Jump to content

SAMI woes


HartDeco
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, HartDeco said:

I hope the quality of a magazine isn't being rated by the accuracy of the kits built in it. 

 

I suspect that something is being lost in translation.

 

The quality of an article has nothing to do with the accuracy of a kit, in fact the author does clearly identify inaccuracies in both size and shape of the wings which are both issues that perhaps little can be done about  if one chooses to use that particular kit.

 

However , regarding the multiple wing fences and outer pylons these per se have little to do with the accuracy of the kit as they are indeed relevant to some export variants of the  Hawk . . . . .  just not the Hawk T.1 in RAF service which was the subject of the article.

 

For this removing the spurious detail (moulded in superfluous wing fences) could reasonably be remedied with a sharp knife while not fitting irrelevant parts (the outer pylons) and filling their locating holes would have provided a more representative and accurate scale model of an RAF Hawk T.1.

 

Not to do so suggests a general lack of understanding about the subject and/or an unmerited faith in the manufacturer's instruction sheets either or both of which does reflect on quality.

 

As for the suggestion that 'If it looks like a Hawk, it is a Hawk' that rather opens the floodgates - Royal Navy F-4E 'If it looks like a Phantom, it is a Phantom' , Dutch F-5E/F 'If it looks like a Freedom Fighter it is a Freedom Fighter'  -  the list is endless.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Des said:

 

I suspect that something is being lost in translation.

 

The quality of an article has nothing to do with the accuracy of a kit, in fact the author does clearly identify inaccuracies in both size and shape of the wings which are both issues that perhaps little can be done about  if one chooses to use that particular kit.

 

However , regarding the multiple wing fences and outer pylons these per se have little to do with the accuracy of the kit as they are indeed relevant to some export variants of the  Hawk . . . . .  just not the Hawk T.1 in RAF service which was the subject of the article.

 

For this removing the spurious detail (moulded in superfluous wing fences) could reasonably be remedied with a sharp knife while not fitting irrelevant parts (the outer pylons) and filling their locating holes would have provided a more representative and accurate scale model of an RAF Hawk T.1.

 

Not to do so suggests a general lack of understanding about the subject and/or an unmerited faith in the manufacturer's instruction sheets either or both of which does reflect on quality.

 

As for the suggestion that 'If it looks like a Hawk, it is a Hawk' that rather opens the floodgates - Royal Navy F-4E 'If it looks like a Phantom, it is a Phantom' , Dutch F-5E/F 'If it looks like a Freedom Fighter it is a Freedom Fighter'  -  the list is endless.

Ehm, no. Nothing got lost in translation. I only stated the quality of a kit, instructions or minor errors in a build have nothing to do with the quality of the magazine, and that what this topic is about. And I guess, if the author was aware of the errors you mentioned, he probably would have addressed them. 

 

René

Edited by HartDeco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I certainly do expect (but rarely get) an informed view of the accuracy of the model.  If someone is presenting something in public, the quality of it should be considered by the modeller before the build starts, and known flaws should be pointed out.  Otherwise readers will take errors as gospel facts, and these get cascaded down through the years..  Any other approach is sheer laziness and disrespect to the audience.

 

The quality of the magazine does indeed have something to do with the standard of the kit, if flaws in these are not made clear.  There's much more to modelling than pretty painting, a lack of visible seams or fingerprints in the paint, wrinkles in the transfers.  The resulting kit does have to look as much alike the intended subject as possible, within the skills of the modeller.  It can't do that if you start off with inbuilt problems that are not recognised or addressed,

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Des said:

 

Not to do so suggests a general lack of understanding about the subject and/or an unmerited faith in the manufacturer's instruction sheets either or both of which does reflect on quality.

 

 

And this is most likely the case. Dont forget that Dave and his team will send avaliable kits to any model builder that puts his/her head above the parapit.  The Modeller may have NO experience or historic knowlege of the real object he/she is building in model form, and simply following the instructions, which you would do if you had never built this kit or aware of the manufactuers failings in the instructions. To the experienced Hobby Boss Modeller, we know all too well the instructions are poor without even paint call outs let alone, 'chop this off for this version.

 

Before we criticise, you need to understand the brief and the modellers experience with a manufactuer and the subject in hand.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jon Bryon said:

The main reason I stopped buying SAMI several years ago was the poor standard of writing (as in spelling and grammar). Has this improved with the reincarnation?

 

Jon

SAMI has gone down the pan, Phoenix is fantastic. There will always be errors but we're only human and things will get overlooked and missed. Easily done.

 

9 hours ago, dipaoj said:

Not by much, if at all. I, too, found it astonishing, especially in the age of Spellcheck, etc. There seemed a lack of editorial oversight. 

I hope you're saying this regarding the degraded SAMI and not Phoenix, Phoenix, albeit with human errors, is fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hardtarget said:

The Modeller may have NO experience or historic knowlege of the real object he/she is building in model form, and simply following the instructions, which you would do if you had never built this kit or aware of the manufactuers failings in the instructions.

Then why not do a bit of research?  If I was asked to build a model where I know little about the subject I'd do some basic research before starting on the model, as has happened for a couple of the kits I've done for SAMI.  To make for a good model and a more informative article the writer should know at least the basics of the real-life subject, surely? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MikeC said:

Then why not do a bit of research?  If I was asked to build a model where I know little about the subject I'd do some basic research before starting on the model, as has happened for a couple of the kits I've done for SAMI.  To make for a good model and a more informative article the writer should know at least the basics of the real-life subject, surely? 

 

He/She may have simple been asked to build it, not research it. It also depends on time as to whether the assembler/builder researches a particular subject. I dont know the builders experience, nationality and subject knowledge, but yes in this instance being a Hawk its pretty well know to the aviation modeller, so if an RAF version was to be built, identifying the differences would be benefitial to the reader otherwise its a magazine that is filling pages with builds that dont have much content. I must admit that both SAMI and MAI had this issue as I prefer in depth builds with analysis of the subject and kit in question, thats why i prefer SAM, however the editorial team will say 'find me these people'. In addition in the mag there are varying degreed of builds i.e Speedy builds, and Detailed builds which differ in quantity and quality of the analysis. 

 

Ultimatley its down to the purchaser to pay your monies and take it at face value, you might get someting from the article or you wont.

 

 

Edited by Hardtarget
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about writing for a magazine is that you are limited to the volume you can write.

The editor has to fit the whole magazine together so as a contributor you are limited to the space you have and sometimes, especially if it is a model of a subject you like, or are knowledgeable about you can find yourself ploughing on but ultimately you are restricted to what your content can be.

Its a fine balance of what the subject is, how it build, how accurate it is and how much space the editor can give you.

Not an easy juggling act sometimes! 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread seems to have gone off-topic from the original.  Anyone stumbling onto this thread will get the jist.  I think it's run its course.  If anyone thinks it hasn't, and can convince me otherwise, drop me a PM.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mike locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...