Jump to content

Quinta vs. Eduard Look and Eduard Space? opinions?


Recommended Posts

I honestly think that no one get's close to Quinta.  They also add additional bits beside the IP.   Only downside is that they are quite pricey.   If you are building a kit where the cockpit won't be that visible, I'm not sure it's worth the $.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 11bee said:

I honestly think that no one get's close to Quinta.  They also add additional bits beside the IP.   Only downside is that they are quite pricey.   If you are building a kit where the cockpit won't be that visible, I'm not sure it's worth the $.  


Completely agree. The best in the market.

 

As per the price,  I believe it is just fine if you consider the time you save and the realistic 3D look you get. 
 

Eduard still lacks in color and I believe it doesn’t look 100% 3D.

 

j

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only one close to Quinta IMHO is Red Fox Studio, and in some cases, I think the 3D detail is a hair better.  However, the Red Fox sets don’t include seat belts or sidewalls.  But, it looks like Quinta is responding by starting to release “simplified” versions of some of their newer sets.  I’m not impressed by the Eduard sets, especially the Space sets.  They are a lot less 3D than either the Quinta or RFS sets, and only slightly more raised than their PE sets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which producers product is better? It is always up to the individual modellers preferences, his budget, shops in the neighbourhood, additional postal costs . . .

How can one compare which is better, good or best value for money???

 

Take a simple analytical approach. One needs a computer, internet and few minutes to search.

Of course to be able to compare I have chosen products for the same kit, in this case the new Zvezda Su-25 in 48th scale. But one can do this comparison for any other kit, given that different manufacturers have their own products for them.

 

A very important rule!!!

One should never look ONLY at illustrations, art-work, CAD images . . . They never show the real thing, what you will actually receive to your hands. They are ONLY illustrations and give a false image of the product!

 

 

yAix4Rw.jpg

This looks too good to be true, but this is only an illustration. See the real product further down. 

 

It is unfortunate that some producers only show illustrations or CAD renders. The reason could be as simple as to hide what the real product looks like. But now days most will show the actual product also even if only in low resolution, bad light. Well this is marketing (one of the first lessons!!!) where one would want to show his goods to the advantage, as best as possible.

 

All the Images were taken from the manufacturers webshops so they represent what each company thinks of his product and how he wants to present it and sell it.

   

So here are for comparison 4 aftermarket products for the same kit and for the same part of the kit, in this case the instrument panel and cockpit. This is July 3rd 2022 and the prices are as advertised by the companies own webshops and converted in this case to Euro by a web converter at the same time in space. So this should be level playing field for all of them.  Dont forget this is just product price and there is no postage included in it!

 

 

First is the traditional coloured photoetch panel from Eduard.  What you see is what they show of the product.  

 

h5KaRTP.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Next here is the Eduard  LÖÖK set.  

 

Gsk0YF8.jpg

 

 

Please compare it to the illustration above.  The instrument panel below is what the previous Illustration is!   Close????

 

z9FxubP.jpg

 

 

 

 

Here is the Space set

 

CaG1tYp.jpg

 

YohTsnS.jpg

 

Z2qlwFP.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

And finally two version of the Quinta sets. One is a small set with only the instrument panel and sideconsoles.

 

9jT6Zwf.jpg

 

u3ZmB8D.jpg

 

 

 

While the bigger one is for the rest of the cockpit like back wall also as well as the ejection seat.

 

T5sbYLQ.jpg

 

EjlfntC.jpg

 

huIVWjl.jpg

 

rjlnbZ5.jpg

 

xlrw9oH.jpg

 

Which is better???

It is for everyone to decide for themselves!

Actually the price difference is not as high as one would imagine. Apart from the big version of Quinta but it also gives much more.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gabor for the detailed comparación.

 

Indeed, I think I was deceived by the Eduard 3D illustrations and purchased one set for the Tamiya F-4B and one for the Su-27.  When I got the sets, I was really disappointed.  It hasn’t happened with any of the Quinta Studio sets, they are really great.

 

Red Fox 3D sets are better than Eduardo’s, but not as nice as Quinta’s.

 

I haven’t seen the sets offered by ResKit, so I can’t compare.


j

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alternative 4 said:

I used a Quinta cockpit on an F-105G and it looks extremely realistic. The Quinta sets have a depth to the detail that leaves photo etch in the dust.

Spot on.   They also have a very nice, glossy "glass" effect on the instruments that is in a league by of their own.   I used their stuff on my 32nd scale F-4C build.   I also liked the fact that they provide a large number of details for the cockpit sidewalls.   As mentioned, pricey but if you are building a kit with a very visible cockpit, there is no substitute. 

DGy0G14.jpg

 

sGimUNd.jpg?1

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 11bee said:

Spot on.   They also have a very nice, glossy "glass" effect on the instruments that is in a league by of their own.   I used their stuff on my 32nd scale F-4C build.   I also liked the fact that they provide a large number of details for the cockpit sidewalls.   As mentioned, pricey but if you are building a kit with a very visible cockpit, there is no substitute. 

DGy0G14.jpg

 

sGimUNd.jpg?1


 

Very nice cockpit! 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have on hand the Quinta Studio cockpit for the FineMolds F-4E in 72nd scale and it looks very different from any photoetch panels and even from the raised dial/switch panels that FineMolds is providing as an elternative to the absolutely flat part (for the pure decals).

 

The printer Quinta is using is very different from others and I also think that one has to do a lot of work with settings before a good product is made. 

Eduard months ago stated that 3D printed panels in 72 are out of their reach and even for example side panels for many 48th scale cockpits is also a no go area at the moment for them. Eduard will have to learn how to use it properly, but Quinta has many years of advange over them!

 

Every technology has its right place even today, this includes photoetch or even VacForming to go back many decades also remember white metal casting which even tody can produce good legs for the extremely heavy kits. They all have their own advantages which should be used to the full. There is no single technology that rules everything!!!!   Like many modellers and even manufacturers say today that 3D printing is the only way forward.

This is simply stupid!

3D printing either as direct 3D printing or just producing masters for later resin castings has its good sides. But it is not an answer to every question. Look at some 3D printed long or longer items (which are thin) which start to bend even after they are taken out from the printer and in long term they will be even wors. 3D printing is good for certain parts, given that a right setting and layer thinkness is used. Other ways you will loose everything in sandging down or adding several layers of primer. Then you are back where you started. 

 

Same way as 3D printed cockpit panels are excellent and far superior to either simple decals, photoetch or prepainted photoetch or what ever other technology. But they are not the answer to everything. 

 

Plain photoetch can produce very fine and extremely detailed parts on its own, VacFormed canopies can be superior to any injection moulded or even cast transparent resins! Turned brass guns, antennas go down in detail to scales unimaginable with any other technology and material . . .

 

All the technologies have their own advantages and in many cases they are superior to anything else on the market but only to a certain level. A good mix of technologies is the way forward to produce (or to build) nice kits!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alternative 4 said:

It's clear to me that Quinta is next level for jets with a lot of dials and switchers, but how do they compare to photo etch for something like the rear cockpit of an F-15E or an F-35?

Like the same next level as their previous sets. So far nothing comes close to them, but at a price. So in short: you want the best? Choose Quinta. You are on a budget? Choose the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question of the price.

As earlier further up this page a comparison was made for basically the same instrument panel / side consoles of the same kit.

Lets bring in another player. Here is the Red Fox 3D decal for the same Zvezda Su-25 kit in 48 th scale.

 

WsNAnKk.jpg

 

 

So you have:

 

- Red Fox with         20.12 Euro

- Eduard Space       12 Euro

- Quinta at                 9 Euro

- Eduard Löök at       8 Euro

 

Which is more expensive for providing the same basic instrument panel and sidepanels, same scale and same kit.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your informations, Gabor.

 

To my eyes, the Quinta Su-25K cockpit is looking as the most convincing. The definition of detail is excellent and the base colour seems to be correct, while the Red Fox appears too light to my eyes. 
 

However, Red Fox offers some impressive sets. I have their 1:32 Mirage IIIE and Phantom sets, those are superb!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Alternative 4 said:

It's clear to me that Quinta is next level for jets with a lot of dials and switchers, but how do they compare to photo etch for something like the rear cockpit of an F-15E or an F-35?

I don't have any of these but I guess you're referring to MFD representation.

Here is coupe of each, Quinta and RedFox with dials and MFDs. I personally prefer Quinta for 2 main reasons:

1. Qiunta is a bit more sharp and more precise on color.

2. RedFox is quite brittle and doesn't hold onto its base making it very easy for parts to separate and fly away to never be found.

 

Full size image is at https://postimg.cc/v43KCG2c

 

IMG-4084-s.jpg

Edited by Helmsman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about redfox being brittle, I found Quinta's product to be extremely forgiving. The texture pf the parts and the way they handled was almost like a thin rubber.

 

I am currently building Kinetic's 1/32 Hawk 127 and purchased the Eduard cockpit set. It looks fine enough, but I just wondered if say Quinta did a Hawk cockpit set would it look better. Certainly in your photo the MFDs on the Quinta set look great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always paint a coat of cockpit color over the Quinta decals. There's no grainy look and color matching is solved.

Start thin and the capillary action pulls the paint into the tight areas, when dry another coat over the larger areas. 

ajVWe18.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got the Quinta set for the 1/72 Academy F-14A and I'm extremely impressed. I've been out of aircraft modeling for decades and clearly technology has moved on. I personally think it's a small price to pay to not have to subject my 49 year old eyes to getting all of those tiny pieces of PE stacked and glued accurately in place, or even worse, trying to pant instruments and switches by hand. 

20220705_202826.jpg

20220705_202216.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...