Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

CLICK HERE to see new posts in last 24 hours
Mark all forums read
Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Theory of modeling; What type of modeler are you?
Topic Started: Sep 28 2016, 01:19 AM (1,077 Views)
dknights
Member Avatar
The court of LAST RESORT!
[ * ]
First, I apologize for the length of this post. This is a bit of a complex topic and I’m trying to get the subtleties right.

Recently, as Jim Bates (airjim) was driving to work and I was continuing to “enjoy” my unemployment we were discussing, accuracy in modeling. Well, accuracy isn’t quite right. We weren’t talking about accuracy in the sense that you most often encounter it in modeling, as in, is the fuselage too long, or did they get the right number of exhaust stacks. We were more talking about things like questioning things like, “The Fairey Fruitbat never carried that type of drop tank”, even in the face of photos showing otherwise. Or, simply taking for granted that the model manufacturer or decal company got the marking correct on the decal sheet. Maybe another way to express this is that some modelers seem dogmatic in that, if they read it in some book, or heard some so-called “subject matter expert” say it was a particular way, then, that becomes gospel truth never to be questioned.

I think this may break down along the lines of some modelers being more interested in the building process and the artistry, while others view models as 3 D expressions of history. Mind you, I don’t think there are just two camps, but more a spectrum which we all fall upon somewhere. I think there is a cul-de-sac at each end of the spectrum. At one end you end up with guys who don’t build because there isn’t a perfect kit, or they are always dissatisfied with their building skills. At the other end is the modeler who never starts anything because they are always looking for that last piece of reference.

I am just thinking out loud here. Over time I think that I have moved back and forth on the spectrum. What are your thoughts? Do you simply take the instruction sheet info for markings as gospel or do you research to see if they are right? Do you do research on your subject, or just take the kit and build it out of the box? Does not having enough info ever stop you from building a model?

I’d love to hear others take on this stuff.
David M. Knights
Fortes fortuna adiuvat

14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51
15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine
16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane.
17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, Belcher SS-4, Italeri AB41, PLAN Type 039A (not 72nd scale)
18 Finished: NONE
The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40
Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11
Goto Top
 
Joe Hegedus
Beast
[ * ]
Yes.

I take the instruction sheet at face value, and I research to verify.

I research a subject, and I build out-of-the-box.

It all depends on what I'm building, why I'm building it, and what my end product is envisioned as. Some things matter more to me than others.
Goto Top
 
dknights
Member Avatar
The court of LAST RESORT!
[ * ]
Joe Hegedus,Sep 27 2016
09:22 PM
Yes.

I take the instruction sheet at face value, and I research to verify.

I research a subject, and I build out-of-the-box.

It all depends on what I'm building, why I'm building it, and what my end product is envisioned as. Some things matter more to me than others.

I understand and I also vary along the spectrum depending upon what I am building. That is a feature that I hadn't addressed above.
David M. Knights
Fortes fortuna adiuvat

14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51
15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine
16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane.
17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, Belcher SS-4, Italeri AB41, PLAN Type 039A (not 72nd scale)
18 Finished: NONE
The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40
Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11
Goto Top
 
RJ Tucker
Member Avatar
Ack, Oop, THPPFFT Baby
[ * ]
I try to get the major details right because that's where find the enjoyment. I want shape and dimension accuracy in a model kit. In a 1/72 scale kit, a 0.5 mm error is usually no a show stopper, but a 5 mm error is. Everything in between is a judgement call. If the details out of the box meet my expectation, I build straight from the box. Tamiya comes to mind. Hasegawa would but for some reason, many of their modern jet cockpits are rather sparse. I, rarely, use the kit unit markings on the kit decal sheets.

When I'm done, I want a reasonable representation of the real thing. One of my fondest modelling memories was taking a F-4S model to a model club meeting & having a visitor give the model a detailed lookover. I mean he must have inspected that model for a 5 full minuets. He straightened up & looked around and asked the crowd, "who built this?" I piped up "I did". He went on to explain on his first cruise he was the plane captain for that airframe even rattled off Bureau Number. "You got it exactly right!" As far as I was concerned, NAILED IT! I seriously doubt most of my models could stand up to that kind of scrutiny, but that's my goal. Probably why I can only manage 2 or 3 a year.

;)

RJ
Phantoms phorever!


Flag Plot: My virtual model display shelf
Goto Top
 
kingofmen
Member Avatar
Least
[ * ]
There have long been Engineers and Visualists when it comes to modelling. Engineers love the details, are fierce about detail accuracy, and most enjoy the construction process. Visualists are less concerned about detail accuracy, are most concerned about the final product, and most enjoy the decalling process. Of course there are a million shades in between, but that seems to be the two poles.

I've always been on the visual side. I have no pretensions about being an artist, but my kick comes from having multiple display cases full of competent models (at least I hope they are!), all in the same scale. I am truly one of those "if it looks like a Spitfire" type guys, because you'll likely never get close enough to tell if I haven't superdetailed the third rivet to the right of the cowl cover.

My primary criteria for "good models" are buildability (which is mostly fit and panel lines), and if I have the option for an interesting paint/decal job. I will often buy a kit for a specific decal option on a sheet I have purchased. Raised line kits are almost showstoppers; I'll either sand them all off or build something else. I'm usually relieved to have gotten through the construction phase if I haven't hosed the whole thing up. I'm doubly relieved to have gotten through the painting process. When it all comes together and joins the completed lineup is when I get my endorphin rush.
Kevin Callahan
Auburn WA USA
Visit the re-energized 72 Land blog at http://72land.blogspot.com/
All hail 1:72!
Goto Top
 
Mark Schynert
Member Avatar
Yeast
[ * ]
Wow, this is a fraught subject. I don't know where I fall.

I need things to be accurate to the extent my skills allow it. I need the model to be attractive as completed. I want to build the off-beat subjects. And I need to complete the model whether or not the references at hand answer all the questions I have. Think about the conflicts that set of criteria create.

Accuracy? By that I mean, are the exterior details I can control consistent with data I have access to, or at least not inconsistent. Dimensions, markings, camo. I care very little about interior detail and I rarely open anything, although there have been occasional exceptions, like the BV 138 I detailed. I don't care much about consistent ordnance, as long as it's plausible, nor variations in tire treads or other fiddly details. I'll try to get that right, but it doesn't impact my appreciation of the final result. I work real hard to get the decals right, but I often don't care if I exactly replicate the camo patterns--it's enough to get the right colors and at least a vigorous nod to the pattern. Major dimensional and shape errors are anathema to me; I simply don't build kits like that these days.

I end up with a lot of compromises, and if the balance of compromises for a prospective model don't give me the satisfaction I want from the hobby, I probably don't build the model.

And I echo Joe--sometimes I care more about the particulars. I have very little need for consistency in this hobby.
Goto Top
 
RexTN
Member Avatar
Accidental CAG
[ * ]
Like you Dave, I have been moved from one side of center to the other.

I used to just build, trust the decals in the box, and then build another.

Then I started adding the details that separate the versions of any certain aircraft from one another. I used the parts that came in the boxes to do this, since many of the kits I built had those optional parts in them.

Now, today, and for a long time, I have been building towards a photo reference of the markings. I don't buy decal sheets or models to use the markings that came in the box or envelope. I use those as starting points to build the model that I want to build. This has turned model kits and decal sheets into supplies.

My approach was the only way I could think of to have unique models, instead of each of my models being one of the choices that 1,000 other modelers had also chosen to build.

Today, my method is to find the specific BuNo I want to build, on a specific cruise or date, then gather up the decals I need from however many sources it takes. Then I get the kit it takes to do that model. And then I gather up the detail parts from whatever kit I also need to get those parts.

If modelers didn't do this, there wouldn't be a single 1/72 F-4B model anywhere that has a "Parrot Beak",,,or an MBR, or even a PMBR on them. The modeling world would just be even more flooded with "Bee Stinger" Skyraiders or "Show Time 100" Phantoms. Without personal upgrades, my A-4Bs wouldn't even look like the same aircraft sitting on the shelves next to each other,,,,,,,,,so, those corrections are also necessary to me. I buy or make them as needed for each aircraft type.

There is no other way to get a model that depicts VA-16 or VF-91, etc. Which is why we don't see them anywhere online.

(sometimes I get lucky, and a decal sheet has an aircraft that matches a photo that I have,,,,for those rare occasions, I build right Out Of the Envelope)
yep, one of each USN squadron

http://hangardeckview.blogspot.com/
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Hangar_Deck_Re...dex.php?act=idx
Goto Top
 
keefr22
Member Avatar
Who, me?
[ * ]
dknights,Sep 28 2016
02:19 AM
We were more talking about things like questioning things like, “The Fairey Fruitbat never carried that type of drop tank”, even in the face of photos showing otherwise.

But that doesn't mean the Fruitbat never carried that type of tank, just that it was never photographed doing so. Or the photo that does hasn't turned up yet... ;)

Reading all the great responses above, I find myself falling into Kevin's 'Visualist' group.

"Visualists are less concerned about detail accuracy, are most concerned about the final product, and most enjoy the decalling process." Yep, that's me! I'm only really concerned about accuracy when something is so bad it punches me in the nose - Xtrakit's Sea Vixen radome being a prime personal example. So it's only really a concern if it's something on an aircraft I know well and therefore can see the problem without having to slavishly compare the kit parts to photo's (& therein lies a minefield anyway, with not knowing what focal length lens was used & therefore what shape distortions there may be in a picture!) And I never bother with drawings...

I also take the visualisation thing a step further, & always, without exception, stick my finished models to a suitable base. This completes the final picture for me, as I find nothing worse than looking at a beautifully built Fruitbat sitting on a glass display shelf or chunk of pinewood. My ultimate aim is all about trying to get that picture of the fully armed F-4 or whatever just waiting for the crew to pitch up & lunch into the wild blue. So that also means chocks, RBF tags, GPU's etc - that's the only time I'll really use photo's, and then it just needs to be a typical example of the jet I'm modelling not the actual airframe. Of course, as others have said, they don't all end up like that. But they are all on a base...!

And I fully agree with Kevin about raised panel lines too - no,no,no. No !!

Good topic! ^_^
Keith Ryder
Swansea UK

'A plan is vital, but is never more than a basis for change'
Goto Top
 
walrus
Member Avatar
Porco
[ * ]
Hey, thanks Keith! ^_^

Pretty much sums up my take on modelling these days and therefore saved me a load of typing. :lol:


Paul from Birmingham, UK
Now living in Barnsley.
Goto Top
 
Harold K
Member Avatar
Dweeb
[ * ]
Joe sums it up very well, IMHO. His post and my sig line just below have me covered pretty well.

I've said on here before that visualizing history drives my modeling, beyond the simple fact that I enjoy (most of ;) ) the processes that go into building a scale model.

Box-shaker; hater of all things resin and photoetched.
Goto Top
 
InchHigh
Member Avatar
It's a good day to build.
[ * ]
Build 'em. Fix 'em. Have fun.
Jeff

Time spent modeling is not deducted from your lifespan.

I spent most of my money on beer and women. The rest of it I just wasted.
Goto Top
 
dknights
Member Avatar
The court of LAST RESORT!
[ * ]
Thanks for all the replies. I agree that modeling should be fun. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be doing it. :D

Here is a question to narrow the focus a bit.

Do you most always assume the decal instructions are correct as to markings and camo scheme, or do you most always seek to confirm thru pictures or outside research. Corollary question, do you most always use the decals supplied or aftermarket decals purchased, or do you mix and match from different sheets in an attempt to reproduce an a/c you have a picture of. (We'll call this the RexTN method.)

As of me, I most of the time assume the camo and markings on the decal sheet, or more often, the aftermarket sheets, are correct and simply paint and decal according to their instruction.
David M. Knights
Fortes fortuna adiuvat

14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51
15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine
16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane.
17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, Belcher SS-4, Italeri AB41, PLAN Type 039A (not 72nd scale)
18 Finished: NONE
The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40
Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11
Goto Top
 
Wolf
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
quite a while ago, I came to a point were I spent most of my time (often more than the model took to build) in research. This was the point when I realised that (in my case), my whish to build a as much as possible accurate model, kills all the fun an started to paralyse me.

At this point I started to think about two options: Giving up modelling or taking it more easy.

I asked myself if modelling (the pure handicraft) was still something I loved or not. The answer was yes.
I left the "researcher way" and decided to change my point of view. Today for me a modell ist not a 1/72 miniature of an original. It is more an impression of an original. I believe, especially in 1/72 because of the main material we work with, it is an sysiphos work to try to built the perfect model.

Today I do only a little research to find out if there are mayor issues with a model and if it is worth to fix it. I concentrate more on refining a model were possible and not on correcting the last missing millimeter. I buy photoetch or resin stuff not to build a perfect model but to make life easier.

I mostly trust the manufacturers guidelines and only control these if I stumble upon statements that, to my knowledge, are doubtfull.

My aim is to built a model that is refined to a certain point and that has a convincing paintwork.
A fellow modeller once said: "The paintjob is the soul of the model" and I try to give my models as much as soul as possible. This is what gives the most fun to me.

And if there is something wrong with my model cause the instructions were wrong and I didn't realised it: C'est la vie
Criticism Is welcome
Goto Top
 
Greenshirt
Member Avatar
Tim Holland, Southern MD - USA
[ * ]
Great responses...

For myself: I build what I like, it's a great stress reducer and I want to understand the history of the technology and of mankind at the time of my modeling subject. "What did that look like?" is the question I always try to answer. What started as a desire to have many miniatures of many things has turned into a focus on aviation from the dawn to about 1955-ish. Occasionally the ship still goes in that mix.

I don't obsess over color, or kit accuracy. I won't buy something known to be inaccurate nor will I paint something known to be the wrong color. I like knowing what reality is, and I try to finish my models so they look pleasing on my shelf, to me. Quality of the build is important. I garner more enjoyment from building out-of-the-box than from adding detail I will never see post-build or that a casual observer like my wife would never appreciate.

I do like knowing the right color. How the colors were formulated and to what purpose. I'll debate details so that I can understand them. I do want the basic kit to be accurate in shape and I want it to be dimensionally correct on my shelf (1/70 vs 1/72 vs 1/75 just isn't right). A mm here or there if a small percentage of the total is negligible. A squashed or foreshortened fuselage is not acceptable.

I've built or will build every kit in my stash that is shaped correctly. Even if festooned with rivets or lacking any detail beyond what is visible at 6 feet. My stash is relatively small, and currently completable within my expected lifetime (another 30 years). NB: if I built at Kevin's rate, I'd finish my stash in about 5 years!

My wife once asked me, "do you build models, or do you collect models?" That simple question many years ago made me realize this is many hobbies for many people. None are wrong and all are right. At the end of the day, the hobby is what we want from it and hopefully we get it. I sure do!
Tim Holland

I'm a "green shirt" because I work on the carrier's flight deck and maintain US Navy aircraft. Safe sorties are my life so we can be anywhere, anytime -- from the Sea.

http://greenshirt-modeler.blogspot.com/
Goto Top
 
RexTN
Member Avatar
Accidental CAG
[ * ]
Dave, I left something out.

One of the side benefits of the "RexTN method" is that I get to scrounge up or scratchbuild parts or pieces that turn out to be things that I didn't know about when I started a project. The learning that goes with it is almost as much fun as the actual plastic cutting and glueing.

I do have certain things that I have learned about, and then go on a hunt in my books for photos of those things, and try to model that variety in my shelf collection.

A simple example is the "third drop tank type" on the Naval Phantoms. After a discussion with Tommy and others, and the resulting photo search, I found Phantom squadrons that have photos that I can use to display that third tank type. This gives me that "unique factor", and puts one more type of variety into my Phantoms. Photo searches for the Strike Camera on the Skyhawk's pylon gave me another.

I freely admit that this is not worth it to a lot of modelers, if he is only going to build 3 Phantoms and 4 Skyhawks, it is more trouble than it is worth to him. But, I needed to do something to keep 17 Phantoms and 24 Skyhawks from all looking like they carried the same load.

This possibility of modeling the variety with multiple models is one of the benefits of sticking with our 1/72 scale kits. There is no way I would even start to do all these variations with the more expensive scales.

I would have to say that choice of scale would play into a modeler's theory of operation.

As for the "always on a base" idea, I like that thought, too. I have shelves that are basically large areas of carrier deck, or long sections of airfield. I've found that those make the models look better than Knotty pine or stark white "ground." And it doesn't cost much to do.
yep, one of each USN squadron

http://hangardeckview.blogspot.com/
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Hangar_Deck_Re...dex.php?act=idx
Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »