peteski

Well EXCUSE ME Luke! I'm so sorry that I chimed in on the problem with images not showing for some members. I know nothing about paint! But seriously, any fine-grain metallic silver should work well. The interior of a drag car is usually made from natural unpolished metal. FIne-grained metallic paint creates a finish that looks like a metal surface. Try any of the Alclad II aluminum paints. I don't think any glossy undercoat is needed. I think Tru-Color aluminum paint would also work. If the finish is too bright or shiny, coat it with flat or satin clear. Does that sugestion meet with your approval Luke?

Um, did you happen to see the post above yours?

Well Bill, I asked the admins to split off these several technical posts we have here to the "How to use this forum" section, as the discussion is off-topic here. Hopefully they will do that and maybe chime in with their view on this situation. I also asked you for a detailed description of how you take those JPGs from Photobucket and upload them here. I think that's where the problem occurs. Also what type of computer and what Operatign System are you using? You did mention Firefox is your browser. Just trying to help out and understand what is going on.

I believe that you use copy/paste to upload photos here. Maybe they get changed (on your end) by that method? As I shown to you, the ones we have been discussing are WEBP. How exactly do you get them from photobucket to this forum? I can tell with certainty that the DSCN0193.JPG was uploaded to the forum as http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/uploads/monthly_2022_02/DSCN0193_zps9xvzkq5t.webp.0f5a855188b3a8fedb77a8f009e97889.webp The proof is the name as it came from your computer: DSCN0193_zps9xvzkq5t.webp The Operating Systems seem to get more and more intrusive in automatically choosing what they "think" is "the best" for the user. Apple is especially invasive, but MS Windows is getting that way too. It might think it is "helpful" to automatically change the file format to reduce the image size by changing JPG to WEBP.

The photo from that thread you just linked to is also WEBP, not JPG. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/uploads/monthly_2022_02/DSCN0456_zpsmk5kpuwb.webp.ff22ca6d67d6b41fae711a8c311ab925.webp I thought about this some more and I see a proof that you uploaded the WEBP formatted images. The link to your photo contains its original name. In the example in my previous post shows the name DSCN0456_zpsmk5kpuwb.webp. It is WEBP, not JPG. Playing a detective, I can further expand on this. The DSCN part of the name tells me that the photo was taken by a Nikon digital camera. Normally the file camera creates would be DSCN####.JPG. But the file name of the file you uploaded has _zpsmk5kpuwb added to it, and the extension is WEBP. That tells me that Google, or some other photo host was involved at some point and it converted the JPG to WEBP format. UNless your camera saves the photos as DSCN####.WEBP? You then uploaded that WEBP photo to the forum. I'm not going to argue this - the explanation I provided above is clear enough.

Bob Smith Industries (BSI) produces a full line of CA adhesives. That's what I use. It is often branded as the hobby shop's brand. The accelerator is very mild (does not mar paint or plastic) unlike other brands which use acetone as its solvent. BSI also makes odorless "Gold" CA which will not fog clear parts (but is more expensive than plain CA glue).

The subject line to me seems to indicate that you are worried that some glue will attack resin. No glues we use in our hobbies will negatively affect resin, so no need to "stay away". Polyurethane (urethane) resin is compatible with all hobby glues. But as Mark mentioned, some solvent-type glues designed for polystyrene or ABS will simply not work with urethane.

I doubt that this forum changes the photo you upload from JPG to WEBP format. I have not seen this forum automatically modify the file format of any files I upload. I suspect that this this is (or was) done on your end Bill. But hopefully you will will get an answer from the admins. @Dave Ambrose can you comment on this? Does the forum change the file format from JPG to WEBP when the JPGs are uploaded? I have not encountered that so far. All my photos which were uploaded as JPG are still JPG. I just checked and my oldest and newest (just couple of days ago) uploaded files are still saved as JPG on this forum.

I think it was around 11-12 years ago.

Even cheap files are safe to use on white metal, brass, and aluminum. Now you you try to file harder metals (like some stainless steel alloysor high-speed steel) that might dull the files, but I don't think I ever heard of metal files made just for plastic.

I see something unusual about your photos Bill. Other photos in this website usually have .JPG extension. Yours have .WEBP extension. Like this: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/uploads/monthly_2022_02/DSCN0456_zpsmk5kpuwb.webp.ff22ca6d67d6b41fae711a8c311ab925.webp I looked it up and: What is a WEBP file? A WEBP file is an image saved in the WebP (pronounced "Weppy") raster image format developed by Google for web graphics. The WebP format reduces file size more than standard JPEG compression while maintaining similar or better image quality. It supports both lossy and lossless compression and includes an alpha channel for transparency, similar to the PNG format. So, Google is doing "its thing" again. I suspect that not all browsers are able to render WEBP formated photos, and that is likely why Ron can't see them. The "problem"is on your end. Seems that this site does accept WEBP formatted photos, but not everybody can see them. Maybe you can configure your Google account to use the more widely used JPG standard for photos.

Yes, when these first came out, they were distributed in US. I bought one and have it in my stash.

That is so true! Even my 37-year-old (1985) Caddy Eldorado just doesn't seem *THAT* old, but it is as old as a 1948 car was in 1985!! Crazy! It is all in our perception of time.

Exactly! This is a typical thing that happens nowadays - cancel culture. Someone has a knee-jerk reaction and others pile in (without seeing the "big picture). One thing is for sure - if Pat ever posts anything here again *I WILL NOT COMMENT*. Too bad that my "offending" post was deleted, because there is no reason in hell that when viewed in the contest of that entire thread it could be perceived as offensive or degrading.

This video was found in one of the threads in the 3D printing section of the Railwire forum (to which I posted a link really early in this thread).

Looks shiny, but does it have that fine Corinthian Leather interior?

Like I mentioned in the other thread, it is all in the painting technique. If you spray the paint on wet, there will not be any orange peel. That goes for primer and paint/clear coats. It seems that a majority of modelers seem to be afraid to do that, and they mist their paint coats. That causes the paint to partially dry traveling from the airbrush to the model, not being able to self-level on the models surface, causing orange peel. If one sprays heavier coats, the paint/primer is able to spread out on the model and level out. No orange peel. I lay it on heavy. Yes, there is a possibility the paint will run, but with experience that can be prevented. I never sand/polish my paint jobs.

Not at all. Your presentation is thorough, accurate, and makes perfect sense. I too would like kit manufacturers to pay more attention to the tires, but unfortunately they often just depend on existing molds for the tires for their kits, which are often incorrect for the model. This is likely done as a cost saving measure. But if they actually cut fresh molds for some new kit and they get the tires wrong, then there is no excuse. One ray of hope is that with the 3D printing getting more and more popular in modeling circles, correct tires can be designed and printed by hobbyists, or cottage industry manufacturers.

You are not the first person with orange peel print problem. This subject comes up from time to time. Here is a recent thread which provides lots of useful hints, some of which will be same as what is already mentioned here. Just click on the link: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/167753-dreaded-orange-peel/

Well, since your response was directly under a question about stripping resin bodies, I assumed your response was directed to that post. Sometimes people reply without quoting to the post directly before theirs.

Did you mean month and a year? Like 3-69 would indicate March 1969?

I never tried it on urethane resin body, but I have seen warnings that it turns the resin into gel.

Pat, let me state it again: I did not critique your modeling in any way. I simply pointed out that you were using a photo of another model (not a period photo of the real trolly) as a reference. That's it - period! I As for my latest modeling, if we are talking about automotive subject, it was a 1:43 scale 289 Cobra. One of these days I'll post it in the Under Glass section. Here are couple of photos: Lately I have been more involved in N-scale model railroad hobbies. I often take the model locomotives apart to fine tune them or modify the mechanism to run better. I also install and program digital decoders. I'm my model clubs loco mechanic. Here are some photos of a Gernam E77 loco I was servicing and installing a decoder in. I fully disassembled it. There is very little room in that model for a decoder. Here is the original circuit board from that loco and the DCC decoder I'm going to install (smaller board). I cut a hole in the original circuit board and "transplanted" the decoder into the hole. I also upgraded the headlights from regular light bulbs to white LEDs. I etched my owrn PC boards to house resistors and to make wiring easier. Finally the chassis was reassembled. I hope you don't mind posting these off-topic photos in your thread, but you did ask me to show some of my models.

Wow! Pat seem to think that the photo was a period photo showing the 1:1 trolly. If I just stated that I thought it was a photo of a model, I expected to be questioned why I thought it was not the "real" thing, so I simply documented the reasons I thought it was a model. It had *NOTHING* to do with Pat's modeling, or meant to belittled him. All I wanted to explain was that the photo Pat described as "period" photo (and was using for color reference), was not. Somehow this all got turned around. Why should I not say something when I feel the info provided is not accurate? And yes, I needed to analyze what happened because as I see things, I did nothing wrong. Hopefully analyzing this will help me not to make a similar mistake.

To me this car has some hints of a Ford Probe, and also maybe even Pontiac Fiero.