Quinta Studio - 3D printed interior for NEW P-51D, Su-25, F-16C

[Radub]

16 minutes ago, GMK said:

There’s a bit more to it than that. My current project is up to 413 hours or printing, so far. Design started afresh in July and is about 60% done. Then there’s post processing and cleanup, before building. It’s more akin to researching, designing, and manufacturing a kit, then building it. 

 

That was pretty much my point too. One only needs to put in  the time, effort and expense to enjoy 3D printing right now. That is very unlikely to change in the future. 

Radu

[GMK]

1 hour ago, Radub said:

 

That was pretty much my point too. One only needs to put in  the time, effort and expense to enjoy 3D printing right now. That is very unlikely to change in the future. 

Radu

Just like any other form of modelling. 

[LSP_Ray]

Not really a problem. When judging two kits, you usually find a small error somewhere, either in construction ir finish. If two kits are equally ‘clean’, you can then go to presentation and level of difficulty factor. The modeler who did it by himself would then win over the ‘stuck-on’ details. At least that is how I would judge it.

[thierry laurent]

Well, to me this is a problem. I have been a jury member years ago and organized the assessing process of some contests. The main issue was, is and will be the evaluation skills. There is a huge probability if two kits look equal, the one with the most detailed and better painted cockpit will simply win. Using some aftermarket sets ask for skills and most modellers judging have no clue if the pit is made of a drop fit resin cockpit or a combination of painfully adjusted parts. Even when there is a description of what has been used, this is too elliptical to be really useful. The bells and whistles are always more attractive visually for most human beings. This is a proven fact. 

[Radub]

1 hour ago, thierry laurent said:

Well, to me this is a problem. I have been a jury member years ago and organized the assessing process of some contests. The main issue was, is and will be the evaluation skills. There is a huge probability if two kits look equal, the one with the most detailed and better painted cockpit will simply win. Using some aftermarket sets ask for skills and most modellers judging have no clue if the pit is made of a drop fit resin cockpit or a combination of painfully adjusted parts. Even when there is a description of what has been used, this is too elliptical to be really useful. The bells and whistles are always more attractive visually for most human beings. This is a proven fact. 

Competitions have always been an endless source of upset. Decent competitions have separate classes for different types of models. IPMS contests have classes for “out of the box”, “enhanced”, etc However, even those classes are becoming problematic. Take the “out of the box” class for example: Is it fair to compare an out of the box latest Japanese kit to an older out of the box kit by another manufacture that some may deem as “lesser quality”? Is it fair to compare an out of the box “hi tech” or “royal class” type of kit that may include various resin and photo-etched parts against a “plastic only” type of kit? These are complex conundrums.

I entered many competitions at many levels and I got anything from nothing to best-of-show. I judged in many competitions also. At the end of the day, there is no formula for “winning”. Sometimes your model is just not he best on the table. However, I must say that in more than 20 years of judging in competitions, I never ever gave a prize to a model based on one singular feature, be that “accuracy”, “weathering”, “super duper cockpit”, “hatful of money spent on aftermarket.”. Winning models are a good blend and balance of everything. Such a Quinta cockpit will never ever win you a medal if you place it in a poorly built or poorly painted model, just like spending years modifying and improving a model to make it “accurate” will never win anything if the model is poorly built or painted. Saying that such a Quinta cockpit guarantees medals is like saying that having the best hi tech running shoes guarantees a medal to an athlete. 
Radu

Edited September 3, 2020 by Radub

[Fencer-1]

Whoa! What a discussion! I think I have something to add. Let's look at the history of our hobby, where we can find some periods. First of all was "Total Scratchbuilt and Handmade Era", then "Wooden Kits Era", then "Plastic Kits Era" and now we reached "Hi-Tech Multimedia & Aftermarket Kits Era". When the word "Kit" appeared we've already had an Indusrtry of scale models. The Market immediately started to fulfill consumers demands to "make modeller's life easier" offering more and more detailed kits, paints, additional sets, tools etc. simultaneously forcing you to spend more money on your lovely hobbies. The main principle of our Scale Modelling hobby dramatically changed from "Learn, Research and Build" to "Buy, Glue and Enjoy". Nowadays Scale Modelling is industry producing millions of kits and sets not to be built, but just to sell them to make money on your pleasure. The drawback is the historical and technical research work "section" is almost disappeared from our hobby.  Aftermarket makes our life easier but weaned thinking. Buying modern kits and bunches of aftermarket you bear in mind that somebody made this "dirty" work for you. You are just relying on stranger's opinion regarding credibility of these sets. As for me, the research section is the most interesting part of Scale Modelling hobby, so I don't want to buy all awailable kits and aftermarket before I check the real subject of modelling. About 90% of aftermarket is actually useless in terms of accuracy.  Today there is huge variety of modeller's approaches to get finished model, from the "LEGO style" - to buy everything and just assemble, to most interesting complete scratchbuild, using 3D modelling and other state-of-art tools. I really enjoy looking at Peter Castle (Airscale) 1/18 works here for example.  The value of a model is determined for me by the ratio of money and labor(including research work) spent on its construction. In case of same result the more labor makes model more valuable for assessing. It is quite simple formula allows me to choose appropriate way of modelling for any case. Everything depends on purpose of your work. If I need precise scale model I prefer deep research and lot of self-made details using different technologies. In other cases, when I need quick build and just visual impact, e.g. diorama with different subjects, I will use as many ready components as I can.

[LSP_K2]

16 hours ago, LSP_Ray said:

Not really a problem. When judging two kits, you usually find a small error somewhere, either in construction ir finish. If two kits are equally ‘clean’, you can then go to presentation and level of difficulty factor. The modeler who did it by himself would then win over the ‘stuck-on’ details. At least that is how I would judge it.

 

Bingo! We judges, collectively (speaking only of our local and regional teams), most certainly understand the differences between well done super detailing by the modeler vs well done AM thrown into a kit, and reward accordingly. Over the years I've read countless comments regarding judges that "don't know what they're talking about". Obviously those particular folks have never talked to any of our people, our region being chock full of SMEs (how I utterly despise that term), that can and will offer their considered opinion as to what's what, in case there are specific questions regarding an unknown aspect about a particular subject. So, really solid opinions and answers are only a question away, hardly a bunch of dummies that don't know how to judge by the rules/criteria.

[Basta]

18 hours ago, LSP_Ray said:

If two kits are equally ‘clean’, you can then go to presentation and level of difficulty factor. The modeler who did it by himself would then win over the ‘stuck-on’ details. At least that is how I would judge it.

I've never judged but all things being equal, I'd choose the one with the peel-n-stick pit. For the simple reason that that guy obviously was the equal to the other in skill by definition, but he was smart enough to use a product that no modeler could ever hope to match in realism, and thus in the end his model is more realistic, tipping the scales. 

 

It's Indiana Jones logic, sure you can brandish a fancy scimitar and show off with it, but it is a lot easier and more effective just to shoot the guy and be done with it. 

 

 

[ericg]

1 hour ago, Basta said:

I've never judged but all things being equal, I'd choose the one with the peel-n-stick pit. For the simple reason that that guy obviously was the equal to the other in skill by definition, but he was smart enough to use a product that no modeler could ever hope to match in realism, and thus in the end his model is more realistic, tipping the scales. 

 

It's Indiana Jones logic, sure you can brandish a fancy scimitar and show off with it, but it is a lot easier and more effective just to shoot the guy and be done with it. 

 

 

Seconded only to the AK Interactive fiasco of the last few days, this is possibly the saddest thing I have read about our hobby in my 10 years of being active in it. 
 

Do we not appreciate skill and talent anymore? How about we just forget about entering models that have been lovingly crafted and presented and just chuck pre made die cast models on tables, with the winner decided by who was able to get theirs out of the box quickest? 

[DonH]

It seems to me that if enough modellers are outraged and don't like this product, then the company will go out of business due to lack of sales. If they continue to thrive, that may tell us something about many of the opinions expressed in this thread.

 

Like it? Buy it

 

Don't like it? Then don't buy it.

[Simmo.b]

It's just a case of new technology entering our hobby.

3d printing is the wave of the future and we will see more and more of it. Just like when pe and turned brass came in.

We will adapt and continue to create our small wonders...time marches on

[Dave Williams]

Unless the product itself is bad quality, people are going to buy it and the company will remain in business.  A few people spouting off on Internet forums about how this is destroying their idealized world view of modeling isn’t going to stop people who want it from buying it.  If others don’t want to use it, they won’t, but their choice will have zero impact on those who do.  It’s the same with any other aftermarket product.

 

As far as judging at model shows goes, that’s a separate can of worms, and something judging committees already have to deal with regarding other aftermarket stuff.  This may be a new product, but ultimately there is nothing new here.

[dmthamade]

10 minutes ago, DonH said:

It seems to me that if enough modellers are outraged and don't like this product, then the company will go out of business due to lack of sales. If they continue to thrive, that may tell us something about many of the opinions expressed in this thread.

 

Like it? Buy it

 

Don't like it? Then don't buy it.

 

After going through all 7 pages, for me this ^^^^^ is EXACTLY how i feel!!!!

 

Don

[LSP_K2]

3 hours ago, ericg said:

Seconded only to the AK Interactive fiasco of the last few days, this is possibly the saddest thing I have read about our hobby in my 10 years of being active in it. 
 

Do we not appreciate skill and talent anymore? How about we just forget about entering models that have been lovingly crafted and presented and just chuck pre made die cast models on tables, with the winner decided by who was able to get theirs out of the box quickest? 

 

I'm pretty sure he was joking. The AKL issue you're referring to, that's here on LSP?

[LSP_Kevin]

8 minutes ago, LSP_K2 said:

The AKL issue you're referring to, that's here on LSP?

 

No, but it's all over the rest of the modelling web, and most especially on Facebook. I haven't seen it myself, but apparently they use some pretty repugnant holocaust video and imagery in their latest marketing campaign.

 

Kev