Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Jinxter13

Too much Info

Recommended Posts

While perusing the forums; both here and in other places I've seen as many of us have critiques on new kits already out and some in the planning stages. It seems that a lot of folks with a lot of knowledge on the real subjects literally rip the kit a new one before it's left the molds and in packages. Now here's my question does it really help when this is done?. I for one am glad that the experts on the subjects know and can tell that the kit suffers from some inaccuracies, and they can pass it on to me what's not correct, with this should anyone who sees a finished build of the kit that I've done I can readily say it's not my doing it's a fallacy of the kit. However this can be a boondoggle for others who may want to purchase the kit but seeing these reviews may be turned away from doing it and thereby not getting the pleasure they would have, had they not saw or read the review and just purchased the kit because the wanted to do one, scale not being a factor. The many of us in forums have access to this info and we number in the thousands millions possible; but when those among us who are members of more than one forum it that number may diminish in the grand scheme, but for the modelers not members of forums their number is more than likely in the millions and just buy them sight on. This info is spread, hypothetical encounter - modeler A (forum member) is in an LHS and sees modeler B (non forum member) looking at a 1/32 scale B-58 "Hustler" well one can dream :rolleyes: and says I don't like that kit and proceeds to regale him with all that's said to be wrong. If "B" just wants it fine, but if he is thinking that this is a waste of money, because of what "A" told him; does it help him or does it have a negative result. From this encounter two people lose automatically should he not make the purchase; the kit maker, and the shop owner, possibly "B" who has waited and dreamed of doing a "Hustler". Is the info beneficial by it being openly discussed?. Perhaps if the holders of this info made it available upon request all concerned would be better served. Those who want to know what inaccuracies the kit has could be served, yet those who may be swayed would have a choice to either ask for it or just pass it by and go ahead and purchase the kit without second thoughts about whether or not to make the buy. Often times scales are referenced such as on a scale of 1 to 10 where would you place this or that. Maybe we could use such a scale to rate kits 1 being a real puker for anyone from a novice to a Master, and ten being a perfect kit in all phases variant, construction, markings and cost. The monkey wrench in this is how and why do you assign the variables between 1 and 10, what makes it a 2, 6, or 9. Another sticking point is why are how kit's ripped, would it be possible to give totally impartial ratings or opinions without Geographical, political, or personal preference influences being a factor or factors. I for one whenever possible like to give the good ol' USA any economical help I can, but this does not preclude me from buying the best available no matter where its made or who made it, and cost is not always a determining factor, that is if I have the funds available. It just intrigues me as to how and why kits get ripped if it was Joe Bloes best friend making the kit would he still give it such an in depth sometimes scathing critique? or find a way justify and/or validate how and why it was done that way. I cannot omit jealousy as a factor though I fervently hope it is not. There are times when I decide due to a review or critique that I don't want that kit, and at other times I just ignore it and decide it's available I'll bite the proverbial bullet as far as it shortcomings are concerned. How many of us would be perfectly happy with a kit done OOB, but have been influenced by others who desire a kit (scale being relative) accurate down to the wrinkles in the seat cushion. Yes some reviews seem to go that deep :whistle: . Does a perfect kit exits?, not to my knowledge, nor will it ever IMHO. Remember your first kit, if the canopy was squashed but fit, it was fine...today if it doesn't damn near glue itself in place it's WRONG. I know kit reviews are a good thing, but when is it just a little too much.

Fair and impartial reviews and ratings are desires that exist in a perfect world, however in this realm of reality; I doubt that one exist.

Ok I'm done and I wish all who read this the best modeling day ever.....unless you weigh 500 pounds and plan to strut around in clothes that are tight on Twiggy :whistle: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the question/debate, but in the end its all relative, Clif.

Aaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would read any review of any kit whether a quick in box review or a rivet counting inspection. I have to say, shape issues aren't as important to me as the fit of a kit. If there are shape issues but the fit is good/excellent i would still buy. For some modellers too much info would be a problem, i agree. For me, i pretty much know what i want and what faults i will accept. So, i would read reviews with fit issues priority then shape issues/accuracy next. Then i would decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line of this discussion is: different strokes for different folks!

Some are perfectly fine with building OOB, some will work for months (years, even) on a single model to get it as close as humanly possible to a scale replication of the original. Neither approach is more valid than the other.

Taking up Sean's example of the Hobby Boss Corsair (not picking on you, Sean, but the HB Corsair's a good example :thumbsup: ), if you build it straight from the box, kit's decals, kit's ordnance, kit's colour call-outs and enjoy it - that's great. If you build it using an aftermarket cockpit, scratch-build a new canopy, use aftermarket decals, get the numbers of rivets correct and enjoy it - that's great as well. But please don't tell another modeller he's doing it wrong because he's either putting too much or not enough effort (from your perspective) into his build.

Ripping apart kits is okay, ripping apart modellers is not.

What I find sad is that "rivet counter" has seemingly become a bit of a cuss word. I don't quite understand that. How does it take away one's joy that somebody else corrects flaws on a model? And where does it end? Why bother getting the correct shade of grey on a Corsair when the shape of the intake and canopy are visibly off? After all, you could paint it pink with green polka dots and everybody would still be able to identify it as a Corsair. What I'm trying to say is that different modeller's look for different levels of accuracy in their builds - and that's fine! Different strokes for different folks!

Yes, there may be people who will attack other modellers, talking them down, belittling them for building kit X when kit Y is clearly so much superior, but that has nothing to do with being a rivet counter and all to with being a right "short for Richard".

As for the usefulness tearing kits a new one even in the developmental stages, yes, that is useful. The earlier you can rectify a problem, the better, cheaper, easier.

<...> one guys words can very easily make another guys decision.

I'm sorry, but that would be the other guy's problem. It is 100% up to me what I make from a piece of information, whether it's accurate/warranted/asked for or not.

Edited by ChernayaAkula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Too much Info"

As in writing a trillion word essay to get ones point across? :wacko:

Edited by Wayne S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various responses:

JMN mode:

I found the rivets to be overdone and the panel lines were too deep on this editorial. Additionally, while a correction set may come at some point down the road, why didn't the author use any of the available uber resources online and elsewhere to accurately configure the aft end. As it is, it's unreadable!

Cheerleader Mode:

Perfect delivery and completely spot on! I can't say when I've read something that covered the material so well, and was both easy to follow and utterly satisfying at the end. I can't wait for more!

Troll Mode:

Cats have several ways to become Stone Idols. I don't like any of them!

Alvis Mode:

This would look better in a weird colour.

Moderator Mode:

Froth froth rant rant lock topic darn you kids!

Alvis 3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add my "two-pennorth" before this becomes a take-sides thread; speaking as a researcher, I feel that there are right and wrong ways to present the information. If it's kept to what the reviewer perceives as being wrong, gives the reader a way to correct said error, and stops there, I don't see a problem. When it goes on, and becomes a diatribe against the manufacturer, even other manufacturers, I feel that it's time to draw the line, and the "reviewer" should seek pastures new. There's a fine line between information and personal opinion.

On the other side, of course, there's the other "waster," who comes onto a thread, saying "It's your model, so do it how you like." Having spent good money, I suspect that the owner is perfectly aware that the model belongs to him; if he's had the initiative to ask for help, the least we can do is to treat that request with some courtesy, and give a constructive answer.

Edgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

This info is spread, hypothetical encounter - modeler A (forum member) is in an LHS and sees modeler B (non forum member) looking at a 1/32 scale B-58 "Hustler" well one can dream :rolleyes: and says I don't like that kit and proceeds to regale him with all that's said to be wrong. If "B" just wants it fine, but if he is thinking that this is a waste of money, because of what "A" told him; does it help him or does it have a negative result. From this encounter two people lose automatically should he not make the purchase; the kit maker, and the shop owner, possibly "B" who has waited and dreamed of doing a "Hustler". Is the info beneficial by it being openly discussed?. Perhaps if the holders of this info made it available upon request all concerned would be better served.

[snip]

To develop the hypothetical encounter with a bit more detail... :)

Modeler B already knows Modeler A? Possible responses include:

* Sod off, I'm shopping

* This is so much cheaper than the one in your stash

* You don't model this scale anyway, what do you know about it?

* And which maladjusted teenage internet loon said there's not enough rivets here?

* But it's cheap and I want it.

* I've got it already. I'm just checking what my stash should be insured for. Want a hand taking your foot out of yer mouth?

* It's called Mr Surfacer, pal. Rivets: gone!

* Is that a 24th B-29 next to it? Pass me the box.

* Oh all right then, I won't buy this or anything else from this shop now or ever again, and Mean Jack the boss will go bust from all the 20p profits lost. And Tamiya will have to cancel their next factory. What a heel I am.

Modeler B doesn't know Modeler A? Possible responses include:

* Who are you?

* Who asked you, anyway?

* Go away, weirdo cyano drinker

* Thankyou, editor of magazine/owner of forum/one of 12 recognised stellar modellers in the world.

* Yes, that is my wallet. Put it back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been involved in situations where somebody who had expressed a desire for "model X" was talked out of it by an eager fan of accuracy. I've also seen some odd opinions about models presented as facts by people who've never actually seen the model.

Modellers are just weird sometimes. Thankfully, I'm completely normal.

Alvis 3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most consumers can read these online assessments of new kits and decide for themselves whether one or multiple inaccuracies will deter them from buying a kit. At the end of the day, the question we all face is how badly we want a representation of an F-111, P-51, etc. in our collection...and whether we're willing to wait for another next kit to be relieved.

More information is better than less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I gave a damn, I wouldn't build anything...

The last models I bought were:

- Revell 1/72 B-17G

- Revell 1/32 Hawk T.1A

- Revell 1/32 He111P (don't have it yet)

- Bronco 1/35 M1114 HA (don't have it yet)

Start bashing.

My 0.02€,

Ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm never worried about too much information,,,,,and if Modeler A hates a kit, and I still want it,,as Modeler B, I will still buy it

The two things I don't want someone to say when looking at my built model shelves are "why is that one a different gray, if they were in the same navy?",,,and, "if this is a Corsair, why does the nose look different than these other twelve?"

for someone building just one of each aircraft type, then moving on to something different, or to a completely different era and air force, exact rivet counting accuracy might just slow them down for no good reason, and since it's his collection, not mine, I'm perfectly okay with that

but, if you are building for another reason,,like I do,,,I only want my Corsair II's to differ in the areas they are supposed to differ, A versus E, for example,,,not Fujimi nose intake shape versus HobbyBoss intake shape

the HobbyBoss TA-7C kit that is often mentioned is the prime example,,,if I put that 2 seater on the shelf with all the A, B and E models,,,,it gives the impression that Vought changed the intake shape to convert to a 2 seater

so, I have my two HB's on hold, until I figure out a way to make them look like single seaters with two seats added, which is what they are supposed to look like, in order to "look like an A-7 to me"

my opinion shouldn't influence anyone else's enjoyment of the kits they build, and it would be unreasonable of me to expect it to

OOB, Uber rivet counted, whiff, Color policed,,,,,,,in the end,,,all built models trump all stashed models,,,,my own stash included

Rex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never worry about what others say about a kit. I make my own judgements, and if it looks good to me, then I'll build it. I take availability into account as well (as in, the HB TA-7 is the only TA-7 in 1/72 available if you don't want to mess with a conversion, so it's in my stash).

And I don't worry about having top-of-the-line new releases either. I'm having a grand time building my vintage 1958 Airfix A4D! Given what Mike Grant can do with those old Airfix kits, I've taken a new outlook on them...

:cheers:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As thegoodsgt says more information is better than less. You are always free to ignore anything you read on the internet (and in many cases that's quite a good idea too). The thing I can find annoying about some 'rivet counting' reviews is when they take on an imperative style: 'The inlet shape is wrong, it needs to be corrected.' 'The rivet line must be filled in.' The annoyance lasts for about 10 seconds before I mentally insert 'If you want a completely 100% accurate model' in front of those sentences. When it's the accuracy of the model that becomes the limiting factor, rather than my modelling skills I might start to worry about counting rivets, but if that's where other people get their enjoyment, well more power to them.

In the end the only people who are doing it wrong are the ones who aren't enjoying themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'd like to see a pic of that model, when you get it done

Mainly, just to see how one would look done in modern times

When I culled my shelves to make room for my "squadron project", I kept two of them for contrast

one, the Marines version, was done before I started using putty on seams, and is my example of yellowing with white or clearcoats back then,,,,the other is done as the XA4D, and although it was built using putty, it's my example of the old formula PolyS clear not adhering to paints

I honestly don't know which is an Airfix and which is the Starfix, though

I want to add one more someday,,,just to do in "modern" building techniques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id rather know all the issues with a kit and make a descision on the grounds of my own tastes. I taake shape issues on a case by case basis. Example: I would have no issue with a Hobby Boss A-7 or F-100 but I will NEVER touch an Academy F-14. Some mistakes fall under "close enough" and others are "not even close". Another example would be the Kinetic F-16, if I didn't already have a Tamiya kit I would cinsidder buying the Kinetic kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

What I find sad is that "rivet counter" has seemingly become a bit of a cuss word. I don't quite understand that. How does it take away one's joy that somebody else corrects flaws on a model? And where does it end? Why bother getting the correct shade of grey on a Corsair when the shape of the intake and canopy are visibly off? After all, you could paint it pink with green polka dots and everybody would still be able to identify it as a Corsair. What I'm trying to say is that different modeller's look for different levels of accuracy in their builds - and that's fine! Different strokes for different folks!

My problem with self professed "rivet counters" is the dubious quality of their statements. Even when a kit has been produced and out there often the points made by them are trivial or just plain wrong. Often they will use "gut feelings" backed up by superficial evidence (photos taken at bad angles with superimposed lines showing shape is my favorite techniques.) I find what passes for evidence from the self professed "experts" is shoddy. Then there are the limitations of the medium due to scaling effect and the like. Consequently people then go and make ridiculous claims about how the model is "no good" based on this perceived error.

One of the more refreshing things I've read on here was Tommy Thomason's mea culpa about accuracy. He is an individual who is a trained aeronautical engineer and does real primary source research in the form of going to archives. I suspect few on here actually put that level of effort into modeling. You can see by his comments, he's careful not to overreach and only makes comments based on high certainnty evidence. If he says something on here about accuracy, I'm inclined to believe it. Yet he's humble enough to admit he can be wrong and that no research is foolproof. I think many "rivet counters" should take a page his book and adopt his high standards of evidence before they go out and make some of the claims they make.

.

Yes, there may be people who will attack other modellers, talking them down, belittling them for building kit X when kit Y is clearly so much superior, but that has nothing to do with being a rivet counter and all to with being a right "short for Richard".

As for the usefulness tearing kits a new one even in the developmental stages, yes, that is useful. The earlier you can rectify a problem, the better, cheaper, easier.

I really doubt that any maker that releases test shots listen to peoples' opinions on an internet forum, particularly given what I stated above. Instead all the excessive nitpicking comments do is just kill sales, quite frequently on pretty shoddy research and contestable arguments. What's even worse is that they are test shots that often do not represent the production kit, or does not give a clear impression of what is being offered. Yet still people continually jump on them. I've been guilty of this once before but watching people do this over and over is just kind of ridiculous.

Edited by -Neu-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with self professed "rivet counters" is the dubious quality of their statements. Even when a kit has been produced and out there often the points made by them are trivial or just plain wrong. Often they will use "gut feelings" backed up by superficial evidence (photos taken at bad angles with superimposed lines showing shape is my favorite techniques.) I find what passes for evidence from the self professed "experts" is shoddy. Then there are the limitations of the medium due to scaling effect and the like. Consequently people then go and make ridiculous claims about how the model is "no good" based on this perceived error.

One of the more refreshing things I've read on here was Tommy Thomason's mea culpa about accuracy. He is an individual who is a trained aeronautical engineer and does real primary source research in the form of going to archives. I suspect few on here actually put that level of effort into modeling. You can see by his comments, he's careful not to overreach and only makes comments based on high certainnty evidence. If he says something on here about accuracy, I'm inclined to believe it. Yet he's humble enough to admit he can be wrong and that no research is foolproof. I think many "rivet counters" should take a page his book and adopt his high standards of evidence before they go out and make some of the claims they make.

I really doubt that any maker that releases test shots listen to peoples' opinions on an internet forum, particularly given what I stated above. Instead all the excessive nitpicking comments do is just kill sales, quite frequently on pretty shoddy research and contestable arguments. What's even worse is that they are test shots that often do not represent the production kit, or does not give a clear impression of what is being offered. Yet still people continually jump on them. I've been guilty of this once before but watching people do this over and over is just kind of ridiculous.

How many "nits" about kits have been wrong? I'm sure that there are some, no doubt, but I'd say on this board, as well as those on boards like HS, Z5, or LSP, there are far, far more comments that are accurate than not. For example, does anyone believe that the Trumpeter A-7 intake and canopy are NOT messed up? If so, please disprove it. Regarding the test shot issue, there for some companies what they put out as a test shot is 99.9% what you get in the kit. That's based on a historical track record with a company, and not an indication of "hating". Regarding the old chestnut of nitpicking killing sales, has anyone ever proven that's true? Companies still put kits with errors. In many cases, nitpicking neither makes companies improve themselves, nor people stop buying them. By far, what makes people buy a kit are factors like subject, price, scale, and, how a kit compares to any competition. Although many people are interested in what's right or wrong with a kit, I believe very few people are not buying a particular kit because so-and-so gave it a bad review. For example, if you want a 1/32 A-7, you're going to buy the Trumpeter kit, and you'll either build it OOTB because you don't care about the errors enough to worry about it, or you'll get the correction parts and try to fix it. I doubt many people who really want a 1/32 A-7 are going to pass and hold out for Tamiya doing one, because there is a 99.99% change that they never will. All writing about issue with kits does is give people information. People still decide whether to get the kit or not, and not pointing out "nits" doesn't make a kit as it comes in the box any more accurate. Once it hits the shelves, it is what it is, regardless of what people subsequently say about it.

Edited by Dave Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted - different strokes. However, I will have to seriously disagree about the relative 'badness' of the Trumpeter and HB A-7 family. It's not just a couple of millimeters here or there. The entire forward fuselage is squashed vertically into a comical caricature of the real airplane. Plenty of side by side pics published to show that.

But....

If you're of the 'it looks like an A-7 to me' persuasion, then more power to you. Build away and happiness and long life to you. My philosophy is that if I'm going to put the time and effort into a model like that, it better be pretty darn good to start with, otherwise I feel I'm wasting my very limited, very valuable time on it - not to mention all the extra $$ required for the fixes. But that's me.

:)

PS: "Fair & balanced review" - any review written by a human being cannot, by definition, be fair & balanced (just like a news story). Whomever writes it comes with baggage. Be it good or bad baggage, it influences his opinion and perception of the kit at hand. It's inevitable. Everyone has an opinion of some kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modellers are just weird sometimes. Thankfully, I'm completely normal.

Alvis 3.1

I rapidly came to that conclusion after scrolling through one of those "lets post a picture of ourselves" posts a few years ago.

Always a bad idea...

:cheers:

Darius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reviews are necessary in making decisions about kit purchases. We all want to see what it looks like when its completed so we can judge for ourselves if the "mistakes" are relevant to the outcome of the model. When I read lists of modifications of what a person chose to correct to depict that exact version of a plane, they are often things that most wouldn't even notice if they hadn't told you that they did them. For instance, all of the work that goes into rescribing a raised panel line kit, only another modeler that is familiar with that kit would know you did it. My friends look at it and it just looks like another model airplane to them, totally oblivious to the fact that I slaved away sanding and measuring and scribing the right details in all the right places. In the end it's just a plastic airplane. I build larger scales now just because they look so much more impressive to the average joe, and to me. So, yes we need reviews so we can avoid the junk or at least know what we're getting into when we decide to build something that needs correction sets or rescribing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the old chestnut of nitpicking killing sales, has anyone ever proven that's true?

I've seen it in action, but bear in mind, it may be somebody latching onto a reason to not buy a kit they really didn't want in the first place, and may have just been a case of bandwagon jumping. I've only seen it on a one-on-one basis, not as an industry-wide phenomenon.

Alvis 3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reviews are necessary in making decisions about kit purchases. We all want to see what it looks like when its completed so we can judge for ourselves if the "mistakes" are relevant to the outcome of the model. When I read lists of modifications of what a person chose to correct to depict that exact version of a plane, they are often things that most wouldn't even notice if they hadn't told you that they did them.

I think reviews are necessary for the reasons above, but one thing that really annoys me is kit reviews (both on the internet and in magazines) where the author/modeller modifys the kit in some way. The aim of a review is to review the kit as provided, not to add another free model to your collection. Re-scribing panel lines, using alternate decals, scratch building etc should all be out when reviewing a model. Sure, mention that the kit has raised panel lines, rubbish decals and (in your opinion) the canopy is misshapened, but don't correct them. Just build it OOB, note your observations and let the reader decide if he wants to buy it.

Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neu, I always thought there was a fairly large number of people going and digging out primary research from the archives and museums

True, I've never bumped into anyone I "know" from the various sites, but, we could have walked right past each other and not even known it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rex: I don't think so... I'm sure there are a few, but you can pretty quickly tell who are those people based on their posting.

How many "nits" about kits have been wrong? I'm sure that there are some, no doubt, but I'd say on this board, as well as those on boards like HS, Z5, or LSP, there are far, far more comments that are accurate than not.

Let me clarify; I don't mean most commenters. However there is a minority who seem to take pleasure in ripping kits for their supposed inaccuracies and do so on a regular basis. Absolutely I agree that kits inaccuracies should be identified where possible. However claiming a kit is "garbage" based on some debatable propositions, is what I don't appreciate at all. It happens fairly regularly on here.

Edited by -Neu-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...