spruecutter96

As good as CGI has got after 25 years of development, I still think a lot of it looks pretty false and unrealistic. A good case in point? Most Marvel or DC superhero movies. Some of the shots look a little ridiculous, even given their "fantastic" situations. Have you ever noticed how many details on people seem to completely disappear in CGI fight-scenes. Folds in clothing? Nuances like different skin-tones, hair-details, smaller items? All that seems to just fly out of the window when the scrapping starts.... I appreciate it's a very old example, but have you ever looked at the agent who jumps onto the car-bonnet in the highway chase in Matrix 2? He looks AWFUL. What a good point of comparison? The first "Alien" movie. Made in 1979, on a budget of around $15 Million (which was considered on the high side then - oh, how times have changed!). With a few, minor exceptions, the Alien SFX shots work very well and are believable. Want to know why? Because they were real models, reflecting real light, in real studios. For my money, CGI is a pretty poor substitute for the "real" thing. Still, opinions, eh? Chris.

I couldn't tell you why, but I'm leaning towards Mongolian. I am no expert, having said that. Chris.

Good or bad? Well, this is the best we are ever likely to get, folks. I can't see Hollywood making another series based around WW2 bombing-missions, not after this one. It needed the clout and track-record of Spielberg and Hanks to get this one made. If a director of Peter Jackson's financial-repute couldn't get the money together for a re-make of the Dambusters, then another series looks very uncertain. The fact is that WW2 series are very much targeted at the older generations. For the modern "Yooth", the war happened WAY too long ago to be of any relevance in their lives (the latest made-up feud between utterly vacuous, fame-hungry "stars"..... well that's a very different matter, of course). Dear Lord, am I sounding like my Dad now? I'm looking forward to watching the series, but I ain't expecting Shakespeare In The Clouds . Cheers. Chris.

Bump 30/1/24.

Bump 30/1/24.

Very much agreeing with you, Pete in Lincs. When I first bought the Tamiya saw, I thought it was huge. Then I tried it out. Despite it's size, it produces the finest, cleanest, most accurate cut in plastic and resin I've ever seen. It's a GREAT bit of kit and - I would say - a must-have item. Fifteen squids looks like a bit of a bargain, compared with a lot of the Far Eastern tools you see now. Cheers. Chris.

Bump 28/1/24.

Bump 28/1/24.

Bump 28/1/24.

Trumpeter make one in 1/32nd. I believe they're getting fairly rare now, but you see them on E-Bay from time to time. Cheers. Chris.

I'm going to an airshow in Warwickshire at the end of May and an early-bird ticket has just cost me about £2 more than it would cost to attend the NEC event (not including the £5.00 discount for advanced car-park booking). From where I'm sitting, I think the airshow will offer more "bang for my buck". Other users mileage may vary.... Cheers. Chris.

As much as I want to support any new model-show, in our current economic climate, the parking-fees and admission charge are likely to just kill this show. Maybe the model railway-enthusiast side of things will save the day. We'll know soon enough. Cheers. Chris.

If I'm reading this right, I think the captions are swapped around. The top image is definitely the better of the two pictures. Cheers. Chris.

Have to agree with Texan Tomcat, above. This is Telford level parking and admission-costs and I very much doubt it will have even a quarter of the level of model-making relevance as SMW. I have a feeling that I won't be going. Chris.

Is that Greta Thundberg? Only kiddin'..... The painting is very effective, particularly the facial flesh-tones. Thank for sharing with us. Chris.

You're a MUCH braver man than I, John. Good luck in your build. Didn't someone nick-name this the "Hopeless Diamond"? My memory on the project is more than a little hazy. Chris.

It's not 50 years old yet, but in my very humble opinion, they should keep the A-10 for as long as they can. I've read that the US Air-Force brass HATES the airframe and is very keen to retire it. The troops on the ground couldn't care less about the F-35's sophistication - they want an aircraft that can hang around for a long time and ruin their adversary's entire day. Chris.

Your average journo wouldn't know a Sea King if it landed on their head! Unfortunately, we're living in an age where many news-stories are written by clueless journalists, who spend five minutes researching on Wikipedia and then author some very inaccurate articles, riddled with obvious (to us, anyway) mistakes. Having said that, from what I've seen of many AI-generated "news" articles, having a human-generated version is MUCH better, warts and all. Cheers. Chris.

That's true.... up to a point. In Vietnam, the early Sidewinders and Sparrows proved VERY unreliable - often either failing to fire or completely losing their target-lock after launch. Also, the 'Nam made it very obvious that dog-fighters really needed a good gun (hence the F-4E). The technology has moved on hugely since then. Now, if your main radar can see your adversary - in theory, at least - you can engage him at tens of miles and might never have to go toe-to-toe. I believe that true dog-fighting is now considered a "last resort" measure, but the skills still have to be taught to a high degree. I was reading about the Allied air-forces kills in the Second Gulf War a while ago. For a large number of reasons, turn-and-burn fights were the exception, rather than the rule. Cheers. Chris.

We should bear in mind that a traditional, nose-to-nose dogfight is likely to be a rare event, in the age of BVR missiles and very long range radars. Having said that, I remember a comment from an RAF Tornado pilot, who had gone up against an F-16 in a dogfight..... "It was like trying to have a knife-fight in a phone-box". The Tornado was not really designed for tight, turning, visual fights. The Viper most definitely was designed for close-in work. Cheers. Chris.

Would the An-2 "Colt" be a contender for longest service? I believe there are some examples still in use. Chris.

Hi, Rob. As far as I know, cellulose thinners will not harm metal components in any way. I'm fairly certain that it will "attack" the flexible seals in some airbrushes, if it's not cleaned from the seals very thoroughly and immediately after use. I must admit that I have not experienced this myself, but have read several accounts of it happening and new seals being bought as a result. Cheers. Chris.

Just so you know, cellulose thinners are very corrosive. In a worse case scenario, they can damage the paint-seals inside an airbrush. I THINK silicone seals are most likely to be affected (but my memory's pretty hazy on the details). I would recommend that you use them only after having checked the types of seals present in your 'brush. Cheers. Chris.

A KP 1/48th Su-25. A dreadful, horrible, nasty kit. After about three hours of struggling to build it, it made its maiden-flight.... straight into my wheelie-bin. Life's just WAY too short for dealing with such poorly-made rubbish. Chris.

Unfortunately, that is probably not going to happen. There was one F-105 in the UK, at the Duxford museum, but that was sent to a Polish museum several years ago. It had sat in Duxford's Preservation Hangar in several pieces, looking at little sorry for itself, for a number of years. I would have loved for them to restore it, but it was not to be. So, unless Airfix are willing to send their researchers to other lands, a new-mold Thud is looking fairly unlikely from the company. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Cheers. Chris.