Modelling Pet Peeves

"Greg Heilers" wrote

I posit, however, that what we were shown was the best that there was.

I think the materials have done as much as expectations to drive improvement. In 1980, we had like four sizes of plastic rod below 1/8 inch. Now we have maybe 20. When you only had rod or stock of certain sizes, you compromised and that frequently threw stuff off proportion. There are also better tools out there than just a drafting triangle and an X-Acto knife. Whether people "expected" more and looked for ways to improve, or people got better on their own may not be knowable, but "pushing" each other to be better seems to be pretty evolutionary. Runners, for example, are better (faster) than those of a generation ago.

That was me. Be that as it may, I have seen contest stuff - national contest stuff - that looked good on the table but when the photos came back. . .

KL

ummm...will you adopt me?or lend me your pocket change?cause if I could swing that I wouldn't be driving an old car and buying so many airfix kits...heh

Mine is seeing a gloss or satin finish on heavily weathered 1/72 aircraft

Well I guess we disagree then. Just out of curiosity, what is it that you think gives a skilled modeler today the ability to get better results with the same materials than a skilled modeler of 20 or 30 years ago?

Or you stretched your own from sprue, or took the next larger size and shaved it down with a draw plate, or substituted metal rod of the right size.

And there always have been. There have been companies selling tools to machinists and jewelers since long before either of us were born.

only difference i could see is better research materials. skills are skills. what changes is what's consdered important. there are fads.

40 years ago, coin collectore paid extra for toned coins, now it's the pristine, clean "white" coin that sells. i think that the panel outlines have become important where 30 years ago it was interior detail. "hot" comes and gos.

Saw some at both Micheals and Hobby Lobby this past weekend. My wife was making her annual visit to the shrines of "homemade holiday decorations" and I tagged along looking for bits and beads.

Rick MFE Currently working on a 1:1 scale turkey/cornacopia centerpiece (leftover odds and ends go to the scratchbuilding spares box)

That's exactly what I was going to say - far better research materials.

...and changes in fashion. Though I'm really surprised photo-etched parts didn't show up sooner than they did. Single biggest step forward in the hobby since aftermarket choices in decals, IMO.

hasn't metal etching been around for a long time?

Yeah - that's the point. Model builders should have thought about using etched parts soon after styrene was invented, IMO...if they were thinking...

did you ever see the connotatios series? the premise was that sometimes the obvious takes a very twisted route to be reached.

...and if there's anything that modelers are...it's twisted...

The internet also helped a great deal by making it easy to spread information.

PE is the one area any manufacturer can afford to use CAD. You can even use vector art programs like Corel Draw or Adobe Illustrator for PE. As for resin, you only need one perfect master to reproduce thousands of parts, what they don't realize is that the less than perfect masters are just so much trash. Could I build a 1/350 cruiser to the current level of quality achieved by resin kits? Yep. Would it be cheaper? Nope. Materials are the least of the cost, getting good plans and photo references is what costs. Hint: plans are $2.70/linear foot from NARA, photos are free if you have a scanner and laptop......now what's your time worth?

"Joe Jefferson" wrote

Neither stretching sprue nor using a draw plate really produces stock of as uniform diameter as manufactured stuff. Metal rod may be used in cases but it has it's own problems. The rod was just an example. The concept also applies to angles, tees, sheet, etc., etc., etc. They used what was more or less handy, and it looks it.

But most modelers and apparently many scratchbuilders didn't use them, at least judging from what I've seen. What they made wasn't exactly round, square, or flat, but it looked better than the empty cockpits of the period and people were awed by the difference. However, looking at that stuff today without the dulling influence of 1960's era kits, it just ain't that great.

Like I've said twice already, there were *some* people doing exceptional stuff back then, but it was far from "common" like the original poster said.

KL

"Joe Jefferson" wrote

I'm not. I'm saying that the materials of today *are* better and better tools are widespread while they weren't back then. I also think the general skill level of an "advanced" modeler (by some metric) is better today than someone of the same level back then.

KL

"Rufus" wrote

1. Research materials only play a small part. Looking at just about any plane cockpit or wheel well would give you an idea of the fineness and proportions of the structural members and the amount and look of fasteners, electrical, and hydraulic systems and so forth for just about any plane of the era. If you look at the detailing jobs of the era, most of them don't capture this. Note I'm not saying they're bad because they aren't exact replicas of the actual equipment, but that they look like clunky attempts to approximate the actual equipment, as opposed to *successful* attempts at approximation.
2. This isn't a weathering or presentation issue. What I'm talking about would be visible even if both examples (1975 & 2004) were painted overall gray. The weathering that people do now (like grime in the wheel wells) does make the overall presentation better though.
3. Although chemical milling has been around since about 1940, I don't think people thought to use it for models (or had the materials and processes available for use by hobbyists) until the mid 1980's. This is an example, however, of either a better material or a better tool available today.

Plus I think skills are better. People know that better can be done so the try harder.

KL

And I still contend that if I were going to get into the resin biz these days, I'd buy a 3-D printer. For about a mere $30K initial investment I could crank out a master - and as many of them as I wanted to suit production - anytime I wanted with the stroke of a key, once I'd built the 3-D soft model. After that, it's just rubber, resin, packaging, and distribution.

I got some hands on training on one of these last year. Got to see it and the Solidworks CAD package in action. A dream set up for such a biz:

Works for me... apart from having the 38K bankroll. ;-)

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

One of the reasons that skills are almost certainly better is the entire ethic of going the aftermarket route at all. Scratch-building is extremely time-consuming (as have found out in my sole atttempt thus far to master for a resin replacement set, not to mention small scratch-builds for particular models) and thus has been shunned by most people. Aftermarket usage requires many of the same skills, and these have become spread more widely, and undoubtedly have broadened the tools and techniques used in connection with them. This greater involvement has lead to a greater exchang