DoogsATX

As to the F-14 - I just finished it last night, and looking back, in terms of engineering and fit the kit is just about flawless. Not just the fuselage, but even the way the main gear struts or all of the gear bay doors install. It's superb and definitely on part with the level of fit you'll find in their 1/32 Corsair or Wingnut's finest. Detail still irks me, though. The cockpit could (should) have been better, and same with the gear bays. Not too in love with the position lights, either. They would certainly have benefited from clear parts. And I'd really love to see SKP bring t

Glad you enjoyed the read. As for winning favors from the industry - that's not why I'm in it at all. The part sandbox, part catharsis, part a small way of giving back. Eh, this again. They're words on a screen. No one is forcing you to read aloud to a class of kindergartners or anything. Well, the tone's not going anywhere. Sometimes I feel like I should pin this to the top of the blog: https://doogsmodels.com/2016/11/16/no/ And...I read that same Paul Cotcher post and have my disagreements with it. Saying a kit is better than the old

If you want to see how the CM-B sprays, I used it in my Mr. Paint test not too long ago. Jump to around 13:45 or so. https://youtu.be/VFg0SSZEYyA?t=13m58s

So I've got an HP-C+ running a .2mm needle and a CM-B running a .18, and IMO the difference is very noticeable. If something like a Paasche H is a machete, the HP-C+ is a paring knife, and the CM-B is a friggin' scalpel. Personally, I'm a big fan of "painting small" and the CM-B is perfect for that - even - yes - for painting up entire kits. In fact I'm about to use mine to put paint on my 1/32 F-104 in the next day or so. That said, it's definitely a specialized tool and I wouldn't recommend it as a main workhorse airbrush. But for building up a camo scheme in layers and preserving tonal va

They do? Wow. One reason I tend to go Sprue Brothers over Squadron is that they're excellent about refunding if their shipping amount is too high...

Yep - graduated from UT back in '02. These days I'm out by Oak Hill and work out on the east side (after working downtown forever)

Wish I could. Sadly for me it's day-trip or bust. Even Houston and DFW are pushing it.

I'll be taking the Corsair, Viper and F-5B that I just wrapped for sure. Maybe my Bf 109G-10, though the canopy's flopped over and I'd need to right it beforehand. Might also bring the Leopard C2 I'm working on right now - if I can finish it in time. As for local clubs...they all meet up north, and I've got a demanding job and three young kids, so skipping out for meetings is pretty much a non-starter. Mostly I'm active online, though I do go to the Austin and San Antonio shows.

Also, in terms of feedback that can lead places...here's the AH-1Z I polished off earlier this year. I'm generally happy with it - but still see plenty of room for improvement. My treatment of the MFDs, for example, could have been better (and the seats are a bit of a mess, but more because of the kit's limitations...it could really do with some resin assistance in places). The real thing also has canopy pulls that by the end of the build I was just too beat to fuss with. And a big one...the rotor cuffs. The real thing's rotors are built to fold for ship storage, and have a lot of fant

So, a few things! 1 - In all fairness, I totally missed the seams when I was dealing with the landing gear. I had some issues with the resin tires (I installed something to something in the wrong order and it made for some problems) and got distracted from some of the other detail. 2 - I actually love feedback like this (and someone did point it out at the time) because it's a facepalm moment that I sure as hell can improve on my next build. You can bet the next Corsair I tackle will receive extra attention in the strut department. 3 - It's actually up in the air as to accuracy. Here's a pi

Don - by no means exhaustive, but here are some tips I put together a while back for improving model photography: http://doogsmodels.com/2011/07/15/5-tips-to-improving-your-model-photography/

Thanks! Definitely one of those rare builds where it felt like things just kinda clicked. For in-progress shots, again it's the extra effort of yanking the card out of the camera, pulling out the computer, blah blah. I've got my Lightroom settings so dialed in that it'd honestly be more work to deal with jpgs. Two main adjustment macros - one for elevated shots and one for eye-level, a few slider tweaks here and there if needed, and then I export everything out to Smugmug (MUCH better quality retention than Photobucket). Basically - laziness, pure and simple.

Yeah I've got a dedicated table that gives great, very clean shots. It's more just the effort involved. I shoot in RAW and process through Lightroom and so it takes an extra bit of motivation to get me over there, especially if the update is something like "glued wings on and masked the canopy". I should though, because DSLR + lighting = far better images.

Joining in here...Chuck, I hear you on poor photos on WIP threads. I'm not really active here because one can only really devote to so many places at one time, *but* bothering to grab decent pictures during various WIP phases is something I for sure struggle with. I've got a light table, good camera, know how to take good shots etc, but when it's a relatively minor update it's so much easier just to pull out the phone and snap a few decent-not-great shots. However...a quick tip if you want it regarding macro work. If you have a computer monitor (or any screen really) that supports HDMI, you

That's...not exactly sound metrics though! I mean...I've noticed that likes and comments and so on can swing pretty wildly based on the subject I'm working on. Corsair? Comments through the roof. F-4? Same. AH-1Z Viper, or a Canadian Leopard C2? Much more muted response in terms of volume. I think it's partly the "franchise problem" that Hollywood has...the well-known stuff attracts more interest. Unlikely choices and so on just don't get as much attention.

Thanks for the observation! And I agree 100%...but once it gets into Q&A time I think it goes beyond being "just an attaboy". You're absolutely correct that it's a great way to learn from each other.

That's a...curious way to read what I wrote. Tell me, how does "nice build!" or "awesome! Love it! " provide any kind of useful feedback? Yeah, affirmation gives the warm fuzzies but that's about it. Feedback isn't necessarily about accuracy, or knowing "every last thing". We all have different experiences and perspectives. Not all feedback is going to be "right", but if it's never asked for and never given, you're just building in a vacuum. As a kid that's all I experienced, and I would have loved to have other modelers pointing out where I'd gone astray or how I could do X thing better.

And that's all part of taking critiques. You take the good with the bad, the useless with the useful, and take what you want. Say you get twenty pieces of feedback on a build. 7 of them are just attaboys. Nice but useless. 5 are just bashing the kit. Nose looks wrong or the landing gear is too tall or other stuff that only matters to you if it matters to you (IPMS rules don't allow for factoring in kit accuracy). 4 talk about techniques that you should have applied that you don't agree with, or tell you you used the wrong olive drab or whatever. The last four give you some ideas you can appl

While this is true, I think it's really limiting. When I was building models as a kid, I knew one other kid who kind of put effort into them. I knew of no adults who modeled. The local hobby shop was in a really sketchy part of town and I got most of my kits from Michaels (back when they had a solid modeling aisle). My sole source of learning and improvement was the occasional issue of FSM. I did what I wanted, painted how I liked, but in a complete vacuum. When I came back to this hobby, I found an online community fully formed. I found new ideas and techniques and debates and tutorials. I

Greek jets are almost a rule unto themselves - especially the HAVE GLASS-coated F-16s, which tend to weather in very extreme and weird ways. But this picture is a fantastic example of paying attention to the whole airframe. The forward fuselage up ahead of the intake could certainly be a candidate for pre-shading, but look at the stabs, or look at the inner pylon staining on the wings. Look at the variation in the tan-gray. Just pre-shading panel lines would miss everything else going on with that glorious airframe.

Who doesn't love a filthy Tomcat! Though, Chuck, I would argue that those examples make a strong case for black basing, or for much broader pre-shading that doesn't really follow the the panel lines (especially the one in flight). There's a ton of variation going on on the surface of both aircraft, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make - panel shading alone misses the broader state of paint on the rest of the airframe.

So, yes I agree with this, but a few clarifiers... 1 - I'm not against pre-shading. Hell, the black basing that I favor is basically just 100% pre-shade...the entire surface goes black and gets built up from there. 2 - What I'm not a fan of is *only* pre-shading panel lines. It leaves the rest of the paint too...pristine. And with the contrast it adds, it only makes that rest of the paint look even more monotone, which is where the quilting effect comes in. 3 - Glad this discussion is taking place, getting everyone thinking about how and why they paint the way they paint.

Well, my intent in writing it was to spark conversation - and I've certainly done that and am happy about it. But no, I had no expectation it would "go viral", at least not the tune it has. Anyway, to repeat what I said in another forum (and have since triple-clarified in the post): there's lots of subjectivity at work, many "paths to the truth" and so on. If you want to panel shade a kit to the degree that it looks like a Scottish coat of arms, that's up to you. My issue is it being presented as realistic - which it often seems to be. I mean...I see miles of butthurt about "accurate" kits.

I'm a big fan of weathering, too! I'm also a fan of adding a bit of accent to panel lines. What I'm not a fan of is panel line shading that makes it look like the panel lines are wearing raccoon makeup, while the rest of the paint is clean (or relatively so). I use panel line washes on every single one of my aircraft builds. But I try to keep them from being overpowering.

Question - did you read my blog post? Because that's not at all what I say. In fact, my post includes this Spanish Hornet with WAY more accentuated panel lines. To sum up my position on the matter: In short, my issue with all the panel shading nonsense is that it only pays attention to a specific feature of the aircraft’s surface, at the expense of the rest. As nice as the rest of the work may be, it’s a distracting and ultimately detracting element. Pay attention to the whole of the aircraft, and how all of its elements come together in a cohesive fashion.