New Model Alliance Decals going to the printers tonight

[DamienB]

I have five MA sheets, all of which exhibit obvious - and I mean blindingly obvious - errors when you have a look at the real aircraft. Statements are made in the instructions that purport to be fact, when they are nothing more than guesses based on looking at a few photos on the net. It's a very poor way to do research, and I understand that most of the individual artists that put together MA sheets are supplied with their research material by MA, so that's where the fault lies.

Research from photos only cannot ever be relied upon - as the MSG Herc rudder proves nicely (and as a more extreme example, the pink Jaguar T.2 in the Italeri kit is based upon a *single* photo on airliners.net which has been massively post-processed to make it look pink - and should never have been accepted on that site seeing as they have rules about photo manipulation). You have to have something to back the photos up with, and given the ample opportunities to physically walk around RAF jets and talk to the crews, there are really no excuses for selling relatively expensive decal sheets with errors that result, basically, from laziness.

[Guest Drewe]

A great shame that MA work this way I feel, and explains a lot.

Jon - another one for you - where has the grey bit on the Apache's radar head come from? Have never seen one in anything but overall green.

Speaking personally,I am exceedingly choosy about ordering from Model Alliance simply because of clear errors and dubious research. The first example which really set me off down the road of checking everything they do was the 72nd Sea King sheet, which I bought specifically because I wanted to do one of the HC.4's on it. When I came to apply the decals it rapidly became clear that a good proportion of them were around 50% too big for the model - specifically stuff like serials and ROYAL NAVY titles, leaving me scrubbing around various Modeldecal sheets for alternatives. Bottom line was it was £9 wasted as the end result was arrived at with hardly anything from the sheet used.

Don't get me started on the Harrier GR.7 sheet which basically used the stencil data from the Italeri kit reproduced in toto, never mind that the stencil data in the Italeri kit was a work of fiction in the first place!

Couple of sheets I've been involved in the research of, and I know the lengths THAT designer goes to to get them right (he's sometimes ripe for a stomach ulcer such is his agonising over the most insignificant details!).

Recent sheets have seen improvements a lot of the time, and I do buy them, but research them first. Bottom line is that MA often seem to get a free ride based on their subject matter rather than their accuracy, often a clear case of quantity over quality, "get 'em out quick, beat the others to the market" approach. And, whilst not generally being one to moan about pricing, they ARE at the more expensive end of the market, and I object to paying a premium for often sub-par decals.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Drewe

[TEZ]

Speaking personally,I am exceedingly choosy about ordering from Model Alliance simply because of clear errors and dubious research. The first example which really set me off down the road of checking everything they do was the 72nd Sea King sheet, which I bought specifically because I wanted to do one of the HC.4's on it. When I came to apply the decals it rapidly became clear that a good proportion of them were around 50% too big for the model - specifically stuff like serials and ROYAL NAVY titles, leaving me scrubbing around various Modeldecal sheets for alternatives. Bottom line was it was £9 wasted as the end result was arrived at with hardly anything from the sheet used.

Don't get me started on the Harrier GR.7 sheet which basically used the stencil data from the Italeri kit reproduced in toto, never mind that the stencil data in the Italeri kit was a work of fiction in the first place!

Couple of sheets I've been involved in the research of, and I know the lengths THAT designer goes to to get them right (he's sometimes ripe for a stomach ulcer such is his agonising over the most insignificant details!).

Recent sheets have seen improvements a lot of the time, and I do buy them, but research them first. Bottom line is that MA often seem to get a free ride based on their subject matter rather than their accuracy, often a clear case of quantity over quality, "get 'em out quick, beat the others to the market" approach. And, whilst not generally being one to moan about pricing, they ARE at the more expensive end of the market, and I object to paying a premium for often sub-par decals.

Regretfully I have had similar experiences with MA. In my opinion, especially regarding Uk military aircraft, Modeldecal have yet to be surpassed. The research, quality and value for money were second to none.

Andrew

[AjD]

It's a very poor way to do research, and I understand that most of the individual artists that put together MA sheets are supplied with their research material by MA, so that's where the fault lies.

Well you understand incorrectly then.

Do you mind if I ask what solid evidence you have to back this statement up?

[DamienB]

Well you understand incorrectly then.

Do you mind if I ask what solid evidence you have to back this statement up?

Er, try reading this thread!

I've designed all the Model Alliance sheets (apart from about six) but my core reference material and any colour markings dimensions etc get sent up from Model Alliance HQ.

[AjD]

Indeed.

Well I am very much a part of Model Alliance and I can tell you now we do not send our artists ALL of the reference material that they require. We most certainly provide support but the majority of their research is done off of their own backs. If contributors are struggling and ask us for material we do our very best to source it for them but we do not provide ALL of the material needed from square one.

Now, that doesn't mean we do not research them. Whilst the artist is working on the sheet we will be working hard to research individual schemes and we are regularly on the phone to relevant people trying to nail down answers to any questions that we have. When the artist then provides the sheet, we have done the background research and we begin to go through the sheet, picking up any errors and getting them corrected. Please do not doubt the effort that goes in to this.

Every decal manufacturer knows this is a difficult process at times, especially when material on a subject is not immediately forthcoming. We have become aware of problems sneaking through in the past and are working VERY hard indeed to stop it happening in the future. Drewe - I'm pleased that these efforts are becoming apparent in the products and I hope you continue to recognise it in the future. We are always working towards that goal. Our quality has seen vast improvement in recent years and I truly hope to improve that further in the coming years. We have a responsibility to be critical of ourselves and we are forever looking for ways to improve our range and most importantly, quality.

We are all enthusiasts at heart. This is something we give up our free time for in the belief that it will benefit those who have an interest and desire for what we do. These things cost money to produce and we all work very hard (around full-time jobs) to try and provide the modelling world with sheets that we think it will benefit from.

As for the cost - we make very little money out of this and what we do make goes in to funding the next decal sheet. They are expensive to produce to the standard that we do - we could use inferior print shops, include fewer options and produce decal sheets with fewer colours involved (i.e. no mixed types, no vivid special markings and smaller sheets). Most people tell us that this is not what they want and that we're doing "good work" so "keep on doing what you're doing." That's the reality of the situation I'm afraid. If decal sales were lining our pockets we'd be turning up to shows in stretch-Aston Martins...(we don't carry decals for those by the way!).

I am eternally grateful to everyone who has approached us at shows and expressed support for what we do. To those who have made the effort to contact me personally via email to express your thanks for producing certain sheets, thank you also. Your comments are very much appreciated because that's what makes this worth doing. I very much enjoy speaking to you all whenever I get a chance and I welcome constructive criticism in the future.

I hope that the majority of our customers are still pleased that we do what we do.

Thank you all for your continued support and kind words to date.

Andy

Edited January 16, 2008 by AjD

[DamienB]

Bit of a politician's reply, really - there are clearly several people here who've had issues with inaccurate MA decals, a designer responsible for the majority of your sheets appears to disagree with you, and yet here you are - to put it bluntly - trying to gloss things over.

Can you tell me why, with reams of photographic evidence available on the net and in the magazines, that the spotty Jag scheme sheet has several errors, not least spots of the wrong shape/size/placement and missing names from the t-bird? The guy who designed the real scheme was active on several forums, yet MA didn't bother to contact him, for instance...

I'm afraid MA's sheets are very much in the 'do not buy' category for me now, because of the inaccuracies, and unless I see a particular chap's name on a sheet or see a serious rise in quality, that'll be the case from now on. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Doing it right doesn't cost any more than doing it wrong...

[Area39]

Damien

Can you explain what you mean with this part of your reply?

"and unless I see a particular chap's name on a sheet..."

Jon

[Catbird]

[DamienB]

I thought it was self-explanatory.

OK, to be fairer - I'm not having a go at you Jon. I know there's at least one guy I can rely upon to do detailed research; I first encountered him some years ago, and he does occasional work for MA. As far as I can tell his work for them has been up to his usual standard.

Yours is not a name I'm particularly familiar with; your error with the Herc rudder indicated an over-reliance on photographic evidence that I found worrying. From your website I see you are responsible for a great many decals for various people, so hopefully it was a one-off, but my experience with MA decals have not been good so far. Looking at your list I have a few of your sheets so picking one randomly - MAS-729016 1:72 RAF Jaguar "Special Schemes Pt1" - would you like me to have a good compare with the real subjects and point out any issues?

Edited January 16, 2008 by DamienB

[AjD]

Damien,

I am not about to be drawn in to an argument on this subject. I do not have the time, nor the patience to become involved in lengthy discussions online.

The 6 Sqn Jaguar sheet was extraordinary difficult to produce but I have said my piece. If the answer is not satisfactory then that's your call. I've said we're working on it so I'm going to leave it at that. If you would like to provide further (preferably polite) constructive criticism, then please do so to [email protected]. We will certainly take your comments on board.

Best wishes,

Andy

[DamienB]

Personally I find it a bit bizarre that you've joined up here to defend your product, and now, having been asked a single question, don't have time to do so.

I appreciate you may regret joining up as you haven't had an avalanche of approving comments appearing to drown out the criticisms, and I appreciate you may think perhaps just going quiet may be a better option than answering any of the criticism in and open and forthright manner, but I honestly don't think it shows you in the best light.

You've got a load of your customers here - some of whom have ceased being customers because of the quality of the product - you've got a golden opportunity to demonstrate in public what you can do to get them back onboard.

Will you issue addendum sheets to fix the errors on inaccurate sheets, for instance? A few corrected spots plus the missing items such as the missing crew names on the spotty Jag sheet? You've gone to the effort of including a tiny addendum sheet actually with the set to cover a tiny bit of grafitti only applied after the spotty jet had been grounded, so clearly it's not beyond your ability to produce. Yes it will cost you some money but given the obvious success of this sheet in terms of sales I think you can afford to invest some money in giving your customers what they thought they'd already paid for. If you want to do this I am happy to point out each error in the sheet, free of charge (though there will be one proviso, which I will explain in private if you accept the offer).

Ball's in your court.

[Vlamgat9]

I think we may need a "Calm down, calm down!" emoticon....

I only have one or two MA sheets - the Ark Royal sheet (bought cos I want to do a Bucc S1, but I have used the Skyraider AEW) and the Cranberry sheet with the Rhodesian Air Force "Golden Lion" roundels. Personally I don't have the time or the inclination to check whether they are absolutely 100% accurate as long as they caputure the real essence of the bird in question. They are beautifully printed decals of schemes I am not going to find anywhere else which can only be a good thing. Obviously we all sit at different places on the "analometer" in terms of what we get worked up about re. accuracy. I am sure have some other foibles in this regard that others are more relaxed about.

This discussion reminds me a bit of the thread about the Heritage Vulcan and He Who Must be Obeyed's comments there are relevant to this thread too!

[Mike]

I think we may need to have a "this topic is locked icon".

I'm not happy with the way this thread has gone. There have been comments here that if made face to face would most probably lead to a punch in the face, and if it's not acceptable behaviour in real life, it's certainly NOT acceptable behaviour here.

I find myself YET AGAIN having to say to people that they should be careful when discussing someone or something, because our hobby is a very small place, and people will get to hear about it. "So what?" you might say... well. The key word in that last sentence is "people". Whatever you may think of people's product or output, they are human beings with feelings. Think how upset you'd be if someone laid into your latest model, citing all the innaccuracies & calling you names? You wouldn't be happy... no matter how hard you might try to mask it.

Call this Rule1:

CONSIDER OTHER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS WHEN POSTING