Danno Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Gregg, you remove MY post about the swearing, but you leave the post WITH the swearing??????? So, no bias around here, is there??????? What'd I miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Well see Dave, Trumpeter figured since it was a two barrel intake, that it only needed two intake runners! You know, one for each barrel........ I wanted at least one, though the kit wasn't on my "must have" list. If you buy maybe one, that's more than likely one more than I'll ever buy!!! What could have been "promises renewed" turned out to be nothing but "promises, promises" again........... Interesting take on the intake theory, Mark! Oh, and, you mean this....? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJP2PH8WKaI Just sayin'.... Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I will take the devil's advocate view that it doesn't seem any worse to me than several recent Revell kits...but that's not a compliment I will repeat my oft-mentioned disappointment that most manufacturers in 2011 can't cut a body tool as well as they did it in the 60s...before the cars actually came out, before computers, and when the standards of the buyers would seemingly be lower. It's a shame whatever black art mold design is, that the knowledge didn't translate forward so that they could do with modern technology what they seemingly did with ease 40-50 years ago. I sometimes wonder if the computer might actually have to do with some of the problems. The way a computer and the human brain process information is different. Computers see lines and angles. The human eye can more easily detect curves and subtle changes in the shapes of objects. The black art was a well-trained draftsman, skilled with a pencil and the several implements of his profession, not a computer jockey that wouldn't know a radial arm if he got hit over the head with it. I think many of the problems we see are also from many schools failing to provide initial training on drafting boards so the students can get a feel for what they're designing, not just how to move stuff around on a screen. The aesthetic quality is missing, and only being trained in non-virtual conditions can help that. Computer-Aided-Design has its places, included the model industry, but perhaps we should look into combining the old and the new. A CAD operator is a highly-skilled professional who deserves respect; I can't do CAD although I'm a pretty decent draftsman. But, sometimes, the computer speed and cost-savings comes at the expense of final quality, and not just with model cars, but many products. By hand-drawing the body part cavities (where most of the problems seem to crop up,) and then scanning the drawings into CAD-Key or AutoCAD, or whatever the mold shop uses for its CAD-CAM software, perhaps some of the issues can be alleviated. I believe that most CAD programs can accept scans of hand-drawings, and then through the magic of computers, make it usable for CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing.) I'm no expert in automated manufacturing, but I have enough college credits in industrial arts that I'm familiar with basic production procedures and can say that a hybrid system like this may work well. Then again, as has also been suggested, it could simply be carelessness and rush-jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if to some degree, both were involved. Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) And, while this is obviously conjecture on my part, I'm wiling to bet that expenditures for kit development were a whole lot more in 1960s dollars than what today's are in 2011 dollars. Interesting point, Ken, so I decided to check. It costs on average, about $150,000 to produce a kit in today's money. I checked a calculator, and found that in 1965 dollars, it would have cost about $221,000 to do the same thing. I used this site. http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php Based on an educated guess, I would say kit development (design, engineering, tooling,) would probably have run somewhere in the neighborhood of $25-30,000. I base my conjecture on the factor that the prices of most items seem to have gone up by a factor of about ten. Charlie Larkin Edited April 20, 2011 by charlie8575 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Interesting point, Ken, so I decided to check. It costs on average, about $150,000 to produce a kit in today's money. I checked a calculator, and found that in 1965 dollars, it would have cost about $221,000 to do the same thing. I used this site. http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php Based on an educated guess, I would say kit development (design, engineering, tooling,) would probably have run somewhere in the neighborhood of $25-30,000. I base my conjecture on the factor that the prices of most items seem to have gone up by a factor of about ten. Charlie Larkin Don't forget that back then much of the kit development was funded by lucrative Promo Contracts from the big three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 The way a computer and the human brain process information is different. Computers see lines and angles. The human eye can more easily detect curves and subtle changes in the shapes of objects. Computers can't "see" anything... they can only process input. GIGO, as the saying goes. (Garbage In, Garbage Out). To say that a computer program can't accurately render complex shapes, curves and contours is incorrect. The error is not with the software, but with the person using the software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRG Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 There are times at work when I must draw up a print for a camshaft or crankshaft using Auto-Cad. If I put in the correct information the print is correct. If not then it is wrong. Stupid computer only does what I tell it to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Computers can't "see" anything... they can only process input. GIGO, as the saying goes. (Garbage In, Garbage Out). To say that a computer program can't accurately render complex shapes, curves and contours is incorrect. The error is not with the software, but with the person using the software. Okay, so we have operator error. As a graphics professional, Harry, do you feel the training for this equipment is really up-to-snuff? I ask because of the issues we've seen again and again. If not, what would you do differently based on observed trends for training in the business? Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Okay, so we have operator error. As a graphics professional, Harry, do you feel the training for this equipment is really up-to-snuff? I ask because of the issues we've seen again and again. If not, what would you do differently based on observed trends for training in the business? Charlie Larkin I have no idea to what extent computers were used to create the new Falcon kit, or what software was used, or how proficient in that software the people who were using it are. But in my opinion, it's not any software shortcomings that are to blame for inaccurate kits. Today's 3D modeling and CAD software is incredibly sophisticated... there is no way it couldn't be used to create an absolutely accurate model. My guess is, the reason for all the mistakes we see is basic corner-cutting... not "sweating the details" and accepting "close enough." I mean, the exhaust system on the kit is completely wrong, and that's not a software limitation... that's "human error." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Cole Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) I've been watching a few build-up of the Falcon. The more I see shots of the chassis, the more convinced I am... the tool designers... just plain winged it. Really! I know for a fact that the exhaust design isn't even close to accurate. I think they literally guessed at the shape. The entire chassis pan lacks detail, much like one could expect if they lacked (chassis) reference photos. The rear wheel wells are tubbed, which could be a concession to a future release; yet I would be more inclined to believe that it is (again) lack of actual reference. We don't have hundreds of these cars still zipping around every town here in the States; and in China? Closer to none at all. Not a slam; people! Not at all. Just a nod to acknowledge where this kit was designed. Bad design could happen anywhere, but in China, the odds increase due to their unfamiliarity with the subject. Before they were ever handed photos, they had most likely never even seen a Falcon. Edited April 27, 2011 by Jon Cole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boreham Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I look forward to other kit's being debated ""trashed out"" with the same vigor regardless of their origns Charlie as we've discussed a few times in the chat room with regards to the tooling , it's probably wise to referre to actual fact's rather than general thought s on the subject, and I mean that in a positive manner.. Speaking personally from 15 years as a toolmaker building Prototype Molds you'd get very little in the form of a Mold for $30,000 and that's not including design. I'm looking forward to buying the kit and attempting to build an Alan mann car from it. . Is there another "plastic Kit" alternaitive available it's propably been mentioned..but through the 12 odd pages I might have missed it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 meh, guess i'm just not as bothered as some are about this kit. i don't even really like Falcons and i bought it anyway. i'm also having fun building it and so far with what i've done it goes together quite nicely. it looks close enough to the 1:1 to work for me and what i want to build from it and i really like the multi-piece construction. Years of building Monogram '69 Camaros have trained you well, Grasshopper. Again, there is no perfect model. Someone will always find flaws, faults, and errors, so each person must decide if it's good enough for them and act accordingly with their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 meh, guess i'm just not as bothered as some are about this kit. i don't even really like Falcons and i bought it anyway. i'm also having fun building it and so far with what i've done it goes together quite nicely. it looks close enough to the 1:1 to work for me and what i want to build from it and i really like the multi-piece construction. I can see what you mean, back in the 70's and early eighties I really enjoyed building MPC kits. They were definitely crude by today's standards and often had simplified details compared to modern kits but they looked okay on the shelf. in the case of this Falcon kit, I'm less disappointed with the body, though I see the flaws in it, and more disappointed in the chassis and engine. It brings me back to the days of building MPC models that kinda guessed at the details rather than modeled them exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I've looked at the photos Mark Nellis has posted on his AMT '64 Falcon and when you really get to looking at it,there are several things wrong with it also. Just take a look at the grille on his model especially around the headlights. The headlight rings extend way out past the front of the fenders and the headlights themselves are recessed a good three scale inches. Anyone that thinks that grille looks more accurate than the Trumpeter Falcon really needs to have their eyes checked. The roof also looks like it has a 2 inch chop which is probably where they added the roof to the convertible. I know people see things differently,but they're no denying those things no matter how much you squint your eyes. This kit has some flaws just like every kit out there,but the body looks way more workable than some I've seen by a long shot. The engine is no big deal (yeah,it is a turd no doubt)to me because I rarely use a kit engine anyway. The chassis doesn't look absolutely correct,but I never display or show my models on their roof anyway and those large rear fenderwells will save me a lot of work. The rest of it,I can easily deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 the chassis bottom isn't THAT far off, is it as detailed as the real thing? does it have every last little wrinkle, fold and nook and cranny? nope, and IMO it doesn't really matter overall. the Revell Nova had a backwards gas tank that so many were willing to accept and it still has overly small rear wheelwells, not to mention many other flaws. oh, but since it was done by a US kitmaker and costs less than the Falcon all those issues are okay right? Wow, lots of new posts on this topic this morning! I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, so I will: that's a great underbody shot, but it's far from stock - looks like a unibody that's being prepped for a street machine or pro touring car. Right off I see: 1. Front crossmember for a Mustang II type suspension. 2. Sub-frame connectors tying the front and rear halves of the unibody together. 3. Non-stock trans mount. What it does show pretty well are the torque boxes - those plates just behind the front wheel wells - that the six cylinder cars don't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 no, that floor pan is not stock, but it was a good shot to me that showed that the Trumpeter kit wasn't all THAT bad. there is a M2 front suspension, subframe connectors as well as what looks like, GASP! a Camaro or Nova transmission crossmember there are some areas that Trumpeter obviously didn't copy, but who knows what kind of references they had on hand. without knowing what they had to work with for references, kinda hard to bash them for thier efforts i think. for a Chinese company that has probably NEVER seen a 1:1 example of the car they modeled, i don't think they did too bad, but apparently i'm one of the very few looking at it that way. the fact is though the correct references are available to anyone who knows how to google. to just make it up as they go is just lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 the fact is though the correct references are available to anyone who knows how to google. to just make it up as they go is just lazy. I totally agree with that Darin! This is 2011. To me it just shows a lack of respect for their potential consumers. I don't expect perfection, but for $40-50, I want something I'd at least be willing to work with. As I've said before, this isn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 i could be wrong, hasn't been the first time, but i believe that's a Mustang chassis/floorpan. The site I pulled it from said they were working on a falcon, but either way the web is full of photos of cars under restoration that you can use. either way it's not like they were doing a Tucker I'm sure they could have gotten the info if they really tried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boreham Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 i could be wrong, hasn't been the first time, but i believe that's a Mustang chassis/floorpan. The differences between a Falcon and a first generation Mustang floorpan are primarily just a matter of dimensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 So it looks like the followup will be a '64 or '65 Falcon Sprint convertible. IIRC, wasn't it originally announced as a '65 Ranchero or am I mis-remembering? About the only qualm I have about buying one of these is the price point--is it really worth twice a Revell new tool? I'm used to paying $40 or more for a Fujimi or Tamiya, but it seems wierd for Trumpeters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Here's one from the '63 Falcon manual - '64 would be only very slightly different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I know there are those who like to say, "Well, it's cheaper than buying an AMT annual or a resin kit," but I don't see that as any kind of justification for Trumpeter's price point. Remember, any product is priced according to what the manufacturer thinks it can successfully sell it for. The "justification" for the selling price of a product is determined by a number of factors... what the competition sells similar products for, the costs associated with bringing that product to market, etc. Only time (and sales results) will tell if Trumpeter's price was "justified." BTW... the phrase "price point" is another one of those trendy phrases like "at the end of the day" that really grinds my gears! When did "price" become "price point"... and why??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Exactly. And, to that I would add once again for emphasis that there's nothing whatsoever wrong with liking a kit despite its faults and errors and that criticism of any kit shouldn't be taken personally. I'm genuinely glad there are folks who do like this Falcon kit, and I'm looking forward to seeing what some of them can do with it! Nicely put. I'd go one further and say that personal reactions to a kit critique only betray the objector's own insecurities - but that's just me. Champion of Revell/Monogram that I've been, my own personal favorite is a pretty flawed kit: AMT's new-tool '67 Mustang. Funky stance, iffy headlight diameter, roof maybe a bit too crowned, odd-looking engine details thither and yon - but I just love that kit beyond all reason. You can call it "garbage" for those factors and many others, and I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "more for me". Now wasn't there a wee bit of chuffing over someone at another forum calling out "100+ things wrong" with the Falcon kit? While I do have to wonder what'll surface given enough time, sure, "100+" is an exaggeration... Kinda like calling someone a "rivet-counter" 'cause he says this front fender arch - doesn't look entirely like this one - Or pointing out that "no kit is perfect" in spite of the fact that we've yet to see the critic who claimed he was looking for one... Or calling nearly anything that deviates from unqualified praise "bashing"... Or harping on "dead horses" while failing to come up with any rebuttal that hasn't been uttered over and over again (and debunked nearly as often)... Or condemning all the "negativity", often after turning the exchanges personal themselves and refusing to let up... Come to think of it, do any of you critique objectors have a leg to stand out without wildly exaggerating things yourselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Darby Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) I've looked at the photos Mark Nellis has posted on his AMT '64 Falcon and when you really get to looking at it,there are several things wrong with it also. Just take a look at the grille on his model especially around the headlights. The headlight rings extend way out past the front of the fenders and the headlights themselves are recessed a good three scale inches. Anyone that thinks that grille looks more accurate than the Trumpeter Falcon really needs to have their eyes checked. The roof also looks like it has a 2 inch chop which is probably where they added the roof to the convertible. I know people see things differently,but they're no denying those things no matter how much you squint your eyes. This kit has some flaws just like every kit out there,but the body looks way more workable than some I've seen by a long shot. The engine is no big deal (yeah,it is a turd no doubt)to me because I rarely use a kit engine anyway. The chassis doesn't look absolutely correct,but I never display or show my models on their roof anyway and those large rear fenderwells will save me a lot of work. The rest of it,I can easily deal with. Actually, putting that roof on a convertible would be pretty correct, as the hardtops and convertibles use the same windshield. I can attest to that, as my own 64 Sprint had a cracked windshield when I got it, and the replacement came from a 63 convertible at the boneyard. The headlights on the annual do stick out some, but at least the grille pattern is right. The grille should have alternating rows of thin and thick bars, and the thick ones would be indented at each end (black paint on the indentations) to look like floating bars. There is something to like about the new kit, however. The engine compartment (Shock towers and braces, etc) look pretty good. This would be a much better swap under the 64 Comet than the Revell Fairlane Thunderbolt chassis, which is all wrong for a Falcon. It would also be great for the 61 Ranchero, and any other 60-65 Falcon Comet. It's also the only kit to have a proper generatot bracket, so props for that. Here's a link to my photos of the box contents. Gotta love the two barrel intake manifold with the two runners and the offset carb mounting flange. Trumpeter 64 Falcon kit contents. Edited April 28, 2011 by Dave Darby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.