Scale model inaccuracies

[Chuck Kourouklis]

….The problem I'm having is that Mr Duff sees fit to scream bloody murder and slander Revell, admitting to have never bought the kit.

The very definition of 'reasonable' is meeting the expectations of the average consumer. Those with extraordinary expectations should realize that they are above the normal consumer and be ready to either modify the kit to meet their expectations or pay extra to buy the resin conversion that meets that need.

We're just gonna skip how OBjective those very measurements you referred to in the correction are, and how difficult it is to sell something as "dreamed up" when there's empirical data to back it up.

This "scream(ing) bloody murder and slander" business is what interests me. I've seen James fire off a brief round of all-caps after you've indirectly called him a loudmouth; otherwise, "screaming bloody murder" matches what your side of the argument is doing more closely than it does his content.

And if you're gonna accuse him of slander - "a false statement damaging to (Revell's) reputation" - then the burden falls to YOU to prove the falsity of what he says. Where is that, exactly? In his all-cap claim? Do you KNOW for a fact that Revell was NOT alerted to other issues at the same time they were told about the oversize 5.0 badge?

This is what I mean when I say all this drama is more about how you all react to the criticism than it is any of the root criticism itself. And as for Duff's lack of personal experience with the kit, maybe all he needs is pictures of the finished product - never mind the consensus of a significant number of us who owned FOX LX Mustangs, have bought multiple kits, and really wanted it to be right in a way that transcends murky notions of subjectivity (and before ANY of you even try, there's still a significant gulf between that basic level of "rightness" and a "perfect model").

Because look what else you have to do to make your position appear rational. You have to pretty much state that a dimensionally correct model is an "extraordinary" expectation, that a model kit which basically lives up to the mandate of a scale model is beyond "reasonable" expectations.

Did I misread that last part?

[highway]

And yet, the International Prostar kit (just as with its predecessor Lonestar!) was created with a TON of information, including CAD files, from Navistar.

Art

Obviously, that TON of information lost a POUND of the Prostar (or a stock Lonestar for that matter) does NOT have those stupid angled stacks that both kits include.

Yeah, at least in the Lonestar's case, the stacks (if you like those hideous stacks, which I do not) would be a custom touch, but not to a fleet based truck such as the Prostar. Moebius changed the rear taillight panel and a few other things to make the Prostar a more utilitarian fleet truck like it is mostly used, but left those hideous custom stacks. Now assuming I buy a Prostar to go along with my Lonestar (which I more than likely will), not only do I have one set of stacks to correct, I'll have two sets to correct!!

Oh, and this is coming from a professional trucker, so I see more Prostars in a day than most all of the other members of this forum will probably ever see in their lifetimes, and I have yet to see the style of stacks on the Prostar and Lonestar (which we truckers call bullhauler stacks because trucks pulling livestock trailers are typically the ones crazy enough to have those gaudy looking stacks on them) on a real Prostar.

[niteowl7710]

Again, subjectivity. The problem I'm having is that Mr Duff sees fit to scream bloody murder and slander Revell, admitting to have never bought the kit.

Was I screaming bloody murder and "slandering" Revell when I said they had a great year of kits in 2012, or was it the part where I gave them credit for a strong finish (albeit with chrome issues - but that's easily corrected) in 2013? Or is it just the fact I have a problem with their mishappened LX, or their 7 point, compass pointed, 70's Disco Fender flared Cuda?

Of course it's not slander at all, it would be LIBEL, since while reading the stuff you type does occasionally make me ask people "What is UP with this guy?", slander is the defamation of something via the spoken word, sign language or gestures. I guess in the rush to bash yet ANOTHER person on this forum it's better to be fast than right? Something you share with your beloved Revell.

Aside from Chuck's assertions that I've seen more than enough photos of the LX, I actually have physically SEEN the kit, held it in my hand, and put it back in the box and said "NOPE!"

And in quoting you "I'm not buying the resin kit, because I refuse to buy the actual KIT in the first place.", you are arguing about a situation that you probably haven't even seen in person since you admit to not having bought a kit. And in the eyes of the manufacturer, your opinion doesn't matter at all since you haven't even become a customer. You have no skin in the game at all.

Ya know Tom, more than 50% of my kit stash is invested in Revell kits, that works out to be round about $2,500 I have tied up in their kits. So I believe I have a dependable used car's worth of skin in the game. Thanks.

But more over I love that slam, it comes up from you and several others in this thread. Ya know the one

WELL SO AND SO PROBABLY HAS NEVER - Choose One or More

EVEN SEEN THE KIT

EVEN BUILT A MODEL KIT, THEY JUST BUY THEM

REALIZED WHAT IT TAKES TO RUN A BUSINESS

EVEN ATTEMPTED BUILDING A MODEL, THEY'RE JUST A KIT ASSEMBLER

EVEN CONSIDERED IF WE DON'T PRAISE THE KIT MANUFACTURERS AS GODS THEY'LL ALL CLOSE AND WE'LL ALL DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE!!

I don't know who died and made you Pope of the Hobby. I also don't see why I, or anyone else here need to constantly prove ANYTHING to you. You already got egg on your face with that one once in these 8 pages, but fine...here ya go

Somewhere in the mass of all of those decals I collected over the past couple of years ever since the LX rumors were solid are the decals to make all of the SSP Mustangs that the Revell kit would represent ('90-'93). I suppose I should just paint, decal, and equip them however the heck I want to then, since that'd be "Good Enough" for everyone else. Do I need to go dig through my e-mails to show the negotiations I had to buy THREE CASES of these kits before I saw the fetid lump of disappointment Revell decided to bestow upon all of us toy loving modelers? If you think I'm buying three cases of resin replacement bodies ON TOP of the model kits you sir, have officially lost your mind. If you think I'm going to spend several additional weeks fixing 33 roofs instead of expecting the thing to just - GASP - be correct to begin with...well I dunno what, you already lost your mind in the last statement. I thought the nearly $600 I'd invest in the kits would be sufficient skin for Revell's tastes, but I guess they'd rather hang onto those kits and sell them to people who don't care...oh wait once they sell them to the retailers and distributors they don't care if they move off the shelves or not. SALES SUCCESS!

Maybe everyone who got a Revell Charger with that botched roof should send those corrected kits back to Revell and either fix their own roofs and or pony up for a resin replacement?

The people I know, who are in your club, who know you personally keep telling me your a really nice guy in person, but online you come off like a raging megalomaniacal pompous jerk. Keep that in mind for future reference...I went to the NNL East in 2012, so I know what kind of Top Shelf event it is, but people who have never been just know that YOU are the defacto spokesperson with a bad online temper.

Edited February 24, 2014 by niteowl7710

[highway]

Well, here's the deal... there were a few niggly details other than the roof he also fixed. There was something with the curve at the rear spoiler / trunk lid edge and something else with the shape of the bottom of the rear bumper. Quite frankly I didn't see any of the issues until he pointed it out with Before and After photos.

And I don't think it matters a whole lot that "THEY KNEW, THEY WERE TOLD!" about the roof height. That change is a major rework of the largest part of the tool (and many parts it touches, like the glass shot and maybe more). No doubt, by the time they knew, it was too late to completely rework it, and stay within their time frame and budget.

Where the problem is, is that we who see this hobby as near religion are maybe 5% of Revell's business. 95% of the people who buy the kit think it's just fine, and that's who they are out to please. The majority. The very few, a small percent of our 5% who absolutely can't live without these minute details being fixed, well they need to buy the resin. Yea, perfection costs a bit more.

But you've illustrated my point clearly. You were one of the vocal guys complaining about the kit, but you're not buying the corrected resin.

I'm sorry, but from my point of view, it is NEVER too late to rework a problem they knew about. I guess Revell/Monogram didn't learn their lesson after the whole 69 Charger fiasco!

[highway]

This thread is like a train wreck. You don't wanna look, but something makes you come back for another look

[highway]

who is to say they didn't get it right? Numbers have been produced, that the exact numbers scaled down don't work. Then you have the scale fidelity, what actually 'looks right' vs actual measurements. Guys on this board have said that once they have painted it all in the correct colors and assembled the kit, it looks right. Again, subjectivity. The problem I'm having is that Mr Duff sees fit to scream bloody murder and slander Revell, admitting to have never bought the kit.

The very definition of 'reasonable' is meeting the expectations of the average consumer. Those with extraordinary expectations should realize that they are above the normal consumer and be ready to either modify the kit to meet their expectations or pay extra to buy the resin conversion that meets that need.

Did you ever think that Mr. Duff would like to have a product that is worth spending his money on?? I know I fit into that category as well, I'm not spending the money on the kit knowing it needs either a corrected resin body or for me to correct Revell's incompetence. I guess that's the problem with most people nowadays, those who actually speak their minds are cast as bullies and those who don't have the stones to speak their minds are the sheep corporations like Revell know will buy their second rate products regardless of obvious flaws because Revell bigwigs are saying "Why should we worry about fixing it, the sheep will buy it anyway."

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Tricky business, that credential-challenging. Minefields are wa-a-ayy safer.

And then you come across the occasional clown who first demonstrates what blithering nonsense that challenge is, but then decides to blow it into pizza toppings by meeting it anyway. Got a nice little story out of that.

Not that I want any of you to stop, mind. It's great for that step-on-a-rake entertainment value if nothing else.

[keyser]

Omitting an X-brace on a 57 convertible when you have a similar convertible in the current catalog seems idiotic, inattentive.

If "they" were told about the LX, who had responsibility for tool and decision? Same people that could have done near cut and paste to tool a 57 X-brace? Reasonable expectation that creating a replica may imply some idea of the original subject, including looking at pictures of same. What could it hurt? Even perhaps a similar tool in tool bank.

I'm confident that both Google and Baidu can track down photos for both US and Chinese participants.

http://www.baidu.com/s?cl=3&wd=ford%20mustang%20notchback

http://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&bs=chevy+bel-air+1957+x-brace&f=8&rsv_bp=1&wd=chevy+bel-air+1957+x-brace&inputT=0

However, as long as they keep kicking butt on current Ferraris and the '15 Mustang, somehow, I'll let a lot slide.

BTW, Lindberg had issues with the Olds 442 and 61 Impala, ErtlRC had problems with 62 BelAir IIRC, the 69 Camaro/Firebird, the Talladega, so it isn't just RM, which is contrary to many opinions. Tamiya Mustangs, Trumpeter Nova, and many others round out the roster. So piling on RM isn't fair. You can pound on Fujimi some for the Boxer wheels though.

Edited February 24, 2014 by keyser

[niteowl7710]

Omitting an X-brace on a 57 convertible when you have a similar convertible in the current catalog seems idiotic, inattentive.

If "they" were told about the LX, who had responsibility for tool and decision? Same people that could have done near cut and paste to tool a 57 X-brace?

Ahh but the rub there (I don't know where I even have time to lay facts with all the libelling of Revell I have yet to accomplish today) is the '55 was done as the drop top, then the tool moved to the '56 Nomad which has a different chassis plate (which then underpinned the '57 kits) and as such there's no X-Brace to automatically run out of the molds for the '57 Convertible without running off several thousand of the '55s runner and clipping those parts off and tossing 'em in the '57 kit.

I can accept with the rather circular kit provenance someone assumed the chassis plate and parts runners were identical...to err is to be human and all of that. But at the same time apparently no one in the test shot phases, or anyone who looked at the tooling "board" noticed until right before the kit shipped. It's sorta an even wash there. Shouldn't have happened, SOMEONE at Revell (if the person who knew retired already) needs to know the tooling history to know they needed to cut steel for that brace. But kudos to them for fixing it pre-release when someone did bring it to their attention. I still believe it was fixed as a preference in subject matter, ie '90 LX was too new to care about. Remember all those Ferraris are from Germany and prior to last summer that was a separate compsny.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

It's true though. That Tamiya Mustang was almost refreshing in its howling stinkerhood. And OH YEAH, whether you jest or not, Lee, Fujimi really pi$$ed me off with that pimped-out 18" Boxer rolling stock with too-small tires. Those mags aren't identical front and rear; there's a deep-dish offset for the back ones, so it's not as if you can clap on the five-spokers from the Daytona and call it a day.

What're we supposed to do to fix those, ruin a $90 Marui kit? Don't know what's up with those cats. Delivered us the best R35 in the world, then squeezed out that steaming pile of Pantera that makes me wanna run weeping with gratitude back to the wheels in the Boxer.

[Guest]

Standards vary as much as opinions.

So the only way to build a nice model is to do like you, and correct every darn flaw?????????

[southpier]

readership must be down or this would have been cinched a looooong time ago.

[Brett Barrow]

You guys can't even bring math into it without it biting you. It's a fact established in INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL that mass is a function of volume, and that volume varies by the CUBE - so a replica half the size of the original is ONE-EIGHTH its volume. Third scale is 1/27th the volume, and so on, down to a 1/25 scale model having 1/15,625 of the volume and weighing 1/15,625 of the 1:1 as constructed in the same materials. Of course, even THIS observation is negated by the fact that at this point, you guys have long veered into PRECISION rather than the ACCURACY that's really the topic.

Yes. 1/25th scale plastic models are drastically overweight, a 3,000 pound 1:1 car would only weigh 3.2 ounces in 1/25. It's the same reason why plastic model airplanes don't fly (unless you strap 'em to a bottle rocket...)

[2002p51]

First of all I have to admit I haven’t read this entire thread. By the time I got through the first six pages I wanted to stick a pencil in my eye!

So if I’ve missed a point or two please forgive me.

I recently built one of those old Monogram Cessna 180 kits and if you haven’t seen it cruise on over to the “All the Rest” forum and check it out.

Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Welcome back.

This is a kit that epitomizes 1950’s model technology, i.e. it’s scaled to fit the box, not some arbitrary “standard scale”. It has a minimum of details and clunky working doors that don’t fit well. The wings also don’t fit very well. The interior is very basic and the instrument panel is overly simplified.

Now I could’ve spent many hours correcting these and other shortcomings of the model. In fact, a Google search took me to a forum where an IPMS’er did exactly that. The model he built from this basic kit was beautiful and featured many added, well done details.

But guess what? Mine did not. And it did not on purpose because, well, I just didn’t feel like putting that much time into correcting all its faults. Why? To find the answer, go back to my post about it and notice one thing I said about this model; “It was fun to build.”

I know, I know, everybody has their own definition of what constitutes fun in this screwy little hobby of ours, and yours may be attempting to turn out the most accurate scale model humanly possible. I know this because I’m like that too. Or at least I used to be. And every once in a while I revert back to the accuracy maniac that I used to be.

“Hello, my name is Drew and I’m a rivet counter.”

So where am I going with this rambling post? I’m not sure. I know I can’t change anybody’s mind or their attitude about model building. (Although I would desperately love to wipe out the use of the word “build” as noun, but I digress.) Nor should I expect to change anybody. I guess I just want to relate that in recent years I think I’ve learned how to relax and have more fun building models that might not stand up to critical scrutiny and not to sweat the small stuff.

So, did any of the previous 402 words make any sense?

[Harry P.]

I guess I just want to relate that in recent years I think I’ve learned how to relax and have more fun building models that might not stand up to critical scrutiny and not to sweat the small stuff.

So, did any of the previous 402 words make any sense?

Makes perfect sense. Different people have different expectations. Different people have different levels of acceptance of sub-par merchandise. Some see a sub-par kit as a "challenge." I see it as being ripped off.

The part I don't get is where the people with lower expectations find it so necessary to chastise those with higher expectations because we don't see things the way they do. You know, the "relax, it's just a plastic toy" crowd. Why so defensive? Why so quick to jump on the "higher expectations" guys and administer the verbal beatdown??? (I'm not talking about you, Drew... just making a general point regarding the overall tone this thread has taken on).

This thread began with a very generic comment about my frustration with having to correct mistakes in a kit I'm working on. I didn't mention any specific kit or manufacturer. But wouldn't you know it, soon enough the name callers came crawling out of the woodwork.