Biggest pet peeves on builds.

[Bugatti Fan]

Lost track of the number of mistakes I have made on models over the years!!!    As long as you learn from them, correct them and move on!

[Tom Geiger]

8 hours ago, Bugatti Fan said:

Lost track of the number of mistakes I have made on models over the years!!!    As long as you learn from them, correct them and move on!

I always say it’s not the mistake, but how you recover!

[mikemodeler]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:51 PM, Casey said:

That's exactly what this forum is for, so you found the correct place.

It depends on the topic. As I mentioned, if it's a time sensitive topic, then there's little point in replying to an older topic with outdated discussion. If its a timeless topic, like pet peeves about building, which kits are your favorite, How do I polish paint, etc., then an older existing topic might have the answers and previous replies which are relevant to the topic/subject. Adding a new reply to an old topic which is still relevant serves multiple purposes, and acknowledges members have had contributions worth recognizing. That said, there are plenty of older topics about the same subject which have little to no valuable content (granted, that is a subjective statement, so YMMV), and are best left without any new replies. It is up to the person replying or considering crating a new topic to decide how to proceed.

There is plenty of good information on this forum, but it does take some effort to find it at times. Some will put forth that effort and be rewarded, and other will create new post for everything. In my decade of experience here as a member, the latter tend not to last.

To add to Casey's comments, sometimes those older topics have comments from builders no longer members here or who have passed away since they posted. There is a ton of valuable information in the archives here and sometimes researching it will yield useful tips that a new topic won't. 

We all have a bunch of pet peeves and reading this and some of the comments ring true for me. I get intimidated by the quality of the work here and other places that I roam to the point I wonder why I even try. Then I remember those that are posting some of the models I envy had to work to get that good and if I am willing to take the time and put into practice the tips learned here, I may be that good too. I won't be the guy who mills his own parts on a lathe or casts parts in resin, but I can surely do detail painting and clean assembly to get a nice model. Someone recently mentioned that they were going to go back to building models for the fun and just do basics and not get caught up in minute details and custom parts and I want to try that myself. Just build a kit and not worry if it will get a trophy, but if it will look presentable.

This place is for learning and having interaction with like minded individuals. Many of us grew up building models with friends and as we grew older, our lives changed. This forum, and others like it, allow us to build with our "friends" again and while we might not be at a card table in our parent's basement, we do have the ability to share. There are some great tutors on here who share their skills and know-how to help us all become modelers.

[Greg Myers]

On 12/4/2019 at 5:03 PM, Casey said:

 

Same topic, same old complaints. Nice to see a random asinine comment thrown in this time, with the accompanying plate of crow being served in return, along with a slice of humble pie for good measure.

IBTL. ?

Thank you for sharing that 

[Greg Myers]

On 12/5/2019 at 11:41 AM, Dave Ambrose said:

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I don't think the last word exists on any known subject. Sometimes, it's useful to revisit older discussions and questions. Things change. Our understanding changes, and if we aren't different people than we were 3 years ago, we're not growing enough. 

Then why all the fuss from Casey (NOT an administrator) about looking for past threads ?

[bobthehobbyguy]

I agree with Casey. Don't see the value in having multiple threads on the same topic. I would rather look at one thread rather than have to read multiple threads to find the  information spread across them. In this case there was a large amount of  redundency.

Edited December 13, 2019 by bobthehobbyguy

[Tom Geiger]

It kinda goes like this...

Historic threads have their place, and it's nice to have this vast archive. It's useful when looking up how to information or research material.

But... threads like this are meant to be interactive in real time.  It's fun to comment as it's happening, not five years later!

[Bills72sj]

On 12/3/2019 at 6:07 PM, LL3 Model Worx said:

You must be referring to the Acrylics.... the enamels may separate but with a little mixing they are good as new.

I've got some jars I know for certain are over 30yrs old that work fantastic.

Now the acrylics on the other hand do all the skinning over and drying out... funny enough out of the literal thousands of jars I have, I only have 2 acrylics... a black and a silver, that I bought by mistake because they were on the enamel rack!

I wasn't happy when I got home.

I hear ya brother. My 30 year old enamels come back to life with thinner. I only have 1 bottle of accidental purchase acrylic and it is silver. (the jar was bigger)

[Bills72sj]

On 12/4/2019 at 9:26 AM, StevenGuthmiller said:

The goal in model building is to achieve an end result that is as realistic as possible.

Just as a seam in a radiator is not realistic, neither is paint with metallic in it that would be the size of dimes if brought up to 1:1 scale, and it is the absolute first thing that you see when viewing a build.

Unless you're trying to build a gasser with a crazy metal flake paint job, paint, like ever other aspect of the model, should be as close to the real thing as possible.

Steve

I respectfully disagree. It seems it is YOUR goal to build realistic models. For many, that is admirable. I am a very detail oriented person nonetheless I build for the artfulness of the project. My available build time does not permit me the luxury of perfection even if I barely have the skills to obtain it. My goal is to simply have a case of colorful completed builds that I can admire from time to time.

[magicmustang]

4 hours ago, Bills72sj said:

I respectfully disagree. It seems it is YOUR goal to build realistic models. For many, that is admirable. I am a very detail oriented person nonetheless I build for the artfulness of the project. My available build time does not permit me the luxury of perfection even if I barely have the skills to obtain it. My goal is to simply have a case of colorful completed builds that I can admire from time to time.

X2!!

[Dann Tier]

10 hours ago, magicmustang said:

X2!!

X100!!!!!!

[Dann Tier]

15 hours ago, Bills72sj said:

I respectfully disagree. It seems it is YOUR goal to build realistic models. For many, that is admirable. I am a very detail oriented person nonetheless I build for the artfulness of the project. My available build time does not permit me the luxury of perfection even if I barely have the skills to obtain it. My goal is to simply have a case of colorful completed builds that I can admire from time to time.

....he doesnt seem to mind out of scale antennas though......funny that, lol

 

[StevenGuthmiller]

14 hours ago, Bills72sj said:

I respectfully disagree. It seems it is YOUR goal to build realistic models. For many, that is admirable. I am a very detail oriented person nonetheless I build for the artfulness of the project. My available build time does not permit me the luxury of perfection even if I barely have the skills to obtain it. My goal is to simply have a case of colorful completed builds that I can admire from time to time.

 

10 hours ago, magicmustang said:

X2!!

That's okay.

But I think if we did a poll, we would find that the vast majority of builders are looking for realism in their builds.

"Perfection" and realism are not the same thing.

You can build a realistic looking model without it being perfect.

"Realism" is just trying to depict the subject that you are creating as closely as possible.

After all, "scale models" are what we are building.

 

Scale Model.........A small but exact copy.     (Merriam Webster)

 

 

 

Steve

[StevenGuthmiller]

Just now, Dann Tier said:

....he doesnt seem to mind out of scale antennas though......funny that, lol

 

Sorry Dann.

I am not worthy to bask in your glow.

I liked it better when you were ignoring me.

Let's go back to that.

 

 

 

[Dann Tier]

1 minute ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Sorry Dann.

I am not worthy to bask in your glow.

I liked it better when you were ignoring me.

Let's go back to that.

 

 

 

LOL

[Daddyfink]

And oh yeah, I am tired of "Gun Metal Gray" paint jobs. I don't care if it is well done or Orange Peeled to death, I am just tired of seeing that color on model cars! 

Just use up the rest of the Krylon can on the mail box or something!! 

[Dann Tier]

13 minutes ago, Daddyfink said:

And oh yeah, I am tired of "Gun Metal Gray" paint jobs. I don't care if it is well done or Orange Peeled to death, I am just tired of seeing that color on model cars! 

Just use up the rest of the Krylon can on the mail box or something!! 

LOL

[Snake45]

25 minutes ago, Daddyfink said:

And oh yeah, I am tired of "Gun Metal Gray" paint jobs. I don't care if it is well done or Orange Peeled to death, I am just tired of seeing that color on model cars! 

Just use up the rest of the Krylon can on the mail box or something!! 

You wouldn't have liked my '69 Camaro. But maybe you would have--I had it painted that way in 1978, LONG before that color became a thing. 

[LL3 Model Worx]

45 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

 

That's okay.

But I think if we did a poll, we would find that the vast majority of builders are looking for realism in their builds.

"Perfection" and realism are not the same thing.

You can build a realistic looking model without it being perfect.

"Realism" is just trying to depict the subject that you are creating as closely as possible.

After all, "scale models" are what we are building.

 

Scale Model.........A small but exact copy.     (Merriam Webster)

 

 

 

Steve

Steve, I will apologize for the beating you are taking here... it's not exactly gentlemanly, even though it may have been self inflicted.

I understand what you are trying to say, as I for one do like the idea of "realism" even though my work far misses the mark most of the time despite it being the aim.

But to say that's the entire point of a SCALE model... that is not at all accurate, despite what Webster tells you... they added the words "Twerk and Derp" in there so...

But how do you account for scale models of scifi subjects... or a 1/25 Godzilla... none of that is remotely realistic, no matter how good the modeler...suspension of disbelief is required and that is OK.

I've been scratch building everything but the body of a 65 Riviera to be a complete post apocalyptic mad max/death race esque vehicle that has absolutely no basis in reality, because to me it's a COOL idea.

Of not for unrealistic models we would not have great things like the original Star Wars or the likes.

Every builder out there has an artistic license, some just choose not to employ it... and that too is ok.

Models would get super boring if ALL I was doing was trying to copy my 1:1's... I sometimes like the "hypotheticals" keeps it fun and interesting.

Again, sorry... you are a far more experienced and skilled modeler than me, but that doesn't make you right in this particular case.

Now let's get back to all being friends and joking about silly things like, my 68 Camaro build... that's full of the things this thread is about.

Peace.

 

[LL3 Model Worx]

23 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

You wouldn't have liked my '69 Camaro. But maybe you would have--I had it painted that way in 1978, LONG before that color became a thing. 

I saw an aerosol can of plastip at Ollie's the other day that had a guy holding a model car and applying this stuff... right on the can.

Just wait til that trend takes hold...

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, LL3 Model Worx said:

Steve, I will apologize for the beating you are taking here... it's not exactly gentlemanly, even though it may have been self inflicted.

I understand what you are trying to say, as I for one do like the idea of "realism" even though my work far misses the mark most of the time despite it being the aim.

But to say that's the entire point of a SCALE model... that is not at all accurate, despite what Webster tells you... they added the words "Twerk and Derp" in there so...

But how do you account for scale models of scifi subjects... or a 1/25 Godzilla... none of that is remotely realistic, no matter how good the modeler...suspension of disbelief is required and that is OK.

I've been scratch building everything but the body of a 65 Riviera to be a complete post apocalyptic mad max/death race esque vehicle that has absolutely no basis in reality, because to me it's a COOL idea.

Of not for unrealistic models we would not have great things like the original Star Wars or the likes.

Every builder out there has an artistic license, some just choose not to employ it... and that too is ok.

Models would get super boring if ALL I was doing was trying to copy my 1:1's... I sometimes like the "hypotheticals" keeps it fun and interesting.

Again, sorry... you are a far more experienced and skilled modeler than me, but that doesn't make you right in this particular case.

Now let's get back to all being friends and joking about silly things like, my 68 Camaro build... that's full of the things this thread is about.

Peace.

 

I don't disagree with anything you say there Leroy.

But I believe you're missing my point.

 

And don't worry about me "taking a beating".

It's not much of a beating, and I can hold my own.

 

This whole "realism" subject has risen from my contention that if you're building a model CAR, (Sci-fi subjects aside. They are generally not actual "things" and there is no real reference) then the paint should look at least close to something that you would see on an actual car.

That's the extent of it.

Whether you are building bone stock, custom, rat rods, racing subjects, wrecks, or whatever.

If you go back through this thread, you will see that the only "realism" reference that I have made, pertains to paint.

The individual style of building, or subject matter,  isn't my argument.

 

There is nothing wrong with being creative and building subjects of things that do not exist.

Some of the coolest models I have seen have been fantasy vehicles.

But if you are building a '69 Road Runner, and you want it to look like the vehicle as it came from the factory, or from someone's customizing or race shop, it shouldn't have paint with quarter sized metal flakes in it unless that was the intention.

And let's just face it, in the vast majority of cases, that's not the intention.

I think that we can agree that the overwhelming majority of builders on a "automotive magazine's forum" are building automotive subjects, and in general, those builder's goal is to end up with a finished product that is a reasonable facsimile to what they are trying to reproduce.

My argument boils down to the fact that "IF" you are trying to build a representation of an automotive subject that is supposed to look like a real "main stream" vehicle, (which is mainly what we do here) then there are more than ample opportunities to find "good" paint.

 

There have been a hundred "pet peeves" offered on this thread including a lot of relatively small items like seams on radiators, incorrectly colored plug wires, ejector pin marks, visible glue joints, "out of scale antennas", etc, etc.

All of these pertain to the "realism" of the finished product.

I would not have thought that an objection to over sized metallic paint particles would have become a "bridge too far".

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by StevenGuthmiller

[LL3 Model Worx]

11 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

I don't disagree with anything you say there Leroy.

But I believe you're missing my point.

 

And don't worry about me "taking a beating".

It's not much of a beating, and I can hold my own.

 

This whole "realism" subject has risen from my contention that if you're building a model CAR, (Sci-fi subjects aside. They are generally not actual "things" and there is no real reference) then the paint should look at least close to something that you would see on an actual car.

That's the extent of it.

Whether you are building bone stock, custom, rat rods, racing subjects, wrecks, or whatever.

If you go back through this thread, you will see that the only "realism" reference that I have made, pertains to paint.

The individual style of building, or subject matter,  isn't my argument.

 

There is nothing wrong with being creative and building subjects of things that do not exist.

Some of the coolest models I have seen have been fantasy vehicles.

But if you are building a '69 Road Runner, and you want it to look like the vehicle as it came from the factory, or from someone's customizing or race shop, it shouldn't have paint with quarter sized metal flakes in it unless that was the intention.

And let's just face it, in the vast majority of cases, that's not the intention.

I think that we can agree that the overwhelming majority of builders on a "automotive magazine's forum" are building automotive subjects, and in general, those builder's goal is to end up with a finished product that is a reasonable facsimile to what they are trying to reproduce.

My argument boils down to the fact that "IF" you are trying to build a representation of an automotive subject that is supposed to look like a real "main stream" vehicle, (which is mainly what we do here) then there are more than ample opportunities to find "good" paint.

 

There have been a hundred "pet peeves" offered on this thread including a lot of relatively small items like seams on radiators, incorrectly colored plug wires, ejector pin marks, visible glue joints, etc, etc.

All of these pertain to the "realism" of the finished product.

I would not have thought that an objection to over sized metallic paint particles would have become a "bridge too far".

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

I agree with you on the paint Steve, as I did many posts back... with our exceptions being wild customs/gassers etc... if I recall.

I think the way that you asserted your point through wording (context is difficult without sound) is what caused "the bridge too far" scenario. It maybe came off the wrong way... as if you were saying "my way is the only way that's right" etc... but I don't think that's what you really intended to say.

Maybe saying,  "huge flakes on a model clearly depicting an otherwise stock vehicle, are a complete eyesore"... with that statement I 100% agree.

No factory color, and even 99.9% of custom paint jobs on real cars get that bass boat flake... for one it is usually and eyesore and it is a pita to achieve a "nice" result. 

I think I said before that in our body shop we only ever did a few those that I can remember, and they were purpose built vehicles. One was a motorcycle I believe, and another a van...idr the other.

I think it was just a misunderstanding...

But, my Riviera is still gonna be a far cry from realistic, and its gonna be sweet...(I hope) lol!!

[StevenGuthmiller]

59 minutes ago, LL3 Model Worx said:

I agree with you on the paint Steve, as I did many posts back... with our exceptions being wild customs/gassers etc... if I recall.

I think the way that you asserted your point through wording (context is difficult without sound) is what caused "the bridge too far" scenario. It maybe came off the wrong way... as if you were saying "my way is the only way that's right" etc... but I don't think that's what you really intended to say.

Maybe saying,  "huge flakes on a model clearly depicting an otherwise stock vehicle, are a complete eyesore"... with that statement I 100% agree.

No factory color, and even 99.9% of custom paint jobs on real cars get that bass boat flake... for one it is usually and eyesore and it is a pita to achieve a "nice" result. 

I think I said before that in our body shop we only ever did a few those that I can remember, and they were purpose built vehicles. One was a motorcycle I believe, and another a van...idr the other.

I think it was just a misunderstanding...

But, my Riviera is still gonna be a far cry from realistic, and its gonna be sweet...(I hope) lol!!

I believe we have reached an understanding Leroy!

 

I suppose that you could say that "realism" itself is objective, depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

It's just my opinion that utilizing paint that is closer to what you could call "in scale" is not a difficult proposition.

Aside from aftermarket providers like Scale Finishes or MCW, if airbrushing is not an option, Duplicolor has "mica" and "pearl" colors available, and nearly all of the Tamiya colors appear to be exceptionally good in the metallic department.

I am not pushing any particular product.

I don't even use Tamiya paint.

It's the finished look of the model that interests me.

And as I said in my first post on this subject, it doesn't seem to bother everyone, and what people paint their models with is their business, but since we were discussing "pet peeves", well................

 

 

Steve

[Old Nasty]

Seams in oil pans & trannys.

[DukeE]

The goal in model building is to achieve an end result that is as realistic as possible.

Not paint flakes.

The above statement is likely the issue. Sadly it was quoted, and I smiled, expected nothing less. Sweeping dictums and Webster's definitions. LOL

Post up when you've got fuel in the filter and fluid in the reservoir, all possible. 

For example, Bill and Dann's builds and attitudes are less dogmatic and condescending. 

Superiority only works when one is superior. Humility takes effort.