New kits with flaws.

[Casey]

Dave's explanation makes it understandable to most of us.

I think Dave did a great job of explaining the limitations in the business, and I've heard similar things. They provide the starting point and we decide how far to take it from there, or if we even want to proceed, with any given kit.

[bobthehobbyguy]

On the original subject my guess would be that a majority of the problems caused by interpertation of the photographs. If the photos are being used to check the work then the flaws aren't going to be obvious.

without the option of having the actual car there will always be the potential for flaws to keep.

with that in mind it is impressive that the mark is hit a majority of the time.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I agree Bill. I accept yours, will you accept mine?

Absolutely.

[Modelbuilder Mark]

I am thankful that a company like Moebius is even still around to prodcue new kits. Sure, I like the old kits, and will still buy them when needed, but fresh product is always nice to have, especially at the level of detail that I see in your products.

Thanks for all you do, and keep on creating!

[sjordan2]

I think Dave did a great job of explaining the limitations in the business, and I've heard similar things. They provide the starting point and we decide how far to take it from there, or if we even want to proceed, with any given kit.

Ditto. And I think his thoughts were intended to increase the understanding of any kit manufacturer and not just Moebius, which has done better than the rest to cope with the issues. A great description.

Edited December 26, 2014 by sjordan2

[jbwelda]

>jbwelda, on 25 Dec 2014 - 5:15 PM, said:

you DID notice the word "disappointed" in the graphic above was misspelled?

just goes to show ya...

jb

>And YOU are perfect? You and Bill are twins.

wow is the fog really that thick in here? here let me splain it to youse:

see wee/they waz talking about mediocrity and perfection and all that stuff. kinda like yang and ying. I saw that once on Bevis. then the guy all abouts the perfection posted a graphik tht had a misssspelllling in its. so then I's said: hey look theres a typo maybe theys not so smarts afterall! well Ise guesses I dindnt actually SAY that and maybe that's where the problem could bes. see its this thing called "irony" or mbe something else too that I read in a comic or maybe the sports pages one time. go team! how bout dem bears?

hopefully that makes my point clear.

by the way Mobieus makes some good stuff.

this will be my last statement on the matter. please refer all questions to my secretary, I am going out to get a drink.

jb

[Ace-Garageguy]

...see its this thing called "irony" ...

No wonder I din't get it. I always thot "irony" was how you got the rinkels out of your shirts.

[johnbuzzed]

Quality control is not a method of keeping quality from getting out of control. Consistency is the ability to carry on with a function in the same way in an unbroken manner. Neither of these will guarantee perfection (which, it has been pointed out) , we are not seeking here, but they can bring a manufacturer of any goods pretty darn close. There are no excuses for the lack of either asset in any business, big or small. The lack of these assets will cost more in the long run than the initial expenditure.

[Krazy Rick]

It's important to be hip with the kids....

Pat, Just tell them the truth ..... we don't age in Ontario

[Danny Lectro]

[...] I'll apologize for anything I have said that was interpreted as me being a butt. [...]

Bill, I may disagree with the way you've presented your case in this thread, but I do wholeheartedly agree with your point. We can be aware that perfection is a state that may never be achieved, but if we continue to pursue a state of perfection, we can achieve some amazing things.

I like what Moebius has been doing, both the quality of product and their engagement with their customers. So far I've only built three of their kits, but I have quite a few others in my stash. Even looking at the stuff on the sprues shows attention to detail. I've also had good experiences the couple of times I needed to make use of their customer service. Mr. Metzner, if you read this, I want you to know that what you are doing with Moebius is appreciated. I hope you have a long, rewarding and successful venture.

For the most part, I like what Revell does. I think they put out a quality product, but that only serves to highlight when they make glaring errors like what happened to the Fox body Mustang. Admittedly, the Mustang issue didn't affect me as I'm not a Mustang connoisseur, but I can see how it might affect those who might have an emotional attachment to that generation of Mustang, or those who have spent time working on the real car, or those who just have a naturally good eye for catching things like that. Revell should have expected someone to notice, and their response when someone DID notice was really not good. Perhaps if Revell took some inspiration from Moebius' business model, by engaging their customers more on forums and other social media, somebody might have caught the problem before production started. They would still have sales in the bag from those who wouldn't notice the error, plus sales from more of the people who would have noticed, plus possibly even more sales from general good will shown by engaging the customers in the process.

[Kris Morgan]

Absolutely.

. Aww, they kissed and, made up. Relax, that was just a joke to lighten the mood.

[Kris Morgan]

It's important to be hip with the kids....

Pat, you are always a hip dude.

[Ace-Garageguy]

. Aww, they kissed and, made up.

%&^*((#$@#@ !!!

Just kidding.

[Luc Janssens]

Back to the regular program now...

In the past when designing a kit, a tooling model was made in scale 1/10 which was then used, to cut the tooling using a pantograph

It's my understanding that they made them that big, because it was easier to detail, but maybe also to detect flaws too.

So my question for Dave and others in the know, would it be helpful, that when you order a (mock-up/evaluation/approval) model, generated from the 3D files, to have it made in a bigger scale?

Edited December 30, 2014 by Luc Janssens

[bobthehobbyguy]

Also any errors are reduced in the conversion from 10th to 25th. Commn practice in electronics prihted circuit board layouts were done at 4 times the size and then reduced.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Woooww, the brass monkey nads on some of you guys. You really got your nerve pontificating on name-calling as a last resort with a guy who A) has raised a specific challenge that none of you has met, and was NOT the first name-caller in this thread. But I guess a broadside like "jack wagon" is exempt if it lines up with your particular ideology, right? And how Revell models are any more off-topic than the innate hypocrisy in whining about "whining", or all these sarcastic references to "experts" when all you need are TWO WORKING EYES, has yet to be demonstrated.

Bill may have made nicey-nice, but the friendship of some of y'all could not be more meaningless to me. And that's why I will continue to thrash this issue whenever I see it and have the time. The blog linked below is nigh unto TWO YEARS without a challenge now, if we're gonna discuss who really lacks an argument, and instead of seeing that your moves have been been anticipated and debunked in advance for their folly and chronic repetition, you lot just figure out new depths of the same sort of inanity to plumb.

"Drive Dave Metzner off" - ?? Maybe he's just a little more adult and quite a bit less idiotic than you credit him.

And sure, putting myself in Dave's position, I can easily imagine a visceral frustration in seeing my products nitpicked for flaws I may have seen myself and been unable to correct, or forced to let go for scheduling and budget exigencies. But as a reviewer, I am bound to catch what I can and point it out.

You may have to go up hill. Both ways. in a blizzard, with nothing but a notebook to fend off a Chinese-speaking grizzly bear, just to get a product that's close, but not everything you wanted, on the shelf. And on a personal level, I WILL sympathize deeply.

But if I see an issue and fail to point it out, that becomes about me not doing MY job a whole lot more than it's about anyone at a model company not doing his. And that one modeler who appreciates the heads-up is worth FIFTY of you all knicker-twisted over the critique.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

I had myself a nice little leisurely stroll through this thread today.

Nice to see a bunch of people get angry at each other here, isn't it? Y'know, we all like the forum, and it's kinda dumb to argue here, being as how you'll make enemies of people, and then you'll have to keep "seeing" them around here... Whatever.

As for the topic... I haven't bought a Moebius model. Too expensive for me. I haven't seen anything too interesting of theirs anyways. What it boils down to for me is if the model is interesting and not too damaged for me to build it. The only real way I'd know if there was one of these "glaring flaws" is if I knew the 1:1 car well (like that cr-p Lindberg GT6+) or if I looked up pictures of it, which I only do in the instance of customizing.

PS: even though I don't like the darned thing, I looked up pictures of that Revell Mustang roof. I can't tell how it's different than the real one, even when it was sized up to it! Apparently, it's too high, but whatever...

[johnbuzzed]

Why, Chuck... aren't you afraid of offending somebody?

[Danno]

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Why, Chuck... aren't you afraid of offending somebody?

Okay. That was funny.

[Harry P.]

Bill, I may disagree with the way you've presented your case in this thread, but I do wholeheartedly agree with your point. We can be aware that perfection is a state that may never be achieved, but if we continue to pursue a state of perfection, we can achieve some amazing things.

I like what Moebius has been doing, both the quality of product and their engagement with their customers. So far I've only built three of their kits, but I have quite a few others in my stash. Even looking at the stuff on the sprues shows attention to detail. I've also had good experiences the couple of times I needed to make use of their customer service. Mr. Metzner, if you read this, I want you to know that what you are doing with Moebius is appreciated. I hope you have a long, rewarding and successful venture.

For the most part, I like what Revell does. I think they put out a quality product, but that only serves to highlight when they make glaring errors like what happened to the Fox body Mustang. Admittedly, the Mustang issue didn't affect me as I'm not a Mustang connoisseur, but I can see how it might affect those who might have an emotional attachment to that generation of Mustang, or those who have spent time working on the real car, or those who just have a naturally good eye for catching things like that. Revell should have expected someone to notice, and their response when someone DID notice was really not good. Perhaps if Revell took some inspiration from Moebius' business model, by engaging their customers more on forums and other social media, somebody might have caught the problem before production started. They would still have sales in the bag from those who wouldn't notice the error, plus sales from more of the people who would have noticed, plus possibly even more sales from general good will shown by engaging the customers in the process.

Now that is a well written (and well thought out) post.

[highway]

OK, I have read through and been following this sometimes very comical thread and feel it's time to end the year with my two cents worth. First, with the whole "flaws" issue, and I'm going to stick more to comments on Moebius' big rig line here since I don't really have a care for any of their car line because I'm just not into what they have issued so far and only bought a Hudson to build a 1/25th scale version of Doc Hudson from "Cars". Sorry, but 50s subjects just don't do anything for me, and since I'm a trucker, the trucks and trailers do! Overall, I think in the truck line, they did one "H" of a job, the bodylines of both the Lonestar and Prostar look like the 1:1, and catch the look of what they are to represent, and the 53 foot swing door trailer does equally, not to mention new modern rigs were HIGHLY missing from the truck modeling world. I'm not saying they are "perfect", because that horse has been beaten long enough in this thread, but also in my eyes, what might be "perfect" for one may be far from "perfect" for another. The same also applies to "flaws", and even as much as I like the Lonestar and the trailer, they still have glaring detail "flaws" in my eyes.

Now, I'm sure there are those of you saying "You're contradicting yourself with that statement!", but before you get your fingers flying to put me in the "jackwagon" bandwagon, hear me out. I have one Lonestar already, and plans for quite a few more over time, and a trailer and plans for at least two of the new coming smooth side trailer when it hits the shelves, and have seen enough of the Prostars online and been behind the wheel of the 1;1, I just haven't seen a need to purchase one because I'm more of the flashy show rig type and not the mainstream fleet truck type, which is all I see a Prostar as, a fleet truck. Yes, I do like Moebius' rigs, but also at the same time see them "flawed" in details, and here's why. As has been said over and over here, major design flaws, NO. BUT......and this may be many of the problems with the "flaws" arguments in this thread, there are many "flaws" in both the trucks and the trailer that I think could have been different or are just plain missing that make the kits "flawed" in MY eyes. A couple of the biggest, and this is again MY OPINION ONLY I would have liked to seen the stacks different in the Prostar, since Moebius did change other pieces to more "fleet" style parts from the more custom setup of the Lonestar upscale "chicken hauler" dress ups. I'm not a fan of the Lonestar stacks either, just my personal taste. Also, I would have liked to have seen the lights on the cab of the Lonestar separate items instead of molded in, because not all have them and sanding off the bezels make the lenses useless on other builds. I know these are just minor details to most, but still a "flaw" in this trucker's eye that could have been handled differently, but the next is just a "Why would they do this??" headshaker for me, and in my opinion, a major detailing flaw concerning the trailer, and both deal with the nose of the trailer. The front bulkhead is nicely done, and the connection point for the electrical cord between the tractor and trailer is spot on, believe me I deal with this piece in the 1:1 world everyday because I pull Great Dane trailers 99.9% of the time at work, but in Moebius' world the trailers must not need brake connections! This is one of the big detailing "flaws" that, again in MY eyes, is a detailing "flaw" where Moebius missed the mark. There is no hint of the connectors (called gladhands for those who don't know much about the trucking world) anywhere, but they are just as an important detail as the well done electrical connector that is between the gladhands. The other big missing detail is the control board on the reefer itself, without that on the 1:1, your ice cream melts! Again, the unit is nicely done (and again, I deal with the ThermoKing unit it represents on a daily basis) but it is just missing that major detail in my eyes. This is just my opinion, and I know there will be the "That's just rivet counting" probable comments, but just little things this rivet counting trucker notices when it comes to truck models. I even told a fellow friend and resin caster years ago that a model I judged of his at a show my club used to have his build was nicely done but he left out one detail in his otherwise nicely detailed build, he didn't run an air line up the shifter for the air splitter! His jaw dropped and said laughingly, "I'll put one on my next build just for you!"

Second and lastly, with the whole debate on subjects like the Revell Mustang "it's fine for me" vs "glaring flaw not worth the money" debate, I tell the model companies what I think with my wallet! If those of you "it's fine for me, we should just be happy for new kits" crowd would just think of how many hours of hard work (after taxes) you actually work to buy the mediocre junk, maybe you wouldn't think that before you buy a misshapen Mustang and demand a better product! Moebius will literally get hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money for their truck kits, since they are about $50+ a kit, but Revell won't see a penny for a Mustang from me!

[southpier]

I thought this article somewhat interesting: http://tiredoldmodelingcliches.blogspot.com/

[Monty]

I thought this article somewhat interesting: http://tiredoldmodelingcliches.blogspot.com/

It's a well thought out piece authored by our very own Chuck Kourouklis. (He refers to it in the 2nd paragraph of post #266.) He's posted it here before, but a lot of members chose to ignore it once they realized that it pointed out the fallacies in several of their favorite arguments and tactics for trying to make a point.

[southpier]

I didn't have enough interest to read this whole thread, just post #1. I came across the link I posted surfing the web from somewhere to over there.