May I chime in? I find doing the research to be much of the fun. I spend hours leafing through a
Detail and Scale or similar publication before I start a project. However, I strongly feel that research should end with the 1:1 subject; we shouldn't have to do extensive research just to find where the parts should fit on the model, or to correct errors in the instruction sheets. A reasonable painting guide would be nice too.
Let's face it - many people who model for contests become mini-PhD's in a specialized subject, say P-51's, or German armor. They know all the bumps and welds on every variant. For those of us who build across a wide spectrum, it is difficult to assemble all the research materials every time we want to tackle a new subject. If I were going to enter a contest, I would buy the $40 book to get a subject
exactly right. However, if I want to build for fun, but still build as accurately and realistically as possible, I should be provided with instructions that allow me to fulfill the potential of the kit. In other words, the kit instructions should allow me to build my Enzo Ferrari or P-51 to be nearly indistinguishable from a contest model at two to three feet - the difference should only become apparent on closer inspection.
Instruction sheets from the major manufacturers all need much better painting and assembly instructions. Last night I perused the instruction sheet for my newest project and it was terrible - a disgrace to a reasonable kit. The manufacturers could hire people from this forum for a very modest price to build their kits and improve their instruction sheets immensely. I'll bet some modelers would do it free if they were sent a preproduction kit! The expense to me would certainly be worth it - I would gladly pay $20.25 instead of $20.00 for a kit with decent instructions!
Perhaps we could have dual ratings on kits. The manufacturers could include a small box in each panel that would give more complete painting or detailing instructions corresponding to a higher skill level. For instance, if a part should be carbon fiber that fact could be stated in the "skill box" rather than listing it as "semi-gloss black".
As far as the aftermarket suppliers go, that is a difficult question. I know they struggle for life every day and frequently don't last for long. However, I do think they owe their users a minimal instruction sheet that at least prevents major goofs like nsclcctl described.
Should FSM print the complaints aired here? Perhaps, but gently. If a teenager buys a kit on a whim at X-mart and throws the thing in the trash two hours after getting it home because he/she cannot make sense of the instructions, then a potential hobbyist has been lost. Some of the instruction sheets
are that bad!
FSM doesn't want to bite the hands that feed it, but on the other hand, increasing the number of hobbyists would benefit both FSM and (to a lesser extent) the manufacturers. Other than IPMS, this forum is one of the few voices that "serious" modelers have.
Perhaps one other thing FSM could do is to organize a moderated forum like this one under each of their monthly workbench reviews and allow fellow modelers to give their extended comments about building the kit. The reviews are adequate for me to decide to purchase the kit or not, and to decide whether I need to purchase aftermarket decals, etc, but I especially like to hear the many innovative ways that other people cope with problems or enhance the kit with aftermarket or scratchbuilt details. I know that information is here in this forum, but it is hard to track it all down. (Hey, speaking of building notes, does anyone remember the old MMP?)
Just my 6 cents worth....
PS. By the way, nsclcctl, what field are you in? I also am in science research (see alias).