Zactoman

1/48 OV-10A Bronco

156 posts in this topic

>> These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

 

Anybody have any CAD & completed project images?

 

I'm not a model builder and wouldn't attempt to build one on my own since I don't have the talent, but I am curious how well the finished version matches the look of the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 5/23/2017 at 3:37 AM, Berkut said:

Stunning job on the CAD design by the HazMat team Chris! Will the tooling be done by the same people as GWH MiG-29/Aviation Art Su-33?

Thanks Berkut. I wasn't directly involved in creating the CAD work so I feel it's OK for me to brag. :worship: They did an outstanding job :worship:.

My understanding about the tooling source is no, it is a different tooling factory.

 

On 5/23/2017 at 8:37 AM, Laurent said:

...CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt as...What matters in the end are the plastic parts. 

 

On 5/23/2017 at 9:17 AM, Craig Baldwin said:

For me it's the end product and sharpness of molding. Fitting of the parts and assemblies is very high on my "want list". I will wait for sprue shots before I get closer to purchase decision.

 

On 5/23/2017 at 4:56 AM, Eastern said:

It's gonna be a real stunner being plastic cast...in case the molds are as such as the 3D-modeling shows.

Laurent is absolutely correct in his explanation of CAD vs tooling/plastic. Though saying that "CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt" could be misinterpreted unless you read everything else he wrote to defend that statement. The CAD will match the size and shape of the resulting kit. The tooling and plastic will only be as good as the tooling/molding company is capable of producing.

 

Which brings me to Berkuts comments:

 

16 hours ago, Berkut said:

This thinking that the tooling is somehow very loosely based on the CAD has to stop. It is nonsense. Other than technical restrictions for the details, what you see in CAD - is what you will get in plastic. Thinking the CAD is loosely related to tooling just gives excuses for the modelmakers to make mistakes and modelbuilders to make excuses on modelmakers behalf. Mistakes in CAD will be reflected in the plastic. There isnt some magic gulf between the CAD design and the final product.

 

Hobby Boss Su-34 mistakes are not some wish-washy result of CAD being "collection of abstract objects" or technical limitations. Spine and wheelbays in Su-27 kit isnt wrong because of that either. Or the nose/canopy on MiG-23/27. Zvezda's (and HB for that matter) T-50 doesnt look like it does because CAD's are some sort of random sketches of the final product. All the mistakes in those kits are mistakes in CAD because of lazy/shoddy work by the design team. Not some technical limitations of the technology. If Hobby Boss can tool thin panellines and rivets - then they are obviously not limited by the tooling technology when MiG-27 nose ends up looking as it is.

 

These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

Berkut is referring to something that often happens on modeling discussion forums that is very frustrating and has often lead to arguments and even name-calling (flame-wars).

 

People will look at CAD drawings or renders (drawings are the initial blue background pics I posted where renders are the more polished pics I posted later) and find a flaw, maybe the nose is the wrong shape, the panel lines don't match the real plane, etc. (These people are often called "rivet-counters". I wear that badge proudly!) They point out the flaw hoping the company will fix it and for some reason some people get angry and defensive basically telling them to shut up and just accept it the way it is. They seem to think by pointing these things out that you are somehow insulting the company rather than trying to help.

The same thing happens with test-shots (first plastic parts made from new molds to evaluate the tooling). If flaws are pointed out the "good enoughs" ("That looks good enough to me. Quit complaining and just accept that we finally have a new tool Bronco!") will jump down their throats and try to shut down the conversation (in a "model discussion forum" of all places! :bandhead2:).

 

Generally, molds will not be changed (very expensive!) so test shots pretty much always represent the final product. Identifying problems with the CADs is the best time to make corrections.

 

Having said that and now being part of a development team, I dread the thought that somebody might find problems and point them out for the whole world to see (It's embarrassing, especially if it's a stupid mistake).

Some have suggested e-mailing the company about the flaws rather than making it public. I am mixed about this because somebody noticing a small flaw might lead somebody else to finding a related bigger/fatal flaw that might have otherwise been fixed.

 

When flaws are pointed out the company will then decide if the problem is important enough to justify the cost of fixing. Fixing a problem on the CAD can be simple or very difficult and time consuming (expensive) depending on what it is. Fixing a problem once the tools have been cut can be very expensive, even for small things (fixing a tool often requires welding the cavity and re-machining).

 

Being a new company (with no income from previously released kits), we are striving to get everything correct the first time so that no fixes are necessary.

If any of you do see problems with our work, I welcome you to e-mail me (Zactoman at Zactomodels dot com) the details (or post them if you'd prefer).

 

10 hours ago, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

>> These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

 

Anybody have any CAD & completed project images?

 

I'm not a model builder and wouldn't attempt to build one on my own since I don't have the talent, but I am curious how well the finished version matches the look of the real thing.

I don't think this Bronco thread is the right place to post examples of other companies successes or failures in CAD modeling and their results in plastic.

I will say that this kit will match the CAD in size and shape. Hopefully the tooling will be great and the details will be crisp and clean.

So now we wait, fingers crossed... :pray:

 

:cheers:

Edited by Zactoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 10:31 AM, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

Yep, door hold open assembly. I've got the Air Force version of the "Illustrated Parts Breakdown" on the Black Pony webpage - http://www.blackpony.org/ipb.pdf

Thanks for answering and providing the link.

The part I'm not sure about is what the latch attaches to to hold the door open. Is it the ring in this pic?

Ring_zpskes86fdd.jpg

 

 

On 5/23/2017 at 10:52 AM, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

No hills in the Mekong Delta. Nothing in the books about it - so the North American Tech Reps told us to throw a line over the booms, loop & tie it loosely and sit on the rope to pull the nose up. In actual practice - we walked up to the nose gear facing aft, placed a shoulder blade under the fuselage - and straightened up lifting the nose until the gear extends & locks, place chock behind wheel and it would stay that way until your done.

Fascinating stuff.

Might make for an interesting diorama!

How many men does it take to lift the nose? How many to sit on the rope if that method is used?

 

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Zactoman said:

I wear that badge proudly!

You can but it's also a burden:

- if the "rivet counter" is only a forum dweller, "it looks like a X to me"s will bounce on him

- if the "rivet counter" helps internally a particular company, some of his findings may be ignored for cost and keeping-on-schedule reasons so there's may be some frustration

 

6 hours ago, Zactoman said:

Having said that and now being part of a development team, I dread the thought that somebody might find problems and point them out for the whole world to see (It's embarrassing, especially if it's a stupid mistake).

Some have suggested e-mailing the company about the flaws rather than making it public. I am mixed about this because somebody noticing a small flaw might lead somebody else to finding a related bigger/fatal flaw that might have otherwise been fixed.

That's why a company should use several contributors on a project, not only a single subject expert. The problem is that a subject expert may not be efficient at troubleshooting and explaining convincingly what's wrong.

 

6 hours ago, Zactoman said:

Generally, molds will not be changed (very expensive!) so test shots pretty much always represent the final product.

It's depends if the company owns the toolshop or not. Owning one has some pros (tight QC, reactivity) and cons (need to keep machines and employees working, idle ressources to be avoided)

 

Anyway. Sprues layout design and tooling phases soon !

 

Edited by Laurent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one think that posting CADs is a good idea if people can provide reasonable input. An example of this happened recently with Airfix in 1/72 with their Wildcat kit. Last year they released a 1/72 Wildcat kit in one of the most produced variants (two bank radial engine) then decided to work off the same mold but add a new sprue to make a Martlet IV British Wildcat that had a single cylinder bank radial engine. They tooled up a new cowling and prop and stuff on a new tree and posted CADs of the revised model. but it was pointed out on an English discussion board that when the conversion was done in real life the fuselage forward of the wing was extended too to keep length similar with a single bank of cylinders, not just a new cowling and engine. Their new sprue wouldn't work if they wanted to do a proper job. Airfix bit the bullet and then ran a further sprue with a two part fuselage extension and a new cowling to match to it but still using parts (engine, propeller etc.) from the first new sprue and effectively corrected their mistake. If other companies listened like Airfix did we would have less to complain about when kits are released but as the moulds had been made, it cost them to correct the matter and they are to be congratulated for doing so. Hopefully this is a new trend that continues...... Good luck on your future release as it is looking like a very nice kit even if not my particular scale...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this Memorial Day,
Remember the Fallen,
Honor their Service and Sacrifice,
and Rejoice in your Freedom.

 

Final_zpsxm7getwo.jpg

 

LTJG Joel Alexis Sandberg, USN, and CAPT Carl Edwin Long, USMC lost on December 20, 1969...

 

:occasion2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now