The Forums will be down, Friday, November 24th starting 8 AM PST for upgrade.We'll probably be down until 1PM PST, but it might be longer. I'm doing a major forum software upgrade, so I expect the forums to operate somewhat differently when we come back online.
Whoah now, diddn' anybody say nothin' about not wanting to buy an RoG Panamera (well I didn't, did you?) - in fact, by virtue of the latest Panamera looking a lot less like a syphilitic hunchback and more like the 991 many (most?) of us want in the first place, I'll be having one, m'self. It's not so much a pan of the 'Mera as it is the bonehead-obviousness of 911s maybe a bit less than forty years old. Okay, WAY less. Then again, Hasegawa may come around to a good 991.2 GT3 in the 2050s...
They were more unibody than I reckoned - I was not aware of the continuous floor pan between cab and bed. See, I was having trouble with "unibody" for the exact reason you list, 'cause I was certain they ran a full ladder frame. But while they're not exactly body shell and subframe in the passenger car sense, the term's better justified than I thought.
Yeah, I'm kinda havin' a "DUH" moment about it all now - wasn't aware the floor was continuous, but integrated bed quarters don't really work unless they have that foundation, do they? Hmm. True unibody then. Wow.
Welp, it's been pointed out that 9 months is on the rosy side, assuming nothing goes wrong, to get any presentable plastic in a box. That means hammer-to-the-floor, NOTHING going wrong, maybe 4th quarter '18. For ONE of them, because the decision hasn't even been made what comes first. Account for history and Murphy's law, I'd put 'em somewhere early-mid '19, m'self. They can take till 2021, far as I'm concerned, if they use the time getting 'em dialed in. Oh, whatever will I build in the meantime...
Begging your pardon, Mr M, but one can point out something in the drip moldings on a mock-up without passing judgment on your final products exactly because these are the mock-ups - right? Having them too flat would not be something unique to Moebius; the two manufacturers who have covered this generation of Nova before did the exact same thing, and this is an opportunity for Moebius to distinguish itself with a small but distinct improvement over its predecessors. Isn't the mock-up stage exactly where it's to your best benefit to hear about some of these things? Better now than after the steel is cut, or am I wrong? Perhaps this is already an item in your first round of notes? I might understand some exasperation in that case, but it's not as if we had any way of knowing that. And it's not as if I pointed out that precedent established twice before your effort without necessarily linking it to the possibility that you'll correct it before production. It also seems I got it entirely past you that I thought the '65 looked pretty good - good enough to convince me the subject might be more interesting than I first thought.
Uh, yeah - I can sympathize with keeping things in their proper forums and all, but it waddn' Matthew introduced the subject of trucks into the whole new release discussion, it was Moebius. Anyhoo, I too was kinda like "meh" to see the Novas. These do have small blocks, though, and while one can hope Moebius doesn't totally flatten the sport coupe drip rails like AMT and Trumpeter before them, the post sedan does look pretty tuff. Tube frame reinforcements in the engine bay? Yup, that one has my attention. Though I'll probably give in to the '64 too, 'specially if they get the greenhouse right. The only way I could be happier about the F-series trucks would be to have the integrated-bed Styleside from earlier in the '60s (sorry, but unless the cab carries actual structural load that I'm not aware of, the use of the term "unibody" for these just throws me). Serve those right up soon as you got 'em dialed in, sil vous plait Moebius. *edit* - hmm, digging into F-series history a little deeper, apparently "unibody" is more apt than I first thought...
See, what tickles my imagination is the "all-new" tool angle - By way of f'rinstance, the '70 Charger is all-new tooling (and nice), as was the Stacey David Deuce kit (*cough*). So that could be one direction, and malaiseBirds, early B-Bodies, and '20s Ford variations might fit that approach. Then there are the all-NEW-new tools without reference to previous patterns, like the Foose truck & Caddy or the '50 Olds. Comes to that, the single thing I most want that intersects with sales potential might be this:
Luc, ye'r a kool sort. Hate to come across as pickin' on ya. But the problem goes a little deeper than you stating "toys" as an indisputable absolute. To start with that much-abraded premise, sure, if you come at it from the outside angle, you don't look at things too close, it's easy to confuse model kits for Hot Wheels diecasts kids push on the floor or for the drug store R/Cs youngsters can plug 'n play - particularly when toy manufacturers have the resources to produce more accurate proportioning than you see in some model kits. That's the casual appraisal of plastic models, the Ebay/Retail assessment, and frankly the incomplete one. Coming from the other direction is the very definition of a scale model itself, which in the very word "scale" mandates the closest proportional miniaturization possible of a full-size subject. There's hard math involved that a scale model is by its very definition supposed to conform to, and when a model is off by that definition, it fails in a primary objective. It may be cleverly designed, highly detailed, and well-engineered for fit, but if it doesn't pass the sit-there-and-look-like-the-1:1 test, people are not wrong to point that out. Trivializing things to the "toy" absolute is the favored approach of those who try to argue that it IS somehow objectionable to do so, and it's just so much misdirection to bolster a very poorly justified personal reaction to kit criticism. Not to say YOU'RE doing that, just pointing out the most common abuse of that argument. But the deeper issue as I see it is the appeal to relative privation. They're getting gunned down in Texas churches, Iranian missiles are aimed at Saudi Arabia, people are dying in Puerto Rico. It's all true, all very worrying. And absolutely off-topic to anything in this forum, at least till they change its topic. If somebody takes it upon himself to try and mandate how everyone should behave in an exchange as if a given manufacturer of nearly 75 years' standing will wither at the slightest dimming of unalloyed, golden-rayed praise effusive, it's not off-topic to point that out. That's about this forum, and "real life problems" are totally irrespective to such a discussion.
That's right, everyone. Feel free to hector and dictate to your fellow forum members of course - but WATCH WHAT YOU SAY about poor widdle Revell. Which I guess we're to treat as some sort of corporate snowflake… that by some miracle hasn't, y'know, melted in the past 70+ years of operation.