EFX X Wing Arrival, Thoughts & Pictures
- Thread starter rahman
- Start date
RacerX
Well-Known Member
Great sarcasm. Everyone here is just typing. My comments may be more helpful than your comments about my "typings".
Nope. His "metrics" will be useless for the "layperson" if he can't REALLY prove what he is talking about. Period.
I could come up with numbers if I wanted. That would make me more convincing to your eyes, yes? Even if you knew there was no way to be accurate with these numbers?
I "admire" people's effort to always scrutinize these licensed replicas, this a replica forum full of anal(in a good way) collectors that strive for perfection(or close to it). But sometimes the "perfection" won't happen, for the reasons mentioned before. EfX did great with their replica and there's nothing better out there. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
RacerX
Well-Known Member
I'm done here buddy. I said my part already and won't keep repeating everything over and over again. No need to do that.
Last edited:
RacerX
Well-Known Member
imaginager
Sr Member
Okay. Let's see. As one example Beaz posted that the actual kit part Sat V cans are smaller than what's on the EFX. That's an empirical fact that he shared. He also said he's 'working' on other dims and comparisons. You don't know what he's going to do to make these comparisons because he hasn't said and hasn't posted them, yet.
And, again, all you've done is...type.
BTW, I'm glad you enjoyed my sarcasm.
GF
Sr Member
I own most of all the SS produced SW models in my collection including the MR falcon which looks good both in photos and in person, the paint standards on the falcon was much higher than the EFX X-wing.
For me the EFX has a toyish paintjob, the falcon doesn't give me that impression.
GFollano
RacerX
Well-Known Member
I was looking at the big picture here my friend, not just a part or two.
Feeling is mutual. Can you stop quoting me now so I can get out of this thread. plz? You pulled me back in.
Last edited:
GF
Sr Member
Exactly, the subject was about the PAINTJOB not the physical appearance.
GFollano
GFollano
RacerX
Well-Known Member
Cool - that's your opinion.
I advice you to try to see a X-Wing in person. To me it doesn't look "toyish" at all.
Could it be improved? absolutely - that could be said about every replica out there - but it's done really well for a mass produced replica.
It's always difficult to judge things by pictures. Have you ever heard that "pictures don't do it justice" ? that happens with this piece.
Unless EVERYONE here have the same computer, using the same gamma correction/same monitor calibration...AND the pictures taken had the proper color and white balance to capture in film the EXACT colors of the subject.....
That's the only way I would make my mind based on pictures alone. Other than that, there's no substitute for seeing these things in "flesh"
imaginager
Sr Member
It's already been proven not to be 100 percent accurate. It's a replica, nothing more. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a 100 percent accurate replica in most cases, especially in one as complex as this.
The EFX is no sacred cow in that regard. I own one and it has a place and a purpose in my collection. People are going to want to take it apart, measurement by measurement. People like me. Because we're interested in approaching the 100 percent accurate, even though we know it's unachievable. As one example the length of the fuse is currently of great interest to a good number of studio scale enthusiasts. Possibly, information about the EFX can lead to a better fuse for this group of fans.
It's intriguing how defensive people can get when others put things under critical examination. Look at it like this, the EFX is obviously worthy of critical examination. And, that's saying a lot of good about it.
The EFX is no sacred cow in that regard. I own one and it has a place and a purpose in my collection. People are going to want to take it apart, measurement by measurement. People like me. Because we're interested in approaching the 100 percent accurate, even though we know it's unachievable. As one example the length of the fuse is currently of great interest to a good number of studio scale enthusiasts. Possibly, information about the EFX can lead to a better fuse for this group of fans.
It's intriguing how defensive people can get when others put things under critical examination. Look at it like this, the EFX is obviously worthy of critical examination. And, that's saying a lot of good about it.
GF
Sr Member
With these statements I honestely start to think you don't get the point of what a weathering job should look like.
It has nothing to do with Gamma correction, contrast, hues, different computer screens ect....
I don't need to see it in person, it would look even worst if I did, from your photos I can clearly see the overdone airbrushing streaks, paint chips which don't look real, solid color panels ect...
the weathering looks fake, you can tell the ship is brand new under that fake looking airbrushed weathering, scuffs ect... a good weathering job will give you the effect of a aging process, these are massproduce painted by people who follow a pattern and have absolutely no clue in weathering. Like I said each have their own standards.
GFollano
Last edited:
RacerX
Well-Known Member
It has to do.
A "bad" picture is a bad picture and very different from seeing in flesh. And a bad way to -proper- judge something. You may see some overly done airbrush and other things, but even these can look different in person, less obstrusive etc. In the EFX case, pictures don't do it any justice at all. It's paint job looks way better in person, and far from toyish, very good for a mass produced item as I said many times before.
So YOU are the one that is not getting the "point". If you want accuracy(isn't that what you all strives for?), then internet pictures are a terrible way to proper judge things, doesn't matter how you cut it. Yes, we depend on the net to see things, but we should take with a grain of salt. To keep arguing about that will only show your ignorance on the subject, sorry
My photos? I have posted no photos - LOL! - What are you talking about? :thumbsdown
I DON'T agree with you, so we better leave at that before this becomes personal. If you can't understand what I'm saying, there's no point in arguying. You won't change my mind.
If you would like to keep with this argument, please do so by PM.
THank you,
Pat D.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Last edited:
Where are the pictures of cans ?
I came here for some good pictures of all American cans !
(unless you guys mean cans are something else then what I call cans....)
j/k. Looking forward to pics of OE kit parts and EFX side by side. I like the EXF, wish I had the scratch for it.
I came here for some good pictures of all American cans !
(unless you guys mean cans are something else then what I call cans....)
j/k. Looking forward to pics of OE kit parts and EFX side by side. I like the EXF, wish I had the scratch for it.
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
No pics tonight unfortunately as my web hosting provider is having major disk problems today and they don't seem sure when my domains there will be fully functional. All my other inline pics will remain busted until they get everything working again.
I did spend most of the last 3 hours taking pictures and measuring dozens of reference points on the following:
1. the eFx X-Wing,
2. the Salzo Version 3 X-Wing (V3), and
3. the pyro pattern that I own
as well as a number of original donor kit parts. I'm now convinced that most of the greeblie clusters were patterned using original kit parts. I'm talking about:
1. the astromech droid strip,
2. the tail plate,
3. the wing recesses, and
4. the leading and trailing edge "jack" clusters.
I'm also convinced that the Sealab parts on the outer wing surfaces are at least dimensionally accurate, if not from original parts.
I'm also convinced that the Saturn V forward engine cans and Phantom rear engine tubes and afterburner cans are facsimiles of the original kit parts, that they have surface detail that differs from those original parts, and that they are larger than the original parts in several, but not all, dimensions. Where they vary in size, these new engine parts are between 2% and 7.7% larger than their source counterparts.
I'll post some comparison pics that show what I mean as soon as I can.
The eFx model has wings that are 17mm longer and 6mm wider than the pyro pattern wings, and are 18.75mm longer and 7.2 mm wider thatn the V3's.
The droid socket on the eFx is 30.4mm at its widest point, the V3's is 25.1mm and the pyro pattern's is 23.3mm.
The R2 unit that came with the eFx is 28.33mm at the widest point of his legs (shoulders?) and 19.2mm at the base of his dome.
I'm still measuring key reference points along the fuselage of all three as well as the Maxi-Brute.
Setting aside the caliper and looking at this from a quality and aesthetic standpoint, I have to say I really do like this product. I've got the seat, pilot, canopy and R2 in place, attached it to the base and turned on the lights. It's damn cool.
Mine has some QA issues, as there's some solvent schmutz that spilled in one of the engine intakes and removed a good bit of the paint in there, and one of my outer main engine intakes is noticeably warped.
From an accuracy standpoint, the panel lines are much too wide and deep, especially on the wings, the larger of the two types of Saturn V engine bells were trimmed too short, meaning the main engine recesses aren't deep enough. The surface panels on the Saturn V-like engine cans are too thick and the brick panel is not the Holgate & Reynolds stuff. Plenty of other folks have already discussed the loosey-goosey canopy and Hasbro-like hinge and the poor representation of the heat sinks and red lighting gel area in the rear engines. The cockpit is idealized rather than remaining true to the actual miniatures, but that was a wise move, IMO considering the target audience for this product.
And while the paint job is so much better than the Icons model I have, it's far from Studio Scale Modeling Forum standards. I will be repainting this some day, perhaps after I'm finished with my own hero builds.
The R2-D2 is a miniature work of art, an amazing sculpture really, and unfortunately much of it is buried beneath globby paint applied by a not-so-steady hand. I'll probably strip R2-D2 before anything else, frankly.
Having said all of that, I still love this model. And that's not "oh crap, I can't believe I paid that much for this thing" love, but the kind of love that you feel when you get something and you can't stop looking at it. Seriously, I can't stop looking at it.
I did spend most of the last 3 hours taking pictures and measuring dozens of reference points on the following:
1. the eFx X-Wing,
2. the Salzo Version 3 X-Wing (V3), and
3. the pyro pattern that I own
as well as a number of original donor kit parts. I'm now convinced that most of the greeblie clusters were patterned using original kit parts. I'm talking about:
1. the astromech droid strip,
2. the tail plate,
3. the wing recesses, and
4. the leading and trailing edge "jack" clusters.
I'm also convinced that the Sealab parts on the outer wing surfaces are at least dimensionally accurate, if not from original parts.
I'm also convinced that the Saturn V forward engine cans and Phantom rear engine tubes and afterburner cans are facsimiles of the original kit parts, that they have surface detail that differs from those original parts, and that they are larger than the original parts in several, but not all, dimensions. Where they vary in size, these new engine parts are between 2% and 7.7% larger than their source counterparts.
I'll post some comparison pics that show what I mean as soon as I can.
The eFx model has wings that are 17mm longer and 6mm wider than the pyro pattern wings, and are 18.75mm longer and 7.2 mm wider thatn the V3's.
The droid socket on the eFx is 30.4mm at its widest point, the V3's is 25.1mm and the pyro pattern's is 23.3mm.
The R2 unit that came with the eFx is 28.33mm at the widest point of his legs (shoulders?) and 19.2mm at the base of his dome.
I'm still measuring key reference points along the fuselage of all three as well as the Maxi-Brute.
Setting aside the caliper and looking at this from a quality and aesthetic standpoint, I have to say I really do like this product. I've got the seat, pilot, canopy and R2 in place, attached it to the base and turned on the lights. It's damn cool.
Mine has some QA issues, as there's some solvent schmutz that spilled in one of the engine intakes and removed a good bit of the paint in there, and one of my outer main engine intakes is noticeably warped.
From an accuracy standpoint, the panel lines are much too wide and deep, especially on the wings, the larger of the two types of Saturn V engine bells were trimmed too short, meaning the main engine recesses aren't deep enough. The surface panels on the Saturn V-like engine cans are too thick and the brick panel is not the Holgate & Reynolds stuff. Plenty of other folks have already discussed the loosey-goosey canopy and Hasbro-like hinge and the poor representation of the heat sinks and red lighting gel area in the rear engines. The cockpit is idealized rather than remaining true to the actual miniatures, but that was a wise move, IMO considering the target audience for this product.
And while the paint job is so much better than the Icons model I have, it's far from Studio Scale Modeling Forum standards. I will be repainting this some day, perhaps after I'm finished with my own hero builds.
The R2-D2 is a miniature work of art, an amazing sculpture really, and unfortunately much of it is buried beneath globby paint applied by a not-so-steady hand. I'll probably strip R2-D2 before anything else, frankly.
Having said all of that, I still love this model. And that's not "oh crap, I can't believe I paid that much for this thing" love, but the kind of love that you feel when you get something and you can't stop looking at it. Seriously, I can't stop looking at it.
GF
Sr Member
Why so defensive, It's my opinion and definetely not trying to change your mind, I'm not waisting anymore time with someone who obviously doesn't have the knowledge what a realistic paintjob should look like if you say that the EFX doesn't look toyish.
Hopefully someone will make this ship the justice it deserves with a complete repaint.
GFollano
RacerX
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't have the knowledge about what a realistic paint job should look. :lol
I have an extensive model collection painted by the best in business, that many in this forum have seen . They look so much nicer in person, though, than internet photographs.
I'm also a kit builder-painter myself(started 8 years ago). Always loved the hobby. You definitely didn't get what I was saying and I won't bother to explain it anymore. It may be easier to extract water from rocks. I -ALSO- won't waste anymore of my precious time with you. So please do the same - as you said.
Pat D.
...........................................
Last edited:
Similar threads
