MikeMaben Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 21 hours ago, Pup7309 said: Sometimes I feel like doing a particular type of aircraft with a different aircraft’s decals , or give my own interpretation of painting schemes. Who's gonna know ? Erwin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out2gtcha Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 I'm currently in the middle of my first what-if scheme and I must say, while I always have enjoyed replicating real schemes,.its been quite a refreshing change. Eagle Driver, LSP_K2, Gazzas and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonH Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Not being 100% accurate- is it a big deal? Nope, not for me. johncrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) Accuracy schmacuracy! Do you remember the endless discussions about the Revell "Mustang fillet"? Most people did not give the slightest hoot about the fact that it takes more than a fillet to convert the Revell Mustang to a "fillet-tail Mustang". A significant amount of time was invested in dentifying all differences all around the airframe. All for naught! Everything was reduced to that stupid fillet. Then someone offered a "metal rudder" for the Mustang and no one batted an eyelid. That was when I realised that the overwhelming majority does not care about "accuracy". All scale models come with a certain degree of compromise. Some "accuracy" can be achieved for the outside shapes/outlines, but all interior is a compromise. All internal parts have to be shrunk in order to compensate for the wall thickness of the plastic parts - this increases dramatically as we go down in scale. Weathering? Yes, but not like that! This is what I think when I see what passes for "weathering" these days: Radu Edited January 28, 2019 by Radub Jan_G 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssculptor Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 I'm a sculptor. I enter art shows for fun and recreation and to see what reactions to my art that my work brings forth. In fine art there is no such thing as objective criteria. Art is all subjective. Model building, on the other hand is mostly objective. There are measureable criteria by which a model may be judged. In any event, I never make art to fit into an objective or subjective judging match. No fun that way. I make what I make to please me, period. Some guys try to make the most accurate model they can. Some just plain out of the box, Some dont even look at the illustrations for guidance. Whatever floats your boat, as they say. But I do recall a most amusing IPMS show in Danbury, Connecticut (USA) about four or six years ago. I was wandering through the show perusing the dealers' tables for some goodies to add to my stash when I heard an anouncement over the PA system, Seems that more judgles were needed and the call was out for more attendees to volunteer to judge the show. Half an hour later the call was repeated but this time with the addendum that whoever volunteers will receive some immediate on the spot training in judging models. Some more guys stepped forward. Every 15 minutes this announcement was repeated through the rest of the show. Finally, I had to find a seat so I could catch my breath from laughing so hard. AIthough I did feel sorry for the guys who spent all that time and effort and money to make their super accurate rendition of the Lower Slobovian LS-069-A hydro bomber Block 30 as flown by Sgt-General Isador Stinkfinger in the spring of 1942 over Volvosaabograd, it was a rediculous situation. So much for making models for contests. Sepp and jimbo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 I think it's obvious that we are all different and build how we wish to. We accept that accuracy for some can be the prime thing in a build and for others it isn't so important so there are varying degrees depending on the individual. Where it all falls down though is people enforcing their idea of accuracy on others especially during a build. I'm not talking about being told you have put something on back to front or whatever as that is always helpful. It's even worse where it happens after completion on an RFI topic when someone drops by to casually tell you it's "not accurate" after you have finished as the kit has "issues". I think it's essential that people allow others to build as they wish without imposing their particular "accuracy" pedantry on others. mozart, Sepp, Iain and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraic Conway Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) I believe that there are 2 issues in this debate about accuracy: one gets more attention than the other. The first (and most obvious) issue is the relative faithfulness of the model representation we see compared to, or measured against, our understanding of reality. So dimensions, markings, weathering, colours, modifications, Liberator turrets and wing profile all fall into this. The second (and less well recognised) issue is our individual tolerance of what we perceive as departures or shortfalls within the model vs reality. Having spent some time studying personality types in my academic life, I firmly believe that we are all hardwired by personality type in terms of our tolerance to accuracy shortfalls. Some personality types cannot tolerate any perceived shortfalls, others are far more able to live with them. And all variations in between. Because its a personality issue, the often very animated debates and arguments on modelling websites about the accuracy of Model X usually achieve very little (other than lots of time wasted and occasionally amusing, or more often rude, comments). Hence the 49 pages of comments about the Hobbyboss B-24. My point is that we all can find it very difficult to suspend our strongly held views and see the world (or a model) as others do. And their (different to our) views are just as firmly held. I also believe that we self-select in terms of modelling forums (fora?) according to our personality types. You can fill in the blanks here about the 'relatively relaxed' vs 'tend towards fixed views' modelling sites (and sometimes specific posters! ). I know I used to spend most of my modelling Internet time somewhere else, but eventually simply couldn't continue. MUCH more comfy here. Edited January 28, 2019 by Padraic Conway mozart, Jan_G, cib2265 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepp Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Me, I love what-ifs - especially of the alternate history/fantasy nation sort - but I'm sure there are others here who would have mini heart attacks at the very thought. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy reading along with some of the truly awesome down-to-the-last-nut scratch builds that are on here. Just do what you enjoy doing. None of us have the right to tell another their work lacks value. Padraic Conway, Jan_G, mozart and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoggz Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 On 1/27/2019 at 6:56 AM, Eagle Driver said: Yet, last week Liberator accuracy thread had more than 50K hits. I haven't checked how it is as of today. Yes, and have you seen how many folks 'rubberneck' when driving past an accident on the motorway! Out2gtcha and MikeMaben 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wegener Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Interested to read that anything is ‘killing the hobby’. That’s just not what I see, given the pace and variety of new releases and the level of activity at the clubs and shows that I attend. I find that my tolerance of what I perceive as inaccuracy varies according to my knowledge of the subject. While I do obsess over the dimensions of a bracket on something in which I have a lot of interest, I can live with rough approximations on other subjects which appeal to me for some other reason but on which I own very little reference material. Unfortunately that has the tendency to result in acquiring more reference material to fill the gaps so I need to keep that under control... williamj, MikeC, mozart and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCRATCH BUILDER Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 I always follow the "Representation not Duplication" which means if someone can say that's what it should be with every nut, bolt and rivet then you have done your best. Pup7309 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry1 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 The eyes are not what they used to be so 100% accuracy is not in my reach. Having said that, I'm convinced you could take any airplane out there and somehow magically reduce it to 1/32 size and enter it in a contest and people would still point out the inaccuracies of the "build". Jerry Pup7309 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) On 1/27/2019 at 3:14 PM, Eagle Driver said: 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. Sorry but I have no use for an "expert" who insinuates that simply because he/she has been up close and personal with any aircraft, he/she is uniquely entitled to be the ultimate SME on it. Assuming their claims are even true (this is the internet after all), that doesn't give them a leg up on anyone else to pass judgement on how a model compares to the real thing. Heck, if anything, it's been shown that those who flew / operated weapons were often the least reliable when it came to recalling specifics about their appearance. I spent a good chunk of the late 80's / early 90's, carting an M-16 through the woods. Ask me to look at a 1/35th example and determine if it's dimensionally accurate and I'll tell you I really don't have a clue. However, there are undoubtedly plenty of folks online who never held a real M-16 in their hands who can jump in and provide accurate information on this subject. As far as the quest for accuracy being responsible for "killing the hobby", spare us that drama. If anyone quit a hobby that they supposedly enjoyed because some folks online voiced concerns about the accuracy of a model, I'd suggest that they probably had other issues going on. For some, the research into minor details like the nose profile of a MiG-21Bis is enjoyable and rewarding. Correcting the issue on their model adds to the enjoyment of the building process. That's not insinuating that the folks at the other end of the spectrum aren't wrong, it comes down to personal preference. Neither side is "killing the hobby". Edited January 29, 2019 by John1 AlanG, Anthony in NZ, Jeff T and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out2gtcha Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 No ones wrong for having any one opinion, but we need to keep the personal jabs out guys. PhilB, Sepp, MikeC and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerhard Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 I tried to count rivets, but my calculator ran out of 0's. Pup7309, mark31, Michael931080 and 3 others 3 3 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