crobinsonh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I have zero experience in CAD or creating models - however I think creating a great model is in some ways like the Lord of the Rings films - they are not exact interpretations but they get all the right stuff that you need to. A great example of this is the Fisher Sea Fury (of which I have 3) - the most obvious error (to me) is that the sides have a curve when they should be straight (AKI got this spot on with their 1/72nd beauty). However it does not matter as when you look 6 inches away it just looks "right". Something that cannot be said for the dumpy looking Trumpeter 1/32nd EE Lightning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmayhew Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 maybe people just don't care about the F-18?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 There has never been an accurate model, and there never will be. The thickness of the plastic is the culprit, it makes every cockpit too narrow, every canopy too thick, every gear door too thick etc, etc, etc. You'll never get in scale panel lines and rivets either. But, there have to be compromises. Not only for structural strength considerations but also moulding technology limitations. Things like panel lines and rivets need to be over scale or paint will just fill them up and anyway, even if they didn't the model will look bland. The first thing I did with the Zvezda Bf 109F-2 was scribe in the wing panel lines! Trevor Snowden, chief designer of Airfix stated that they would purposly change the shape of things sometimes because if they were accurate the scale model just wouldn't "look" right even though it would be dimensionally accurate. Its exactly the same reasons why artists exaggerate certain lines occasionally, it will make the finished product look right! Derek B, dmthamade and MikeC 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zactoman Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I wish I could dive in and share my experience in helping to develop new kits.I wish I could share some pics of the rapid prototype model of a kit I'm holding and working on at the moment.(Awesome! But the wrong scale...)Unfortuantely I can't. I will say that it isn't necessary for a CAD designer to be an airplane geek or intimately familiar with a particular subject to get the shapes right. Yes, having consultants knowledgeable with the subject will help insure that technical mistakes aren't made, but experts won't necessarily help with getting shapes correct.I personally don't have any previous knowledge of the kit I'm holding, just tons of photos and drawings. Nor did I have any previous knowledge of the 1/48 Su-33 kit I helped develop (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=268873), or with A-7s, MiG-29s, F-14s, Su-27s, F-16s, etc...I did have an A-7 pilot thank me for my A-7 correction set saying that he wasn't aware of how bad the Trump kit was until he had seen my correction.I do have lots of experience in developing shapes. I worked 18 years at a design firm where I helped create exercise equipment, medical equipment, eye glasses, golf equipment, perfume bottles, all variety of cosmetic products, aerospace prototypes, toys, etc. etc. etc..The CAD designers I have been working with are great at interpreting shapes and details and I have been helping in catching any mistakes they may have made and suggesting corrections.I don't know their personal backgrounds, but I very highly doubt that they are experts on any of the subjects they are currently working on.I'm sure that our team could just as easily develop an awesome kit of a formula 1 car as we could develop a WWI dirigible.Yes, compromises have to be made for molding limitations, scale thicknesses, build and paint considerations, etc..Yes, consultants are necessary to insure that particular technical details are correct.But having a good eye for shapes and detail (given good references) trumps being an expert on any particular subject when it comes to getting shapes correct. As for scanning full scale aircraft, does anybody have any rough estimates as to what this might cost (assuming you could get access to the real plane and permission to scan it)? Cheers,Chris dmthamade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericg Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Tim (Wunwinglow) said this: See kits as raw material, a canvas to draw your own masterpiece upon. And if that means correcting issues, see that as a challenge to rise to and overcome. Some of the best advise I have ever read on this site. Bravo sir! Eric dmthamade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 It doesn't matter how accurate a model is if you can't paint and weather it in a realistic fashion! Too often we see someone with red lines all over a photo and then either a: No model they've done themselves or b: a model painted in luminous green that's been pre-shaded and painted in Dulux emulsion with a 3" wide brush! dmthamade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 ?.. dumpy looking Trumpeter 1/32nd EE Lightning. But the Lightning *was* dumpy looking ! To my mind's eye the critical areas are canopy, and that is the most difficult area to rectify if wrong. Shape issues are harder to correct in 1/32 than smaller scales as the plastic is proportionately thinner. Requires back-filling and a grinder. Accuracy ? It's not just the airframe that's hit or miss. I've yet to see an accurate Sidewinder missile in 1/32 IM form despite scores of attempts. But you'd think models of propeller aircraft would be more accurate as they don't whoosh past the manufacturers' measuring tape quite so fast as jets. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Chris, (Zactoman) I'll ask the guys at Amalgam how much that Spitfire project took to finish; they are just a mile away from my employers studio, and I have worked with a couple of their modelmakers in the past. I expect it was a fair pile of banknotes however.... There are numerous methods of getting 3D data out of' thin air', from laser scanning, to using a bunch of photographs, with and without target markers attached to the subject. Autodesk have something called 'Catch 123D' which is a free download, you take a couple of dozen photos of your subject, upload them to their server and they process them, and send you back a mesh data model which, after a lot of cleaning up, can be used to make a 3D printed model. We tried this on one of our designers heads, and yes, it kinda worked, the bust we ended up with was definitely Jono, but how 'accurate' it was I couldn't say; he was't too keen for us to measure his face with digital calipers. Can't say I blame him either. Link here: http://www.123dapp.com/catch I hope some of you might have a play with this. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Matt Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Otherwise how do you account for all the dumb basic shape errors we see in new kits that are expertly designed by outstanding CAD draftsmen? Managerially induced time and cost constraints on employees who need to be paid rather than pursue a passion? Sort of understandable when there are 1000's of other people ready to take you seat if you're benched for complaining. As the John Bradford saying goes "there but for the grace of God go I" Interesting discussion. Matty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Budzik Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) This is a perfect example of what you get when you have a model designed by one of those "talanted" CAD guys who has no concept of scale, model making, or the subject. Instead of this: Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVIH5DcQ9I8 Edited August 25, 2014 by Paul Budzik Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otis252 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Wasn't Accurate Miniatures known for some really accurate kits, course they went out of business. Chuck BGB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunfighter366 Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 What ever happened to that ten year old ? You know the one how thought that Aurora blue spitfire was the greatest thing in the world. Gunfighter366 MikeC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericg Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 The problem is that the manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are more than likely producing kits down to a price rather than up to a quality (there are some notable exceptions to this). Kits that are too expensive are complained about for being to pricey and kits that are cheap are complained about for being to simple and lacking detail. I reckon that the root cause of this is all of the tight arses that seem to be attracted to the hobby, so we should thank them! I remember walking into a local hobby store and running into a club member on his way out.... he was wringing his hands and gnashing his teeth over whether he should have purchased a certain kit or not. I asked him how much it was and he replied $13 FFS just buy it!!!!. I couldn't believe that he was tying himself up in knots over such a small amount of money. Similiarly the guy that walked past a kit at a swap meet, handled it a few times then walked off without it. Got home, decided he wanted the kit then expected the organisers of the show to spend there own time trying to track down the seller, then put the two in touch... once again, all over a very small amount of money. My solution is: get rid of the tight arses then we will have decent, accurate kits! simple really. Manufacturers will be able to spend more on R+D, production, packaging etc. Eric. Hardcore and Vitali 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richter111 Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Paul is that the Merit 1/200 Hornet/Yorktown/Enterprise series hull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Matt Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Paul is that the Merit 1/200 Hornet/Yorktown/Enterprise series hull? Surely too small. The few I have in 1/200 are massive! Pretty insane plates though...how hot was the end of the CAD operators crack pipe when he drew that eh? Matty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now