trumpeter/hobbyboss bad press? are they this bad

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Ultimately the problem boils down to this:

Very few modellers give a monkeys about total accuracy ( I'm one of them that does, so I'm biased)

Most modellers will accept some degree of inaccuracy

The "it looks like" crowd are always happy with well fitting, well detailed models, regardless of accuracy anyway

ergo

The likelihood is we get models which fit well , and have good detail; but we are at the whim of the gods as to whether it resembles the original.

I do not subscribe at all to the offal that some have posted that somehow we as consumers are to blame or are not "responsible consumers" - utter gibberish ridden dross. It smacks of apologism or wanting to make a point despite the fact the the point is moot.

Why can't a modeller know if the latest Trumpboss release is OK? well.....

Most modelling mags nowadays have not got the first idea about accuracy, because we live in age of "dont rock the boatism" Magazines which used to be "the modellers friend" are in my book now just show pieces for fancy paint jobs: Editorial control means its either a denial of contentious issues, or an active dislike of those spheres that do upset the financial applecart ( ie us).

My opinion is that modelling magazines, if they are to survive, need to get back on track with this. Yeah I know, circulations are up, but I could go print 100 pages of nice airbrushed models with cutting reviews like "it looks OK to me" and get people to buy it. Eye Candy always sells .

I'll lay down a challenge to any current modelling mag: Give a new release model a proper warts an all review. But alas...

...We live in age of first impressions over depth, so why are we that surprised that our hobby isnt "on trend" too?

Jonners, blah

[Shar2]

So Jonners, you think that only experts on any particular subject should do reviews? Where we can we will point out errors, faults, and problems here on BM, or don't we count because we're not a magazine?

[denstore]

Just to correct the bit about the big Hornet, Merit redesigned the hull to be correct. It is not scaled up from the 1:350 kit.

According to the people over at ModelWarship, it wasn't that much of an improvement. It is still shaped like an oil tanker.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

So Jonners, you think that only experts on any particular subject should do reviews? Where we can we will point out errors, faults, and problems here on BM, or don't we count because we're not a magazine?

No exactly the opposite - we do count because we are NOT a magazine. Sorry I dont want to denigrate the collective here at all. That wasn't my point

But is it asking too much for anyone that does a review to do even a bit of background research before hand?

Have you noticed that most articles in print mags nowadays are not "reviews"; they are "features" or "in depth builds": No one reviews anything in print anymore. As you point out - we do it here, free of charge, on the web.

J

[Shar2]

No worries Jon. I don't actually buy magazines. I know the reviewers on BM do quite a bit of research before typing anything up.

Denstore, I heard it had been done again after getting feedback. Will wait until I get my hands on one before making any judgement.

[Laurent]

So, who is the workgroup? Are they volunteers who do not require paying? How do you confirm their expertise? How do you select them? confidentiality? If they are a disparate group, how do you ensure they have access to the same documentation? Change control? If volunteers, who pays for the CAD software so they can examine? Who declares it as ok and what is the criteria, 90%, 95%, 100%? What's the time limitation? What's the submission number limit, 1,2,3etc? What if they don't actually agree?

I believe that a number of companies already apply the method but the implementation may differ. CAD viewing softwares are free. Again the idea is not to make a model kit for the "caliper guys" but for the people who know the shape features of a particular aircraft...

And as your last 2 sentences describe, 95% of customers, I would say that 95% of customers meet that criteria already. The 95% plus who do not frequent web forums dedicated to scale modelling.

... which may be 25-35% out of the 95%. We're talking about Trumpeter or Hobby Boss here, not about Airfix, Revell or Italeri. Trumpeter or Hobby Boss kits cannot be found in toy shops but in hobby shops (at least where I live). They're expensive and bought by experienced modellers that often have a pretty good knowledge of the real subject. These experienced modellers hang around a lot in forums.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Laurent

[denstore]

No worries Jon. I don't actually buy magazines. I know the reviewers on BM do quite abut of research before typing anything up.

Denstore, I heard it had been done again after getting feedback. Will wait until I get my hands on one before making any judgement.

They tried to make the bow a little bit less blunt, but it is still flat bottomed and slab sided.

[Giorgio N]

Just a thought - but if the time/energy spent discussing this were spent on correcting some of the kits mentioned - we'd be sorted...

Just sayin'

Iain

Yes and no.

There are some things that can be corrected, a fuselage can be lengthened a bit or even reduced/increased in diameter. A wing can be lengthened/shortened and so on. However certain shapes can not be corrected no matter how hard a modeller tries. Unless the shape is practically scratchbuilt.

Couple of examples (none from Trumpeter by choice):

- the infamous academy Spitfire XIV: while it is very inaccurate, it is still possible to reduce the fuselage to an almost correct shape

- the well known old Frog Sea Vixen: there's no way to correct the kit without scratchbuilding a new fuselage and doing something to the wing too

Now if I have to apply extensive surgery to a kit to get the shape of the real thing right, why should I buy the new trumpeter kit, considered the price they sell for ? If I have to cut pieces to reattach them I don't care if the kit fits well as with all the surgery needed the fit will be atrocious anyway. Large part of the surface detail will also be lost after all the filling & sanding so goodbye the the fine recessed panel lines. At point I'd rather buy a cheaper kit of the same subject and spend the money saved in aftermarket parts.

[Caerbannog]

Well... wouldn't a more or less simple ever growing kit list arranged as a topic answer the original question somehow? A very simple example:

1-48 Vampire: Goes together very well, almost no filler needed. Obvious shape issues, can be hardly corrected. (Eventually an alternate Vampire kit of another manufacturer which is shape wise better could be listed as well).

1-48 Wyvern: Goes together very well, almost no filler needed. Acurate shape, good details. Best Wyvern in this scale from any manufacturer.

One could simply check the subject one is interested in and see directly if this TrumpyBoss (would certainly make sense for others too) is to ones liking or not. As has been pointed out you just cannot put all TrumpyBoss kits in a bag. Some build up nicely, some are also correct in shape etc. ;-)

But in fact there is one site on the net which is doing something like this already.

I will not exclude any manufacturer from my shopping list - I will simply check the reviews on the net before I buy. Especially when it comes to manufacturer which have some reputation for getting things wrong. I learned the hard way too often.

Rene

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Well... wouldn't a more or less simple ever growing kit list arranged as a topic answer the original question somehow? A very simple example:

1-48 Vampire: Goes together very well, almost no filler needed. Obvious shape issues, can be hardly corrected. (Eventually an alternate Vampire kit of another manufacturer which is shape wise better could be listed as well).

Therein lies a problem. When Trumpyboss have done a rather esoteric kit like this, it is very unlikely that anyone else will try their hand at it. If Trumpyboss have made a pig's ear out of it, we are stuck with that bad kit for the foreseeable future.

Thankfully in the case of the Vampire we can always go for the Alley Cat resin kit which will be superb OOB.

[SleeperService]

While I agree with you Enzo there is another angle.

1-48 Vampire: Goes together very well, almost no filler needed. Obvious shape issues, can be hardly corrected. (Eventually an alternate Vampire kit of another manufacturer which is shape wise better could be listed as well)

could then read

1-48 Vampire: Goes together very well, almost no filler needed. Obvious shape issues, can be hardly corrected. An accurate model made be made from the Alley Cat resin kit. See also Hobby Craft, Classic Airframes etc....

I've witnessed, several times, a comment along the lines of

Nicely built and finished, pity it's the inaccurate Tyrell kit and not the much better Weyland Melchester B1

A list as suggested could be great for people trying something different or looking for good kits for newcomers. Be a rather big job though...

[-Neu-]

Therein lies a problem. When Trumpyboss have done a rather esoteric kit like this, it is very unlikely that anyone else will try their hand at it. If Trumpyboss have made a pig's ear out of it, we are stuck with that bad kit for the foreseeable future.

Thankfully in the case of the Vampire we can always go for the Alley Cat resin kit which will be superb OOB.

Maybe in 48, but in 72nd there is much greater competition. With the exception of the large Ex-USSR and Chinese aircraft (particularly large bombers), the mainland Chinese manufacturers (Meng excluded) are up against real competition and so obvious comparisons are made. I'm thinking of the Cyberhobby and CMR Sea Venom, Cyber hobby vs Fujimi Type 99 Val, Hobbyboss and Fujimi A-7s, Trumpeter vs Esci/Italeri F-100 and HB vs Hasegawa F9F. Certainly in some cases they are able to introduce the best kit in their market (Seahawk, F-105, among others) but its a bit disconcerting to see a lot of their releases failing to make serious advances over a 10, 20 or even a 30 year old predecessor due to basic errors.

Edited September 16, 2013 by -Neu-