Jump to content

stravinsky444@hotmail.ca

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About stravinsky444@hotmail.ca

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Truly excellent paint job. Among the best I have seen, and very believable. Love the eyes, the skin texture, and the choice of colours. I don’t know how modifiable the T-Rex neck was, but if I had to make a suggestion, I would have put one of the parents at a greater angle to the other. Just to complement the turned head. I realize these models are usually designed to stand alone. One of the things that likely made the T-Rex more maneuverable (than it seems at least) is that it would probably curl its head and tail together to turn: Unless the model was designed this way from the start, I suppose it would be very hard to get one to look like that...
  2. Trumpeter has no clue about what this hobby is: It’s more than just a lack of research: They actually don’t get it. Case in point, a huge 1:200 kit of the Titanic they recently did (a 4 feet long investment in tooling): The Titanic had a nearly square prow seen in profile. This is one of the most iconic feature in the history of movies. Trumpeter thought the square prow didn’t look sleek enough, so they raked it to make it look racier. They are literally that stupid. Other signs of their brain deadedness: Several of their early kits of 20 years ago were quite good. They have never again been within a mile of these early kits, except maybe their clever 1:48th Ant-2 Colt. More often they got steadily worse over time... I guess all the marginally competent guys went to their sub-division Hobby Boss, which is usually a bit better. Maybe their ships and armour are passable, but they mostly ruin subject after subject that competent companies steer away from because of them. A typical example would be their Whirlwind. The hobby would be better off without them. Thankfully they seemed to have slowed down ruining everything.
  3. In North America weathering is definitely in favour. The Spanish School will also definitely trounce everything else. What drives me up the wall is that out ouf forty models only one or two will have the tail planes lined up to the wings... Some kits will fight this, or will have uneven wing thickness taper, and must be worked with to compensate, but usually never are... This including from top end magazine published name brand modellers... Individual blade props are also nearly always wonky, though less so with the “masters”. You would think getting the basic main surfaces straight would be easier, but apparently no...
  4. From the USS Constitution in 1958 to the Drakkar of the late 60s, Revell used a pantograph that created 3D ship hull detail that has yet to be equaled... Ships were seen as more for adults back then, which is why these old models more than hold up. The oldest kits I still consider good in 1/48 are a few of the old Bandais, M12, M30, Austin K5, Daimler, all from the early 1970s, and the Monogram B-17G, Me-262 and B-25J. Annoyingly, the 1970s allowed some symmetry issues that you would rarely see today, notably reground right sides on Monogram B-29 and B-24D fuselages, swollen around the right wing root in both. Even more disappointing, the beautiful Nichimo 1/200 scale WWII Japanese destroyers, also from the 70s, sport notable asymmetries in the overall hull freeboard areas... Really heartbreaking, as they could have been gorgeous models, unlike the rather junky Monogram quads, which need decades of work and figuring out... My worst recent kit experiences tend to cluster around Chinese output, notably Trumpeter ships and aircrafts. That being said Hobby Boss armour was often excellent. The only Trumpeter plastic in my stash are their 1/350 scale US carrier aircrafts. I really despise Trumpeter.
  5. This is because Colours are one of the four big biases I see in aircraft modelling: Colours, Weathering, Interiors and Kit Details. Rivet counters do not usually deal in any of these, and having never met a self-described rivet counter face to face (but having met hundreds of modellers deriding them while steadfastly adhering to the above four biases) I can only assume this epithet is applied to a largely fictional boogeyman. I am one of the more extreme rivet counters out there, although I never count rivets, and I have never met my own kind except very occasionally online. I for one think the first buildable 1:48th post E Me-109 only appeared with the 2008 Zvezda kits... The first accurate FW-190A with the same year Hasegawa offering. In fact, I think that year marks the arrival of a new generation of more serious 1/48th WWII aircraft kits, and I think the online so called rivet counters are largely to thank for this... As a neophyte judge, I saw first hand the bias towards colour: We were repeatedly told not to judge on accuracy... Yet, when when I placed second a very straight Whirlwind, the first thing I was told was that the colours were wrong... I thought the green was maybe 20% too green, and they wanted to place ahead a croocked P-38 with film showing on almost all stencils... They got their way. Similarly, people will now build the laughable HK B-17G despite the immense superiority in all shapes of the old Monogram: Bias towards engraving and detail... A heavily weathered model, in my judging experience, will always out-place a clean one, even if far less refined in execution: Bias to weathering... The bias to interiors hardly needs mentioning. None of this reflects what I would recognize as “rivet counting”, which, as the term implies, are concerns with external skin shape and overall accuracy. This is because the subtleties of shape, symmetry or dihedral do not impact how spectacular the final outcome ends up being, and so they are relegated to nitpicking. Yet to me shapes require familiarity with the subject, something far more valuable than weathering or painting “bling”... In general I found the most forceful proponents of the four biaises are the most prone to agitate the imaginary scarecrow of river counters.
  6. What I found odd is the claimed "first hand wartime witnesses" that wrote serial numbers down while describing in detail the blue colors... That is odd. G.
  7. There is something odd going on with the Eduard fuselage depth under the windscreen. The windscreen part itself looks odd in profile. The Hasegawa is even worse though, the fuselage looking shallow and broad. Glad to see someone else sees the issue on the Eduard. The Zvezda is good looking, but is an unpleasant build. The Tamiya kit was badly needed for such an important subject with multiple markings. G.
×
×
  • Create New...