Efx X Wing
- Thread starter voice in the crowd
- Start date
PHArchivist
Master Member
And I'll reiterate - that photo comp is crude as crude can get.
Plus, keep in mind that the way the Maxi-Brute nose assembles is both wacky and wonky, and in terms of finite details, not a perfect representation of the original.
I just found it interesting how - in terms of general shape and porportions - how similar all three are, and yet all three seem uniquely different than the garage kits.
Also interesting is how the Maxi and the ILM both show the tell-tale fuselage pinch under the cockpit, but the Efx doesn't. Though this feature, if I understand it properly, can disappear based on how the ship is angled.
Last edited:
I do.
Here's the same ship from two slightly different angles showing the exact foreshortening you're confused by.
I swear you guys and your photo comparisons. No wonder you spend half your life chasing your tails on this stuff :lol
When you shoot two models from different angles with different lenses you can effectively negate any and all comparisons you'd be attempting to make. It's just physics.
_Mike
GINO
Sr Member
You must me mistaking me for someone else.
Here is your comp. I re-drew one set of lines in purple and just copied them.
Your green lines were off.
I realize that depending on the angle that will be foreshortened, but it would have to be a dramatic change in angle for that measurement to change that much.
.
I hate to keep driving this point home, but it is physically impossible for your copied lines to match both cones, with them being shot at different angles. Therefore, your placements are physically incorrect. Once you acknowledge the laws of optical physics, you concede that any deviation in angle of the ships, and any differences in equipment invalidate conclusions, as they are unreliable.
There is no debate on this point, thanks to scientific method. Even if the nosecone proportions were completely off, or completely identical, your comparison is entirely inadequate to demonstrate that. I'm happy to keep my opinion out of this, and just keep driving home the cold hard science, though.
_Mike
There is no debate on this point, thanks to scientific method. Even if the nosecone proportions were completely off, or completely identical, your comparison is entirely inadequate to demonstrate that. I'm happy to keep my opinion out of this, and just keep driving home the cold hard science, though.
_Mike
GINO
Sr Member
If you can show me a pic of the real efx model using the below comparison that can make the specified distance look as wide as in my comps of Red 2, then I'll retract what I said and apologize and say you were right. If not, how about you do the same?
I respect you Mike, but I don't think you are right about this one.
I'm not trying to rip on the efx model by any means as I think they did a crazy good job for a mass produced highly detailed model.
I just wanted to know if that nose cone section of the efx model was modeled after a different screen used model with perhaps different proportions in that area.
Thus my question does this area differ between different film used models?
Hi res screen shot of the x-wings sideways in the trench would go a long way for seeing if there was any differential.
.
I respect you Mike, but I don't think you are right about this one.
I'm not trying to rip on the efx model by any means as I think they did a crazy good job for a mass produced highly detailed model.
I just wanted to know if that nose cone section of the efx model was modeled after a different screen used model with perhaps different proportions in that area.
Thus my question does this area differ between different film used models?
Hi res screen shot of the x-wings sideways in the trench would go a long way for seeing if there was any differential.
.
Last edited:
There are two issues here, Gino, two:
1) You say the nosecone proportions are different.
2) You are using photos shot from different angles with different equipment for your comparative analysis.
2 negates the validity of 1. Period. If you are correct, you're going to need to prove it using methods which are not hopelessly corrupt. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but this complete disregard for physics upon which faulty conclusions are drawn serves no-one.
_Mike
1) You say the nosecone proportions are different.
2) You are using photos shot from different angles with different equipment for your comparative analysis.
2 negates the validity of 1. Period. If you are correct, you're going to need to prove it using methods which are not hopelessly corrupt. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but this complete disregard for physics upon which faulty conclusions are drawn serves no-one.
_Mike
Last edited:
imaginager
Sr Member
Art v. Science.
Art - 0
Science - 1
To prove anything about either model you would need to put a set of calipers to them for physical measures. Photos, just don't do it. And, believe me, I have practical experience with this from designing the ESB AT-ST armature using only the photo-reference and real-world measurements of the relevant donor kit parts.
In the end, my chassis design was about 4.0 mm short, which is empirically demonstrable using the physical kit parts against the physical armature. Yet, I can pull all the reference up in CAD today and get exactly the same results/dimensions I worked out, initially. And they're just as wrong, now, LOL. Easily disguised, too, fortunately. The initial width was worse, still. But, that was corrected with the prototype.
In any event, I'd still love to hear back from Barry on whether the eFx nosecone is cast integrated with the rest of the fuse, or is a separate piece that is assembled independently?
Art - 0
Science - 1
To prove anything about either model you would need to put a set of calipers to them for physical measures. Photos, just don't do it. And, believe me, I have practical experience with this from designing the ESB AT-ST armature using only the photo-reference and real-world measurements of the relevant donor kit parts.
In the end, my chassis design was about 4.0 mm short, which is empirically demonstrable using the physical kit parts against the physical armature. Yet, I can pull all the reference up in CAD today and get exactly the same results/dimensions I worked out, initially. And they're just as wrong, now, LOL. Easily disguised, too, fortunately. The initial width was worse, still. But, that was corrected with the prototype.
In any event, I'd still love to hear back from Barry on whether the eFx nosecone is cast integrated with the rest of the fuse, or is a separate piece that is assembled independently?
You guys and your calipers...and photo autopsy.
You know what,...Buy some BONDO, and paint. Rescribe the line if you dont like where it was placed.
Problem solved.
....And I thought TREKKIES were anal.
:wacko
You know what,...Buy some BONDO, and paint. Rescribe the line if you dont like where it was placed.
Problem solved.
....And I thought TREKKIES were anal.
:wacko
imaginager
Sr Member
C'mon, Frank. You know you have a pair of calipers in your toolbox, too.
lol
Like I've already said, eFX has my order. I'm just looking for some useful information about how the replica is assembled at the factory. I don't care whether the prototype of the eFX X-Wing shown has been hitting the viagra, or not.
Oh, and BTW, some of the X-Wings didn't even have that scribe line, while on others it was really close to the fuse - which is the info GINO was looking for, in the first place...
lolLike I've already said, eFX has my order. I'm just looking for some useful information about how the replica is assembled at the factory. I don't care whether the prototype of the eFX X-Wing shown has been hitting the viagra, or not.
Oh, and BTW, some of the X-Wings didn't even have that scribe line, while on others it was really close to the fuse - which is the info GINO was looking for, in the first place...
PHArchivist
Master Member
Switching gears, do all the local X-Wing painting gurus here agree with the markings on this model, specifically those on the underside (boxed in the images below?
Reason I ask is I'm working on a Red 5 now (though not studio scale). In pics of one of Kurt's latest models, which I believe was the one referred to as a veritable clone of the original, the highlighted markings aren't present, Unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible!.
And yes - I know this was a rejected proof. My intent hese is not to further critique the accuracy of the eFx, but to - in general - get a better idea of how the original was painted (and hence how my model should be done).
Reason I ask is I'm working on a Red 5 now (though not studio scale). In pics of one of Kurt's latest models, which I believe was the one referred to as a veritable clone of the original, the highlighted markings aren't present, Unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible!
.And yes - I know this was a rejected proof. My intent hese is not to further critique the accuracy of the eFx, but to - in general - get a better idea of how the original was painted (and hence how my model should be done).
Last edited:
Technically, yes. That center section is cream, and those panels are gray... clear as day in my references.
***EDIT: I was thinking "upside down." (That's the bottom right engine you're highlighting, not the bottom left engine!) Left has it, right doesn't, in my ref's. The left wing panel is correct. Technically.
_Mike
Last edited:
Kuhn Global
Sr Member
Gents...
Looking over the beastie again before sending back, one of the things that puzzled me about the 'why' it may appear toy-like is base coat paint. I stated in my review that some of the cast-in, outer detail was soft, but looking at that now, I believe it to be the extreme overkill on a base coat that was just applied VERY heavily...making things look round edged and laminate like. The whole thing is so shiny due to it's finish coat that it just doesn't do the body justice. As I stated several times... this was the first to come back from China to show eFX what the replicated paint would look like. eFX naturally told them they needed to do better... and they will. We can't judge THIS offering by the paint we see on the bird I photographed. The final version will not be like this one. However... the upturned nose will still be there. Barry confirmed to me today that is what they wanted to replicate.
It is very kewl to see everyone commenting together in discussion of what is to be true on the X-wings. I fear, even though we have reference, and some have even held some of these original birds, that we may never actually find peace with how some really were.... especially with Red 5. It is disapointing to know that all that exists now of the original is a set of wings with one less stripe on them. It is a true bummer for we that admire such artwork. But is IS we that can make certain it is remembered... like an old friend long lost.
I am just pleased that we have replicas being produced. eFX will be a great thing for us all with fantastic, quality licensed items! We are truly living in the age we all dreamed of after Star Wars was released in '77. And now, in our late 30's and 40's,... we can PLAY! LOLOL... and that we WILL do!
Looking over the beastie again before sending back, one of the things that puzzled me about the 'why' it may appear toy-like is base coat paint. I stated in my review that some of the cast-in, outer detail was soft, but looking at that now, I believe it to be the extreme overkill on a base coat that was just applied VERY heavily...making things look round edged and laminate like. The whole thing is so shiny due to it's finish coat that it just doesn't do the body justice. As I stated several times... this was the first to come back from China to show eFX what the replicated paint would look like. eFX naturally told them they needed to do better... and they will. We can't judge THIS offering by the paint we see on the bird I photographed. The final version will not be like this one. However... the upturned nose will still be there. Barry confirmed to me today that is what they wanted to replicate.
It is very kewl to see everyone commenting together in discussion of what is to be true on the X-wings. I fear, even though we have reference, and some have even held some of these original birds, that we may never actually find peace with how some really were.... especially with Red 5. It is disapointing to know that all that exists now of the original is a set of wings with one less stripe on them. It is a true bummer for we that admire such artwork. But is IS we that can make certain it is remembered... like an old friend long lost.
I am just pleased that we have replicas being produced. eFX will be a great thing for us all with fantastic, quality licensed items!
We are truly living in the age we all dreamed of after Star Wars was released in '77. And now, in our late 30's and 40's,... we can PLAY! LOLOL... and that we WILL do! And now, in our late 30's and 40's,... we can PLAY!
You flew it around the room making X Wing noises didn't you? Don't deny it. :lol
Kuhn Global
Sr Member
PHArchivist
Master Member
Once we do, then the fun is all over.
Where is the intrigue when there is no mystery? Its the thrill of the chase.
And that, gentlemen, is (I believe to be) why we are so in love with our calipers and photo comparisons, and why some are quick to dismiss mass-produced, licensed items. Not hard to figure out.
Last edited:
