Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Tapchan said:

 I wouldn't call it raping. From the very first views of test molds some people found the aft fuselage shape odd some way, colorful lines were used for those, who could not see it. Odd shape didn't changed since then, if you add it up to "most accurate tomcat on the market", long await time...

Actually people expected from AMK truly most accurate Tomcat based on their previous models. Nobody expects much from Italeri or KoPro, because they've never set themselves on even middle shelf, but AMK is a different story. This should explain all this "colorful line rape".


I don't disagree that models should get criticism.

I disagree with the the way it was done.

I am a modeller and would like to see some future releases from AMK (we would all I think)

But I think that placing a lot of devaluing information based only on pictures from the internet and without any of us having the real kit can be very damaging to a company and people who gave a lot of effort to release the kit. And I don't mean only on  discouraging them, but also it can lead to great financial impact. They made mistakes along that path, yes, but still no one can deny that a lot of effort is needed to bring out the kit.

Failure of this project might lead to complete stop of the company, which probably was in problems even before this kit. I can not support those who contribute to that by throwing assumptions based on barely usable pictures.

From that perspective I don't think it is fair to demolish the kit before it is even release cause, to be honest, all those lines and pictures are not the very best (read: awful) method to determine the facts, especially when you have pro and con pictures of the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should buy faulty model only because someone invested a lot of money and effort in it, and especially I don't mean that such model shouldn't be criticized.

Everyone will get the chance to decide weather to buy this kit or not. Soon some reviews based on the real kit will emerge and help us to decide.

I can understand those who like to check and discuss such issues and participate in discussion like normal people. I understand that to some comparing the kit to the real thing is almost a hobby for itself. Even I am sometimes like that, with some kits, and some issues. But I don't think that they are the problem. Problem are some members, here and especially on facebook, who in my opinion, do not have very honest intentions. Some of those are simply trolls, while other probably do that for a living. Because, when I see what kind of pictures are drawn and what kind of facts these pictures should prove, there is no doubt in my mind. And after they see that there is no more room for trolling over on point, they quickly find another point (hips, vents, spine, panels etc etc - is it really possible that everything on this kit is off...).

 

 

 

 

Edited by skuki
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me all the fanatics already bought the kit so now there are mostly those who are aware customers (so they want to know the kit before they buy it) and those who don't care about that. Everybody here can see the discussion over alleged (as they are not confirmed well enough for some) problems and by his own will and mind choose whether he see or not those problems.

And if the misshapes are not present on the kit then no damage for company occurs as all our theories will be busted.

Regarding Facebook... well, I don't post anything there anymore because imo the group is wrongly named - it's AMK FanATIC Club. I have been told there that AMK kit certainly has no shape issues, and even if I see any then maybe I am not the fan and should be removed. Being a fan for me is liking AMK for their design but this doesn't make me blind for possible faults. I really like the design and would like to build it (and probably will), but can stand there might be issues and I am even ready to discuss it.

 

For more clear reference (less awful photos): 

https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p226855169/h922ABF19#h790b423d

https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p226855169/h922ABF19#h730b20f5

https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p226855169/h922ABF19#h6d885083

I believe there are some more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tapchan said:

And if the misshapes are not present on the kit then no damage for company occurs as all our theories will be busted.

 

Well, that's not true as at least a few people posted how they were waiting for the AMK kit, but seeing that it has errors, they went on and bought a Tamiya kit.

 

Not saying the kit is correct or not, not defending AMK on how they handled the whole thing, but just saying it's quite possible to have an impact on kit's reputation before it's out. It's not like they will make tens of thousands of them (?).

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following things here on and off. After having been asked to consult on a future kit project by their US consultant, I understand now how they can make these serious errors.  Almost all of their shape problems are in compound curve areas of the airframe.  I declined because in a cursory,  5 minute review of the CAD drawings I found over 20 errors. These same error are exhibited in the line drawings of a popular publication, and in the conversation with the US consultant he explained to me their design process that relies exclusively on line drawings and photos.  Essentially,  their design process does not involve work with real airframes.  They rely entirely in Line Drawings and pictures, and do not measure or scan actual airframes.  This explains why they have difficulty with accurately shaping curved areas of kits.  Some of you may recall that they had compound curve shape problems with the F-15 Two seat kit, SU-35 and Mig -29 kit noses, and now they have issues here with the F-14.  The problem is two fold:  they do not work with actual Airframes using traditional measurement making techniques  or Lidar Scanning, and they use a US consultant that has no first hand experience with the Airframes.  Their Mig-31 turned out so well because it lacks these compound curve shapes and is primarily just straight lines.  

 

IN reality, GWH build their computer models from two dimensional drawings that may or may not be accurate and open source pictures.   I addition they have a consultant with no first hand experience with any of these airframes.  The same consultant has also worked with HK models, and we see the same sort of shape error in their kits...the B-17 forward fuselage being another example.  The F-15 kit was fixed due to the ARC thread.  The Tomcat is still open as I have not seen the plastic.  Their problem is not that they are dishonest in any way, they just have a flawed design process and use free consultants that are not experts with the subject.

 

The project I  was asked to help with,  upon preliminary review exhibited the same sort of shape issues in the compound curve areas as the above mentioned kits.  That  project is moving forward and I wish GWH the best, but until they start using real airframes and hiring real experts..... not the self proclaimed ones but actual been there, done that experts and do their homework, they are going to continue to have issues with new products.

Edited by ghatherly
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ghatherly said:

I have been following things here on and off. After having been asked to consult on a future kit project by their US consultant, I understand now how they can make these serious errors.  Almost all of their shape problems are in compound curve areas of the airframe.  I declined because in a cursory,  5 minute review of the CAD drawings I found over 20 errors. These same error are exhibited in the line drawings of a popular publication, and in the conversation with the US consultant he explained to me their design process that relies exclusively on line drawings and photos.  Essentially,  their design process does not involve work with real airframes.  They rely entirely in Line Drawings and pictures, and do not measure or scan actual airframes.  This explains why they have difficulty with accurately shaping curved areas of kits.  Some of you may recall that they had compound curve shape problems with the F-15 Two seat kit, SU-35 and Mig -29 kit noses, and now they have issues here with the F-14.  The problem is two fold:  they do not work with actual Airframes using traditional measurement making techniques  or Lidar Scanning, and they use a US consultant that has no first hand experience with the Airframes.  Their Mig-31 turned out so well because it lacks these compound curve shapes and is primarily just straight lines.  

 

IN reality, GWH build their computer models from two dimensional drawings that may or may not be accurate and open source pictures.   I addition they have a consultant with no first hand experience with any of these airframes.  The same consultant has also worked with HK models, and we see the same sort of shape error in their kits...the B-17 forward fuselage being another example.  The F-15 kit was fixed due to the ARC thread.  The Tomcat is still open as I have not seen the plastic.  Their problem is not that they are dishonest in any way, they just have a flawed design process and use free consultants that are not experts with the subject.

 

The project I  was asked to help with,  upon preliminary review exhibited the same sort of shape issues in the compound curve areas as the above mentioned kits.  That  project is moving forward and I wish GWH the best, but until they start using real airframes and hiring real experts..... not the self proclaimed ones but actual been there, done that experts and do their homework, they are going to continue to have issues with new products.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience working with Great Wall Hobby. However, this thread is about AvantGarde Model Kits aka AMK.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ghatherly said:

I have been following things here on and off. After having been asked to consult on a future kit project by their US consultant, I understand now how they can make these serious errors.  Almost all of their shape problems are in compound curve areas of the airframe.  I declined because in a cursory,  5 minute review of the CAD drawings I found over 20 errors. These same error are exhibited in the line drawings of a popular publication, and in the conversation with the US consultant he explained to me their design process that relies exclusively on line drawings and photos.  Essentially,  their design process does not involve work with real airframes.  They rely entirely in Line Drawings and pictures, and do not measure or scan actual airframes.  This explains why they have difficulty with accurately shaping curved areas of kits.  Some of you may recall that they had compound curve shape problems with the F-15 Two seat kit, SU-35 and Mig -29 kit noses, and now they have issues here with the F-14.  The problem is two fold:  they do not work with actual Airframes using traditional measurement making techniques  or Lidar Scanning, and they use a US consultant that has no first hand experience with the Airframes.  Their Mig-31 turned out so well because it lacks these compound curve shapes and is primarily just straight lines.  

 

IN reality, GWH build their computer models from two dimensional drawings that may or may not be accurate and open source pictures.   I addition they have a consultant with no first hand experience with any of these airframes.  The same consultant has also worked with HK models, and we see the same sort of shape error in their kits...the B-17 forward fuselage being another example.  The F-15 kit was fixed due to the ARC thread.  The Tomcat is still open as I have not seen the plastic.  Their problem is not that they are dishonest in any way, they just have a flawed design process and use free consultants that are not experts with the subject.

 

The project I  was asked to help with,  upon preliminary review exhibited the same sort of shape issues in the compound curve areas as the above mentioned kits.  That  project is moving forward and I wish GWH the best, but until they start using real airframes and hiring real experts..... not the self proclaimed ones but actual been there, done that experts and do their homework, they are going to continue to have issues with new products.

Different company Gary.  GWH is a different company 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gb_madcat_sl said:

 

Thanks for sharing your experience working with Great Wall Hobby. However, this thread is about AvantGarde Model Kits aka AMK.

 

Mark

 

Sure, G.W.H. must be very happy after this .

I don't think it's an error...it is too obvious. It's a direct attack on G.W.H.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't think that name dropping the other company that Gary was working with was in good taste, I also don't think that criticizing him for making ANY comparisons is fair as there's been too much of that already with the AMK versus Tamiya kits. And if that's what someone who is in an industry of actually making models parts or advising on a kit in pre-production I think it's beneficial for everyone to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I go away for a weekend and come back to a billion more pages added to the thread! Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole. 😊 But I'm amazed that we've gone on so many rabbit trails. There's bickering (more than usual) and changing the discussion to other manufacturers back to bickering. It's hard to wrap my head around it all! However, there are some good pictures that have been posted. Let's see if I can summarize the last couple pages of the thread.

 

The area in question is the rear fuselage outside of the tails containing the horizontal stabs. From measurements, it appears that area is no wider than the Tamiya kit. What does appear in error is the slope of that area, causing a "twist" in the wing bladder, which may be the reason everything looked off to some people. From people building it, the fit seems to be very good. I won't touch on the panel lines, because that is a personal preference and really can't be resolved. So, the bottom line seems to be:

 

If your focus is on ease of build and relative accuracy, this will be a great kit to buy. If your focus is on exact accuracy, you will probably want to pass on this kit. If your focus is on detail, it seems to be pretty good, so you might want to pick up the kit. If you just want another Tomcat to add to your collection that's from a different manufacturer, you'll want to pick up this kit. If you're just curious to see how it looks in real life after 226 pages of back and forth discussion with some bomb-throwing and personal attacks tossed in, you'll want to pick up the kit. Did I miss anything? Is it time to move on yet? Has it all been hashed out, or are there other areas that need discussion? For what it's worth, yes the rear area looks to be off, but I'll still be buying one. Of course, I've also bought the old Revell, Fujimi, and Italeri kits as well as building over 80 Monogram kits, so you might want to take my views with a grain of salt. 😂

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gb_madcat_sl said:

 

Thanks for sharing your experience working with Great Wall Hobby. However, this thread is about AvantGarde Model Kits aka AMK.

 

Mark

Hey Mark,

 

Yes, I know it is AMK, but the new 1/72 GWH F-14D that was just introduced has the same issue as this AMK thread has evolved.  You misunderstand my point in that all of these new model companies use the same process and they all operate basically the same way.   Since I am the writer is my fault for not being more clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madcop said:

 

Sure, G.W.H. must be very happy after this .

I don't think it's an error...it is too obvious. It's a direct attack on G.W.H.   

Why is what I shared be an attack on Great Wall.  I like their stuff a great deal and said nothin bad about them.   What I shared is a flawed production approach that many of the new companies use.  I am not going to make a list but I hardly think after 226 pages that his thread is a voice of support for AMK.   

 

For those of you who understand higher math, all CAD based software is mat driven.  Creating complex curves in a program is exponentially more difficult than straight lines.  Much of data that CAD programs show us in complex curved areas is guesswork on the part of the software.  When it is translated into the code for machining these curves are very difficult to translate and that is where these error occur.  This is where knowing your subject comes into play.  Think these companies that use unqualified consultants that with these companies for a kit or two are more to blame for the errors than the CAD crew.   He real key to getting accurate measurement is to use laser scanning, even then the data has to be processed and interpreted by humans.

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

And if the misshapes are not present on the kit then no damage for company occurs as all our theories will be busted.

The problem isn't the discussion of problems, perceived or not. The problem is that this "discussion" arose to such a heated fervor that even people who didn't participate in this "discussion" were/are aware of it and have commented as such on other web forums. Almost all the comments I saw were related to how screwed up the kit was/is and again VERY few NOW have even seen production plastic. Therefore I disagree with your supposition that there will be "no damage for company," for even if a small number of modelers made a decision to not purchase this model based on the negative hype (again based off of a few photos), then that could be enough for AMK to decide that the plastic model business just isn't worth pursuing. That would be a big negative in my opinion.

 

After all, look at early Tamiya kits, particularly their armor kits. I don't think anyone would argue they were accurate or easy to build. However, they have greatly improved and as many are quick to point out, they are the industry leader in many people's minds. Luckily, they began producing plastic models long before the hyper awareness of the internet crowd and in fact, long before quality, well-engineered models were even a pipe dream of modelers. So they were able to overcome their mistakes and foibles, to become a (if not THE) leader. Hopefully, AMK will be able to do the same, only time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that the slope is incorrect,  what do you guys ( Zactoman!) suggest as a fix? I have been quite happy with polyester body filler - in fact i was able to modify a kinetic mirage iiie into a Cheetah C with the stuff. My thinking is to build up the area in question, and perhaps build mutiply 'negative ' cross sections to check for symmetry between left and right. 

The difficulty will be restoring little things like lost vents etc.

I like the look of this kit and think i will be extremely happy with it. Yet i do think the rear shape is wrong, and will enjoy the challenge of fixing it. Heck, i even managed to correct the intakes of the hobbyboss kit (more or less). 

Edited by dryguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghatherly said:

Why is what I shared be an attack on Great Wall.  I like their stuff a great deal and said nothin bad about them.   What I shared is a flawed production approach that many of the new companies use.  I am not going to make a list but I hardly think after 226 pages that his thread is a voice of support for AMK.   

 

For those of you who understand higher math, all CAD based software is mat driven.  Creating complex curves in a program is exponentially more difficult than straight lines.  Much of data that CAD programs show us in complex curved areas is guesswork on the part of the software.  When it is translated into the code for machining these curves are very difficult to translate and that is where these error occur.  This is where knowing your subject comes into play.  Think these companies that use unqualified consultants that with these companies for a kit or two are more to blame for the errors than the CAD crew.   He real key to getting accurate measurement is to use laser scanning, even then the data has to be processed and interpreted by humans.

 

 

It seems an attack for me too. Why? Because of the kits GWH delivers. Their F-15, Mig-29 and Su-35s are among the best kits out there. I even dare to say Su-35 is THE best model out the for 1/48 jets. So I prefer to focus on the product. Approach can be analyzed when product has problems. Same is true for AMK Mig-31 and by the way it has curves too. Upper intake of Mig-31 is rather complex and AMK is perfect with this area.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tapchan said:

 

F-14D-without-Canopy-1.jpg

Source

 

Nowhere near that twist anyway. The strangest thing I have noticed is that only AMK Tomcat suffer for optical illusions and distortions on photographs.

 

 

"Twisty".. no??

2.jpg

 

 

Bladder rubber height to edge ratio should be around 1/3 when the rubber is extended to "full". 

 

1.jpg

 

 

Also, please look at this picture where rubber is pressed with the wing on AMK kit: looks pretty spot on to me:

 

2v2EdJ94ox9trR.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody decides not to wait with the decision of giving up on AMK's Tomcat at least until the model comes to the vendors then well... he was not really into it anyway.

But honestly, please tell me, what else will release change? For me for example? I will just see another photos, which may be distorted or contain optical illusion. Or maybe then I should buy one kit just for sake of checking if it's okay to be able to discuss it's flaws (if present)? And then again if AMK sent pre-production kits with flaws (that were fixed for production kit) to test builders to endorse the kit then I can only say they did it to themselves.

From the customer position I have no interest in AMK's fail, more variety on the market is always appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, foxmulder_ms said:

 

 

"Twisty".. no??

2.jpg

 

 

Bladder rubber height to edge ratio should be around 1/3 when the rubber is extended to "full". 

 

1.jpg

 

 

Also, please look at this picture where rubber is pressed with the wing on AMK kit: looks pretty spot on to me:

 

2v2EdJ94ox9trR.jpg

 

 

 

 Isn't it the bladder for swept wing position?

Edited by Tapchan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tapchan said:

From the customer position I have no interest in AMK's fail, more variety on the market is always appreciated.

I am not saying you have a sharpened axe out for AMK. I am only saying that your supposition that the "discussion" about the flaws will absolutely have an affect on AMK, if it causes modelers to not buy this kit. And yes, there are modelers that have made up their minds based on a few photos, both pro and con. One can only hope that, in the end this will be a tempest in a teapot and it won't have an effect on AMK as a viable company. Of course, if it does, that will be on AMK, for only they had responsibility for producing the kit. Also, while AMK (in)famously shot themselves in the foot by stating that this will be the most accurate Tomcat ever produced, to be fair to them this was said looong before Tamiya expressed even interest in producing the type. It will also probably NOT end up as the least accurate Tomcat ever made either, it's faults notwithstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but you give a photo of unswept wing as reference (similar angle) to swept AMK bladder. And the angle of the curve is still too big for my eyes :) And then that line behind bladder bowing down... accumulated this is probably what makes the whole odd hip problem.

Edited by Tapchan
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, madmanrick said:

I am not saying you have a sharpened axe out for AMK. I am only saying that your supposition that the "discussion" about the flaws will absolutely have an affect on AMK, if it causes modelers to not buy this kit. And yes, there are modelers that have made up their minds based on a few photos, both pro and con. One can only hope that, in the end this will be a tempest in a teapot and it won't have an effect on AMK as a viable company. Of course, if it does, that will be on AMK, for only they had responsibility for producing the kit. Also, while AMK (in)famously shot themselves in the foot by stating that this will be the most accurate Tomcat ever produced, to be fair to them this was said looong before Tamiya expressed even interest in producing the type. It will also probably NOT end up as the least accurate Tomcat ever made either, it's faults notwithstanding.

 

 

Really?

 

https://www.facebook.com/avantgardemodelkits/posts/1121789291319230?comment_id=1122637474567745&comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"R"}

Quote
Avantgarde Model Kits

 

Alclad II guys hosted our plastic parts for the most accurate F-14D Tomcat ever produced.
Including some features that even the US Navy Jocks didn't know existed. Thanks 'Torso' and Jim R.

 

In November 2018, Tamiya'd already released F-14A (Nov 2016) and F-14D (Aug 2018) kits. 

Edited by shion
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DIO said:

 

I am just a Registered Nurse and I am working at sales, selling systems worth 1.5m+ that are ment to keep patients in the ICU alive. But you are right. Never taught the art of precision measurement (in anything that is not a pathology test or an observation item).

 

I love super detailing and I only have time to build 1 model per year. Yet, I am interested to know more and if I do not understand, I usually ask questions.

 

So, can you explain now what you try to show in your pictures?

I was trained to work within one tenth of an arc second. The digital calipers were being used incorrectly in the photos. Close but no cigar

Glt

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...