Lots of talk about rivets from another area in modeling, interesting.

[Greg Myers]

http://www.themodellingnews.com/2013/03/now-this-is-large-scale-modelling-folks.html  1/32nd is BIG  in scale aircraft. But read some of the comments on rivets and detail.

  

[Deano]

B-17 in 1/32 scale ... because we can!  This thing is flippin' HUGE!  I can only imagine the price tag being equally huge.

[Scott Colmer]

I have never built and airplane kit, but this one is inspiring!

[Harry P.]

Yeah, most military modelers take things way more seriously than most car model buiders. You won't see any "magic floating alternators" or missing mirrors in their models!

And to all of you people who keep making excuses for the stupid mistakes we keep seeing in car models... how is it possible that they can't get a model car correct, but they can get a model plane (thats 10x more complex than a model car) correct?

The answer is simple. Manufacturers of model cars kits know that most model car builders are willing to accept mediocrity. Manufacturers of military kits know that their customers demand better. And are willing to pay for it.

[LDO]

Some people are willing to pay $70 for a 1/24 Tamiya car. Some people are not. Revell caters to people who will pay $27. Maybe not the same car, but a few have been done by both companies. It's not good or bad, it's just the way things are. Those less expensive kits can be a way to get someone into the hobby. Aunt Cindy might get Johnny a Corvette model for Christmas, but she is much less likely to get him a $300 B-17 kit. 

If the '29 roadster kit had an MSRP of $70, I'm sure it would be closer to what Tamiya offers. I'm glad it doesn't cost that much. Mine is not getting the Nailhead, so the incorrect port spacing means nothing to me.

[Harry P.]

Revell caters to people who will pay $27.

Mine is not getting the Nailhead, so the incorrect port spacing means nothing to me.

Exactly my point!

When the bottom line is hitting a certain price point, corner cutting and compromise is part of the equation.

When the bottom line is manufacturing an accurate scale model, you do what you have to do and price the model accordingly.

Again, that is the basic difference between model cars and military models... and their respective builders. In general, model car builders have a willingness to accept mistakes and/or mediocrity, plus an expectation of a low price. Most military modelers, neither.

[LDO]

Oh OK. I thought you meant car modelers need to demand Tamiya-quality hot rods and pay $70 for them. 

[Brett Barrow]

Yeah, most military modelers take things way more seriously than most car model buiders. You won't see any "magic floating alternators" or missing mirrors in their models!

And to all of you people who keep making excuses for the stupid mistakes we keep seeing in car models... how is it possible that they can't get a model car correct, but they can get a model plane (thats 10x more complex than a model car) correct?

The answer is simple. Manufacturers of model cars kits know that most model car builders are willing to accept mediocrity. Manufacturers of military kits know that their customers demand better. And are willing to pay for it.

yeah but you still see goof ups like straight fenders in Dragon's 38t based kits (38t, Grille, Marder, Flakpanzer, etc all $60+, fresh on my mind because I have a Marder on the workbench right now still debating whether to fix it), or if you're down for a fun read check out reviews of Dragon's Black Label series of kits. That B-17 in the OP has a funky cross section forward of the windsheild. Pretty much every new Trumpeter kit gets lambasted for shape or dimensional mistakes.  Name a model of ANY genre and somebody can tell you what's wrong with it. Sometimes it's an error of omission, sometimes shape or dimensional errors, sometimes it's errors of mixing up features of one variant with features of another, but I guarantee you, unless it's pure fantasy sci-fi, every kit has something wrong with it. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by Brett Barrow

[Matt Bacon]

 every kit has something wrong with it. 

...unless it's made by Wingnut Wings. I don't believe I've seen a single criticism of an inaccuracy in any of their kits. And if there are two versions of the rear gun mounting, or three types of oil cooler, they'll give you all of them...

bestest.

M.

[426-Hemi]

-ALL our "models" are inaccurate.........FIRST & foremost..... WE ALL model in plastic!!!!! MOST if not all the "things" we model, train, planes or automobiles, ARE/WERE some sort of METAL structure, with some "plastic" inter-twined for "shape" sake....... Among other things made from plastic, BUT most have more "metal" in them as a standard build medium. We as moders, its the other way around, THOSE made of metal (trains come to mind), brass for instance, cost an arm & a leg to own!!!! (I know, I have a few brass HO scale steamers!!!!) One of which prices out now at $1,000!!!!!

 

SO yes, we will pay for "accuracy", BUT don't need, or want to "always" spend that kind of income, so plastic it is......

[Snake45]

Yeah, most military modelers take things way more seriously than most car model buiders. You won't see any "magic floating alternators" or missing mirrors in their models!

And to all of you people who keep making excuses for the stupid mistakes we keep seeing in car models... how is it possible that they can't get a model car correct, but they can get a model plane (thats 10x more complex than a model car) correct?

The answer is simple. Manufacturers of model cars kits know that most model car builders are willing to accept mediocrity. Manufacturers of military kits know that their customers demand better. And are willing to pay for it.

You're right about them taking things more seriously in Model Airplane World. One of the best things about Model Car World is the freedom to be creative. There is virtually NONE of that in MAW. It's all about replication.

You're wrong about the kits being inherently better than ours. They just look better to you because you don't know airplanes as well. It's a rare kit that isn't picked apart and declared to have "fatal flaws," and then the prayer vigil for the same subject from another manufacturer will begin. The typical 2015 airplane modeler has been brainwashed into thinking that he cannot even begin a new model until he's spent at least another $50-$100 on it for aftermarket resin and PE "corrections," "updates," and details.

I always get a hoot out of an airplane guy who wants to build a car. Coming from a world of decades of selection between dozens of available kits of popular choices such as Mustangs, Spitfires, 109s, Phantoms, etc., the first thing he wants to know is "What's the BEST kit available of the '68 Dizzbuster?" (Answer: Here in Model Car World, you're lucky if ONE kit of it has EVER been made, and if that kit is currently available, you're golden.) And the second question is invariably "What aftermarket is available for it?" This coming before the kit is even purchased and some assessment of what it might actually NEED is done.

I've been building both types for over 50 years now. It's fun to have a foot in both worlds.

[Harry P.]

You're right about them taking things more seriously in Model Airplane World. One of the best things about Model Car World is the freedom to be creative. There is virtually NONE of that in MAW. It's all about replication.

Exactly so. The whole point of miitary modeling is to create an exact replica, no room (or need) for "creativity." Accuracy is the goal. So model cars/military modeling is sort of apples/oranges.

You're wrong about the kits being inherently better than ours. They just look better to you because you don't know airplanes as well. It's a rare kit that isn't picked apart and declared to have "fatal flaws," and then the prayer vigil for the same subject from another manufacturer will begin. The typical 2015 airplane modeler has been brainwashed into thinking that he cannot even begin a new model until he's spent at least another $50-$100 on it for aftermarket resin and PE "corrections," "updates," and details.

I think that in general military kits are better researched and better engineered than model car kits. Not in every case, but in general. And as far as flaws in kits, it's all in how you look at it. A military builder might see a slightly misshapen canopy as a huge big deal. A model car builder might accept poor proportions, missing or incorrect details, etc. as "par for the course." Two different sets of expectations.

I always get a hoot out of an airplane guy who wants to build a car. Coming from a world of decades of selection between dozens of available kits of popular choices such as Mustangs, Spitfires, 109s, Phantoms, etc., the first thing he wants to know is "What's the BEST kit available of the '68 Dizzbuster?" (Answer: Here in Model Car World, you're lucky if ONE kit of it has EVER been made, and if that kit is currently available, you're golden.) And the second question is invariably "What aftermarket is available for it?" This coming before the kit is even purchased and some assessment of what it might actually NEED is done.

Again, two different sets of expectations. Military modelers crave absolute accuracy and are willing (and expect to) spend money on aftermarket details as a matter of course, no matter how detailed the kit may be. It's like buying the paint and the glue for them... it's part of the process of building the kit. The rule, not the exception. So obviously a hard-core military modeler who decides to build a car is going to still have his military modeling mindset and expect to see aftermarket items available for the car model.

[afx]

I think the discrepancy comes from the kit manufacturer's mindset.  Military kits are designed for serious adult builders.  Automotive kits manufactures are still trying to market young and first time builders.  The S&H Torino is a perfect example.

[Harry P.]

I think the discrepancy comes from the kit manufacturer's mindset.  Military kits are designed for serious adult builders.  Automotive kits manufactures are still trying to market young and first time builders.  The S&H Torino is a perfect example.

I agree. Military modeling has always been more adult-oriented and seen as "serious," while model car building was a kid's hobby back in the "golden days." And many (most?) of today's model car builders are those same people who started building model cars as kids... and they still see/remember/associate model car building with their childhood. Heck, how many times have people posted here that they were building kit X because they built it as a kid, or it reminds them of their childhood, etc. Not many military modelers build kit X because they built the same kit as a kid. Completely different mindset.

[Greg Myers]

-ALL our "models" are inaccurate.........FIRST & foremost..... WE ALL model in plastic!!!!! MOST if not all the "things" we model, train, planes or automobiles, ARE/WERE some sort of METAL structure, with some "plastic" inter-twined for "shape" sake....... Among other things made from plastic, BUT most have more "metal" in them as a standard build medium. We as moders, its the other way around, THOSE made of metal (trains come to mind), brass for instance, cost an arm & a leg to own!!!! (I know, I have a few brass HO scale steamers!!!!) One of which prices out now at $1,000!!!!!

 

SO yes, we will pay for "accuracy", BUT don't need, or want to "always" spend that kind of income, so plastic it is......

Yep.   http://www.hlj.com/product/IMCZ-001  

[afx]

I agree. Military modeling has always been more adult-oriented and seen as "serious," while model car building was a kid's hobby back in the "golden days." And many (most?) of today's model car builders are those same people who started building model cars as kids... and they still see/remember/associate model car building with their childhood. Heck, how many times have people posted here that they were building kit X because they built it as a kid, or it reminds them of their childhood, etc. Not many military modelers build kit X because they built the same kit as a kid. Completely different mindset.

That's why people sometimes look at you strange when you tell them you (still) build model cars.  But those same people wouldn't have that reaction if you told them you built military subjects.  Car models still have a stigma as being "toys".

[Greg Myers]

Maybe it's the subject matter ?  

[Foxer]

It's impossible for me to make any responsible comment here because I build cars for FUN and build cars because that's a subject I love. I built planes, ships and armor when young but switched to all cars in 1958 with the first AMT kits. I have never criticized and kit for accuracy but do tune in for a quick review of those threads to see what doesn't matter. Maybe it's just that I started on cars as customs and have never built a kit I didn't modify .. so "accuracy" is a moot point. More recently I have been building cars I have owned where accuracy should count, but even these I do a lot of bodywork and weather a grill is .001" too wide is pretty silly.

 

OK everyone .. just have fun.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Interesting perspectives on modelers.

I personally began building aircraft models 'caus my father did. I was horribly disappointed when my little-kid eye-hand coordination and impatience didn't allow me to produce good-looking results, and I've bought some of the kits I bodged as a kid to see if I can do any better now.  

There is a certain nostalgic twinge associated with seeing some of the old packaging, box art, and opening these old aircraft kits...just as there is with old car kits.

Most of my childhood peers who built airplane models ended up filling them with firecrackers and playing 'army' with them anyway. Somehow, I doubt they grew up to be "rivet counting" military modelers.

I went on to build car models, using the "all-the-parts-and-decals" approach, and eventually, as a young adult, to building nicely detailed and reasonably accurate (and heavily customized) cars with a lot of creative license. Then I quit when I got to the point in life where I could hack up real ones.

I suppose I now prefer accuracy in car models because I'm very familiar with many 1:1 cars, many engines, all the engineering and mechanical elements, build real ones (where exceptional results matter) and seem to be blessed (or cursed) with an eye that catches dimensional problems instantly.

I'm sure if I were a hard-core military modeler, I'd be an even more obnoxiously vocal critic of the available offerings.

Funny thing is, I was never particularly adamant about prototypical-accuracy in railroad models when I built them. The atmosphere of the railroad environment is what interested me, not the spot-on replication of equipment. I feel much the same way about aircraft models. So long as the first impression of the shape, lines and proportions of a model is good to my eye, I can overlook minute discrepancies in say, specific equipment or modifications a certain series of fighter had while operating in a particular theater.

Come to think of it though, the "first impression" of the shapes, lines and proportions of car models is my primary requirement. Of course, the easiest way for a manufacturer to capture that first-impression is through scale-fidelity.

Measure it right, scale it right, it will look right.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Greg Myers]

"Measure twice, cut once." 

[afx]

Come to think of it though, the "first impression" of the shapes, lines and proportions of car models is my primary requirement. Of course, the easiest way for a manufacturer to capture that first-impression is through scale-fidelity.

This is what I was trying to get across in my Kit Bashing - The Art of Rivet Counting thread.  The kit manufacturer must get the primary shape of the car correct.  If that is wrong nothing else really matters. The nut and bolts discrepancies is where the "rivet counting" comes in IMHO.

Edited September 26, 2015 by afx

[Snake45]

"Measure twice, cut once." 

I thought it went, "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with a chain saw."

[bobthehobbyguy]

Nah its measure with a micrometer,  mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

[Greg Myers]

That's just for government work, the privet industry is different. 

[Roadrunner]

I agree. Military modeling has always been more adult-oriented and seen as "serious," while model car building was a kid's hobby back in the "golden days." And many (most?) of today's model car builders are those same people who started building model cars as kids... and they still see/remember/associate model car building with their childhood. Heck, how many times have people posted here that they were building kit X because they built it as a kid, or it reminds them of their childhood, etc. Not many military modelers build kit X because they built the same kit as a kid. Completely different mindset.

I couldn't agree more. The first twelve or so cars that I'll build now, are mostly "tribute to my youth" car models. Most of the military kits I built as a kid though (aircraft primarily), I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole now, as the kits I used then were junk, and still are (dime store stuff), whereas the car models are at least acceptable.