Not at all buddy :lol, and i really hope, the point your proving, gives you some solace
lee
EFX X Wing Arrival, Thoughts & Pictures
- Thread starter rahman
- Start date
Not at all buddy :lol, and i really hope, the point your proving, gives you some solace
lee
Just to re-state and clarify here, the R2 model I delivered was the same size as the original(s) in the Archives. I did not have opportunity to follow the process once I delivered my files, so I don't know what was or wasn't done to it post-delivery, but it was understanding that my file was not altered.
_Mike
One further thought: it occurs to me that someone who has an original Saturn can, for example, can measure the original, and then measure the eFX. However, the X-Wings in the Archives don't use original cans, either, they're castings, so you still have to get measurements off the original to have a baseline control for determining eFX's scale.
_Mike
_Mike
So there isnt an X in the Archives with OE cans Mike? To that end, does that mean R5's cans are in fact actually cast, and the only OE cans on any X wing, are possibly only on Red2/ Blue1?
Something to ponder as it goes as id though at least Red2 would have original cans......good point though!
lee
Something to ponder as it goes as id though at least Red2 would have original cans......good point though!
lee
OE cans in the Archives? Might be? I'm repeating what I was told with regard to them being castings - model making/building is not my expertise. If Red 5's are originals, then sure, that comparison with an original kit part would be totally accurate, it just wasn't my understanding.
_Mike
_Mike
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
Sorry, but your post certainly appears open to the way I interpreted it. You were defending the EFX paintjob from a guy who'd criticised it. In effect you told him to keep quiet until he'd seen an EFX in the flesh, saying that photos are a 'terrible way to judge anything.' The subject was the paintjob and whether or not the thing looked toy-like, not by-eye photo comparisons of arcane dimension differences. I repeat: if photos -and good well-lit photos at that - are useless for judging an EFX paintjob, then they're useless for judging paintjobs on everything else too. It may not be what you meant, but it's a totally logical implication of what you wrote.
I moderated this post myself - it contained a more vigorous defence of my capacity to 'understand'.
Last edited:
PHArchivist
Master Member
Slam dunk - Beaz; get out your calipers, measure the droid (unless you have already - where is his dome!?) and report back to Mike.
PHArchivist
Master Member
If not getting heated, some might say you're "warming up". Tacked on little commentaries (some would call "digs") such as this below (in bold) aren't necessary or relevant in a level-headed discussion.
RacerX
Well-Known Member
Please don't mix things that I said or try to GUESS what other people are saying.
I wasn't talking about paint job when I said "Nothing by "eye" should be even considered relevant." I was talking about measurements and what not. Mike got it, and I'm sure other people here got too.
Last edited:
Well looking through some ref here, and from what i can gather Red3 seems to have OE Airfix cans, as does Red5, so from what i guess at, all Heros, would have had genuine styrene and genuine dimensions to the engine cans at least, and we know many OE parts (not casts) were used on the Hero props.
Again this would be a guess, but looking at them, there a tad too nice to be cast parts, going by ILM's fast and dirty casting process.
I can measure up an Airfix engine can, though not a vintage, can anybody front up any dims from the Red5 model taken by eFX artists?
lee
Again this would be a guess, but looking at them, there a tad too nice to be cast parts, going by ILM's fast and dirty casting process.
I can measure up an Airfix engine can, though not a vintage, can anybody front up any dims from the Red5 model taken by eFX artists?
lee
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Bust out the real kit parts and compare the size to the EFX parts. As with the At-At I suspect that the parts were scanned and re-sized digitally to match the fuselage. Which is why it's much larger than anything else. In the At-At's case smaller...
The key is always in the donor parts.
The key is always in the donor parts.
Been looking at Red 2 as well guys, that too seems to be OE built, nothing cast as far as i can see, possibly the F4 halves, but the Saturn cans are genuine, so i look forward to your measures Kevin, id like to see some photo comps for sure!
If dims were taken from the R5 studio remnants, then it would have been first gen parts measured int his case...yes?
Its one thing i was thinking of, if eFX were to have used a slew of genuine cast parts, wouldnt this infringe on the relevant (about 40 or so, some still in business?) donor kit manufacturers?
Sounds far fetched, but you never know who's going to sue who nowadays :lol
This could be a reason, certain parts werent simply duplicated, but instead scanned and replicated, and from past experience (MR's mini ATAT) they may have resized it all a bit too much this time around?
lee
If dims were taken from the R5 studio remnants, then it would have been first gen parts measured int his case...yes?
Its one thing i was thinking of, if eFX were to have used a slew of genuine cast parts, wouldnt this infringe on the relevant (about 40 or so, some still in business?) donor kit manufacturers?
Sounds far fetched, but you never know who's going to sue who nowadays :lol
This could be a reason, certain parts werent simply duplicated, but instead scanned and replicated, and from past experience (MR's mini ATAT) they may have resized it all a bit too much this time around?
lee
imaginager
Sr Member
Yeah, cause YOU will decide, using your "accurate" techniques, if this replica is accurate or not. Yeah right
Extraordinarily helpful, Racer X. At least Beaz is actually contributing to the discussion with real metrics. All you're doing is typing.
At the end of the day who do you think will appear more convincing to the layperson?
I can also verify that Airfix Saturn V cans are smaller than those hung on the EFX. Because molding and casting more often results in shrinkage than expansion this fact about the EFX causes me some concern with respect to the dims of the EFX fuse.
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
But that wasn't the post I was talking about. It was Ralphee who responded to that post.
Anyway, this spat is becoming increasingly private, redundant and surely tedious to other users. I forego my option of responding; the field is yours. Let's leave it there.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Granted one cannot make accurate assumptions about the exact dimensions using photo comparison techniques, but I believe some basic information can be gleaned from such methods. If using the right photographs and shot within certain conditions these comparisons can be used to gauge if the 'overall' dimensions and proportions of an object are within certain limits of being correct or not. This technique is especially useful for objects that are linear and have some straight lines such as the X-Wing. Of course this method is more useful when there are bigger differences in size and/ or proportion between two objects as more subtle differences woud be undetectable.
So I would not say photo comparisons are completely worthless.
Last edited:
PHArchivist
Master Member
Worthless or not, they're fun as hell (at least when I'm at work).
Similar threads
