Definition of OOB

By IMPS USA rules, you can use whatever decals you want, aftermarket, kit, and any combination and it's still OOTB.

Dave

Enzo Matrix wrote: : What is the accepted definition of "Out Of the Box"? : If you want to know the IPMS/USA definition, I suggest:

Click "Contest Info" -> Rules

Bruce

"Enzo Matrix" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Works for me - I'd allow it as OOB in our local show. But the anally- retentive (the 'professional' pot-hunters) may not. IMO, if it's in the box, and it's put on to the model, it's OOB.

RobG (the Aussie one)

Seems to me the "rigging" question was left a little fuzzy. To me, if the instructions show to add rigging, then even though the rigging thread is not included, it is okay. However, further clarification of the rules would be nice. The question might be, "can I show ADDITIONAL rigging, even if that rigging is not shown on instructions"

There are a number of kits out there that depict rigging for biplanes, but do not include the rigging thread. But the rigging shown is not always complete. What do you folks think? Is adding rigging not shown on instructions okay?

===

OOB or out of the box. This could mean one of two things. You build the kit with only, repeat ONLY the parts that come in the box. Or you build the kit out of the box, like atop your workbench, or you build a kit out of the box - card stock.

Sorry, this concept has been messing with my two remaining brain cells for some time now.

Ray ===

OOB means to me, only those items that were in the box were used. No PE or resin aftermarket items, and no scratchbuilt items Of course, paint and glue aren't in the box to begin with.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote: : : Seems to me the "rigging" question was left a little fuzzy. To me, if : the instructions show to add rigging, then even though the rigging : thread is not included, it is okay. However, further clarification of : the rules would be nice. The question might be, "can I show : ADDITIONAL rigging, even if that rigging is not shown on instructions" : It would appear, given the IPMS/USA 2008 national contest rules, that, yes, you can add rigging. (Section III.1.B)

However, PE turnbuckles are still right out! :-)

It will be interesting to see how these rules play out, but as I am not an aircraft judge, I don't expect to have much of an opportunity to deal with them.

Previously, OOB rules were about 2/3 of the entire IPMS/USA national contest rules, and of those rules, 90% of them pertained to aircraft. I hated them.

Bruce

OM wrote: : : Two versions of the same kit, same manufacturer, same box, but one has : parts that didn't get injected right and/or cooled improperly and : warped to a point where the usual double-boiler tricks won't help. : I've seen judges almost get into fist fights with one another over : whether taking good parts from an identical kit to replace those in : another violates OOB - the argument against claimed that part of the : skill of making an OOB kit work is to fix such problems without having : to resort to *any* parts not originally included with the kit. : "Common sense - the most uncommon of the senses." - unknown

Bruce

Gray Ghost wrote: : : It would seem any Hase kit that comes sans ordnance would be automatically out : as anything but a stripped aircraft, and what is the interest in a disarmed : warbird? : I think you are reaching. A/C returning from a mission are not going to be loaded with ordnance. Neither is an A/C that is wearing a commemorative paint scheme, or one that is selected to make a public appearance.

That modellers feel compelled to load A/C down with ordnance at every possible hard point is the same symptom that drives modellers to put flat tires on their A/C.

Bruce

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote in news:f9ea66e9- snipped-for-privacy@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

Which opens up the question of the AccMin Avenger - the instructions suggest that advanced modellers may want to cut out and drop the flaps; they even supply a template for the piece needed to fill the resulting hole in the wing, AND the flaps have rib detail moulded on the inside. What does that do the OOB rule?

RobG (the Aussie one)

I am getting upset about the tone of this thread. It seems like several members are very intolerant of others views. If others have opposing views, they call the views stupid, or some other such derogative term. Let's be more tolerant, guys!

snipped-for-privacy@realtime.net (Bruce Burden) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews1.newsguy.com:

Well some people do overdo it. But still a bombed up aircraft is not atypical.

Frank

RobG wrote in news:F9WdnSvUcthkAs7VnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.internode:

OOB. It's in the instructions and if a template is inluded and ribbing detail is molded in then it's included.

Frank

RobG wrote: : : Which opens up the question of the AccMin Avenger - the instructions : suggest that advanced modellers may want to cut out and drop the flaps; : they even supply a template for the piece needed to fill the resulting hole : in the wing, AND the flaps have rib detail moulded on the inside. What does : that do the OOB rule? : This one would seem to be an OOB disqualification for the 2008 IPMS/USA national contest, because the rules say:

"no major surgery",

AND list seperating a canopy as an examply of "major surgery".

Under the rules I am more familiar with, if it was mentioned in the instructions, it was NOT an OOB disqualification, so stretched sprue rigging and antennas were perfectly permissible.

Mow, the Mead A/C judge may not feel compelled to follow the rules posted on the IPMS/USA 2008 national website, but I do not know the man personally, so my thoughts are worth exactly what you payed for them. :-)

If you want to rules lawyer things, I once built the Alan BA-20 A/C. Horrid kit - there is a gap at the rear of the body where it (does not) meet the floor pan of several mm's. In theory, this could have been an OOB disqualification, as I used plastic strip (not from the kit!) to fill the gap, but I did not let it worry me. Filling seams is a part of the basic requirement of model building, after all. :-)

In retrospect, I suppose I could have used sprue from the kit to fill the gap, but in the end, who would ever know?

Bruce

Not being able to use good parts from an identical kit to replace defective or missing parts is about as stupid as it gets. However, several years ago, there was a guy who had a 1/48 Consolidated B-32 Dominator at an IPMS thing. It was listed as being a 'conversion', tho it used, IIRC, 1/48 B-24 & B-29 parts along with

1/72 B-36 parts & Lord knows what else. Not that it matters much, but IMO, that's hardly a 'conversion', it's either scratchbuilt or kitbashed, but it ain't a conversion.

frank wrote: : : Not being able to use good parts from an identical kit to : replace defective or missing parts is about as stupid as it gets. : However, several years ago, there was a guy who had a 1/48 : Consolidated B-32 Dominator at an IPMS thing. It was listed as being a : 'conversion', tho it used, IIRC, 1/48 B-24 & B-29 parts along with : 1/72 B-36 parts & Lord knows what else. Not that it matters much, but : IMO, that's hardly a 'conversion', it's either scratchbuilt or : kitbashed, but it ain't a conversion. : "Conversions" are one of the most abused categories at IPMS/USA shows. The last rules revision I saw explicitely noted that "using two (or more) kits does not qualify as a "conversion".

Conversions are expected to contain a lot of scratch building, just not the entire model. However, I suspect that the whole resin "conversion" industry has warped pee brains as to the intent of the "conversion" category.

Bruce