What constitutes a good kit??

[akeller]

We're very fortunate to have so many manufacturers releasing so many new kits in our scale/s of choice.

I read the reviews of the new kits on this and other forums with great interest.

Some of the reviews get off track with non-productive ranting and raving (Revell Spitfire Mk II, Revell He 219, et al) but it's nice to get objective information about the kit/s before we plunk our money down.

Am I going to buy 1, 5 or none??

 

Have we modelers ever decided and shared publicly what constitutes a bad, good or exceptional kit regardless of the price? 

1. Outline/shape accuracy?

2. Surface finish?

3. Working features or not?

4. Removable panel/s or not?

5. Cockpit details or the lack there of?

6. Wheel well details or the lack...?

7. Engine detail?

8. Decal quality?

9. Instruction sheet information?

10. And the list goes on....

Some objective criteria to "grade" a kit that we can all understand and value.

Maybe:

1. Pass

2. Fail 

3. Exceptional

With each grade we could have objective recommendations explaining how the modeler could improve the kit to whatever standard they find acceptable from "out of the box" to "over the top". There are some very knowledgeable people in our ranks for sure.

This information (if objective and credible) could help the manufacturers decide how to spend their money for the best return on investment.

This might help raise the "quality/expectation bar" so that we get more "good" kits.

 

An objective analysis from credible modelers would (I believe) help the modelers, the manufacturers, the after market folks and (maybe) even our "fun" hobby grow and prosper.

Food for thought.......

 

My best regards,

Al Keller

[LSP_Matt]

Wow man...thats like putting a goal post on the South pole and one on the North pole but kicking from the equator.

 

We have members that only want something that resembles a plane made of a block of wood (Vulgarian markings! ) and those that look a shrink-o-ray has been applied to a real plane.

 

I'm curious about why manufacturers make some of the decisions they do.  Consistently models are produced with surface detail that is widely regarded as too heavy.  Assuming it would seem to be more work and greater cost to actually produce kits like that then why do it? I can only assume...again...that Manufacturers know or believe something about market demand that we (LSP Microcosmos) don't.

 

You should get some interesting discussion though.

 

Cheers Matty

[akeller]

Matty,

 

I've been looking for a way to turn the energy that was spent on threads like the Revell Spitfire Mk II into something constructive for everybody involved in our hobby.

Hope something "good" comes from the discussion!

 

You get to keep score!

 

Al Keller

[airscale]

I really, really like your cerebral approach to objective assessment. I can see it won't work for all, but if we are to try and herd cats, or rather opinion, in an objective way this is a great example of how to break down what people value into things that can be tangible to manufacturers..

 

..the difficulty is the blunt instrument that the internet can be - on the one hand, it can be the font of genuine, sincere and exhaustive knowledge, on the other it can be a vitriolic mood swing with no value, or the value is lost in presentation or language

 

maybe some kind of poll for each release? - in my day job (not airscale..) I use mass surveys to get a feel for general opinion & product satisfaction, but it is verbatim comments that are the white hot tip of the customer experience & carry the most value for making change..

 

..from your list, for me it is general outline - I am happy with a shell and will contentedly make the rest myself, and maybe I need a check-up from the neck-up but I would pay Tamiya prices for the shell of an F7F and probably bin all else and still be very happy..

 

interesting question..

 

Peter

[Hubert Boillot]

I'm curious about why manufacturers make some of the decisions they do.  Consistently models are produced with surface detail that is widely regarded as too heavy.  Assuming it would seem to be more work and greater cost to actually produce kits like that then why do it? I can only assume...again...that Manufacturers know or believe something about market demand that we (LSP Microcosmos) don't.

 

 

Owning a company that produces spark erosion electrodes (which I assume are now largely used in the kit-molds production) I can tell you the difference between "lines" and "trenches" lies with the size of the bitt you use. We can use 0,05 mm bitts or 0,2 mm ones, or even bigger. The only point is it is going to take a way more time to mill any piece of metal with the smaller one, as the amount removed at each advance/pass is so much smaller. Add to that the fact that the small bitt is more likely to break (hence stop the process and change the bitt, which takes up time, even when you have an automatic tool loader), and you end up with a simple cost equation ...

 

Hubert

[marauderdriver]

I think You disqualify this WHOLE concept when you stated .."regardless of price"   That's a BIG REGARDLESS  to most that is a deal breaker

 I see for the most part manufactures are trying to put TOO MUCH I a kit then charge a price that is starting to get OTHERWORLDLY.

 

 I like the Trumpeter F-14 for example, make a version without all the stuff that you can't normally see, engines,, radars, Avionics Bays and sell at a price.

 

Make either a 2nd version with all of this in the kit for those who want them of sell detail sets. Everyone complains about this stuff in most kits and

 

 replaces it with AM.

 

 ZM does this very thing and I love it I can buy mine for say $100. and be happy and you can buy yours for $175 and be happy.

 

I have a real hard time shelling out bigger money then I see as necessary for stuff I won't use.

 

Price will stop me from buying a kit that I think is full of stuff I won't use,  Trumpeters A-6 of F-14 are two examples and most Tamiya kits are another

 

Too much money for stuff I won't use, and prices are not going to come down anytime soon.  The old Revell kits are lookin' Mighty fine to me

 

IMHO  2 cent's

 Jack

[LSP_Matt]

Owning a company that produces spark erosion electrodes (which I assume are now largely used in the kit-molds production) I can tell you the difference between "lines" and "trenches" lies with the size of the bitt you use. We can use 0,05 mm bitts or 0,2 mm ones, or even bigger. The only point is it is going to take a way more time to mill any piece of metal with the smaller one, as the amount removed at each advance/pass is so much smaller. Add to that the fact that the small bitt is more likely to break (hence stop the process and change the bitt, which takes up time, even when you have an automatic tool loader), and you end up with a simple cost equation ...

 

Hubert

That'd be a good reason why more subtle surface alterations in the mould are associated with greater input costs.  Reduce the total number of panel lines produced on a mould? 

 

Any ideas about the rivets/divots? That would seem to only cost more by doing something to the mould.  Why not just make models (Hasegawaish) without rivets as your default and let modellers decide how to texture the kit surface.  That seems like a win-win?

 

I wonder if there was somebody who ran a big modelling company reading the conversation but despite it, having an awful lot of persuasive data that convinces the company that they've gotta make them with divots/rivets'?

 

Matty

[Radub]

I would give a solid 3 to all features listed above :-) That describes the ZM or WNW kits to me. :-)

But... Some may disagree.

Same applies to everything. "What makes a good kit" is as hard to answer as "what makes a good movie", "what makes a good car", "what makes a good camera" or "what makes a good shoe". It is different for different people, depending on taste, desire, tolerance, willingness, interest, background, intelligence, ability, patience, fashion, resources etc. All of these are subjective, subject to change and impossible to universally quantify. While one may care a lot about a feature (take any of the features you listed), someone else may abhor it while someone could take it or leave it. Is it possible to make anything that is universally liked by everyone to the same extent? I doubt it. Shall we just give up? Not at all. Just carry on, make your own fun the way that it suits you.

Radu

Edited June 26, 2014 by Radub

[thierry laurent]

Hi Radu,

 

I was going to write the same: what makes a good car?

 

This is only a matter of subjectivity and opinions, not facts for the reason you mentioned: we do not give the same weight to facts! This is why we do not give the same value to a kit and this is generally the source of conflictual assessment of kits. Whatever may be the parameter you prefer (accuracy, buildability, price, etc), as far as you promote it in a respectful and constructive way, this gives interesting information to other people to help them in building their own opinion regarding what is a good large scale Phantom, B-17 or Fw-190...

[Royboy]

What makes a 'good kit' is what pleases you when you see the contents in the box.

I think it's as relatively simple as that, do we all really know what constitutes an 'accurate' model?

We all have our opinions, but ultimately it's what it looks like that is the deal breaker for most of us.

Quite frankly some comments on the quality of the rivet detailing on the new Revell Spitty is a lot of huff and puff.

I like the look of it, but the old saying of 'you can't please all the people all of the time' applies just as well here!

I keep saying it, this wonderful hobby of ours is for our ENJOYMENT, and beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

Take your kit out of the box once you've purchased it, ignore the internet comments, and just make the darn thing!

Happy days. 

[alaninaustria]

What constitutes a good kit you ask.... interest in subject matter, buildability and enjoyment of learning and constructing the subject matter.... pretty much the ZM approach for me.... its like participating in a one man science fair project as an adult as I like to read and learn about the technologies while I build the kit and reflect upon the thought and the study that went into the original machine.... each warbird we build regardless of scale is pretty much a study in period technology and tooling /manufacturing... very interesting to me, anyhow... but, with that being said this question is very broad and each individual will have differing or similar criteria....

Cheers

Alan

[PhilB]

I think its very simple and has nothing to do with price etc etc.

 

A good kit is one that when you go to bed at night you are really looking forward to getting back to working on as soon as you can.

 

[joe]

Good quality mouldings and accurate outline/shape and fit is really all that is needed.

The after market and modeller can add the rest.

[Guest Dekenba]

I think that, as far as manufacturers are concerned, a kit that sells and makes a profit is a success.

 

What we think is irrelevant as we represent such a small number of sales, hence manufacturers ploughing ahead with "heavy" surface detail despite our protestations.

[Bill Cross]

I think that's like asking what makes a woman beautiful: just about every guy will have a different opinion, though some women will please a majority of men.

 

A Tamiya kit is wonderful, but averages $150. A Revell of Germany kit needs work often but is only 1/3 the price or less. For those on a limited budget, the difference in price might make the RoG kits "perfect."

 

For me, the kit with the fewest issues is the one I want. The recent Tamiya Corsair is the finest airplane kit I've ever built.