Jump to content

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


Pup7309

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Out2gtcha said:

No ones wrong for having any one opinion, but we need to keep the personal jabs out guys.

+1

I would add leaving out specific kits and aircraft as it gives fuel to the "accuracy" fire amongst some and diverts this topic away from the general thoughts and views about accuracy.

Shame as it was going so well but in honesty I didn't think it would be long before things started going off the rails.

;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Which has what to do with what?  Do you think seeing a real airplane means you're an expert, or conversely that looking at thousands of photos and technical documents prevents it?  Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.  There are lots of experts on Leonardo da Vinci who never met him.

 

Yeah. Looking at the photos means more than seeing the real airplane.

Technical documents? What part from the modelers has any access what so ever to the official documentation?? Drawings that are accessible to the masses are created by people who are often part of those masses. 

 

6 hours ago, John1 said:

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. 

 

Yeah sure.

That is what some part of fans and hobbyists rely to keep their spirits high enough.

 

6 hours ago, John1 said:

 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".   

 

Yes please, correct the nose and leave the thickness of the clear parts, thickness of the trailing edges and cockpit details the same.

But the nose stands corrected!

What an achievement!

 

6 hours ago, John1 said:

 For some, the research into minor details like the nose profile of a MiG-21Bis is enjoyable and rewarding.  

 

For some others, researching 65 years about the proper color of the Zero is also enjoyable. Tons of feuds. And fierce too.

That doesn't mean that some others doesn't find it ridiculous, right? It is a matter of opinion.

 

And by "Spare US" I assume that you are some group representative. I always thought that forums are for expressing your own opinions. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, PhilB said:

+1

I would add leaving out specific kits and aircraft as it gives fuel to the "accuracy" fire amongst some and diverts this topic away from the general thoughts and views about accuracy.

 

 

 

Here's the thing. MiG-21 from Eduard is a BRILLIANT kit by any means. Hardly anything better in 48th scale.

But some people found issues with it. Some people brag about that, trying to present themselves as experts. Others make aftermarket for it trying to exploit the weaknesses. And there are this group of people who build the hell out of it. The thing is they are the minority.

 

Is there a better MiG-21? No. It is not and never will be 100% accurate. No matter what you improve on it and how much money you spend for resin and PE.

 

This is the perfect example of what is very wrong with the hobby nowadays.

When I started back in early 90s it was about building the plane. Now it is about how much aftermarket can you add to it, pretend that this is going to fix it.

It won't. Thickness issues mentioned above won't be. As many other things.

 

 

I will mention three things to conclude on the subject:

 

1. Rivets are never holes on the surface of the aircraft. Thus what most of the companies do nowadays is a tendency to alter the appearance to exaggerate the effects.

Nothing to do with accuracy.

2. You can never have thin enough surfaces on most of the things. Tanks, planes, whatever. Photo-etch deal with some part of that issue, but it is only a fraction.

Again, nothing to do with the accuracy, based on the limitations of the materials and technologies.

3. This hobby is for fun, not for accuracy. Some try to turn it into accuracy competition because they have nothing else to rely on. I've seen that many times for 30 years in modeling. Mostly coming from the worst modelers that I know.

It should be about fun, not stress.

That should answer it all.


Another good conclusion is presented here:

 

Edited by Eagle Driver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Eduard MiG-21 was not unique, it is something that plagues all discussions these days. There is an increasing anti-intellectualist drive that makes some think that their "opinion", based on whatever, is just as good if not better than the information provided by a person with solid, verifiable, fact-based knowledge. I often witnessed "arguments" on the internet which basically boiled down to whose Google search result was "better".

Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all want to be 'accurate' and the degree to which you can, or want to achieve this varies by what motivates you

 

I am driven by it, in fact I have stopped models because I can't find drawings or good enough reference for parts that likely will not be seen - it's like an obsession if you are like me. Thats not to say I don't enjoy myself - everything I do, I enjoy, if I didn't I wouldn't - I can't say some of the repetitive tasks that go with literally adding every rivet in an airframe are the most fun in the world, but overall it's a part of the process.

 

Equally I have no opionion on how others want to interpret their own modelling, I just may not pay as much attention to builds where the research & graceful correction is not undertaken, and I only tune in to big debates about kit accuracy partially to learn, and partially to spectate (in a car crash sort of way) and understand market expectations. I make products, and the products I make are subject to the rules I set, the rules I set are different to the rules other manufacturers set depending on their capabilities and the depth of their pockets. I think we have become rather indulgent as technologies evolve and our expectations have gone up in line with manufacturers who set the bar very high, but just like modellers, manufacturers are not all the same..

 

So, to me it's a big deal, but I don't expect that of everyone, and I also don't expect anyone for who this isn't important to judge me badly because it is to me, well, they can, but it matters not to me

 

4 hours ago, Eagle Driver said:

 

 

It should be about fun, not stress.

 

 

 

I see very, very few people on here who are stressed, perhaps you might consider that while you might be, others have other ways of processing it, or might just not be stressed at all..

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely put Peter.

 

As a Marillion fan, this argument is very reminiscent of the endless debates about which of the two singers they've had across their history is the best!

 

It's a personal thing!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spent not just many hours but many actual weeks of real time researching the details of planes that I really shouldn't have looked into. That becomes much more compelling (addicting?) than building the model. On the other hand, if it gives me pleasure and may in fact serve to help other people find some fun also, what harm is there in that?

 

The real harm is when it becomes my only sense of self worth. When I become unwilling to listen to a different point of view or consider facts that I have not seen in that other person's point of view. That's where we get into trouble in too many areas of life.

 

I sometimes feel like i did in first grade when the teacher asked us to think of something beautiful to create. I had this picture of the sunrise or sunset over mountains with trees and a river, all drawn out in my head. It was amazing in my head. Then reality struck. We were given 8 colors of plastic beads to glue to a thick piece of paper. I am still frustrated by that day, but it teaches me that I don't have control nor resources to create exactly what I can imagine. Remember that scene in Ferris Bueller where Cameron stares at the pointillist art (not pointless, sorry) closer and closer. The little boy is visible from a distance, but up close all you see is dots. Hopefully we can make something beautiful from a distance and sometimes be happy even if we can see the dots.

 

Tnarg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tnarg said:

 Remember that scene in Ferris Bueller where Cameron stares at the pointillist art (not pointless, sorry) closer and closer. The little boy is visible from a distance, but up close all you see is dots. Hopefully we can make something beautiful from a distance and sometimes be happy even if we can see the dots.

 

Tnarg

 

That'll be what I would call 'a good six footer' :D.  A standard that I also aspire to...  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just really like aircraft (I blame living my first ten years on V-bomber bases with many visitors to the mid '60s) and have amassed books, kits and conversion parts of many types over the course of fifty plus years. My PC's photo folder contains 920 individual types, with many of those containing multi-GB folders of their sub-types.

 

What I like to do is to detail up a plank of a kit so that it more closely resembles the subject it is designed to represent. I mentioned in another post recently correcting a Matchbox Buccaneer to include the flattened 'D' section of the wing, which to me is an important design feature. Not quite as involved as Iain's correction of the HB B-24's wing to a convincing Davis airfoil, but equally as important for a folded wing model. It'd be nice not to have to deal with such mundanity, but hey-ho the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn't enforceable, unfortunately.

 

What really does make my heart sing modelwise, is a fact or piece of data hitherto unknown to me has already been incorporated into a kit by a dilligent design team. The Tamiya F-14 and F-16 kits in 1/48 scale, the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfires and Special Hobby Hurricanes spring to mind. They're not necessarily easy builds, but they exhibit a lot of integrity in their quest to be 'accurate'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think this is contentious, you should see some of the model railroad discussions about accuracy. Kits get absolutely skewered because a rivet line or door or handhold is in the wrong place, or heavens to murgatroid, the color is wrong. In fact I’m pretty sure model railroaders coined the ugly phrase “rivet counters”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the quest for accuracy as much as anyone. But, my goodness. Some folks need a Snickers bar lol. I went down the rabbit hole of “RPM” or “Railway Prototype Modeling” and personally found it waaaay too restrictive of what was, and is for me, a pursuit of pleasure. I enjoy research but I really dislike “analysis paralysis”.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m an architectural model maker. I can not tell you how many times I’ve had the pleasure of proving an architect or designer wrong, that their roof plan simply can not be built as drawn. Many arguments, etc, foot stamping, gnashing of teeth, they are just so sure their drawing is right. Nope. Sorry. Not to besmirch the good architects and designers of the world, but humility is not always part of their vocabulary. Sometimes things really aren’t what they seem; like Chek says above, “the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn’t enforceable...”. Well said, friend, well said. 

 

Jimbo

Edited by jimbo
Pre-coffee spelling mistakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jimbo said:

If you think this is contentious, you should see some of the model railroad discussions about accuracy. Kits get absolutely skewered because a rivet line or door or handhold is in the wrong place, or heavens to murgatroid, the color is wrong. In fact I’m pretty sure model railroaders coined the ugly phrase “rivet counters”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the quest for accuracy as much as anyone. But, my goodness. Some folks need a Snickers bar lol. I went down the rabbit hole of “RPM” or “Railway Prototype Modeling” and personally found it waaaay too restrictive of what was, and is for me, a pursuit of pleasure. I enjoy research but I really dislike “analysis paralysis”.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m an architectural model maker. I can not tell you how many times I’ve had the pleasure of proving an architect or designer wrong, that their roof plan simply can not be built as drawn. Many arguments, etc, foot stamping, gnashing of teeth, they are just so sure their drawing is right. Nope. Sorry. Not to besmirch the good architects and designers of the world, but humility is not always part of their vocabulary. Sometimes things really aren’t what they seem; like Chek says above, “the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn’t enforceable...”. Well said, friend, well said. 

 

Jimbo

Hi Jimbo,

I built architectural models many years ago and plans that did not work in 3d happened regularly. Mostly because they always gave us preliminary drawings that changed. On one model, I found the roof impossible to model and the contractor came over to see how I had solved the problem to do it himself. Satisfiyng day!

 

Alain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jimbo said:

If you think this is contentious, you should see some of the model railroad discussions about accuracy. Kits get absolutely skewered because a rivet line or door or handhold is in the wrong place, or heavens to murgatroid, the color is wrong. In fact I’m pretty sure model railroaders coined the ugly phrase “rivet counters”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the quest for accuracy as much as anyone. But, my goodness. Some folks need a Snickers bar lol. I went down the rabbit hole of “RPM” or “Railway Prototype Modeling” and personally found it waaaay too restrictive of what was, and is for me, a pursuit of pleasure. I enjoy research but I really dislike “analysis paralysis”.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m an architectural model maker. I can not tell you how many times I’ve had the pleasure of proving an architect or designer wrong, that their roof plan simply can not be built as drawn. Many arguments, etc, foot stamping, gnashing of teeth, they are just so sure their drawing is right. Nope. Sorry. Not to besmirch the good architects and designers of the world, but humility is not always part of their vocabulary. Sometimes things really aren’t what they seem; like Chek says above, “the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn’t enforceable...”. Well said, friend, well said. 

 

Jimbo

 

A bit off topic I realize, but I just recently discovered that Rod Stewart is a very avid HO model railroader, having a 1,500 square foot layout of his own and builds/weathers most of the structures himself. While somewhat of a purist, I don't believe he falls into the bottomless pit of analyzing things to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...