How long will we wait?

How Long? I am afraid that we already had that but moved away to the current recessed line, smooth as a babies bottom menatlity. Look at the way kits used to be made with small rivet detail and raised lines. While the raised lines are no more correct than recessed lines, the rivet detail alot of times was. Personally you pick your poison. Want rivet detail then look to an older product. Want ease of construction and more finesse then go current state of the art. Remember when you model you are making a representation of an actual item, not duplicating it exactly. Cheers, Max

Forgive my ignorance. But why is recessed lines wrong? Isn't the space between 2 butting panels physically empty, thus recessed? Overly emphasis is of course a different story.

I don't do large scale models, so I am OK with the missing of rivets along every single panel edge. :)

"Stephen Chu" wrote

Frequently the panels have lap joints which result in a step to one side. The raised line as modeled to date is only good for a weld bead.

KL

wrote

Are you looking for the kits to show mill marks on the sheets or just a better representation of panel joints? If the latter, be advised that the newest 1/35 armor kit out there - DML's M4A2(76) - has recessed weld joints when they should be flush or above the adjoining surface. (Tamiya continues to do this as well.)

KL

snipped-for-privacy@vip.hr wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@vip.hr:

Good point. Nearly all pics I've ever seen of WW2 aircraft show plainly the skin of the plane is not laser straight or perfectly smooth. I'm not talking about panel lines or rivets. The aircraft skin itself is uneven, with "mild peaks and valleys". Unlike panel lines, this has a really dramatic effect on the appearance of the plane, especially in larger scales and on shiny coats. I've worked around modern fighters and it's true for them as well. I haven't actually tried it but it sounds like a pain in the ass to duplicate just by painting.

TF

But that's in the case of AFVs, right? These are rare on aircrafts, I would think.

"Stephen Chu" wrote

It's pretty rare on tanks. Usually the plates are butted together or interlocked and welded. If the weld were ground flat there would be neither a step nor a groove. Many aircraft had lap jointed panels, however.

KL

Almost anything pre F9F from Grumman is a good example!

Bill Shuey

Apart from other responses to your question, there is also the issue of scale. A 3 thou-wide engraved line on a 1/32 aircraft is equivalent to about 1/10 of an inch gap on the real thing, which is prbably far in excess of tolerance for many types of high-performance aircraft. That same line becomes progressively more out of scale (and thus more obtrusive) as scale falls -- in 1/72, it's close to 1/4 inch wide in scale. The real problem, especially at smaller scales, is how visible these panel lines would be. In most cases, they are visible (if at all) because of differences in wear or shading, not because of the panel lines themselves.

Mark Schynert

Not too uncommon for WWII era aircraft.

Typically on any one aircraft there are several types of panels.

Removable/opening panels (access panels). Some may overlap, others do not.

Individual sheets of skin. Non removable. In later aircraft, especially in any area with flush riveting, there would be no overlap as used in ship construction. Lines between panels on these 'flush' panels are not very noticable except when the shade of metal is different. BTW, this is for bare aluminum. If painted, the panel lines for none removable panels are barely distinquishable.

Access panels, >

I've spent the last 16 years working on modern military jets and whilst it's true that the surfaces are rarely 100% smooth and the gaps between panels are never "perfect" the issue becomes one of scale. Looking at a modern jet from a distance that would make it a scale 1/48th or even 1/72 and the panel lines and surface distortions are not visible. However, replicating that on a model gives you a flat, two dimensional result that looks "wrong". HIghlighted panel lines and shading make the model look more interesting and "real".

I employ pre- and post-shading techniques to bring a three dimensional feel to my jets, but refrain from highlighting the lines between panels because in my experience you can't see them. However, the results obtained by those that DO highlight panel lines (using washes etc) can be superb. So It's a case of personal preference as far as I'm concerned.

The joy (for me) in making aircraft kits is in getting the look and feel of the subject, not in replicating a 0.1mm panel line in 1/72 scale.

Personal view, thanks for indulging me.

Here's one example (Turbolet L-410, sunset):

In particular, it is very difficult to photo aircraft models to look "real".. while model vehicles are very close to being so :-((

Frankly, I myself never liked the hilighting of panel lines on smaller scales (

But what about *panels* not being ultra smooth??

Well. That's a separate issue and I agree 100% it has to be addressed.

I don't particularly mind panel lines in my chosen scale, 1/72, but I don't see much sense in accenting them unless the model is large and monochrome. With an NMF finish, I will highlight some panels (mainly different sheen) but I don't go to much of an extreme, since in scale the differences in reflectivity would probably be fairly small.

Mark Schynert