Laurent

Compare the detailing of the spoiler bays in the CAD renders... you'll see they've been done differently.

Well the lack of news may be related to GWH taking the time to avoid shape bugs getting through.

This topic should be renamed the "About fat butts" 🙂

Yup... reminder: Annetra Mi-8/17

I've built it when I got back in modelling. Recessed panel lines but not nice. Reverse-engineering based on the Hasegawa kit AFAIK. Rebox of the Kangnam kit I'd say (same misaligned fasteners on the front fuselage panels): http://uamf.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6481&mobile=on

For E and J versions, the best kit is the Academy.

http://www.tanmodel.com/en/projeler.php

I'm with Paul. MC used to make armour where six-views drawings are enough to design a CAD model in most cases. Aircrafts are another story: without fuselage and wing frames, without dimensional data, the designer cannot produce an accurate model. I believe MC realized that.

There's no GWH rumour AFAIK.

Well if the artist is the same who does design kit decals... remember the Bulgarian Yak-130 markings...

This would be handing out a club to be beaten: expertens of social media (that includes this forum) would have been all over them. No I just hope that the 3 view drawings have been provided to contributors who know how to use them for checking.

TrumpyBoss's definition of research is downloading drawings from airwar.ru and a walkaround from the internet... or copying a Hasegawa kit. Going to a museum wouldn't cross their minds.

It is. Continental Models & Toys Co. is AMK's agent in HK and Sincere Hobby is their online shop.

The windscreen+canopy parts go on the fuselage. If there's an issue with the "footprint" of these parts then the fuselage part and what's in it (cockpit) are impacted. I don't think the designer is to blame. It's a problem with AFV Club's design process. Lack of CAD validation process.

There's the customer point-of-view and the producer point-of-view. It isn't possible to match strictly these point-of-views because what the producer can deliver depends on the ressources availability. Short-run kit producers and some mainstream kit producers (TrumpyBoss, etc) own the machines used for tooling (CNC, EDM for steel toolings) and injection machines. They have to amortize the (huge I believe) investments and keep the operators/engineers busy so they can fairly easily modify an existing tooling or make a new one. Perhaps the majority of mainstream plastic kit producers (that us

YES !

Don't they owe kits to the ones who payed for them ? 😛

https://www.hpmhobbies.com/products/High-Planes-Martin-Baker-Mk-6-Ejector-Seats-x2-suits-Mirage%2C-Buccaneer%2C-MB326-etc-(Accessories-1%3A72).html http://www.pavlamodels.cz/katalogy/detail.php?k=seats&c=S72044&styl=styly.css

MB. Mk.6

I'm no industrial engineer but I believe it's wrong. A CNC machine cannot work with a CAD object file. This file is fed to a CAM software that spurts out a file that describes the tools to be used, the paths and angles the tool is to follow, etc. This later file can be fed to the CNC machine to cut the EDM electrode. CAD model renders tell you about the accuracy and the amount of details of an future kit, not about the engineering quality (fit, surface details like panel lines).

The SUABs are often very vocal when stating they are Right while RC's are Wrong and that they should get a life. I believe there's an actual split between the SUABs and the RCs because their approach to scale modelling is different. The SUABs are more Miniaturists when RCs are more Modelists. A Miniaturist perceives scale modelling as some kind of art. He enjoys building kits, painting and weathering them but the subject doesn't really matter. It could be tractors, figurines. He'll buy scale modelling magazines to admire builds and improve his technics. The subject matter

Some members of the ARC (your definition)'s crowd may end up being contributors to the development of model kits. The SUAB (Shut Up And Build) crowd will never be. Such discussions can be useful to the producer during the design phase, not so much when the tooling has been done. I wouldn't expect a reaction from AMK.

Er the guy didn't do the CAD apparently. Reminder: https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/38237-132-b-25j/&do=findComment&comment=367796

Finally !

The Mirage III/5 is like the MiG-21 or the A-4. It doesn't take a lot of shelf space once built and the number of marking options is huge so it's likely that a modeller would want to buy and build several of them. It won't happen if the retail price is too high. I expect the Modelsvit kit to be expensive as it seems to be a sophisticated kit. The HPM/PJ kit also isn't exactly cheap. Also of all 1/72 Mirage III/5s with a "Cyrano nose", I think the SH may end up to be the more accurate.