Brief explanation and our questions for LSP projects

[DeanKB]

Poseable flight controls is not an issue for me. Simple to cut them out & pose them.

 

God forbid they end up like Trumpeters monstrosities.

[Alburymodeler]

accuracy overall is number one, and then ease of assembly with no unneeded parts.

[Tnarg]

Concentrate upon matching the shape of the model with the shape of the prototype/plane. A kit with 20 parts that actually looked just like the prototype would be extremely appreciated, compared to a "puzzle" with 300 parts that has serious or even minor dimensional flaws.

 

I'd probably purchase a kit with no decals or weapons if it had the proper shape and very few parts because I could find a way to make it in the colors I chose from aftermarket or printing my own (if I got that desperate). I want the final subject to look great and look "real". If I wanted to build a puzzle, I would buy a 10,000 piece puzzle with every piece red. That would take a lot of time, but not deliver so much satisfaction as a model kit.

 

As for your F5 series, I'd love to see you finish it out with F5E or F Aggressor or Top Gun aircraft, because I like the colors they wore. There are more subjects that you will put in a box, but we appreciate your efforts to get things done right.

 

Tnarg

[Tony T]

Poseable flight controls is not an issue for me. Simple to cut them out & pose them.

God forbid they end up like Trumpeters monstrosities.

Not so simple with F-4 leading edge slats or F-111 leading edge flaps and trailing Fowler flaps.

 

I think this may have been something Baris Tansoy was alluding to. What do jet modellers think ?

 

I'd rather have a simpler F-111 or Phantom to start with and a "de-luxe" edition later after the basics proved successful.

 

Tony

 

Edit, because I'd buy both !

Edited February 25, 2016 by Tony T

[Phartycr0c]

For me, shape and overall accuracy must represent the intended subject, although in my opinion, a little too much time may have been spent pawing over minor inaccuracies.

 

Give modellers the option. the scored panel lines is a great idea. 

 

Engines, again options, don't make overall construction of a model reliant on engines having to built if they are never going to be seen, but if a modeller chooses to put them in and show them off, great. 

 

Options. some subjects have so many variants how will they fit into the same box?. rest assured though forget to cover one variant the wrath of the variant fan will be invoked. 

 

In terms of ordinance, again the choice is great. 

 

Decals, again with so many variants, how many sheets would be needed? 

 

Parts count? over engineered kits are just as much a pain as undetailed or inaccurate kits.

 

Thanks so much for taking an interest in our views . The F111 would be something else a very impressive subject with lots of scope to build a great model. 

 

Keep up the very good work. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Phartycr0c

[RBrown]

Poseable flight controls is not an issue for me. Simple to cut them out & pose them.

 

God forbid they end up like Trumpeters monstrosities.

 

I'll always concede simplicity to accuracy.

 

For me it is an accuracy issue, even in the neutral position molded in control surfaces are typically not representative of the real thing.

 

Just my opinion, others will differ...

 

 

 

[mozart]

There's a lot of sense and a large measure of agreement in the replies so far, seems like most of us are singing from the same hymn sheet so it should make Tanmodel's job of producing what we want that much easier. The main point that I would plead for is please don't "over-engineer" a kit on the assumption that because we like sticking bits together, the more provided by the manufacturer the happier we'll be! Not so.

Max

[petrov27]

Have to agree with the majority:

 

closed access/maintenance hatches etc - a scribe line inside the fuselage parts is fine

ordinance is great assuming it is what the a/c normally would carry

fewer parts is better assuming detail and fidelity is not lost

[Guest Peterpools]

Baris

Thank you for taking the time and showing a interest as to our concerns and interests. The guys are right on the money with their comments and suggestions. I can't emphasis enough and completely agree with Max that "over-engineer" kits in my book are a killer. It seems that some manufacture go out of their way to make a part from three or four individual parts, when one will do. Movable and replaceable assemblies add nothing to a kit in my book, except increase the part count, create all sorts of fit problems and are more toy like then a scale model. I'm not a fan of positional control surface either, if they can be easily removed and positioned if the builder so wants, that great. I give Hasegawa high marks on this.

1. Scale and shape accuracy

     If it looks like the real deal ...I'm happy. A kit design with reasonable number of parts is fine. The number of parts in a kit does not effect my decision to buy.

2. Providing all possible versions in the same box

    Not needed at all. Just do a good job on one version at a time.

3. Providing decal options of versions

    I would rather have a well printed decal sheet with a few versions, then a large number of options not well done.

4. Providing operational ammunition parts (Bombs – Missiles etc.)

    If they are included., they need to be well done and accurate with decals for the required markings, plus a nicely done painting guide.

5. Providing access doors part separately (like our RF-84F kit) – Not all doors

    Prefer they are closed and molded in. There should just be an option to cut them open if the builder wants.

6. Providing engine parts visible from inside the Intake

   Absolutely. But if the engine doesn't show at all, leave it out.

 

I've never been a fan of building and adding parts that will be never be seen once the model is completed. Save the money and add the details somewhere else.

I'm a cockpit guy and prefer the front office to be as detailed as possible and as well done as technology and cost allows.

Peter

Edited February 25, 2016 by Peterpools

[seiran01]

I love that you are taking the time to ask your buyers/fans their preferences. 300+ parts is pointless unless there is no simpler way to break down the model kit and still maintain a level of detail that you are striving for. Focus on the quality of the plastic and the design of the parts to maximize the ease to build the kit. No matter how much detail you put into a cockpit or landing gear, people will almost always demand aftermarket detail sets from resin companies or Eduard, so I think you should get the basics looking nice and accurate. and not break a console into 5 pieces when it could be molded as one. Regarding separate access doors, please design them to fit well when the builder decides he/she wants them closed, I can't count the number of panels I've seen from kits that "should" fit closed but leave huge gaps or need a lot of sanding to fit in their spot closed.

 

Full engines are pointless to most modellers with the exception of radial engines, just focus on what can be seen from the outside and through intakes. If you get the sense that enough of your buyers like to display engines, then maybe mirror the approach that HK Models took with their Meteor Mk.IV kit, where the engine panels are separate pieces but containing no detail inside. Let the aftermarket companies do what they do best and produce a detailed engine to fit inside your model for the builders who want to spend the extra money. Reduced parts count (in theory) equals reduced costs which can be passed onto the builder and I think this is the way your efforts should be focused. 

 

Regardless of your decisions, thank you for taking our opinions into consideration, and thank you for bringing these subjects to life in large scale!

[Guest]

Another concern (mine) is the thickness of sprue gates. Detail doesn't mean much when you nearly destroy a part trying  to cut off a sprue.....Harv

[LSP_Kevin]

Thank you Baris for taking the time to talk with us about your plans. Any potential customer will always appreciate being consulted about the development of products aimed at them, so we appreciate you connecting with us.

 

My thoughts mostly echo what has already been said in this thread. As Matt said, parts-count doesn't really matter; it's about using the optimum number of parts required to deliver the standard of detail you're aiming for. The aftermarket can supply the rest.

 

Kev

[Guest Smitty44]

First and foremost...THANK YOU!! I echo many of the sentiments here although my purchases are mainly driven by subject but that is started going by the wayside now as I delve in to everything you manufacturers want to throw at us. I have been left wondering though, if the F-111 is due by the end of the year and there is to be a mystery kit between the F-5/T-38 series and the F-111 then the F-5/T-38's should be soon!!??

 

How about a pool to guess the mystery kit or should I say any guesses?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Smitty44

[Juggernut]

EVERYBODY IN THE POOL!!!

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Royboy]

Baris,

Thanks for contacting us.

I don't think you'll need many more comments as I think the one's posted so far echo what most of us feel about our models.

I would like to say that a new F5E Tiger II would go down well with a lot of people particularly as the Hasegawa kit seems extinct at this time.  The only other comment I could make is please don't reproduce subjects that are already well catered for.

There are so many aircraft types in our scale that have been ignored that it does allow plenty of scope for new untouched subjects.

Good luck with everything!