Painting the drip moldings and door frames black does minimize the problem somewhat. Looks pretty much the same to me, straight down to the 5.0 badge pre-correction, if that ain't a decal - but hey, I'm ready and willing to be surprised and delighted, and I'll be hollering A T T A B O O Y Y! from the rafters if they have indeed fixed it.
But an apology? I've dropped more than fifty bucks on a pair I don't know if I've got the time to make acceptable, and I ain't lookin' for an apology! An apology to Revell is appropriate if the criticism is off-base and incorrect, but Mike Schnur - though he doesn't like to make a big deal of it - has demonstrated conclusively with his vastly improved body shell that the criticism is bang on-target (the upper-echelon's apparent attempts at whitewashing it all to the contrary). So the very concept of an apology to Revell for getting around to what they should have done in the first place is "are-you-putting-me-on??" LAUGHABLE.
But with all due respect, that mentality once again demonstrates that what really needs to be "gotten over" is this same old allergy to kit criticism that like it or not, is entirely topical to the subject at hand.
When a model has visual deviations from the prototype, it fails to live up to its very reason for existence. I'm going to borrow somebody's notion of "reasonable expectation", except that I'm actually going to be more REASONABLE about it: while this chimerical, straw man diversion of the "perfect kit" is anything BUT reasonable to hope for, a roof height without a clearly visible variance from true scale IS a reasonable expectation.
Now let's try another angle: just how exactly does a discussion thread pointing this out, asking if there's been any progress from one release to the next, fail to meet the reader's expectation? Long as there are no personal attacks, that too-low roof IS on topic, and what's more, some folks actually come in with the objective of FINDING OUT about problems like this. So not only is the "don't like it, don't participate" approach just as apt here, it is in fact MORE appropriate. After all, it's not as if any of you has been waiting over two decades to drop your cold cashish on some sunshine-and-ponies Stepford thread about a problem kit.
In the case of the model, it plainly does not live up to its own stated mandate of being 1/25 the size of the subject in all dimensions, so discussion of that in a thread about the very kit is not only logical and on-topic, it's inevitable. That a truly topical discussion should somehow be muted in pointing out all these problems is the expectation that's actually irrational. It's really the people with that expectation who need to "get over" the fact that a topical discussion will include pointing out problems with the kit.
And If you don't like it, don't read it.
Btw, notice how THAT suggestion doesn't nick Revell's bottom line.