Laurent

The Su-33 1.0 story has been discussed some time ago... I don't know anything on the story about the Su-33 2.0.

Considerable net sum though ? What's left once the retail shop & distributors margins, subcontractors (toolshop, decal designer, printers) payments, wages have been deduced ? Enough to finance the tooling of next kit hopefully. If so the machine is still fuelled and the machine can keep on running. If not, it stops sooner than later. Is somebody in Macau, Shenzen or Honk Kong in a good position to research a Soviet aircraft ? I doubt it so the producer will have to try and find external contributors to the project. If those contributors have visibility on the project, if they don't ju

'"Totally new model" I'd rather say. "Kit" implies plastic parts and so far we've seen CAD only.

I bought the latest F-16 boxing (Polish D block 52+). There's some flash indeed but I don't seem to have short shot areas.

I don't see better option. For instance the Pavla seat... ... has a stretched headbox as the Stencel variant used in the AV-8B but it isn't good for the AV-8A IMHO.

I'm not 100% sure but I believe the Wingman Models German/Portugese Alpha Jet seats could do the job.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234983899-148-grumman-f-14ab-d-tomcat-by-avantgarde-model-kits-3d-rendersschemesspruesbox-art-f-14d-release-summer-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3104419 https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234983899-148-grumman-f-14ab-d-tomcat-by-avantgarde-model-kits-3d-rendersschemesspruesbox-art-f-14d-release-summer-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3104422

Nope.... ejector seat changed for a stool 😉

I know someone who used to be a contributor on Dragon armour projects. There was active collaboration some year ago but I believe policy changed and not really in a positive way.

The relationship between the producer's design team and the contributors should be bilateral. Contributors provides the reference material on which the CAD model is based on but in turn the design team should submit the CAD model to the contributors and ask them to review it. What puzzles me is how contributors accept to have their name associated to a certain project when the producer-contributor relationship is unilateral. It's like handing out the producer a blank cheque. Unacceptable to me.

I agree. In fact this applies to any kit released by any producer. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to take the Sea Harrier FRS.1 as a reference of Tamiya's current productions quality.

I don't miss these at all. As many things the internet is a two-edged sword. The amount of freely accessible factual information exploded and this greatly helps the research and documentation phase of a kit project. At the same time, anybody can say anything to anyone, express more or less constructed opinions. Signal (facts) comes with noise. It's true in electronics, it's true with the internet.

I depends... : - is reference material complete before the design starts or does material trickle down while the design is being made, or worst, while the tooling is being made ? - is the CAD designer efficient ? - is there a validation process to debug the CAD model during its design or not ? if so few designer man-days are wasted - does the toolshop have enough CNC and EDM machines to be able to work in parallel in order to increase speed of tooling phase ? are some of those machines used for other ongoing projects (tooling phase will then be longer) ? - does the pr

To me the distinction between large and small producers when it come to the timing of releasing a particular kit sounds a little strange. Tamiya is a bigger company than AMK but Tamiya runs more projects in parallel (RC, armour kits, etc) so it's likely to me that the number of project contributors (research guys, designers, etc) and the time spent per project is roughly the same whether the producer is big or small.

I agree and disagree at the same time. A designer creates his model according to specifications and these include tooling and injection constraints. We customers do not know what are these constraints and these are not our problem but the producer's problem. High parts count comes from high level of details, optional parts but also presence of undercuts. The later can be partly addressed by using slide molds but these have a cost so profitability is impacted. Producer will also want to avoid occurence of short shots during production so he'll avoid making parts too thin or long and narrow part

It's not enough. A CAD designer's job is to produce a 3D model according to specifications. He can design a washing machine, a car, anything. The CAD designer is not very familiar with the subject he's supposed to depict unlike the guys who will have done the research. Those guys must be given the opportunity to review the CAD model before tooling is done. If this isn't the case the CAD model may have inaccuracies even if the reference material used is of high quality.

What's ridiculous ? The fact that the main body is split in three parts ? If so that's how undercuts are managed in injected plastic. GWH MiG-29s or F-15s engine nozzles also have strange cutouts for the same reason. What I find ridiculous is the fact of providing engines but I guess it pleases some people.

I'd say they were as TrumpyBoss show no sign of improvement when it comes to accuracy. Some kits are ok but a number of recent kits have irritating issues. Sea Vixen's under wings decals colour, Tucano (British decal option but no plastic parts corresponding to a Short Tucano, flat top wing), Boulton-Paul Defiant front fuselage shape, MiG-23BN and Su-17 front fuselage and canopy, etc.

I don't see why. The market of such a product may be... dunno... 1000 boxes worldwide so the retail price has to be high to break even.

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10534094/70/5#

Nikolay Polyakov build featuring intake management: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235037659-kitty-hawk-148-f-101-ac-«voodoo»/&page=6

I believe companies (not only Chinese) have three types of policies in managing contributors : 1) « send us all the reference material you’ve got and pray » : producers doesn’t involve contributors during product development. That’s the Trumpeter/Hobby Boss strategy 2) « here are some CAD snapshots… good enough ? » : producer makes some CAD snapshot public and somewhat listens to feedback. The problem is that some errors cannot be addressed : cross-sectional errors in the CAD model, errors in decal sheet design (F-5E, Su-22, etc). That’s the Kitty Hawk strategy 3) « her

It isn't Kitty Hawk who posted the photo, it was posted by a member of the FB group.

Ok. It's not from the KH FB page but from a member of the KH Group in fact.

Where did you get the kit from ? Standard kits don't seem to come with figures and Sorbtsiya resin parts.