Group Build policy discussion

[helios16v]

1 hour ago, Col. said:

This could explain a lot!  Next you'll be building stuff out-of-the-box with no aftermarket goodies and kit decals  

Don't worry, JetMads just released more teasers today to get him drooling again.  

[trickyrich]

2 hours ago, helios16v said:

Don't worry, JetMads just released more teasers today to get him drooling again.  

have seen it.....and have had quite moment by myself!  

[Dansk]

Some really interesting ideas brought up here.

 

I have a small relevant suggestion to help streamline processes and reduce our hard-working leader enzo’s overload dealing with all this? That’s perhaps to give the post-build voting set-up to the host. I really like to show my appreciation of other’s builds and similarly see if people like my work at the end of a build after spending so much effort and time. It’s really an fun and interesting part of it I find. The current HE-111 build is nearing a month since completion and theres no opportunity to vote yet for example and I’d love too. Just an idea.

 

[Enzo the Magnificent]

1 hour ago, Dansk said:

That’s perhaps to give the post-build voting set-up to the host.

 

Actually, that's where it has always been.  However, the FAQ on setting up a poll is long out of date, so I really need to get that sorted. 

[Dansk]

1 minute ago, Enzo Matrix said:

 

Actually, that's where it has always been.  However, the FAQ on setting up a poll is long out of date, so I really need to get that sorted. 

Oh sorry enzo, my bad. 

 

[Enzo the Magnificent]

1 hour ago, Dansk said:

Oh sorry enzo, my bad. 

 

 

 

No apology necessary.  It was a valid comment which just serves to highlight the gaps in the FAQ.   

[trickyrich]

ok I just posted below over in the 2021 Bunfight thread, but I think this is very relevant to the conversations here.

 

These are just some raw figures looking at the last 4 years of GB Polls.........forget about 2019, it seems to have gone missing.

 

A couple of things really stand out for me...

 

1, the gradual decline in the number of members that actually vote in a GB. I know there are more to come for this year but I'll be very surprised if it even reaches 175! 

 

2, we never use all the votes we are allocated, perfect reason to drop them by 75% of the choices available.

 

There are a couple of other things I've noticed but I need to dig further into the actually GB's. I want to look at the commitment/entry/completion rates....anyway that's for later when I'm bored onshift! 

 

# of members that voted:

225 - 2017

207 - 2018

       - 2019

178 - 2020

166 - current

 

total # of votes cast:

1125 - 2017

954 -2018

       - 2019

888 - 2020

1147 - current

 

# of GB Choices & # of votes available:

25 & 6 - 2017

16 & 6 - 2018

11 & 5 - 2019

14 & 7 - 2020

26 & 9 - current

 

Average # of votes actually used:

5.00 - 2017

4.61 - 2018

    - 2019

4.99 - 2020

6.91 - current

 

Top GB & # of votes received:

Made in Britain 68 - 2017

Carries Ahoy 82 - 2018

                           - 2019

in the navy 93 - 2020

Less than a Tenner 2 67 - current

 

To me looking at it just from a number perspective there really does seen to be a decline in overall interest in GB's, or in the process of selecting the future GB's.

 

I want to look at the sign-ups to actual threads started for both GB's & STGB's. I have a feeling the whole process of starting the proposed GB/STGB threads to the poll to the start of the actual GB has become too long and that initial interest when the GB/STGB was proposed has faded or gone by the time the actual build starts.

 

To me, and using 2022 GB year as an example;

 

1st Jan 2021 the proposed GB/STGB threads opens, and start completely blank, so on that day you start the threads for GB's/STGB's you'd like to see in 2022. 

 

1st Nov 2021 the Poll is up for GB's, STGB's proposals will still keep running.

 

30th Nov 2021 the GB poll closes and the STGB threads are closed.

 

1st Dec 2021, the coming years GB's and STGB's are announced.

 

31st Dec 2021 that years GB threads are archived and a clean thread is ready for the next day, no carryover 2nd chance GB's.

 

Worse case you may have to wait a bit over 18 months for a build you're interested in to come around. 

 

 

Or maybe with the STGB's you have only 6 months to to decide on which ones you're interested in, then those selected start 6 months later, again trying to keep things nice and fresh and interesting.

 

Now there's something to think about.

 

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Im all for changes but my two  worth says that GB’s and STGB’s should not compete with each other in the same poll. Some of the thoughts in previous posts are valid. If we go with 7 of each I say that we could limit the number proposals to a set number each year ? This would make it more fair in one respect. So say we limit the STGB’s to no more than 10-12  options in the STGB poll. If it takes from January to March or from January to October to get the 10-12 doesn't matter. That way we dont have 25 builds to pick with the 4-5 proposed votes. Once the roster is filled up no more proposal’s until January 1st the following year. 
       If this doesn't sound good then maybe we raise the requirement threshold to 30 or 35 up from 25 to slow down the advance of STGB over standard GB’s. As of right now we are 18 months out of sync, The F-15 STGB I believe is the farthest out starting in July of 2022. I am convinced that being out of Sync is hurting STGB participation as some members leave the Forum or lose interest in the hobby. 

[theplasticsurgeon]

On 11/15/2020 at 8:05 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

Topic 1  -  Annual number of groupbuilds

 

The calendar for next year is pretty full.  I have attenmpted to make sure that we get all GBs completed pretty much within the year.  This has led to a fairly busy period mid-year with up to 8 GBs and STGBs running concurrently.  This could lead to GB burnout amongst the BM massive.  There are 9 each of GBs and STGBs planned for next year.  We really need some breathing space to allow in special GBs like next year's Gulf War GB. 

 

So, the proposals are:

• Have 7 each of GBs and STGBs
• Maintain the status quo

Please feel free to make your own proposals.

I hadn't realised 8 concurrent GBs, but that does sound a bit much.   The number of GBs needs to be something that the organiser is not overloaded.

I have an idea to spread that workload, so that it's not all concentrated in the Nov-Dec period.

 

On 11/15/2020 at 8:14 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

Topic 2 - GB and STGB thresholds

 

Currently, a GB requires 30 people to show interest before it goes into the bunfight.   STGBs require 25.   Even so, we ended up with 26 GBs in the bunfight this year.

 

Do we raise the thresholds for the bunfight or keep them the same?   Do we have the same threshold for GBs and STGBs?

 

The proposals are

• Raise both thresholds by 10
• Raise both thresholds to 40
• Rockin' All Over The World

Raising both thresholds, would reduce the number of proposals making the cut to the bunfight. 

I'd give it a try, but reserve the right to review the threshold figure annually - consider making that figure equal to the lowest declared support figure for those ST/GBs successful at the previous bunfight.

 

On 11/15/2020 at 8:20 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

Topic 3 - GB repeats

 

Some subjects are perennially popular.  We currently have a policy of at least one year must pass before a GB can be run again.   I know that the NATO v Warsaw Pact GBs seemingly break that policy, but if you look at them as a whole they are a popular GB theme that lasted for four years - maybe five.  If we ever have an extended theme proposal that looks like it could be as popular, then we can discuss it again.

 

Proposals are:

• Three years between nominations
• Two years between nominations
• Caroline

 

 

 

The NATO v Warsaw Pact GBs are decade specific, so different.  That said 1990s didn't make the cut for the 2020 schedule, and is by no means a certainty for 2021.

Whatever repeat gap is agreed, it's still got to gather support in the chat phase, and then make the cut in the bunfight.

No strong feelings from me on this Topic.

 

On 11/15/2020 at 8:30 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

Topic 4 - STGB allocations

 

The current method of allocation for STGBs is to add them to the calendar as soon as they reach the threshold.  There is no bunfight for STGBs.  Why do we do it that way?  Well, because we've always done it that way.   

 

Unfortunately it means that the STGB calender gets filled up years in advance.  When it goes too far, I have to put a moratorium on STGB proposals for a year.  We may be reaching that stage again as all the 2021 STGB slots are taken, together with two of the 2022 slots.

 

Proposals from the dialogue are shown in red.

 

Proposals are:

• Move the STGBs in line with GBs.  There will be an STGB bunfight for 2022, However, the currently nominated STGBs will stand.
• Continue with the current plan untill all slots are filled for 2022.  There will be an STGB bunfight for 2023.
• Scrap STGBs.  GBs for single types will be allowed but theyu take their chances in a bunfight just like every other GB
• Mean Girl

This is where my idea to spread the workload lies.

I'd separate GB chat and STGB chat with a folder for each, so that each thread therein is clear about what its intent is. 

I only remember one chat that morphed from an STGB to a GB.  That was MosquitoSTGB, which became DeHavilland Mega GB in 2017 - so it's not a common occurence.

With segregated area for GBs, and STGBs, they can have:

different thresholds of interest before going forward;

separated voting procedures (bunfights), with different timetables. 

even a different organiser - if Enzo Matrix can find a voluntfeer.

GB bunfight remaining in Nov to enable all GBs completed pretty much within the calendar year,  and STGB admin during the summer - and running mid-year for a 12 month period.

 

On 11/15/2020 at 8:40 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

Topic 5 - Bunfight byes

 

Currently a GB proposal that hasn't made the grade in the bunfight gets an automatic bye into the next year's bunfight (unless it was on a bye already in which case it has to start from scratch).

 

That worked well for this year, with just 7 byes.  Under the same policy, next year we would have 13 byes, which is enough for a whole bunfight on its own!

 

Proposals are:

• No byes.  Any GB that doesn't make the grade starts from scratch in the next year.
• The five GBs below the cutoff point get a bye into the next year
• All GBs which are within ten *** open for discussion *** votes of the cutoff get a bye
• Paper Plane

 

 

As I've already said,  No byes.   They count upon support that might no longer exist. 

I vouch support for a GB where a suitable kit exists in my stash.

I might well find another reason to build that kit during the year, so that support cannot be counted upon over a year later - unless I post to say that I can still offer support.

For those proposals that make the cut, move the thread to FutureGBs or FutureSTGBs area, until that ST/GB area is created.

As an example,  I vouched support to Latin Ameican colours GB earlier this year - a proposal that's been running since 2017.  Offering to build a T-6 Texan, in Mexico colours.

That hasn't reached the bunfight threshold, so that model will be build during the Harvard/Texan STGB instead.

The model that I offered for Latin American is now no longer available.

 

For those proposals that don't make the cut, move the thead to a reference area, so as to retain any value it might hold.  You might want to consider making each title unique, or combining similar threads.

For those proposals that don't make the bunfight,  I'd move their ChatTheads to a reference area, at the start of the bunfight.  Then lock the Chat area to new proposals until after voting has finished.

 

On 11/15/2020 at 8:44 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

Topic 6 - Bunfight vote allocations

 

Currently, we all get the same number of votes are there are available slots.  Do you still want this?

 

Proposals are:

• 75% of the available slots
• 60% of the available slots
• Down The Dustpipe

 

 

 

Topic 7 - Bunfight durations

 

How long should the bunfight last?  Currently it is one calendar month, throughout November.  

 

Proposals are:

• Two weeks
• One week
• In The Army Now

 

 

 

Tim has just put his thinking hat on.

For vote allocation,  if this is reduced - it makes each vote more valuable, and the result more focussed.

If the number of votes were decreased to ONE,  voting would be something like an EndOfGBpoll.  And definite favourites would emerge.

If the number were increased to equal the number of proposals, the result would be something between a flat-equal plateau, and a repeat of the chat thread support.

We've still got to pass a number of GBs into the next schedule, I'd be happy to try 75%, and see what happens.

 

Duration - One week only.  Everybody is connected these days, even whilst away from home on business or holiday.

 

Another topic that comes out of the duration is tactical voting.  Being able to remove votes from one GB that's doing well - to bump another over the threshold.

I'd call this cheating.  I know others think it's part of the fun - but early voters are being defrauded.

Electronic voting might not be able to prevent this, but shorter duration gives less opportunity to see and react to the trends.

Could all be eliminated if cast votes were not revealed until the voting process is completed - just like a real election.

Could all be eliminated if Show Results were disabled for the bunfight.

 

Ideally voting only by those who are likely to participate in the ST/GBs, but I'm certain that's very unrealistic.

[Robert Stuart]

14 hours ago, trickyrich said:

To me, and using 2022 GB year as an example;

 

1st Jan 2021 the proposed GB/STGB threads opens, and start completely blank, so on that day you start the threads for GB's/STGB's you'd like to see in 2022. 

 

1st Nov 2021 the Poll is up for GB's, STGB's proposals will still keep running.

 

30th Nov 2021 the GB poll closes and the STGB threads are closed.

 

1st Dec 2021, the coming years GB's and STGB's are announced.

 

31st Dec 2021 that years GB threads are archived and a clean thread is ready for the next day, no carryover 2nd chance GB's.

Assuming all GB threads close on 1 Nov, this can be planned for and set up ahead of time - IIRC a moderator can set this soon after a thread starts (doesn't have to be THE GB Moderator).
If GBs close and lock on 1 Nov then the forum would, effectively, be closed to new ideas in the months of November and December.  I suspect that this would be enough to kill the spirit of the chat area.

By my estimate there were six GB proposals made in October this year.
I doubt any of the proposers hoped that they would make this year's cut.

There were ten (est) proposals made this year that did make it into the bun fight.  The latest of these was proposed on 1st June.

Suggested change to TR's proposal:

Existing GB proposals to lock on 1 Nov 2021.  This includes any in the current bun-fight that take a bye.
Proposals made between now and 30 June 2021 to lock on 1 Nov 2021. 

1 July:   New build proposals to lock on 1 Nov the following year (carry forward).
Observation: in non-Covid years, July, August and September are the summer holiday season in Britain, and tended to be quiet/fallow in several of the industries I've worked in. Subjectively, I wouldn't expect much activity in this period.

Proposals after 1 July that pass the 30 supporter threshold may still go into November's bun fight.

1 November the GB poll opens.
30 November, the GB poll closes*.

 

After the polls close (1 Dec), the following year's GBs are announced.

Archiving of dead proposals can start after 1 November.  Suggest this work is shared among a select few experienced moderators.

I can see an argument for moving the carry forward cut-off to 31 August/1 September (from 30 June/1 July)

 

Vote allocation:  Members to have fewer votes than there are slots available.  Suggest between 50% and 75%, recommend 66.6% (²/3).

 

*Or earlier, see Tim's post above, or my next post.

[Robert Stuart]

1 hour ago, theplasticsurgeon said:

separated voting procedures (bunfights), with different timetables. 

Agree.  Suggest STGB voting is in May or June, though I'd start with similar procedures.
 

1 hour ago, theplasticsurgeon said:

Duration - One week only.  Everybody is connected these days, even whilst away from home on business or holiday.

Agree in principle.
There are occasions when I'm out of the loop for a week, I dare say others are too?  Perhaps offer two weeks would be better?

[vppelt68]

But, but, but... The proposed STGB voting, eh? The current process rather nicely ties those that have originally signed on these GB:s to actually participating in them. Whereas in a voting, anybody with no interest in participating the actual STGB:s gets to decide which go through and which not. Do we set these up for spectators or the players?

V-P

[trickyrich]

2 hours ago, vppelt68 said:

But, but, but... The proposed STGB voting, eh? The current process rather nicely ties those that have originally signed on these GB:s to actually participating in them. Whereas in a voting, anybody with no interest in participating the actual STGB:s gets to decide which go through and which not. Do we set these up for spectators or the players?

V-P

 

i only think voting for STGB's would only be necessary if we had more STGB's than slots, the STGB's still need to make the 25 threshold. There would still be the 2 year ban on repeat STGB's. Plus the STGB threads are all reset at the start of each year.

 

The first year you'd get the usual lot, but those being sidelined for 2 years it a chance for others to go through. If there's 6 STGB slots ( we could alway introduce more???) we may even get to the stage were we may have to let a STGB go through even if it didn't quite have the numbers to qualify.

 

There would still be a permanent slot available for non-aircraft builds.

 

An alternate way to select STGB's, when there are more than slots available is to maybe use the number of interested member who signed up???  The most popular signed up STGB's go through, again only if there are too many. If you sign up and don't show up it'll be pretty obvious to everyone...serial offenders, well they wouldn't do it for long as everyone would know who they are. Most of the time members who can't build when the time comes a quite upfront as to why they couldn't and generally there's a very small percentage so this selection system if required could work.

[CliffB]

I seem to be in the minority on this point (which is not uncommon ), so could someone please explain why we should favour STGBs over traditional GBs, given that in general STGBs attract fewer participants? 

I'm afraid I can't see the logic.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

1 hour ago, CliffB said:

I seem to be in the minority on this point (as usual ), so could someone please explain why we should favour STGBs over traditional GBs, given that in general STGBs attract fewer participants?  I can't see the logic.

Hello Cliff, Im not trying to favor one over the other, Im more afraid that if we go certain routes we will not see many single type group builds at all. Im trying to find a balance so that we can maintain both equally. If we were to have 14 builds a year say, 3 dedicated ( KUTA, Special historical, & Classic kit). That leaves us 11 now if we have 4 stgb’s we would still have 7 standard. That leaves up to ten slots that are possible for standard gb’s in a year I think thats a fair ratio for anyone ? 

[CliffB]

24 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Im more afraid that if we go certain routes we will not see many single type group builds at all.

 

Thanks for your reply Dennis.  I guess the question I'm really asking is what's so important about STGBs?  Why do they need to be protected?  Why should they be given space if they're not popular enough to get through a bunfight?  This is the fundamental point that I don't understand.

 

 

[diases]

Are STGB important?   I think that they are, because they are focused on one subject, and aĺlow for specialist fanatics to model their chosen subject with fellow members.  GB's will mostly gather more support in a vote, because they encompass a broad range of subjects. Take the Vietnam GB, everything from fuel tanker truck to B52 bomber. More choice allows more people to find their favoured subject, so will nearly all ways garner more votes than a single subject.

I think that the two types must be kept separate in votes or they would probably disappear, or be limited to certain very popular subjects.

Maybe the present system is wrong (get the numbers, straight through), but I'm not certain on how the proceed, without diminishing the enthusiasm gathered for a single subject

 

Paul

[Dave Swindell]

13 hours ago, trickyrich said:

An alternate way to select STGB's, when there are more than slots available is to maybe use the number of interested member who signed up???  The most popular signed up STGB's go through, again only if there are too many. If you sign up and don't show up it'll be pretty obvious to everyone...serial offenders, well they wouldn't do it for long as everyone would know who they are. Most of the time members who can't build when the time comes a quite upfront as to why they couldn't and generally there's a very small percentage so this selection system if required could work.

I've been mulling over an idea along these lines for ALL group builds.

The polling system permits members with no intention whatsoever of joining in the group build to help getting it selected, whilst other proposed group builds don't even garner as many votes as members already signed up to participate. 

My feeling is there should be a commitment to participate in a group build for this to be counted towards which group builds are selected for the calendar. 

Serial non starters signing up would be discounted in the selection process.

I'd also look at drastically shortening the time period from proposal of a group build to it actually starting to a maximum of 7 months.

Divide the calendar into quarters.

For simple maths, assume 12 group builds per year, 3 per quarter, one starting in each month of the quarter

Four months before the quarter, a 3 month window opens to propose group builds and get supporters

One month before the quarter, the 3 group builds with the most supporters are selected 

The 3 selected group builds go into the diary starting 1, 2 and 3 months after selection closes

There are no more group builds in the diary beyond those just selected

Once the selection process has completed, the next one starts for the following diary quarter slots.

This will keep the group build diary fresh and up to date, the current diary being booked up a year or more in advance is, I believe, at least partly responsible for members not signing up or voting for group builds that will be so far in the future. Topical group builds will get a chance whilst interest is fresh, you're much less likely to forget what you've signed up for, and nobody needs a year or more to prepare for a group build - if you're interested enough to join in you've either got the kit(s) in the stash or they're already on your shopping list.

None of the above would preclude anyone else signing up for group builds after they've been put in the diary, or just joining in when it's actually started - the more the merrier!

[CliffB]

I like that idea very much @Dave Swindell

[trickyrich]

2 hours ago, CliffB said:

 

Thanks for your reply Dennis.  I guess the question I'm really asking is what's so important about STGBs?  Why do they need to be protected?  Why should they be given space if they're not popular enough to get through a bunfight?  This is the fundamental point that I don't understand.

I think you may not be the only one either and you make a good point.

 

STGB's are treated different just by their very nature, they involve a single type of.....well what ever. In the greater GB world they'd never gain enough interest to justify their own build....a single subject.... well a lot of member would think it's a silly idea and why bother.

 

But there are a group that find this an interesting concept, and it's a great way to show the evolution of a particular subject. Even with  just one subject type you can have a huge number of variations of models and schemes. Some of these subjects are members favourite type of aircraft.....etc. Sort of why there are SIG's out there in the modelling world.......strange lot but still part of the greater good! 

 

As far as i have seen GB's and STGB's do coincide quite happily together. STGB's don't take away from GB build slots and vice versa. Whether there be 5 or 7 STGB slots it has no impact of the normal GB slots. Getting rid of STGB's or making them go through the same voting process as GB's will not mean we can have more GB slots.

 

The only members that sort of complain are those..like me  that have a bad habit of over committing.

 

 

[Chimpion]

The argument about relative interest in STGBs and GBs also applies to regular GBs because of the bunfight. Making the GB so broad that it's no longer really a single topic can result in more participation and more votes. Sometimes  this makes sense, as in for example classic Heller/Frog/Airfix etc. At other times it makes much

less sense, e.g. a Swedish GB might include a mixture of genuine Swedish items (Saab Viggen, Volvo 240, Scania truck) which is already very broad, but might then have a Tyrell driven by Ronnie Petersen etc. It becomes so broad as to potentially lose the communal spirit. The problem at the moment is that tightly defined GBs will only get through the vote if they cover very mainstream and popular topics. I confess I don't know how to solve this, or even whether others see this as a problem at all.

 

[CliffB]

2 hours ago, diases said:

Are STGB important?   I think that they are, because they are focused on one subject, and aĺlow for specialist fanatics to model their chosen subject with fellow members.  GB's will mostly gather more support in a vote, because they encompass a broad range of subjects.

 

1 hour ago, trickyrich said:

STGB's are treated different just by their very nature, they involve a single type of.....well what ever. In the greater GB world they'd never gain enough interest to justify their own build....a single subject.... well a lot of member would think it's a silly idea and why bother.

 

Thanks Paul and Rich . 

I think we're agreed that most STGBs are insufficiently popular (relative to broader GBs), to exist without some form of artificial support. 

 

1 hour ago, trickyrich said:

STGB's don't take away from GB build slots and vice versa. Whether there be 5 or 7 STGB slots it has no impact of the normal GB slots. Getting rid of STGB's or making them go through the same voting process as GB's will not mean we can have more GB slots.

 

Rich, I don't think there is any reason why the time which is currently allocated to STGBs, couldn't be allocated instead to conventional GBs.  The Hosts are broadly the same, as are most of the participants.  So I think it is true that GBs are being sacrificed in the bunfight, in order to artificially support STGBs.

 

On a more positive note, I've had some thoughts on how STGBs could be retained, whilst not prejudicing the number of broader interest GBs that can be accomodated in the calender. The plan is this.   

 

1)  If an STGB is likely to be popular enough to go through the general GB selection procedure in its own right, then fine - it can do that if the proposer so choses (the Spitfire STGB, for example, would have been popular enough to have got through a bunfight unaided). 

2) If the STGB is unlikely to be popular enough to go through the general GB selection procedure in its own right, then the proposer should be able to request to incorporate with an appropriately themed GB.  For example, the fledgling C-130 STGB could ask to incorporate with the High Wing GB proposal - much of the Forum space would be common between the two, but I'm envisaging separate co-hosts and Galleries.  In that way we get two related GBs for the price (time wise) of one.  Likewise, Nordic II, could support a Draken STGB, and so on.  Most of the STGB subjects are prettty mainstream, so I'd hope would be able to find a home before too long.  It may actually help a GB's chances to have an STGB associated with it.

 

Cheers

 

 

.

[vppelt68]

@CliffB I'm asking you just one question: What such bad have the STGB:s done to you, that makes you want to kill them all? Just asking... 🙂

Best regards, V-P

[CliffB]

1 hour ago, vppelt68 said:

@CliffB I'm asking you just one question: What such bad have the STGB:s done to you, that makes you want to kill them all? Just asking... 🙂

Best regards, V-P

Hi V-P. 

The short answer is last year's Bun Fight:  Small Wars GB.  So close, yet no cigar.  I'm still traumatised 

But seriously, I'm just trying to be objective.  We're being encouraged in this thread to challenge the status quo.  

I was shocked when I saw how little participation there has generally been in recent STGBs and yet we can't find room for other, more diverse/inclusive GBs.

I'll shut up now though for a bit!

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

[alt-92]

Well, just going by the He-111 STGB @CliffBmay have a valid point.

26 signups, and 17 build threads?

Maybe it's time to 'ave a chat about raising the sign-up bar a bit to 30 minimum?