EFX X Wing Arrival, Thoughts & Pictures

[PHArchivist]

These shots say it all... The SHAPE just looks right. And we've clearly established this is the LARGEST X-Wing yet). So in terms of size and shape, this is the best X-Wing model to ever have been produced.

Discussion regarding size accuracy... Hmmm... Well - just remember, there will likely BE no more licensed models or even garage kit models of the X-Wing. So what else IS there left to discuss? We're model obsessed dweebs, and analyzing (NOT criticizing) the minutia is what we love to do; bottom line.

 

[PHArchivist]

GF and Racer X - drop it.

Not because you're not entertaining, but because you're both right. But GF is more so right. RX, sure - any paint job will look better in person, no ****.

But the cop out of "The flash washed away all the detail" is the oldest cop out in the RPF book. We're tired of hearing it. Any losses due to photography are NOT substantial enough to support your argument and to detract from GF's. It is a basic level, mass-produced paint job from factory workers who's skills and techniques are a different subset than those of a private artist.

So, while I'm sure there's additional detail not picked up through digital photography transmuted via the internet, this paint job is sub-par. Even specific paint job "land marks" are clearly wrong or missing, and that is not a result of lost resolution of photography, compressed jPeg images, monitor settings or any other element of this common argument.

Lastly, you do not need to upsell or otherwise protect the quality of this product to be satisfied with your purchase. You don't need to have the love and buy-in of the other members of this board to appreciate your model. So move on, and be proud of your purchase.

 

[PHArchivist]

Even specific paint job "land marks" are clearly wrong or missing, and that is not a result of lost resolution of photography, compressed jPeg images, monitor settings or any other element of this common argument.

So that I don’t come across as “just typing” or a blow hard, I’ll post some pictures that validate my point.

I’ve selected images that illustrate paint job elements that are clearly incorrect or missing, and that would have been easy to do properly, and expected, even from a mass-produced, factory built model.

I apologize to those owners of the models I’ve demonstrated. I don’t mean to personally attack your sample, and as I have stated, the buy-in and acceptance of the masses is not requisite for you ro take pride in ownership of your eFX X-Wing.

Here’s the “less than steady hand" on R2 referred to by Beaz. Also, the center “knob” on his dome should be silver (a silver dot right at TDC). Additionally, the hull on either side of th strip is too clean, even if the flash washed out some grime.

Some images of the original show these parts (left of the intake) to bear little weathering, but here, it looks as if the painters just glossed over it entirely.

The black mar in the box on the left simply does not exist. The marks in the right box are heavy-handed and inaccurate.

The green smudge in the lower boxed area of the fuselage should be a defined rectangle, and the smudge in the upper box does not exist as a green smudge on any reference pics I have. And what’s with the white stripes on the turkey feathers?

Again, the marks are heavy-handed and grossly inaccurate. And in the box close to the leading edge of the wing, there should be similar blotches that simply are not there.

Again, this green smudge should be a more defined panel.

More of the white stripes (wasn’t that a musical group) on the cans.

There should be a Caboose Red dot on the fuse somewhere around this boxed area - again; easy enough for even a low paid Asian factory worker to do.

This area should have subtle rust detailing

Far too clean - available reference clearly shows strong weathering in this area.

 

[Scott Graham]

So that I don’t come across as “just typing” or a blow hard, I’ll post some pictures that validate my point...

...Thanks for pointing out some areas that need work, Rob. Good constructive criticism. The more I look at it on my own and compare mine to photos of the real thing, the more I see a need to keep working the finish.

The hard part is to figure out how to knock back some of the overdone details since. It might take some paint color matching of the grays and red.

The detail area on the rear of the fuselage on mine is way too dark also. Not sure how I'm going to bring out the detail on it. Might try some paint thinner as a test to see if I can wipe some of the black off it.

Since this is my first time trying to work on a full-size replica of an X-Wing, your points are very helpful. Thanks again!

 

[GF]

So that I don’t come across as “just typing” or a blow hard, I’ll post some pictures that validate my point...

...Thanks for pointing out some areas that need work, Rob. Good constructive criticism. The more I look at it on my own and compare mine to photos of the real thing, the more I see a need to keep working the finish.

The hard part is to figure out how to knock back some of the overdone details since. It might take some paint color matching of the grays and red.

The detail area on the rear of the fuselage on mine is way too dark also. Not sure how I'm going to bring out the detail on it. Might try some paint thinner as a test to see if I can wipe some of the black off it.

Since this is my first time trying to work on a full-size replica of an X-Wing, your points are very helpful. Thanks again!

Fading out all the solid red and grey panels with a mist of light grey or white using a airbrush to give a worn down paint effect and tone down the many overdone airbrushing streaks is a good start, but honestly a total repaint I'm afraid is needed.

GFollano

 

[mverta]

I think the eFX X-Wing is an amazing piece, and I'm proud to have worked on it, but I have always felt that a truly accurate paint job would not only be unrealistic to expect from a mass production factory, but challenging for the handful of truly master painters out there in the first place. For me, it's about the geometry - the solid construction and proportions and lines. The eFX looks great, and is built to last. I'm having mine completely repainted as well, and in truth, you could fill pages with differences well above and beyond what PHArchivist has posted, if you want to match the original paint job. There are just tons and tons of details and markings and textures on that thing. All things considered, this bird is an exceptional value.

_Mike

 

[PHArchivist]

I think the eFX X-Wing is an amazing piece, and I'm proud to have worked on it, but I have always felt that a truly accurate paint job would not only be unrealistic to expect from a mass production factory, but challenging for the handful of truly master painters out there in the first place. For me, it's about the geometry - the solid construction and proportions and lines. The eFX looks great, and is built to last. I'm having mine completely repainted as well, and in truth, you could fill pages with differences well above and beyond what PHArchivist has posted, if you want to match the original paint job. There are just tons and tons of details and markings and textures on that thing. All things considered, this bird is an exceptional value.

_Mike

Agreed. And applying some Psychology 101, it all makes sense.

That is to say, there is a convenient little mental/psychological dynamic at play in regards to acceptance of the finish work - The more discerning the palette, the lower the degree of expectation of a perfect paint job, and this in turn leads to a higher degree of acceptance, versus disappointment.

Remember (more basic Psych) that Disappointment most often is the sum of High Expectation and Poor Results (anyone recall a flick called The Phantom Menace?)...

In the licensed studio scale circles, the more discerning the eye, the lower the expectations of a studio accurate paint job.

Or in other words, the collector who doesn't know Red Five inside out and backwards would be just fine with the finish. Those that know how it should look well enough to replicate a true studio finish in our own garages would never expect a mass produced item to exhibit such a detailed paint job.

Make sense...? Or am I just rambling?

 

[Pauleysolo]

Makes sense

 

[Hedjii72]

In other words, ignorance is bliss. I have the utmost respect for all of the experts in our community. You guys are what drive the licensed companies to do as well as they do. As an X-Wing "dummie", I couldn't be happier with mine.

 

[mverta]

Makes sense... but it's also true that no one need justify why they like something, even if they're perfectly aware it's not dead-accurate. I mean, if you like it, you like it. I accepted long ago - especially after visiting the Archives for the first time - that the originals are most exciting because of what they are; certainly not by how they look anymore, which is busted and falling apart. Holding the fragmented, filthy, stained remains of Red 5 is cool, but I don't actually want that broken shell of its former life in my house. Red 5 as it was is long gone. So at that point, I entered the world of What I Think is an Accurate Representation; it's an elusive, mirage-like place, but I'm happy there. And the eFX will be a most welcome addition, with a little paint and TLC.


_Mike

 

[Zenwalker]

From the very beginning I was not expecting much w/ regard to the paint job. I mean, remember the MR Falcon? And I had two of those pass through my hands, one was painted slightly better than the other but they both were still very poorly painted.
I should be getting my eFX X-Wing in the next couple of days and look forward to finally seeing it. If the paint job is nice enough that I can bare looking at it for awhile before I repaint it then that's good enough for me.
For me the important thing on this model all along has been it's dimensions as I never expected much from the factory paint job and planned on re-painting it from the very beginning (just don't know when I'll find the time).
And hell, I am sure the eFX is going to be a lot better than the old MPC kits that I used to build when I was a kid.

 

[mverta]

Beaz-

Looking at your reference kit piece, and my high-res reference of the current state of Red 5, there is no question that Red 5 used original kit parts for this piece, and not a casting.


_Mike

 

[-... . .- --..]

Thanks for taking the time to check your reference, Mike. It's good to have independent confirmation of our observations.

 

[Clutch]

Coming into this late, so here's my questions.

With a repaint, would this one be the be-all-end-all in x-wings or would it be a Salzo?

Does the latest Salzo still have innaccuracies and is another version in the works?

 

[ave4uevoli]

Given the lastest information above - with a repaint the eFX would be a smidge larger than the real SS red 5. That kinda means "no" depending on how much size matters to you. (and no, that's not what she said). Plus there might be some additional inaccuracies with the nose and stuff that have yet to be confirmed.

the v3 is very accurate. Is every panel on it completely accurate to the millimeter? no. It can be made pretty close with a really good build. Some details can be added here and there.

There is never going to be an end all be all... I do not believe another model is in the works though... so for the next year or so - getting either and painting it up really really nicely will give you the "best replica x-wing for now"

Coming into this late, so here's my questions.

With a repaint, would this one be the be-all-end-all in x-wings or would it be a Salzo?

Does the latest Salzo still have innaccuracies and is another version in the works?

 

[Jedi Dade]

A bit of quick math and those dimensions posted are "about" 2% off - larger. Just out of curiosity - is the Arfix part you measured a casting? Shrinkage could easily account for 2% The reason I ask is the fornt edge looks a little rough like it might have been a cast.

Jedi Dade

 

[-... . .- --..]

A bit of quick math and those dimensions posted are "about" 2% off - larger.

2% - 3% for the horizontal and 3.5% for the vertical measurements in that pic.

Just out of curiosity - is the Arfix part you measured a casting? Shrinkage could easily account for 2% The reason I ask is the fornt edge looks a little rough like it might have been a cast.

No, that's an original kit part with a bit of flash along the leading edge. I'll throw out that the rectangular "strip" surface detail that I measured on both parts is actually thicker on the original part. That same detail on the original part also has a beveled edge while the eFx version does not.

I've made my own molds and castings of these Airfix parts and IMO, there is no way you can cast the original part and end up with the eFx part.

 

[Howard]

I don't know - but there may have been an issue with copyright regards the Airfix parts. I guess this sounds stupid, seeing as all the other SS models have used kit parts from various companies - just a wild idea which may explain why they tooled their own versions with slightly different dims.

 

[-... . .- --..]

I don't know - but there may have been an issue with copyright regards the Airfix parts. I guess this sounds stupid, seeing as all the other SS models have used kit parts from various companies - just a wild idea which may explain why they tooled their own versions with slightly different dims.

Not a wild idea at all, IMO. I was thinking the same thing about the Airfix Saturn V kit and the Revell Phantom kit, although the latter has been out of print for a long time.

To confuse matters even more, it looks to me like the two different Airfix Saturn V engine bell parts inside of each main engine intake are actually cast straight from the original parts, as is the Airfix Scharnhorst deck used as the base for the droid strip.

 

[GF]

Well if that's the case then the Salzo V3 is more accurate since the parts were casted off orignal kits and not scanned, even with a little shrinkage the origins of all the parts are exact first generation copies since they were casted directly off the original parts, in the comparisation photos not only the size of the EFX is bigger but some of the proportions are wrong.

GFollano