To be or not to be accurate, that is the question

[Stokey Pete]

Not a single one of my models can be called accurate. I started out sweating on the little inaccuracies, and found I just didn’t enjoy the hobby. Added to that, I junked models because I deemed them not accurate enough. I was constantly making comparisons between my own, and some of the modelling superstars we have here. That caused a complete lack of enjoyment.  
I soon switched to a system of overlooking shape and proportion inaccuracies. If it looks like what I’m trying to build, that will do for me. 

[Erwin]

I rarely build anything based on an actual plane.

 

All about being bussy and enjoyment.

[Citadelgrad]

I try to balance between accuracy and my limited abilities.   When I built my Gabreski P 47, I spent a lot of time figuring out what the drop tank plumbing was supposed to look like, and was pretty happy with the result.  

 

I also added corrugated to the floor because when I started, that was the info I had.  Win some, lose some.  

 

I try to build things that really existed, and try to make my model look, to my eye, like the real thing, but the draw for me is the mental distraction that a good hobby provides.  That's why I do this.  When I was young and inpatient, it was a race. N9w I spend years on and off working on a large kit. 

 

 

[Juggernut]

22 minutes ago, Citadelgrad said:

I try to balance between accuracy and my limited abilities.   When I built my Gabreski P 47, I spent a lot of time figuring out what the drop tank plumbing was supposed to look like, and was pretty happy with the result.  

 

I also added corrugated to the floor because when I started, that was the info I had.  Win some, lose some.  

 

I try to build things that really existed, and try to make my model look, to my eye, like the real thing, but the draw for me is the mental distraction that a good hobby provides.  That's why I do this.  When I was young and inpatient, it was a race. N9w I spend years on and off working on a large kit. 

 

 

 

I remember you doing that research and to your credit, I'm using it on my 1/48 P-47D Razorback for the centerline drop tank.  I refered out to one of Tolga's threads on his P-47D Razorback build to learn about how to plumb the underwing drop tanks.

[LSP_K2]

7 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

An accurate model simply does not exist... Moreover the level of accuracy is a very personal matter. As far as a modeller is happy with regard to his model, accuracy is just one parameter amongst multiple ones. I went to a local exhibition yesterday. There were many 'average' models with blemishes, decal silvering and so on. I could not avoid seeing them but did not care as soon as the people who made them talked about them with obvious passion. I just left them half an hour later with a big smile. For sure I'm a detail freak that stays too much time amongst his thousands of aviation books. I love reading and to me research is as fun as modelling. However, my modelling standard is purely individual. This is a typical reason why I really prefer exhibitions rather than contests...

 

I have a similar book obsession, and that has been, from time to time, a source of both inspiration and frustration. Just last night I spotted a book on the Me 262 that I want, so chased down a copy and put it on my substantial Amazon "books wanted" list. Something about the book seemed all too familiar though, so I sorted through my book photo album (I photograph virtually everything I buy), only to discover that I already have that same book sitting here somewhere! The kicker is, no matter what the book tells me, I'll end up painting my Me 262 however I want anyway.

[ScottsGT]

8 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

An accurate model simply does not exist... Moreover the level of accuracy is a very personal matter. As far as a modeller is happy with regard to his model, accuracy is just one parameter amongst multiple ones. I went to a local exhibition yesterday. There were many 'average' models with blemishes, decal silvering and so on. I could not avoid seeing them but did not care as soon as the people who made them talked about them with obvious passion. I just left them half an hour later with a big smile. For sure I'm a detail freak that stays too much time amongst his thousands of aviation books. I love reading and to me research is as fun as modelling. However, my modelling standard is purely individual. This is a typical reason why I really prefer exhibitions rather than contests...

Thierry, I will say that I have highly enjoyed reading your kit correction write ups over the years and you have not disappointed!  I use your articles as a guidance for some of my builds and pick and choose the glaring issues you point out.  
Thanks for all your great work and keep them coming.  They are highly appreciated! 

[R Palimaka]

10 hours ago, mozart said:

As I’ve said many times before, research is as important an element of any model that I build as actually making the model itself, so accuracy is paramount. Having said that, any model has to be a compromise to some degree so there’s always some latitude: “it’s as right as I can make it”. What I’m NOT….is a rivet-counter. 

 

I think this is close to my attitude and approach, and probably why I build so slowly. I love doing the research almost as much, maybe more, and usually I build to represent a specific aircraft I can document. It depends on the aircraft. Mustangs, or Polish Air Force related aircraft, yes, I will spend time and effort, within my abilities, to get it as accurate as I can . Others, not so much. German aircraft I build out of the box and I try to get all the colours close to what I think looks right...versus...measuring a line of stencils on a Mustang to make sure it's precisely a scale 2.75" from a panel line.

 

And sometimes aircraft I don't know very well capture my imagination and I try to incorporate as much detail as I can, like this MB.152 I've been working on for months. I guess it depends on the most recent rabbit hole I've trapped myself in. 

 

I think the answer is to build obscure aircraft nobody recognizes then you can't be called on accuracy. 

 

Richard

[Timmy!]

The challenge for me is to replicate reality.  If it’s on the real thing it should be on the model.  
 

I always build a specific airframe…yes with matching numbers.

 

Result usually takes two attempts at a task to get it right.  
 

Timmy!

[Archimedes]

There are so many wonderful posts on this thread already! I’ll try to contribute a little something worthwhile.

 

Salvador Dali once famously said “Don’t worry about perfection, you’ll never reach it” and the same could be said for ‘accuracy’ because even if one is building an exact 1:1 replica of the real thing, some compromises will be inevitable. As we get smaller in scale the compromises we all have to make get ever bigger. But whatever compromises we make: what we do should always be enjoyable or else why are we doing it?

 

There is a continuum or hierarchy of model making which is usually dictated by experience (and before anyone gets upset there is nothing wrong with being in any of these groups):

1. Those who are working to assemble a kit they bought without a major mess-up and get it painted and decalled according to the manufacturer’s instructions. 

2. Those who are working to assemble a kit and have it painted and decalled according to some of their secondary source research. 

3. Those who work to build a kit and modify it somewhat according to their primary and secondary source research. This is to further approach a more accurate representation of the overall shape and details of a chosen aircraft type. They then have it painted, decalled and weathered according to their research.

4. Those who are willing and able to wholesale modify a kit to get a particular kit to model a particular airframe at a particular time and who will do a great deal of  primary and secondary source research to enable them to paint, decal and weather their chosen subject.

5.  Scratch builders who do extensive, independent primary source research, who experiment with many methods and materials in creating a one-off and who can create components in a variety of media and can paint, decal, weather their subject in an entirely controlled manner to achieve the result they want.

 

Every one of these groups is represented here. The great thing about LSP is that each group tends to help the others: Group 1 to remind the other four to ‘Just put a model together and have fun like you did when you were a kid!’ Group 4 to help people in groups 1,2 and 3 how they overcame problems when they were less experienced. Group 5 to show to everyone the art of the possible. I won’t list all possible combinations but you get the picture.

 

There are two schools that work within those groups (and the Venn diagram that represents these two groups has a healthy overlap).

A. ‘Realists’: Fidelity to the real original is all: This group would be likely to match colours to chip samples using RLM or Federal Standards. Everyone from group 2 on through 5 could belong here. Modellers like Paul Budzik tend to reside in this space.

B. ‘Artists’: Creating the right impression is all. This group would be likely to simply choose colours from a palette because they simulated particular light conditions or took account of scale or wanted to create an impression of a deeper cockpit opening. The ‘Spanish School’ tend to reside in this group.

 

I mostly belong in groups 1 and 2 and occasionally I venture into 3. Like @mozart I try to get it ‘as accurate as I can’ and like @Stokey Pete I try to have fun while I do that. I get my ambition from @airscale (wow) and sense of perspective and new subjects to research from @Christa (thank you buddy), my hope that I too can do more challenging work from @tomprobert , collaboration from @europapete and awareness of what the industry does and how to correct what they don’t do well from @thierry laurent. And I thank the moderators who keep here the best modelling site on the planet.

 

Are my models ‘accurate’? Nope. But each is as well made as I can do it at the time and I enjoy every minute of it. That is not only due to the building and painting process itself but also down to the great community here. Thank you all.

 

Kind regards,

Paul.

[MikeC]

^^ That's an interesting analysis.  Perhaps you should name this classification,  as Myers and Briggs did theirs.

 

I'd put myself in groups 1-3, and very definitely more "B" than "A". 

[europapete]

I probably reside in 4+5 A.

[Iain]

*If* I know the subject reasonably well it has to look right shape-wise - at least to my personal eyes.

 

Actually, if I'm honest, it's the research and challenge of 'fixing' things I find that probably gives me the most satisfaction in modelling...

 

Oh, and I aspire to #5 on that list: which is probably why I can never, actually, finish anything!!

 

Iain

[Shoggz]

Great analysis Paul.

 

I'd put myself down as a solid 2-B, but I'm trying my hardest to move to a 3!

 

One of the compelling things about scale modelling is that you have to exhibit both a practical and artistic bent within each project. To get a kit constructed you have to be able to apply practical skills, but once it is complete, to finish it, you need to bring to bear your artistic attributes.

 

I'm definitely more of the latter, so most projects - particularly in these larger scales, are me engaged in a fight and struggle to get a completed canvas for me to then bring my artistic side to bear - which I feel is my strong suit.

 

Don't get me wrong - I love the building side, just don't think I'm as good at it!

 

[europapete]

Looking at your RFI's, you are better than you think.

[thierry laurent]

2 hours ago, Iain said:

*If* I know the subject reasonably well it has to look right shape-wise - at least to my personal eyes.

 

Actually, if I'm honest, it's the research and challenge of 'fixing' things I find that probably gives me the most satisfaction in modelling...

 

Oh, and I aspire to #5 on that list: which is probably why I can never, actually, finish anything!!

 

Iain

Why do I have the strange feeling you are depicting me ...?