mrknowetall Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) This is a pretty good thread with some astute observations! Edited October 8, 2014 by mrknowetall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Oh, well now, I think some of the commentary here is more knowledgeable than heat-of-the-moment typos might allow. But I do wanna make sure I'm reading the deafening silence following my question correctly: In Brett's pic, the blue lines largely vindicate the Moebius model along the lines of wheelbase and overall length: but Harry's red lines - in the very same comparison - show the greenhouse is off on the very same horizontal orientation. So, anybody offering commentary on the quality of the photos should have the wherewithal to explain exactly how the very same lens artifact variation between the two shots can simultaneously vindicate and contradict an accurate model as stacked above. In light of what appears to be convincing graphic evidence, it's incumbent on you to do so. Is somebody gonna break this down? Or will this comparison stand as a refutation to the whole photo comparison objection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 All I can say is I thank God I still enjoy this hobby with all the flaws it (reportedly) has........ I do enjoy the hobby. What I don't enjoy is having to make a bunch of corrections to a model's body manufactured today to make into a presentable model. Whether I take a model to a show or place it on my shelf. I want to be able to look at it and be proud of it. I commend Moebius for trying to get it right. The facts are though they don't get them right. The Navistar, Hudson's and Chrysler's all have issues. If they were such great models, this forum would be flooded with them. But, you rarely see them here or on any other board. I want Moebius to be successful. I want to support them. It's just that besides the F-100, they haven't produced anything that I would truly want to build even if they were accurate. I don't buy kits to support the hobby or the company that makes them. I buy them to build them. Period. It doesn't matter whose name is on the box. So far, I still haven't bought a Moebius kit. But, I'm probably the only one that hasn't. Hopefully, that will change before they go the way of Polar Lights and Johnny Lightning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 All I can say is this: You can draw all the red and blue lines you want on pictures of this car; I'm still gonna buy it, build it and put in on the contest table. Very few if any people are going to look at the finished model and say "What a mess! Just look at how wrong it is!" And, the ones who do, I can only paraphrase Dr. Frank N. Furter in 'Rock Horror Picture Show' : "I didn't build it for you!" Some of you folks need to get some perspective because YES, THEY ARE TOYS! Unless your very life depends upon them, they are toys and all the getting upset in the world doesn't change that. All the money and effort and artistry and craftsmanship in the world doesn't change the fact that they are still toys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 All the money and effort and artistry and craftsmanship in the world doesn't change the fact that they are still toys. What you seem to be forgetting is that just because they are toys to you doesn't mean everyone else sees it that way. If you see them as toys, that's great... for you. And for all who agree with you. You are under no obligation to listen to any of the people who see problems with the kit. Build it and be happy. Nobody is trying to take that away from you. But isn't a bit presumptuous of you to state that everyone else must also see things the way you see them? Isn't it a little arrogant to come on this thread and tell everyone who doesn't see things the way you see them that they need to "get some perspective?" Are the people who see things differently than you do not allowed to have their own opinion, but need to "get some perspective" so their opinion matches yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 What you seem to be forgetting is that just because they are toys to you doesn't mean everyone else sees it that way. If you see them as toys, that's great... for you. And for all who agree with you. You are under no obligation to listen to any of the people who see problems with the kit. Build it and be happy. Nobody is trying to take that away from you. But isn't a bit presumptuous of you to state that everyone else must also see things the way you see them? Isn't it a little arrogant to come on this thread and tell everyone who doesn't see things the way you see them that they need to "get some perspective?" Are the people who see things differently than you do not allowed to have their own opinion? Presumptuous? No. If you can live without it, it's a toy! It's a diversion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Presumptuous? No. If you can live without it, it's a toy! It's a diversion. Again, to make my point: They are toys to you. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But your opinion is not everyone else's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveG Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Oh, well now, I think some of the commentary here is more knowledgeable than heat-of-the-moment typos might allow. But I do wanna make sure I'm reading the deafening silence following my question correctly: In Brett's pic, the blue lines largely vindicate the Moebius model along the lines of wheelbase and overall length: but Harry's red lines - in the very same comparison - show the greenhouse is off on the very same horizontal orientation. So, anybody offering commentary on the quality of the photos should have the wherewithal to explain exactly how the very same lens artifact variation between the two shots can simultaneously vindicate and contradict an accurate model as stacked above. In light of what appears to be convincing graphic evidence, it's incumbent on you to do so. Is somebody gonna break this down? Or will this comparison stand as a refutation to the whole photo comparison objection? Well it looks to me that body dimensions are being based by the the models wheelbase being correct and the wheels being in the same position in the openings. Too me it looks as if the whole chassis or at least the suspension parts are too far back on the model, especially the rear. That could just be an assembly error. If you adjusted the models wheels to match the same location as the 1:1 I think you would find that roof and door lines match up much better. Regardless, as close as those two photos appear, I wouldn't start making tooling changes based on just those photo comparisons. I stand by my position as it's generally not reliable. Oh and thanks for the grammar and spelling check jb...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Again, to make my point: They are toys to you. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But your opinion is not everyone else's opinion. Nor is yours, so why is mine so worthy of your attention? Why is it important that everyone agree that "Kit X" is a screwed up mess? Please explain why your opinion is so much more valid than mine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Van Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Hopefully, that will change before they go the way of Polar Lights and Johnny Lightning. Polar Lights and Johnny Lightning both are in business and making viable, not PERFECT, but some nice product. If Moebius goes down that same path I think that can be good...... This forum alone has had a number of GREAT Hudson and Chrysler builds posted......you may have missed them if you have no interest in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Models areMyLife Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I'm getting bored now with this thread. Seems like we have some individuals who will insist the body is horrible, wheelbase is off, roof is wrong, too long of a rear overhang, not the right "C" pillar, cowl isn't proper, body sides are not right, etc.. While on the other hand, we have Dave that has been working with this for awhile, has a "TEST" (let me say this again) TEST shot of the model in his hands. He has tried to tell you it is the correct length, the roof is correct, etc., but to no avail. This is why I sometimes wonder why the model companies post stuff that is still being developed. I think it would be better to put a picture up of the real car (or better yet, a drawing/painting of the car) so people can critique that! The only problems I have with this kit is that it will not be out until late 2015 and part of the grille is molded to the hood so i'll have to use bright BMF to match the rest of the grille shell. (Oh, you all didn't catch that? Shame on you, I was expecting at least 3 pages of complaints about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Uh, 'cause foiling hood trim is a far more bone-headed proposition than hacking plastic to scootch a roof back? Eh, did something like that with the Revell '50 Olds, and I'm gettin' me some Moebius '61 Ponchos irrespective - if the '61 comes out the way it's looking, I'll pull out the knives and show everybody again. Nor is yours, so why is mine so worthy of your attention? Why is it important that everyone agree that "Kit X" is a screwed up mess? Please explain why your opinion is so much more valid than mine? That's a very good question prompting another one: when's the last time anybody insisted you agree Kit X is a screwed-up mess? Did I miss something there? Cause sure, that'd be effed up. For my part, I'd just be happy if I could evaluate a kit like a grown-up without all the attendant hysterics from people who can't handle that. And I don't mean simple disagreements - got a blog full of all the puerile nonsense I'm talking about. I, like MOST, very rarely call a kit out-and-out garbage and NEVER insist everybody else toe some arbitrary line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisBcritter Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 part of the grille is molded to the hood so i'll have to use bright BMF to match the rest of the grille shell. (Oh, you all didn't catch that? Shame on you, I was expecting at least 3 pages of complaints about that That's something I noticed too; AMT left that trim as part of the grille, since it was based on the promo tool. (Thank goodness for photoetch saw blades.) Frankly I don't mind the trim being molded to the hood, if only for the fact there'd probably be fit/alignment issues if it were molded separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Well it looks to me that body dimensions are being based by the the models wheelbase being correct and the wheels being in the same position in the openings. Too me it looks as if the whole chassis or at least the suspension parts are too far back on the model, especially the rear. That could just be an assembly error. If you adjusted the models wheels to match the same location as the 1:1 I think you would find that roof and door lines match up much better. Regardless, as close as those two photos appear, I wouldn't start making tooling changes based on just those photo comparisons. I stand by my position as it's generally not reliable. Yup, I caught that the wheelbase is not perfectly centered in the wheel arches and wondered about the wheel centers as touchstones. But if you place them more optimally, you slide the front bumper inside its "mark" and the rear bumper outside its, reinforcing the impression of a too-long deck. So something's gonna be off - if the greenhouse winds up placed properly within the wheelbase, then the rest of the body work will be that smidge too far back(!) And the proportional relationship between the door and the area behind the front wheel arch will remain the same; if the front door gap lines up, the rear one will be off alignment. And I don't yet see how these things can be explained away by lens artifacts. I see how extremities can get distended or compressed by lens curvature, but as I understand it, that distortion will be uniform, so a C-pillar touchdown should be pulled back by the same amount the rear quarter is getting stretched, and the horizontal relationship between the two shouldn't shift. Now nowhere do I suggest a retooling based on these pics alone. I do think they might be helpful in pointing out areas to examine the master, however. And I'm sorry, but time and time over time besides time again, the funk in preview photos has landed right in my hands with production kits. Except in the case of The Kit That Must Not Be Named. Which actually got worse by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Metzner Posted October 8, 2014 Author Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Sorry but that chrome trim that is molded on the front edge of the kit hood IS chrome trim ON the hood of the REAL CAR it is NOT part of the grille, and it's just to thin to make as separate parts ! So you'll just have to suck it up and foil it! Edited October 8, 2014 by Dave Metzner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Polar Lights and Johnny Lightning both are in business and making viable, not PERFECT, but some nice product. If Moebius goes down that same path I think that can be good...... This forum alone has had a number of GREAT Hudson and Chrysler builds posted......you may have missed them if you have no interest in them. Maybe I'm just too young to have an appreciation for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Please explain why your opinion is so much more valid than mine? It's NOT. That's my whole point! Remember, YOU are the one that said people who see problems with this kit need to "get some perspective" and need to consider them to be toys, like you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's NOT. That's my whole point! Remember, YOU are the one that said people who see problems with this kit need to "get some perspective" and need to consider them to be toys, like you do. Then enlighten me ... explain to me how they are anything other than toys (diversions, pastimes, whatever other word you would like to use). In my worldview there are things that are necessary for life and things that are not. Enlighten me as to how model cars are the former and not the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 That's a question that would have a shot at making sense if people truly treated accurate models as a matter necessary for life. Or kit inaccuracies as life-threatening. Again, am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Then enlighten me ... explain to me how they are anything other than toys (diversions, pastimes, whatever other word you would like to use). In my worldview there are things that are necessary for life and things that are not. Enlighten me as to how model cars are the former and not the latter. Look at your own words, in YOUR world view they are toys. Not in everyone's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Models fall under Crafts. Not toys. So go learn needle point, I am sure your doillies will be much more accurate than Revell models. Now everyone put on some big boy pants and move on. This sort of posting is getting old really fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Then enlighten me ... explain to me how they are anything other than toys (diversions, pastimes, whatever other word you would like to use). In my worldview there are things that are necessary for life and things that are not. Enlighten me as to how model cars are the former and not the latter. Model cars are toys. Some can accept that fact. Some can't. I can. Some people just happen to take their toys more serious than others. That's all. No one way is right or wrong. Some people build them straight out of the box and are happy with them. That's fine. Some people like to build serious models making corrections, improvements, adding details etc. whether it's for showing them or placing them on a shelf. That's fine too. What is wrong is when the people who are happy with a kit straight out of the box wants to crucify the people who do serious models because they dare to point out a flaw in a kit. How many times have you seen people who build seriously jump someone for building a model straight out of the box? Each side should show the same respect for the other. If I see a flaw in a model, I'm going to point it out like it or not. If it's there, it's there. Some people are so scared if someone points out flaws on a model because they think the kit companies will just up and quit making models. It's been told many times that kit companies don't really care what we that frequent forums think because we are such a small percentage of their sales. That's obviously pretty true judging by some of the kits put out in recent years. They know that younger builders and kids will never notice the flaws and snatch them right up and build them. The rest will fix and build them or simply not buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 WINNER. Chicken dinner to Mr Hayes, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Then enlighten me ... explain to me how they are anything other than toys (diversions, pastimes, whatever other word you would like to use). In my worldview there are things that are necessary for life and things that are not. Enlighten me as to how model cars are the former and not the latter. It's not my job to enlighten you. You have your opinion, others may have a different opinion. THAT is my point. Not that your opinion is wrong, but that you don't have any right to demand that everyone else has to agree with your viewpoint, as you said when you stated that everyone who sees problems with this kit needs to "get some perspective" and needs to see them as toys... the way you do. If you want to see model kits as toys, that's perfectly ok with me. I never said otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveG Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Yup, I caught that the wheelbase is not perfectly centered in the wheel arches and wondered about the wheel centers as touchstones. But if you place them more optimally, you slide the front bumper inside its "mark" and the rear bumper outside its, reinforcing the impression of a too-long deck. So something's gonna be off - if the greenhouse winds up placed properly within the wheelbase, then the rest of the body work will be that smidge too far back(!) And the proportional relationship between the door and the area behind the front wheel arch will remain the same; if the front door gap lines up, the rear one will be off alignment. And I don't yet see how these things can be explained away by lens artifacts. I see how extremities can get distended or compressed by lens curvature, but as I understand it, that distortion will be uniform, so a C-pillar touchdown should be pulled back by the same amount the rear quarter is getting stretched, and the horizontal relationship between the two shouldn't shift. Now nowhere do I suggest a retooling based on these pics alone. I do think they might be helpful in pointing out areas to examine the master, however. And I'm sorry, but time and time over time besides time again, the funk in preview photos has landed right in my hands with production kits. Except in the case of The Kit That Must Not Be Named. Which actually got worse by comparison. Chuck, I think the term I'm looking for is perspective distortion. I don't see how you can take two separate photos taken with different cameras from different focal points with different angles of view and expect object points to line up exactly as far as side by side comparisons go. I do think the photos have brought out valid concerns but I have some real doubts about some of them. For what it's worth, I'm going have some faith in Dave and the rest of the Moebius team to do the best job they can and cut them some slack ..... at least until I see a test shot up close Steve 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.