Scale model inaccuracies

[Deano]

Like I said, it's not any one kit. It's many kits from many manufacturers. I don't want to call out any one specific kit or manufacturer. It's an across-the-board, industry-wide problem. Yes, one particular kit I'm working on now is what set me off... but the problem is widespread and definitely not limited to that one specific kit/manufacturer.

But, Harry, it IS one particular kit. It's the kit you started yesterday. It's the kit you're working on. Knowing that you gravitate toward large scale models, it's probably not an inexpensive model, therefore you kinda have a duty to inform the the world (ie. us) so we know, going in, what to expect. By leaving it intentionally vague, it's like saying "Everything you're going to encounter is going to be BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH and you shouldn't take it any more." And you're right, but it would help us to know; is this a new "state-of-the-art" whiz-bang $700 Pocher kit, an older Pocher kit or (heaven forbid) an ITC 1/10 (?) scale Duesenberg. Is it something that one would expect meticulous attention to accuracy or is it a kit that WAS originally marketed as a toy? Or is it, as I suspect, something in between?

[Guest]

If you enjoy completely reworking flaws in a kit, cool. If you do not, and want maximum accuracy ootb, cool. Nothing wrong with either point of view.

[Harry P.]

But, Harry, it IS one particular kit. It's the kit you started yesterday. It's the kit you're working on. Knowing that you gravitate toward large scale models, it's probably not an inexpensive model, therefore you kinda have a duty to inform the the world (ie. us) so we know, going in, what to expect. By leaving it intentionally vague, it's like saying "Everything you're going to encounter is going to be crap and you shouldn't take it any more." And you're right, but it would help us to know; is this a new "state-of-the-art" whiz-bang $700 Pocher kit, an older Pocher kit or (heaven forbid) an ITC 1/10 (?) scale Duesenberg. Is it something that one would expect meticulous attention to accuracy or is it a kit that WAS originally marketed as a toy? Or is it, as I suspect, something in between?

It's not a Pocher or any other big bucks kit. It's an old kit of as brass-era car made by a company that doesn't even exist anymore... it's not a kit most of the members here would have any interest in or ever even come across. It was tooled in the '70s. But the problems with the kit, like I said, have nothing to do with technical limitations... they have to do with brain freeze and a "good enough" attitude by the manufacturer.

For example: just one of many things... the body is made of several separate panels–sides, front and rear panel, and a couple of interior bulkheads. Each panel is basically flat, with some fine raised detail (moldings and very delicate "pinstripes" engraved on them). And each panel has two ejector pin marks on the front of the panel. Because of where they fall, removing them means destroying the molded-in raised details on the body. And that means–if I want the body to look right–removing the pin marks, sanding the panels flat (because parts of the raised detail will be destroyed when I fix the pin marks), and then going back and trying to recreate the moldings with styrene strips. A lot of extra work.

I see no reason why the body panels couldn't have been "flipped" on the tree, so that the ejector pins left their marks on the backs of the body panels instead of the front.

Does this mean my world is crashing down around me? No. Does it mean I don't "enjoy life?" No, Andy... life is fine. It just means I enjoy my hobby a little less. If that's ok.

[pharoah]

Harry started it

LOL

[Guest]

We still see ejector pin marks on very visible surfaces. I am with Harry on that one.

[Guest]

Harry started it

Harry starts lots of things. The question is, does he finish them? Lol, jk Harry!

[Aaronw]

When discussing this topic realize it prevails throughout the genres of modelling. Why do you think we "IPMS" guys have all the aftermarket anyway? In some cases the inaccuricies are traceable to the R and D staff that began the process.

A few years back team was dispatched from Japan to the armor museum in Latrun, Israel. There they spent weeks examining and cataloguing an icon, an Israeli Sherman from the 1967 war. When the kit was made public it was quite apparent the team performed too well. They replicated the cast steel hull as they saw it, heavily pitted, extreme texture and misshapen details. It was an outdoor display that had been there for two decades. and had been damaged and repainted many times hence the "texture" of the cast armor.

A Japanese team once examined a US, M 48 Patton which was displayed at Ft Knox. The display had no engine so the finished kit sat just like the original, too high. In the kits case, 2-3mm too high...... We IPMS guys always caution to beware the "museum piece" as reference.

So put this in perspective. What prototype was examined as part of the process? Did the examiners do their job too well or did they just blow it off with a "good enough" attitude?

Heller was mentioned. The body was fine, interior details were a guess. I'll guess the body was all that was examined, for what ever reason.

I whole heartedly agree that automotve subjects deserve the same attention, support and respect.

G

I don't know of specific examples of this issue with model cars, but know of several museum errors that got into kits.

Italeri's 1/72 Sikorsky H-34 / Wessex being a prime example. Italeri has the tail rotor turning the wrong way... idiots. It is an exact copy of the museum example in England, the curators mounted the tail rotor backwards. They made a similar mistake by copying another museum example. A different English museum wanted to display a helicopter marked for the local Royal Air Force search and rescue group, but the helicopter they had to work with was a Royal Navy helicopter, so they put an RAF scheme and markings on a RN variant. Italeri copied it and used the same markings on the same "wrong" version. Both of these kits are nearly perfect copies if you want to build the museum examples.

So who do you beat up, the model makers or the museums (and these issues are far from unique in the museum community).

I recall some discussion about the upcoming Revell VW Beetle possibly being based off of an imperfectly restored original that mixed a couple of years together.

It would seem many in the scale community are more concerned with these issues than most of those in the 1-1 community.

Not to put him on the spot, but perhaps Cato could offer some perspective on the Cobra front. I have seen some of his comments on the issues with 1-1 Cobras, he could probably provide examples of these getting into the kits.

[sjordan2]

Harry starts lots of things. The question is, does he finish them? Lol, jk Harry!

I think a lot of our members miss stuff like this because they don't check out the Big Boyz section, which is where most of Harry's builds appear. Not finish things? You can't believe how fast he is at finishing things, with lots of scratch building and a museum-quality finish. This is why I think the Big Boyz section should go away.

Not to put him on the spot, but perhaps Cato could offer some perspective on the Cobra front. I have seen some of his comments on the issues with 1-1 Cobras, he could probably provide examples of these getting into the kits.

Cato has piped in for a long time with help on Cobras and is always ready to do so.

Edited February 22, 2014 by sjordan2

[Aaronw]

Cato has piped in for a long time with help on Cobras and is always ready to do so.

I know that, it is why I suggested he might be a good source to provide car model examples about the difficulties involved in "getting it right".

[Cato]

Not to put him on the spot, but perhaps Cato could offer some perspective on the Cobra front. I have seen some of his comments on the issues with 1-1 Cobras, he could probably provide examples of these getting into the kits.

.

I'm used to being on the spot Aaron so no worries.

The Cobra model world is very much like your example of the H-34 and Agent G's examples; even the best intentioned kit designers copy what they're given and it becomes their model version. The problem is they don't really know the subject from personal experience or depth of study.

Because there are 40+ different Cobra replica mfgrs, many model kits are born with bogus parts like wheels, pipes, hoses and engine components that 1:1 owners wanted on their cars. The models all come with off-road steamroller tires and wrong stance. That's not to mention the already-difficult curves and proportions to replicate accurate 1:1 Cobra replicas.

I doubt if any Cobra model was digitized from an original '60's Cobra. Because you'd be able to look at it and instantly say 'that's right'.

Then there's the limitation (especially in the smaller scales) of thickness of critical visible parts like windshield frames and glass. But I have no idea why PE parts for those are not in today's $25+ kits. I had a 1/24 Climax model which had white metal parts and they were in perfect scale. But no one today likes to pay those prices. Not many MFH builders on here.

TDR made a good attempt at their 1/8 car but it too had errors to the familiar eye. But it looked great to any who have never been around or driven these car.

Look, it's not about Cobras-Harry's point as I see it is that mfgrs could and should try harder to present more acceptable levels of the basics of shape, proportion and detail in a well engineered kit. Not 'shake and bake' easy and not 'museum scale' either.

Even those that just want a nice shelf model would appreciate not having a lump that you have to squint at to recognize.

You know Art made a good point about Moebius being very diligent with CAD and feedback from modelers and they too had some rough spots on some otherwise really nice models.

I never said what they do is easy.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Cato

[chitownbri]

Come on, you guys. Let's keep the conversation at a level above 12 years olds, huh?

The reason I didn't mention the specific kit is that there are many kits by many manufacturers that have the same problems. It's not any one specific kit or any one specific manufacturer. It's a pervasive "good enough" attitude that seems to be common across the board when it comes to model car kits. Not always. But often enough that it bugs me. You don't see this "good enough" attitude nearly as much with military models. I know that for years, "good enough" was good enough with model cars, because the majority of kit builders were kids who didn't know any better, or more likely, couldn't care less. But the hobby has shifted to a consumer base comprised mostly of adults now. That "good enough" mentality, however, seems to linger on.

And to the guys who insist it's all irrelevant and we're just playing with plastic toys... hey, if that's your take on it, fine. Everyone puts their own level of importance on things. For the "plastic toy" guys, plastic toys it is. I realize that an inaccurate model kit isn't at the same level of importance in your life as other things. But my point is, if the real car has a square widget, and the model is supposed to represent the real car in scale, it's just as easy to tool up a square widget as it is a round one. No extra cost or effort required to get the basics more or less correct. Not perfect. Nobody expects perfection. Perfection is impossible. But I do expect that people who are paid to design and engineer model kits to get the basics correct. Again, I'm not talking about whether the slope of the fender is a quarter of a millimeter off... I'm not talking about a seat that has maybe an incorrect upholstery pattern engraved into it... I'm talking about obvious, basic, very visible mistakes that are caused by carelessness. A kit with an automatic trans and a clutch pedal. A kit with an engine that the real car never came with. A kit with no battery. Stuff like that.

I didn't mean to cause a problem... I guess I just wanted to vent. I pay real money for the kits I buy, not Monopoly money or beads. I expect the product to be reasonably accurate. I can accept minor things. I understand flash and ejector pin marks and mold seams. I don't accept obvious mistakes due to carelessness or a "good enough" attitude. I don't like to have to re-engineer most of a kit and correct the mistakes made by people who were paid to create the kit. Like I said... it's just as easy to tool up a round widget as it is a square one. So why not just do it right???

I'm not expecting an answer, because none of us really know the answer. Or if there even is an answer.

heres a prime example: i'm currently building italeri's ford aeromax 106 kit and realized theres no battery boxes for this truck, their aeromax 120 kit has them along with their ltl9000 kit but they got overlooked in this kit. not really a big deal for me as i prolly have something suitable in my spare parts box.

[sjordan2]

Has anyone who's frequented this forum ever heard of a "floating alternator?"

[Harry P.]

Has anyone who's frequented this forum ever heard of a "floating alternator?"

You mean the "MAGIC floating alternator"... held in midair by unseen forces, yet still able to put tension on the belt!

[Agent G]

Perfection is one thing. Screwing up roof proportions on a kit is another when the 1:1 is just 21 or so years old. Tell me aren't there any Fox bodies left out there to examine? Now that said I have built two and when completed I don't feel it is that noticible. That is until I put mine next to Maindrain Pace's exquisite modified body or one of Mastercasters repros of it ..........................

I have been building cars a lot longer than armor and I recall being delighted when I saw an actual alternator bracket in the kit. That wasn't too long ago either.

G

Edited February 22, 2014 by Agent G

[bbowser]

I think Harry's observations would be fair on a Moebius or Revell new tool. If we're talking about a 50 year old Palmer or Aurora kit then that's a different animal altogether.

[Guest]

Posted Today, 02:35 PM

midnightprowler, on 22 Feb 2014 - 1:34 PM, said:

Harry starts lots of things. The question is, does he finish them? Lol, jk Harry!

I think a lot of our members miss stuff like this because they don't check out the Big Boyz section, which is where most of Harry's builds appear. Not finish things? You can't believe how fast he is at finishing things, with lots of scratch building and a museum-quality finish. This is why I think the Big Boyz section should go away.

I was just kidding Skip.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think Harry's observations would be fair on a Moebius or Revell new tool. If we're talking about a 50 year old Palmer or Aurora kit then that's a different animal altogether.

I'll have to disagree in principle here. I have some 50+ year old models, the proportions of which are absolutely spot-on.

Accurate measuring was entirely possible 50 years ago...it doesn't require new technology. It only requires caring enough to get it right, and getting it right takes NO longer than getting it wrong.

[Harry P.]

I think Harry's observations would be fair on a Moebius or Revell new tool. If we're talking about a 50 year old Palmer or Aurora kit then that's a different animal altogether.

Not so. Basic accuracy and getting details right doesn't rely on technology, it relies on people making correct decisions. Yes, in the past there were inaccurate model kits. But back then the target market was 12 year olds. There wasn't a whole lot of call for accuracy from the customer base. As long as there was a lot of chrome in the box, mag wheels and slicks, and cool decals, things were ok. But at the same time that Palmer was creating junk, Monogram was releasing models of the classics that were light years better, and still hold up well today in terms of accuracy and attention to detail. Same with the JoHan "Gold Cup" series. Tthose kits were designed and engineered without today's technology. And when you factor in all the new technology the manufacturers do have today, I find it ridiculous to see so many basic, dumb mistakes in newly tooled kits. Again, I am not talking about slight body angles or hairsplitting minutiae... I'm talking about "magic floating alternators" and things like that. Basic, obvious mistakes that someone in the process should have caught.

[1930fordpickup]

You mean the "MAGIC floating alternator"... held in midair by unseen forces, yet still able to put tension on the belt!

Those are self adjusting belts Harry. No brackets needed.

[Harry P.]

Those are self adjusting belts Harry. No brackets needed.

[george 53]

I was talkin with a fellow member and he was mentioning the scale fidelity of MOST jap kits. BUT we BOTH noticed that they are almost double the cost of OUR kits. So REALLY maybe it's WHY they cost more than ours, simply because the add the cost of PROPER research to the final cost. But are WE willing to pay 40 bucks for a new Vette or Mustang to GET that scale fidelity? not me.I'm easy. as long as it LOOKS like it SHOULD to me, I'm happy, but thats just me. If those who WANT that kind of fidelity are willing to pay for it,maybe they can petition the jap company's to offer MORE of a variety of AMERICAN cars that would be good sellers. I call them toys because to ME no matter HOW well you build it, ANY kid will play with it as a TOY. ME I appericiate the work that goes into them, but in the end, they're JUST plastic little cars, no matter WHO'S ego say's different.

[Lunajammer]

Reminds me of the old business axiom: "Fast • Good • Cheap, you can pick two." My guess they picked fast & cheap.

[Ace-Garageguy]

When folks talk about cost of research and measuring correctly being prohibitive, again I just HAVE to disagree.

One of the outstanding examples of "no excuse" is the 1/25 scale engines in the Revell Magnum wagon, and the 2009 Challenger. They BOTH represent 6.1 liter Hemi, very recent production engines, and they're supposed to be in the same scale. They SHOULD BE IDENTICAL. The two kits COULD HAVE EVEN USED THE SAME TOOLING. In fact, one engine is almost 1/4" longer than the other one. THE BLOCK AND HEADS...not the accessories or anything else...THE BLOCK AND HEADS.

NO EXCUSE will fly. I'm NOT bashing Revell. I LIKE Revell a lot. Still, this is just wrong. No excuse.

[niteowl7710]

I get this picture of George lying his basement floor going "VROOM VROOM VROOM" with his models. Because that's how it would be a TOY.

But beyond that two things --

1. Asian kits are NOT twice as expensive unless you choice to pay the U.S. Retail mark-up for them. Revell's new tool kits on their corporate website are the same - and in some case a few bucks MORE - than a comparable Aoshima or Fujimi kit via direct importation. By the way Revell/Round 2/Moebius kits costs twice as much as a domestic kit in Japan, so they ARE paying $40+ for that gem of a LX Mustang, imagine how they feel.

2. You get what you pay for, namely innovative use of technology, and attention to detail. Realize this video is mostly about 1/350 scale ship, but it give a little window into a company that isn't trying to make toy boats.

[martinfan5]

Thank you James, this is what I wanted to say, but was having a form of typing block

I get this picture of George lying his basement floor going "VROOM VROOM VROOM" with his models. Because that's how it would be a TOY.

But beyond that two things --

1. Asian kits are NOT twice as expensive unless you choice to pay the U.S. Retail mark-up for them. Revell's new tool kits on their corporate website are the same - and in some case a few bucks MORE - than a comparable Aoshima or Fujimi kit via direct importation. By the way Revell/Round 2/Moebius kits costs twice as much as a domestic kit in Japan, so they ARE paying $40+ for that gem of a LX Mustang, imagine how they feel.

2. You get what you pay for, namely innovative use of technology, and attention to detail. Realize this video is mostly about 1/350 scale ship, but it give a little window into a company that isn't trying to make toy boats.