Demand for 100% kit accuracy versus modelling ability

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

2 hours ago, Bullbasket said:

No, but as that mistake by the manufacturer has featured in many discussions on many AFV sites, it would probably be known. A model can be judged in many ways, depending on the knowledge, or lack of, for that particular vehicle/aircraft/whatever. Judges can be fickle. I once had a model of a Mk.1a Spitfire dismissed by a judge because it wasn't clean enough. It was the Airfix kit in which I had opened up many panels, including the engine panel, and scratch built a Merlin (this was pre John Adam white metal offerings). I was supposed to represent an aircraft that had been well used at the height of the B of B, not one ready for a parade.

Just to be clear, I am not a rivet counter, but conversely, I do alter something if it is the wrong, (if I can) as in the number of rivets on the side of Academy's M3 Grant, or change the VVSS units on that kit because they are too shallow. But that is how I approach the hobby. That's how I get enjoyment from this great hobby. If others don't approach it the same way, fine, that's up to them and I wouldn't decry them for it, because it's each to his own. But in these times of rapidly rising prices, I do think that if I'm being asked to pay the best part of £80 in some cases for the latest kit, then I expect it to be reasonably accurate.

 

John.

 

PS. If you really want to see real rivet counters, go to a model railway exhibition!!

 

 

You'd have to check the judging guidance for the specific competition but all I've seen (and certainly on the one occasion I judged at Telford) the guidance is to steer well clear of historical accuracy and concentrate on the quality of the work. Most will put whatever they know in a box, dismiss it from their mind and work through the scoring criteria which almost invariably focuses solely on objective model making skill. Probably the only place in 2022 where you're going to find someone foolishly digging a hole about number of wheel bolts or exactitude of colour under the sodium orange lights of the sports hall is in some local rinkeydink club competition where they haven't bothered with any wisdom from more serious competitions. You'll be hard pressed to find something big and prestigious which doesn't help the judges protect themselves by staying well away from accuracy.

 

There's hardly anyone here who doesn't know someone who claimed that some evil rivet-counting competition judge marked them down on some detail or other about their build only for our plucky hero of the story to bang them to rights by producing <insert unimpeachable evidence here> which made the rivet counter's jaw drop and the crowd clapped and cheered etc. Honestly though - >99% of it is the same fantasy some people indulge in when fancying how they'd conduct themselves in a multitude of challenging situations that never really arise.

 

 

The only time I've been aware of accuracy judged well, incidently, is in things like F4C radio control aircraft competitions where the static judging is performed against a dossier submitted by the entrant and nothing else. The dossier will contain photographs of that entrant's specific aircraft and it starts at full points and loses points for anything which deviates from the evidence in the dossier supplied by the builder to show what they've made a model of.

[MrB17]

Concerning 100% kit accuracy, the most important thing to me personally is shape and outline. If those are close enough, the rest can be easily worked to the (modeller’s satisfaction). Most model kits are largely based on someone’s drawings, and available photos, not blueprints. In some cases blueprints have been made available and technology has allowed the 3D scanning of the real thing. However as it has been pointed out, there are certain things that would be impractical to reproduce in scale, ie. skin thickness, trailing edge thickness, scale panel joints or overlapping etc. Putting parts up against someone’s interpretive drawings is a waste of my time. Where markings are concerned, there are formulas for the dimensions of most insignia’s and lettering as well as colours used. Again, matching colours to paint chips is a bit of a head shaker to me.

 

A large part of modelling is research, and if you spend hundreds or thousands of hours on a particular subject then you are likely to notice when something just doesn’t look right. However most people don’t have the time to do this for every subject they model. This is where forums like BM come in handy, if you’re trying to improve a particular kit.

 

“To the modeller’s satisfaction”. This is the key to happiness, if you’re not entering a contest or putting it in a museum, then you really have no need to prove yourself to anyone. How many of you have been to a museum and found gross inaccuracies in the portrayal of a subject you have great knowledge of? In most contests, judges are looking for the fundamental elements of a nice build, alignment, joint cleanliness, decal silvering and finish. As stated elsewhere, some serious competitions require documentation of the subject, because the chances of finding a panel of judges who are experts on one subject are slim to none. 

 

Going back in time, the fun and excitement of modelling as a youth is something to be fondly remembered, and should never be forgotten. To put a model together without any worry is very therapeutic. I practice this as frequently as possible. Again, if you’re happy with the end result, that’s all that really matters. Don’t beat yourself up because John Doe says it’s .1234mm to short.

 

Don’t worry, be happy 

 

Jeff

[Farmer matt]

Whilst this is straying slightly off thread, the question of accurate portrayal vs. what looks like poor modelling may sometimes raise its head. For example, are those antenna supposed to be offset or central, is one tailpane supposed to be higher than the other (c30), are those invasion stripes really that wonky. Those may be cases when presenting evidence  would be beneficial.

 

Matt

[JohnT]

Interesting topic. Could there ever be a perfect kit or a perfect build for that matter?  I really doubt that.  Perhaps it’s the inner desire to achieve perfection that drives humans on, that makes painters do artwork after artwork, golfers try for the perfect round and so on. 
 

The real question is - if an infinite number of monkeys had an infinite time to build models and were given an infinite number of 1/32 Trumpeter English Electric Lightnings would a perfect model ever result?  Nah!!!! 

[IanHx]

Good discussion.  On the subject of "bad kits built well vs good kits built badly",  pretty sure  i belong to the Order of the Plastic Manglers  

[Cammer625]

If accuracy is all that matters you will buy the Border Lanc. And thoroughly enjoy it. If price (and less parts=easier buildability (one hopes) and acceptance of some perceived defects (there should be 2 categories of defects - naked eye (with or without 20/20 correction) and Optivisor lens x10 strength) the HK looks pretty good. No space?? Try the 1/48 HK. Still too big. Airfix 1/72 is a very nice kit (but far less detailed than the Border). I got a few HK for the price of one Border-I know I couldn’t do the Border justice and, to be frank, my skill set will never be good enough to do it justice. Just because there is a very accurate kit doesn’t mean we will all buy it. Or build it. 
TBH, if it looks good and has good detail, is available, builds good (subjective but giving me a 3 piece burner can with no positive locators-give me a break Modelsvit Mirage IIIO) then that’s what I buy and build.
My builds may not  be 100% accurate, but then I probably can’t afford a kit that is  nor be able to build it.

[JohnT]

Just hitting the sack but had to share a fleeting thought 

 

If getting the perfect kit to build and doing it really is the Holy Grail how come I used to get way more fun and excitement from building a very basic (being polite here) Airfix Mosquito very badly way back when I started modelling than I do now?????????  Just sayin’

[Tzulscha]

 I am tempted to chime in a few paragraphs of my own take on this interesting subject.*

However, most of what I might say has already been said and said better, by previous posters.

 

We are doing this weird "hobby" thing because we find it entertains us personally.  

 

*but I won't because I'm lazy.

 

[Pete Robin]

On 9/21/2022 at 11:31 AM, Bullbasket said:

 

 

PS. If you really want to see real rivet counters, go to a model railway exhibition!!

Wayhay! That's really hitting the nail on the head. Couldn't agree more. I've witnessed em coming to blows over the placement of bolt heads/rivets and don't even mention colour schemes. Death threats have been issued. They viewed a certain Loco in 1957 and can accurately remember it's colour and even the eye colour of the driver. Magic!

 

I had a coupla more thoughts regarding accuracy and us modellers' demands for such. Now please, I am in no way denigrating anybody's work on here (or elsewhere) and am not claiming to be an expert (which I certainly aint), but as an example modellers in the past moaned that manufacturers missed things like flaps and other panels and wingdings etc.

So, the manufacturers have slowly but surely acceeded to the requests and many kits these days come so equipped. My point is, just because there are flaps, hatches etc., should we, if we are searching for accuracy, use them all?

I have seen many fine examples of RAF a/c with the flaps modelled down. If you peruse the relevant Pilot's Notes, they tell you that the flaps are to be lowered only on arrival at the hold point before take off and raised immediately on reaching a safe point on landing. They were very delicate structures and easily damaged, especially on grass airfields. I had a quick look and found, I think, maybe 2/3 pictures of (mainly) bombers with the flaps deployed and even less for fighters, even in maintenance situations. Bomb doors on the other hand, were always lowered on arrival at the dispersal. The same goes for the many and varied panels that occupy airframes. Just because they are there, should we really open em up? Personally, I would prefer the manufacturer to allow the modeller to deflect the flying surfaces rather than flaps. Most fighters are photographed with elevators drooped, rudders deflected and ailerons slightly deflected. Not so much on the big stuff as control locks were often used to ensure "clean" airframes. These small things, in my mind, make for accuracy rather than a minute difference in length, or the hump of a Hurricane not quite right etc. etc. etc. The same argument can be said for an airframe that has markings for a gazillion missions but is totally clean.

So, are WE being accurate, or just as accurate as we want to be, or are we being pernickity and blaming the manufacturers unfairly?

I have no answer to that.

I can claim a little knowledge about paint shades etc. as I was indirectly involved in some of the arguments that went along with a certain manufacturer's products, but that's a whole other discussion around accuracy. Maybe another day?

Regards

Pete

Pete

 

 

[John_W]

On 21/09/2022 at 11:31, Bullbasket said:

 

PS. If you really want to see real rivet counters, go to a model railway exhibition!!

I once ended up as a member of a military reenactment forum and some of those guys could give lessons in "rivet counting".

You would get stuff like "those are the wrong kind of bootlaces for the 5th SOG in Da Nang in June 1967"

[Ray_W]

16 hours ago, Pete Robin said:

Wayhay! That's really hitting the nail on the head. Couldn't agree more. I've witnessed em coming to blows over the placement of bolt heads/rivets and don't even mention colour schemes. Death threats have been issued. They viewed a certain Loco in 1957 and can accurately remember it's colour and even the eye colour of the driver. Magic!

 

15 hours ago, John_W said:

I once ended up as a member of a military reenactment forum and some of those guys could give lessons in "rivet counting".

You would get stuff like "those are the wrong kind of bootlaces for the 5th SOG in Da Nang in June 1967"

 

There is certainly plenty of opportunity to get with groups that like this sort of thing and it can be fun (so long as you have a thick skin). It is the usual story though, you cannot criticise others who may choose to go down this path. Or, anyone else who has a different view of what they enjoy and get out of their chosen hobby/passion. 

 

16 hours ago, Pete Robin said:

So, are WE being accurate, or just as accurate as we want to be, or are we being pernickity and blaming the manufacturers unfairly?

 

It can be irritating with the level of build complexity coming into kits, with everything that opens and shuts, if it is poorly executed by the manufacturer. For example, it's a personal decision if you want to portray your Spitfire with dropped flaps. I like to show mine with drooped elevators and flaps up (I am always hunting for photo evidence of my subject). So if the flaps up configuration cannot be portrayed nicely it can be a pain. We do see a trend by some kit manufacturers trying to accommodate complexity with buildability - Tamiya at the forefront. Also Eduard's progression as demonstrated in their early FW-190's, designed to display engine cowls open that could be built with the engine cowl nicely closed up, but, this took some work, then their decision to eliminate this complexity on their later FW-190 kits.

 

It can also be fun to build a kit with all panels open and flaps down. Strictly correct? No or maybe. Usually these builds, if executed well, do have a degree of "wow" factor. It's a personal choice like showing your models flying, wheels up. I know when I was young, the more complex the kit, the more I wanted it irrespective of accuracy. Now, a fundamental shape error and I lose interest or may wish to launch into corrective action. 

 

I can understand some modeller's frustration and desire to vent when, at last, a favourite subject or new tool is released and it shows poor/lazy research or a bad moulding decision, irrespective of their own building skill and ability to execute to the nth degree of accuracy. I also understand the flip side of this with a modeller who likes to build and paint  and has some of the gloss taken off their new or planned purchase which has been hit with kit criticism. Although, I do think deep down most of us would like to build an accurate portrayal to the level of our skill, even with some added artistic license thrown in. 

 

However, it is the critiquing of kits, by the modelling community, that is certainly driving the industry along. We are getting phenomenal kits at greater levels of detail with fidelity before unknown. Even with some manufacturers retrospectively correcting moulds and putting up early CAD renditions for critique. May it continue.  

 

Ray

 

 

[Giorgio N]

I'm honestly quite puzzled by some of the replies here... really, has any of you participated in a discussion about accuracy of a kit ???? Has any of you properly read one such discussion ???

0.00001 of a Micron ???? Thickness of the plastic ???? Do you realize that all kits that have sparked discussions over their accuracy have done so because of major shape and/or dimensional errors ??????

Because that's the reality of these discussions, every time they occur is because someone notices some major error, it's not a matter of microns, most times it's because of shape inaccuracies that can be seen just by comparing the model with photographs of the real thing. Want examples ? I can bring up many ! In most of them just one picture is enough to show the error, in a few the errors can be found just by comparing dimensions with proper measurements of the real thing. But in any case we're talking errors that go well beyond the limitation of the manufacturing process and are always due to one thing: the use of incorrect and/or insufficient references by the manufacturer.

 

And more... accuracy Vs. buildability ? What's the correlation between the two ? There have been very complicated and hard to build kits that were also inaccurate and there are kits designed for easy assembly that are remarkably accurate. A kit can be easy or difficult to build regardless of how correct or not the cross sections are. An accurate kit does not have to be more complicated than an inaccurate one. Complex engineering is generally due to other requirements, for example the need to add more detail or to make different versions from a common set of moulds.

Stuffing up accuracy while building ??? Why ? if my kit features accurate shapes and dimensions, how are my skills going to affect the final result ? Does it become shorter because I'm less skilled ? Sure, I may mess up the cross sections because I'm sanding the edges too much... but why should I sand the edges of a fuselage to the point of changin the cross sections (unless it's a vacuform )?  The only way a modeller's skill can affect the accuracy of the complete model is by gluing the parts incorrectly for one reason or the other, but then such an error would equally affect a less accurate model (I should know, years ago I inverted the intakes on a Matchbox Harrier... made for some unusual looking model). But this has to do with basic skills, it's not much a matter of being a more or less experienced modeller.

Not mentioned here but an often discussed issue... accuracy Vs. price ? Sure, more research can in theory result in higher development costs. Still there are plenty of examples of companies offering pretty accurate products at very reasonable prices so it can be done. Simply some companies try harder than others....

 

Accuracy of a kit is a result of the work of the manufacturer. Accuracy of the completed model can then benefit from the work of the modeller. It's then up to each modeller to decide how much work, if any, he/she is interested in putting in. Some may want to put more, some may just not care. As modellers each of us can clearly do what he likes. As customers of kit manufacturing companies we should however be entitled to ask from them as much as possible in every aspect, and accuracy is one of them.

[IanHx]

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Stuffing up accuracy while building ??? Why ? 

 

Over-vigorous sanding & filling,  failure of real aircraft manufacturer to add giant glue-blobs onto the wings.......   

[Steve McArthur]

On 9/18/2022 at 2:14 PM, Filler said:

But after reading some of the discussion again (and the equivalent ARC thread) I thought to myself, what percentage of modellers actually have the ability to take a 100% accurate kit from a manufacturer and not stuff it up to some degree in any part of assembly process and/or painting/weathering/decaling.

Accuracy is completely independent of someone's ability to assemble the kit and do a good job of it.  If a glue huffer can't assemble an accurate model, should the rest of us have to put up with garbage kits? You're really hinting at kit engineering here and this has very little to do with accuracy.  You can have a very accurate kit, that is just difficult to assemble. A Monogram A-10 is usually acknowledged as the "best" shaped 1/48th A-10 on the market, but it's a beast to finish well. The Hobby Boss or Italeri may be easier to assemble but each have issues.  Kinetic F-16s are both poorly engineered (shoddy fit) that make them difficult to assemble well and they are inaccurate (forward fuselage is droopy).  

 

For the most part there is little excuse for a model maker in today's world to come out with inaccurate models, but they still do either because It is difficult to judge a 3D object on a 2D screen, their CAD drafters are rushed or sloppy or it's not a priority to be accurate for many of these companies.  Close enough is good enough most of the time.  You see it on the model forums all the time.  Any time someone tries to point out flaws you get a chorus of "It looks okay to me" or "quit being a rivet counter".  As long as the market accepts inaccurate models the makers will keep producing them.  It's a rarity that the backlash is enough for the maker to actually try fixing the flaws.

 

CAD/CAM methods should make mold design and tool manufacture flawless so every kit should be a dream to assemble with almost snap fit tolerances, but many manufacturers still screw the pooch on this. How often are ejection pin marks in the middle of difficult to fix detail or sprue gates on a mating surface? My opinion here is that large numbers development teams are not modelers and have no understanding about how to assemble their products.  This is where you end up with problems where a slight misalignment five steps ago means the fuselage won't close. 

 

I look at the weapons sprue shots of the new 1/48 Kinetic F-16 and see a company that doesn't know how to design an easy build experience. A HARM missile shouldn't need 10 parts to make a missile when every other plastic HARM is typically 4 parts and I think their AMRAAMS are 11 parts. Most other manufactures can do it adequately in one piece. This was a great feature of AMK's F-14 with it's slide molded weapons. High part count is not necessarily synonymous with high quality.

 

On the flip side, the Tamiya 1/48 F-4B or their recent P-38s are supposed to be some of the best engineered kits ever made and it takes effort by the modeler to screw up assembly. That's good engineering. I know I have a much easier time getting a good result out out a well engineered kit and I've seen this sentiment a lot lately, regardless of the accuracy of the kit. People just don't want to waste time on poorly engineered kits. I still build for the plane, so I'm as likely to work on an limited run mixed media kit or an old ESCI jet as I am a new uber-kit. But, I find it frustrating to buy a new mold 21st century kit that is a finnicky build when I want something simple.

 

Ideally you should be able to do a line up of the same plane from different manufacturers and not be able to tell them apart. This is accuracy. The AMK F-14 stands out like a sore thumb to me in a F-14 line up, so I won't buy it, same with existing Kinetic F-16s or Academy F-15s. I want to know what's wrong with a kit before I spend money on it, especially now as kit prices have been climbing steeply. I won't waste money on a turkey if there is an alternative.  You want me to buy your new kit flaws and all, make it something new on the market, not just a new tool of a plane that's had a decent kit for 30 years.  Odds are I've got the old kit in the stash along with the aftermarket to fix it up.

 

I remember when I bought the Trumpeter RA-5C at around $70 on release and it was the most expensive kit I'd ever bought at that point (2004). That price is now middle of the road for a 1/48th jet.  But, it was likely to be the only injection molded kit of that plane in my scale ever made. So, I bought it warts and all and then started researching how to fix what's wrong. I can at least get the airframe features to all match a late model RA-5C and fix the fin tip, but the forward fuselage I'm think I'm stuck with.  I'm still up in the air about the Su-24 as about half the fuselage needs replacement and I don't think it's worth it.

 

When you have 4 manufacturers all doing modern F-4s I can afford to be choosy. I've still got a stack of half finished Hasegawa F-4Es in the closet I'm happy with. Their F-4G was one of the first Hasegawa kits I ever built right after Desert Storm, but I bought an Academy F-4B out of excitement for a new modern F-4 and recently a Tamiya F-4B when it was a deal too good to pass up otherwise I'm trying to finish things in the stash.

[IanHx]

To echo Steve's sentiment :  manufacturers take note, having to glue fins onto a missile does nothing for me as a modeller....... I'd get more enjoyment out of dropping a craft knife on my foot than wrestling with teeny tiny 1:72 AMRAAM fins whose sole purpose is to bump up the kit's parts count....

[upnorth]

On 9/21/2022 at 7:19 PM, MrB17 said:

Concerning 100% kit accuracy, the most important thing to me personally is shape and outline. If those are close enough, the rest can be easily worked to the (modeller’s satisfaction).

 

That's generally where I stand on the matter myself.

 

Give me a kit that's properly sized to the stated scale, has an accurate outline and captures the external nuances correctly and I'll take care of the other details to my preferances.

 

A good example is the 1/72 Z-37 ag plane that KP put out in the not too distant past. I got a look at it in one of my local shops when it first came out and the first thing I noticed was that the side windows of the cockpit canopy were molded flat rather than prominently bulged as they are on the real thing. When Eduard put out their kits for the Z-37, they caught that detail quite nicely. Eduard got my money for a kit of that subject, not just for getting the canopy right, but for overall finess in molding.

 

I'd have had no problem dressing up the interior of the KP kit, like opening the rear compartment and scratchbuilding a spray hopper and back seat, but i draw the line at compensating for poor research on the manufacturer's part.

 

I like kits to have some workability to them. My experience is that the more effort a manufacturer makes to get every detail of the real thing into a kit, the more that kit becomes straight jacket for modelers who want to get something out of it that isn't straight-from-the-box.

 

 

[NAVY870]

Discussion about accuracy is fine and dandy. You don't learn stuff if you don't discuss.

Screeching , moaning and generally carrying on like a pork chop achieves nothing. Rudeness says more about the person than the kit.

Personally if its something I've worked on or been up close n personal I tend to be a bit picky (quite possibly rabid on 1 or 2)

The remainder of my builds are near enough unless its massively pooched shape wise.

One final thought

On the majority of sites where the howling is loudest (not here as we play nicely) compare the amount of whinging to the output of finished models  

[Head in the clouds.]

If I can build this;

 

from this;                                                                                                                     

   

 

 

does that make me a good modeller? That,s not for me to say, but when I look at a box of trouble like this I see a challenge and it is me or the kit, ( or probably the QC operative who thinks this is acceptable for sale). While I can see the merit of kits that fall out of the box ready made where is the fun and challenge in that, it is a bit like doing your 2x table, that was a challenge when I was 4 or 5 but  I would like to think I have moved on now to something more appropriate for my skill set.

If I buy a kit that has an incorrect canopy or is 1mm to long I think I have worn the lottery, all I have to do is a bit of sanding or get an aftermarket canopy , what is hard about that? Try building that box of scrap resin above and you will never again complain about such trivial errors that are often easily rectified.

BUT; we are all cast from a different mold much like the kits we buy so there  is neither wrong or right, only our own individual expectations of what should be in the box.

Happy modelling folks.