Do you ever use poetic licence

[Bertie McBoatface]

Yeah, I know. I was just teasin'....

Sorry.

[Ronnie]

To Kirk & Walrus

Your poems have come to an end;

Have you found some new models to mend?

It's a shame you must cease

Let your talent increase

Start a "modelling poet" new trend

Ronnie

[robvulcan]

scale colour, man i never heard of that and it sounds like a load of rubish to me, if i use the same shade paint as the real thing then its the same shade. if i stand a long way from my model it will look the same as viewing the real thing from a distance. surely, i cant see the point of that at all, to much messing. i just use the paint as it is and as it should be.

[AnonymousFO98]

My muse has taken wing and has flown

To pastures and poets unknown

But alas and alack

Production is slack

And the list of unfinished has grown.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Why does anyone assume that aiming for accuracy is not "fun"? That "research" is taboo?

No me. As far as I'm concerned, the research is half the fun of the model!

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Believe me Bill, they were like that sometimes on the real thing - especially after the painters had finished slathering paint everywhere !!

Yep! And you don't wanna know about the ADD probes!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

No me. As far as I'm concerned, the research is half the fun of the model!

Agree too - research is a big part of the fun for me, but I know its not for everyone. Thats why I get so wee weed of with manufacturuers when theirs is sloppy and outlines and shape are out - they are meant to provide parts that assemble into a miniature replica of the real thing so the model maker can be reassured that what they build looks like the real thing. Now, call me a bluff old fashioned traditionalist here, but that means getting the shape right! ( HobbyBoss, I have one word - Tornado.)!!

There once was a kit-maker from China,

Whose details appeared to get finer,

But when their accuracy was odd,

Threat of a firing squad

Might encourage the lazy designer.

Jonners

[Ronnie]

Yep! And you don't wanna know about the ADD probes!

What's that stand for - Anal Diagnostic Device?

[Albeback52]

Accuracy, Schmaccuracy!!

I use poetic/artistic licence all the time. I'ts all part of the hobby & down to the individual! Personally, I never go looking for "inaccuracies" in model kits. I do not & never will count rivets, scribe panel lines spend hours poring over plans/drawings & comparing kit parts with same! To me, it's a complete waste of modelling time. Others clearly disagree. What does it matter? . I respect & admire the skill & patience of those who strive for total accuracy. They are far better modellers than I but, it's not for me. I try instead to get the best results out of what comes out of the box. I just want something that looks right to me!

What I will NOT tolerate is people denigrating other models just because they havent "corrected" this part or replaced "that part" or, they have used the "wrong" colour or, "inaccurate" markings.. I fell victim to this latter type once before. Many years ago there was a local hobby/model exhibition. I entered an RAF Stirling. I like the Airfix Stirling.As usual, I didn't bother doing any detailed research but, I did try & at least improve the gun turrets ( always a weakness with the Airfix bomber kits). The nose turret was adapted from the Matchbox Halifax, the mid upper & rear turrets were adapted from the Airfix Lancaster parts.

Now even I know that the Stirling used a different rear turret but, I figured " what the hell"! A tail turret is a tail turret & it looked a whole lot better than the kit original. Besides, to a casual glance, who'd know the difference. Big mistake! Despite generally favourable comments about the quality & standard of the build/finish, there just HAD to be one self appointed "expert" who proceeded to take the thing apart because I hadn't corrected various "inacurracies" and,I used totally inaccurate & inappropriate gun turrets!

The look on his face when I told him I didn't give a damn about accuracy and was more concerned with appearance and effect was delightful. This gentleman clearly did not understand the concept of modelling as fun. He grudgingly admitted that the model WAS made to a high standard but, he "could not live with " (his words) such an "inaccurate" model!

Ultimately, we are all enjoying the same hobby. Surely,how we pursue this hobby is a matter of individual taste? There is I believe, no such thing as a right or wrong approach. Only a personal approach. It would certainly be a very dull world if we were all the same!

As an example of "poetic/artistic" licence, I have hopefully( photobucket permitting) attached a couple of photos of my current project - the Avro Vulcan B3! Obviously I don't modelling seriously Heaven forbid that I ever do!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I use poetic/artistic licence all the time. I'ts all part of the hobby & down to the individual! Personally, I never go looking for "inaccuracies" in model kits. I do not & never will count rivets, scribe panel lines spend hours poring over plans/drawings & comparing kit parts with same! To me, it's a complete waste of modelling time. Others clearly disagree. What does it matter? . I respect & admire the skill & patience of those who strive for total accuracy. They are far better modellers than I but, it's not for me. I try instead to get the best results out of what comes out of the box. I just want something that looks right to me!

Thats the point I was trying to make - manufacturers should strive to get the accuaracy right so a modeller can just build the bloody thing in the knowledge thats what provided looks reasonably like the real thing.

In fact the 'rivet counter" should be the ally of the "it looks like a xxx to me" modeller ( perhaps we should call them Rivet Acceptors?) - because without the former pointing out just how cack some models are accuracy wise, certain manufacturers will just continue to pop out nicely moulded but inaccurate models ( well thats the theory!!), allowing the latter to get on with just building models. Personally I probably fall more into into the rivet counter side than acceptor. But rivet counting should be constructive - theres no point saying the HobbyBoss Tornado is inaccurate unless you point out where and how, and hopefully suggest a way to rectify it.

What always puzzles me is why on certain forums the 2 sides ( if they are indeed sides) like to interfere in each others threads: I mean if theres a thread on the innacuracy of HobbyBosses Ta152 nose radiator ( which is indeed wrong) there's little point in posting a " well it looks OK to me, bleedin' rivet counters!" type remark, just as there is little point posting a comment on a thread of an out of the box build of said model saying its 'fatally flawed' because the nose hasnt been corrected.

What I will NOT tolerate is people denigrating other models just because they havent "corrected" this part or replaced "that part" or, they have used the "wrong" colour or, "inaccurate" markings.. I fell victim to this latter type once before. Many years ago there was a local hobby/model exhibition. I entered an RAF Stirling. I like the Airfix Stirling.As usual, I didn't bother doing any detailed research but, I did try & at least improve the gun turrets ( always a weakness with the Airfix bomber kits). The nose turret was adapted from the Matchbox Halifax, the mid upper & rear turrets were adapted from the Airfix Lancaster parts.

Now even I know that the Stirling used a different rear turret but, I figured " what the hell"! A tail turret is a tail turret & it looked a whole lot better than the kit original. Besides, to a casual glance, who'd know the difference. Big mistake! Despite generally favourable comments about the quality & standard of the build/finish, there just HAD to be one self appointed "expert" who proceeded to take the thing apart because I hadn't corrected various "inacurracies" and,I used totally inaccurate & inappropriate gun turrets!

The funny thing is - you may be a closet rivet counter after all!! - I mean you realised the turrets werent right so used parts from other models to improve the appearance. LOL - thats semi-counting at least, perhaps you are a Rivet Estimater - which in reality is what most of us are to certain degress.

Ultimately its an individual hobby , and no one should denigrate another modeller for the choice they make on how to build.

Cheers

Jonners

PS thats one weird Vulcan - weird but stangely handsome! Nice

Edited June 19, 2011 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[Albeback52]

Thats the point I was trying to make - manufacturers should strive to get the accuaracy right so a modeller can just build the bloody thing in the knowledge thats what provided looks reasonably like the real thing.

In fact the 'rivet counter" should be the ally of the "it looks like a xxx to me" modeller ( perhaps we should call them Rivet Acceptors?) - because without the former pointing out just how cack some models are accuracy wise, certain manufacturers will just continue to pop out nicely moulded but inaccurate models ( well thats the theory!!), allowing the latter to get on with just building models. Personally I probably fall more into into the rivet counter side than acceptor. But rivet counting should be constructive - theres no point saying the HobbyBoss Tornado is inaccurate unless you point out where and how, and hopefully suggest a way to rectify it.

What always puzzles me is why on certain forums the 2 sides ( if they are indeed sides) like to interfere in each others threads: I mean if theres a thread on the innacuracy of HobbyBosses Ta152 nose radiator ( which is indeed wrong) there's little point in posting a " well it looks OK to me, bleedin' rivet counters!" type remark, just as there is little point posting a comment on a thread of an out of the box build of said model saying its 'fatally flawed' because the nose hasnt been corrected.

The funny thing is - you may be a closet rivet counter after all!! - I mean you realised the turrets werent right so used parts from other models to improve the appearance. LOL - thats semi-counting at least, perhaps you are a Rivet Estimater - which in reality is what most of us are to certain degress.

Ultimately its an individual hobby , and no one should denigrate another modeller for the choice they make on how to build.

Cheers

Jonners

PS thats one weird Vulcan - weird but stangely handsome! Nice

Thanks Jon. In a sense, you're right! Maybe I AM a closet "rivet estimator" You're first point about manufacturers striving for accuracy is certainly right on the button! I just take it for granted that they HAVE done their research!! But then, I'm really lazy so, it suits me to take that viewpoint!!

My "research" such as it is tends to be limited to checking pictures of the subject. The gun turrets on the Stirling ( as indeed on other Airfix bomber kits of the era) were generally poorly executed & ANYTHING had to be better!! Even a non purist such as myself could tell that!!

Edited June 19, 2011 by Albeback52

[ssculptor]

The problem seems to be that there are two sides in modeling. The purist accuracy uber alles guys and the relaxed, leats make a model for the fun of it types.

Yes, they are always sniping at one another.

Why? Well I can think of any number of reasons but I wont. It will take too much time and is not worth the effort. But I will say that IPMS is a major factor in making this differentiation. The IPMS contests I have seen seem to emphasize accuracy. Just making a model for the fun of it seems to be a form of heresy.

There should be two categories for modelers in IPMS contests, one for accuracy and one for making an attractive model. There should also be two different sets of judges, one for accuracy and one for overall quality of the model without using accuracy as a criteria.

I have news for some of you guys, we are not doing anything of importance. We are not making the real things, we are merely making small scale copies of real things that others have created. We do this for personal satisfaction, for fun, for pleasure, for a feeling of accomplishment and for our own amusement. So lighten up guys, fighting over accuracy vs overall quality is a stupid tempest in a teapot. Let the IPMS contests reflect both attitudes.

Live and let live.

Stephen

[Albeback52]

The problem seems to be that there are two sides in modeling. The purist accuracy uber alles guys and the relaxed, leats make a model for the fun of it types.

Yes, they are always sniping at one another.

Why? Well I can think of any number of reasons but I wont. It will take too much time and is not worth the effort. But I will say that IPMS is a major factor in making this differentiation. The IPMS contests I have seen seem to emphasize accuracy. Just making a model for the fun of it seems to be a form of heresy.

There should be two categories for modelers in IPMS contests, one for accuracy and one for making an attractive model. There should also be two different sets of judges, one for accuracy and one for overall quality of the model without using accuracy as a criteria.

I have news for some of you guys, we are not doing anything of importance. We are not making the real things, we are merely making small scale copies of real things that others have created. We do this for personal satisfaction, for fun, for pleasure, for a feeling of accomplishment and for our own amusement. So lighten up guys, fighting over accuracy vs overall quality is a stupid tempest in a teapot. Let the IPMS contests reflect both attitudes.

Live and let live.

Stephen

Stephen, I couldn't have put it better myself!! As you may have gathered from my posting, I am the victim of one such incidence of an attitude that , to my view, borders on snobbery!! This is one reason why I have never joined IPMS or, any other modelling organisation. I don't think I have ever knowingly or intentionally decried the efforts of anyone who does belong to what I shall describe as the "purist" school of thought. It is not my place to do so. I believe I am entitled to the same courtesy/respect in return. By the same token, my mind is always open to advice/suggestions & even practical assistance in improving my skills! Even at the age of 53, I think I still have room for improvement.

There is I think a very fine dividing line between hobby and obsession. Is it possible that some people have in fact crossed that line in search of modelling perfection? If I can give another example, a very good friend of mine IS definitely a member of the "purist" school He is without doubt a very skilled modeller but, I think I sometimes drive him to despair! One such example is the Vulcan I am working on right now. Another,(one of several in my fertile breeding ground of an imagination) is for a SINGLE seat Beaufighter - with the rear cockpit removed & a shortened fuselage! I'm afraid he just cannot grasp the concept of modelling for its own sake! He shook his head & closed his eyes upon witnessing my B-58 "Vengeance " resplendent in anti flash white & 617 sqn markings!!

Fortunately, any "sniping" always takes the form of good natured banter and,on occasion, Douglas & I have actually exchanged useful tips!! !! My other 'alf (bless her!) gets no end of amusement as he & I have yet another "go" at each other! That's how it should be. It's a pity the "real " world cannot be just like that. I have not yet told him about my MR-135 ASW/Maritime patrol aircraft which will be based on the Airfix E-3D Sentry!

[ssculptor]

Yes, well, some of the guys are overly obsessive about the models. Well, that is how they enjoy the hobby. But unfortunately their close-mindedness ruins it for others.

Funny thing is I have known more than one professional model maker and none of them were that obsessive over accuracy and putting in all the details. Yes, when building a refinery model they have to be over obsessive and 100% correct, because that model is made to check clearances and interferences. So then they are obsessive. It is like when I make my drawings. I am a professional draftsman (draughtsman in England) and what I draw will be built in real life. So I cannot make an error, period. But I do not let that form of obsessiveness carry over into my everyday life.

Obsessiveness in a person's hobby simply reflects his own personal make up and perhaps personal problems.

It is unfortunate when the obsessive ones ruin it for everyone else by their insistence that theirs is the only way to make a model and all others are wrong.

They can be like the religious fanatic who absolutely believes that only his church is correct and all the hundreds of millions of other people will all go to hell.

Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned when the accuracy-uber-alles guys take over an IPMS contest it is a case of the inmates running the asylum.

Stephen

[Albeback52]

Yes, well, some of the guys are overly obsessive about the models. Well, that is how they enjoy the hobby. But unfortunately their close-mindedness ruins it for others.

Funny thing is I have known more than one professional model maker and none of them were that obsessive over accuracy and putting in all the details. Yes, when building a refinery model they have to be over obsessive and 100% correct, because that model is made to check clearances and interferences. So then they are obsessive. It is like when I make my drawings. I am a professional draftsman (draughtsman in England) and what I draw will be built in real life. So I cannot make an error, period. But I do not let that form of obsessiveness carry over into my everyday life.

Obsessiveness in a person's hobby simply reflects his own personal make up and perhaps personal problems.

It is unfortunate when the obsessive ones ruin it for everyone else by their insistence that theirs is the only way to make a model and all others are wrong.

They can be like the religious fanatic who absolutely believes that only his church is correct and all the hundreds of millions of other people will all go to hell.

Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned when the accuracy-uber-alles guys take over an IPMS contest it is a case of the inmates running the asylum.

Stephen

Stephen, it's pity we're on opposite sides of the pond!! I'm sure we could swap a host of stories over a beer or 10!!

[keefr22]

But I will say that IPMS is a major factor in making this differentiation. The IPMS contests I have seen seem to emphasize accuracy. Just making a model for the fun of it seems to be a form of heresy.

Why does it always come back to 'blaming' IPMS??!! I've been a member of IPMS for getting on for 40 years on & off - I'm an average modeller, not at all interested in IPMS politics, but still think that IPMS as a whole benefits the hobby. And for a bunch of modellers who couldn't be further from the 'uber accuracy snobs' you want to tar all the IPMS with - just come along to any meeting of our local IPMS branch.....!!! And, from what I know of IPMS judging (I've done it once, will hopefully be doing some again this year at Telford), accuracy DOESN'T come into it!! There's just too much diversity in model subjects for any one (or two if workng as a team) judge(s) to know whether a particular model outside their area of expertise (if they have one - I don't claim to have!) is accurate or not! Instead, judging is done on quality of construction & finishing. Which, in my modelling anyway, are the two most important aspects of my 'fun' anyway! Having said that I've never entered an IPMS competition - & never intend to do so. Only because I'm not interested in competition - horses for courses! I assume those who do enter enjoy it as another aspect of their hobby - & I'm assuming its fun to them, after all it costs them to enter & they get no financial reward for winning (those few that do, that is!). To me, & probably the rest of my IPMS branch, the most important aspect of IPMS membership is being able to have a table to display our models (built to our standards - for FUN!) at the best model show in the world - & to get free entry to that show....!!!

I've said in another thread that went off on an ''its all IPMS' fault'' that I'm by no means a rabid IPMS supporter who thinks that it can do no wrong as an organisation, but I also don't agree with this impression that non-members seem to have that its an organisation full of "purist accuracy uber alles guys". It isn't.

Keef

[ssculptor]

Stephen, it's pity we're on opposite sides of the pond!! I'm sure we could swap a host of stories over a beer or 10!!

Well, at least we can drink our beer or 10.

Stephen

[Bertie McBoatface]

It's rare and quite pleasing to see so many people in violent agreement like this. Rivet counters, estimators and ignorers all with the same ethos "do it how you want to - it's only a hobby". I've read and then left other forums which fell a long way short of this level of acceptance. Well done us!

[ssculptor]

Why does it always come back to 'blaming' IPMS??!! I've been a member of IPMS for getting on for 40 years on & off - I'm an average modeller, not at all interested in IPMS politics, but still think that IPMS as a whole benefits the hobby. And for a bunch of modellers who couldn't be further from the 'uber accuracy snobs' you want to tar all the IPMS with - just come along to any meeting of our local IPMS branch.....!!! And, from what I know of IPMS judging (I've done it once, will hopefully be doing some again this year at Telford), accuracy DOESN'T come into it!! There's just too much diversity in model subjects for any one (or two if workng as a team) judge(s) to know whether a particular model outside their area of expertise (if they have one - I don't claim to have!) is accurate or not! Instead, judging is done on quality of construction & finishing. Which, in my modelling anyway, are the two most important aspects of my 'fun' anyway! Having said that I've never entered an IPMS competition - & never intend to do so. Only because I'm not interested in competition - horses for courses! I assume those who do enter enjoy it as another aspect of their hobby - & I'm assuming its fun to them, after all it costs them to enter & they get no financial reward for winning (those few that do, that is!). To me, & probably the rest of my IPMS branch, the most important aspect of IPMS membership is being able to have a table to display our models (built to our standards - for FUN!) at the best model show in the world - & to get free entry to that show....!!!

I've said in another thread that went off on an ''its all IPMS' fault'' that I'm by no means a rabid IPMS supporter who thinks that it can do no wrong as an organisation, but I also don't agree with this impression that non-members seem to have that its an organisation full of "purist accuracy uber alles guys". It isn't.

Keef

Well, IPMS contests are really bent in the direction of the guys doing the judging. There is really a very wide range of judges and judging going on.

I got a really big laugh at a IPMS meet in Connecticut (USA) in the fall a few years ago. I was wandering around, scarfing up bargains for my stash when I heard an announcement on the speakers. It seems that they needed volunteers to do the judging and would any modelers like to volunteer?. They were to come up to see so and so a the front. Well about 20 minutes later the same announcement was repeated with a lot of "pleases" in it. Finally, a half hour later they announced that they really needed judges and if a volunteer knew nothing about it they would train them right then and there.

Now that was certainly reassuring! My super duper model was to be judged by some guy who walked in off the street to see all the pretty models and presto chango, he is now a judge. Fortunately I was not eating or drinking anything when I heard that announcement because I would have spit up all over the guy in front of me when I burst into laughter. What a farce!

What I want to know is why do people have to enter contests in the first place? Isn't it enough to just have an exhibit of models so guys can show off their work? Why this necessity to compete for a cheap vapor plated little trophy. Hell, I could build a much better trophy any time I needed one.

I'm a sculptor and over the years have picked up a few rewards. A medal and a few ribbons now hang proudly over my toilet (loo) in the downstairs bathroom, which is exactly where such nonsense belongs.

I always assumed that a person builds a model for the pleasure and fun derived form the act of building. Thus it is not necessary to try to win a meaningless trophy for the work. The act of modeling is the reward for making a model. Does anyone really think it is worth all the time and trouble and expense to make a model just to get a piece of very cheap plastic? Really? Well in that case I'll just go out and buy a nice trophy and have it engraved Best in Show and put a fictional IPMS meet on it and put it on the mantle. Who ever checks the validity of such trophies? It will cost a lot less than buying and making a model and will certainly waste a lot less time. Then I can make a model for myself and really enjoy the entire process.

Stephen

[John B (Sc)]

Why does it always come back to 'blaming' IPMS??!! .......................

.......................

I've said in another thread that went off on an ''its all IPMS' fault'' that I'm by no means a rabid IPMS supporter who thinks that it can do no wrong as an organisation, but I also don't agree with this impression that non-members seem to have that its an organisation full of "purist accuracy uber alles guys". It isn't.

Keef

Hi Keef.

I agree it isn't " All IPMS' fault". I, like very many others, have gained a lot of useful information and help from IPMS, in lots of ways. Some excellent and knowledgable folk are to be found in IPMS.

Sadly however, there are some rather, shall we say, overzealous types who get attracted to IPMS. They do tend to get more attention than they deserve and sometimes have much more impact than they ought. I think it would improve IPMS if they wound some of those guys (and they are always guys!) back a bit. If your local is more relaxed, great. A habit to keep on.

Personally I am more ineterested in overall look and feel than rivet counting perfection - partly because real aeroplanes have faults and oddities which crop up for various odd reasons, and anyway, I'm not that good a modeller.

I did have an amusing encounter with an IPMS accuracy zealot at a show recently. The undercarriage arrangement on his example of one type would have had any aircraft engineer wincing. I greatly enjoyed his criticism of a kit which I had also recently built, of a type which as it happened I had flown. It was so plain the poor chap had little understanding of basic aerodynamics, and I suspect he had never flown in his life. (Other than as a passenger) That's fine, but then a little caution and either doubt or humility would be handy. For some reason, the worst of the real 'rivet counters' tend not to have any of either.....

That does tend to upset non modelling pilots and engineers who come across these types. They then are apt to assume that all we modellers are obssessive and daft as brushes. (And, frustratingly, assume that modellers and reggie spotters are all the same thing)

The awkward squad of modellers aren't all IPMS by any stretch, but that is where the greatest concentration of zealotry seems to be commonly found ! Perhaps within IPMS is where it would be easiest to encourage a more relaxed approach from some ?

But hey - it is only a hobby. If it pleases them to be so precise and so 'right', I gues it doesn't hurt - and gives the rest of us some quiet amusement.

Back to the topic - yes I think 'poetic licence' is a good thing. Most of us are making, or trying to make, 'impressions' of the real thing. To me, some licence is essential, since we are not using the same materials as the real beasts. And it can be a bit of fun - like that Vulcan B3. I reckon that must be the planned USAF version, with that tandem cockpit.

Cheers,

John B

Edited June 19, 2011 by John B (Sc)

[ssculptor]

It's rare and quite pleasing to see so many people in violent agreement like this. Rivet counters, estimators and ignorers all with the same ethos "do it how you want to - it's only a hobby". I've read and then left other forums which fell a long way short of this level of acceptance. Well done us!

What I like about this Britmodeller forum is that here the guys are very accepting of differing ideas and view points. Also the humor is much better - here guys can laugh at themselves.

In uptight USA where I live - yes I defecate red/white and blue feces as I stand at attention (try that if you want a challenging sport), the forums are much more serious. For example, I am building an outdoor model railroad in G gauge (so I can use 1/32 scale airplanes and 1/35 scale military train models) all across the back yard. One part of it will be Happy Achmed' used Aeroplanes and Parts Emporium (scrap yard). When I got into a discussion about the new Trumpeter 1/32 aircraft models that have 350 parts I more than upset some of the guys when I announced that I just build my aircraft models for the outside shapes, with landing gear retracted and the resultant models displayed as if they were flying. Well, that was bad enough but when I said that I'll use maybe 25 of the 350 parts and then dump the remaining 325 parts in Achmed's scrap yard some of the guys got upset. It was like I was Piddling on their religion.

Which, I guess I was.

Well, money problems caused me to sell off all the Tamiya and Trumpeter expensive kits but I still have a number of Revell kits where the details will end up in a railroad gondola car in Achmed's scrap yard. When that is completed I'll show photos of it on that forum and watch the reaction. Should be interesting.

Life is too serious to take seriously.

Stephen

Edited June 19, 2011 by ssculptor

[bruce3371]

I remember years ago when I built the old Matchbox Halifax bomber, I didn't like the options in the instructions, so I made up my own version with the radial engines and all three gun turrets fitted. I'm sure it wasn't accurate, but I liked the look of it anyway!

[keefr22]

I agree it isn't " All IPMS' fault". I, like very many others, have gained a lot of useful information and help from IPMS, in lots of ways. Some excellent and knowledgable folk are to be found in IPMS.

Sadly however, there are some rather, shall we say, overzealous types who get attracted to IPMS. They do tend to get more attention than they deserve and sometimes have much more impact than they ought. I think it would improve IPMS if they wound some of those guys (and they are always guys!) back a bit. If your local is more relaxed, great. A habit to keep on.

I guess I may just have been lucky then John, as I've encountered very few of these types who are actually IPMS members. Well, I don't actually know whether the very few anal obsessives who have been foolish enough to baselessly criticise my or my friends models (when we display them) were actually IPMS members, as they weren't wearing badges! But they either get a very terse two word answer in response to said criticism, or 'politely' ignored....!! What I have mostly encountered though are some very friendly, very skilful modellers who have, in my experience anyway, been unfailingly helpful when asked about their techniques. Many of those modellers frequent this forum.... However, I have no experience of other branches, my experience just coming from many years attendence at the UK 'Nationals'. You won't find a more friendlier bunch of guys than those that frequent our branch. And we all build for 'fun' (although when I make yet another b*lls up in building, painting or decalling I do sometimes wonder whether its more punishment than fun??!!)

Personally I am more ineterested in overall look and feel than rivet counting perfection - partly because real aeroplanes have faults and oddities which crop up for various odd reasons, and anyway, I'm not that good a modeller.

I couldn't agree more with that! That is exactly my take on the hobby too! But I also do like the overall 'look' of the model to be 'accurate' where possible. I just couldn't build the Xtrakit Sea Vixen as it comes from the box for example, as the radome is so blatantly wrong!! And I fully support Jonners argument that the manufacturers should be making more of an effort to get basic shapes right. With all the information so easily available today, they have no real excuse not to.

I did have an amusing encounter with an IPMS accuracy zealot at a show recently.

Did he actually say he was an 'IPMS accuracy zealot' then....??!! Strange claim to fame to make really, isn't it? But each to his own I suppose...!!

The undercarriage arrangement on his example of one type would have had any aircraft engineer wincing. I greatly enjoyed his criticism of a kit which I had also recently built, of a type which as it happened I had flown. It was so plain the poor chap had little understanding of basic aerodynamics, and I suspect he had never flown in his life. (Other than as a passenger) That's fine, but then a little caution and either doubt or humility would be handy. For some reason, the worst of the real 'rivet counters' tend not to have any of either.....That does tend to upset non modelling pilots and engineers who come across these types. They then are apt to assume that all we modellers are obssessive and daft as brushes. (And, frustratingly, assume that modellers and reggie spotters are all the same thing)

I'm a pilot (well was). And a degree trained engineer. To be honest, those sort of people just make me laugh! In our IPMS branch we have two members who have masters degrees in engineering. One of those is also a former pilot. They both have a good laugh at those sort of types too. I'm pretty sure most professional pilots & engineers can see the 'obsessive' for what they are...!! However,to be honest I don't criticise 'reggie spotters' for their hobby - is it really any 'dafter' than sticking bits of plastic together? At least they get out in the fresh air....!!

The awkward squad of modellers aren't all IPMS by any stretch, but that is where the greatest concentration of zealotry seems to be commonly found ! Perhaps within IPMS is where it would be easiest to encourage a more relaxed approach from some ?

As I say, I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an avid defender of all things IPMS - I just have very, very rarely come across such zealotry within IPMS UK. Or perhaps I'm just too thick skinned to recognise it?! Maybe though, as the comp is by no means the most important part of our Nationals, whereas I understand its more or less the be all & end all of the US Nats, then it could be different there? I do tend to get a bit annoyed though with the constant sniping at IPMS members from some non-IPMS members who often seem to have some kind of grudge against IPMS for a reason I often can't fathom.

Back to the topic - yes I think 'poetic licence' is a good thing. Most of us are making, or trying to make, 'impressions' of the real thing. To me, some licence is essential, since we are not using the same materials as the real beasts.

And I couldn't agree more with that statement either! But just going back to 'IPMS & fun' for one last time - probably the most popular stand at Telford for the last two or three years has been the Wallace & Grommit display. It's often 4 or 5 deep in people trying to see it & you'll never see more people smiling & chuckling at models than at that table. And I'm 99.99% sure they're all the work of IPMS uber accuracy obsessives......!!

keef

[xffw45343tg]

The standard of verse has gone down in this thread

I fear all the poetic modellers are dead...

[AnonymousFO98]

Souls of modellers dead and gone

What affliction have ye known?

Airfix trench or Hase cost,

Parts to carpet monster lost?

Have ye dunked transfer, or canopy

In Future Klear, to improve transparency?

Did thou in more carefree days

Build your kits without delays?

To his word thou didst heed

Doing as Alan Wall decreed.

Carved balsa, and with talc did smooth

Content that this would improve.

with very many apologies to Keats.