Enough with the freaking panel lines already!

I share your views. I even wrote about it to FineScale Modeler Mag. and the editor apparently agrees as he published my letter in the July

2008 issue. :-)

Peteski

The objective seems to be to make the model look like a line art drawing. That's fine, but I'd be inclined to make the paintwork "factory-fresh" if going for that look, wheras this guy has done a great job of weathering.

I'm old school just-like-the-real-thing and have never understood the fascination with panel lines. Like everyone else says, you'll never see lines like that on photographs or when looking at the actual prototype.

SSSSHHHHH! This recalls an exchange in one of the British mags. An artist/ modeller with much firsthand prototype experience noted that "feathered" camo edges were barely visible more than a few feet away-- any model smaller than 1/6 scale should have hard edges. I noticed the same thing after a visit to the RAF Museum. Responses were all "yes, but . . ." --mainly that soft edges looked so much better, or were an artistic choice, or made the model come alive. Every wooden deck I've ever walked on looked one shade or another of light gray.

I noticed when I got to tour USS Lincoln (...or Stennis...or both...) that there was a nice teak looking wooden grated platform placed on the deck behind the wheel, presumably so that the helmsman would be standing on a wooden deck in the continuation of naval tradition...was shocked at how simple the bridge of a carrier actually is...flight ops was another story altogether...

...rest of the deck/ship was still haze gray...and steel.

Wood is always less fatiging to stand on than steel, and you DON"T want a tired helmsman.