind of "life raft" with an R2 unit at the top (and bottom), IIRC.

 

Alternatively - Lucas intended them to be almost interchangeable - hence the "Good, our first catch of the day" sequence using both models to represent the same ship.

Given that ROTJ suggests a mile-long Avenger - if it was intended to be 1270m by the TESB model maker, this may have been dropped by the time of ROTJ.

 

Iron_lord wrote

Given that ROTJ suggests a mile-long Avenger - if it was intended to be 1270m by the TESB model maker, this may have been dropped by the time of ROTJ.

"dropped" ???



Again:

Fact remains that

1. the ILM model makers suggested a conning tower width of 203+/- meters for the Avenger in ESB, based on the Falcon attached to its back (Star Destroyer length 1,270 meters)
2. the ILM model makers emphasized a conning tower width of 203+/- meters for this class of Star Destroyer by creating a corresponding balcony bridge module for the large tower model (but simultaneuosly suggesting an alternate and wider conning tower for other Star Destroyers by featuring a balcony bridge model on the tower model only half as wide)

While the opening shot (VFX composite!) with the Lambda-class shuttle disembarking from a Star Destroyer may have suggested a Star Destroyer of 1 mile length, the ROJ model builders clearly suggested a conning tower of only 203 meters width for the Avenger-class by (a) creating an extra and larger balcony bridge balcony module which (b) made it into the film (see screencap above).

When I read coments like "this screencap must suggest an unusual bridge with much larger windows" this constitutes a classic case where the cart is put before the horse, i.e. the 1 mile figure provided in text is taken as sacrosanct, even though the model (!) featured in the film (!) clearly suggests otherwise.
And instead of applauding (that there is size continuity regarding the Avenger-class from ESB to ROJ), a lot of people rather seem to prefer to find fault with the large bridge balcony.



The existence of one large conning tower model with two differently sized balcony bridge modules clearly indicates "in-universe" conning towers of different width (and ultimately Star Destroyers of different lengths).

Where the model makers did "screw" up is the balcony bridge module (1/3 too short) for the super Star Destroyer in ROJ and the 1 mile long regular Star Destroyers (which must exist next to the Devastator-class, given the opening shot in ROJ), as it didn't suggest a conning tower width of 270 or 289, but 357 meters instead.

It then rather appears we do have the

1. Avenger-class (1,270 m) based on the Falcon (ESB) and the correct balcony bridge width (ROJ)
2. "Invader"-class (1,609 - 1,622 m) based on the ROJ opening shot
3. Devastator-class (1,609 m) based on the Tantive IV in its main bay
4. Executor-class (11 miles)

 

Iron_lord wrote

Could the "dagger" be a B-wing without the wings unfolded?

That was my first thought, too, but it's way to wide where the cockpit pod should be. Next to the Rebel UFO Hernalt spotted, I noticed one other often repeated background element, but the one that beats these all is the apparently organic and circular "thingy".

I can just hope that they have some photographic records and bring some of these to life in Rebels, rather than continuously invent new ones.