Not being 100% accurate- is it a big deal?

[Erwin]

8 minutes ago, tomprobert said:

 

 

Interestingly (and wandering a little from the main topic I know) you get some modellers who slave to build the most accurate model they can shape-wise, but will then create some cartoon-like charature of the real thing by highlighting every rib, panel and rivet with overly faded paint, washes and chipping, . 

 

Isn't that to blame on other modellers ?

I paint all my models factory fresh.

The first question I hear is if I will weather,chip,fade,etc...it.

 

Don't even dare to put one of my models in a contest.It gets laughed away for those reasons.

 

Everything has to be like that.The more,the better modeller you are.

How can you have shades on both sides of the plane.There is only one sun.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Erwin

[tomprobert]

3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

 

Isn't that to blame on other modellers ?

I paint all my models factory fresh.

The first question I hear is if I will weather,chip,fade,etc...it.

 

Don't even dare to put one of my models in a contest.It gets laughed away for those reasons.

 

Everything has to be like that.The more,the better modeller you are.

How can you have shades on both sides of the plane.There is only one sun.

 

Absolutely agree! As I said, there are many who slave over accuracy yet the finished article

bares no resemblance whatsoever to the original because of their paint finish. Quite ironic really!

[mark31]

forme no problem if its 100% correct

just have fun and build what you whant iff you are happy with the result

you always can try new stuff out and like people said before

there isnt a kit out there that is 100% correct

 

Mark

[mozart]

Accuracy is what I strive to achieve, can it ever be 100%, no of course not due to the constraints of the medium and my ability. I admire modellers like Erwin for their "free spirit" but I just couldn't do it I'm afraid! 

[dennismcc]

I try to be as accurate as possible given my skills, availability of detail parts and the financial constraints of buying them, but I no longer lose any sleep if I am not 100% accurate.

I work on the references I have at the time and the accuracy of the kit in question, I will probably never see most of the real subjects that I build so my mental picture of what I want to achieve is purely based on photos from books or the internet.

I am a huge fan of alternative history, most of the books that I read are of this genre but I could not build a kit as one, however I love to see others do it and really like some of the back stories that accompany them.

And most of all I enjoy my modelling and and at the end of the day the only person I really want to please is myself, I would never dream of entering a competition.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[AlanG]

It's no big deal for me. I don't have the skills (or money) to make kits that accurate. Yes i like to try some detailing bits n bobs gleaned from other users builds or pictures on t'internet (especially on here). But i don't lose sleep over it. I am of the general consensus that if it looks like a Fw190, Bf109, Spitfire etc then it is. Sometimes i get infuriated by some peoples slating of kits because of minuscule inaccuracies or because they are to cheap for them to build. But you know what. Who cares really? If that is 'their bag' then more power to them. Just don't ram it down my throat all the time. It's a hobby and just enjoy it. Build what you like. Paint it how you like. And enjoy the time making it. Time is precious. I have learned that over the years after nearly committing suicide. 

 

Live life. Enjoy life. Build models!

[DrDave]

One result I do like, is when you take a pic of the finished build and it looks believably real, especially in black and white.

I do like to do a build from a photograph when I can, but the finish is the art isn't it? Has to be a personal thing.

 

 

Why do people weather space ships though??

[mozart]

19 minutes ago, DrDave said:

One result I do like, is when you take a pic of the finished build and it looks believably real, especially in black and white.

I do like to do a build from a photograph when I can, but the finish is the art isn't it? Has to be a personal thing.

Yep, that's always my aim and measure of "success"!

[ssculptor]

It is YOUR HOBBY. Hobbies are for your fun and relaxation.

Make your models any way you like.

Color and detail them any way you like.

Stretch your imagination as far as you like.

I have a most satisfying habit when confronted by a loud mouth anal retentive character who criticizes my not absolutely scale models. I usually have a cup of cold soda in my hand, Somehow it gets spilled all over the front of the character's pants. Tch, tch. Clumsy me. 

I do not criticize any modeler for how he or she makes their models. If anything, I encourage them all I can.

I like to make my own design airplanes. At the other end of the scale there are modelers who like to make exact detailed replicas of real airplanes. We are all correct in what we do.

Relax, love yourself, love our fellow modelers, we are all just enjoying ourselves.

Cha cha cha.

[ScottsGT]

Close enough for handgrenades, horse shoes and models!   I’ve never entered an IPMS event, so I have no idea if accuracy is that important or just builders skill.  But if I was building for a contest I could see pushing the accuracy issue.  Otherwise, have fun! 

[johncrow]

I very recently realized that I like finishing models more than I like building models. Striving for accuracy often conflicts with that. If accuracy isn't that time-consuming and meshes with my skill set, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I allow for compromises. That's not right or wrong; it's just me. I can't and won't have that attitude regarding my job or my family, but the hobby I rely on for relaxation and re-charging....absolutely.

 

But I certainly do enjoy watching others work towards perfect accuracy! I've learned a lot that way. 

 

jp

[Eagle Driver]

36 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

the Zouke-Mura F-4C/D/J/S kits have some fiction around the nose

 

That is visible from an aircraft at a flight level 410. No measurements needed.

 

That accuracy thread is absolutely useless in my opinion. 

ALL kits are wrong here or there. They will never be accurate enough, because it is technically impossible.

It is just a justification for many to participate in the forums and at shows labeling themselves as "modelers" and "experts".

Builders on the other hand does not care that much for the platform or even if they do, they accept it and keep on building. Tons of examples, last one a real picture of StuH 42 with tracks installed backwards.

 

Simple example: MiG-21 from Eduard sold as bis and MF has the same nose. In real life they differ by less than an inch in the intake diameter. 

So? 48th times less that sizes, WHO CARES? Only some rivet-counters. To justify why they would not buy it, because they are very smart and they know. For the rest of us, the stupid herd it should be good enough.

 

Actually that term - rivet-counters - should be altered by something far more offensive, because that group of people might do something for improving the accuracy but it is as sure as hell that they do a lot more to repulse people from modeling. 

Build whatever you like. However you like it. It is an art form. Not an engineering contest.

It is meant to be fun. Or it was meant to be fun once upon a time.

 

P.S. Another example is the brilliant Su-27 built by Masa Narita. OOTB, with the awful nozzles, thick canopy, wrong rails, nose, radio-transparent parts miss-shaped so badly. One of the best builds of the Flanker? You bet. Big enough? Sure as hell. 

Enough for me.

[Eagle Driver]

16 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

See, but that goes to my other point.  It's far less about the "less than one inch" minutiae than it is about the "look" of the real thing.  The *shape* of the nose on the MiG-21bis is different from the MF, in addition to the diameter of the opening.  The bis nose is fatter, which is quite different to the eye than the MF nose.  Is that "rivet counting"?  Maybe, but to my eye, it makes a big difference.  And it's a fact that some things that stick out like the proverbial sore thumb to some people are utterly invisible to others.  Some people simply don't have the circuitry in their brain for things like that.  There are things that my brain isn't circuited for.

 

There are some kits that may be 2mm too tall/wide/thick/long or whatever, but that capture the "look" and "sit" of the real airplane.  There are others that are spot on in linear dimensions, but that don't capture the "look" and "sit" of the airplane compared to the real thing.

 

Yes and no.

I've spent two years of my life flying next to a base that used MF and then bis. From my personal experience there is no clear distinction between the two if you aren't too much into it. They look pretty much the same, especially taking into account different colors. MF's were light green camo, bises were desert yellowish. Maybe if they were bare metal - yes. Otherwise - same.

Now if you want to go into semantics, there were MFs different from one another with different cockpit layouts too. But again - who cares?

You think the nose on the bis is fat? Sure. Take a look at the trailing edge of any surface of the kit. We can talk fat again. Nothing to do with the real thing. 

 

Does that mean that you won't build Eduard's brilliant MiG-21? I don't think so.

No accurate enough kits for those who seek to find issues. Never has been, never will be.

[Eagle Driver]

34 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

There is terabytes of "discussion" about MF vs. bis noses, and I'm not getting into that here.  I can see a distinct difference between them, and building an MF with bis tail and markings doesn't look right to me.  You may feel differently.  I've got the CWS bis nose, with which I'm very happy.

 

 

I can bet that 80% of the people in those discussions haven't seen a MiG-21 except maybe in a museum. Fantasy football team leaders. 

So should I care, or anyone else for that manner? That is what is killing the hobby.

Exactly on the subject on that thread here.

This is meant to be fun, not a constant research for flaws, let alone spending money on resin for improvements that are barely visible. How poisonous the resin is is another matter. If I remember correctly /excuse me if I am wrong/ you were mentioning MiG-25 not so long ago and how happy with the kit you are. The kit is full with flaws. It is far from accurate.
I love it and I would build it because I adore MiG-25. That doesn't make it a good one. So being happy with something might not be enough when it comes down to accuracy.

 

The conclusion should be: 100% accurate or not - build it if you like it. As long as you are having fun. Everything else is just a waste of time and energy.

 

 

[ericg]

I try to be 100% accurate 50% of the time.