What Do New Kits Have Inaccuracies

[Brudda]

This is my 1;12 GT 500 convertible. looks correct but it is not. alot of mods on the size of things.This called adjustment. Make it look right.

[Brudda]

More thing that look perfect in scale but are not.Just a few things are adjusted.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Why aren't every kit that we build on our shelves perfect?

Simply because IT'S NOT A PAYING JOB TO BUILD THEM.

AND NOBODY IS ASKING FOR PERFECT. JUST ACCURATE BODY CONTOURS AND PROPORTIONS.

[Ace-Garageguy]

... I'd give serious consideration to hiring someone with demonstrable fine-art background to work with the engineers to make sure the contours and shapes are right...

If you do this right, it will not only work, but save egg on your face and yield a better product faster, possibly for less development money net.

Charlie Larkin

Sounds like an entirely logical idea to me. A great idea. Solve the whole problem BEFORE it becomes a problem.

[johnbuzzed]

There is no reason why a model kit should have inaccuracies, The fact that so many of them do is basically the result of the "it's good enough" mentality that's become pervasive in our society.

Different people will trot out different excuses or "explanations," depending on whether they are in the industry or not, but the bottom line is that "good enough" has become acceptable. Don't ask me why, because I'm not a sociologist and don't know the answer... but for some reason our society today just accepts mediocrity.

Mediocrity is the new excellence.

That starts at a young age. In organized sports for kids, there is no scoring, no strikes/balls/outs, no winners or losers at the beginning levels because "you're ALL winners!" Everyone gets a trophy!!! That's a great feeling, but it's just not real.

The standardized tests that are given in schools- students are not taught to excel, to get good all-around grades for them selves, they are taught enough to bring in good numbers on those tests for the school district to look good .

And, employment... I do my best to do my best every day; I have a measure of integrity and my work is directly involved with medical diagnostic equipment (nuclear medicine repairs for 26 years). But, after so many years of working hard and feeling the effects of the bottom-line economy- human resources just about literally means a supply of workers- it ain't always easy to give it your best shot. It's all to easy to say "That's good enough", and move along.

Poor excuses? Perhaps. Reasons? Indeed.

[johnbuzzed]

Harry, I think part of the reason for the lowering of expectations is that it's become so hard to hold any one person accountable for anything. Think about the last few times you've been wronged, how many times was it an individual versus a cog in a nameless, faceless multinational corporation or governmental morass? We've become so accustomed to these various degrees of injustice that we have lowered our threshold for what "good" is.

Just a few days ago, I heard that a judge ruled for GM in the ignition switch situation. I don't remember exactly how, but the corporation might get a slap on the wrist, if anything, instead of being bent over for exercising poor judgement (to say the least) that cost lives, all in the interest of the bottom line.

[johnbuzzed]

Interesting that most of the posts that complain loudly about "inaccuracies" in model kits, contain multiple 'inaccuracies' in English, spelling, syntax, and grammar.

Why can't posters get it right when they complain about other people getting it right?

No one is paying for the opinions that appear in this forum, just as no one would be paying for any face-to-face conversations that we might be having about the topic. Most, if not all of us are using what might be referred to as colloquial English, replete with slang, bad syntax and grammar, just as in a conversation. Same as any other language. "Jeet yet?"

We are, however, paying for the products that are the subjects of this discussion. I, for one, would like to see an accurate reproduction of the subject material in scale.

[johnbuzzed]

It's hard to grasp because it's not true. It certainly does cost more if "getting it right" means sending people halfway round the world to photograph and measure a real 1:1 in a museum or collection somewhere. I've lost count of how many long-awaited new aircraft kits have turned out to be "utterly unbuildable" or a "caricature of the...", when what seems to have happened is that researchers and toolmakers have relied upon existing plans (in some cases many sets, each reproducing the errors of the earlier ones) and photos rather than looking at the real thing. Interpreting 2D photos into a 3D model is not an easy thing to do. And until recently, the laser scanning technology to capture a real prototype in 3D has been rare and unaffordable. I'm just hoping that the recent trend for collectors and restorers to 3D scan their precious metal so that bucks to make replacement panels and other parts can be kept in storage means that there will be a globally accessible archive of 100% accurate 3D models of some of the greatest cars ever made to help model companies do a bang-up job...

bestest,

M.

That's known as "spending money to make money". You can't turn a profit unless you're willing to invest $$$. That's basic business.

[johnbuzzed]

Let me give you a "for instance". I'd like to build a model of a De Havilland DH.91 Albatross:

A beautiful plane, I think you'll agree. I've had a few photos and some three-view plans from a standard book for about ten years. I could have carved something that would look pretty much like the DH.91 out of balsa, and vac-form the main parts, any time in that time. Would it have been 100% accurate? No, probably not. I've been collecting every picture, plan and reference I can find for the rest of that decade. I've been corresponding with the De Havilland museum to find out what drawings they have available for about five years (and this bearing in mind that the "general arrangement" drawings that manufacturers have which show the whole aircraft rather than the parts to be made are often not accurate scale plans themselves -- they were never intended to be). So, if I was actually charging my time, and costing it into a budget for a model, it most certainly _would_ cost more to "get it right" than get it more or less right...

bestest,

M.

But people have been doing just that for years, way before injection-molded plastic became the norm. It can be done; one just has to have the desire to do it.

Edited April 21, 2015 by johnbuzzed

[Danno]

No one is paying for the opinions that appear in this forum, just as no one would be paying for any face-to-face conversations that we might be having about the topic. Most, if not all of us are using what might be referred to as colloquial English, replete with slang, bad syntax and grammar, just as in a conversation. Same as any other language. "Jeet yet?"

We are, however, paying for the products that are the subjects of this discussion. I, for one, would like to see an accurate reproduction of the subject material in scale.

John, those are just feel-good rationalizations for illiteracy. The very same thing you commented about in your post #56.

'Modern' society does not require literacy because it might offend lazy people who don't/won't make the effort to learn to do it right.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Danno

[johnbuzzed]

To me, the new kits have inaccuracies that exhibit square tendencies. Once at a meeting I heard this; "It's not a circle, it's an infinite sided polygon". What does that mean? It means a computer sees straight lines and not curved lines. It approximates curved lines. Use AutoCAD or another drawing program and you will see. Blow up the size of the drawing and you will see straight lines connected to other straight lines moving in other directions to approximate curved lines.

To me, the old AMT kit benefited from an artist hand making the masters from 1/10 models. They had a very smooth and round appearance.

Call me crazy (some will) but that is my impression.

That's digital life. It's not natural- the world exists in an analog state. Digital sound is sharper and crisper, more easily manipulated via electronic methods- analog sounds are natural. Listen to vinyl and compare to a CD. You'll understand.

[johnbuzzed]

Wingnuts can produce a very sophisticated, very well detailed, very accurate kit of a rather obscure (to me, anyway- it's not just your everyday Spad or Nieuport 17) WWI aircraft with a recommended price of $350.00. Yowch , that is a lot. But- they did it. Perhaps not many people will buy that kit, but Wingnuts wil has made it known that they can and do produce a quality kit. Maybe not all of their kits will have the same amount of detail parts, photo-etched or other material, but they have shown that their basic molded styrene parts are of a fine quality and exhibit correct dimensions and contours. Those are basics. The modeling world can expect the rest of their kit line to exhibit those same basic qualities.

The same goes for Tamiya. I have a few of their military kits on my shelves, and the parts seem to want to assemble themselves as I look at them. The molded detail is beautiful. I have no need or desire to replace anything with any aftermarket parts, nor will I add any- it's just not necessary, even to build a contest-quality model. More importantly, I know ( as does the rest of the modeling world) that if I buy another Tamiya kit, I can expect a box full of crisply-molded parts that are accurate in shape, contour and dimension. That's why people keep buying Tamiya kits, and that's why people will buy more of Wingnuts products. And, then there's Eduard. Ditto.

There ain't no blankety-blank good reason why the other model companies can't do the same. We hear and see excuses, yet we know that it can be done.

[Matt Bacon]

But people have been doing just that for years, way before injection-molded plastic became the norm. It can be done; one just has to have the desire to do it.

I think you're missing the point. My point was simply that it DOES cost more money, commercially, to get it 100% right. If I charged my research time at $100 an hour, creating the model with what I had at the beginning would have had a research budget of maybe $300. To amass the material I have now would have "cost" more like $10,000.

People's time costs money, in a commercial enterprise. Put it another way -- imagine you're restoring a classic E-type. If you tell your restoration team that you have a budget of $50K, will they get everything perfect? No. On the other hand, if you're Ralph Lauren, you tell your restoration team to make it perfect, and then pay the bill. It'll be rather bigger.

No model company is anything other than a business (That's why I posted the WNW link -- they at least have the support to take a road closer to the "perfect" than other purely commercially driven enterprises). There's a budget for every project. You could argue "do one perfect kit instead of three compromised ones", but they'll only do that if the one perfect kit will sell three times what the compromised one will. And as I said the VAST MAJORITY of people buying model kits neither know nor care how precisely accurate it is.

bestest,

M.

[Matt Bacon]

...and scale plastic models are a "labour of love" for Tamiya, too, because the founder wanted to do them, and do them right. They're subsidised by the R/C lines...

bestest,

M.

[Daddyfink]

This whole thread....

[johnbuzzed]

John, those are just feel-good rationalizations for illiteracy. The very same thing you commented about in your post #56.

'Modern' society does not require literacy because it might offend lazy people who don't/won't make the effort to learn to do it right.

And, there we have the ability to agree to disagree. Abuse (if you will) of the English language has been going on since the language was developed. Those who came before Shakespeare did not share his prose nor poetry, nor did those of us who followed. Our language is a dynamic thing, as are others.

My Dad and his family spoke Italian from birth, and he often explained that there were many dialects in that language, so it was not always so easy to understand those who had origins in other Italian states. Plus, slang was in there, too, along with Americanization. And, while I studied German for 6 years, I can't keep up with most of what's said in a movie without subtitles- they speak so fluently, using contractions and slang that we were not taught.

It's not a matter of doing it right, it's the evolution of a language. It's exhibited in dictionaries. It's not "feel-good"- it's reality. "Feel-good"- ponder that phrase. Where did it come from? Did you ever hear it twenty or thirty years ago?

BTW- a quick check of a dictionary reveals the definition of literacy to be : " The ability to read and write". No qualifiers given regarding how well that is or isn't done.

I think you're missing the point. My point was simply that it DOES cost more money, commercially, to get it 100% right. If I charged my research time at $100 an hour, creating the model with what I had at the beginning would have had a research budget of maybe $300. To amass the material I have now would have "cost" more like $10,000.

People's time costs money, in a commercial enterprise. Put it another way -- imagine you're restoring a classic E-type. If you tell your restoration team that you have a budget of $50K, will they get everything perfect? No. On the other hand, if you're Ralph Lauren, you tell your restoration team to make it perfect, and then pay the bill. It'll be rather bigger.

No model company is anything other than a business (That's why I posted the WNW link -- they at least have the support to take a road closer to the "perfect" than other purely commercially driven enterprises). There's a budget for every project. You could argue "do one perfect kit instead of three compromised ones", but they'll only do that if the one perfect kit will sell three times what the compromised one will. And as I said the VAST MAJORITY of people buying model kits neither know nor care how precisely accurate it is.

bestest,

M.

Fox Mustang.

Edited April 21, 2015 by johnbuzzed

[johnbuzzed]

Simply because IT'S NOT A PAYING JOB TO BUILD THEM.

AND NOBODY IS ASKING FOR PERFECT. JUST ACCURATE BODY CONTOURS AND PROPORTIONS.

Bingo.

[keyser]

Some parts look right on at scale, while others look really strange at scale.Try 14 inch tires on a 65 gto. Believe me it looks strange at scale.

Its not life or death and not really rocket science but it is a art form.Try to scale something down from a 1 to 1. It takes time. The more time the more accurate thus more money.

...then get a few crybabies saying this and that is wrong with your model. Do it for a locked price and deadline.Not an easy thing.

OK now you have the perfect kit,

Just build and have fun.

You're correcting things that didn't scale well. It is the same on your conversion as it is with a real kit. But since the company's ONLY task is to do the same scaling/proportioning thing OVER and OVER with each kit, why do they not plan accordingly and look at the thing the same way any of us do?

"Not rocket science". Yep. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Not life or death- no, it's $$$$. Feeding family. Not for us, not for your conversion, but for people who do the VERY SAME THING on a new kit.

If it takes more time than 2-3 days, Ooooooh. Lets see, at $75000 a year, 3 extra days is $900. Wow. Really going to cut the margins. Deadline?? lets see, when do new tools hit deadlines? After several years of planning??

Crybabies? You complained about rescaling. In a conversion, par for the course. Those of us that do that do so automatically. On a NEW kit? I could care less if the 9" diff scales out, or engine mounts wrong. Body, greenhouse, wheels? NO. Mistakes really have no excuse.

So the same things you complained about looking odd and not scaling ARE WHAT SOMEONE'S JOB IS TO MAKE RIGHT the first time. I don't want to make big corrections on basic stuff. I buy MFH resin all the time, and even at a $3-400 price point, they miss stuff, but the BIG stuff is right.

Yet again-NOBODY is asking for a perfect kit. How friggin' tough is that to understand?

Yes, build and have fun. I'm happy to do corrections as you're doing on conversions. It is tedious and annoying correcting a NEW tool this day and age. If someone DOESN'T see a problem, woo-hoo. If you enjoy your burger and miss the hair in it? Awesome. If not, kills it. Not life or death either, but not "surprise and delight". Won't be eating there again (or not I guess). But those of us that DO see an issue (like yourself) aren't "crybabies" or whatever else the refuseniks call us.

BTW, your conversion is beautiful. Seatbelts, stripe detail and size, top latch detail on the money appearance wise. If we get 85-90% of that in 1/24-5, I'd be ecstatic. (I'll let the lack of ISOFIX points in back slide ) <-joke

[Deano]

I'm puzzled ... I know we're not expecting perfection but when is "Good Enough" good enough? At what point can the kit manufacturers say "It's good enough" given that perfection is not attainable nor, indeed, expected?

[Fat Brian]

When we compare Tamiya and Fujimi to Revell and AMT we're leaving out one significant part of the equation, the imported kits cost twice as much if not more than the domestic offerings. Would the market bear new US kits costing $50 a piece if it meant gettting better results? What if the US companies would adopt a pricing structure like the Japanese, reissues of older tools are cheaper than brand new subjects?

[martinfan5]

When we compare Tamiya and Fujimi to Revell and AMT we're leaving out one significant part of the equation, the imported kits cost twice as much if not more than the domestic offerings. Would the market bear new US kits costing $50 a piece if it meant gettting better results? What if the US companies would adopt a pricing structure like the Japanese, reissues of older tools are cheaper than brand new subjects?

Not true, 95% of Japanese kits cost the same if not cheaper than Revell/Round2 kits, remember, there is the import mark up fee, and it goes both ways, you should see what Revell and Round 2 kits sell for in Japan.

Buying direct from Japan lets you get the kits for the price in that market, which brings the cost of the kits down to around the same price as US kits here.

[Monty]

I'm puzzled ... I know we're not expecting perfection but when is "Good Enough" good enough? At what point can the kit manufacturers say "It's good enough" given that perfection is not attainable nor, indeed, expected?

I'll play. They can say "It's good enough" when they quit screwing up obvious body issues and eliminate some of the really silly errors. Here's an example. From top to bottom these are Revell, AMT & MPC '69 Mustang bodies. The AMT is the most accurate and served as the basis for Missing Links' resin kit. Look at the Revell side window. It's virtually a triangle, while the AMT kit looks far more like the 1:1 item. (BTW, this body, with this window design, originated with the Boss 429 kit in 1982. Revell kept this triangular side window when they tooled up the '70 Mach 1 a few years ago) In a related vein, we probably made a millionare out of that Russian resin caster who was offering the fix-it kit for the front end of Revell's '69 Mustang. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought Revell made that Mustang too ugly to build.

Want some proportional issues? This is why so many on here praise the JoHan craftsmen who were in charge of bodies. More often than not it takes an artist's eye to get some of these things right. I've been told that this Camaro is dimensionally correct, but it looks pregnant & you couldn't give me this kit. OTOH, Revell did an outstanding job on their '69 Camaro.

I referred to silly errors earlier, and I'm sure most of us can think of some, but one that comes immediately to mind for me was Lindberg's initial release of their '67 442. The 1:1 car has a slightly lower center section of the hood; Lindberg made theirs with a raised center section (eventually corrected). Or take Revell's ProModeler '69 Charger. More bells, more whistles, more money...and a pre-chopped top. To their credit they made offers to replace all those bodies, but HTH did that thing make it to production in the first place? If they'll hire me, I'll gladly play Office Linebacker & try to stop as many of these errors as possible before they become "uncorrectable".

[Matt Bacon]

The tenor of the original post was "everything's going to h*ll in a handbasket because we can't do these things right any more"... and kids aren't educated properly and you can't fix your car any more, and everything digital is rubbish compared to vinyl... Well, by my reckoning 1982 was more than 30 years ago, so perhaps it's safest to conclude that people who care will do the job well, on the budget they have with the tools they have, whenever they were/are doing it; and that people who care less will make more mistakes and not correct them...

;-P

bestest,

M.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Matt Bacon

[Harry P.]

I've been told that this Camaro is dimensionally correct...

No way is that "dimensionally correct."

[1930fordpickup]

No way is that "dimensionally correct."

Harry this is not the first time I have read this car was dimensionally correct . Now I ask what if this truly is dimensionally correct ? Does this say our eyes are bad? Does this say that every car done in scale we like is off? Things to ponder over coffee in the morning for you.