Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Laurent said:

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 matters for the Modelist. The shapes shoud be ok, the model must depicts the features of the specific version of the subject, the amount of weathering should be realistic, etc. 

A non-F-14 example. Some photos of the AFV Club 1/48 U-2 have been posted. The Miniaturist will see a nicely detailed kit. The Modelist will see the base of the windscreen and wonder if it could be fixed without an aftermarket part.

 

 

 

While I agree with your description of the two categories, I think you got the titles wrong. I consider the two categories the "rivet counters" and the "good enoughs".

There are extremes on both sides. On the RC side you have "accu-nazis" and on the GE side you have the SUABs. Of these two sub-categories I find that the SUABs are more vocal and more likely to express their displeasure on forums where the ANs are more likely to whisper sweet-nothings to each other at model contests. I'd prefer that both kept it to a whisper...

 

I happen to be a hybrid RC/GE.

Most of my (previous) builds were OOB (GE) with an artistic emphasis on paint and weathering. Yes I did figures, dinosaurs, sci-fi, armor and aircraft. I even got a huge sailing ship half done. I have also done some detail builds.

When it comes to kit development I'm an RC (borderline AN). As a GE I'd prefer to build a nicely detailed, as accurate as possible OOB kit rather than having to fix an issue that bothers me or add a bunch of missing obvious details.

 

I think we all agree that we prefer more accurate kits. I think we all agree that obvious details shouldn't be omitted.

 

Having built models for 50 years I've watched the industry evolve and the quality of kits improve leaps and bounds.

Once you've built some of the higher quality kits it's hard to take a step back and build the lesser quality ones. So I have come to expect high quality with new releases, especially from top manufacturers and especially on iconic subjects.

Of course there is a place for simpler "weekend edition" type kits and lower quality short run kits, but even those are expected to be reasonably accurate in shape.

 

Having built models for 50 years I love where we have come and look forward to where we are going.

 

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, serendip said:

 

Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.

I was under the impression that apologies per definition should not be qualified or followed by a self justification.

Hmmm..??? I was under the impression that Mstor was just being polite, why should  he apologize anyway, for makeing SUABs feel totally butt hurt by his posts? They are just posts, why???

Edited by delide
Link to post
Share on other sites

All it took is ONE testshot photo and KAZAAM!!

 

With all the effort on this thread and other regarding AMK in last few years, we could,as per latest trends,crowdfunded our own kit before they release Tomcat :-)))

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After 118 pages, here we are again, it is accuracy vs inaccuracy, a kind of debate that goes on forever.

 

What it is really interesting is that, as soon as dubts were raised, we had no more pics of this scale model. Please note that the sprues are already available to more than one member of this forum, and just one pic would be enough to show that the kit if fine.

 

So, what takeaways?

- Accuracy wise at least the rear fuselage of this kit is flawed.

- No new pics will be posted because it would affect the market.

 

As a result, if shape accuracy is important for you, before buying this kit think twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zactoman said:

While I agree with your description of the two categories, I think you got the titles wrong. I consider the two categories the "rivet counters" and the "good enoughs".

...

As usual Chris, you have summarized things very nicely. Thank you.

I find myself also a hybrid RC/GE, especially as I get older. My skills have taken a big hit and I am struggling with my latest build. I will have to move more to the GE side of the spectrum. That makes accurate kits more important. When I work on a kit, I like to do lots of research, look at lots of photos, read about the aircraft. That tends to make errors or inaccuracies in the kit more apparent. In the past I would try to correct those errors. Now, its just too difficult. So, a kit that has the details and accuracy out of the box is going to get my money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, galfa said:

So, what takeaways?

- Accuracy wise at least the rear fuselage of this kit is flawed.

 

As a result, if shape accuracy is important for you, before buying this kit think twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and your matter of fact statement is the only thing that is flawed. Beside that, with knowledge of your ridiculous expectations of what makes a good kit, some of us can't take anything you say about accuracy seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, galfa said:

After 118 pages, here we are again, it is accuracy vs inaccuracy, a kind of debate that goes on forever.

 

What it is really interesting is that, as soon as dubts were raised, we had no more pics of this scale model. Please note that the sprues are already available to more than one member of this forum, and just one pic would be enough to show that the kit if fine.

 

So, what takeaways?

- Accuracy wise at least the rear fuselage of this kit is flawed.

- No new pics will be posted because it would affect the market.

 

As a result, if shape accuracy is important for you, before buying this kit think twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't forget the overly-raised slimelights on the forward fuselage. Granted, that particular flaw can be rectified fairly easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and your matter of fact statement is the only thing that is flawed. Beside that, with knowledge of your ridiculous expectations of what makes a good kit, some of us can't take anything you say about accuracy seriously.

 

Very, very interesting. Why you didn't quote me entirely ?

 

So, what takeaways?

- Accuracy wise at least the rear fuselage of this kit is flawed.

- No new pics will be posted because it would affect the market.

 

As a result, if shape accuracy is important for you, before buying this kit think twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, galfa said:

After 118 pages, here we are again, it is accuracy vs inaccuracy, a kind of debate that goes on forever.

 

What it is really interesting is that, as soon as dubts were raised, we had no more pics of this scale model. Please note that the sprues are already available to more than one member of this forum, and just one pic would be enough to show that the kit if fine.

 

So, what takeaways?

- Accuracy wise at least the rear fuselage of this kit is flawed.

- No new pics will be posted because it would affect the market.

 

As a result, if shape accuracy is important for you, before buying this kit think twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your post tells me all is good with the kit, as some of us read you like a book!

Glt

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and your matter of fact statement is the only thing that is flawed. Beside that, with knowledge of your ridiculous expectations of what makes a good kit, some of us can't take anything you say about accuracy seriously.

Plus eighty six on that statement!!!!!!!

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and your matter of fact statement is the only thing that is flawed. Beside that, with knowledge of your ridiculous expectations of what makes a good kit, some of us can't take anything you say about accuracy seriously.

 

Exactly. 👍👍

 

8 hours ago, galfa said:

 

Very, very interesting. Why you didn't quote me entirely ?

 

So, what takeaways?

- Accuracy wise at least the rear fuselage of this kit is flawed.

- No new pics will be posted because it would affect the market.

 

As a result, if shape accuracy is important for you, before buying this kit think twice.

 

No. You are basing it on one (1) picture taken in terrible light conditions and literally ignoring every other sprue shot or CAD's.

 

14500433_676630325835131_394264511267101

 

18209280_793667364131426_790520035829088

 

18209081_793667470798082_322225304270368

 

15110848_707029502795213_619388493591908

 

Unless you think that magically CAD changed for worse in that one area pretty much overnight right before tooling, the only logical answer would otherwise be bad lightning and you jumping the gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Berkut and Dave, just trying to clarify what I think Mstor is saying, is that the on the rear fuselage of the actual plane, above the rear portion of the stab, isn't as smooth of a curve as it would initially seem. It appears to have a sort of very subtle 'double bump' before terminating at the afterburner. After much looking at the pictures, it appears that he is right. Having said that, this shape is extremely, I mean extremely subtle. To the point where it is well within my threshold of things that do not bother me, and I am one of those f 14 nuts...nearly as bad as darren and Manuel lol! I guess also that the 'face' means more than the 'derriere' to most of us.....

Point being that on balance, I still feel that this kit is definitely the one for me. 

Edited by dryguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dryguy said:

Berkut and Dave, just trying to clarify what I think Mstor is saying, is that the on the rear fuselage of the actual plane, above the rear portion of the stab, isn't as smooth of a curve as it would initially seem. It appears to have a sort of very subtle 'double bump' before terminating at the afterburner. After much looking at the pictures, it appears that he is right. Having said that, this shape is extremely, I mean extremely subtle. To the point where it is well within my threshold of things that do not bother me, and I am one of those f 14 nuts...nearly as bad as darren and Manuel lol! I guess also that the 'face' means more than the 'derriere' to most of us.....

Point being that on balance, I still feel that this kit is definitely the one for me. 

 

I cant really comment on any other potential issues in that area as i am focusing on the original "issue" brought up by GunsightOne. Anything beyond that i dont know anything about and cant/dont comment on anyway.      

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've beaten this horse to a pulp. The ball is in AMK's court. Let's wait and see what they come up with as, without further photos or someone getting there hands on plastic, we are at an impasse.

Where is some input from AMK? Their last "official" post re: the F-14D was Sept 24 on the Facebook AMK fan club page and it was the pic of all the sprues laid out. They've been awfully silent of late. :dontknow:

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.

×
×
  • Create New...