Jump to content

jvmacross

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27697

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jvmacross

  1. jvmacross
    The biggest takeaway from the profile pics I posted and the ones you posted is that in none of these representations does any part of the backpack become visible when transformed into fighter mode.... In terms of the toys, I think most would agree that the Yamato/Arcadia and Bandai DX VF-1's are the benchmark for lineart accuracy....with that said, the KC at least had that going for it on the rear of their VF-1... I know I have told them before and now and I am sure other customers have told them that their biggest opportunities for improvement were the tabs and how they need to hold everything firmly, the re-design of their intakes, and to re-design the ability for the head unit in their VF-1 to tuck further into the body of the VF-1 when in fighter mode... Unfortunately, KC has responded and have doubled down on their belief that the alignment of their VF-1 was off and that the problem was where the backpack was sitting in fighter mode....they said that they felt that the legs in fighter mode had too much of an upward angle, while this may be technically correct, their solution simply overcompensated and to be honest, the angled position of their VF-1's legs really did not change much...as you had stated, the issue was barely noticeable They have not offered any kind of solution other than to wait and see what feedback they receive from other customers....so if you think the change has taken their design backwards, now would be the time to make your view known to them.....if not, the design change will stay for all upcoming releases... They also admitted that the changes to the tabs will have an impact on the mounting of the Fast Packs, which at this point is just the attachment points for the arm fast pack parts to the legs.....they fit very poorly and also now have an extreme angle to them that also affects the position of the gunpod when mounted between the arms....BTW, just remembered, the other design tweak they should do is to elongate the landing gear just enough to provide adequate clearance for the gunpod when mounted in fighter mode....that should not be that difficult to accomplish.... As for me, I will keep what I have, but will be considering whether or not to cancel my Super VF-1S Hikaru PO. If the changes are not reversed or somehow improved, I think I may need to pass on future releases as well.... Of course, there is always the possibility for a mod, which would remove the current tab and replace it with another one in the original position found in the V1 and V2.....but not sure if it is worth it, as two of the other modes are just fine....
  2. jvmacross
    Yes....collecting Macross is like an addiction...lol
  3. jvmacross
    Yeah...when I took out my V1 Fokker I considered removing it's Fast Pack parts and dressing up one of the V2.x...It should not affect Gerwalk or Battroid...right? However, you bring up a good point....one of my PO's is for a Super VF-1S Hikaru....and as you pointed out....using the same Fast Pack parts (V1?) will be a problem for the V2.x in fighter mode... Incidentally, they had mentioned in a previous email that the factory that they had been using in the past had actually damaged their mold for the Fast Packs....I did not think much of it at the time, other than it being an opportunity to make some tweaks to them and releasing them as V2.0 Fast Packs... Just going to wait and see what they say...but imo they really should not move ahead with further batches of these before fixing the issue
  4. jvmacross
    No....the arms are still in the same position as previous versions...the easy solution is just to make the landing gear a bit longer...plenty of room in the landing gear bays
  5. jvmacross
    No idea....but it seems that making the backpack sit higher takes it further away from the way it is depicted in the lineart....if anything, the only real tweaks it needed were to slim down and stretch out the intakes, especially the profile of them and find a way to tuck the head further into the underside when in fighter mode....we'll find out what happened soon enough... Still, seems like a bad decision to have released it with a modification that actually ruins something that actually was not deficient on earlier releases....did they really think no one would have noticed? LOL
  6. jvmacross
    Well, what sets KC apart from all other purveyors of Macross is there amazing customer service....this is pretty bad and it will really push their willingness to make things right to the limits...but they have not dissapointed me yet, in terms of correcting issues.... After looking at the pics I posted...I was thinking that maybe, at least for the VF‐1S Fokker, that I could unscrew that side of the leg with the crappy new tab and replace it with the part from my Fokker V1....hmmmm?
  7. jvmacross
    Two steps forward...one giant leap backwards.... I have had a chance to examine my V1, V2, and V2.x....unfortunately, it seems that KC made a change to their leg mold that has had a drastic effect to fighter mode... Here you can see the difference between a V2.x VF-1A "Ben" leg tab vs the leg tab on a V2.0 VF-1J.... For whatever reason....the tab position was moved further towards the edge of the rear of the leg...the consequence of this raises the height of the backpack when in fighter mode.....the backback actually did not receive any modification and thus it is unchanged between the V1, V2 and V2.x.... Here are some additional pics that support this "error" as being the cause for the change to the profile of the V2.x VF-1's profile in fighter mode... V2.0 leg tab position (Left leg).... Leg tab position for the V2.x (Left leg).... V2.0 leg tab position (Right leg).... V2.x leg tab position (Right leg).... Once transformed to fighter mode...this is how close the tabs are to the arms tucked underneath on a V2.0.... ....This is how apart they are on a V2.x once transformed into fighter mode....also note that on the V2.x, the tab is a bit longer, which could have been a good thing if they had been molded into the correct position.... Positioning of the backpack once extended on a V2.0..... Positioning of the backpack on the V2.x....the tab position yields a backpack that sits much higher than it should....note how the detail on the backpack is fully visible on the V2.x, but only "half" visible on the V2.0 (same with the V1)... Fighter mode profile for V2.0... Fighter mode profile for V2.x.... Finally, just as further proof that the leg tab position has been changed on the V2.x....here is the position of the leg tab on the original V1..... I considered swapping the legs from the V1 VF-1S Fokker, but they are so floppy that it would just irritate me further.... I will be sending KitzConcept my info. Their customer service has been great so far and at this point the only fix I would want would be for them to re-tool the legs, go back to the original V1/V2.0 leg...at least for that part....or offer a replacement leg once they have corrected the issue.....I will post their response as soon as I have it....
  8. jvmacross
    So looks like the tabs on the legs are the problem... V2.x.... V1.... V2... The new mold at least for the legs...seems to have placed the tabs right on the edge of the back of the leg.... In V1 and V2...the tab is more towards the center of the leg.... The hole in the backpack is the same across all versions.... The new location of the leg tabs forces the backpack to sit higher in fighter mode, instead of flush as in V1 and V2.0.... Basing this on my older pics...will confirm once I have a chance to look at the valks up close....
  9. jvmacross
    Yep....and there is something definitely wrong...thought it was just mine... As I mentioned...even if you were to shorten the tabs enough so they are no longer visible....the position in which they tab into the backpack seems too low....which does not allow it the flush appearance as shown in the V1 and V 2.0... If anyone has the time and you own a V1 or V2 and a V 2.x....it would be great to snap a pic to compare where the backpack hole is positioned in each version...
  10. jvmacross
    The Fokker is the only one I have transformed into fighter mode from this new batch....as @Corrinald pointed out....the backpack in fighter mode seems to sit too high and those tab are too "long"... As you can see from version 1....that area sits flush and was never an issue in terms of the tabs holding that area securely....here is a pic of the V1 VF-1S.... I have a bad feeling that the position of the "hole" on the backpack was molded in a different spot with this most recent release... Here is the same area on the VF-1J... I think the problem is with the backpack hole's position...I think the leg tabs are in the same position, just longer for some reason on the v 2.x.....of course, it could be mistransformation on my part, so I want to double check when I get a chance....if there is nothing that can make the tail section flush with the legs like in v 1 and v 2.0....then KC has some explaining to do...
  11. jvmacross
    Nice pick ups!
  12. jvmacross
    My Standard VF-1A was the "stiffest" of the 4....I actually have not taken it out of Battroid because of it
  13. jvmacross
    Heheh....easier said than done...at the end of the video when they take it from fighter back to battroid they skipped that part...lol The rest of the transformation is pretty easy....tucking the heat shield is also a bit of a pita....but looks like this is definitely a V 2.x...the tabs securing the intakes/legs to the main body in gerwalk alone are a vast improvement over v1 and v2
  14. jvmacross
    Congrats.... I asked about that as well, sadly only the Fokker received new art....in the form of a slip sleeve cover no less....worked for Bandai I suppose. Hoping for a return of the 80's style artwork for the Max and Millia Super combo sets....time will tell.... Oh, btw...apparently they also decided to ditch those white shipping boxes too...I was a fan of those too...oh well... One other thing....not sure if I was doing something incorrectly, but getting the legs attached to the rear swivel bar in battroid mode seems to have become trickier...so watch out....again, could just be me but I do not remember it being as tricky with previous releases....
  15. jvmacross

    Arcadia VF-5000G

    jvmacross replied to daBlah!'s topic in Toys

    Good to see Arcadia dipping back into M7 VFs....hopefully they will releae the rest of Fire Bomber
  16. jvmacross
    Some fighter mode pics....KitzConcept VF-1S Roy Fokker V 2.X....
  17. jvmacross
    VF-1A Standard....
  18. jvmacross
    yep....decided to send them a pic about it along with the actual colored lineart...maybe they'll fix it if there is another run.....
  19. jvmacross
    yep.....
  20. jvmacross

    Arcadia VF-5000G

    jvmacross replied to daBlah!'s topic in Toys

    Finally moving into something completely new....definitely will add this to the 1/60 scale collection
  21. jvmacross
    And now for some Gerwalk action..... My biggest complaint on the KC VF-1 since the very start has been the lack of a decent tabbing solution for the intake to main body of the VF-1 in Gerwalk mode....V2 tweaked the various tabs and improve the over all fit in battroid and fighter mode, but at least in my sample...the Gerwalk was still a floppy bird.... This current release seems to have made an additional tweak of that problematic tab used mainly in Gerwalk mode...it now seems to tab in firmly and does not keep "popping out" with the slightest nudge....in fact, it holds steady even with a moderately vigorous "shake test"....which makes me feel that the latest batch of KC 1/72 VF-1's are more V 2.X than the V 2.0 which was the VF-1J release...in any case, Gerwalk mode IMO has always been a strong point for the KC VF-1, but the added fitment in this mode makes it even more enjoyable.....Gerwalk mode is arguably the most Macross thing about the VF-1, so it is good that KC has done a great job in representing this mode for their 1/72 VF-1 line.... My only remaining complaints on this mode are more of less the same I have had about it before, along with fighter mode....those goofy paint apps used for the cockpit. The "chrome-looking" paint used for the pilot seat and display panel area sort of look "cheap"...I do not think I have brought this up to KC, but I suppose anyone with some painting skills could easily paint them in more appropriate colors....again, sadly that is not me... For the most part, I have kept mine in Battroid mode, but Gerwalk is actually my favorite mode for these KC valks, so it sort of bothers me....I hope they do not carry over this aesthetic with the Destroid, Regult or SDF-1...in particular the SDF-1 since it seems that their prototype seemingly went all in on this chrome paint motif...guess I should say something to KC about it, I can't be the only one that does not like it....Oh and I have not tried the lighting gimmicks, but they seem pretty much unchanged from the VF-1J release...
  22. jvmacross
    Yes, I was told the same thing.....it did not bother me...a Bandai "100" type of mistake would have been worse.... However, I actually find the "extra" arm stripe and flipped colors on the leg stabilizers to be more "egregious"...not sure if that would have given me more pause...especially if confronted with the option for a future release with "corrections" made..... I have not pointed this out to KC yet, but will probably mention it to them later.....not a huge deal I suppose, an easy fix for someone with some kit painting skills...sadly that would not be me..LOL
  23. jvmacross
    Vermillion Squadron Assemble!!! I really like the colors they chose for both the "Ben" and "Max" VF-1As.....I think the Bandai DX nailed the blue on the TV Max -1A, but KC's looks very nice....the tampo also helps the overall look... I just have a couple of nitpicks, which are mostly in regards to "canon" paint schemes....I believe both the TV Ben and Max VF-1A's are not supposed to have stripes on the "forearm" section of the arm...also, I believe the rear leg stabilizer's colors should be flipped...with the white being on the bottom and colored bit on top, as shown with the VF-1J....as for the mold, the new head sculpts look good, but I am not a fan of the "large" lower neck part....it could have been a bit smaller, not sure why they made it so large, I do not think functionally it needed to be so large, as evident in the lower neck part of the VF-1J and the V 2.X VF-1S..... Overall, I really like what KC is doing with the line...will definitely pick up the Max and Millia Super VF-1J's and I am hoping for at least a VF-1D to complete the 1/72 line, but wouldn't mind other canon variants, like the Cavaliers, Alaska Base, and Angel Birds....otherwise, I am looking forward to their, GBP armor, Regult and Destroids.....plus an update to their large scale TV SDF-1.... These feel more "delicate" than the HMRs.....almost like models, in fact they remind me of an updated HCM.....IMO, the HMR is more like a toy, thus it feels more "durable" or at minimum, does not feel like it may break if "mis-handled"....Although I know this KC VF-1 has just about the same posability as a DX, I don't feel like "going there" and end up breaking something.....perhaps I am just overly cautious due to my previous experience with the VF-1J......luckily for me, I am more into transforming a VF and leaving it alone as a display piece....if you like constantly transforming your VFs, then these are probably not for you, as I think repeat transformation will either lead to floppiness or outright breakage.....although we'll probably never have another Chunky Monkey VF-1, in terms of durability, there definitely is a ranking for this attribute for those that own a sample from each of the available "modern" VF-1 iterations...with that said, IMO the KC definitely would rank at the bottom, if that sort of thing precludes you from buying a release of any present or future VF-1 PT collectible, then you probably want to stay away from the KC VF-1's....if not, then these are excellent options if you want something bigger than an HMR with all of the potential articulation offered by a Bandai DX, but not as huge
  24. jvmacross
    You guys whining about the pounds Boba gained while inside the Sarlacc.....perhaps you'd prefer Lucasfilm hire George to go in and re-specialize every Boba Fett scene in the OT with the 60-something Temuera?
  25. jvmacross
    OK...so since I had been one of the fans that had requested KitzConcept to consider re-releasing a V2.0 of their VF-1S Fokker...I will start with the VF-1S Roy Fokker.... First up are some Battroid pics.... Quick first impressions.....it definitely is an improvement over the first release....and it also feels like an improvement over the VF-1J, which was the first V2... I feel like this is more of a V 2.X....it just feels very well put together and of better quality than the VF-1J V2.0....my biggest issues that still remained in the V 2.0 seemed to have been finally resolved with improvements to tabs that hold hold everything together much better....especially in Gerwalk, which I will post up some pics of later.... With that said, at 1/72 scale, it does feel a bit more "delicate" than say the Yamato 1/60 and obviously the Bandai "DX"....but as someone who doesn't transform of swoop their VFs around too much, they are excellent to pose and admire...it definitely passes the infamous "shake test"...LOL.... I have not had a chance to compare the tampo between the VF-1S V 1.0 and this new V 2.X, but the tampo seems better too....there are small details and even different paint applications being used that seem different from the previous release....the tampo on the KC VF-1's has always been impressive.... Kitz Concept's 1/72 VF-1 line is getting better with each release....this is the way!
×
×
  • Create New...