Scale accuracy: how much is enough, and why do you care (or not).

[sjordan2]

How does the product license work ? Is there such thing as only being able to reproduce something only 90% , for a smaller fee?

Are REALY simple things like wheel base and window size just a little off, to keep the license agreement in range?

I'm sure I'm grasping a staws, and I bet it's more to do with time chrunches and what's left on the bottom line when it's all said and done.

But thought I would ask.

No such thing as 90% or whatever, which couldn't be measured anyway. If a model company has a licensing agreement with a corporation, it's up to the corporation to determine and approve if you have reproduced their product and represented it to an acceptable level for them. There have been a number of posts on this issue here (notably, from a box art artist who had to deal with approvals from both the model company and Texaco for his designs, which was published a few issues ago in MCM). And it mostly has to do with the bottom line, less with time crunches.

The bottom line on this subject: Forget about your own logic. Forget about "free advertising." Forget about new ways to make licensing cheaper because the experienced, professional kit makers have been working on this for decades. Go with the examples of history.

And go listen to the podcast that Casey posted on this forum, of an interview with Revell's product guys, Ed Sexton and Roger Harney, about how licensing costs have kept Revell from issuing any more NASCAR models.

Edited September 3, 2012 by sjordan2

[moparmagiclives]

No such thing as 90% or whatever, which couldn't be measured anyway. If a model company has a licensing agreement with a corporation, it's up to the corporation to determine and approve if you have reproduced their product and represented it to an acceptable level for them. There have been a number of posts on this issue here (notably, from a box art artist who had to deal with approvals from both the model company and Texaco for his designs, which was published a few issues ago in MCM). And it mostly has to do with the bottom line, less with time crunches.

The bottom line on this subject: Forget about your own logic. Forget about "free advertising." Forget about new ways to make licensing cheaper because the experienced, professional kit makers have been working on this for decades. Go with the examples of history.

Really?

If I don't get a license to reproduce something, doesn't the owner have to prove its with in so much of a % there idea and product ?

Edited September 3, 2012 by moparmagiclives

[sjordan2]

Really?

If I don't get a livence to reproduce something, doesn't the owner have to prove its with in so much of a % there idea and product ?

NO. If you use their products, copyrights and trademarks without their approval, in any form, your butt will end up in a sling. I've been in the ad agency business for many years and keep up on this sort of thing. Your question reminds me of the nonexistent "3-note rule" in music; George Harrison had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court awards for "My Sweet Lord" because the notes were the same as "He's So Fine." Coldplay settled out of court for untold money because "Viva La Vida" had a chorus that had nearly exactly the same notes as an earlier song by an obscure band.

You don't mess with trademark and copyright law. And the corporations know how to use it - even against small cottage industry companies that make T-shirts and aftermarket decals for model cars.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Go back and re-read my prior post.

Edited September 3, 2012 by sjordan2

[Jim N]

If anyone is interested in my opinion, a lot of the time where you end up is due to where you started. What I mean by this is that if one company is basing its kit on a drawing that may or may not be accurate, this company will likely end up in a different place than a company that has the final car and is taking measurements from it. One other thing to keep in mind is that we are all fallible human beings and mistakes can happen. Once a measurement is wrong in one place, it can ripple throughout the whole process.

There have been a number of references to the military builders and how they demand everything to be accurate; whereas, the car guys are not that serious about accuracy. If you think about it, the reason the military builders have to be concerned about accuracy is that there is only one correct way to build their kits. One cannot paint a tank a candy apple color or swap out an engine in a Sherman for one that was in a Panzer. This is a bit of a silly example, but I do think there is some relevance. Car guys don’t think twice before doing something like this, and further, it has been done in the 1:1 world.

One other thing about military modelers is that they usually build only one of their kits. I have not seen many military modelers that have multiple F-15’s on their shelves. They have one or perhaps two if there is certain significance with a fighter squadron. Or they may have different scales of the same model, but I have never seen half dozen different renditions of the same plane. On the other hand I have seen multiple versions of the same car on builders’ shelves.

The other piece to this is price. I don’t think I am that different from others, but price does matter. I don’t think that makes me cheap, but like everyone else, I have a certain amount of money I can spend on what is a hobby. Once prices get above a certain threshold, I have to think long and hard as to whether I want to spend that amount of money. There has to be a Tamiya kit out there that really grabs my attention to think about spending $50.00 for a model. I fully expect the $50.00 kit to be better engineered, scaled more accurately and should construct better than one at $25.00. However, many of us can make that $25.00 model look real nice.

This is long winded, and for those who read all of it without being bored or going to sleep – thanks.

[moparmagiclives]

No. If you use their products, copyrights and trademarks without their approval, in any form, your butt will end up in a sling. I've been in the ad agency business for many years and keep up on this sort of thing. Your question reminds me of the nonexistent "3-note rule" in music; George Harrison had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court awards for "My Sweet Lord" because the notes were the same as "He's So Fine." Coldplay settled out of court for untold money because "Viva La Vida" had a chorus that had nearly exactly the same notes as an earlier song by an obscure band.

You don't mess with trademark and copyright law. And the corporations know how to use it - even against small cottage industry companies that make T-shirts and aftermarket decals for model cars.

Interesting for sure.

Thank heavens for lawyers right lol. !!!

[Tony T]

One thing that very few scale models have ever accurately represented...weight. I'd be very surprised if any modeller of any subject would want accurate weight in a kit!!

This has been an interesting thread to read through. Thank you all for contributing.

[Ace-Garageguy]

One other thing about military modelers is that they usually build only one of their kits. I have not seen many military modelers that have multiple F-15’s on their shelves. They have one or perhaps two if there is certain significance with a fighter squadron. Or they may have different scales of the same model, but I have never seen half dozen different renditions of the same plane.

.

....maybe not many, but maybe more than you think. I know one very serious WW2 aircraft modeler who has modelled every version of the Spitfire ever built in 1:1, from the baby-blue prototype all the way through the last bubble-canopy Mk.24, and the Spiteful, Seafires and Seafang, all in 1/32 scale. It's a pretty astounding collection, by the way. To get them all, he had to do a LOT of kit-mingling, heavy modification and scratchbuilding. Now he's starting on P-47s.

I also know a retired fighter jock who has built every version (not unit marking variations, but mission-specific variants, like the Wild Weasel) of the F-4, and a helo guy with mutiple Hueys and Cobras, all in the same scales. Same helo guy is converting one of the 1/24 Monogram Hueys into a Cobra. Lots of work. Point is, though these aren't creative 'customs' like car models often are, or 'freelance' as the model railroad guys call it, they ARE heavily modified.

[moparmagiclives]

One thing that very few scale models have ever accurately represented...weight. I'd be very surprised if any modeller of any subject would want accurate weight in a kit!!

This has been an interesting thread to read through. Thank you all for contributing.

It's funny you mentioned that, one of the things that jump out at me on a really good build, is the feeling that that thing would weigh as real as it looks. Some of the textured paints and such that guys are using now really drive that feeling home !!

[zenrat]

...One cannot paint a tank a candy apple color or swap out an engine in a Sherman for one that was in a Panzer

Yes you can.

They won't like it but you can.

And that's the beauty of this hobby, you can do absolutely anything you want.

[Fat Brian]

I think one of the reasons that licensing has tightened up is that China blatantly rips off everything worth copying. If a company doesn't defend it's copyrights against even small infringements when a really big issue arises they could be said to have allowed their copyright to lapse based on them no longer defending it. It's just an unfortunate fact of doing business today.

[SSNJim]

One thing that very few scale models have ever accurately represented...weight. I'd be very surprised if any modeller of any subject would want accurate weight in a kit!!

Plastic model cars aren't that far off - a 3400 pound car in 1/25 would weigh 3.48 ounces. Armor is way off - a 1/35 M4 Sherman should weigh 24.92 ounces.

[moparmagiclives]

Plastic model cars aren't that far off - a 3400 pound car in 1/25 would weigh 3.48 ounces. Armor is way off - a 1/35 M4 Sherman should weigh 24.92 ounces.

Ok, let's see the math

[Harry P.]

Plastic model cars aren't that far off - a 3400 pound car in 1/25 would weigh 3.48 ounces. Armor is way off - a 1/35 M4 Sherman should weigh 24.92 ounces.

You might want to whip out the old calculator... you are waaaaay off!

1/25th of 3400 pounds is 136 pounds.

[mikemodeler]

Ok, let's see the math

Jim, I like your math, I will have to use it at the doctor's office next month for my physical!

[SSNJim]

Sorry. It's not wrong. When you reduce an item to a scale of 1/25, you reduce it in all three dimensions for a total of 25x25X25, meaning you have to reduce the weight by that much. To get the scale weight of any replica, you would take the weight of the prototype and divide it by the cube of the scale.

Imagine a 1" square block that weighs 1 oz. Now, how many blocks will it take to make a replica that is a 2" cube? The answer is 8 (2x2x2 or 2^3), and it will weigh 8 ounces. If you want to carry it out to 25", it will take 25x25x25 (25^3) blocks to make a cube 25 times bigger. You will need 15,265 blocks weighing 1 oz each, or 976.5625 pounds. Each of the 25 layers will weigh 625 ounces, or 39.0625 pounds. If you consider the larger cube to be the prototype, and the 1" cube to be the model, it works backwards too.

So what's wrong with the math?

[southpier]

it's too hard for me to think about

[martinfan5]

That made my tiny brain hurt

[Danno]

Lawyers?

Lawyers at the bottom of the gene pool?

Lawyers at the bottom of any pool?

Good start.

Old joke.

Not so funny.

[Fat Brian]

I see what you mean, only dividing the weight by 25 would be like only dividing the width of the 1:1 car by 25 but leaving it 1:1 length and height. A three dimensional object scales in all three dimensions so weight must be scaled in all three as well.

[moparmagiclives]

Sorry. It's not wrong. When you reduce an item to a scale of 1/25, you reduce it in all three dimensions for a total of 25x25X25, meaning you have to reduce the weight by that much. To get the scale weight of any replica, you would take the weight of the prototype and divide it by the cube of the scale.

Imagine a 1" square block that weighs 1 oz. Now, how many blocks will it take to make a replica that is a 2" cube? The answer is 8 (2x2x2 or 2^3), and it will weigh 8 ounces. If you want to carry it out to 25", it will take 25x25x25 (25^3) blocks to make a cube 25 times bigger. You will need 15,265 blocks weighing 1 oz each, or 976.5625 pounds. Each of the 25 layers will weigh 625 ounces, or 39.0625 pounds. If you consider the larger cube to be the prototype, and the 1" cube to be the model, it works backwards too.

So what's wrong with the math?

It's wrong because you trying to shrink the molicular mass, not just the physical measurement.

[Harry P.]

I was told that there would be no math involved!

[southpier]

It's wrong because you trying to shrink the molicular mass, not just the physical measurement.

let's just break it down:

Jody has 4 apples and Mary has 2 lemons. Now, a freight train leaves the station, travelling East at 3:15 pm. Superman flies around the world so fast, it becomes yesterday.

How many oranges does Dennis have to give his teacher?

[zenrat]

jims thinking is correct. Mass is directly related to volume and volume reduces by the cube of the scale.

Think about it. a 1/25 350 chev does not have a capacity of 14 cubic inches (350/25).

Molecular mass is irrelevant unless you a taking a 1:1 scale car and shrinking it by reducing the atomic spacing (as per the 1960's Avengers episode - mmmmm Mrs Peel...) in which case it would remain the same mass as no material has been removed. Everything has just been moved closer and made denser.

Think of it in simple shapes. What size cube can you crush a 1:1 scale car up into? Lets say 2 foot on each side if you leave the engine in.

So you have a cube 2 foot x 2 foot x 2 foot which equals 8 cubic foot. Lets call the density of that cube D lb/cubic foot. It therefore has a mass of 8D lbs.

Now, build a 1/24 scale model of that cube using the same materials. 2 foot equals 24 inches and 24 divided by 24 equals 1. So It will be 1 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch which equals 1 cubic inch. How many cubic inches in a cubic foot? 12 x 12 x 12 which equals 1728.

So what is the mass of the scale cube? Its the mass of a 1 cubic foot cube divided by 1728. What is the mass of a 1 cubic foot cube? Its volume x density or 1 x D which equals D. Therefore the mass of the 1/24 scale cube is D/1728.

So, if the 1:1 cube has a mass of 8D and the 1/24 cube has a mass of D/1728 you can now calculate by how many times the mass has reduced going from 1:1 to 1/24.

It is 8 x 1728 which equals 13,824.

And 13,824 equals 24 x 24 x 24.

I used 1/24 as it made the sums slightly easier but if you do the same using 1/25 you get Jims answer of 15,625.

So, using something I know the weight of and units I am familar with a Tamiya 1/24 Toyota Landcruiser should, if mass is scaled as accurately as length, weigh 2.7 Tonnes divided by 13,824.

195.3 grams

[SSNJim]

It's wrong because you trying to shrink the molicular mass, not just the physical measurement.

No, all the blocks in my example weigh exactly the same - 1 ounce. Each cube has exactly the same density. No molecular trickery involved. If you cut two cubes out of the same chunk of steel, a cube measuring 2" will weigh 8 times more than a 1" cube. A 25" cube will weigh 15,625 times more than the 1" cube of the same material.

[moparmagiclives]

I stand corrected, I guess I have my head warped around something being shrunk down, not whittled down. And maybe they are the ssme .... But you guys gota quit using all these fancy terms like grams and ounces