1/72 RazorCrest - Revell vs AMT (Round2)

[Analyzer]

I picked up both of these because I could not initially decide which one I wanted.

Also this gives me the opportunity to display one in landed configuration, possibly in a diorama, and one in flight without feeling I have to sacrifice one or the other

at any rate, my initial thoughts were the Revell has the full body interior, the AMT kit has the clear parts for lighting the engines but no interior beyond the cockpit

There was also talk of the weird surface on the Revell kit and the soft details on the AMT kit.

So let's begin with the box. Really not that important in the grand scheme of things, but seeing these on a shelf next to each other in the store and figuring out which one to buy it makes a huge difference.

IMHO clear winner is AMT

On the bottom, we have the Revell packaging. The front is not bad, but on the sides and back it is frankly toy like and really does not sell the model or do it justice.
The few shots of the painted model are pretty bad and the colors again make it look like a toy
AMTs box art on the other hand is a beautifully finished model for color reference and just overall better design

The back of the Revell kit has tons of text and a small picture of a model that looks makes it look like a crappy pre-paint kit

Not even sure where the bright red and blue interior choice of color comes from

AMT on the other hand really knows how to spotlight the model

Each of the interior sides have actual photos of a painted model for the painting guides and decal reference

 

[Analyzer]

Now the important stuff...the models

First impression looking at bare plastic seems to give Revell the edge. Panel lines seem finer and details seem crisper
AMT on the left and Revell on the right

However, this may not be as biased looking once you prime things compared to bare plastic. I will revisit this later

 

[edge10]

The detail on the Revell looks so much nicer.

 

[Analyzer]

Cockpit parts

AMT opted to go with a decal for the floor, where Revell has actual detail. Side walls have differing details and while AMT dropped the ball with the floor, they seem to have the better overall details on the side walls

Revell is the greenish grey plastic while AMT is the darker metallic

BUT, this is where AMTs choice of metallic grey plastic I think can be misleading in comparing it to Revell for details
my initial impression here was the soft detail of the AMT on left

Once you level the playing field with a coat of primer, the AMT on top details seem to pop more compared to the Revell

and again but with the side walls, Revell on top AMT on the bottom. I think I prefer AMT

 

[Analyzer]

The detail on the Revell looks so much nicer.

maybe, some places and when comparing without primer. but the are a number of things Revell cut corners on...

looking at the guns. Revell's is 3 pieces, basically the two halves and the shield thing. AMT on the other hand has 7 or pieces. It makes a difference in relief detail

For example AMT has the separation of the gun barrel from the housing. i.e. it looks like assembled parts that are functionally different

Revell on the other hand is all molded together to save on part count at the expense of detail

and here, amt on top/right looks much better detail wise

Both have some seam line issues that need to be addressed, but here the Revell on the top skips several details
First the round cap thing and also the wide open gap on top. Seems like there should be pieces glued there, but there are none

Also Revell decided they only need detail on the outward facing side of these pieces and literally left the other side blank/unfinished

Compare that to the AMT details

 

[Analyzer]

ok, even with primer on, Revell clearly wins in the panel line race with the finer, more in scale engraved panel lines

Not that AMTs are necessarily bad, but it is the difference between something like the Fine Molds X-Wing body vs the Bandai.
As in Fine Molds had the better panel lines, while Bandai's tend to be a bit over-exaggerated.

Sure there is a benefit to the over-exaggerated in that they stand out more when standing a few feet away.

Below, AMT on the left is a bit more eye-catching, but Revell on the right is more realistic as far as scale panel line in the real world

In regards to the proportions/shapes/measurements, these are nearly the same if not identical. So much so that parts could be interchangeable.

i.e. you could take the best of both worlds for some key details like the guns or top recessed details or cockpit etc...

Revell on top, AMT on bottom. Definitely better panel line her on the Revell

While I much prefer the Revell panel lines, I think I prefer the AMT greeblie detail in most places
The AMT on the left here, the greeblies actually have a bit more definition and, well, detail
Also as far surface details, there are some notable differences. I am not sure who, if either is more accurate to say the digital asset or the filming miniature they made, but that is the only areas outside size/shape that the two differ

For example that area circled on the top right. AMT on the left has no cross bars, while Revell does. but AMT has more well defined vent/cooler vane looking things where the Revell kit has some basic flat detail

While I circled the missing part at the bottom, I believe that is just a separate piece on the AMT kit on the left compared to the molded in version of the Revell on the right.

Also similar to the side guns, Revell wanted to simplify/save on parts cost so they molded these details in, while the AMT kit has separate insert part

Not too big a deal, but again you lose the sense of depth on the Revell by not having the undercut

Here is the AMT with insert

Compared to the flat molded Revell version without the undercuts

 

[Analyzer]

a closer looks at some of the more detailed areas like the escape pod thingy

It is hard to tell. The two angled greeblies at the top on each side for example differ in detail, not just quality

There are things I like about both

The AMT

The Revell

Looking at the digital asset we have this. AMT seems closer in most areas, but Revell for example has the indented rivet/both hole in the rounded edge where AMT has a raised circle

And greeblies here differ a bit. Plus and minus for both

Here is the AMT. Biggest difference is the presence of the two rectangular details above the vent looking thing and the absence of the two circular details behind the larger circular cap looking greeblie that are present on the Revell

And here the Revell

 

[rbeach84]

Almost the kind of litlte molding 'easter egg' manufacturers might include to 'sign' their work, making counterfeits more obvious.

Apparently, it is a good thing you have both, then you CAN combine the best of both kits!
(Sort of what Academy does with their knock-off kits... ha!)

R/ Robert

 

[Analyzer]

Almost the kind of litlte molding 'easter egg' manufacturers might include to 'sign' their work, making counterfeits more obvious.

Apparently, it is a good thing you have both, then you CAN combine the best of both kits!
(Sort of what Academy does with their knock-off kits... ha!)

R/ Robert

You figure some of the aftermarket detail kits cost, you could probably get both kits and pick and choose.

I mean 3D printed resin engine parts from a third party source alone are probably close to the cost of the AMT kit if your building the Revell one

For example, if I went that route, I would use the AMT cockpit walls, seats and control panels as the are far better than Revell. Plus you get the better Mando figure and a Grogu

I would use the engines, or at least the intakes and exhaust from the AMT kit as they are set up with opening and clear parts for lighting, plus the intakes are more detailed on the AMT kit

I would use the main body from the Revell kit as it has the better panel lines. Might cut out a few parts and replace with areas from the AMT kit
Also the Revell has options to have both side doors open, where the AMT kit has one molded in place and the way the middle section is set up, you can't get the floor in without removing that

For the escape pod insert and the recessed pit behind it, I would cut the one out of the Revell and then replace with the AMT insert

Not sure about landing gear yet

 

[Analyzer]

Speaking of the cockpit...finished up the AMT one

First paint up the teeny Grogu

and the rest

Mandos helmet has no real molded detail, so they provide a decal instead

and set in place

 

[JimmyB]

Nice comparison, thanks

Nathaniel De'Lineadeus offers a 1/18 scale Razorcrest kit. His description says, "It is made utilizing a mix of media reference, between the 2ft Studio Shooting Miniature & the Studio CGI Model, as both are slightly different. The Studio Miniature was built Pre Production and the CGI Model evolved throughout the first season." Perhaps the detail differences you point out are because one of the companies referenced the evolved digital model, while the other referenced the pre-production studio miniature?

 

[Analyzer]

Nice comparison, thanks

Nathaniel De'Lineadeus offers a 1/18 scale Razorcrest kit. His description says, "It is made utilizing a mix of media reference, between the 2ft Studio Shooting Miniature & the Studio CGI Model, as both are slightly different. The Studio Miniature was built Pre Production and the CGI Model evolved throughout the first season." Perhaps the detail differences you point out are because one of the companies referenced the evolved digital model, while the other referenced the pre-production studio miniature?

Not sure, I haven't got any really good references for either, but I suspect they both started from the same digital asset that was used to 3D print that filming model. Possible as mentioned before that details were eliminated/tweaked based molding requirements as well as creative license to distinguish theirs from a knock off copy. i.e. a signature of sorts that is unique
Plus some of those details may not have translated well to the chosen scale, or even were not fully 3D, but part of the skin and had to be reinterpreted

this is most likely the source files they had access to.

 

[JimmyB]

this is most likely the source files they had access to.

Thanks for that video. Love watching stuff like that.

 

[edge10]

Really nice comparison pictures. Bottom line seems to be:

Both kits have good and less good spots. So it is a toss up.

The main mistake, Round2 made, was being way late to market.

 

[Analyzer]

Really nice comparison pictures. Bottom line seems to be:

Both kits have good and less good spots. So it is a toss up.

The main mistake, Round2 made, was being way late to market.

Yup

Round2 definitely suffered from timing

 

[Analyzer]

Now for the Revell cockpit.

While I think the AMT cockpit is more in scale and has better detail in the console and main cabin side walls, the actual molded floor details are way better than the AMT sticker. It also has more detail in the rear cabin, however most of that will not be seen unless you cut open the door

Also the Revell Mando figure came out better than I expected. before painting it looked oddly proportioned and had a lot of flash, cleaned up and sitting behind the console though helps a lot

I think the biggest downside to the Revell really is just the scale and back seats. They are fairly plain and do not pivot like the AMT ones from the wall

Here with the flash on it gives a better sense of the scale difference. AMT on the right and Revell on the left.

AMT seems to be spot on for 1/72 based on figure size
Revell on the left seems to be oversized for 1/72 which is odd because the exterior ship measurements for both are nearly identical
Not sure why Revell upscaled the interior a bit. But you can also see how the seats are much bigger in relation to the back wall details
so much so they just wind up covering it up and taking up more room proportionally

 

[Analyzer]

More on the scale difference

People who have built the Bandai A-Wing will be familiar with the noticeable size difference as Revell's figure is more like that A-Wing pilots size than 1/72

AMT on the left, Revell on the right

The seated Revell figure is the same height as a standing 1/72 figure. It is almost like someone said 6 feet is about 1" in 1/72, so make the figure that tall, but the person who sized ignored that in a sitting position it should be a bit shorter and just made the sitting pose 1" tall

Another key difference is the Revell cockpit has a step down from the rear cabin to front cabin

I guess to accommodate a larger figure they had to increase the height a little?

Or it might be they had to shorten the rear cabin height due to the lower interior of the main body

I do not think there is a step in the full size set

Either way, I do not think they were too concerned about it since it is hard to tell from a top down view they are at different levels, especially through the tiny rear canopy windows that hide most of it anyway

But if you are going to be cutting out the door like I am planning on you will see it
Will have to wait and see if this whole part can be modified to be on the same level once I get a better sense of how the rest of the interior fits

Interesting enough though while the figure and seat size is too large, the taller front part of the cabin in the Revell kit might be more accurate for a full size set
for example, this standing 1/72 figure in the AMT cockpit would bump his head on the top of the door frame

Where in the Revell one, there is a bit more room

So once again, neither is perfect and a combination of both would be better than either alone

If you have to pick one, in the end it all comes down to which parts you like best whether you want a full interior or not

 

[SwedishChef]

Awesome, thank you for all the detailed input! This will help me decide on which kit to get.

 

[Analyzer]

Awesome, thank you for all the detailed input! This will help me decide on which kit to get.

Looking forward to seeing what you do with whichever one you get!

Now the next big area of comparison. Up till now it has been pretty much minor differences in greeblie detail, or preference for interior or panel line scale etc... but the engine areas are a bit more fundamental fit/casting issues

The Revell engine housing comes in two halves. However the way it is split the seam goes right through some raised detail and is very obvious. In addition there are gap/fit issues as well as misaligned detail. I am not sure if this might just be an issue with some kits or not, but I think it is a mold problem as some parts line up but other do not. The red arrows here pointing to the worst part
Note this is after being glued together, not just dry fit

Also because they chose to do in two parts, they had to decrease the undercuts on the sides which results in flatter detail on the ribbed section as you get to the edges until the last section or so is nearly detail-less

To be fair, AMT had to make some tough choices as well as to how to mold the engines, and theirs is not perfect either in regards to a seam that totally disappears and needs no filling, but I think they did a much better job by making it four sections instead of two and staggering the edge to skip some key raised details when possible. Also there is not the the very noticeable misalignment of details like on the Revell

Also note that unlike the Revell one, I only glued two sections here and left the other two dry fitted because I need access to install LEDs and wiring later so the seam gaps in some areas my not be as noticeable once glued

the ribbed section is consistent in detail all the way to the edge, but you will have to handle the seams on either side

And here you can see how the staggered edge goes around some detail and blends in more so it is not as obvious as a straight cut through tings
Also the seam is much lower on the side where as the Revell one pretty much is dead center in the middle

Here the seam falls along some natural panel lines

and here is the Revell on top with misaligned areas and the areas where indented/undercut detail has to be flattened to accommodate a two part mold instead of 4

 

[Analyzer]

As far as the intakes, Revell is two pieces, AMT is 3 pieces. Not any major difference detail wise, but there is a slight advantage to the 3 part approach as you can paint the fans a different metal color than the rest of the housing more easily and without complicated masking.

It is also hard to capture in pictures, but there is more of a 3D depth and undercut effect and subtle angling in the AMT one compared to the Revell one. i.e. with the effect it appears the fan blades are a distinct separate rotating part compared to the Revell one
but again, this is kind of minor in the scheme of things

As for the exhaust "turkey feathers" I am not sure which is more accurate, but the Revell one is on the left and AMT on the right

I personally thing the little nub things on the end of the AMT give a better sense of scale and are a bit more detailed, but the Revell one has the little nub details on the bottom. However the AMT has a subtle ribbed detail on the rectangular bits

and last the inner part. AMT is built for lighting and has a clear backing disc and all the voids opened up where Revell is molded solid and you will have to cut out the voids if you want to light it. Other than that there is no real difference in actual greeblie detail quality