'53 Hudson Hornet is coming....

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Huh???

Can you put that in plain English for us slower types? I read your post several times and still don't quite get what it is you're trying to say.

Sure, Harry.

Know them portable laser scanners used for rapid prototyping, like some of these?

a few portable laser scanners

Got an online earful from an insider years ago about how impractical it was, about how they tried scanning and had to go with traditional methods in the end to get the prototype looking right - but that was years ago. Now, I'd like a kit manufacturer to just shut up and use one of these on the next 1:1 car they want to produce in kit form.

I'm thinking just the body shell, and I'm thinking mainly for older subjects that don't have a bunch of CAD file archives. If an actual scanner is too expensive for the company itself to acquire, I believe there are contractors out there who own these machines and will collect the data for you. You can use these scanned measurements to make a 3D model that's pretty flawless in gross measurements and proportion, if not fine detail. For once, I'd like to see a car body reduced without any interpretation at all - there'll still be plenty of interpretation needed for just about every other aspect of the kit, so it's not as if this one step will replace every jot of human input into the kit's design.

And I think such a model would serve a number of useful purposes. We've had some discussion of perspective and stereoscopic distortion in judging a model's accuracy, and also of the fudging some manufacturers do to compensate for these factors. Something we know is mathematically precise and accurate in scale would be a fine little acid test for those principles. It might also be amusing to see if anyone detects what they feel are proportioning errors in such a model.

But there's been a lot of theory developed about what affects a viewer's perception of scale accuracy. We are are now on the cusp of technology that can prove those theories one way or another, if we don't have access already. And I think we're fast running out of excuses not to see it done.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Chuck Kourouklis

[old-hermit]

I must have bad eyes because the only obvious, glaring differences I see are in the windows.

That might be from different year/model changes and it's not enough to keep me from buying several of the kits.

......................

[rick6343]

I don't know if this kit looks good or not, but:

1. The kit photos we've seen are all test-shots (i.e. they're not done with them), in plastic, not painted, and (as mentioned above) photographed from angles real cars are seldom seen at. The real subject was metal, painted, and 17 feet long. I'm going to guess that it's going to be really hard to tell if it really is accurate or not from the images posted here so far.

2. I'd be surprised if a "perfectly" proportioned 1/25 model car looked spot-on. Model cars are 8" long and generally viewed from some higher elevation- I would think that a "right" looking model would take some massaging to really look it.

3. Fairly often I've seen a new 1/1 car in a magazine and dismissed it as "boring" or even "ugly." Sometimes I've said the same thing about new cars on stands at car shows. In real life, on the road, or in a driveway, however, the same car might be stunning. Real car styling studios paint their clay models and display them in outdoor sunlight. There's something to be said for seeing the real thing, in three dimensions, in the finish and environment it's actually intended for.

4. While recently comparing three different kits of similar subjects tooled at different times by the same manufacturer, I found significant differences in the body shapes. None were obvious until I started setting them side-by-side and looking very closely for flaws.

Bottom line: I can't tell from photographs on my computer whether or not a plastic model kit is a faithful replica of its subject. If I could, I might be wrong anyway. This subject isn't one I'd typically build, but I'd sure like one of these...

[Darin Bastedo]

I must have bad eyes because the only obvious, glaring differences I see are in the windows.

That might be from different year/model changes and it's not enough to keep me from buying several of the kits.

......................

Like I said, I would have to see a built up kit (or at least a painted and foiled body) before I pass judgement. The absence of contrasting trim can cause quite an optical illision. observe the differences below;

Notice how the belair trim makes the 57 chevy look sleeker than the base level trim, (an intended effect by the stylist BTW) That's why I want to see the finished model before I pass judgement. It's possible that some of the slight imperfections may be addressd in the final tooling.

[Darin Bastedo]

I don't know if this kit looks good or not, but:

1. The kit photos we've seen are all test-shots (i.e. they're not done with them), in plastic, not painted, and (as mentioned above) photographed from angles real cars are seldom seen at. The real subject was metal, painted, and 17 feet long. I'm going to guess that it's going to be really hard to tell if it really is accurate or not from the images posted here so far.

2. I'd be surprised if a "perfectly" proportioned 1/25 model car looked spot-on. Model cars are 8" long and generally viewed from some higher elevation- I would think that a "right" looking model would take some massaging to really look it.

3. Fairly often I've seen a new 1/1 car in a magazine and dismissed it as "boring" or even "ugly." Sometimes I've said the same thing about new cars on stands at car shows. In real life, on the road, or in a driveway, however, the same car might be stunning. Real car styling studios paint their clay models and display them in outdoor sunlight. There's something to be said for seeing the real thing, in three dimensions, in the finish and environment it's actually intended for.

4. While recently comparing three different kits of similar subjects tooled at different times by the same manufacturer, I found significant differences in the body shapes. None were obvious until I started setting them side-by-side and looking very closely for flaws.

Bottom line: I can't tell from photographs on my computer whether or not a plastic model kit is a faithful replica of its subject. If I could, I might be wrong anyway. This subject isn't one I'd typically build, but I'd sure like one of these...

Amen Brother.

[Harry P.]

Sure, Harry.

Know them portable laser scanners used for rapid prototyping, like some of these?

a few portable laser scanners

Got an online earful from an insider years ago about how impractical it was, about how they tried scanning and had to go with traditional methods in the end to get the prototype looking right - but that was years ago. Now, I'd like a kit manufacturer to just shut up and use one of these on the next 1:1 car they want to produce in kit form.

I'm thinking just the body shell, and I'm thinking mainly for older subjects that don't have a bunch of CAD file archives. If an actual scanner is too expensive for the company itself to acquire, I believe there are contractors out there who own these machines and will collect the data for you. You can use these scanned measurements to make a 3D model that's pretty flawless in gross measurements and proportion, if not fine detail. For once, I'd like to see a car body reduced without any interpretation at all - there'll still be plenty of interpretation needed for just about every other aspect of the kit, so it's not as if this one step will replace every jot of human input into the kit's design.

And I think such a model would serve a number of useful purposes. We've had some discussion of perspective and stereoscopic distortion in judging a model's accuracy, and also of the fudging some manufacturers do to compensate for these factors. Something we know is mathematically precise and accurate in scale would be a fine little acid test for those principles. It might also be amusing to see if anyone detects what they feel are proportioning errors in such a model.

But there's been a lot of theory developed about what affects a viewer's perception of scale accuracy. We are are now on the cusp of technology that can prove those theories one way or another, if we don't have access already. And I think we're fast running out of excuses not to see it done.

Well, now that I understand your point, I'd say I agree with it 100%.

With all the whiz-bang technology we have available these days, seems to me that creating an accurate scale representation of a full-scale item should be entirely possible.

[Dave Metzner]

Laser scanning a full sized automobile is very do able and it will certainly produce an accurate set of digital files, however scanning a full size cars is still cost prohibitive for us.. we have investigated that possibility and the cost of scannig a car is in excess of 20K - that is before any files get converted to useable formats for ptotyping or tooling... We continue to explore the posibilities but are not encouraged to believe that we'll find an affordable way to do this anytime soon.

The costs of these technologies are dropping at a fairly rapid rate but it looks like they've got along way to go before we'll be able to afford them for prototyping...

We can scan small objects and digitize them fairly cheaply, and we are using that technology whenever it makes sense to do so.

Whenever CAD files are available we can use them to produce kits, Loestar is a product of CAD files provided to us by Navistar.

When we can lay hands on files in useable formats we heve rapid prototypes grown that technology is becoming quite affordable.

As for the shape of the Hudson Body, we've been working with several well qualified modellers who have intimate knowledge of what a Hudson Hornet ought to look like, including two guys who've owned and driven them. Nobody's come up with any comparison to a shoebox Ford in the group of guys who've been involved in this project from the mock-up stage.

I'm sure that this model isn't perfect, I am however satisfied that it does a good job of capturing the shape of the real car.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Dave Metzner

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Thank you, Dave! Appreciate your insight, and yes, I imagine that overhead is pretty high for a newer company like Moebius.

I'm hoping that some of the older guard will start looking at this seriously, though - they kinda need to.

[Luc Janssens]

Laser scanning a full sized automobile is very do able and it will certainly produce an accurate set of digital files, however scanning a full size cars is still cost prohibitive for us.. we have investigated that possibility and the cost of scanning a car is in excess of 20K - that is before any files get converted to usable formats for prototyping or tooling... We continue to explore the possibilities but are not encouraged to believe that we'll find an affordable way to do this anytime soon.

The cost picture gets different when you're a company like Mattel, they can spread the scan cost through their product range.

Cuz the same data can be used to create tooling models for 1/50, 1/43, 1/32, 1/25, 1/24, 1/20, 1/18, 1/12, 1/8.......

Maybe in time an entrepreneur will offer the model and toy companies, a portfolio of CAD data of all things automotive....certainly an interesting venture, if the serviced can be offered at a price lower, then when they have to do it in house......

Luc

Edited December 9, 2010 by Luc Janssens

[Guest]

This model reminds me of the Galaxie '46 Chevy kits years ago. A nicely detailed and engineered (except for the locating pins on the headlights and turn signals) kit of a less than appealing subject. I'm sure a lot of factory stock and NASCAR builders are happy about this kit. I don't know how well it will be accepted by the custom builders though. Seriously,how many people think "Hudson Hornet" when they think of a custom especially when the '49 Mercury with all of it's custom parts is out there in abundant numbers? To me,the Hornet just looks like a bad "knock off" of the '49 Mercury four years too late which could be why the company didn't make it. There's a reason the Hudson Hornet was never offered as a kit before......

[Harry P.]

This model reminds me of the Galaxie '46 Chevy kits years ago. A nicely detailed and engineered (except for the locating pins on the headlights and turn signals) kit of a less than appealing subject. I'm sure a lot of factory stock and NASCAR builders are happy about this kit. I don't know how well it will be accepted by the custom builders though. Seriously,how many people think "Hudson Hornet" when they think of a custom especially when the '49 Mercury with all of it's custom parts is out there in abundant numbers? To me,the Hornet just looks like a bad "knock off" of the '49 Mercury four years too late which could be why the company didn't make it. There's a reason the Hudson Hornet was never offered as a kit before......

I think you're wrong. A Hudson Hornet has been on the wish lists of many modelers for a long time now; it's probably the number one (along with the Tucker) "Why is there no kit of this" subject out there. And if the custom builders won't accept it, so what? There are plenty of other builders who will not only accept this kit, they'll buy multiples of it.

[Dr. Cranky]

I know Cranky's already making space on his shelf for at least a half dozen!

[Danno]

I know Cranky's already making space on his shelf for at least a half dozen!

Same here.

[Guest]

I think you're wrong. A Hudson Hornet has been on the wish lists of many modelers for a long time now; it's probably the number one (along with the Tucker) "Why is there no kit of this" subject out there. And if the custom builders won't accept it, so what? There are plenty of other builders who will not only accept this kit, they'll buy multiples of it.

Well,it certaintly wouldn't be the first time! There's also the possibility that you're wrong. Time and sales will soon tell. Honestly,I hope that I am wrong because even though I have zero interest in this kit,I'm really looking forward to the 300C and Navistar that's coming out. So,the money I save by not buying this kit can go towards an extra 300C or the "down payment" on the Navistar. Every model isn't for every one.

[Jantrix]

I know Cranky's already making space on his shelf for at least a half dozen!

Ditto.

[Chuck Most]

To me,the Hornet just looks like a bad "knock off" of the '49 Mercury four years too late which could be why the company didn't make it. There's a reason the Hudson Hornet was never offered as a kit before......

Yes, and somehow that 'knockoff' Hudson body style came out a year before the '49 Merc...

[Dr. Cranky]

I think most of us outside of the industry will never know how much a kit sells, but I can tell you when the 49 Merc came out already with the chopped top, gee, I must have bought 14 or 18 or 24 of them . . . like the 41 Willys, I never get tired of building it. It provides a great canvas for new paintjobs and styles.

I think the Hornet is going to be such a canvas.

[Darin Bastedo]

It's gratifying to see that not every person on this board is wearing rose-colored glasses when looking at this kit. We're not looking at this model in a carnival mirror, we're looking at pictures of it and the pictures don't lie like some would assert. If that were the case, I could brush my hair a certain way and claim that I look like Steve McQueen when I clearly do not. The body of this model is a representation of a Hudson Hornet, but not an especially good one. I can't tell you how much I wish it was, but I can't. The photos of the resin built up I posted yesterday capture the look of the car better. No, it's not exact, but it is closer to what I am sure many of us were hoping for from Moebius.

Pictures lie everytime. The camera lens distorts, there is no way to deny that very simple scientific fact. Have you ever heard the phrase "The camera adds ten pounds."? that is due to the inherant distortion due to the fact that the camara cannot replicate the way your eyes can see an object. If it didn't distort, my Photoshop CS2 wouldn't have a tool to correct it. That said we cannot on one hand decry the model makers use of photographs instead of the 1:1 car, ("because they can't see the subtle nuance of the shapes and proportions") and then on the other hand claim that we can tell the accuracy of the shapes and nuances of the model kit by looking at photos. If this were the case Mobius could have saved themselves a lot of time and money by simply emailing Dave, Art, and, others photos of the test shot.

As a photographer, not only am I aware of the camera's distortion, but I often use it to enhance an effect. Having photographed thousands of real cars as well as models, I can tell you that not only does the camrera distort, it does so differently for 1:1 Cars compared to Models due to what is called scale effect. because you cannot shrink your camara to 1/25 scale, the lense is larger in proportion to the field of vision when photographing a scale model. That is why your camera has macro settings for that purpose. Add to this the fact that different camaras with different lenses distort differently. The setting you use such as zoom, macro etc. changes the distortion, and each model of camara is different in how well those settings work, and how that affects the distortion. So simply the fact that the model was photographed with a different camera than used on the 1:1 can change how accurately the subject is presented. Even if you had a model that was an exact replica of the full size car exactly scaled in every dimension, photographed with the same camera you couldn't overlay a photo of it over a photo of the 1:1 car taken at the exact same angle, and have it line up.

Until one of us has the model in our hands and can compare it to a real full size Hudson (not a picture of it) will we be able to see for ourselves how acurately shaped it is. Art Anderson has held it in his hands, he also is an authority on the real car. He says it looks good. For now I will take his word for it until I see in person evidence to the contrary.

[Foxer]

Thanks for that Darin. Now if all these "experts" would just remember it. I doubt it, even when truth is shoved in their face do fools continue. And I love ya all!

[Harry P.]

Sometimes the camera does not lie.

For example: If you have a straight-on side view of both the model and the full-scale car, and you see that the wheelwell openings on the model are shaped completely differently than the 1:1. Or the roofline is off. Or the door opening is too long. Or the top appears chopped, etc.

I don't mean in this case, necessarily, but in general. To say "the camera always lies" isn't exactly accurate.

[Chuck Most]

Here is what I really, really really really, really really REALLY really, re-he-heeeley don't get...

When did we become so bogged down in the details that we can't just step back and look at the big picture? As I've said before, I'll reserve my final judgement on this and any other new kit until I have it sitting right there on my workbench in front of me, or on my lap behind the wheel of my car in the hobby shop parking lot. I look at the (mostly) assembled test shot, and I see a Hudson Hornet. Any gaffes I see (or think I see) can be explained away for now, and if there are any mistakes that still slip through the cracks, well, I think I can deal with those issues when needed! I know I may be a bit weird, perhaps outright crazy, but isn't the whole point of a model kit to build it, not to fret over the bumpers sticking .010" too far away from the body, or some other nonsensical tidbit that only you and five or six other people will even take the time to notice?

There's never been a perfect model car kit, in terms of 'accuracy' and 'scale fidelity'. Never was, isn't now, and I seriosly doubt there ever will be. As long as it isn't some truly awful Pyro-style piece of junk, why dwell on what's wrong (EVERY kit has at least a few things going for it!)when it seems they got it right for the most part? There are some people who love pointing out what's wrong with a kit(and I can be one of 'em sometimes), but very few who like to talk about what the manufacturer got right!

[Chuck Most]

Sometimes the camera does not lie.

For example: If you have a straight-on side view of both the model and the full-scale car, and you see that the wheelwell openings on the model are shaped completely differently than the 1:1. Or the roofline is off. Or the door opening is too long. Or the top appears chopped, etc.

I don't mean in this case, necessarily, but in general. To say "the camera always lies" isn't exactly accurate.

And of course, there's always the fact that the images a camera takes are "open to interpretation"...

[Harry P.]

On the other hand...

If a test shot is posted on a modeling forum, aren't the members supposed to comment on what they see? I mean, isn't that the whole point of a "forum?"

I don't see any problem with people pointing out perceived flaws and inaccuracies. Better that we hash out that stuff now, before the final tooling is cut. I don't understand why some people take such offense if someone points out an inaccuracy or other issue with the kit. We're here to discuss model cars! So why the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing by some people every time a discussion breaks out???

[Dr. Cranky]

It's life, isn't it. You have insiders to an industry and then you have consumers in the market. I've always thought of myself as a great consumer, and I sure do love to consume model kits I like.

I am still waiting for a new release of a VEGA!

Or better yet, a Ford Falcon or a Pinto!

[Chuck Most]

I have absolutely no problem with a kits problems being discussed. Sheesh, the at-length and heated discussions about such things are some of the most entertaining conversations you can 'listen in' on! But, even so, show of hands... how many of you think this kit will be absolutely perfect (or even close) when it actually hits the shelves? Nobody? Thought so.

Harry- you can lay partial claim to this kit's greatness by pointing out the goof-up you noticed earlier on. So we know Moebius is seeing this, and more importantly, listening. But then again, I'm pretty sure Revell is watching the message boards too, and odds are that Monogram '70 Mustang grille ain't never gettin' fixed no matter how many times it comes into somebody's crosshairs!(Iffy grammar used to enforce my point.)

For me, it's the sweating of the 'little stuff' I just don't get. It's stuff like that Monogram '70 Mustang grille, which is so messed up and wrong that even a non-modeler doesn't think it looks right, that I can't abide. Yeah, the little things can and do add up, but if a company can avoid the big ones, the ones that really ruin the kit, I'm pretty happy. But some guys just like to make a witchhunt out of things!