How far do you go for realism?

QUOTE: Originally posted by ngc7293` As an example of what I mean: I was told about this woman who built a STNG Enterprise and in the Arboretum she added A Koi Pond. She did this with layers of apoxy and dabbs of yellow and then more apoxy to simulate depth. This pond was very small. Had she not told anyone, they probably would not have noticed it.

First, i have no idea what an A Koi Pond is (more of a starwars guy), but it sounds awfully extravagant. I don't think i'd go that far... I don't need to have every switch and lever in the right color in the correct position, thank you.
Hmmm... Are we talking about Cassibill? She's the only one of the few women here that i know that like startrek. AND she's nuts about detail...

I'll go as far as I can...

HEY,
I will go as far as i can without using a ton of money. Even if somone else wont see it, you will kow it is there, and that is the most important thing.

Randy

Depends if it can be seen without excessive handling of the model, I don't let people handle my models, and whether I have the skills, materials (and patienceat the time) to do it. I will correct obvious faults though.

I read that shikes!! No its not me. I'd have carved individual fish. No wait I'd have made a mold of a couple fish then with the castings half set I bend to the proper shapes for various poses. That and I carve "Miles Loves Keiko" on a tree. I'd seriously wonder about the existence of a koi pond. Holographic maybe. They didn't mention a plan for protecting a fish pond in "Starship Mine" before the Baryon Sweep. Hmmm. Can't remember if the sweep hurt plants. Maybe the Arboritum has special shields for this... this is all your fault I'm now in Trekkie mode Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

It depends on the model and what I plan on doing with it.

If it is in a Diorama where you can't see a lot of details I take the movie makers approach.

Other Kits I will want to make as realistic as possible and will aid lots of detail.

Competition entries get a totally different level of detail and attention.

I am a builder not a collector.

I'm with dj. I go as far as I can.

Mike

The limits of eyesight(20/400 and 20/390 Uncorrected and I can't work and wear my glasses cause the prism shifts stuff) and dextarity, I'm clumsy and I know it.

On some projects, I go the extra distance. Some areas such as arming wires on bombs, safety pins and remove before flight flags on pylons, tanks, MER's, TER's, and seats.

I add wireing and hydraulic lines to gear struts. Flexable oxygen hoses to seats. Things that I think will improve the looks of the model. You notice the key words, "Things that I think". I don't care what others think.

I like to add as much detail as possible or as far as my skill allows. I agree with berny, I add things that I THINK will improve the look of my models.

Ken

I agree with djmodels - go as far as you can.
It's the only way to "push the envelope" and learn new techniques - be daring - throw caution to the wind!! Have a go!
I've extended myself and gained many new skills with this approach.
Also, not only reading, but ATTEMPTING the lessons in FSM articles helps a lot.
Cheers
LeeTree

I never waste time on stuff that won't be seen. A lot of folks enjoy that "but I know it's there" feeling, but it does nothing for me! Heck, I don't even finish the bottoms of armored vehicles, unless it's on it's side.
But, if I can see something through a window, canopy, or hatch, I'd probably give it a go.
As far as visable detail goes, I just start with the obvious things and work my way down to as far as my patience will take me.
I think for most of us it is much more a matter of patience rather than skill.

Oh, and I don't think anyone answered this: A koi pond is a nicely landscaped pond for koi, which are big, colorful carp. The word koi is Japanese, and you can find puh-lenty of koi ponds here. I'm not sure, but like many thngs in Japanese culture, it may be a custom that comes from China.

I go as far as personal experiences and skill will allow. If it's one of the Aircraft I worked on, I try to be accurate with the sensor systems I maintained. Many times I have to scratch. As for the Sci-Fi world, I like to flatter some of the previous builders I'm seem by steali... I mean, recreating their work. And since I've done a couple of dioramas, I have a hard time just looking at static models now, they've got to have some kind of background. So that requires adding more details. Things don't have to be exact, but as close as I can get it is what I shoot for.

Don

I'm wrestling with this question right now. In 1:48 scale, do I open the side lights (portholes) on my corvette and model the interior spaces, or not? Or maybe just one or two to give the idea? Do I add lighting to show up these details (I think I answered that one, the lights will stay off the model, but it is something else I had to think hard about).

Otherwise I'll add whatever detail is appropriate to the scale and to my references. I have seen a lot of ship models ruined, in my opinion, because someone put rigging on a 1:400 scale model that scales out at several feet in diameter; that sort of thing. On the flip side a lack of detail can make the model look like a toy boat (again, my opinion).

I think everyone has to work at their own comfort level, and as long as the modeler is pleased with the result then the objective has been achieved.

Also, for the most part I won't guess at details. If my references are not clear I'll leave the detail off or at least document in my journal why I made an educated guess.

Some of this comes from my experiences restoring aircraft for a museum, where accuracy was king. Seems to have carried over to my hobby.
Bruce

as much as I think is neccesary.

I decided to do PE's on my F4U. It's my first major PE attempt and it's driv1ng me nuts. and I'm still in the cocpit. Silly me I had 2 diferent Tam kits so I got a set for each. With the detail in the Tam kits I'm wondering why I'm gluing my fingers together on the tiny PE bits. I've descovered that "out of the box" is far enough for me.

When I try to super detail I tend to get "Target Fixation" (and crash and burn) especially in 1/72 scale. Now I usually use photo etch (or scratch build) very conservativly (sp), usually where the item is not furnished and its lack is noticable (seat belts, throttles etc) or where the photo etched item is more realistic (instrument panels, landing gear doors etc). I discovered a long time ago that the right colors of paint will do an amazing amount of detailing (and in a lot less time). And besides, if you hadn't noticed, if you install all the items on the photo etch frett, most of it will never be seen once you finish the model.

I will do whatever makes me satisfied with my build. Lately, I have added more am parts and pe parts. I haven't ventured into the land of scratchbuilding yet and am not sure I have the patience or talent to do so.

I'll add resin & photoetch. With washes & drybrushing, it looks good enough for me. I've seen some modelers go to scratchbuilding extremes that I never wish to replicate. If I tried that, I woud probably only build ten or fifteen more models in my lifetime. I do this for enjoyment, not to "out-do" anyone.

I agree with tigerman. I think it depends on the kit. Some have enough detail right out of the box, and there are certain kits that cry out for additional detail. And then there are the ones that NEED to be corrected just to make 'em look right. I also believe it depends on who is going to be looking at them, where they are going to be displayed, and at what distance most observations will be made.
Gip Winecoff