Figures

...okay, and you don't think that a little space devoted to continued articles on figure building, painting or reviews would help and/or enhance your skills...this opposed to space devoted to some archaic, albeit 'classic' kit of a ballistic missile.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying; that figures have other magazines covering them...but c'mon, give some credit to the staff of FSM. I cannot believe that all they would be capable of is just another 'fluff' piece on the subject. Instead of throwing the figure modeler a 'bone' from time to time, I'm sure that the subject could merit a very helpful and encouraging column to further round out the skills of any modeler. It would probably be one of the first subjects I'd turn to...but that's just me.

I'm up to 4 cents now,
Eric

QUOTE: Ryanpm Just curious but do you build and paint figures?

Yes, I use the pilot figures when provided and I use AM tank figures.

Ryanpm

Just curious but do you build and paint figures?

QUOTE: Originally posted by RobertMerz QUOTE: Originally posted by ryanpm I'll have to disagree with going into detailed articles for figures. Finescale covers the basic modeling categories that started it all, armor, aircraft, cars, and ships. Finescale recently did a great article on how to paint figures. There are other magazines for figure modeling, and which provide more in-depth articles. I don't see the reason for Finescale to cover figures in detail. Since Finescale has been trying to cram in multiple types of modeling, the articles have really been lacking, and filled with fluffy stuff. I feel that covering figures in detail would add more fluffy stuff. The people who write those figure magazines know exactly what they are doing and could provide more helpful information than the Finescale staff. Please don't assume I'm saying the Finescale staff can't build/paint figures, I'm just saying the people who write those figure magazines can do it better... I find this view a little sad. I build only historical miniatures (a term much preferred to “figure builder”), I can say with a good deal of experience that the magazines on the current market that specialize in historic figures are poor (my opinion). 1 “Figurines” is all in French 2 “Figure International” by Andrea Press has the best photographs of any magazine, but the article content is poor 3 “Historical Miniatures Magazine” is fair at best. Lots of photos of other’s work, but little in the way of meaningful content. FSM is in the unique position to provide insightful information into detailed figure builds and conversions, and I mean beyond altering a pose to stick a figure next to a plane or AFV. FSM has the opportunity to show historical miniatures in a new light. They can be sophisticated builds (I have built 54mm figures with over 120 individual parts); they can be quite sophisticated conversions, and they can be technically demanding painting projects. Since FSM tends to be a more utilitarian magazine for the average modeler, these skills should be widely and well received. I know I have read articles on AFVs and found a way to incorporate a technique into my “figure” building. Do not planes and AFVs also have their own specialized magazines (“Military Miniatures in Review” comes to mind for AFVs)? Should FSM then stop publishing articles on AFVs? I have seen MMiR, and it is much more detailed in regards to AFV minutia than any FSM article on AFVs that I have ever seen (and I have every issue of FSM from 1982 to present). I sincerely wish that FSM would publish more detailed figure articles. I know if they were to express an interest, I would submit content. Kind regards to all. RM

Very well said RM.

QUOTE: build only historical miniatures (a term much preferred to “figure builder”), I can say with a good deal of experience that the magazines on the current market that specialize in historic figures are poor (my opinion). 1 “Figurines” is all in French 2 “Figure International” by Andrea Press has the best photographs of any magazine, but the article content is poor 3 “Historical Miniatures Magazine” is fair at best. Lots of photos of other’s work, but little in the way of meaningful content.

Boy, I never knew there were such little amount of information on figures out there. I'm just going by the phrase, you wouldn't take your car to a body shop to work on your engine.

QUOTE: Do not planes and AFVs also have their own specialized magazines (“Military Miniatures in Review” comes to mind for AFVs)? Should FSM then stop publishing articles on AFVs? I have seen MMiR, and it is much more detailed in regards to AFV minutia than any FSM article on AFVs that I have ever seen (and I have every issue of FSM from 1982 to present).

Finescale started with the main subjects of modeling. If Finescale didn't do those subjects, it wouldn't be around.

I feel that if Finescale did produce figure articles, they wouldn't be the helpful ones you are thinking of, but rather the simple ones you can find in the other magazines you listed. I'll end my comments with a link.
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?page=1&TOPIC_ID=49111

QUOTE: Originally posted by ryanpm I'll have to disagree with going into detailed articles for figures. Finescale covers the basic modeling categories that started it all, armor, aircraft, cars, and ships. Finescale recently did a great article on how to paint figures. There are other magazines for figure modeling, and which provide more in-depth articles. I don't see the reason for Finescale to cover figures in detail. Since Finescale has been trying to cram in multiple types of modeling, the articles have really been lacking, and filled with fluffy stuff. I feel that covering figures in detail would add more fluffy stuff. The people who write those figure magazines know exactly what they are doing and could provide more helpful information than the Finescale staff. Please don't assume I'm saying the Finescale staff can't build/paint figures, I'm just saying the people who write those figure magazines can do it better...

I find this view a little sad.

I build only historical miniatures (a term much preferred to “figure builder”), I can say with a good deal of experience that the magazines on the current market that specialize in historic figures are poor (my opinion).

1 “Figurines” is all in French
2 “Figure International” by Andrea Press has the best photographs of any magazine, but the article content is poor
3 “Historical Miniatures Magazine” is fair at best. Lots of photos of other’s work, but little in the way of meaningful content.

FSM is in the unique position to provide insightful information into detailed figure builds and conversions, and I mean beyond altering a pose to stick a figure next to a plane or AFV. FSM has the opportunity to show historical miniatures in a new light. They can be sophisticated builds (I have built 54mm figures with over 120 individual parts); they can be quite sophisticated conversions, and they can be technically demanding painting projects. Since FSM tends to be a more utilitarian magazine for the average modeler, these skills should be widely and well received. I know I have read articles on AFVs and found a way to incorporate a technique into my “figure” building.

Do not planes and AFVs also have their own specialized magazines (“Military Miniatures in Review” comes to mind for AFVs)? Should FSM then stop publishing articles on AFVs? I have seen MMiR, and it is much more detailed in regards to AFV minutia than any FSM article on AFVs that I have ever seen (and I have every issue of FSM from 1982 to present).

I sincerely wish that FSM would publish more detailed figure articles. I know if they were to express an interest, I would submit content.

Kind regards to all.

RM

The last figures article I got any use out of (that I remember anyways) was one on painting faces. That had to be at least 2 years ago.

Oh yeah, and the one several months ago on painting black uniforms on figures.

But, it would be nice to have a nice figure article (informational, not the look at my work type) every now and then.

i think more figure reviews the quick ones would be good

I'll have to disagree with going into detailed articles for figures. Finescale covers the basic modeling categories that started it all, armor, aircraft, cars, and ships. Finescale recently did a great article on how to paint figures. There are other magazines for figure modeling, and which provide more in-depth articles. I don't see the reason for Finescale to cover figures in detail. Since Finescale has been trying to cram in multiple types of modeling, the articles have really been lacking, and filled with fluffy stuff. I feel that covering figures in detail would add more fluffy stuff. The people who write those figure magazines know exactly what they are doing and could provide more helpful information than the Finescale staff. Please don't assume I'm saying the Finescale staff can't build/paint figures, I'm just saying the people who write those figure magazines can do it better.

I'll pay you a penny for your thoughts and I'll keep the change.

I agree...