A life hack that pertains to model building......

[JollySipper]

I was looking at recommended sites on IG, and came across this little pearl of wisdom that really hit home as a model builder........

"When you have 90% of a large project completed, the finishing details will take another 90%."

Is this true for you guys? Any other sage advice you can offer that also pertains to modelling?

[Snake45]

I used to work with/for a VERY smart young lady who always thought she was the smartest person in the room, and was, truth to tell, probably often right.  I used to say about her, "She can get about 90% of a project done in about 20% of the time it would take anybody else, or any team of anybody elses. The other 10% will never get done at all. By anyone. Ever." 

I could relate because I have a LOT of model projects that are exactly the same way. 

[Dave Ambrose]

There is a software engineering aphorism to the same effect. By the time you get most of the project done, you will have discovered that multiple simplifying assumptions you made are simply wrong. That said, some part of them aren't all that important and can be ignored. The rest are important and must be fixed. Figuring out which is which is the real art and wisdom component. 

[Fat Brian]

I agree with that. The final steps of a model are some of the most finicky but also the most visible parts of the build. Decals, foil, attaching clear parts and exterior details, weathering, all of this can't even start until most of the parts are together and it's obvious if you rush it. This is something I'm still working on, I get in a rush to finish stuff and end up making mistakes in the home stretch.

[Ace-Garageguy]

15 hours ago, JollySipper said:

I was looking at recommended sites on IG, and came across this little pearl of wisdom that really hit home as a model builder........

"When you have 90% of a large project completed, the finishing details will take another 90%."

Is this true for you guys? Any other sage advice you can offer that also pertains to modelling?

100% true in my professional life, and one of the reasons I rarely finish anything on the model bench.

I use model building to get away from the pressure of completion, not to add to it.

I can give my creativity free rein without HAVING to tie up countless details to make something FUNCTIONAL.

[Mike C]

Like they say, "The devil is in the details".

[misterNNL]

For me the details are the icing on the cake of most model projects. They can easily be the "how did you that?" Factor that draws viewers in for a closer second look.

[Ace-Garageguy]

53 minutes ago, misterNNL said:

For me the details are the icing on the cake of most model projects. They can easily be the "how did you that?" Factor that draws viewers in for a closer second look.

I know exactly what you mean, but I derive the ultimate satisfaction from anything I do when I look back on it and think "Holy cow...did I do that? I'd really be impressed if I saw that and it was someone else's work. Good job, self."  

[Rob Hall]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:55 PM, Dave Ambrose said:

There is a software engineering aphorism to the same effect. By the time you get most of the project done, you will have discovered that multiple simplifying assumptions you made are simply wrong. That said, some part of them aren't all that important and can be ignored. The rest are important and must be fixed. Figuring out which is which is the real art and wisdom component. 

So true...I deal with this often in my professional life.   Assumptions, complexities, unexpressed but implied requirements, etc... 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Rob Hall said:

So true...I deal with this often in my professional life.   Assumptions, complexities, unexpressed but implied requirements, etc... 

Pretty much always the case when anyone works as a hired-gun consultant, engineer, fabricator, machinist, etc. etc.

[Dave Ambrose]

12 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Pretty much always the case when anyone works as a hired-gun consultant, engineer, fabricator, machinist, etc. etc.

I used to be on a committee that wrote the ISO standards for computer graphics. The goal of these standards was to be so complete and precise that two different people could write two different implementations, and have them be 100% compatible. This is a great goal for nuts, bolts, and screws. You can't do it in a useful time frame for anything as complex as a software system. So, we have assumptions and minor incompatibilities. 

[paul alflen]

As us Hillbillies say in Highland, Mi '''There is more than one way to skin a cat "and get the same results/ goals.

[Ace-Garageguy]

21 hours ago, Dave Ambrose said:

I used to be on a committee that wrote the ISO standards for computer graphics. The goal of these standards was to be so complete and precise that two different people could write two different implementations, and have them be 100% compatible. This is a great goal for nuts, bolts, and screws. You can't do it in a useful time frame for anything as complex as a software system. So, we have assumptions and minor incompatibilities. 

In the physical world, some of us frequently have to deal with "assumptions and minor incompatibilities" as well.

For instance, the MS (Military Specification), AN (Army Navy, familiar to anyone who plumbs race cars), and later NAS (National Aerospace Standard) for aircraft/aviation hardware and materials was/is an attempt to insure compatibility and performance standards of fasteners and plumbing bits, metal in any form or composition, composite (fiber reinforced) materials, plastics, adhesives, sealants, etc. on things that would fly with human lives dependent on them. The intent was/is to insure that hardware or material from any manufacturer complying with a particular standard would be compatible with hardware or material from any other manufacturer complying with the same standard, and would perform as designed and specified. It's particularly critical on combat aircraft, as one never knows where the next box of a particular widget came from, but if it carries the appropriate label, compliance and compatibility is assumed by people in the field who might not have the time for due-diligence while getting shot at. It usually works, but due to occasional misreading of a spec, misinterpreting a spec, or willful failure to comply with a spec (a frequent problem with "offshore" suppliers), anyone involved with aircraft repair and modification will occasionally encounter "minor incompatibilities" (sometimes not so minor, like when a mission-critical bolt is made from the wrong material and causes a catastrophic failure, like a wing shearing off in flight) based on "assumptions" that compliance with specifications is guaranteed by a part number and a label.

Aircraft repair or maintenance facilities generally comply with appropriate AS 9100 / AS 9110 standards (industry specific, based on ISO 9001 QMS - Quality Management Systems), MUST comply with 14 CFR 145, and it can be a significant financial and paperwork burden on small companies to do so. Any aircraft repair or modification has to comply with arcane procedures specified by the FAA, fully documented as to compliance (which is where the old joke that 'the repair isn't complete until the paperwork weighs as much as the airplane' comes from). Anything done "outside of the box" (like the composite fuselage structural repair procedures I was directly involved with developing) has to be documented extensively, with complete engineering data furnished to, reviewed by, and approved by an FAA DER (Designated Engineering Representative) under 14 CFR 183.29...BEFORE the repair is actually done or the aircraft is returned to service. "Assumptions and incompatibilities" occur here as well. One aircraft manufacturer was vehemently opposed to our new repair procedures for their own financial reasons, implying that our work would be "unsafe", as we didn't comply with their outdated, unnecessarily heavy, but "certified" repair procedures...which were very limited in scope anyway. Their motive was that typically, one of their aircraft suffering significant wing or fuselage damage had previously been deemed "non repairable", forcing insurance companies to REPLACE the aircraft (as in buy a new one from them) rather than repair them. When replacement cost for their particular aircraft can be over a million bucks, it's pretty obvious why they didn't want us to fix them for substantially less (insurance only purchasing such parts as were available from the manufacturer, through us, rather than an entire airplane). We ultimately were issued FAA approval, and we were very fortunate that our DER had been, before his retirement, the lead structural engineer on one of the first high-performance all-composite series-produced general aviation aircraft in the world, and was well versed in dealing with "assumptions and incompatibilities" concerning compliance with the relevant FAA rules and specs.

Based on the length of this one post, I could probably write a book on instances of "assumptions and incompatibilities" in the physical engineering world, and how they can sometimes even lead to tragic consequences, including lives lost unnecessarily.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO

[Bugatti Fan]

Bill, Would you mind repeating that!    LOL!

[Ace-Garageguy]

8 minutes ago, Bugatti Fan said:

Bill, Would you mind repeating that!    LOL!

TLCR   (too long, can't remember)  

[Bugatti Fan]

Glad you saw the funny side!

Cheers!    😄