mingwin Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 honestly, like previously stated, it would take better CAD drawings, to give anymore inputs than already done here yet... we'd like to see more/better/CAD... but in the KH case, i'd like to see less incomplete CAD ...and more tooling/kitting done... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 (edited) For me a sales success is when break even threshold is exceeded rapidly. Is it the case with the Su-33 ? It's irrelevant in terms of a discussion on first release sales isn't it? It wasn't released under the Aviation Art label, so never had to fight for market recognition. It was released by an already established company with its own distribution channels, so any use of that tool as an indicator of first release sales is instantly redundant. It wasn't Kinetic's first release. I wonder how many purchasers are even aware of its lineage? Not many I'd wager! Edited April 23, 2016 by Dmanton300 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nonrivetcounter Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 What was the original title of the topic??? Anyone with constructive suggestions??? Best regards Gabor ??Where is the SU-34? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted April 23, 2016 Author Share Posted April 23, 2016 ??Where is the SU-34? Are you thinking about Hobby Boss' announcement? I ask since this post is about Kitty Hawk. Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Are you thinking about Hobby Boss' announcement? I ask since this post is about Kitty Hawk. Regards, wasn't some Su-34 CAD shown recently allegedly by/for KH? that must be what he was referring to...link Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dryguy Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) Well, I must firstly admit that I am not an expert with regards to this expert, neither am I a CAD expert, but I think the CAD images look nice-especially if they are able to include this level of detail in the cockpit. Now onto some errors as far as I can see them, there should be two air scoops on the spine, (I think thats what they are?) on the starboard side (not sure about port?) as opposed to one, photos show one behind the other. Havent spotted anything else so far. I think the overall shape and proportions look good. Hope that is constructive :)/>/> Edited April 24, 2016 by dryguy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Well, I must firstly admit that I am not an expert with regards to this expert, neither am I a CAD expert, but I think the CAD images look nice-especially if they are able to include this level of detail in the cockpit. The CAD model cockpit is crammed with undercuts (cables, pipes). It's far from being finished but... I think the overall shape and proportions look good. ... yes globally I think it looks better than the old KP when it comes to shapes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 The CAD model cockpit is crammed with undercuts (cables, pipes). It's far from being finished but... Which makes me wonder... where did the CAD come from? I've got a strong suspicion that it wasn't done by Kittyhawk. If you are designing a model kit, then it doesn't make any sense to add a bunch of extra features that can not be made. It's just a waste of time and effort, since you'll have to re-design everything for production. All that cockpit wiring? The engine plumbing? Pretty much the entire rear cockpit bulkhead? Can't be molded, and has to be re-designed. Digital modelling is becoming a hobby in it's own right. There are a bunch of different forums for digital modellers to show off their work. I wonder if that is where this originally came from. If someone, somewhere, originally made a digital Fitter, and KittyHawk are basing their kit on that. Not that it really matters much. Just kind of interesting to figure out how the sausage gets made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Conspiracy theory?????? Gábor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Which makes me wonder... where did the CAD come from? I've got a strong suspicion that it wasn't done by Kittyhawk. If you are designing a model kit, then it doesn't make any sense to add a bunch of extra features that can not be made. It's just a waste of time and effort, since you'll have to re-design everything for production. All that cockpit wiring? The engine plumbing? Pretty much the entire rear cockpit bulkhead? Can't be molded, and has to be re-designed. Digital modelling is becoming a hobby in it's own right. There are a bunch of different forums for digital modellers to show off their work. I wonder if that is where this originally came from. If someone, somewhere, originally made a digital Fitter, and KittyHawk are basing their kit on that. Not that it really matters much. Just kind of interesting to figure out how the sausage gets made. CAD's "style" looks a lot like KH imho. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 ...for me too, it looks like KH's CAD style, IMHO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dagger00 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 I don´t feel very excited at KH kits, after watching their job at the Super Etendard, I kept my Kinetic one instead. I don´t like "mecano" type kits, IMHO Kinetic is easier to build...so, I´ll check between the two HB and KH wich pose less fuse to build... Just my two cents.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmanrick Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 13 hours ago, dagger00 said: I don´t feel very excited at KH kits, after watching their job at the Super Etendard, I kept my Kinetic one instead. I don´t like "mecano" type kits, IMHO Kinetic is easier to build...so, I´ll check between the two HB and KH wich pose less fuse to build... Just my two cents.. The problem that presents itself is that neither company can be considered to be "paragons of accuracy" (but that can also be said of almost EVERY model company). KH to date is by far much worse than Kinetic in strictly accuracy terms, and although Kinetic have gotten better lately & continue to improve, they have made some colossal boo-boo's as well. I won't be pre ordering this kit from either company, I will let the dust settle to see which of these releases (if either) can motivate me to sell my 5 KP Models/Eduard kits, as well as the 2 Ciro sets I currently have. The jury is out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dagger00 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 4 hours ago, madmanrick said: The problem that presents itself is that neither company can be considered to be "paragons of accuracy" (but that can also be said of almost EVERY model company). KH to date is by far much worse than Kinetic in strictly accuracy terms, and although Kinetic have gotten better lately & continue to improve, they have made some colossal boo-boo's as well. I won't be pre ordering this kit from either company, I will let the dust settle to see which of these releases (if either) can motivate me to sell my 5 KP Models/Eduard kits, as well as the 2 Ciro sets I currently have. The jury is out. Well, I was considering to buy the KP/Smer kits, they´re cheap, at least and I think relativily accurate. What´s your opinion on them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 46 minutes ago, dagger00 said: Well, I was considering to buy the KP/Smer kits, they´re cheap, at least and I think relativily accurate. What´s your opinion on them? Sorry to muscle in, but I must mention that the un-built Kopro Fitter (Su-17M3) I have is a decent shape, but fit is variable (to be kind!) and very few of the panel lines match up on the fuselage join (worse on the underside)...I guess they have Friday afternoons in Czech Republic too! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmanrick Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 45 minutes ago, ChippyWho said: Sorry to muscle in, but I must mention that the un-built Kopro Fitter (Su-17M3) I have is a decent shape, but fit is variable (to be kind!) I would agree with this, the plus side is that at least for the KP/Smer kits, they can be had cheap. The Eduard kits, which are essentially the same plastic, with the addition of resin details and better decals, are not cheap at all. The only reason I would consider keeping those KP/Smer kits is due to price. In other words, if KH/Kinetic pooch their versions, I will just rely on the admittedly flawed kits I already own, versus spending higher dollars for other flawed kits. Only time will tell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
speedlimit Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 On 4/22/2016 at 1:43 AM, Skull Leader said: I swear, you guys would b!tch about a cure for cancer. Hahaha. That for sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) WHERE'S THE BEEF ? Edited October 31, 2016 by B.Sin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Floggerman Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I would not be that pessimistic concerning the Su-22. The guys from Kitty Hawk were in Airport Museum Cottbus (Germany) to scan a Susi (former GDR AF Su-22M4). A very intersting report in German language Flugzeugforum here: http://www.flugzeugforum.de/threads/12084-Flugplatzmuseum-Cottbus/page696?p=2353973&viewfull=1#post2353973 (registration might be necessary to see the pics) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 36 minutes ago, Floggerman said: I would not be that pessimistic concerning the Su-22. The guys from Kitty Hawk were in Airport Museum Cottbus (Germany) to scan a Susi (former GDR AF Su-22M4). A very intersting report in German language Flugzeugforum here: http://www.flugzeugforum.de/threads/12084-Flugplatzmuseum-Cottbus/page696?p=2353973&viewfull=1#post2353973 (registration might be necessary to see the pics) I don't want to be pessimistic but just remind that 3D scan is just a tool, not a magic wand. AFAIK what is used for milling and EDM are parametric CAD files, not 3D scan files so misinterpretation and error can happen. Still I'll be buying at least one Su-17/22 as I got rid of the KP one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Floggerman Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) I got the permission to post the pics here (source: Flugplatzmuseum Cottbus) It took 2 days to bring all the spots on the plane the scan... the result... Edited November 10, 2016 by Floggerman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Thanks ! Very impressive but still the pylons on the CAD profile were reported to be too deep if my memory's right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Floggerman Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 The known CAD files are quite old (IIRC they were first published years ago when the mysterious Mr Song was working for Trumpeter), the scan was made this year. I'm full of hope! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) The prototype pics posted by "Song" (when he was still working at Trumpeter) were old, the CAD profile view wasn't: I'm talking about... Edited November 10, 2016 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Floggerman Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) you may be right, let's see... Edited November 10, 2016 by Floggerman 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.