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

[Radub]

A few years ago I watched a programme about a photographer who demonstrated the difference between "skill" and "buying power". He gave a top of the range expensive SLR camera (it was pre-digital camera era) to a novice while he used a basic snapshot camera and compared results. He showed how it is possible to take great photos with a basic camera and take rubbish photos with a great camera, all it took was an  understanding of light, exposure, aperture, etc.

The same can be said about models. I have seen great and expensive kits turn into poor models and the other way round. At the end it all boils down to skill and understanding the medium.

It is still possible for someone to make a bad model even using the most cutting edge tech.

Rady 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Radub

[Marcel111]

Love this! The result looks incredible and my prime motivation is the result. Great to see the technology and innovation in the hobby.

 

Marcel

[dodgem37]

This is a great achievement.

 

'I'm sure we will see many new products based on this type of technology in the future as we won't go against that evolution.'

Hear, hear.

 

'Using 3D-printed parts could be considered "cheating" only if you were scratch-building a model.'

That would be too bad.

 

Sincerely,

Mark

 

 

 

[babyduck5]

One of the reasons I enjoy making models is that I have a fascination of "miniatures".  Miniature anything, really.  I like having as many details of the real thing incorporated into the miniature.  And even though I marvel at someone who can build a truly detailed cockpit ( which is not me ), most, if not all of the labeling of switches and buttons and such is missing.  And most photo-etch cockpit panel still lack convincing 3D effect.   So, it still doesn't capture the look of the real thing.  This seems to take care of that issue and I will completely embrace this new technology for my builds.  The closer I can get to an "exact replica", the better.  And even though WW1/WW2 planes are easier to have this detail,  it is quite a different story for modern planes.  So, I'm very excited about this.    

 

Jim 

[Tony T]

3 hours ago, Radub said:

A few years ago I watched a programme about a photographer who demonstrated the difference between "skill" and "buying power". He gave a top of the range expensive SLR camera (it was pre-digital camera era) to a novice while he used a basic snapshot camera and compared results. He showed how it is possible to take great photos with a basic camera and take rubbish photos with a great camera, all it took was an  understanding of light, exposure, aperture, etc.

The same can be said about models. I have seen great and expensive kits turn into poor models and the other way round. At the end it all boils down to skill and understanding the medium.

It is still possible for someone to make a bad model even using the most cutting edge tech.

Rady 

 

Partly true but most of the modellers on LSP are some way up the learning curve and not novices. Indeed, one set of variables people often ignore is that health, vision and dexterity decrease as you get older. Technology that makes it "easier" and to get a better looking model is not to be scoffed at. And good tools and materials do instil confidence and create a certain joy. 

 

Incidentally, I take far better photos on a purely manual 645 medium format camera using 120 roll film than I ever have with digital, seldom use ready meals as opposed to cooking from scratch, and still prefer writing with a quality fountain pen using bottled ink, so am not at all opposed to old methods.  

 

Tony 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Tony T
syntax

[Radub]

28 minutes ago, Tony T said:

 

Partly true but most of the modellers on LSP are some way up the learning curve and not novices.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My post was in reply to the "modeller vs assembler" debate. "Assembling" does not make one a "cheater" just like "modelling" does not make one a master. There are "modellers" that can turn any commercial kit (poor, average, excellent) into a masterpiece because they have the experience and talent. There are "assemblers" who spend fortunes on the latest technology and still can get it wrong.

Radu 

[scvrobeson]

On 8/25/2020 at 4:41 PM, Robthepom said:

yes, I'm in two minds over this. I love painting and detailing cockpits it a favorite part of modeling. But i have to say thats a good looking product that might tempt me, maybe

And this can definitely be good if you're working on a kit that doesn't come with a hyper-detailed cockpit OOB.

 

 

Matt 

[Basta]

1 hour ago, scvrobeson said:

And this can definitely be good if you're working on a kit that doesn't come with a hyper-detailed cockpit OOB.

 

 

Matt 

Another question in all this is your modeling priorities. I spent a lot of time detailing my first WNW cockpit, which oob was already very well detailed. Then I buttoned up the fuselage and even though it was an open pit it was a tiny, dark, cramped space and you saw next to nothing of the work. Granted it's part of the experience that the kit designers spent a great deal of time on and it was fun to do, but I don't see the point of doing that level again given how little is actually seen. I'd much rather spend my time and resources on 

externals, which have a much bigger visual bang for the buck.

 

You can't even count the number of times that people comment in a WIP that the pit looks great after the guy threw all that time and $$$AM at it, but once he gets the fuselage together, he then laments how little can actually be seen. 

 

I know for many a super-detailed pit is a necessity, but realistically if you are doing a closed pit, how much can really be seen through the clear parts? Is the investment in time and AM worth it if it's not meant for competition or you're doing it for a WIP? Even this new stuff may be overkill in many cases, though I think it's great to have. It's just a question of priorities. 

 

[thierry laurent]

Actually this really depends on the plane. For some you just see a black hole whereas for others the internal contents are quite visible. For instance, I do not see the need to detail thoroughly a Tempest pit whereas to me this is required for a Spitfire. 

[Lothar]

4 hours ago, Tony T said:

Indeed, one set of variables people often ignore is that health, vision and dexterity decrease as you get older. Technology that makes it "easier" and to get a better looking model is not to be scoffed at. And good tools and materials do instil confidence and create a certain joy. 

Tony 

 

Exactly, ask me how I know.....

[Tony T]

5 hours ago, Radub said:

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My post was in reply to the "modeller vs assembler" debate. "Assembling" does not make one a "cheater" just like "modelling" does not make one a master. There are "modellers" that can turn any commercial kit (poor, average, excellent) into a masterpiece because they have the experience and talent. There are "assemblers" who spend fortunes on the latest technology and still can get it wrong.

Radu 

 

Probably true. However, subject to a poll, I think you misunderstand older people who like new stuff that makes the boring bits speed up so we may focus on external shape, painting, form. We are artists and aviation historians, not forensic robots, and really honestly a lot of model jet cockpits have that "pick out some details" bubblegum machine look. I think they are utterly ghastly, and inferior to 2D Eduard placards. This new stuff cures the issue, so super advance.

 

And not everyone wants to spend ages turning a 1969 gem into something wonderful; they seek the Tamiya-category luxury and building for joy. I honestly believe that a 1/32 Tamiya Grumman Duck — through sheer commercial joy of packaging, acquisitiveness etc — would outsell a new Revell Hurricane in a side-opening box. 

 

Tony 

[Radub]

9 hours ago, Tony T said:

 

Probably true. However, subject to a poll, I think you misunderstand older people who like new stuff that makes the boring bits speed up so we may focus on external shape, painting, form. We are artists and aviation historians, not forensic robots, and really honestly a lot of model jet cockpits have that "pick out some details" bubblegum machine look. I think they are utterly ghastly, and inferior to 2D Eduard placards. This new stuff cures the issue, so super advance.

 

And not everyone wants to spend ages turning a 1969 gem into something wonderful; they seek the Tamiya-category luxury and building for joy. I honestly believe that a 1/32 Tamiya Grumman Duck — through sheer commercial joy of packaging, acquisitiveness etc — would outsell a new Revell Hurricane in a side-opening box. 

 

Tony 

 

I posted an explanatory reply to this, but I deleted it.  

Radu 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Radub

[DonH]

So, I might buy a set for a 1/48 F-16D. However, I will balance off the cost with my desire for a good looking pit. Most of the time, I will paint the cockpit myself to the best of my ability and be satisfied. If I get inspired, I might try AM such as this.

 

If I like it, I will buy. If not, I won’t. 
 

This is a great option, it does looks better than etch IMO and I am happy to see it. 

[nichenson]

I found some bigger pics.  It appears that the F-16 IP will work for any block from 25 to 52 prior to CCIP and CUPID.  In all honesty I don't think a lot of people would know to look at the lower center console. 

[Starfighter]

On 8/28/2020 at 10:27 PM, coogrfan said:

 

Don't like it?  Don't use it. Problem solved. 

 

Like it? Then use them - but don't expect praise for the work done on a cockpit using these parts... 

 

Again, most of you have missed my point. This is obviously an excellent product which looks extremely good, but again, using it does not require ANY skill - because it is so good. The resulting discussion has happened 1000 times already. The difference between the Quinta parts and all other methods called "cheating" is, that all of these other methods REQUIRE SKILL, be it CAD drawing, knowing how to use a printer, how to orient parts, making resin parts fit or paint them... you name it. Now please don't start with "scratch building is more difficult than 3D printing" and "cutting masks by hand is more difficult than using a plotter". Sure, but still, even the technologically advanced methods require skill!

Anyone who as ever seen one of my WIPs probably knows I am clearly the last to be against using advanced technology in scale modelling. The thing is - if you have read my post until here, you may already have understood that I admire the "skills" part of scale modelling, especially when looking at a model at a show for example. I hugely appreciate nicely painted cockpits for example, because it takes skill and patience. A cockpit with those parts will look very nice for sure, but my first thought will be "looks great, but all he did was peeling the Quinta parts off their backing paper". And that's a bit of a shame in my opinion.