Hmm.. Those Quintas 3D decals vs etch and decals..

[DonH]

Use them, don't use them, your choice. I put a set in a 1/48 F-16D and was very pleased with the result. I generally won't use them because sometimes I like to try painting the cockpit myself. On other occasions, I cannot be bothered and will stick something in instead. Call it cheating if you like, it won't change anything.

[dmthamade]

On 11/6/2021 at 7:06 AM, DonH said:

Use them, don't use them, your choice. 

 

[chuck540z3]

On 11/4/2021 at 3:50 PM, Natdnatd said:

That said, I'm a bit perplexed by calling them cheating. That implies there some kind of competition I wasn't cued in on? And frankly just sounds like thinly veiled elitism. Even if the model does end up in an IPMS competition, the judging criteria is in no way written to give a judge any reason to weigh these less than a completely scratch built cockpit. But, hey, IPMs judging reality in comparison to the written documentation of how judging should be applied rarely align.

 

 

Perhaps I should explain my "cheating" comment.  Our models are a complex progression of assembling kit parts and often the use of aftermarket items.  Using the cockpit as an example, there is a progression of steps here as well, from the prep of the parts, kit or resin, adding details and painting everything that is almost always super fine detail.  The difference between a great looking cockpit and a so-so one, is the level of execution of these steps.  With stick on panels and IP's, you are skipping many of these steps and the product you see isn't really yours, but something kicked out by a machine.  To me, you are skipping steps to get to the finish line and much of what you see isn't really your work, hence the "cheating" comment.  May I now and for evermore refer to this process as "skipping steps" rather than cheating, which isn't elitist at all.  To each their own.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[Out2gtcha]

From my experience, when it comes down to big events like the NATs you occasionally have wins that came down to the cockpit, but more often than not things seem to come down to a well built model with over the top/very special or well done details on the outside. 75% of the time the models are either eliminated prior to the judges getting to that stage, or are hands down above the rest with obvious workmanship or detail on the outside.

Having judged a couple events when not entering aircraft, I can attest to never having docked any points for using for the use of Yaho panels, Eduard PE or any of the like, as it you can have any and all of that in a sub par model (or in some cases when there are lots of entries a good model) and it doesn't help the model in the contest a single bit.

 

Even with all that, It still takes more than just stick on panels to make a superior cockpit, so IMHO you can still always tell the pretenders from the stellar modelers in those cases, as it still takes  prep work to use these things and make them look right. It takes deciding which, then getting rid of OOB detail, scraping side walls, prepping the OOB parts, priming, then paint matching the color on the Quinta set and then and deciding which parts to use/mix and match. I guess my point here would be that you could still give this set to a not-so-good modeler and it would be readily apparent. 

 

On a personal note, I would definitely continue to use the Quinta Studios sets, as when I build I want the best quality and most realistic finish I can get and these sets far out pace anything I can make on my own, and far surpass anything else on the market I can buy. 

To me its simply another tool in my modeling arsenal which I use when applicable, which is in most cases as it looks better than anything I've seen DIY or anything else I've seen on the market to buy. 

 

[RLWP]

13 hours ago, Out2gtcha said:

On a personal note, I would definitely continue to use the Quinta Studios sets, as when I build I want the best quality and most realistic finish I can get and these sets far out pace anything I can make on my own, and far surpass anything else on the market I can buy. 

To me its simply another tool in my modeling arsenal which I use when applicable, which is in most cases as it looks better than anything I've seen DIY or anything else I've seen on the market to buy. 

 

 

I think this is what it all boils down to. "The best quality and most realistic finish" is your opinion and why you would use them. Quite right too

 

It's all a matter of opinion, and I find them much too clean and precise for a working aircraft. I think they could be a good starting point, I've yet to see someone try to dirty/scuff them up so I don't know

 

As you say, it's a personal choice

 

Richard

[quang]

Clinical is the word. They’re the CGI of modern scale modelling.

[Radub]

20 hours ago, chuck540z3 said:

 

Perhaps I should explain my "cheating" comment.  Our models are a complex progression of assembling kit parts and often the use of aftermarket items. 

All of these are "pre-made packaged items". Whether it is plastic parts, decals, photo-etch parts, multi-media seat belts, turned brass gun barrels, resin parts, 3D-printed parts, whatever, if you got it ready-made in a package, it is all the same. It was made by someone else who put it in a package. There is no line where taking stuff out of packages becomes "cheating". All of these are available to anyone and everyone, the only things that make the difference are availability, funds and skill. 

Scratchbuilding is the alternative. 

Radu 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Radub

[Out2gtcha]

2 hours ago, quang said:

Clinical is the word. They’re the CGI of modern scale modelling.

 

The Quinta sets are NO different than adding resin to your cockpit, or like Radu mentioned, pre-packaged gun barrels, pre-packaged decals, pre-packaged color PE, 3D parts or anything else anyone off the street can buy.

Just like PE, or any color type IP add on, simply add a wash and/or flat coat as needed and it instantly dulls things down and brings the finish in line with a weathered airframe. Then add a drop of future or UV gel for the instruments and done. The Quinta set in my Cobra  I found looks right at home after a bit of effort and doesn't stand out too cleanly at all. 

I find the opposition to these, sometimes seemingly bordering on hatred or elitism quite hilarious actually.  With all of this opposition, and since they look SO much better than anyone's DIY or store bought items, especially after a bit of modeling elbow grease it really makes me want to use them all the time now.  

[Uncarina]

I’ve really enjoyed reading this thread so far, and having used two Quinta sets so far, I will use them when able. In 1/48 scale decals that are pressed over raised detail can match them, but only with some work. I get a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment from both, but that is just because I can have a cockpit that really is attractive and draws the eye in to the details, and my goal is purely to have a scaled down replica that looks authentic. 

 

We are in this hobby for various reasons: to build a moment in history, to build a collection, to compete. I don’t think any sense of superiority is warranted nor has it been shown overtly in this thread, which is why I’ve found it so enlightening to read. I’ve just enjoyed learning your perspectives.

 

Cheers,  Tom

[John Stambaugh]

On 10/28/2021 at 1:13 PM, Citadelgrad said:

I would like to weigh in from the middle of the road.   I dont hesitate to put in Yahu instrument panels, even before i needed reading glasses, an optivisor and one closed eye to see up close, i was not great at details like instrument panels.  Of course i tell people who admire the model that i bought that part, and painted the rest.  

 

when i came back to the hobby in my late 40s, i started with 1/35 armor, thinking the details would not be as critical as aircraft. 
 

i forced myself to paint figures, and even took a 3d place at a show with a figure, to learn detail painting.   

 

i paint what i can and use Yahu, and admit that when i first saw these quinta sets, they did make me pause, because on one hand, you can now buy what i consider the most difficult part of a convincing model, but on the other hand, Woody is 100% correct.  I cant replicate the detail others can do, its not a matter of practice, its a lack of ability on my part. 
 

I am torn, because i do updetail with aftermarket and never think twice.  I think i will get a set and try it.  
 

Ditto

[John Stambaugh]

Seems this topic has expanded to a full on discussion about AM in general. 

 I have read every response and find most everyone making valid points that I can relate to. 

 As for me; I am an unapologetic AM junkie. 

 Bravo to all. This is a great site that I'm proud to be a part of.

[quang]

1 hour ago, Out2gtcha said:

I find the opposition to these, sometimes seemingly bordering on hatred or elitism quite hilarious actually. 

No hatred nor elitism.
All I was saying was that these new 3D aftermarket stuff is the CGI (computer-generated imagery) of the modern scale modelling- which incidentally is what it is.
Exactly like the CGI special effects they use in movies. Some film-goers prefer the evocative, old-school special effects created with miniatures and props,etc… (like in the 1970 Tora! Tora! Tora!) over the bland, expressionless cgi in the 2001 Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor.
Does that make these viewers hateful or elitist? You tell me. 

[Uncarina]

Here are my 1/48 F-4 Phantom cockpits. On the left is the ZM F-4EJ Kai cockpit with decals added using MicroSol/Set and a Q-Tip. On the right is the Tamiya F-4B cockpit with the Quinta set. I am happy with both, and to be honest the ZM decals took just a little longer to add (babysitting with the Q-Tip). However, the Quiinta set has text on the console surfaces which I cannot either see or apply myself, and details like the landing gear lever (not yet added).

 

 

Positions swapped in this photo:

 

 

Cheers,  Tom

Edited November 9, 2021 by Uncarina

[Out2gtcha]

2 hours ago, quang said:

No hatred nor elitism.
All I was saying was that these new 3D aftermarket stuff is the CGI (computer-generated imagery) of the modern scale modelling- which incidentally is what it is.
Exactly like the CGI special effects they use in movies. Some film-goers prefer the evocative, old-school special effects created with miniatures and props,etc… (like in the 1970 Tora! Tora! Tora!) over the bland, expressionless cgi in the 2001 Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor.
Does that make these viewers hateful or elitist? You tell me. 

 

 

In a lot of cases I'm not sure how views on the Quinta sets were intended, but they definitely come off that way.  Most CGI effects look like crap and are not very realistic at all, thus sometimes ruining what they set out to make better. The Quinta sets look better than anything anyone has come up with in a long time, and are exceptionally realistic, especially with a bit of modeling effort, thus they do the opposite of CGI effects. 

[rigor]

Your all cheating