Scale accuracy: how much is enough, and why do you care (or not).

[2002p51]

I can be all over the board on this subject. While I am very familiar with the general attitude toward accuracy and scale fidelity that permeates the "IPMS" type military modelers, and I'm in favor of that actually, I also can appreciate building a model that merely gives the impression of looking like the 1:1 subject.

I'm also a model railroader and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a devout "rivet counter" when it comes to my trains. Things like colors, road numbers, and the era of everything on the layout must be correct or it just doesn't work for me.

I tend to transfer that to model cars too. But I can and regularly do accept some, uh, less than perfect details and scale in my car modeling. It's somewhat selective though. For instance I cannot build a race car model that does not have the correct parts or markings for the type of car depicted; i.e. I won't use decals on tires because they are all wrong. Yet, I will paint a race car in a color that's close enough to represent the car I'm modeling. I've actually seen questions on modeling forums like; "What exact color is Dale Earnhardt's 19XX Goodwrench Chevrolet?"

It's BLACK dude, use your favorite black and don't sweat it. (But there are paint companies that sell an "Earnhardt Black", whatever!)

I remember a huge debate on another forum that shall go unnamed about a Revell Mustang funny car. It seems the 'experts" on this forum judged the proportions of this body to be so far off as to be "unbuildable"! I spent hours pouring over photos in magazines of the 1:1 cars and, for the life of me, I could not see the problem. But these guys all hated it!

So you see, I will be happy to have something that others may feel is awful but I also will cringe when I see certain things that others are just fine with.

As to the other part of this thread, several years ago I built a factory stock Dodge Demon. I used an MPC body that was originally tooled in the early '70's and combined it with the interior and chassis from the much more recent AMT 340 Duster.

Considering that the various parts of this model were tooled by completely separate companies, a couple of decades apart, everything fit together surprisingly well!

[2002p51]

You can bally-ho the whole "automotive art" thing all you want, but it just comes down to being cheap.

The "IPMS guys" get spectacularly engineered and accurate models because one day they woke up and said "We're tired of these lame half-hearted models". The companies said "that's gonna cost ya!" Guess what they paid for it. Now they get ships in 1/350 scale with flippin' ladders and whatnot, with an aftermarket if real wood decking, and metal turrets, tracks and gun barrels.

Meanwhile the auto builders are sitting around lamenting the fact the don't sell kits for .98 at Woolworth's anymore.

I paid over $50 for my Tamiya LFA and Ferrari FXX and if Revell made kits as good as those, I'd be willing to pay $50 for them too.

Oh boy, this is an excellent point! It's the same thing in model railroading. Railroad modelers demanded more accurate and better detailed models over the years have been willing to step up and buy them.

Compare Revell's recent 1940 Ford Standard coupe to the old AMT '40 Ford coupe. Which one is worth the higher price? Yes, we all love that old AMT '40 'cause we grew up with it and it reminds us of the fun we had then, but I will by the newer Revell one every time when I want to do a really nice model.

Edited September 1, 2012 by 2002p51

[Harry P.]

The military guys get better, more accurate kits because they demand them and are willing to pay for them! Military modeling is very much an adult hobby, and the point for most military modelers is total accuracy, not "creativity" or customizing. And they are willing to pay the cost for kits that are accurate.

On the other hand, a large chunk of model car builders are kids. They don't care about scale accuracy, all they want is a cool model of a Camaro or a Mustang or a Corvette or whatever. If the roofline contour is off, they don't notice it, nor would they care. And then there's the point that model car builders, on the whole, are notoriously cheap. So the model car kit manufacturers have a customer base that consists in large part of kids who don't give a you-know-what about scale accuracy, and adult builders who think the kits are already too expensive, so they produce kits accordingly. They try to keep them inexpensive, and they cut corners when it comes to absolute accuracy or scale fidelity because they know they can. That small group of adults who take model car building as seriously as the military guys do is a fairly small group as far as the overall customer base for car kits. Apparently they just aren't a large enough slice of the pie to matter that much to the manufacturers, because if they did, we would be seeing much more accurate, detailed kits selling for twice or three times the price they sell for now.

That would please the hard-core fanatics, but the rest of the kit buying public (which is most of the kit buying public) wouldn't be too thrilled with kits that sell for $40-50-60 or more.

[Dr. Cranky]

I think for all practical purposes, both types of markets can be maintained and grown: the ones for the accuracy fanatics, and the one for everyone else. Snap Kits are for kids, sure, but Skill Level 3 kits are advanced builders and kit-bashing fanatics, etc . . .

What I am saying is: It's all good, and there's room for all sorts of markets. If you have a smart company you try to grow regardless.

[niteowl7710]

I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater, after all there's plenty of good miles left in all of these new tools...'72 Olds Coupe/Fastback/442, '55 & '57 Nomads, and '57 Convertible. How about a '70 Charger or '68 Camaro off the existing tools for the Charger & Firebird. That's to say nothing of the various '13 Mustangs, and Camaro variations. We haven't even got our dirty paws on what I'm sure are a series of new '50 Oldseseses and '57 Fords.

Still I'd like to see someone step outside the "box" and take a serious swing at making a Tamiya level kit. I think a lot of people miss out on what can be achieved because the subject matter, yes the price, and as we've found apparently offensive scale has kept a lot of people away.

Heck maybe it does take Aoshima to cook up that Cuda and show what they can do (and prove why they're considered to be rapidly closing in on overtaking Tamiya in automotive subjects) for.people to see what they're missing. When those $40 Cudas go flying off the shelf who does Revell have to blame for that egg on their face?

Edited September 1, 2012 by niteowl7710

[Dennis Lacy]

As far as I'm concearned, as long as the subject is close and looks like what it's supposed to represent, I'm happy. A bigger concern than the actual scale of the vehicle is all of the parts to the vehicle being scaled consistently. A perfect example is the already mentioned modern-tool AMT Ala Kart show rod and it's (very) undersized engine. Someone fell asleep at the switch on that one!

I don't see any point in stressing out over finite details because I already have a job, model building is a hobby and a release from reality where I don't have to worry or take things too seriously. I even, dare I say, mix & match 1:24 and 1:25 parts... The Humanity! When I finish a model and can lean back, take a look and get a smile on my face then I'm satisfied.

Now, that is only my opinion and I can respect the opinions of others and how they prefer their models.

As for the military and aircraft modelers, those people are on a completely different planet. A very dark, distant planet that I am unable to relate to, haha.

[2002p51]

I dont mean to be a dick, but that statement is not true, no more than white is white. As every white is diffrent, believe me, I have seen many many shades of "white", each diffrent, there are many shades, tones, sheens, etc, called black. Go grab hal;f a dozen diffrent blacks, paint up somehting with them, put them side by side, you will see what I mean. I do know a bit about color, I have been doing cabinet finishing for 26 years.

I knew somebody would come back with that. And of course, you're right.

My point was there are certain things that matter for scale accuracy and other things that don't. In the case of the Earnhardt car, black really is black. There is no such thing as a special "Goodwrench Black". Testors Model Master Classic Black is perfectly fine for that car but there are modelers out there who will pay a premium price for a bottle of "Goodwrench Black". I always used to say that unless you're are going to sit the model right on the fender of the actual car, getting the color close enough really is okay.

A lot of modelers who never have the chance to see a 1:1 subject in person will swear it's a certain shade based on photographs in magazines or on their monitor looking at something on line. And both of those are completely unreliable sources for judging correct color.

A long time ago (in a galaxy far, far. . never mind) I painted a Petty, STP car with regular red because all I ever saw was photographs in magazines. It wasn't until the first time I saw the car in person around 1974 or so that I discovered the red was actually a bright day-glo red. The magazine printing process can't accurately duplicate that color and so, the car always looked just plain red to me.

So, I guess my point is, that in the case of color, accuracy can sometimes be let to slide a little for the sake of making the model look "right".

But what do I know!

Edited September 1, 2012 by 2002p51

[sjordan2]

Let's not forget that scale color has a different impact than 1:1 color. Ship builders will tell you that, due to scale, they will use a much lighter battleship gray than the 1:1 subject.

[Harry P.]

Let's not forget that scale color has a different impact than 1:1 color. Ship builders will tell you that, due to scale, they will use a much lighter battleship gray than the 1:1 subject.

That has to do with "atmospheric perspective." When you look at a large object like a battleship, in order to see it completely within your field of vision, you have to be back away from it quite a way. And the further away from an object you are, the lighter or paler it appears because of the air (and the impurities in the air) between you and the object you're looking at. So scale ship builders compensate for that effect by using slightly lighter shades of color, in order to trick your mind into seeing the model as the real object would appear to your eyes.

With model cars, that effect really doesn't come into play. You only have to be 10 feet or so away from a full scale car to see it all from front to back. Atmospheric perspective really doesn't apply with model cars.

[moparmagiclives]

The military guys get better, more accurate kits because they demand them and are willing to pay for them! Military modeling is very much an adult hobby, and the point for most military modelers is total accuracy, not "creativity" or customizing. And they are willing to pay the cost for kits that are accurate.

I think it goes deeper then adults/ and kids. I think the military guys have a bond or passion for it on a personal experience level that most of us will never know, much like those that own or operate race vehicle at a professional level. They know all the ins and outs, so if something isn't right, it's like a slap in the face how obvious it is, as far as the kids know, that's how it's suposed to be. Not that's it's always a money issue, or that we are to dumb to care, but if someone doesn't know better then they don't know better.

[DanielG]

Whenever a new kit, say Spit for instance, came out then out would come the tape measures and rivet and panel line experts to pick it apart. After a while there were so many 1:1 restored Spits around that there were lots of realife comparisons to published dimensions which just did not jive. Then there was the 'correct colour' argument which still goes on even though it should have been put to bed ages ago. After following this for a few years I joined the 'Duck Club'; if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then call it a duck and be happy.

[southpier]

this is clearly a First World problem

[martinfan5]

this is clearly a First World problem

[Darin Bastedo]

Why is it that when a mistake that we make building the model is called out we say, "that's ok I build for myself" but if that same inaccuracy is found in the model the company is raked over the coals?

[David G.]

this is clearly a First World problem

While we grumble and complain about the accuracy of plastic model car kits, there are people in other parts of the world who worry that the cup of water they just drank might give them a fatal case of dysentery.

David G.

[MrObsessive]

OK, here's my 2¢ on this subject........

While it does bug me when the manufacturers don't get certain things right, I don't get too twisted over it as I can probably fix the error in my own due time when I decide to build a certain kit.

Witness my own thread of the building of Revell's '59 Chevy.

There are a number of kits out there that I could point out that have some glaring faults to my eyes, but I won't point them out unless someone asks me personally, or there is a topic about said kit on the board. Actually, I like the challenge of fixing something that should have been done right in the first place..........I don't know if that's the masochist in me, or the thrill of getting something looking like the 1:1 as much as possible.

After the '59 Chevy, I have a couple in mind that could stand some "fixing"-------I'll cross that bridge when I come to it though.

[jaydar]

You get what you pay for (sometimes). I want detail and accuracy and i will pay for it. If higher cost kits will kill the hobby, then it is not worth it to me to have the mfrs do so.

I come from the 1/48 airplane group, we have costly kits and the avg age on the forums is at least 50!

The strangest thing about the car hobby is the relative lack of aftermarket. If cars were planes you would have way more resin engines, resin engine copartments, whells and tires. Our photoetch a/m is not even close to planes and ships and they do it in scales MUCH smaller.

I don't get it.

[Danno]

That has to do with "atmospheric perspective." When you look at a large object like a battleship, in order to see it completely within your field of vision, you have to be back away from it quite a way. And the further away from an object you are, the lighter or paler it appears because of the air (and the impurities in the air) between you and the object you're looking at. So scale ship builders compensate for that effect by using slightly lighter shades of color, in order to trick your mind into seeing the model as the real object would appear to your eyes.

With model cars, that effect really doesn't come into play. You only have to be 10 feet or so away from a full scale car to see it all from front to back. Atmospheric perspective really doesn't apply with model cars.

So, how many FSA steps of difference in hue would atmosphereic perspective be in 1/25 scale? I'm trying to be accurate here.

[2002p51]

Why is it that when a mistake that we make building the model is called out we say, "that's ok I build for myself" but if that same inaccuracy is found in the model the company is raked over the coals?

Why indeed. Very, very true!

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think it goes deeper than adults/ and kids. I think (some) guys have a bond or passion for it on a personal experience level that most of us will never know...... at a professional level. They know all the ins and outs, so if something isn't right, it's like a slap in the face how obvious it is, as far as the kids know, that's how it's suposed to be. Not that's it's always a money issue, or that we are to dumb to care, but if someone doesn't know better then they don't know better.

This rings true, and I'm certain it's the reason the scale-accuracy and function-represented-correctly issues matter to me apparently more than to the average modeler. As a life-long professional builder and restorer of 1:1 prototype and high-performance vehicles that HAVE TO FUNCTION CORRECTLY, it does feel like a "salp in the face" when a model company misses the mark hugely on a scale or design issue that is instantly obvious to me, or when a modeler builds something with a total and complete dis-regard for how it would function in 1:1.

Understanding how things work and making things that DO work (or REPRESENT CORRECTLY things that work) is part of the satisfaction I get from my employment AND my hobbies. And I guess that's a difference in 'how-I'm-wired' from the guys who just don't care to understand function, or model company employees who don't bother to measure carefully.

But I've known people all my professional life that didn't have the "bond or passion" (to quote Shane again) for what they did that I seem to have, and I guess my real question is "Why not?". Why is it so often acceptable to so many to slide through life with minimal effort, understanding, and involvement, and being perfectly satisfied with mediocrity rather than excellence? This is obviously a philosophical question and I don't really expect it to be answered here, but it's something I wonder about constantly.

[2002p51]

You get what you pay for (sometimes). I want detail and accuracy and i will pay for it. If higher cost kits will kill the hobby, then it is not worth it to me to have the mfrs do so.

I come from the 1/48 airplane group, we have costly kits and the avg age on the forums is at least 50!

The strangest thing about the car hobby is the relative lack of aftermarket. If cars were planes you would have way more resin engines, resin engine copartments, whells and tires. Our photoetch a/m is not even close to planes and ships and they do it in scales MUCH smaller.

I don't get it.

I think it's because the military side of the hobby just might be a much larger market.

[niteowl7710]

Why is it that when a mistake that we make building the model is called out we say, "that's ok I build for myself" but if that same inaccuracy is found in the model the company is raked over the coals?

I suspect that's because the individual modeler (by and large) isn't a mid-sized corporation that sustains it's business by selling things. That and I doubt anyone would accept "I cast it for myself!l as a viable excuse.

There's also that pesky human factor of delicate ego.that can't handle being challenged and using that lame half-you know excuse for not either accepting critisicim and growing from it, out hiding from it all together while going "lalalala, can't hear you, LALALALA".

As much as they'd probably love to at times, the various model companies can't stick their fingers in their ears and pretend we're talking about someone else.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think it's because the military side of the hobby just might be a much larger market.

I would REALLY like to know the actual size of the model car market in this country, and how it breaks down. I was doing some research on the Ala Kart recently and came across several quotes that AMT's first release of that kit in the early '60s sold a MILLION copies. If that's a good number (I know, everything on the internet is true...) I wonder if any issue even comes close to those numbers today.....even though there are about twice as many people in the US as there were then.

[2002p51]

and being perfectly satisfied with mediocrity rather than excellence?

This is something that bothers me too, and I see it all too often on this and other boards.

[niteowl7710]

Why is it so often acceptable to so many to slide through life with minimal effort, understanding, and involvement, and being perfectly satisfied with mediocrity rather than excellence? This is obviously a philosophical question and I don't really expect it to be answered here, but it's something I wonder about constantly.

Something else that factors into this is that it's not 1982 anymore. All the things you need to be passionate about something are just a Google search away.

Take the '62 Vette that's coming out. Back in "the day" unless you knew someone with the car, one of the magazines did an article on it, or you saw it at Corvettes at Carlisle (or similar 1:1 show), you might never really know enough about it to know or care about the car and subsequently the kit and how accurate it is or isn't.

Now there are probably a half dozen Corvette forums, probably one dedicated to the '62 era model, and literally thousands of photos and reams of technical data available at the end of your mouse pointer. The same goes for every 1:1 car out there.

Not caring (which is fine if that's your position) isn't the same as not knowing.

Cripes typing these posts on my phone is murder, makes me look like a blithering idiot until I can spell check it once it's posted.

Edited September 2, 2012 by niteowl7710