Jump to content

Rob G

Gold Member
  • Posts

    3,309
  • Joined

Everything posted by Rob G

  1. Just a question, if I may. Wasn't this a thread about a model aircraft? I'm sure I saw mention of it somewhere...
  2. I've had several ideas bubbling for quite a few years... add me to the list if you would please Mish.
  3. Ooh, ooh, ooh, Mr Kotter, Mr Kotter! Put me in, please.
  4. Like bzn20, I wasn't allowed. My father had a horror of holes in walls and ceilings.
  5. One thing that I'm finding interesting is the differences between the countries and the age groups represented here. It appears that those from Britain and the Commonwealth had mostly 1/72 kits, often received as gifts at no small sacrifice to the family budget, and the resultant assembled model was treasured. Those from the countries less economically affected by the war, or who started after the 80s turned, seem to have started with larger scales, and seem to be a lot more prone to causing damage to the finished article. Or maybe I'm reading too much into whats been written.
  6. Mine was undoubtedly a Matchbox kit, either the Hurricane IId or the Mustang, finished as Dooleybird, which was one of the kit options, built sans paint sometime around '78 or '79. Britfix 77 (with plenty of stringing), gluey fingerprints, wonky markings and all. I also recall flying them both around the house, as you do, proud as anything of my creation. Bits of both (and many other other Matchbox kits) are still hanging around in the parts box, despite teenage shenanigans, marriage, house moves, divorce, house moves, job changes and hospital visits.
  7. I recently had a magazine pogrom. I went through everything I had, kept the ones with interesting stuff in them, as well as the full run of Plastics Modeller and ModelArt Australia magazines (not that much shelf space there), and binned the rest. The local club guys weren't interested, and I couldn't be bothered in trying to list them for sale. 3/4 of a wheelie bin, twice over 2 weeks and yes, it was a wrench. The reality is though, that I hadn't looked at most of them in years, and probably never would again.
  8. Rob G

    Typeface help needed

    First port of call would be their website, to see if it's specified in the press pack. If not, email their PR department and ask for information.
  9. Kamikaze? But, but, but... it's Italian!
  10. This may not be strictly pukkah, given that the GB has ended, but here's an update (and it's not worth the effort of even asking Mish to move this to WIPs, let alone her actually doing it.) Decalling is almost done - just the starboard serial to do, from teeny weeny itsy bitsy Modeldecal single letters and numbers, because I decided that I didn't want to do the kit offering after all. Port side has been done, and those 5 digits took me an hour, so I said "arr, buggrit" and put it all away for the night. With luck, I will find time to do them tomorrow, whereupon they can dry for a few days while I'm away at work, allowing me to do flat coats and weathering over the weekend. With luck. Then I can stick the undercart and refuelling probe on, and call it done. Photos will follow when she's on her legs and RFI. Not that there's much to inspect, she's no showboat. Oh well. In other news, the F-107 has gone on the back burner - I have decided to make that one as an operational Vietnam-era Whif. With that end in mind, I'm researching stuffs and collecting things. Lots of Mk 82s are going to be hung, methinks. And I have a story to write as well, to justify the whole thing.
  11. Tom, I just caught up with this build. All I can say is 'nice work', as all the superlatives have already been used. That cockpit... I'm going to keep this thread handy for when I make a (re)start on my old Airfix C-130E, which I started (and buggered up) over 30 years ago (where does the time go?). Inspirational stuff, old chap!
  12. Wow. That's nice. Very nice, actually. I'm going to have to look into those powders.
  13. If 'wingy thingy' builders can join, I will. I've done a number of Tammy bikes and they are a lot of fun (except the Tesi, which is a PITA. But that's Bimota's fault, not Tamiya's.) And I need to finish a few of my other 'started but not completed, some still in primer' Ducatis as well.
  14. Claudio, thank you, but I doubt I'll be able to share it. I still have the tape on it from 5 or 6 years ago, so it may not be very nice at all when I do restart it. There may be harsh words spoken.
  15. It's boring, badly written, often has wooden actors and, like so much that has prequels made, is full of internal inconsistencies. Space opera, blech, I'd rather read Doc Smith's Lensman books. The only thing I ever watched in detail was DS9, and that solely because of Terry Farrell (and not all the seasons she was in, either - not even a pretty face can sustain the same plot line being rehashed over and over again.) The ST movies (I think I have seen most of them) are... let's not go there. But then, I was raised on Clarke and Asimov (read The Foundation Trilogy at 12), and find most modern Sci-Fi to be unwatchable. I do acknowledge that the whole shebang is one of TVs perennials.
  16. Very nice. By sheer coincidence, I dug my mostly painted one out of the cupboard of doom last night... must finish that.
  17. Twaddle is perhaps too strong a word for it, but certainly your hat has some explaining to do (As in, why it allows you to talk out of it, in case no-one is familiar with the term.) I too, suffer from social awkwardness unless I know the company very well, yet I have absolutely no trouble at all communicating online, either here or in Second Life (which I don't frequent all that much these days, life having gone in a different direction.) Communicating through the medium of social media is not an issue - no-one here knows you, or can see/hear/watch you, and you have time to rethink your reply to make it it is exactly how you want it to sound, unlike Real Life which often does not allow that luxury. There are many, many issues for the terminally awkward and socially retarded to deal with - mostly, we cope, but it costs us a lot to do so. My female online friends all say I'm a nice guy, and why am I still single? They don't believe that I have any issues at all in talking to women, because online, I'm outgoing, witty and impossibly sexy. Which reminds me of a country song that neatly sums it up (except that I don't live in my parent's basement. Actually, I've never even been into a basement, seeing as we don't have them here. Nor do I work at a pizza shop, or drive a Hyundai. I'm also 5' 11". And I have never claimed that I've posed for CK. Nor do I play tuba. Or use a Mac. Apart from that, yeah, this is me. Except for the Star Trek stuff. I abhor Trek.)
  18. In theory, I knew it there, because it was on the spreadsheet... but I looked at it the other day (it's misboxed, bought at a swap and sell), just because I was in the storage box looking for something else, and et voila, le Tricolore. Hmm, decisions, decisions.
  19. I'm glad someone's started their HB Super Tuc... mine is languishing in its box, awaiting the time I manage to start it for this GB. It was calling plaintively, but is now shouting loudly and abusively every time I pass the shelf where it lies. So I must find time to complete the 2 kits I have promised myself to finish before I start another. Looks good, Mr Ness, I hope I can do mine justice (although both Eduard and his Latin alter ego will be conspicuous by their absence for my build.)
  20. I've just found a Revell P-47 D in my stash that has French markings. Another to add to the list of potential choices.
  21. One more thing that most of us seem to be not considering, even if we're aware of it (which most probably aren't). "Colour" on the internet is a highly variable thing. Some points to consider in your discussions. (I apologise that this became long-winded.) First point - unless your computer's monitor is correctly and recently calibrated for colour and brilliance, you won't have a chance of seeing accurate colour to start with. And the only way to do that is with a dedicated calibration tool - the inbuilt and online calibration thingies are useless (unless you are lucky enough to have an Eizo monitor, in which case you are either an imaging professional, or impossibly well-heeled for someone who just looks at the internetz. ), as they rely on human eye perception, which is not accurate, as we do not remember colour very well at all; that's the way we're made. Also, can your monitor even display the correct colours - a lot of them can't, especially cheaper ones, even when calibrated. Simply put, they run out of gamut and make it up, because most of the time, it doesn't matter. Second point - unless you are using a colour managed web browser (ie Firefox, if set up correctly. Safari barely manages colour (and then reluctantly), Internet Explorer and Chrome not at all) you won't have a whelk's chance in a supernova of seeing accurate colour. Even then, was the original you are looking at uploaded with its colour management ICC profile embedded? Without it, all bets are off. Again. Third point - was the source photo scanned in a colour managed workflow, by someone with access to the correct hardware and software tools to make sure things didn't change from original to scan? And did they then upload it with the ICC profile embedded? Fourth point - is the source photo in the book/whatever accurately printed? I doubt that it was, due to the limitations of presses and printable colour. Even high quality, expensively printed dedicated photo books aren't exactly right, which doesn't augur well for mass market reference books. Fifth point - is the original photo (ie the first generation image, printed from the negative or slide) accurate to real life colour - we can see colours that cannot be printed, even by the geewhiz digital thingummys we have now. Different photo papers give different tonal results. Also, photos were printed by humans, and humans make mistakes. (And there's a lot of other issues regarding accurate colour in chemical-based photos, as well.) Sixth point - were the colours even recorded accurately to begin with? Given the gamut limitations and in-built colour bias of different colour film stocks, I'd think it unlikely. Another thing is that different lenses render colours in different ways, and the glass used has a significant effect on the final colour as well. Let's not even mention black and white films as they have their own set of issues. Another point to consider is the issue of perception - what we see lit from behind on a monitor gives us a very different view to what we see when an image is lit by reflected light, such as when we view a printed photo. I've put a lot of effort into making sure that my own digital images are as correct as I can make them between screen and print. Even with a calibrated monitor, and armed with the knowledge I have, it's an effort to get prints to match screen to match my recall of real life. And all of that is without the possible corruption of the whole chemical film train. As we can see, there's many a slip twixt cup and lip. So be wary of calling 'definitive' on things you see in books, online, or even in the originals you see in person at the IWM (or wherever). Even comparing photos is fraught with danger, as errors creep in and the provenance is often unknown. I now return you to your lively debate.
  22. I hesitate to ask, but are those covers chromed, nickel plated, or polished stainless/whatever. I would have thought that chrome was a bit of a stretch.
  23. Lookit all those lurverly little Alpines!
  24. Looking good George. Next time, try a liquid masking agent instead of tape, it's much faster, and easy to remove (if a little messy at times).
  25. How about a Reaper and an insurgent armed with a Russian ground to air missile?
×
×
  • Create New...