A "Rivet Counter" speaks up!

[southpier]

i might interject an observation which may, or may not, be pertinent to the issue.

when some modelers describe their builds, and i know who you are because i read the threads, i quite often see "i channeled the coupe 1/4"" or "the top has been chopped .160".

so if everything is being thought of in scale, why wasn't there a 3" channel or 4" chop?

there is near perfection demanded from the manufacturers, but we're not holding up our end of the deal.

i find the inconsistancy quite annoying.

[Mercman]

Bill I have seen your builds, and must say they are great. I could only hope to do as well as you have. That also goes to a lot of the other builders here on this board. Me I build for me, and not to impress anyone. If I think a kit is really bad, I'll do something different with it to hide as manyn flaws as I can.

now I'm into HO sclae and focus primarily on diorama building. I still have abunch to learn here, but maistakes are easier to hide, or work into the original design.

Ditto about all of the possibilities of getting it right the first time. I remember when the kit companies would bring the car in to the studio, and measure every little thing to get it right.

[MAGNUM4342]

Bill I have seen your builds, and must say they are great. I could only hope to do as well as you have. That also goes to a lot of the other builders here on this board. Me I build for me, and not to impress anyone. If I think a kit is really bad, I'll do something different with it to hide as manyn flaws as I can.

now I'm into HO sclae and focus primarily on diorama building. I still have abunch to learn here, but maistakes are easier to hide, or work into the original design.

Ditto about all of the possibilities of getting it right the first time. I remember when the kit companies would bring the car in to the studio, and measure every little thing to get it right.

You made a mistake when you spelled "maistakes". :lol:

[Mercman]

You made a mistake when you spelled "maistakes". :lol:

And scale. Fat fingers. :D

[IMSANUT]

I'm in the rivet counter corner. As is witnessed by my review of the Porsche GT3R from Fujimi. I have had hopes dashed when inaccurate kits are released. The simply awful AAR Cuda from Revell comes to mind. Still, there is indeed something to be said about working around kit errors. It is after all a hobby about building things, and we all have talents to build.

It is frustrating when companies get it wrong though. They do have the ability to research things to (hopefully) get the subject kitted correctly. Sometimes the ball gets dropped, sometimes things change. This is especially so with competition cars that are constantly evolving. The Monogram Mustang GTP is a good example of this, as is the Monte Carlo NASCAR kits whose sides curved under....

[Ace-Garageguy]

"With CAD, 3D scaling, Internet, a plethora of car shows, clubs, magazines, etc-------there’s no reason why a major model company can’t get the details right"

There's really no reason why they can't get it right with tape-measures, calipers and dividers either. A whole lot of accurate, small stuff was built before any of the magic tech existed. Ever look inside an old watch?

And quoting Art: "JoHan '58-60 Cadillacs that were deliberately way out of proportion lengthwise and an arbitrary actual 1/8" too narrow (3 scale inches)--due to a requirement to fit a standard size promo box from GM themselves."

Thanks for the info on that one, sir. I've been looking at my JoHan '58 Olds for quite a while and trying to figure out why it was so disturbingly narrow, especially when the AMT promos of the time were pretty accurate. Now I know. Razor saw time.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Pete J.]

I guess I am on the rivet counter side but i have to say that there are limits for me. There was mention at several points the Tamiya teases their kits a little for asthetics and I would like to add a bit more to this. If you read S. Tamiya's book he goes a bit more into detail that makes a lot of sense. We view our models and the real cars from very differant perspectives. 1:1's are most typically seen at just below eye level. Our models on the other hand are most often seen more from above. In other words, to view our models the same way we do the real thing, you would have to slam your chin on the table and keep it there. The reverse would be to see the real thing from a cherry picker. Neither of which we do on a routine basis.

With that in mind an exact replica would look off and tweeking it improves the persective so we see what we expect to see. So, rivet counter, yes, but I don't measure wheel bases and bumper to bumper dimentions like some. I am more of a "if it looks right, I'm happy" sort. The rivet counting for me comes in adding correct detail. Wire that sucker up and add nuts and bolts where appropriate, throw in some turned aluminum and photoetched and I am a happy camper.

[Art Anderson]

And yet, what's the pattern we see ever more frequently with current releases? That a manufacturer's own offerings can vary from one another depending on the availability of the 1:1's CAD data. Revell's kits of contemporary subjects - presumably with factory-supplied files - are generally more accurate than their kits of vintage subjects lacking that data. The edge the Moebius Lonestar has over its Hudson and Chrysler kits is pretty stark, in pictures as well as in the 3D presence. And then we have the new Polar Lights '66 Batmobile which is documented as being developed from Mattel's 3D scan data. There are certainly details to nitpick in the kit, but the overall fidelity in proportion and contour is some of the best currently available, far as I can make out.

Where Tamiya shows mastery is in figuring out how to tease their masters in a way that's flattering to the subject, and I've long maintained if the deviations don't offend the aesthetics of the 1:1, they're more likely not to be noticed. One of the clearer examples is their Ferrari F40. Look it over carefully, and you can see how the front end has been gently pulled out and the cowl has been tugged up a bit for a more voluptuous overall shape. The overall effect is more graceful and flowing than the actual car.

But this numerical accuracy they describe is basically a comprehensive breakdown of a three-dimensional shape in many discreet one-dimensional measures - so all the linear dimensions may have scaled spot-on, but there may yet have been contours not perfectly reduced in scale, and perhaps THAT is why those masters didn't look right. A dice cube may be exactly 1/20 the scale of a bowling ball in length, width, and height - but there's clearly a vast difference in surface expression between the two. This is why I think the old Monogram 1/24 '69 Camaro, supposedly exact in every scale dimension, went so horribly awry.

The necessity of a human touch goes without saying, far as I'm concerned. The sharpest 3D printers to date produce masters needing some refinement; and even when we get to a stage where originals are reproduced to near-duplicate quality, you'll still have a master that won't get anywhere without a human imagination to plan its breakdown as a kit. But as you have pointed out, 3D scanning brings an unprecedented advantage: it will not only scale every linear dimension, but every curve and contour. What I'm really talking about is a hyper-sophisticated pantograph here, and that's how I advocate its use.

I'm not so sure how necessary interpretation of a shape will be once collecting reliably precise and accurate three-dimensional data from a scan becomes standard practice, but then, that could be because my frame of reference is different. My acid test is how easily a model can be confused, at least in proportions, for the 1:1 in a photograph. And I find that models which pass that test well reliably look more accurate in my hands.

Dimensions and proportions are one thing, that often very subtle "looks right" is quite another, which is what I tried to explain earlier. Dimensions and proportion are pretty easy to nail down--after all, the scaling (either up or down) is simply a matter of numbers, and really quite simple middle school math. But, it's that subtle 3D shape that, while it can be perfectly correct numerically, just doesn't look right, for the reason of visual perspective we all have to at least some degree, what with our binocular vision and our eyes normally having some overlap of visual fleld, one eye seeing exactly what the other eye sees, albeit at a slightly different angle. Laser scanners are, in this matter, pretty much like a single lens camera--both "see" whatever object on which they are focused, in very much a 2-dimensional way (even though laser scanners can "read" the subject for depth, in a way very similar to how normally visioned humans can. This is very much why persons involved in the research process of product development tend to take hundreds of pictures of a real car from every angle imaginable, and pics that show perhaps only the subtleties of say, the curve of a roof panel from different points along the way just for the purpose of capturing the actual curvature.

Correctly finessing those slight compound curves ought never to compromise either dimensions or proportions on the model kit body, for example, but should serve to help make the finished product look as real as possible.

A good analogy from the world of sculpture (in stone such as marble, or even in bronze), especially if the figure being sculpted is signifiantly larger than life. Michaelangelo, the legendary Renaissance sculptor purposely altered some shapes of the person(s) posing for his work, to make them look incredibly lifelike when viewed from the perspective of seeing a figure created from "life" at an angle greatly different than the viewer would ordinarily see a real person in the same pose. Yet for the most part, his statues are pretty true to height and proportion, with just those shapes altered to make them seem real to someone viewing them from the position of their own eyes being perhaps half the distance from the ground as the eyes of the person depicted in that statue. In reverse, sometimes that has to happen, when creating softly curved objects such as cars in a scale far smaller than the real thing.

Art

[Ace-Garageguy]

Dimensions and proportions are one thing, that often very subtle "looks right" is quite another, which is what I tried to explain earlier. Dimensions and proportion are pretty easy to nail down--after all, the scaling (either up or down) is simply a matter of numbers, and really quite simple middle school math. But, it's that subtle 3D shape that, while it can be perfectly correct numerically, just doesn't look right, for the reason of visual perspective we all have to at least some degree, what with our binocular vision and our eyes normally having some overlap of visual fleld, one eye seeing exactly what the other eye sees, albeit at a slightly different angle. Laser scanners are, in this matter, pretty much like a single lens camera--both "see" whatever object on which they are focused, in very much a 2-dimensional way (even though laser scanners can "read" the subject for depth, in a way very similar to how normally visioned humans can. This is very much why persons involved in the research process of product development tend to take hundreds of pictures of a real car from every angle imaginable, and pics that show perhaps only the subtleties of say, the curve of a roof panel from different points along the way just for the purpose of capturing the actual curvature.

Correctly finessing those slight compound curves ought never to compromise either dimensions or proportions on the model kit body, for example, but should serve to help make the finished product look as real as possible.

A good analogy from the world of sculpture (in stone such as marble, or even in bronze), especially if the figure being sculpted is signifiantly larger than life. Michaelangelo, the legendary Renaissance sculptor purposely altered some shapes of the person(s) posing for his work, to make them look incredibly lifelike when viewed from the perspective of seeing a figure created from "life" at an angle greatly different than the viewer would ordinarily see a real person in the same pose. Yet for the most part, his statues are pretty true to height and proportion, with just those shapes altered to make them seem real to someone viewing them from the position of their own eyes being perhaps half the distance from the ground as the eyes of the person depicted in that statue. In reverse, sometimes that has to happen, when creating softly curved objects such as cars in a scale far smaller than the real thing.

Art

I'm sorry, but I simply have to disagree with some of this. I have built scale models of original designs to check design elements and viewing angles before committing to full-scale mockups, professionally, and in my OWN experience (which isn't necessarily the same as every other expert's) a model built true-to-scale and .....photographed or viewed from the same angle relative to the subject as it would be in 1:1..... looks right. Adding in some oogie-boogie-distorted-reality-factor is, in my humble opinion, WAY too subjective to be considered. I've heard countless times how things have to be distorted to look right in scale, I don't buy it, and I've NEVER heard it from people who actually do the ORIGINAL 1:1 design or model development.

Again, in my own hands-on, direct and very costly personal experience, I designed the vehicle that is my avatar (one of many 1:1 objects I've designed and built). I built the first model in 1/10 scale, the second in 1/4 scale, and the final mockup in 1:1. Amazingly (if all the necessarily-distorted-reality stuff is to be believed) the full-scale vehicle looks EXACTLY like the models. If distorting reality is necessary to achieve an accurate-appearing scale representation, this simply couldn't be.

Please understand that I'm not arguing based on what I've been taught, nor am I repeating what I've heard or read. My position on this is based entirely on empirical evidence from my own experience. And I'm not bragging or trying to be a know-it-all big-shot. I'm simply saying that I've actually done this stuff myself and CAREFULLY observed.

I don't argue that artistic license may be taken by an artist to improve the proportions of a subject, or to enhance its beauty, or to compensate for odd viewing angles, but I have to take issue when this is presented as necessary to correctly portray a machine, in SCALE. And if it is in fact necessary, it would require a level of artistic judgment and subtlety on the part of model-tooling people that only one in a million posess. Just stick to the numbers, please.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[southpier]

... how things have to be distorted to look right....

entasis

Edited October 1, 2012 by southpier

[Ace-Garageguy]

entasis

First, you took my quote out of context and subtly altered its meaning. Second, yes, putting a slight convex curve into a 'straight' column to aviod having the sides look concave to the viewer is a familiar concept. In automotive styling, placing a slightly convex compound curve in a 'flat' panel to avoid it looking concave is also common. And this is comparing apples to oranges. This is part of the the ORIGINAL design process , NOT the SCALE representation of the original design.

Here's a thought. MAYBE the sadly drooping line of the side-trim on the referenced Belvedere kit is the result of a mis-guided attempt to modify the actual line to make it "look right" in scale. It certainly can't be there for any GOOD reason, so maybe that's it. Without a very detailed numerical simulation of the "necessary" introduced distortion of a scaled model, the application of ANY distortion is almost purely arbitrary and completely subjective. What looks right to one may very well not look right to another, because people have widely differing degrees of spatial perception. Unless the one applying the distortion is the one-in-many-million with the talent and skill of Michelangelo, the practice is doomed to fail.

While we're at it, I've been carefully analyzing the moves necessary to make a fastback '50 Olds using the AMT '51 Chevy fleetline roof section. This is made a little trickier by a couple of things. First, the doors of the '50 Olds are significantly longer than the doors on the Chevy. It's unlikely this is the case in 1:1, as they were both based on the same body-shell tooling and photographs of both cars seem to convincingly indicate the doors were in fact the same length.

The 1:1 Chevy appears to have the same length doors as the Olds. The model does not. The difference in length between the two cars appears, as it is in reality, to be ahead of the firewall. If the doors are in fact the same length in 1:1, who made the mistake in applying the tape-measure and writing down the correct number? IF the two doors are the same length in 1:1, SOMEONE made the kind of GROSS scaling error that chaps my behind, and is really unforgivable.

The second problem is the shape of the windshield opening. They are not the same at all on the models, while they ARE the same in 1:1. GM did NOT change all of the tooling related to the windshield opening on the bodyshell between 1950 and 1951. And though the 1:1 Olds has one-piece glass and the Chevy has a divider, it was common to swap the one-piece windshield into the cheaper car during customization. That's a pretty convincing argument that they SHOULD be the same shape. So again, why is a simple measuring operation beyond the capability of the ones doing the measuring?

I'm pretty sure the deviations from scale will be in the older AMT tooling, because the new Revell Olds looks very very good.

Still, neither of these deviations are the result of intentional distortion to make the model "look right". These deviations reflect incompetence, pure and simple. We deserve better.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

ENTASIS DISCUSSED:

The early Classical builders did not leave an explanation of their reasons for using entasis, and there are several differing opinions as to its purpose:

• An early-articulated and still widespread view, espoused by Hero of Alexandria, is that entasis corrects the optical illusion of concavity in the columns which the fallible human eye would create if a correction were not made.^[2]
  
  
  • This view, however, does not explain the case of one well-known example, Paestum, where the entasis is so pronounced that it creates an obvious curvature, not an illusion of straightness.
    
    
    • Some descriptions of entasis^[3] state simply that the technique was an enhancement applied to the more primitive conical columns to make them appear more substantial.
      
    • Other descriptions argue that the technique emphasizes the substantiality not of the columns themselves but rather of some other part or of the building as a whole.
      

    [*]Yale architectural historian Vincent Scully argues that entasis emphasizes the weight of a building's roof by making the building's columns appear to buckle under the pressure distributed among them.

    [*]George Trevelyan believed that the effect represented strength by imitating the swelling of a strained muscle.^[4] This theory accords well with the etymology of the word, from the Greek meaning "to strain".^[5]

    [*]It has also been argued that a "stunted cycloid" column that bulges in the middle is structurally stronger than is a column whose diameter changes according to a linear progression. However it is unclear whether the early Greeks could have known this.^[6]

    PS. See how much you can learn from working on model cars?

Edited October 1, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[sjordan2]

Not to drive this into the ground, but I also heard that the columns on the Parthenon are not perfectly parallel; they lean toward the center from the corners just a bit, to create a perspective illusion of size and height.

[ZTony8]

I can maybe accept the idea of slightly tweaking lines and shapes to fool the eye.What I can't fathom is how the kit designers can get sizes so wrong for a given scale.Case in point-the engine in the AMT '37 Chevy,'51 Chevy,and '60 Chevy pickup.It's the same Stovebolt 6 in all the vehicles but these kits have 3 distinctly different sized sets of pieces.Why?

[Casey]

It's the same Stovebolt 6 in all the vehicles but these kits have 3 distinctly different sized sets of pieces.Why?

Designed by different people, at different times, under different ownership.

Anytime humans are involved (and that will be always, machines do not run themselves), there will be imperfections. How imperfect things are is what we debate, but there will always be imperfection.

I have to wonder if a '13 Boss 302 Mustang was 3D scanned and a scale model of it was created entirely by computer/machines, with no "tweaking" by human hands, would we, as humans, look at it and think it looks perfect? I doubt it, and I bet if ten of us looked it over, we would not all agree on everything which "looks" correct.

There's nothing wrong with having high standards and wanting perfection, but temper that with what is realistic to expect.

[ZTony8]

Different people coming up with different dimensions for the same part(s)?That speaks to a lack of skill and/or care,not being designed in a different era. An inch is an inch.

[southpier]

.....An inch is an inch.

sometimes it's 40 thousanths

[IMSANUT]

The moniker rivet counter got it's start in the military modeling world. I'm of this belief though I don't build military subjects, but rather road arcing subjects. No I am the first to admit that race cars change more often than I change the tv channel, but It is frequent that the model companies just get things completely wrong.

[Chuck Most]

Different people coming up with different dimensions for the same part(s)?That speaks to a lack of skill and/or care,not being designed in a different era. An inch is an inch.

Absolutely right- but consider that some of those kits (specifically the '37 and '51) came out before most modelers cared about (or even were aware of such things as) 'total accuracy' and 'scale fidelity'. In the early days, as long as it looked halfway decent that was all that mattered. Back then, simply not having a hole in the block or a notch in the oil pan to clear a metal axle was good enough for the majority.

Question- did you mean '50 Chevy pickup? That had a Stovebolt- the '60 has a straight six, but it's a totally different design from the old Stovebolt. Even then, yes, there are differences in the sizes between the '37, '51, and '50 pickup kit engines, some slighter than others, but present never the less. The '50 truck engine seems right compared to the 1:1. I did once take measurements of a 1:1 '47 engine and compare those to the '50 kit engine, and what I measured checked out- but consider that the '50 truck kit came out in the '90's, when accuracy became a much more important thing to have in new model kits.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I'm sorry, but I simply have to disagree with some of this. I have built scale models of original designs to check design elements and viewing angles before committing to full-scale mockups, professionally, and in my OWN experience (which isn't necessarily the same as every other expert's) a model built true-to-scale and .....photographed or viewed from the same angle relative to the subject as it would be in 1:1..... looks right. Adding in some oogie-boogie-distorted-reality-factor is, in my humble opinion, WAY too subjective to be considered. I've heard countless times how things have to be distorted to look right in scale, I don't buy it, and I've NEVER heard it from people who actually do the ORIGINAL 1:1 design or model development.

Again, in my own hands-on, direct and very costly personal experience, I designed the vehicle that is my avatar (one of many 1:1 objects I've designed and built). I built the first model in 1/10 scale, the second in 1/4 scale, and the final mockup in 1:1. Amazingly (if all the necessarily-distorted-reality stuff is to be believed) the full-scale vehicle looks EXACTLY like the models. If distorting reality is necessary to achieve an accurate-appearing scale representation, this simply couldn't be.

Please understand that I'm not arguing based on what I've been taught, nor am I repeating what I've heard or read. My position on this is based entirely on empirical evidence from my own experience. And I'm not bragging or trying to be a know-it-all big-shot. I'm simply saying that I've actually done this stuff myself and CAREFULLY observed.

I don't argue that artistic license may be taken by an artist to improve the proportions of a subject, or to enhance its beauty, or to compensate for odd viewing angles, but I have to take issue when this is presented as necessary to correctly portray a machine, in SCALE. And if it is in fact necessary, it would require a level of artistic judgment and subtlety on the part of model-tooling people that only one in a million posess. Just stick to the numbers, please.

This. ^ Well-put, Bill.

It's not to discount the experience of people who have done some very good work. But I often wonder if many of the things we pick out as errors actually started out as compensatory tweaks.

[JunkPile]

Building model cars is way more fun than counting rivets for me.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Building model cars is way more fun than counting rivets for me.

I agree, but I have this thing about the model actually looking like the car it represents.

[Agent G]

I agree, but I have this thing about the model actually looking like the car it represents.

And therein lies the problem. Does "close enough" or "absolutely correct" win?

No arguments about any Palmer kit, we know they aren't even "close", but a new tool 50 Olds?

Military subjects can be very very touchy. I know, I build mostly armor. I also correct most every kit in some way.

G

[Ace-Garageguy]

And therein lies the problem. Does "close enough" or "absolutely correct" win?

No arguments about any Palmer kit, we know they aren't even "close", but a new tool 50 Olds?

G

So far, I'm thinking the new-tool Olds is plenty "close enough". Once I do a mockup of the body at the right ride height, I'll get back to you...........

[Deano]

And therein lies the problem. Does "close enough" or "absolutely correct" win?

No arguments about any Palmer kit, we know they aren't even "close", but a new tool 50 Olds?

Military subjects can be very very touchy. I know, I build mostly armor. I also correct most every kit in some way.

G

An old friend of mine in another hobby (Medieval Recreation, as it happens) has a phrase that describes this: "Making the good the enemy of the best." Basically, if it's not perfect, it's poo (he does not subscribe to this theory, BTW). The problem, of course, is it CAN'T be perfect. EVERY kit is going to have errors. Some will be minor, some will be glaring. We would hope that a company that produces these toys (and make no mistake, the ARE toys) for mass consumption would attempt to minimize the "glaring errors." Sometimes, however, the "glaring error" gets out there anyway. Somebody misreads a measurement, a machinist/engraver isn't quite as careful as he ought to be because, after all, it's not really critical (ie. no one's gonna die!).

Perhaps, albeit more rarely, the reference prototype actually HAD THAT ERROR. I'll use my own 1953 Plymouth Cranbrook hardtop as an example. MegaModel Company wants to do a kit of a 1953 Plymouth. They come out and they measure, photograph, laser scan and use whatever other methods they use. Their numbers are a accurate and precise as they can be. Their research is solid. And it is (I guarantee) WRONG! Why? My car is not a perfect example. The previous owner deleted all of the stainless trim. I replaced it, mostly. There are trim pieces that I LIKED being missing, it looked good to me. And then there's the grill. I had an unfortunate, less than 1 mph incident. The grill wasn't obviously damaged, just tweaked upward a bit. For whatever reason, they don't catch these issues. The kit, if my car is their only reference, is going to be wrong and some errors will be GLARING to someone.

OK the kit comes out and in spite of it all, is reasonably successful. "Let's do a sedan!" they say. The look at the kit, look at a few photos of sedans and say, "Yeah, minimal changes. We can do this." Now, let's say money is a bit tight so they don't go out and find a 1953 Plymouth Cambridge 2-Door Sedan to measure, photograph, laser scan, etc. They go by photos and modify the tool to make a sedan. They look fairly close but the rooflines ARE DIFFERENT. Nobody notices, the kit comes out. And, again, almost nobody notices the "glaring" errors, except, maybe, a few experts on 53 Plymouths. My point? If most people don't notice (or don't care) is there really a service being done by pointing out the "glaring errors" and calling the kit "poo"?

I recall several (many several?) years ago the kit manufacturers were taken to task for the emblems on the car kits being "out of scale". They had too much relief, they stuck out too far! The kit manufacturers started engraving them to scale. Now three coats of paint on the model and the emblems were GONE! Buried in the paint.., but they were to scale!

Now, lest you think I don't care about accuracy, I do. One of my ongoing projects is to convert an R&R 1954 Plymouth 2-door hardtop into a 1953. Now, I assume that one person did the master, converting the 1954 Plymouth 4-door promo into a 2-door. That makes the errors all the more puzzling. The doors are not dimensionally correct and they are different from each other! I HAVE TO FIX THAT. There is also that pesky roofline, but I won't bother with that, it's WAY more work than it's worth, call it "return on investment".

Some glaring error are more "glaring" than others. The early issue of the Hudson has its rear wheelwell issue. It's obviously not concentric (nor even close) with the rear wheel! Unfortunately, I didn't notice until after I had painted, cleared, polished and bare-metalled the whole thing. It will not be fixed on my model; I WILL still show it. I'll fix it on the next one. There is the front wheelwell on the 62 Chevy. I'm still not entirely certain what is wrong there, perhaps I'm an idiot. Whatever is wrong there, it is not glaringly so in my eyes. I'll build it, I will not drag out the saws, fillers and grinders to "fix" it, because I simply am not seeing it.

In my world, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is, most likely, a duck.

Thanx, here's my ducat, keep the change!

Edited October 1, 2012 by Deano