I don't know; given that the expected response for most, (excluding the original poster of course), would likely be; "You're making a damned fool of yourself with your off-the-wall, insane & totally ludicrous comments, so we're naturally going to mock you." it seems that things are proceeding normally.
Though I have disagreed with Mr. Gieger in the past, in the case of station wagons models in that other thread, he never said he was against them, he merely laid out from a business standpoint why the manufacturers don't waste precious tooling dollars on them, in a logical & very well thought out manner. He is also 100% right in that scenario, based on past sale performance of said models over the years. Most of the station wagon models tooled up in the past were annual kits, who's tooling costs had been at least partially paid for by the 1/1 manufactrers via the promos they ordered. In this case Revell, et al, would have to absorb the tooling costs themselves, & the desires of a small but vocal minority of model buyers isn't enough to convince them of the ROI on such a product.
Are you really so obtuse as to fail to grasp the difference?
And why pray tell are you dragging that subject into this thread if for no other reason than to start up another argument?
What!?! Your analogy is roughly equivalent to saying if I want a good meal at a fine restaurant I have to cook it myself. That's completely off base. Wanting an accurate, buildable kit from what I purchased is laziness? Where do you get that idea? If I chose to modify or customize a kit, then yes, I should & do expect to do more work to get it to look like I envision. But for crying out loud, I shouldn't have to do their work for them to get a kit to the level of accuracy it should have been at in the first place.
If all of this is part of model building, then why do I rarely have to do more than basic cleanup with a Tamiya or a Galaxie Ltd kit? Why did the Revell midget kits I built, (a shining example of Revell getting it right), just fall together? Why did my Moebius International ProStar, ( a shining example of Moebius getting it right), not only build up well, but look accurate & true to the 1/1 when completed? Why was my Moebius Frankenstein kit, (another that they got right), such a joy to build & so great in capturing the look of Boris Karloff as the Monster? That one did require a lot of putty in certain areas, as well as much flling & sanding of seams, but that's to be expected given the way those kits are designed & tooled up & as to how they assemble. it's not the amount of work involved in buidling a kit, it's the reason that the work is required.
Trust me, I am far removed from a ten year old building a model with glue on the windshield & have been for years. I was building in the 70's as well, (the 60's also, to be exact), but this isn't the 70's anymore. My skills & abilities have indeed progressed from where they were 40+ years ago when I was that ten year old boy. Why shouldn't I expect the model manufacturers to have upped their game as well?
It's not a matter of being "skilled enough", it's a matter of we shouldn't have to do this because Moebius or any other manufacturer didn't get it right. By your crteria we hould be happy if a model company put a block of wood in a box & said "Carve away at that until a 69 Ford pickup emerges."
I'm sorry, but on this forum I do all my communicating out in the open. I have my PM's disabled & prefer it that way. I have no interest in getting into a debate by PM over things. Just for the record, these aren't my "opinions". They are observations made based on the evidence at hand. That test shot simply isn't accurate enough, & no amount of excuses or cheerleading can change that.
If you can't see the accuracy flaws in the test shot in comparison to only the 1/1 but also to the tooling master than I simply don't know what else to tell you. The kit is likely buildable, but I personally wouldn't be happy with it on my shelf. All that a model car is supposed to do once finished is to look like an accurate miniature replica of the 1/1, nothing more & nothing less, if it is indeed meant to be a miniature replica of the 1/1, in other words, a replica stock model. It serves no other function on the shelf. That's also why I would never buy a diecast such as the one of a similar model Ford pickup as was shown a few pages back, as it didn't do any better of a job of replicating the 1/1 either, at least overall. It was closer in some areas, but not close enough in others.
Whoa there, why one earth should I support a project like this when the end result isn't going to meet even basic standards of accuracy that have been pointed out ad infinium in this thread? That "impossible to please" comment sounds a lot like those tiresome canards that we're wanting a "perfect model", when all we want is an accurate one. There are countless model companies that get things more accurate than Moebius has in their vehicle kits thus far. To expect less from Moebius is doing ourselves, the hobby & Moebius itself an injustice. They should strive to create the most accurate kits for the money as is humanly possible, not make nor accept excuses of "good enough". We, as a community should hold them to the same standards before we part with our money for their product.
As I said, I didn't place their International models in the same category, & I will also say that they are very accurate & were a pleasure to buy & build, so I have purchased their kits in the past, when they've met my criteria & been worth spending my money on.
As long as we blindly cheer & support Moebius, (or any other manufacturer), for churning out kits that fall short as to accuracy, or buildability, or any other basic criteria that should be expected by the modeler, then we do ourselves & the hobby a disservice.
Wanting a model to be an accurate miniature of the 1/1 isn't being "impossible to please", it's wanting basic value for the money. If you can't grasp that concept, then I simply don't know what to say.
Invaild comparison, as in a 1/1 vehicle they can & do make running changes to correct flaws. The only flaws in this case that I'm speaking of are as to the kit's accuracy, or the lack thereof. In this case we can see from the tooling master to test shot #2 that something was lost as to accuracy in the process from master to test shot. Ray Charles can see those issues between the two & he's both blind & dead. Such accuracy flaws need to be addressed before the kit makes it to market.
Granted Revell & Monogram have made corrections to flawed kits during production runs, (the reversed 69 Nova gas tank & the sloping DLO on the initial 69 Chargers spring to mind), but said running changes are usually few & far between. The aforementioned Nova is proof of that as Revell has admitted that the 1/1 car they based it on had poorly fitting & inaccurate aftermarket replacement rear quarters, which is why it's rear fenderwells are so far off. They didn't bother to fix that, & I won't even mention that 90 Mustang LX abomination.
Having valid complaints, (such as a kit being inaccurate), has merit. Complainng that they should have tooled up the "extra rare Canyonero option package that was only ordered on five trucks", which is what I would consider miniscule & insignificant, isn't valid & thus lacks merit. If the kit is no more accurate than prior Mobeius vehicle kits, (excluding the International rigs), then like all the rest of their vehicle kits, (again excluding the Internationals), I too will pass on spending my discretionary income on it. So far Moebius is zero for six in selling me one of their vehicle kits, & that's not including the Model King variants. I want to add that as far as subject matter on those six kits & variants goes, each one of them was a subject I had lusted after in scale for more years than I care to admit. The fact that they have yet to sell me a single one, due to major accuracy issues, speaks volumes.