Pre shading and panel wash in 1/72

[TheRealMrEd]

MalX,

 

With Alclad -- and speaking of aluminum -- I would have to agree with you. However, using either Metalizer, SNJ metallic powder or even old silver Rub 'n Buff paste, I would completely disagree -- from personal experience. Alclad is simply an easier way to get close to various metal shades, without a huge amount of work.

 

As far as chrome goes, using gloss black enamel as a base, and spraying Alclad II chrome over the top, it looks more real than even the chrome plating used in model car kits -- again, from personal experience.

 

Back in the 70's I used aluminum foil (as well as the above-mentioned Rub 'n Buff), and later the BMF product. All worked well. In my opinion, the amount of work cutting, burnishing (and ofen, re-doing the same) is way too much work for the average casual, and even many advanced, modelers. I'll grant that it's perhaps the best when done properly, but as one who burnt out after worshiping too long at the Alter Of The Immaculate Perfect Scale Model  (and putting myself out of modeling for twenty years because of it) I'll leave it to those more sincere than I.

 

(This coming from a man, whom, if lucky will in about a month, complete his second model in 14 months, despite working on them almost daily.)

 

Don't mean to preach, and I do admire those with the grit. Meanwhile, back to my Mach III B-45...

 

Ed

 

[MalX]

hi

 

i have tried to use Alclad paint before, but i couldn't get a really good mirror finish on the undercoat and if it's less than PERFECT it looks horrible, because it shows every little scuff mark, however minor it is, i'm just not patient enough to use it..........

Edited January 6, 2017 by MalX

[sroubos]

11 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

As an "actual scientist" I don't see anything to laugh at. Not sure what your point is.

 

Let me re-iterate again for at least the third time........

1. The survey was statistically sound. As noted above by someone who actually understands the black art of stats, the "self-selection" was not a bar to this and I'm sure Italeri took it into account when assessing the results.

2. The purpose was to give Italeri information. it became their "property" after completion.

3. They encouraged me to give a summary of the results and mention it when appropriate.

4. It was not to encourage or denigrate any particular style of finish for their models or to change other peoples' perceptions or practices of modelling styles.

5. My own (and for that matter, anyone else's) personal preferences are irrelevant to the interpretation of the survey. I did it out of interest, some involvement with Italeri and as a result of many comments on my Sunderland build where my personal preferences were obvious.

 

The problem with your survey is in the way you have selected your sample. You invite people to participate in a post in which you express a clear bias for a specific choice on a 'hot' topic in the community which some people (as you can see in this topic) feel pretty strongly about. 

 

In this way you have a strong probability of creating a sample that has a strong bias in a particular direction.

[3DStewart]

On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 0:52 AM, Ed Russell said:

I think your grasp of statistics is perhaps a little tenuous. Try reading a stats manual or consult statistically literate colleagues (as I did) before putting out a dogmatic opinion.

 

Wow! That's quite a condescending comment about me.  It makes me smile because you have no idea how wrong you are.

 

In fact I understand predictive statistics rather well. I know how easy it is to take a set of data and stuff them into the formulas for mean, standard deviation, confidence intervals, or whatever, and of course you'll get a number. The trouble is unless you have a representative sample your prediction will be flawed, as yours is.  Let's look at why.

 

Your claim was that the vast majority (of modellers) don't like trenches on their models. Maybe its true, maybe it isn't; the trouble is you've defined your population as all modellers. So, if you want evidence to support this you have to go and get a random unbiased sample of all modellers and measure their opinion on trenches. But you didn't. You went and invited a rather unique group of modellers to volunteer an opinion on the panel lines of the Italeri 1:72 Sunderland.

 

There are a number of problems with what you did:

1. Your sample frame was not representative of all modellers, and the question you asked doesn't align very well with the assertion you seek to evidence. 
    
2. Individuals in the sample were not selected at random. They had to volunteer.  Experience of human behaviour is that those that volunteer are not typical in their attitudes or behaviour. This single factor means that all your other calculations are flawed, because techniques like confidence intervals are based on the assumption that individuals in the population are all equally likely to be selected to form the sample.  Yours were not.
    
3. Your sample size is unknown. You have no idea how many modellers actually read the question you posed, as page views are a poor proxy for human reads.  In the case of Hyperscale, you quite literally made the number of people up!
    
4. You did not include the outcome 'no response'. You should, as they too are part of the sample you need to predict the population.  Because of the problem above we'll never know the actual number, but I suggest it was many more than those who responded.
    
5. Your invitation was not position neutral.  You expressed your dislike of deep panel lines and this may have influenced responses.  Waverers may be made anti.  Supporters may be disengaged by what appears to be a biased activity.

What you've done is analogous with trying to assess the quality of a wagon of apples by pulling off the easiest box to reach and then only inspecting the apples that fell on the ground.  Yes, you can use the data to calculate a confidence interval for the number of bad apples in the truck, but it will be meaningless.

 

I don't think you've evidenced your claim at all.

 

[Phantome]

Can we just stop pretending that the defense of trench-like panel lines is nothing more than a defense of nu Airfix kits?

 

 

[sroubos]

I would agree with that for some of the 'older' of the new kits, like the Spitfires I/IX/XIX, but they have steadily improved since then, their latest kits are pretty good. Not Tamigawa quality yet, but small enough for me to do a panel line wash without having the finished product look like a dinky toy.

[charlie_c67]

On 07/01/2017 at 01:12, Phantome said:

Can we just stop pretending that the defense of trench-like panel lines is nothing more than a defense of nu Airfix kits?

 

 

 

Like those found on Matchbox and the afore mentioned Italeri kits you mean? Therefore it's more than a defence of Airfix...