tosouthern66 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Do we have a kit review folder here at ARC? I have been looking and have not found one if there is one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thegoodsgt Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Nope. A better resource for reviews is Britmodeller, which has an excellent Reviews section. Steven Brown Scale Model Soup Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Modeling Madness has a lot of reviews, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zeus60 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Modeling Madness is also my go-to place for review. It has hundreds, well organized. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ace Combat Zero Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Hyper scale Cybermodeler Arc/ aircraft resource center Modelling news Zone Five Helmo Flory models Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Google is your friend Quote Link to post Share on other sites
White Wolf Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Do we have a kit review folder here at ARC? I have been looking and have not found one if there is one. Actually, why doesn't ARC have a review section like other forums? I think it would be a great idea to have a subforum like that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy Snap Captain Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Actually, why doesn't ARC have a review section like other forums? I think it would be a great idea to have a subforum like that. I totally agree. Would really make ARC Forums a one stop shop for me. Unlike Britmodeller's though I would like to see it arranged in some sort of order like by manufacturer, by scale, by kit name. One to work on for the future admins, mayhaps? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-17 guy Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Google is your friend :google:/> Seriously, just google whatever kit your looking at and review will come up in the links. It's easy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) Hyper scale Cybermodeler Arc/ aircraft resource center Modelling news Zone Five Helmo Flory models Cybermodeler is a joke. Pretty much every review is just fluff. No useful details and it seems like the guy(s) goes out of his way to avoid any negative comments. ARC doesn't have a formal review section but rest assured that pretty much every new release will be picked to death on the appropriate forum long before it hits the shelf. Lots of outstanding information (pull up the thread on the KH MiG-25 or the new GW F-15B if you want an example), often illustrated with pictures of the real thing. Only issue is that you have to wade through some typical pissing contests to get to the useful info. It is well worth it, IMO. If ARC was my website, I would create a sub-folder in each forum for the threads that dissect each kit, making sure they were pinned so they don't disappear over time. Edited January 18, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leo Etgen Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Hi guys The web site that I have seen that has the best kit reviews in my opinion is http://scaleplasticandrail.com. Very extensive and well researched reviews of both kits and accessories can be found there. Horrido! Leo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) Yes, Leo? I've been trying to find stuff on the accuracy of various kits, most recently Hasegawa's Morane Saolnier M.S. 406 and Dewoitine D. 520. The Definitive 1/72 Scale Model Census is excellent on many subjects, but desperately needs to be updated. Edited January 17, 2014 by Horrido Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nerdling Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Cybermodeler is a joke. Pretty much every review is just fluff. No useful details and it seems like the guy(s) go out of their way to avoid any negative comments. ARC doesn't have a formal review section but rest assured that pretty much every new release will be picked to death on the appropriate forum long before it hits the shelf. Lots of outstanding information (pull up the thread on the KH MiG-25 or the new GW F-15B if you want an example), often illustrated with pictures of the real thing. Only issues is that you have to wade through some typically pissing contests to get to the useful info. If ARC was my website, I would create a sub-folder in each forum for the threads that dissect each kit, making sure they were pinned so they don't disappear over time. I will agree with you on Cybermodeler. I don't think I have seen a review on there say anything bad about any kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spectre711 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Do we have a kit review folder here at ARC? I have been looking and have not found one if there is one. not as complete or up to date but there is one. http://www.arcair.co...chive-main.shtm Ju-88 Review If more people submitted reviews on the kits they by or are building this place would have a ton. Edited January 18, 2014 by Spectre711 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Julien (UK) Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Have you tried Scalemates? They have a pretty good search engine which pulls together kit release timelines with new boxings, re-issues etc, linking kit reiviews, walkarounds, the whole works. http://www.scalemates.com/ Julien Quote Link to post Share on other sites
breadneck Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Have you tried Scalemates? They have a pretty good search engine which pulls together kit release timelines with new boxings, re-issues etc, linking kit reiviews, walkarounds, the whole works. http://www.scalemates.com/ Julien I agree. Scalemates is a great modelling oracle where many a modelling portals meet :) I use them all the time! Edited January 18, 2014 by breadneck Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ace Combat Zero Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) You guys don't count the gallery articles at ARC as reviews? Edited January 18, 2014 by Ace Combat Zero Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) You guys don't count the gallery articles at ARC as reviews? Not sure if you were being serious or not. Personally, my definition of a good review is a comprehensive article that goes into all details of the kit and compares it to the real thing. Ideally illustrated with pictures of the kit components and detail shots of the real aircraft. The review will include negative conclusions about the kit if they are valid. I think some of the websites out there (some on other forums also point this finger at ARC) are afraid to post anything critical in fear of upsetting their "sponsors". It should also feature the kit being built up, step-by-step, instead of just some pictures of the box art and sprues that some "reviews" have. I know it's an armor subject, but here is how a real review should be done (IMO): http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/xact/xs35001.html I've yet to see any better reviews of plastic models than what the guy that runs Perth puts out. To bad he doesn't build aircraft :)/> Edited January 18, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy Snap Captain Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) You guys don't count the gallery articles at ARC as reviews? Not really. Someone may take a dog of a kit and turn it into a work of art with lots of work, heaps of AM, and tonnes of skill. Something that not all of us have. As an average modeller, I look for kits that fit well and look accurate. I don't have time (or the skill to be honest) to re-scribe a kit if panels are wrong and I don't have the time or patience for masses of filling and sanding. As11bee mentioned, a good review should include an in-box review and build up review. Edited January 18, 2014 by Crazy Snap Captain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ace Combat Zero Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Not sure if you were being serious or not. Personally, my definition of a good review is a comprehensive article that goes into all details of the kit and compares it to the real thing. Ideally illustrated with pictures of the kit components and detail shots of the real aircraft. The review will include negative conclusions about the kit if they are valid. I think some of the websites out there (some on other forums also point this finger at ARC) are afraid to post anything critical in fear of upsetting their "sponsors". It should also feature the kit being built up, step-by-step, instead of just some pictures of the box art and sprues that some "reviews" have. I know it's an armor subject, but here is how a real review should be done (IMO): http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/xact/xs35001.html I've yet to see any better reviews of plastic models than what the guy that runs Perth puts out. To bad he doesn't build aircraft :)/>/> Not really. Someone may take a dog of a kit and turn it into a work of art with lots of work, heaps of AM, and tonnes of skill. Something that not all of us have. As an average modeller, I look for kits that fit well and look accurate. I don't have time (or the skill to be honest) to re-scribe a kit if panels are wrong and I don't have the time or patience for masses of filling and sanding. As11bee mentioned, a good review should include an in-box review and build up review. Yeah, I agree too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ace Combat Zero Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Not sure if you were being serious or not. Personally, my definition of a good review is a comprehensive article that goes into all details of the kit and compares it to the real thing. Ideally illustrated with pictures of the kit components and detail shots of the real aircraft. The review will include negative conclusions about the kit if they are valid. I think some of the websites out there (some on other forums also point this finger at ARC) are afraid to post anything critical in fear of upsetting their "sponsors". It should also feature the kit being built up, step-by-step, instead of just some pictures of the box art and sprues that some "reviews" have. I know it's an armor subject, but here is how a real review should be done (IMO): http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/xact/xs35001.html I've yet to see any better reviews of plastic models than what the guy that runs Perth puts out. To bad he doesn't build aircraft :)/>/> Not really. Someone may take a dog of a kit and turn it into a work of art with lots of work, heaps of AM, and tonnes of skill. Something that not all of us have. As an average modeller, I look for kits that fit well and look accurate. I don't have time (or the skill to be honest) to re-scribe a kit if panels are wrong and I don't have the time or patience for masses of filling and sanding. As11bee mentioned, a good review should include an in-box review and build up review. Yeah, I agree too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I've yet to see any better reviews of plastic models than what the guy that runs Perth puts out. To bad he doesn't build aircraft Terry Ashley is the guy running PMMS (Perth Military Modelling Site). I've known him for more than a decade as we linked to each others reviews on many occasions. Like me, he does build aircraft but he (like me again) stopped writing aircraft reviews to concentrate on armor. His reviews do include photographs of the kits he builds using cellulose (white) glue. After losing too many pieces, I stopped doing that since my kits were paid for by me. I never build OOB so showing my kit to readers with all the AM goodies did not seem fair either. Terry doesn't build all his models, here is an example from 2005 where he didn't and he linked to my review as well: http://perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/tristar/tri35015.htm I agree that Terry's current reviews are the benchmark that others should strive for... :thumbsup:/> Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenlilly106 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) One thing that I think set's Terry's reviews apart from most is that he buys the kits out of his pocket so he's not indebted to a manufacturer to give a good review to keep the free kits coming. IIRC Terry got into quite a fight with Dragon over some details on a kit, a fight that Dragon tried to win by creating false "reviews" to counter Terry, in the end Terry was right. Cybermodeler has a policy that they will not publish a negative review of a kit but instead will discuss the results with the manufacturer. I sent a note to them one time about a review of some aftermarket metal landing gear that incorrectly noted that they could be used to replace the kit parts without noting the kit in question already came with metal landing gear. I figured it was a typo since he reuses the review texts, I got a longwinded response about the kit parts and the modeler and whatnot that really didn't make a lot of sense but I noticed later that the review was changed to reflect the info I sent them. Ken Edited January 19, 2014 by kenlilly106 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) One thing that I think set's Terry's reviews apart from most is that he buys the kits out of his pocket so he's not indebted to a manufacturer to give a good review to keep the free kits coming. IIRC Terry got into quite a fight with Dragon over some details on a kit, a fight that Dragon tried to win by creating false "reviews" to counter Terry, in the end Terry was right. Cybermodeler has a policy that they will not publish a negative review of a kit but instead will discuss the results with the manufacturer. I sent a note to them one time about a review of some aftermarket metal landing gear that incorrectly noted that they could be used to replace the kit parts without noting the kit in question already came with metal landing gear. I figured it was a typo since he reuses the review texts, I got a longwinded response about the kit parts and the modeler and whatnot that really didn't make a lot of sense but I noticed later that the review was changed to reflect the info I sent them. Ken Correct on his battle w/ Dragon. They got quite heated when he (correctly) identified ID'd fault with one of their kits. Terry was 100% correct but Dragon went far out of their way to slag the guy on their own blog. Pretty pathetic. Cybermodeler is just as bad. Anyone who finds issues with a kit but refuses to share them with their readers is nothing but a pawn of the kit manufactures and is putting add revenue over credibility. Edited January 19, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.