The designers in FX are probably a bit fresh regarding general design. At least when it comes to cosmetic appearance
It is a big no no to do joint transitions like many of the FX guns have. Like going to flat surface to flat. And many of the solutions it just not how to do it. And it is not how it is don in other field och mechanics. I suspect most of the people there has never been elsewhere but FX. But there are advantages with that to.
Like thinking outside the box soutions like they have proven.
To design like they have done makes even the slightest tolerance error visable. Even if it does notning for the function
It looks bad. Like in the 5th pic showing the picatinny transition to plastic bar. Even if this is withing 0000,1mm in tolerance there is a risk it will look like poop, ending the picatinny base with a sharp angle.
Guaranteed to get marks before assembly even if they would use cotton gloves, And all surface finish methods like anodizing and nitrocarburazatiopn , electro plated and similar does not work very well on sharp edges. There will be current concentration or no surface finish at all on sharp edges.
so much safer to break theese types of edges. And to hide joints if necessary
Also their love for using insex countersink screws like they do on many guns.
Even with super tight tolerances, a small mistake in machining and it will look bad.
I have 3 FX guns. All of them has offcenter screws somwhere, so it looks like they drilled the hole in wrong place
Then some obvious mistakes, like covering part of screw heads with the picatinny base.
Cover it all, or fully visable. Showing 30% of the head looking up beneth the rail is not beautiful.
But Im happy with my gun. The option to dial down speed is priceless, And the accuracy is spot on.
But this is what happend when a small company develops new products fast.
Compare to Weihrauch or Daystate. 1 new gun in 10 years
FX has one new model every week
FX has approx 25 employes. Daystate probably has more than 25 employes cleaning the office