Evolution Toy - VF-2SS Valkyrie I 《MACROSS II ~LOVERS AGAIN~&#1

[Graham]

OK, so I took my VF-2SS home last night, unboxed it and did one transformation from fighter to battroid, skipping Gerwalk, as I'm not a Gerwalk guy.

My initial thoughts...................

As others have said the plastic feels cheap (but isn't), but it is thin in many areas and does feel a but flimsy in places.

The glossy fold out instruction sheet with color photos is nice, however, I did have trouble trying to figure out what some of the pictures were trying to show espeially for some steps for the torso, neck and backpack transformation. So I just ended up winging it for some steps..........haha. I'm sure If I could read the Japanese text it would be perfectly clear.

So I'm primarily a fighter mode guy and I wanted this toy to at least hold together well in fighter mode. I'd already accepted long ago from the various photos online that it would only look good in fighter mode from certain angles. But the frustration factor with fighter mode was just too high. getting the arms and legs to stay tabbed in in fighter mode for any length of time when holding and swooshing the toy is an exercise in frustation. The right side leg on mine especially didn't want to stay tabbed in for more than a few seconds, so I gave up on fighter mode and went straight to the battroid transformation, as that's the mode that others on this thread have said locks together the best.

Now for me, although I like as my toys to be as accurate to the line-art as possible, I'm not overly hung up about it, as long as the toy has a high fun-factor. That is the fun of handling, swooshing, posing and trasforming the toy should far outway any frustration factor caused by a difficult transformation, or a toy that doesn't lock together well, or is a floppy mess, or one that breaks easily. With the fighter mode, the frustration factor way outweighed any fun factor.

Anyway, it took about 20 minutes to get it transformed from Fighter to Battroid mode as I went slowy and some areas like getting the neck panel swung out took a while as I thought I was gonna break it at one point........haha.

So yeah, as others have said it locks together better in battoid mode, but leg pose-ability is a bit resctricted if you keep everything locked together. I'm also not sure how well some of the small tabs in this will survive multiple transfomations. Also, some parts do still unlock with handling (the rubber piece that pegs the two diecast swing bars together, which IMO is a strange choice for a locking mechanism), unpegs fairly easily when you re-pose the legs.

So overall, this is a fair, but ultimately frustrating effort for a small company's first attempt at a perfect transformation VF toy, especially a Valk with a tricky transformation system like the VF-2SS. I'd give it a 1.5 out of 5 score for Fighter mode and a 3.2 out of 5 score for Battroid mode.

With just a few small changes, such as better locking tabs, a gunpod that actually fit in the hand properly etc, I would have given it a highter score. As it is this is going straight in the display cabinet and likely won't get handled much due to the frustration factor.

It's a shame, because I do love the VF-2SS and have wanted a transforming toy since 1992.

Graham

[Agent-GHQ]

I'd have been very happy if ET just do exactly what Bandai did with their 1/100 transformable model kit. Love the color of that kit but would have been nice in the 1/60 scale.

[Graham]

OK, I've decided as much as I love the VF-2SS with SAP design, I am NOT going to pre-order the Evolution Toys version.

If once it's out I hear there have been significant improvements in the fighter mode locking mechanisms, then I may reconsider my decision to purchase one.

As it is though, the toy is just not fun enough and too frustrating. The added weight of the SAP would likely only exacerbate this.

Graham

[aceoftherebellion]

That's probably a good call, even as much as I do love the figure. I really do suggest adding a dab or two of superglue to the two tabs that keep fighter mode together, because that one change alone will help bring it from floppy mess to something that's reasonably solid, but I do wonder how much the SAP wil exacerbate the problems that it does have.

I'm all in on the SAP myself, just because I'm such a fan of MII and this design but I can definitely agree that it's a hard sell. On the other hand, when I get one in hand whenever it's released, I'll definitely post more pictures and thoughts!

[mechaninac]

I'm more and more glad I decided to let my preorder lapse; I just couldn't bring myself to pay full retail for an execution that I would consider mediocre to passable at half the price, and an epic fail at MSRP. I may jump in if/when unsold stock goes on liquidation sale wherever/whenever that happens. Too bad since I really wanted this to be good, but other than Battroid looking somewhat okay, it just seems like ET phoned it in and decided to price it similar to the far superior competition; and to me being largely a fighter mode display guy, this toys just doesn't cut it.

[jvmacross]

All in on the SAP bundles....can't wait!

[QEssential]

Is the pre-order for NEXX VF-2SS SAP out yet?

[technoblue]

No pre-orders at the usual on-line stores at the moment. It's possible something could appear in March or April. I think earlier in the thread it was stated that Nexx was due out this summer.

[gunbuster76]

just got mine. and it's pretty craptastic. cheap material. poor design. and waaaaaaaaay overpriced.

still. it has it's charms. and i like it a lot.

by itself. the flaws are noticeable big time.

from the looks of pics. panel lining helps.

and it seems to mesh well with other valks. in fact putting it with other valks makes it a flaw hider. you know. like a car that's body and paint is in on ok condition. but the rims are so fly. they take all the attention away from minor scratches and dings.

[Lorindor]

Something I use to bring in some extra friction to tabs, joints and whatnot is adhesive putty. Like Blutac, but there are other brands and colors - most are white. There's even extra strong "earthquake proof" putty that I like. Just add a little bit and shape it thin to make a hole slightly tighter, a tab bigger and so one. But it's completely reversible unlike superglue, it's very easy to remove. Not suitable for all applications of course. I haven't tried it on my VF-2SS yet, but I will.

[Major Focker]

maybe this'll work: http://hlj.com/product/YLSPPC-K32/Sup

plus, it's clear

[jvmacross]

just got mine. and it's pretty craptastic. cheap material. poor design. and waaaaaaaaay overpriced.

still. it has it's charms. and i like it a lot.

by itself. the flaws are noticeable big time.

from the looks of pics. panel lining helps.

and it seems to mesh well with other valks. in fact putting it with other valks makes it a flaw hider. you know. like a car that's body and paint is in on ok condition. but the rims are so fly. they take all the attention away from minor scratches and dings.

ET's VF-2SS is not a trailer queen...more of a 10-footer!

[Dangard Ace]

Since I've given up on AE being useful and responding to my email I Future'd the tabs and slots and fighter's nice and reasonably solid now. Doubt I can do anything about the wing. Completely agree with Graham's post. I'm waiting until reviews of the SAP come in before I'm buying.

[treatment]

Yeah.

I'll definitely wait for improvement reports before placing an order on the NEXX+SAP.

Just way too Arcadia-like expensive even at preorder/current-pricing and requires too much effort to expend to justify the import cost for me.

ET should get smart and implement the improvements asap to get significant number of paying macrossfans to switch to buy their stuff more than from Arcadia and Bandai.

[GabrielV]

ET's VF-2SS is not a trailer queen...more of a 10-footer!

I'm going to take it as a good thing that I didn't know what those two terms meant and had to look them up.

[Nightingale]

Please forgive the unfinished look, but I plan on using the dimensions from this physical proto, to remake it in CAD. It helps lock the leg in place and hide the bar as much as possible. Going to CAD it sometime next week, and if there's enough demand I will offer them in high quality ABS 3D prints on my web store.

[no3Ljm]

Awesome!

Though for final render, you don't need to put those lines on the intake as the intake as per the lineart doesn't have it.

Photo courtesy of Macross Mecha Manual

[Nightingale]

Awesome!

Though for final render, you don't need to put those lines on the intake as the intake as per the lineart doesn't have it.

Photo courtesy of Macross Mecha Manual

Thanks, I'll make the changes on the CAD.

[no3Ljm]

Thanks, I'll make the changes on the CAD.

No worries man!

[derex3592]

Ahh the Macross peeps are gonna save this bird!!!

[Bobby]

Since you're taking suggestions ... the intake underneath the chest plate might look a little better in profile (more sleek) if you reduce the thickness and imo better mirror the line art i.e. have a much steeper angle like...

____

__/

Hopefully there will still be enough behind the actual inlet to conceal most of the bar.

[505thAirborne]

I'm in for a set!!

[Nightingale]

Since you're taking suggestions ... the intake underneath the chest plate might look a little better in profile (more sleek) if you reduce the thickness and imo better mirror the line art i.e. have a much steeper angle like...

____

__/

Hopefully there will still be enough behind the actual inlet to conceal most of the bar.

Noted, I'll see how much I can reduce it but still be able to hide the bar and arm.

[Kinzoku VF]

Please forgive the unfinished look, but I plan on using the dimensions from this physical proto, to remake it in CAD. It helps lock the leg in place and hide the bar as much as possible. Going to CAD it sometime next week, and if there's enough demand I will offer them in high quality ABS 3D prints on my web store.

Nice one Nightingale.

And also agree with Bobby as far as the thickness/ angle. Would look sleeker.

Another suggestion, ;-)

Rather than having 2 parts ( one on each side) could be to go for 1 part.

Having the part that you designed linked by another bit in the middle. That 'link' would hide the gap created by the two plastic bars ( talking about the dark grey ABS plastic bars that hold the metal ones).

And at the same time hold the left and right parts together ( one mould for the 3 parts)

That way you'd only need one part, and also be 'camouflaging' more of that mess in the middle. Like a 'cap' of sorts.

O.k it's slightly more complicated....but would hide more. Don't know how feasible it would be in terms of engineering though.

Anyway! Great work so far. Looking forward to the progress.

[505thAirborne]

The more you can hide those swing bars the more everyone will buy one!

^^^ I like the idea of one solid piece vs 2 separate pieces ^^^

[no3Ljm]

Anyways, if ever, can we also keep that part during in Gerwalk mode? Just asking.

[Nightingale]

More parts and complexity add to the cost, I am trying to keep these as simple and cheap as possible.

And no, the covers are strictly for F mode and wont work in any other mode.

[Bobby]

Completely understandable and makes a ton of sense. However if for any reason you change your mind cuz you think it could somehow make casting simpler...here's an idea that I appreciate you at least humoring if nothing else ...

note: the tab in the middle is about as far forward it can be and still 1)provide adequate clearance for the central canard when it's down, 2)would help for alignment/placement when inserting the piece, and 3)would continue to further fill in gaps! I know, I know it's a lot to ask and prolly not gonna happen (which again is completely understandable)...but one can dream

[Nightingale]

Sorry to say but that won't be happening, trying to keep these under $20 shipped in the states. They already align and hold on very secure so that won't be an issue.

Oh and they won't be cast, but rather 3D ABS prints.

[Kinzoku VF]

Fighter is sadly the mode that needs the most TLC. ....

As far as having 3 parts in one vs 2 separate pieces. The "middle section' would not need any 'thrills' or particularly complicated geometry. Might not add that much to the cost if everything is moulded in 1? ( got not clue to be honest...).

Anything to improve that mess below is welcomed...as it won't be displayed in flying mode as it is!!

It's grounded...On another topic,talking about grounded.... Is anyone having clearance issues with the legs canards/wings? Seems that even with the landing gears out, they touch the ground. :-(

They (landing gears) could've done with being 2 millimetres higher....

Sure, it's not a big deal...not 'rolling' it about or anything. It's just all these little things (that would not have been too hard for ET to rectify....) would've made a big difference...

Anyway....I complain a lot, but I do like it.... If I didn't I would not have bought it in the first place and could not have cared either way...

I suspect I probably like it more than I think....

Oh! Last thing, nearly forgot! ( sorry about all the rambling! That part is kinda interesting though)

It's pictures 25 and 26 in the instructions. (The last section that shows how to transform back from Battroid into fighter mode.)

They mention something about the main 2 tabs that hold the legs.The ones shaped like an " L ".

Picture 25 shows to push the leg up to tab it. But then, picture 26 seems to imply that you also have to pull backwards so that it locks into the "L" bit of the tab securely into that little indent???

Is that right? I tried gently but to no avail....(don't want to break it either!) Also, if you did that...it would mean that the legs would be sticking out a bit more at the back also moving back the shoulders/intake at the same time? Then they would be even further down than they currently are??

Maybe it's another one of those features that were poorly implemented. I don't get it... The drawings definitely show that these 2 front legs tabs 'lockin in' ? Anyone? Maybe that's what affects the arms tabs, and makes it floppy? It these leg tabs were completely stable, then the arms tabs would not come out as easily? Not forcing it though! Pretty sure the "L" part would end up cracked...

[no3Ljm]

Completely understandable and makes a ton of sense. However if for any reason you change your mind cuz you think it could somehow make casting simpler...here's an idea that I appreciate you at least humoring if nothing else ...

note: the tab in the middle is about as far forward it can be and still 1)provide adequate clearance for the central canard when it's down, 2)would help for alignment/placement when inserting the piece, and 3)would continue to further fill in gaps! I know, I know it's a lot to ask and prolly not gonna happen (which again is completely understandable)...but one can dream

Using this method will hide the head, correct? I still like the exposed head though.

[Kinzoku VF]

Completely understandable and makes a ton of sense. However if for any reason you change your mind cuz you think it could somehow make casting simpler...here's an idea that I appreciate you at least humoring if nothing else ...

note: the tab in the middle is about as far forward it can be and still 1)provide adequate clearance for the central canard when it's down, 2)would help for alignment/placement when inserting the piece, and 3)would continue to further fill in gaps! I know, I know it's a lot to ask and prolly not gonna happen (which again is completely understandable)...but one can dream

Yes Bobby, you 'drew' exactly what I was describing ! A one linked part part that does it all! At least you'd have some kind of continuity now between the fugly front part and back part!!

Top job! m(_ _)m.

But Nightingale are you sure it would bring up the cost that much though? It's just 1.5 inch extra in the middle?

[Nightingale]

It will add print time, and as we all know, time is money.

[Kinzoku VF]

Anyway...got to go get some sleep, just realised it's 3:00 am.....Will check back in tomorrow.

Ooops u replied just as I posted... My bad... Shame though...also it complicates things slightly as some want the head showing...Maybe do 2 "models" ..... ;-)

[Nightingale]

I suppose two models would work for those that don't mind paying a bit more.