Jennings Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) Double post, thanks ARC. Edited May 5, 2016 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
White Wolf Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 People are clearly and obviously convinced and influenced by posts from people with influence and knowledge both correct and incorrect. The facts are that once word is out that this kit has a semi major error in the eyes of one of the Russian experts it will spread like a bushfire and whether it does or does not have a problem will not be the issue. It will pop up at Hyperscale, LSP, and everywhere else as people quote the experts that this kit has a major error. It's a "perception" of a problem and you give the majority of consumers far more credit than any marketing company ever would. Do you really think once it has spread all over the modelling forums that the Kinetic Su-33 has a semi major issue that it will not effect sales? If not take a look at recent trends, posts and history in recent releases. All it takes to start a wildfire of crap on the forums is the perception of an issue. How many examples should I cite? Let's see..Academy F-4J nose, Kittyhawk P-39, KH F-86D, HB F-84, HB F-80, Eduard 109, Eduard Mig-21 Bis, just to start the ball rolling. But why is it YOUR problem? Are you also losing money with each lost sale? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Just to clarify for Berkut.. You are one of the hobbies great assets when it comes to Russian subjects and I have the highest respect for your knowledge on the aircraft you post on. Obviously we disagree on what is major and what is not! Lol.. :)/> I really do enjoy the information you present but I think you must understand with great knowledge comes a power in that many people will now take away a picture that the Kinetic SU-33 is suffering from a major issue. There next move is to say no I'm not buying that kit it is badly flawed. There step after that is to get on every forum they post in saying to every one they can how badly flawed the Kinetic SU-33 is. That IS the problem. As an expert on Russian aircraft and having an intimate knowledge of the aircraft to you it may be an issue and all of a sudden Joe Bloggs who would know an SU-33 from a Mig-21 is spreading forum posts that the Kinetic kit is fatally flawed with a spine out of shape and so bad the experts think it sucks. Everyone loves the Input but the choice of words is so important today because whether you like it or not people are using your words to influence hundreds of kit sales and inevitably the choices the manufacturer makes in the future. I honestly dont think that many choose to not buy a kit if i am pointing out errors on this Su-33, KH MiG-25 or HB YF-23. And ultimately i point out errors that are provable and documented, but i never leave an opinion whether anyone should buy or not buy a kit - that is a decision left up to the modelbuilder. And i cant stress this enough - i dont care whether people actually buy or not a kit. If a book or a movie or a restaurant gets a bad review (and note these get bad reviews all the time, without people being up in arms about it), will it affect the sales? Probably. But wouldnt a good customer want to know the quality of something before a purchase? I can guarantee that the "hundreds" of modellers you speak of won't give a damn about this error because they just want to build it and get the kit of one of their favourite aircraft on the shelf. I also find it quite presumptuous that you suggest a large majority of modellers are mindless or weak-willed sheep with no opinions of their own and cannot be trusted to make their own decisions based on the info given. In your black/white world: A: No, don't buy this kit, it sucks! B: Okay! A: Yes, buy this kit, it's great! B: Okay! Whether they ultimately choose to buy it or not isn't up to you or Berkut to assume. Completely agree. But why is it YOUR problem? Are you also losing money with each lost sale? Yup, not loosing any sleep if HB lost any sales (and they frankly didnt) with my critique of their YF-23 or KH MiG-25. (Anyone remember KH promising post critique they will try to fix something, only to promptly not actually doing anything?) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Wow! How come a thread asking for Flanker kit becoming like this ? Come on, everybody, this is a model kit. Not a fighter jet - a replicate of it. Take it easy! As for the Su-33, as I known that the shape validation has been helped by Chris on the master during the CAD construction stage. Of course, you can have your opinion on whether you like it or not. As for shape on the spine "not so correct", well, maybe. Like the hornet from Hasegawa, the spine is too round (we have proof that as we have the cross section of the CF-188 compare with the 3D scan on the kit), but still Hornet from Hasegawa ranked as the no.1 of 1/48 Hornet as of today. Unless someday we can access the Su-33 blueprint on the cross section and all the maintenance manual, the reference support for an "accurate" document still a question. Without a common ground, I think it is up to each individual to judge whether the kit is accurate or not. (not to mention Su-33 with 24 airframes and with different panel arrangement) On behalf of the Su-33 owner now, I just want to express that we do our homework in the research and development. But still it is done by man, man made mistake. Anyway, enjoy the modelling! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dsahling Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I remember someone here once wrote something to the extent of "I swear you guys would argue over a cure for cancer" :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Ah I wish Kinetic would release Su-27 1/48 of the Su-33 quality. And I know they don't plan to:-D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Ah I wish Kinetic would release Su-27 1/48 of the Su-33 quality. And I know they don't plan to:-D Never say Never. But we will wait until we have access to accurate material source, it will be a waste of the tooling investment. But in fact, after the F/A-18 series, we are working on something already. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dryguy Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Ah I wish Kinetic would release Su-27 1/48 of the Su-33 quality. And I know they don't plan to:-D Now THAT I agree with!!! Looking at those pictures of flankers from Berkut, reminds me again what a sexy looking jet it is. It really is a beautifully proportioned thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) As for shape on the spine "not so correct", well, maybe. Like the hornet from Hasegawa, the spine is too round (we have proof that as we have the cross section of the CF-188 compare with the 3D scan on the kit), but still Hornet from Hasegawa ranked as the no.1 of 1/48 Hornet as of today. Well yeah, it is still a great kit and arguably one of the best ones ever despite its other bugs and history. Doesn't change the fact the spine has an issue, regardless whether one thinks it is a big deal or not. (i for one think it is a noticeable shape issue, but would it stop me from buying a second kit? No, not at all) Unless someday we can access the Su-33 blueprint on the cross section and all the maintenance manual, the reference support for an "accurate" document still a question. Pictures are certainly not irrelevant, cross sections drawings of anything are holy grail of references but many many bugs can be fixed with using pictures alone. Also, good that i have just the thing... ;) I remember someone here once wrote something to the extent of "I swear you guys would argue over a cure for cancer" :) Technically, that is what scientists do. :P Edited May 5, 2016 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Pictures are certainly not irrelevant, cross sections drawings of anything are holy grail of references but many many bugs can be fixed with using pictures alone. Yes but pictures should be used cautiously as perspective and optical distortions get in the way. The AA CAD snapshot used parallel projection so comparaison with photos can be tricky. There's an angle between the CAD model and 3rd photo aircraft fuselage datum lines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Never say Never. But we will wait until we have access to accurate material source, it will be a waste of the tooling investment. But in fact, after the F/A-18 series, we are working on something already. Do it! I would buy anything you produce from Flanker family with Su-33 quality. Su-27, 30, 35, 34.. doesn't matter that much. Actually, right now, I prefer a Su-35 slightly more than others. Also, as a humble request, please consider the fifth generation planes, too! Especially the ones that we don't have in the market yet such as PAK-FA and J-20.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 The issue is with the spine when looking from the front, it is a bit too "bulbous" and spread out. It should "suck cheeks in" basically. Bad paint; The real flanker has a fairly steep drop and the whole shape is somewhat S shaped when viewed from front. In real life the kit looks better than the CAD but the area around the gun (on both sides of course) is a little bit too "fat". I don't know, maybe because people are different and some care a lot about accuracy, some little bit, but very few can ever claim to not care at all. Otherwise we would be swamped in Starfix Spitfire builds, but yet we aren't. Why others havent spotted is not up to me to speculate. It took some time for people to figure out KH F1 isnt really in 1/48, but i guess by that logic that makes it a minor issue too. How many know about it doesnt change the facts or whether it is there or not. I suppose since you are so eager about assuming an extreme literal "rivet counting" example i can assume you are on the other side of the spectrum; not caring about accuracy in any way, right? :rolleyes:/> This "it must be about rivetz!!!" assumption is getting pretty tiresome. The are gazzilion shape and detail changes happening in a good modeling project like AMK MiG-31 and AA Su-33. Some major, some not so much. Actually, I kind of realized this! I didn't realize the spine was bulbous per se and still not sure about that, but what I realized was the panels covering the gun supposed to be concave but in the model they are convex.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Yes but pictures should be used cautiously as perspective and optical distortions get in the way. The AA CAD snapshot used parallel projection so comparaison with photos can be tricky. There's an angle between the CAD model and 3rd photo aircraft fuselage datum lines. I know all of that. But if gazzilion pictures show a certain shape, chances are those gazzilion pictures are not wrong, it is as simple as that. Which is why i posted 3 pictures and not one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tko24 Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) Think of it however you want to. I wrote it and it is up to me to judge whether it is major issue or not. And it is up to you to judge whether you think it is major issue or not. I think it is a pretty big shape issue, semi major even :rolleyes:/>/>, you might not think that and i am fine with that. Because unlike you i am able to understand people may differ in opinion. You dont think it is major at all, so therefor i am wrong in having my own opinion that it is semi-major, hence you went on a childish rant about my English, pathetic. Because i am not personally responsible for the AMK kit(s)? Imagine that. I basically worked as a consultant for the to help with the different MiG-31 versions and around 100 bugs were fixed due to that. I am not responsible for any engineering decisions AMK takes. And i dont mind the panellines on the kit, you do and you are free to continue to do so. ... It is my opinion to choose whether it is major or not, it is up to you and others to form your own opinion. Are you seriously unable to understand this? Boy are you wrong here in so many ways and so many assumptions... I have to disagree as well. It's a valuable observation and it's good to have experts on specific aircraft types post here and point out errors in kits but to me this is a minor issue as the difference in shape is very subtle. I'm holding my partially built kit in my hands looking at it head on and even with this error now being pointed out it's barely noticeable. If not for a head view of the CAD highlighting the difference I'm not sure anyone else would have noticed it. Compared to shape issues in other kits that even include Tamiya kits this error is barely noticeable. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree as to whether it's a semi major or semi minor error. Edited May 5, 2016 by tko24 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 I guess I'll weigh in here. :unsure: During development we did discover that there was a problem in this area and it was late enough in the game that changing the cross sections was problematic. However, after playing with an early prototype and continuing development we decided that the shape wasn't so bad after-all. And, as Laurent pointed out, the CAD is in parallel projection (tail is same scale as nose, rather than perspective where the tail being further away would be smaller) while the photos are not. The nose in the photos is much closer to the camera, therefor bigger and hides the contours further back. When comparing the plastic to photos from other angles the problems looks much less pronounced. I myself would consider it minor. I saw the lead-in and figured that Berkut was going to point out the problem with the lower fins as was pointed out on Scalemodels.ru: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/img_927794_1382310074_Su-33_details-1.jpg.html I'd consider this a bigger problem as it is visually easy to see. Again, this was discovered so late in development that it was deemed too difficult to fix. I would point out that this kit was a work-in-progress when we lost it. We had a list of things that we were going to fix. Here are a few of which I feel are important for builders to know about: Landing gear - Beware of how the struts attach. The current design requires that you attach the struts to the gear wells BEFORE gluing the wells in place. The instruction sheets and have you attach them after it's assembled. For the front strut you might want to remove the mounting pins from the strut, add short pins in the well and make grooves on the strut so that you can install it after the plane is assembled and painted. Rear struts you might need to remove the pin that attaches to the intake and possibly mount the small pieces next to the intake before the main strut. I don't recall exactly. Do some test fitting before going too far. Rear main gear doors have a "T" attachment so would need to be attached before the wings are glued together. Remove the arms of the T and mount later. Right rudder has lower 2 hinge details on wrong side. Both rudders should be the same. Top 2 hinge details on rudder should be on both sides, not just one side. Otherwise there are some minor details and fit issues that should be easily dealt with. My biggest disappointment is that only two AKU-470 pylons are included instead of six. The actual aircraft is always equipped with at least four (center-line and intakes). The inner wing mounts are only sometimes used, but this is where the instructions have you mount the two provided. I would recommend mounting them on the intakes rather than the inner wings and just mount the stub-pylons on the inner wings. At least the missing center-line pylons are somewhat hidden so harder to tell they are missing. All-in-all I think it's an excellent kit, especially considering it was the first kit of a new development team. We learned a lot from the experience that should really help us on future projects. Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 So good to hear from you again Chris. Whatever happened to Halo models? I assume things didn't get off the ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dragonlance Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 We learned a lot from the experience that should really help us on future projects. :cheers:/> Chris Oh? Do tell :-) Vedran PS I have the Su-33 kit and it is fantastic, errors and all... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mario krijan Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 + does not have pilot inside = total disaster :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarkKnight Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 thanks for all the info, any chance anyone can make some resin updates to address some of issues Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) For Su-33, there is almost nothing serious to update in my opinion. For more Aku-470 pylons, you can already buy them from Eduard. There are also color etched cockpit for both Su-33 and J-15 from DreamModel. They are really nice. I have both. If you want to have super detail, you can have red star or aires exhausts, too. But these are designed for academy kit so they may be a little bit small for Kinetic Su-33 because Su-33 engine nacelles are slightly larger than academy ones. And frankly, I think kinetic exhaust are very comparable to aires ones in details anyway. And for red star one, you need to be good at bending PE. It was difficult for me to fit them on academy. Edited May 7, 2016 by foxmulder_ms Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Walker Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Which Eduard set are the pylons included in?? TIA, M Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nicholassagan Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Which Eduard set are the pylons included in?? TIA, M Alamo C and Ds IIRC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 How about a detailed radar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
azzaob Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Which Eduard set are the pylons included in?? TIA, M They are in set #ED648094 Matt. Look very well detailed http://www.eduard.com/store/out/media/648094.pdf 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.