The interplay and confluence of curves and lines is an artistic aesthetic. Preferring the OT versions and those which retain the essence of them is not just stubbornness. It is also because they're inherently more artistic in design.

Sure. I was referring to the curvature of cheek along the front of the tear (shown in blue below). Comparing to this screen used helmet as a representative example, what you have looks to be correct as the average curvature for left and right sides.

It's just one of those features that I know is "supposed to be" asymmetric. The right side bulges out slightly more than the left side. When shown symmetrical, though my first impression is it looks great, the rivet counter subconscious in me demands that I reconsider!

One thing I look at are the implicit lines along these curvatures (such as the green lines below). Where they are visible in the OT I would expect them to be visible in the TS also. Not exactly the same slope or location, but visible. This is something that I think is lacking in the R1.

The thing with average symmetry is that it is neither left side, nor right side, it is both sides averaged. If one side is more squared and the other more rounded, the averaged symmetrical version will be the median of the two, so will neither be one nor the other. That's the big difference between mirrored symmetry and frankensteined symmetry, where it will actually be one over the other and not both of them, and then averaged symmetry. It will attack everything you know about the asymmetry and idiosyncrasies of the original helmets, but won't favor one detail over another. That's the beauty of averaged symmetry, which the filmmakers and propmakers doesn't seem to have grasped yet, is the fact that it retains THE FEEL of the original, which other symmetry options loses.

Mirrored symmetry always looks weird. It always has and always will. Frankensteined symmetry that takes bits and pieces of the best details on both sides, but ignoring the rest, is a bit more pleasing than mirrored symmetry, but it is still lacking because it still fails to incorporate all details, shapes and idiosyncrasies into the design. That's where averaged symmetry marvels. It will give you perfection that utilizes everything and gives you something that actually still looks like the original, but in a symmetric form.

I'm so glad I was able to convince Dan that this was the kind of symmetry his project deserved and he was interested in making this happen, as it actually meant a fulfillment of his wishes by doing it that way. Even though I have been distancing myself from the hobby for some time now, I'm glad I didn't keep silent. The end result shows a perfectly averaged symmetrical version of the OT trooper helmet, which will be very hard to top.

Oh yes. Completely agree. Like a face, the asymmetry is what makes it interesting, in parts, whereas the averaged symmetrical version can lack character and spirit. It sorta removes the personality a bit and makes it be utilitarian instead.

I would add that if the goal is to create a symmetric version, this is definitely the way it should be done. It retains the essential curves lines and angles the artist intended I think whereas a mirrored version may not, particularly at the vertical centerline where they intersect. And any attempts to smooth any discontinuities there will probably not look right.

I think much of the appeal of both the Vader and Stormtrooper helmets comes from the geometry. The angles between features and length ratios between features correspond with centuries-old design patterns. And not to clutter this thread further, I might start another thread regarding this. A hint: it involves a compass and a square.

Glancing at this helmet again, just one miniscule detail you might look at is the density of the mesh for the mic tips.

I count about 11 mesh openings along the extent of the diameter. For the screen-used helmets images I reviewed I counted between 8 and 10.

I investigated this a while back because some of the kits I have didn't include the mesh or included aluminum mesh. Screen used ones used stainless steel woven mesh. I figured a mesh density of about 14 openings per inch was what I was looking for (mesh #14). Turned out that was a special order with some lead time, but I bought a 2 square foot sheet of it.

Anyway this is such a small detail it's almost negligible, but if you do decide to investigate and then to change it, I suppose it would be an easy change.

My rivet counter's membership ID number is 3263827. ;)

Good post. Also, if printed in smaller scales it is often better to go larger on some details than completely accurate, which would go well with things like the mesh on mic tips or the tusks on a Vader helmet, as the stem of the tusk if rendered accurately may be too thin and snap when molding and casting. There are many things to consider when doing digital models and 3D printing.