foxmulder_ms Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, madcop said: Don't let be fooled again..., these guys are not there to review the kit, they are there to make money ... They buy the kits with their own money ? ... if that was really the case, they would be much more honest! Unfortunately, this has become the norm, even at the level of the "specialized" press. It’s masked advertising and nothing else Not everyone sells themselves for a $50 worth of plastic. Edit: Also, "Kit purchased by reviewer." Edited January 24, 2020 by foxmulder_ms Quote Link to post Share on other sites
weirich1 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) No model kit is 100% folks! Edited January 24, 2020 by weirich1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madcop Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 43 minutes ago, foxmulder_ms said: Not everyone sells themselves for a $50 worth of plastic. Edit: Also, "Kit purchased by reviewer." I know some who sell themselves for less. And, by the way, why wouldn't you ask the author for the bill ...but if you believe always what 's on the sticker .... Some reviewers look like being very healthy these last times....😜 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 11:52 AM, Whiskey said: Well what can I say other than you have absolutely zero to contribute to the discussion of the subject at hand, which is the kit itself, and are nothing but a nasty little troll that continues to provoke other members here into a unhealthy squabble over meaningless things. In the last 30 days I would venture that more than half of the pages that have been added to this thread are a direct result of your incessant jabs at views, opinions, experience, knowledge base, and skills of those who are trying to have a positive and civil talk regarding this controversial model. By your own words and ability to turn a valid question or statement into a sideshow, brushing it aside as nothing but a literary challenge, you have met the definition of an internet troll. Normally I am the type of person that would give two shits about something like this and yourself, but the depth of your dung has me defending not just this post but this website in it's entirety. If you don't have anything to contribute, then either keep words to yourself or don't come around at all. It's a sham really, as I see you have been a member here since 2005. It's also surprising as well because this topic is probably the most that I have ever heard from you anywhere on the forum. To all of my other fellow modelers I would just like to say that in order to maintain decorum and civility within this thread and the forum as a whole, ignore this person. There is no need to waste anymore energy and time counter-arguing the ravings of a troll, and quite frankly I, myself, have already lost 15 minutes of my valuable time doing just that. Good day to you all Unless youre an owner there is very little any of us can meaningfully contribute. There are many things I could say about each and every point you raised but Im not going to because it just makes the site look bad. Something you say you care about but then the actions dont match the words. On 1/23/2020 at 12:42 PM, niart17 said: ahhh, see that's the root of all of this insulting and bickering back and forth. You don't see shape issues as an issue and others do. That's fine, you don't care about subtle shapes then enjoy. But to constantly criticize those that do and to insinuate they have ulterior motives is pretty petty if you ask me. Honestly, I don't think you really did notice the difference between the two views Zacto posted and I'm not totally convinced you can see them now. And that's ok, not everyone can see shapes as well as others. But to keep insulting those that do frankly is kind of childish. I kinda do see them niart17 and as you say they dont really bother me as much as some other people, which is fair enough, I can understand that even if I dont agree with it. What I dont really like about it is the constant jibes towards AMK and the guy from AMK who posts here... If I was a manufacturer of a kit I would think twice before contributing to this site now after this thread. Which is a bad thing. As to the differences. Well theyre pretty obvious aren't they? On 1/23/2020 at 1:25 PM, Hubbie Marsten said: I don't know where he got this crazy idea about me having ever contributed with AMK, or having even offered to help them. Then he goes on about stating that I offered my expertise on the development of a C-17 kit, an aircraft I hardly ever cared about in my life ever since that subject existed. It's like the idiot's convention... I know you didnt contribute to it, I neither expressed nor implied that you did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tapchan Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 8 hours ago, Solo said: Real hit from HyperSpace review: Disadvantages: none noted. NONE. Just perfect kit. What's wrong with you dude. He just did not noted them down. Or dog ate the notebook. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Hyperscale credibility is heavily compromised by this review. Too bad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PouK9 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 There must be a special note for ARC members. Disadvantages: Absolutely unbuildable 🙂 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tapchan Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, PouK9 said: There must be a special note for ARC members. Disadvantages: Absolutely unbuildable 🙂 Nobody expect it to state "unbuildable" but omitting all the flaws not naming even one of them... says enough about the quality of review. I don't understand why all the defenders blindly follow the 0-1 scheme - either it can be unbuildable or perfect. From one extreme to another. If somebody says it's not perfect then they say "of course, unbuildable". Edited January 24, 2020 by Tapchan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PouK9 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 minute ago, Tapchan said: Nobody expect it to state "unbuildable" but omitting all the flaws not naming even one of them... says enough about the quality of review. Indeed, sir. Just tried to put a joke here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 35 minutes ago, PouK9 said: Indeed, sir. Just tried to put a joke here. You should have used an animated gif...it usually works like a charm... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 5 hours ago, Don said: You should have used an animated gif...it usually works like a charm... You should have used an animated gif with redlines... it always works like a charm... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hubbie Marsten Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 13 hours ago, Don said: You should have used an animated gif...it usually works like a charm... Don, I still remember me laughing like a madman when you posted that gif of a moving vehicle on a road with the line "They keep going on and on", or something like that... That one and Skull Leader's: "You would object to the cure of cancer" really cracked me up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flybywire Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 3:54 PM, Tapchan said: Nobody expect it to state "unbuildable" but omitting all the flaws not naming even one of them... says enough about the quality of review. I agree with you on that point 101%. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 It does seem strange that they wouldnt mention any of the faults with the kit. I can understand not mentioning the alleged shape problems, but the other problems that would come out of a box review, such as the mould line on the canopy makes it look like they didnt review the kit at all. But its a very common problem with online reviews in general these days. You can see it on youtube all the time. There are very few reviews a would trust and even then I only really trust them to show the instructions if its a box review, build reviews are all but pointless as modelling skills vary so much and they alone impact on the review. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hubbie Marsten Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Have Matt McDougall or Phil Flory made an online review of the AMK Tomcat kit yet? I trust everything those modellers say with regard to a kit in their reviews. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Matt is is a bit samey, Phil just does box reviews. Unless its a build you know nothing about the fit of the parts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grand Toad Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 When I look at reviews of anything (model kits, toaster ovens, anything), I check as many as I can. Then I choose the best option for what I want. When I choose a kit, there will be things that don’t bother me. For example, decals. I almost always get aftermarket decals - if available, of course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, ElectroSoldier said: It does seem strange that they wouldnt mention any of the faults with the kit. I can understand not mentioning the alleged shape problems, but the other problems that would come out of a box review, such as the mould line on the canopy makes it look like they didnt review the kit at all. But its a very common problem with online reviews in general these days. You can see it on youtube all the time. There are very few reviews a would trust and even then I only really trust them to show the instructions if its a box review, build reviews are all but pointless as modelling skills vary so much and they alone impact on the review. errrrrr. lol. It is because as a model it is almost perfect. The mold line etc is absolutely a tiny thing if you can even notice it. All I can say from your comment is that you did not see the model in your hands. I dont have the tamiya f-14 but I have tamiya F-16 and AMK F-14 has nothing short compared to f-16 and details and single piece missiles actually makes it much better. From what I've seen I think tamiya f-16 and f-14 look comparable. If you can take time off from the crazy toxic environment of this topic and actually look at the model in your hands, it is pretty awesome model. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, foxmulder_ms said: errrrrr. lol. It is because as a model it is almost perfect. The mold line etc is absolutely a tiny thing if you can even notice it. All I can say from your comment is that you did not see the model in your hands. I dont have the tamiya f-14 but I have tamiya F-16 and AMK F-14 has nothing short compared to f-16 and details and single piece missiles actually makes it much better. From what I've seen I think tamiya f-16 and f-14 look comparable. If you can take time off from the crazy toxic environment of this topic and actually look at the model in your hands, it is pretty awesome model. You dont have to convince me about it. I had the choice of the Tamiya F-14D in a local shop, I went with the AMK kit off the internet last Thursday inspite of me prefering to buy local. I went with it because In not a fanboy of the F-14, to me its just an average jet and it seems the nicest looking model of those on the market right now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 24 minutes ago, foxmulder_ms said: errrrrr. lol. It is because as a model it is almost perfect. The mold line etc is absolutely a tiny thing if you can even notice it. All I can say from your comment is that you did not see the model in your hands. I dont have the tamiya f-14 but I have tamiya F-16 and AMK F-14 has nothing short compared to f-16 and details and single piece missiles actually makes it much better. From what I've seen I think tamiya f-16 and f-14 look comparable. If you can take time off from the crazy toxic environment of this topic and actually look at the model in your hands, it is pretty awesome model. The AMK kit is a good model, but I wouldn't put it in the "awesome" category. It seems you care about details. In that regard, the AMK is great. But when you add the other issues in (and yes, there are issues), it doesn't surpass the Tamiya kit. The only areas that the AMK kit surpasses the Tamiya kit is in detail and price. Tamiya exceeds the AMK kit in accuracy and ease of build. Does that make the AMK kit bad? Heavens no! But it does make the Tamiya kit overall better than the AMK kit. I posted on Hyperscale that some think it's an "either/or" situation. It's really a "both" situation. Both have their merits and their issues. Pick the one that floats your boat, or build both of them simply for the experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, Darren Roberts said: The AMK kit is a good model, but I wouldn't put it in the "awesome" category. It seems you care about details. In that regard, the AMK is great. But when you add the other issues in (and yes, there are issues), it doesn't surpass the Tamiya kit. The only areas that the AMK kit surpasses the Tamiya kit is in detail and price. Tamiya exceeds the AMK kit in accuracy and ease of build. Does that make the AMK kit bad? Heavens no! But it does make the Tamiya kit overall better than the AMK kit. I posted on Hyperscale that some think it's an "either/or" situation. It's really a "both" situation. Both have their merits and their issues. Pick the one that floats your boat, or build both of them simply for the experience. I think thats pretty much exactly how I see it too. For me the thing that tipped the scales towards the AMK kit was the details like the control surfaces. That the shape isnt 100% isnt really much of an issue as it looks like an F-14 regardless. It depends on what you want. The Tamiya kit wasnt really an option because Tamiya missed a trick when they didnt detail it up like AMK did on theirs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 I've found something on the AMK kit that I don't think has been mentioned. I'm about to put on the spine antennas. They call out the same part (O 10) for both the front and rear placement. That's incorrect. The tall TACAN antenna is just behind the canopy and the original, smaller one is behind the GPS dome. They only give you the tall TACAN. Then, when I found the parts on the sprue, they were bullet shaped. I don't know if they were short shots or not. Can anyone with the kit check their's and see what those parts look like. And no, this still doesn't change my mind to being that the AMK kit is horrible! 😂 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Darren Roberts said: I've found something on the AMK kit that I don't think has been mentioned. I'm about to put on the spine antennas. They call out the same part (O 10) for both the front and rear placement. That's incorrect. The tall TACAN antenna is just behind the canopy and the original, smaller one is behind the GPS dome. They only give you the tall TACAN. Then, when I found the parts on the sprue, they were bullet shaped. I don't know if they were short shots or not. Can anyone with the kit check their's and see what those parts look like. And no, this still doesn't change my mind to being that the AMK kit is horrible! 😂 It seems they screwed up the instruction sheet. Forward antenna should be part U 34. Both copies of my part O 10 are molded properly (with a bit of flash and slight texture on one side) which is surprising considering how many other mold problems my copy has. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Zactoman said: It seems they screwed up the instruction sheet. Forward antenna should be part U 34. Both copies of my part O 10 are molded properly (with a bit of flash and slight texture on one side) which is surprising considering how many other mold problems my copy has. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KenM Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 Cue Buffalo Springfield............. For What It's Worth .............There's something happening here but what it is ain't exactly clear........ Cheers Ken 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.