This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Simon Cornes

Latest issue of SAM

81 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, 56134 said:

Apologies as well for the missing plans. That should have been deleted from the cover that issue. My old adversary Captain Cut 'n' Paste strikes again...

 

Damn, no point in writing to you for plans that never were then. :(

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 56134 said:

 

As for the ships I have discussed this in the Editorials. It has been surprisingly popular despite my own reservations - but I have also tried to ensure we don't let the content suffer as a result. It's 4 pages every 3 - 4 months and that's as far as it will go. We try to save that much space each issue by making better use of the pages we have. 

 

 

I like the idea of having decent reviews/previews  of model ships as they seem to be a poorly served section in modelling magazines that usually do stuff with aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 56134 said:

Thanks for the feedback chaps. No one's mentioned the font size of late? RE the cock-ups yes they do creep in, usually as a result of proofing pdfs at hyper-speed on a computer screen while someone is breathing heavily down the phone waiting to print it at the last minute. I do find proofing from a hard copy much safer than a PC but there is rarely time to do so with late pages because of the printing schedules we work to. V.poor. Will try harder.

RE the Bulldog canopy it's an easy oversight if you're building from the box - look at the amount of Airfix Provosts out there with the canopy framing on the outside. I personally had no idea that was an error too until Adrian Balch sent me a picture. Easy to be an expert when you know.

As for the ships I have discussed this in the Editorials. It has been surprisingly popular despite my own reservations - but I have also tried to ensure we don't let the content suffer as a result. It's 4 pages every 3 - 4 months and that's as far as it will go. We try to save that much space each issue by making better use of the pages we have.

Apologies as well for the missing plans. That should have been deleted from the cover that issue. My old adversary Captain Cut 'n' Paste strikes again...

Harrogate Model Club is out in force at Bolton in January so if anyone wants to come and berate us in person we'll be glad to discuss any further issues you may have. 

 

 

Shouldn't that be number of Airfix Provosts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Latinbear said:

 

Shouldn't that be number of Airfix Provosts?

 

 

Strictly speaking, yes; however the distinction between usage tends to break down when very large quantities are being referred to - and there are already very large quantities of JPs at shows. so if one is being hyperbolic.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, Paul Bradley said:

 

Strictly speaking, yes; however the distinction between usage tends to break down when very large quantities are being referred to - and there are already very large quantities of JPs at shows. so if one is being hyperbolic.... ;)

 

I was always brought up to believe that where individual items are involved; cars, people, aeroplanes etc then it is a number whereas if it is an object that can't be broken into individual items then it is an amount. Butter, water, flour come to mind. A friend of mine who has a double first in modern languages from Cambridge starts foaming at the mouth if anybody says "Amount of people, cars, planes" etc in his hearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eric Mc said:

I think it is very honourable to receive a direct response from the magazine. It shows that they DO read these forums.

 

Indeed, and it also highlights the fact that any criticisms need to be fair and balanced. :) I'm sure we can all appreciate how much a poorly founded or baseless rant against you or your organisation would sting if you stumbled upon it on the internet.  If the shoe were on the other foot...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Latinbear said:

 

 

I was always brought up to believe that where individual items are involved; cars, people, aeroplanes etc then it is a number whereas if it is an object that can't be broken into individual items then it is an amount. Butter, water, flour come to mind. A friend of mine who has a double first in modern languages from Cambridge starts foaming at the mouth if anybody says "Amount of people, cars, planes" etc in his hearing. 

 

And - as I said - strictly speaking that is correct. But - as I said - it tends to get a bit fuzzy when very large numbers are involved. You are not incorrect, but knowing Gary's sense of humour, it is likely he was being hyperbolic - flour, sand, Airfix JPs......

 

I'd suggest your friend needs to gain a little perspective...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I to am glad that Gary is reading what we have to say and responding, much in the way that Jay did from time to time, and I hope that it continues. The question of ship modelling is a difficult one. Personally I think that a magazine called Scale Aircraft Modelling should so that - otherwise call it Scale Models - oops, done that, or 'Something' Model World. Seriously though, as a man who has spent a lot of time involved with radio control warships and the maritime marine as well as with aircraft modelling - both radio control and static, then what surprises me is the veritable gulf between serious warship scale modelling and the radio control variety. We all know that in static scale modelling we put a lot of effort into producing a realistic end result whereas, in my experience, a lot of people who build radio controlled scale models paint the parts as per the instructions and end up with a 'pretty' end result. There seems to be a lack crossover in skill sets between the two ends of the hobby. Okay, the people who build 'pretty' scale models are undoubtedly very happy with the results and thats what most of us make models for at the end of the day so we can't criticise but I sometimes wonder why there isn't more 'realism' in radio controlled scale models (yes, I know, in some cases there is but not so in the majority I would say). Marine Modelling and Model Boats are really the best venues but neither seem to go for proper scale work - I wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stevehnz said:

Damn, no point in writing to you for plans that never were then. :(

Steve.

hahaha my usage of 'amount' stems from the inconclusive number referred to. The word implies a large but unquantifiable mass rather than an orderd quantity. Or so it said on a thing what I found on the Internet.

RE ships - I know, I know. They say come and I cometh. They say go and I goeth. They say inserteth ships and I inserteth them, while trying to make the measure as palatable as possible. I plead the Nuremberg defence

Stevehnz - please drop me an email at blisterwhelk@outlook.com

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 56134 said:

hahaha my usage of 'amount' stems from the inconclusive number referred to. The word implies a large but unquantifiable mass rather than an orderd quantity. Or so it said on a thing what I found on the Internet.

RE ships - I know, I know. They say come and I cometh. They say go and I goeth. They say inserteth ships and I inserteth them, while trying to make the measure as palatable as possible. I plead the Nuremberg defence

Stevehnz - please drop me an email at blisterwhelk@outlook.com

 

 

Ah, well If it was on the internet it must be true.

 

As it happens I am a subscriber to Scale Aircraft Modelling and have been for years. Despite the occasional faux pas I think the magazine has improved since Gary took over and always look forward to receiving it. Incidentally I have every issue going back to number one and they'll all in binders too.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nowadays the worst issue we have with SAM is whether it's a number or an amount of Jet Provosts, I think we can now declare the magazine well and truly back on an even keel after some pretty grim years.  For which I for one am thankful.

 

And, despite being a modern languages graduate and card-carrying pedant to boot, I am prepared to cut Gary some slack for using the English language with a degree of swash-buckling panache.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 56134 said:

Thanks for the feedback chaps. No one's mentioned the font size of late? RE the cock-ups yes they do creep in, usually as a result of proofing pdfs at hyper-speed on a computer screen while someone is breathing heavily down the phone waiting to print it at the last minute. I do find proofing from a hard copy much safer than a PC but there is rarely time to do so with late pages because of the printing schedules we work to. V.poor. Will try harder.

RE the Bulldog canopy it's an easy oversight if you're building from the box - look at the amount of Airfix Provosts out there with the canopy framing on the outside. I personally had no idea that was an error too until Adrian Balch sent me a picture. Easy to be an expert when you know.

As for the ships I have discussed this in the Editorials. It has been surprisingly popular despite my own reservations - but I have also tried to ensure we don't let the content suffer as a result. It's 4 pages every 3 - 4 months and that's as far as it will go. We try to save that much space each issue by making better use of the pages we have.

Apologies as well for the missing plans. That should have been deleted from the cover that issue. My old adversary Captain Cut 'n' Paste strikes again...

Harrogate Model Club is out in force at Bolton in January so if anyone wants to come and berate us in person we'll be glad to discuss any further issues you may have. 

 

 

Interesting you mention font size. I like the magazine but the font size stops me buying it I have to admit. I imagine most readers of the magazine, note I say most ok, are of advancing years so probably don't like small fonts?  although like you say, nobody has commented on that so I guess I'm wrong. For the digital version of course, this isn't an issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, markg said:

 

Interesting you mention font size. I like the magazine but the font size stops me buying it I have to admit. I imagine most readers of the magazine, note I say most ok, are of advancing years so probably don't like small fonts?  although like you say, nobody has commented on that so I guess I'm wrong. For the digital version of course, this isn't an issue.

 

I think you will find one of the reasons for small font is space???  The smaller the font, the more content that can be crammed into the magazine..........if the downsize it enough, they can possibly cram another 1-2 more pages in and get people who like to advertise there wares to buy the space created by having that smaller font .......annoying for the reader but essential for the magazine as not only does it bring in money for the magazine but may be the enough to keep that magazine running a bit longer

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markg said:

 

Interesting you mention font size. I like the magazine but the font size stops me buying it I have to admit. I imagine most readers of the magazine, note I say most ok, are of advancing years so probably don't like small fonts?  although like you say, nobody has commented on that so I guess I'm wrong. For the digital version of course, this isn't an issue.

 

OIne irritant I have isn't so much the font size, but the regularly changing number of columns - even within the same article (3 columns one page, 4 columns the next....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, thanks for the reply Gary. Nice to know that you at least read this site as the comments may not meet with your approval, but at least they are fair-minded.

 

Now that font size has been mentioned, i find that the current size is too small to read more than one or two pages at once. I don't know if others have the same issue, but I tend to lose concentration, whereas with the old versions of the magazine (in the Alan Hall days, not the recent picture book style), i could read it in almost one sitting.

 

Perhaps adding a font with a serif would help the flow? Or go for the same number of articles over more months, thus allowing bigger print? It wouldn't take much to experiment, would it?

 

Andy

Edited by Red Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what's it's worth, I really like the mag as it is now...only...... change the editorial pic of yourself,

you just look like you couldn't be arsed, and reflects badly on yourself and the mag,

 

Sean

(Who's getting grumpier as he nears 50)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main complaint, which applies to all modelling magazines of both aircraft & armour persuasion, relates to both the standard "whats in the box" type of article and the "full build" review. The first category annoys me thusly,  reviewers feeling the need to repeat what is usually the 'background' notes from the instruction sheet or the first 3 lines from the Wikipedia page covering the subject of the kit, is this practice useful to anyone? I suspect it helps to get the word count up. Also it is of major importance to me when deciding whether or not  to buy a kit to know what marking options or variants can be built from the box contents, it no longer surprises me to find how often this info. is omitted or  that the reviewer will be using every single item of Jedward brass, Mextradecals and  Slickboost resin the world has ever seen in his planned future build. I understand that this is a valid thing to do as lots of peeps are interested in that kind of thing and it pleases the advertisers but it shouldn't be at the expense of the basics, perhaps if editors were to provide a set of review guidelines thus assuring a minimum standard?

Moving on to the 'full build' malarky, I realise I could be in the minority here by actually wanting to know how the stuff in the box goes together and then how the markings go on the finished kit  without being endlessly subjected to parroted finishing and weathering techniques, however well done. If the magazine wishes to let us know how most of the kit can be replaced with aftermarket stuff and how to build it this way and so please the advertisers again then commission another model.

Proof reading and even minimal use of spell checker would go a long way to saving me from banging my head off the cockpit combing.

There, I feel much better now,

spad

 

ps

Sean said :-

(Who's getting grumpier as he nears 50)

Wait 'til you pass 60 then you'll really rock grumpy!

 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you not alone  Ive stopped buying mags for the reasons you mention , little info on the kit but  overdosing on aftermarket and weathering products 

Mags now a little more then  adverts for  after maket products 

Boring 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spaddad said:

My main complaint, which applies to all modelling magazines of both aircraft & armour persuasion, relates to both the standard "whats in the box" type of article and the "full build" review. The first category annoys me thusly,  reviewers feeling the need to repeat what is usually the 'background' notes from the instruction sheet or the first 3 lines from the Wikipedia page covering the subject of the kit, is this practice useful to anyone? I suspect it helps to get the word count up. Also it is of major importance to me when deciding whether or not  to buy a kit to know what marking options or variants can be built from the box contents, it no longer surprises me to find how often this info. is omitted or  that the reviewer will be using every single item of Jedward brass, Mextradecals and  Slickboost resin the world has ever seen in his planned future build. I understand that this is a valid thing to do as lots of peeps are interested in that kind of thing and it pleases the advertisers but it shouldn't be at the expense of the basics, perhaps if editors were to provide a set of review guidelines thus assuring a minimum standard?

Moving on to the 'full build' malarky, I realise I could be in the minority here by actually wanting to know how the stuff in the box goes together and then how the markings go on the finished kit  without being endlessly subjected to parroted finishing and weathering techniques, however well done. If the magazine wishes to let us know how most of the kit can be replaced with aftermarket stuff and how to build it this way and so please the advertisers again then commission another model.

Proof reading and even minimal use of spell checker would go a long way to saving me from banging my head off the cockpit combing.

There, I feel much better now,

spad

 

ps

Sean said :-

(Who's getting grumpier as he nears 50)

Wait 'til you pass 60 then you'll really rock grumpy!

 

 

I'm loving the deliberate irony of proof reading and cockpit combing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, spaddad said:

My main complaint, which applies to all modelling magazines of both aircraft & armour persuasion, relates to both the standard "whats in the box" type of article and the "full build" review. The first category annoys me thusly,  reviewers feeling the need to repeat what is usually the 'background' notes from the instruction sheet or the first 3 lines from the Wikipedia page covering the subject of the kit, is this practice useful to anyone? I suspect it helps to get the word count up. Also it is of major importance to me when deciding whether or not  to buy a kit to know what marking options or variants can be built from the box contents, it no longer surprises me to find how often this info. is omitted or  that the reviewer will be using every single item of Jedward brass, Mextradecals and  Slickboost resin the world has ever seen in his planned future build. I understand that this is a valid thing to do as lots of peeps are interested in that kind of thing and it pleases the advertisers but it shouldn't be at the expense of the basics, perhaps if editors were to provide a set of review guidelines thus assuring a minimum standard?

Moving on to the 'full build' malarky, I realise I could be in the minority here by actually wanting to know how the stuff in the box goes together and then how the markings go on the finished kit  without being endlessly subjected to parroted finishing and weathering techniques, however well done. If the magazine wishes to let us know how most of the kit can be replaced with aftermarket stuff and how to build it this way and so please the advertisers again then commission another model.

Proof reading and even minimal use of spell checker would go a long way to saving me from banging my head off the cockpit combing.

There, I feel much better now,

spad

 

ps

Sean said :-

(Who's getting grumpier as he nears 50)

Wait 'til you pass 60 then you'll really rock grumpy!

 

Or perhaps coaming....spell checker?

 

Ah, edited to note we're all picking up on his spelling issues!!

Edited by pinky coffeeboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Latinbear said:

I'm loving the deliberate irony of proof reading and cockpit combing.

 

Thank you, I'm glad somebody is.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spaddad said:

 

Thank you, I'm glad somebody is.

 

 

My pleasure. :winkgrin:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies spaddad - my irony detector was not switched on.

 

Ken

1 person likes this

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