Even ''Predicta''kit has accuracy issues

[Mark S. Gustavson]

Exactly. Anyone looking at the photos of the real car and the model...anyone who has an eye for proportion and line, that is...will immediately be struck by the very obvious deviations from reality this "interpretation" makes. The result is a model that loses much of the graceful, clean look of Starbird's actual lower-body design. I always wondered just why the model looked so stupid compared to the real car. Now I know.

Though I've never been involved in the hallowed and mythical "model car" tooling business, I HAVE been involved in depth with pre-production and prototype scale-model development of real vehicles and other items. Accuracy to the original design, in the real world, is critical. There is no room for "creative" interpretation on the part of model-makers, and I've fired people on the spot who seemed to be too "artistic" to get the dammed measuring right.

Harry and Bill are both right here.  If the Monogram kit of the Predicta had been accurate, it would have captured the lithe elegance of Starbird's car.  Too bad that wasn't done historically, But, we're going to do it now.  Once the master body is sculpted in 1/8 scale, it will be digitally scanned in 3-D, then "printed" in 1/24 and 1/16.  It will be accurate then-- my new company will offer a digital file so builders can print their own, or we'll offer "prints" of the model with all relevant parts.

[Mark S. Gustavson]

Bear in mind, in the 1960's, ANY model car kit (indeed ANY plastic model kit) resulted from tooling patterns that were hand-carved by hand--thus subject to the interpretations of the pattern-maker, even the draftsman who did the drawings.  In addition, given the frantic pace at which Monogram (and all the other model companies) was releasing new model kits (of all subjects), time frames were very short.  There simply just was not much time to study, carve, re-study, make corrections here and there.  There were a lot of inaccuracies in model kits of all subjects back then and given that pretty much all subject areas of plastic model building were primarily kids--no IPMS-style rivet counters to argue.

 

Art

Old friend Art is right here -- everything depended up the accuracy of the initial measurements (they ran masking tape across the body so the camera picked up subtle shapes) and then took measurements,  If the drawings, that preceded the tooling, weren''t correct then everything downstream from there was inaccurate.  With digital technology now, we can do what wasn't possible 50 years ago -- we can scan objects.  I'm thinking of running a 3-D scanner crew to Starbird's Museum to scan the car . .  

Hope you're well (enought), Art.

Mark S.Gustavson

[bisc63]

Great to hear (see?) Mark chime in on this subject. Ive been watching the Predicta Project website for some time, and was wondering if it was all on hold or what-not. ( If you haven't been there, and you enjoy bubbletop customs, or any customs at all, you need to visit the site. Do give yourself some time; there's alot of good reading and tons of pics and links - all worth your time!) I'm looking forward to a copy of your book when it finally comes out! A quick thought/question on the existing Predicta kit - most of the measurements err to the effect of rendering the kit a bit too small in most dimensions, but not drastically so. Have you or anyone checked to see how those measurements work for a 1/25 Predicta? I like the idea of my models being a constant scale, and most by far are 1/25, so if I could modify the kit to a respectable degree, I'd be happy with a 1/25 instead of 1/24!

Apologies to the OP for the minor thread-jack! Carry on..............

[Art Anderson]

Wrong!

An artist or sculptor is creating his or her vision, not attempting to accurately recreate reality.

Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is not an accurate reproduction of the way the night sky actually looks. It is Van Gogh's personal interpretation, and it doesn't necessarily have (or need to have) any direct connection with reality.

On the other hand, a pattern maker or draftsman's job is to create an accurate reproduction of the original. There is no room (or need) for "artistic interpretation" if the goal is to create an accurate scale version of a full-size subject.

Accuracy is as accuracy does, Harry.  As long as any reproduction is the interpretation of a human's view of the original, it may well be quite accurate to that person, and whomever is reviewing it, but perhaps not so to someone else.  And, therein will always be the rub.

I have to wonder, has anyone following this thread ever attempted scratch building a model car, using only photographs, perhaps adequate measurements of the real thing (perhaps not too!)?  Truthfully, to participate in the product development phase of a model car kit--or even a diecast model car (I did that for almost 3 years working as a product development/automotive research person for Johnny Lightning 2002-2005) is very much akin to scratchbuilding, except that I was in the position of having to describe to the tooling mockup makers how I wanted the mockup to look, down to the closest detail, the accurate shapes, and proportions (JL "1/64" scale diecasts weren't all exactly 1/64 scale, but had to have very similar dimensions (width & length) and weigh at least to a set standard (after all, we did them two ways:  With scale appearing wheels and tires for a replica appearance, as well as free-rolling hard wheels for gravity racing!).  All of this had to happen by going through someone (or perhaps several someones!) who were fluent in English, as well as their native tongue (Chinese, and the several dialects therein!).  Every word I typed into my computer in English had to be translated by that contact person, into Chinese characters, so that the guys in the pattern shop could understand what was being requested, what was required.  All the way along, I (and the two different co-workers I teamed up with in those three years) had to constantly (and diplomatically) make comments about the corrections needed.

But, it gets deeper!  Tom Lowe (now the owner of Round2) was the owner then of Playing Mantis, parent company of Johnny Lightning, and he decided we needed to do some 1/18 scale diecasts, followed by a set of 1/24 scale models as well.  The two 1/18 scale diecasts I had responsibility for were a 1955 Chevrolet Sedan Delivery and a 1948 Chevrolet 1/2 ton Panel Delivery Truck.  It was interesting to note that when I got the 2X sized tooling mockups from China, they both were very good, the 48 Panel was as perfect as perfect gets--compared really great with the 200 or so digital pics I had shot of a real one--and believe me, that is a very difficult subject to capture in miniature (there are a number of very visible inaccuracies in the AMT/Ertl 1950 Chevrolet 3100 pickup, if one does serious research!).  The '55 Sedan delivery came out, crack out of the box, perfect in every way save for the shapes of the front and rear bumpers--so I dug out about a dozen pics of '55 Chevy bumpers, front and rear, that I'd taken, plus some photo grabs off the internet, and with some cajoling, they nailed it!.  Next up was a series of 6 1/24 scale diecast model cars, along with several 1/34 scale model trucks, all done to fit our license with Coca Cola (Johnny Lightning was Coke's preferred diecast supplier for several years back then!).  A couple of those were actually quite easy:  A 2004 Ford E-150 cargo van, and a 1950 Bulletnosed Studebaker Commander Starlight, with a side dish of 1957 Ford Courier Sedan Delivery.  While the E-150 and the Studebaker sailed right along, the Courier had some bumps in the road--Patrick Mulligan (who was the Scale Auto Magazine Editor pretty much right out of college!) could not approve it, as there were proportional problems with the mockup.  Patrick did dig into Ford's vast archive of historical photo's, and found a 4-view set of drawings of the real thing, and that made the Courier possible--many of you have seen those diecasts.

Now, bear with me while we "fast forward" to today:  No longer are tooling mockups carved by hand by skilled sculptors, no longer are body planform drawings done on a drafting board--no, it's all computerized, down the sculpting (by 3D printing) of the tooling mockups.  Now we have a situation!  There are, on one end, people who do know what the model should look like--THEY did the research, took the photo's, did the measurements.  On the other end, there are digital specialists, trying to interpret that information (and it can be voluminous!) on computers, first to get CAD line drawings, second to achieve CAD 3-Dimensional images, and third, to finally 3D print all the parts for a tooling mockup.  Trouble is, the very skilled people doing all that have NEVER seen, nor are likely to EVER see, the actual 1:1 car they are called upon to develop into a model kit!  So you ask, why not get someone in the US, WHO KNOWS WHAT A MODEL CAR KIT SHOULD LOOK LIKE!, to do it?  Answer, if someone with all that passion, knowledge and skills exists, nobody seems to know who they are, where to find them--AND if they did find someone like that, the costs would be 2-3 times what it is at the present time (and it is all the development and tooling costs that determine, ultimately, model car kit prices folks!)  Guys on this very set of forums are b****ing about the price of model kits today, as opposed to 50 years ago!  Time was when a hand-carving model car kit pattern-maker was worth nearly his weight in gold!  Regardless of Harry P's pontificating, this is as much a matter of artistry (just as with pure scratchbiulding) as any technical exercise.  Any competent wood carver can create the casting masters for a cylinder block, a head, an intake or exhaust manifold, or for that matter, anything Tupperware makes--BUT it takes a sculptor to carve, from wood, an accurate replica of all the shapes and contours of a real car, shrunk down to say 1:25 scale.

It gets even more difficult when one is called upon to help review, critique. a set of tooling mockups created by 3D printing, and worse yet, to look at the first go-round of a model car kit test shot--it's getting better, but still it is really difficult at times to know just where to begin.  Dave Metzner noted in another forum on this excellent website, just how small the staffing is at any model company today, in the area of new kit development--that's a fact of life as it is, not how anyone would want it to be. I know I've given considerable of my time, along with considerable mileage to help him with evaluating tooling mockups--each time we've gotten together to do that, we each learned something--same with model car test shots--some hair does get pulled there as well.

Whew!  I've blown off long enough here--but please, Harry Pristovnik, get off of your high horse--when I see you scratchbuild something besides a square-rigged Woodie Body for a Rolls Royce, and get it accurate, right, then I might accept you as someone who really knows something about all of this.  

Until such time, I would suggest you consider moderating your own tone of voice, your rhetoric--"It ain't as easy as you think, Boy!"

[Art Anderson]

Old friend Art is right here -- everything depended up the accuracy of the initial measurements (they ran masking tape across the body so the camera picked up subtle shapes) and then took measurements,  If the drawings, that preceded the tooling, weren''t correct then everything downstream from there was inaccurate.  With digital technology now, we can do what wasn't possible 50 years ago -- we can scan objects.  I'm thinking of running a 3-D scanner crew to Starbird's Museum to scan the car . .  

Hope you're well (enought), Art.

Mark S.Gustavson

Two suggestions, Mark!  First, consult with your close friend, Tim Boyd on what all it takes to laser scan a real car to make a model kit--not as cut-and-dried as you might think.  Second, a 3D scan may or MAY NOT tell all the story, in my experience so far, it doesn't.  Take your camera, shoot tons of pictures--film for digital camera's, last I looked, is damned near free!).  Last, take a carpenter's rule with you (black out every other inch, makes it easier to see dimensions when that  ruler shows up in the reference pics you take!!)  A very few of us have been down that very road)

Art

[Gregg]

Knock off the stupid photos, images, etc.

That's trolling.

Any more BS I will not ban accounts, I will delete them.

 

[Mike Kucaba]

WOW what  happend?     I thought this was going well?

[unclescott58]

Knock off the stupid photos, images, etc.

That's trolling.

Any more BS I will not ban accounts, I will delete them.

 

What photos/images are you referring to here, Greg? Again, I'm missing something.

[BIGTRUCK]

The photos must have been something to bring out the "Big Cheese", any way , a very informative reply Art, alot of info in your thread.

[Mark]

What photos/images are you referring to here, Greg? Again, I'm missing something.

They have been removed. 

[unclescott58]

They have been removed. 

Okay. Thanks.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Art thanks for the great information.  Considering all its impressive what we get for the price.

I think that part of the problem is the misconception that becuase a lot of the work done know is its going to be more accurate but that is a fallacy its just another tool. I'm sure when things are 3d scanned there will be another set of issues. Every system has its own unique shortcomings. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

And yet - what's one of the most recent releases to have the fewest gross proportioning issues?

This one:

[Ace-Garageguy]

Hey Chuck...good to know. I'll have to look into back-building one into a better looking Futura.

[mk11]

quite the gulf between those incredible sculptors of 50 yrs ago and all the hassle our modern methods create ...

 

mike 

Edited September 18, 2015 by mk11

[Ace-Garageguy]

See, this is how it is...if you listen to some folks:

The concept of "scale model" doesn't really mean anything. There's no such thing as a "scale model" because that would imply measuring and dividing accurately by a particular number to arrive at a particular "scale" (you know, for example...1:25 scale is all the dimensions of the real thing divided by 25, or you can say all the dimensions of the model are a 1/25 fraction of the dimensions of the real thing, etc.). This would require rigorous precision in measuring, math and basic arithmetic, and we all know how useless that stuff is.

"Scale model" actually means "a loose interpretation of the general impression one guy gets of the subject, and it's not supposed to be particularly accurate because it's all subjective anyway, like art; curves and lines have to be fudged because this particular one guy doesn't like the impression his interpretation of the subject provides if he holds himself to accuracy...or maybe the math is just too hard or boring".

It's kind of a good thing this doesn't work the other way around.

I've designed multiple objects and vehicles in reduced scale, as have thousands of designers and engineers since civilization and tool-making-humans began designing things. When the design is developed, scaled-up, to real-size, 1:1, full-scale, it looks exactly like the original small-scale design.

How odd.

 

Edited September 18, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[bobthehobbyguy]

acy is as accuracy does, Harry.  As long as any reproduction is the interpretation of a human's view of the original, it may well be quite accurate to that person, and whomever is reviewing it, but perhaps not so to someone else.  And, therein will always be the rub.

I have to wonder, has anyone following this thread ever attempted scratch building a model car, using only photographs, perhaps adequate measurements of the real thing (perhaps not too!)?  Truthfully, to participate in the product development phase of a model car kit--or even a diecast model car (I did that for almost 3 years working as a product development/automotive research person for Johnny Lightning 2002-2005) is very much akin to scratchbuilding, except that I was in the position of having to describe to the tooling mockup makers how I wanted the mockup to look, down to the closest detail, the accurate shapes, and proportions (JL "1/64" scale diecasts weren't all exactly 1/64 scale, but had to have very similar dimensions (width & length) and weigh at least to a set standard (after all, we did them two ways:  With scale appearing wheels and tires for a replica appearance, as well as free-rolling hard wheels for gravity racing!).  All of this had to happen by going through someone (or perhaps several someones!) who were fluent in English, as well as their native tongue (Chinese, and the several dialects therein!).  Every word I typed into my computer in English had to be translated by that contact person, into Chinese characters, so that the guys in the pattern shop could understand what was being requested, what was required.  All the way along, I (and the two different co-workers I teamed up with in those three years) had to constantly (and diplomatically) make comments about the corrections needed.

But, it gets deeper!  Tom Lowe (now the owner of Round2) was the owner then of Playing Mantis, parent company of Johnny Lightning, and he decided we needed to do some 1/18 scale diecasts, followed by a set of 1/24 scale models as well.  The two 1/18 scale diecasts I had responsibility for were a 1955 Chevrolet Sedan Delivery and a 1948 Chevrolet 1/2 ton Panel Delivery Truck.  It was interesting to note that when I got the 2X sized tooling mockups from China, they both were very good, the 48 Panel was as perfect as perfect gets--compared really great with the 200 or so digital pics I had shot of a real one--and believe me, that is a very difficult subject to capture in miniature (there are a number of very visible inaccuracies in the AMT/Ertl 1950 Chevrolet 3100 pickup, if one does serious research!).  The '55 Sedan delivery came out, crack out of the box, perfect in every way save for the shapes of the front and rear bumpers--so I dug out about a dozen pics of '55 Chevy bumpers, front and rear, that I'd taken, plus some photo grabs off the internet, and with some cajoling, they nailed it!.  Next up was a series of 6 1/24 scale diecast model cars, along with several 1/34 scale model trucks, all done to fit our license with Coca Cola (Johnny Lightning was Coke's preferred diecast supplier for several years back then!).  A couple of those were actually quite easy:  A 2004 Ford E-150 cargo van, and a 1950 Bulletnosed Studebaker Commander Starlight, with a side dish of 1957 Ford Courier Sedan Delivery.  While the E-150 and the Studebaker sailed right along, the Courier had some bumps in the road--Patrick Mulligan (who was the Scale Auto Magazine Editor pretty much right out of college!) could not approve it, as there were proportional problems with the mockup.  Patrick did dig into Ford's vast archive of historical photo's, and found a 4-view set of drawings of the real thing, and that made the Courier possible--many of you have seen those diecasts.

Now, bear with me while we "fast forward" to today:  No longer are tooling mockups carved by hand by skilled sculptors, no longer are body planform drawings done on a drafting board--no, it's all computerized, down the sculpting (by 3D printing) of the tooling mockups.  Now we have a situation!  There are, on one end, people who do know what the model should look like--THEY did the research, took the photo's, did the measurements.  On the other end, there are digital specialists, trying to interpret that information (and it can be voluminous!) on computers, first to get CAD line drawings, second to achieve CAD 3-Dimensional images, and third, to finally 3D print all the parts for a tooling mockup.  Trouble is, the very skilled people doing all that have NEVER seen, nor are likely to EVER see, the actual 1:1 car they are called upon to develop into a model kit!  So you ask, why not get someone in the US, WHO KNOWS WHAT A MODEL CAR KIT SHOULD LOOK LIKE!, to do it?  Answer, if someone with all that passion, knowledge and skills exists, nobody seems to know who they are, where to find them--AND if they did find someone like that, the costs would be 2-3 times what it is at the present time (and it is all the development and tooling costs that determine, ultimately, model car kit prices folks!)  Guys on this very set of forums are b****ing about the price of model kits today, as opposed to 50 years ago!  Time was when a hand-carving model car kit pattern-maker was worth nearly his weight in gold!  Regardless of Harry P's pontificating, this is as much a matter of artistry (just as with pure scratchbiulding) as any technical exercise.  Any competent wood carver can create the casting masters for a cylinder block, a head, an intake or exhaust manifold, or for that matter, anything Tupperware makes--BUT it takes a sculptor to carve, from wood, an accurate replica of all the shapes and contours of a real car, shrunk down to say 1:25 scale.

It gets even more difficult when one is called upon to help review, critique. a set of tooling mockups created by 3D printing, and worse yet, to look at the first go-round of a model car kit test shot--it's getting better, but still it is really difficult at times to know just where to begin.  Dave Metzner noted in another forum on this excellent website, just how small the staffing is at any model company today, in the area of new kit development--that's a fact of life as it is, not how anyone would want it to be. I know I've given considerable of my time, along with considerable mileage to help him with evaluating tooling mockups--each time we've gotten together to do that, we each learned something--same with model car test shots--some hair does get pulled there as well.

Whew!  I've blown off long enough here--but please, Harry Pristovnik, get off of your high horse--when I see you scratchbuild something besides a square-rigged Woodie Body for a Rolls Royce, and get it accurate, right, then I might accept you as someone who really knows something about all of this.  

Until such time, I would suggest you consider moderating your own tone of voice, your rhetoric--"It ain't as easy as you think, Boy!"

Ace the process that you take measurements and divide and get an exact replica is the ideal case. However if you read Art's statement above the reality comes into play and its not just that simple.

Think of it as connecting the dots. Somebody takes measurements and pictures and hand them to somebody else. That info is handed to somebody else and then they create the dots. A third person is handed the page with the dots and told to draw the picture. If they have no clue or only a general idea then that affects what they end up drawing.

BOttom line. Kits sre going to end up with flaws. Everybody needs to deal with that in their own way. Ignore it, fix it, not buy it at all are all possible solutions. Endlessly discussing this is a futile endeavor.

Edited September 18, 2015 by bobthehobbyguy

[Harry P.]

BOttom line. Kits sre going to end up with flaws.

I think we've all agreed on that point long ago. The question we've been tossing back and forth is the meaning of "scale model" as it relates to model cars.

Should a "scale model" be an accurate representation of the full-sized object, based on actual measurements and dimensions?

Or is there a need for "interpretation" and "artistic license" when engineering a scale model? Should a scale model be an "interpretation" of the full-sized object?

Some people (like Bill and I and others) believe that a scale model should be a miniature version of the real thing based on actual numbers and dimensions. A 1/25 scale model car should be 1/25 the size of the real thing (with obvious accommodations made for things that can't be scaled down correctly, such as sheet metal thickness, for one). But the scale model should accurately reflect the contours and dimensions of the real thing as closely as possible.

Others think that a scale model is an "interpretation" of the real thing, and that in engineering a scale model, there has to be changes made in some dimensions and/or contours to somehow compensate for the smaller size of the model and in order for the model to look like the real thing.

Two different concepts as to what a "scale model" should be.

 

[bobthehobbyguy]

Yes it should be an accurate copy however it is a retail product with a set price and budget constraints which impact the final product. Also there is a need to get it released in a timely fashion.

If you want a model of something you have 3 choices buy a kit or create a model of it or buy a model and fix the issues.  You build Pocher kits and look at the things you have to fix. And Pocher kits are considerably more expensive relative to the kits that were being produced at that time.

[Jantrix]

Okay, since we have both Mark and Art here on this one, lets ask the question that no ones thought of yet.

Back in the 50's, 60's 70's, when the hobby was in it's heyday, what did model companies, engineers, sculptors, think they were creating?

Did they think that they were creating toys? Something cheap that a 14 year old would slap together with a tube of glue and brush paints? Because that was the target audience back then. If this is the case, then inaccuracies can be understood, because the average kid doesn't know that the roof is two scale inches too short, so why put in the effort.

Or did they understand that they were creating a medium that adults would tun into art? If this is the case, then inaccuracies cannot be acceptable. Period.

However, at this time, the model companies know their customers. They know what we expect. We have the technology to do wonderous things. undrept of in 1950. It should not be hard to get perfect accuracy in the new tooled kits of today.

[Scale-Master]

Are Palmer models accepted as scale replicas?  Not these days.  Were they accepted as accurate when they were new?  Doubtful. 

Who were the target consumers?  Probably the same group as the Predicta kit was aimed at.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I think we've all agreed on that point long ago. The question we've been tossing back and forth is the meaning of "scale model" as it relates to model cars...

Not only does everybody agree, but some of us have had the "no such thing as a perfect kit" angle called out as pretty obvious and inept misdirection for a few YEARS now.  The Defense Brigade has to treat that concept as if people don't understand it in order to gain any traction for their arguments - and that's only one of a legion of false premises involved in these discussions.

As for kids not appreciating proportioning and detail problems, I wouldn't be too sure about that.  I recall being perplexed by the '65-'66 clip on front of the bastardized '67 Malco Mustang '70s reissue in yellow plastic, and the smooth 500-style backlight on the General Lee - both before I turned 12.  On the other hand, I snapped Zingers and Tom Daniel kits right up; 'cause even at that age, I knew they weren't supposed to be serious.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Okay, since we have both Mark and Art here on this one, lets ask the question that no ones thought of yet.

Back in the 50's, 60's 70's, when the hobby was in it's heyday, what did model companies, engineers, sculptors, think they were creating?

Did they think that they were creating toys? Something cheap that a 14 year old would slap together with a tube of glue and brush paints? Because that was the target audience back then. 

Possibly an incorrect assumption.

I was reading the 1:1 hot-rod mags when I was a kid in the late '50s and on into the '70s. There was a considerable marketing presence by the model companies, selling to older kids and adults. A good bit of spin was put on the fun you could have building your dream rod or custom, even if you didn't have the funds to do the real thing. Magazine articles also spun building as a cheap "dry-run" to work out design ideas before committing to expensive metal.

And because CAR model kits in styrene developed pretty directly from dealership-promos, where the manufacturers wanted the full-size product to be represented looking right in scale, a work-ethic developed around accuracy in model tooling and design.

Also, look at some of Revell's more challenging kits of the early 1960s...Mickey Thompson's Challenger One for example. No way were these intricate and difficult models aimed primarily at a market lacking the skills to build them well...though many of us as youngsters, including me, made horrible bodged messes of the best of them. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[BIGTRUCK]

"Also, look at some of Revell's more challenging kits of the early 1960s...Mickey Thompson's Challenger One for example. No way were these intricate and difficult models aimed primarily at a market lacking the skills to build them well...though many of us as youngsters, including me, made horrible bodged messes of the best of them."

The55,56 57 Chevy, the Swindler Willys, the 57 Nomad and showrods all had doors, hoods, trunks or bubble tops that opened. Tiny hinges on the 29 pick up all things that steered me away from Revell as a young modeler. Metal axles and easy install clear parts was my route back then.

Edited September 18, 2015 by BIGTRUCK

[Scale-Master]

I have from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, that those more complicated Revell kits were designed and engineered to be marketed to "kids from 12-24".