How accurate is accurate - and does it matter?

Accuracy should only matter to the builder.  The model companies do a pretty good job of getting the general form and fit, and it should be up the modeler to do the rest.  I read these same type of discussions on the RC scale websites and its the same complaint; that many of the high end ARFs (Almost Ready to Fly) are not 100% accurate and the builder has to rework and add many features to make the model competitive in a scale contest.   Well, model kits should not have to be shake and bake accurate.  Modelers who want the high degree of accuracy need to enjoy the fact that to model to that level will require good research and scratch building skills.  I would hate to see the industry getting to the point where one can build a completely accurate model right out of the box.  In regards to reviews, I gloss over complaints about the missing deguassing cables or the incorrect number of guns, I am more concerned about the quality of the plastic, instructions, and quality of the mold and fit.  Inaccuracies I can add or fix and its part of the fun of modeling.  

Except for the members on here, nobody that would know any better will see my builds.  I have a few at work that most people comment "neat! airplanes!".  To which I explain that one is a 1/48 scale Bf 109E-7 Trop single seat fighter that fought in...-at this point their eyes glaze over and they walk away pecking on their phone.  sigh

I don't mind people pointing out inaccuracies in kits. I think that's why we have such good kits today.  I'm REALLY thankful for people who point our major fit problems.  I hate those more than inaccuracies.  The average passerby wouldn't notice if the wings on your spitfire were on backwards but if that canopy does not fit right they'll turn up their nose and walk away.  As a result, I'll buy a well fitting kit over a slightly inaccurate kit any day.  But that's just me.  Right now.  Some of you guys have built dozens of the same aircraft so you have a lot to compare the next kit to and expect the newest one to be better, which is to be expected.  When I get to that point I'll probably be a little more finicky too.  Also blind and deaf.

I like working with an inaccurate kit sometimes. It gives me a chance to stretch my skills. Granted, they don't always get completed, but the experience is worth it.

I think this all falls into deciding whether we are trying to help each other or not.

(I do wish that people wouldn't always assume that because a person knows the subject very well that they don't build models)

Let's do what was done in the Original Post, only I will use my own area of interest and expertise. (or amateurtise if that is what the reader believes about me, lol)

The Skyhawk was actually a part of my life just after I got out of High School. I had already seen early examples in person before I turned 18 and got to work with them myself.

I can spot the differences in kits and real life Skyhawks that match up to the different sub-types that make up the whole set. I do just that for my own collection,,,,,every little piece that is different between an E, a Super E, an F, and a SuperFox, I want to get right.

I will also share that knowledge to the best of my ability, so, if someone wants to build a Mighty Mike, I will help him and tell him how they differed from an A-4Mike.

But

I don't insist that you have to do that in order to get a "nice Skyhawk" post from me when you put a picture up of your latest model. I am far more happy that in the sea of choices of model airplanes that you could have built, that you built one of my favorite aircraft. Some people are going to want only one Skyhawk model in their collection, before they go on to add a Sherman Tank, and a Hellcat, etc.

Those modelers don't need a guy to tell them that "that kit has an a bump right there that didn't get put on until 1972" when they are using decals from a 1969 cruise. But, for the guy that DOES care, that info needs to be available to him. The one that doesn't care, or that the info doesn't apply to, should simply choose not to read it, or if he reads it, just move on and not use it if that is his choice.

A simple real life example,,,,,,I have a Red Edition of the 1972 Motor's Manual,,,,,it covers all makes of US built cars from 1967 to 1972. I bought it to help me with my 1967 Mercury Cougar,,,,,,and it has never bothered me that 1969 Camero and 1971 RoadRunner info is in that book.

As for exactly on the point of accuracy,,,,,,,,I only believe that if a kit is going to be $75 when it is new tooled, that it should be some sort of improvement over the $25 re-pop of the older tooling. Otherwise,,,,,,what was the point of retooling? That company could have just negotiated a re-box agreement with the older company.

Rex

edit, I left out the "does it matter?" part,,,,,,,,,,yes, it matters a heck of a lot to me, because I am going to be building 60+ Skyhawks, over 50 Phantoms, a couple of dozen Crusaders and the same approx number of Intruders,,,,,etc, etc. If my viewers don't see the detail differences between each sub type, I really could have just built one of each type, and called all the Phantoms F-4Js, even if some were supposed to be Bs. Besides, if you are going to try and get me to swap out 17 F-4B models for a "new and great" F-4B at twice what I paid for mine in the stash,,,,,,,it better have superb accuracy and details. See the difference between the Academy and Hasegawa 1/72 F-8 Crusaders,,,the Academys were "better enough" for me to make the switch. (thankfully before I had too many of the Hasegawa kits all finished, lol)

Hornets' nest possibilities here...

I buy kits to build (well, that's the intention).

Perceived Accuracy, Mfr, Availability & Price are important. 

I will read reviews if available, but usually buy new kits when they become available because the subject is of interest to me.

I bought the HB 750gal Fuel Tanker, despite knowing the doors & cab were wrong!  I did a compare & contrast with the old Italeri hard-top, & posted extensive pics & (my) opinions online for info.
I (intend) to build the tanker with the Italeri cab, but have also seen it built OOB, & it looks ok-ish.

If the Info is there, it can be used to inform your choices. 

EG the HB M4 HST first came out as the prime-mover for the 90mm, but since there is no plastic kit of a 90mm (commander's Models' looks very very nice btw) & I'd already heard that there to be variants, I held off until it was released as an 8"/155mm PM.  (but If I pick up a 90mm AA, well then....)

I then consider Mfr's, Tamiya, AFV Club, HobbyBoss, Accurate Miniatures, and Revell are all currently releasing stuff I want to build.

E.G. the German GTK Boxer is available from HobbyBoss & Revell, but held off from the  HB as it was based on the prototype (& over priced?).  

I bought the Revell because: It was of the Production version, was less than 1/2 the price of the HB, & I could get my mits on!

I now have many many after-market options for the Boxer to choose from, or not as I choose, as personally I'm not bothered my resin wheels, but will often get better decals.

When it comes to blogs & WIP's, I welcome constructive comments, or 'this is how I did it', or 'here is info you may find useful', etc., 

What isn't so useful is when the 'rivet counters' nit-pick or flame others when their nuggets of bile aren't taken as gospel & not immediately acted upon.  These people I ignore as not contributing to the conversation.

To me accuracy depends on the builder. If I want a German Panther, I'm looking for the cheapest, decent build kit. I don't care enough about the subject to want to buy the most expensive super kit, buy aluminum gun tube, after market cast metal tracks and $100 worth of other extras.

For example, given the choice between a $25 40-something year old kit (Tamiya's ancient Panther A on the shelf at Hobby Lobby) and a $30 Dragon Panther A Smart Kit, I'd splurge and get the newer, better kit. It would be a much more enjoyable, more accurate, better detailed, more modern model kit than an old one designed for motorization. Another modeler may make a different choice, to each their own.

For a subject that I care more about like an Abrams Panther II mine clearing vehicle, there are two choices; the Trumpeter Panther II and the Dragon Panther II. The Dragon kit is better, more accurate, more refined in detail and newer. The build would be more involved though than the simpler Trumpeter kit. They both run about the same so to me the choice would be obvious. Again, another modeler might make a different choice. Neither one of use would be wrong.

It may matter to judges if you enter contests.  Sometimes inaccuracies are so small that they only show up with a ruler or tape measure- other times the shape is so wrong it is visible to the eye (if the viewer is familiar with the prototype.  Some of  the older Lindberg aircraft, like the Pt-17 and some of the WW1 subjects are so bad they are clearly apparent.

jtilley

Some rather emotional posts on another thread got me thinking about a topic I've thought about many times before, in several contexts.

Just how accurate does a kit have to be in order to be considered "acceptably accurate"?

Recently there was a big fuss over Eduard's BF-109G. Comments on its alleged inaccuracies included "gross," "pitiful,", "absurd," and "disastrous." Similarly, some years ago Trumpeter's 1/350 Fletcher-class destroyer received the accolades "pit-ee-full," "an almost complete waste of plastic," and "wordsto accurately sum up just how bad it is would all be censored." There are plenty of other examples.

Over in the Ships forum I think I've acquired something of a reputation as a pretty picky person when it comes to accuracy. My several "attacks" on the Heller Soleil Royal seem to have ruffled quite a few feathers, as have my descriptions of HECEPOB (Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead) kits.

All this has gotten me to thinking: just how accurate does a kit have to be for me to think it's worth building?  One obvious answer: it's up to the individual modeler; to each his/her own. After considerable thought I think I've come up with my own personal answer: if the inaccuracy is visible to me with my naked eyes, it's important. If not, it isn't.

I know more about some subjects than others. If nobody had told me, I wouldn't have known anything was wrong with that Eduard BF-109G. (Caveat: I haven't bought it.) On the other hand, I can see the big problem with the old Revell 1/32 Spitfire I: the "gull wing" effect in the wing/fuselage contours aft of the cockpit is missing. To me, that's significant; I wouldn't buy the kit. (Let it be noted that Revell's new 1/32 MK II has that feature just right.)

I can see that the stern ornaments on the Heller Soleil Royal don't match contemporary references. And that the proportions of its yards and masts don't make sense. And that its decks don't have camber. I can see that the boats in the Heller H.M.S. Victory are empty shells. I can see that the twin 5" gun mounts of the Trumpeter 1/700 North Carolina are spaced wrong. (A couple of them don't have superstructure underneath to support them.) I can tell by looking that the 5" gunhouses on the Tamiya 1/700 Fletcher-class destroyer are too small. And I certainly can tell by eye that the old Lindberg "Blue Devil" destroyer is way off proportionally. And the Lindberg H.M.S. Hood has a spurious, off-center turret.

In other words, I think I can claim to be able to spot lots of inaccuracies that are serious enough to make me either decline to buy the kit or modify it extensively.

I also don't like raised panel lines on aircraft. Or oversized rivets. But I don't check the location of every panel line on every aircraft kit I buy. (One reason: I don't always know what sources to check it against. Published and "official" drawings frequently disagree about such things.) Unless it has some other big, compensating virtue, I'm not likely to buy an airplane kit with raised panel lines.

Do I have the right to tell other modelers that their standards should be the same as mine? Of course not. If other modelers want to measure every piece of a kit and pronounce that it's 1 mm off, that's certainly their privilege. And if they're prepared to overlook the problems of HECEPOB kits, that's their decision too.

I do, however, wish they wouldn't get so worked up about such thhings. Not all of them do, of course; the reviewers in FSM and Airfix Model World generally seem to strike a healthy balance between knowledge of the prototypes and reasonable expectations of the manufacturers. But a great deal of cyberspace seems to be occupied by self-appointed experts who really go overboard with their criticisms. I have to wonder how many of those people actually build models - and if they do build them, whether their finished models come up to their own supposed standards.

Like I said, I can only speak definitely for myself. But I think it's a subject that's worth every serious scale modeler's thought.

Sounds like you basically answered your own question. The more one knows about a particular subject, the more picky and passionate they are about the overall look of the kit. Since you took Eduard's G-6 for example, its more than just porportions that are off, the angle of gear attachment and gear length is not right for a 109. The characteristic look to the gear on the 109 is just something that needs to look right, similar to  your comparison to the Revell Spit. 

I still don't see the need to call a kit bad, dirty names, because of all these things though. That just sparks needless debates and raises tensions, and blows things out of proportion. 

oh and since the "Rivet Counter" name came up in this thread,,,I can tell you difference between the dreaded "Rivet Counter" and a "very helpful, knowledgeable fellow modeler"

If there is a long, detailed, highly accurate description of parts size, shape, the years used, and the colors of those items posted online,,,,,,,,and you are going to use it on your model when you build it, then that poster is a  "very helpful, knowledgeable fellow modeler",,,,,,,,,,,if it is Spitfire Info and you are building a MiG, that guy is a "Rivet Counter"

Timing of the info also matters,,,,if you can still use all or part of the info in your build, that guy is a "very helpful, knowledgeable fellow modeler",,,,,,,,,,but, if you just glued the model together and ready to paint it, then that guy is a "Rivet Counter"  (this is easy to see,,,,,,the same info typed in a thread that asks "how did the _______look" is typed by the "very helpful, knowledgeable fellow modeler",,,,,,,,,,, in all other places, or if he says "Black" because it really was 37038 and someone insists that it was not, then the guy that proves it is the "Rivet Counter")

Personally, I go for the L.A.R. Method in my kits. Looks About Right. :-) I figure most non modelers who will see your work at a show or in a museum are like the folks who wander the C-ramp at air shows. All they care about is what kind of airplane that is and what's it do. 99.9% of people IMHO aren't going to care about the details. If it looks like a Phantom, it's a Phantom.

Short version, I don't build to make judges happy.

That is what I said, too.

But, if it looks like an F-4E Phantom, it is NOT an F-4B Phantom. That is where the accuracy debate really starts, in those detail differences that some buy books for, get specific kits for and then change their models to match.

As others have mentioned, it's all in the eye of the builder.

The accuracy and correct variant and all its details matters to me; but only as one issue among many. Quality of moldings and fit are at least as important.  

I got into modeling from my love of history, I'm not really a nuts and bolts kind of guy.  So if it looks like it's subject, well, that's most of the struggle.  But errors that are obvious to me do annoy me some.

So one significant example, I've built and enjoyed the Hasegawa Mk IX Spitfire, but it does annoy me a little that it's smaller than my Tamiya Mk V.  I think in the future I'll favor the Eduard Mk IX.  But I think it's rare to see really serious errors on modern kits.

atcDave

As others have mentioned, it's all in the eye of the builder.

The accuracy and correct variant and all its details matters to me; but only as one issue among many. Quality of moldings and fit are at least as important.  

I got into modeling from my love of history, I'm not really a nuts and bolts kind of guy.  So if it looks like it's subject, well, that's most of the struggle.  But errors that are obvious to me do annoy me some.

So one significant example, I've built and enjoyed the Hasegawa Mk IX Spitfire, but it does annoy me a little that it's smaller than my Tamiya Mk V.  I think in the future I'll favor the Eduard Mk IX.  But I think it's rare to see really serious errors on modern kits.

I agree that it is in the eye of the builder. "Serious errors" are also in the eye of the builder, but there is validity to what the experts point out as issues. How serious an issue is another matter.

Manufacturer errors are not as rare as one would think. Several modern armor kits recently released have had dimensional errors. The Academy M50A1 Ontos released in 2010 had some suspension angle issues that were odd since they had access to a vehicle undergoing restoration. There were also some hull angle errors and errors in the massive 6 guns that some modelers stated made this kit unrecommendable. To me, it looks like an Ontos when built.

Another modern armor kit is the M103A1 and M103A2 by Dragon. Released just this year, one around January and the other just recently, there were multiple dimensional issues, some that prevented the turret from traversing when the kit was completed per the directions. Some web forums went on for pages discussing the accuracy issues, how to correct them, how could they make these errors with all the displays sitting around, etc. interspersed with comments telling folks to ignore them, it's a great kit, etc. To me, it looks like an M103 when built.

The accuracy experts are not wrong about the errors. When you examine the points they make with photographs, you can see what they mean. The point is, does it matter to you as a modeler? If it matters to them, but not to you, they are not wrong nor are you. It's like telling someone they are wrong about their favorite color.

The short, and most accurate to the question "how accurate is 'enough" is "whatever pleases the builder". Many of us are more concerned with producing "art" than a model that will bear the scrutiny of "rivet counters". I also suspect that we enjoy our modeling more than the latter as well.

I think Colonel Gronovius and The Doog have hit the nail on the head - and emphasized my own position. If MY model looks right to MY EYE, it is right. Or close enough.

One caveat perhaps is worth mentioning. The models we've been talking about here are strictly "display" models. People who build operating models, such as steam engines and locomotives, have to worry about other matters. I once read an article about a scratchbuilt, machined, operating model of a Merlin engine. It was magnificent; the only deviation from scale was the use of glow plugs instead of spark plugs. If the builder had been satisfied with what looked right to his eye, the thing wouldn't have run. HO railroaders also have to work to tight mechanical tolerances.

Those of us who just worry about how our models look have it easy.

I agree with half of The Doog's post

"The short, and most accurate to the question "how accurate is 'enough" is "whatever pleases the builder". " This is the part I agree with.

" Many of us are more concerned with producing "art" than a model that will bear the scrutiny of "rivet counters". " I agree that many of "today's modelers" model to this goal.

I don't agree with this part, " I also suspect that we enjoy our modeling more than the latter as well.", mostly because I have been happily changing parts and reshaping things for 40 or more of my 50 years of modeling.

I would have gone along with it if you had said something more like "modelers tend to post on forums that the way they model is the most fun way to do it",,,,,that is almost always true,,,,,,,but, no one can really say that some other modeler is "not having as much fun" just because he does it differently.

If we let that stand as a "universal truth", then we are only about ten posts away from saying that ship modelers have more fun than car modelers and that tank modelers care more about details than aircraft modelers,,,,,,,and none of those things are true either.

I dive into it deeply enough that I don't just separate out the differences between an F-4N and an F-4B,,,,,,,,I carefully use the correct F-4B parts out of all the options available over the years (18 theoretical different combos),,,,,,,,,and I have a blast doing it.

It is not all that much fun, however, constantly reading that I somehow can't possibly be enjoying it as much as the guy that slams an RF-4C together, calls it an F-4C, and weathers the snot out of it, to "make it realistic".

Rex

the doog

The short, and most accurate to the question "how accurate is 'enough" is "whatever pleases the builder". Many of us are more concerned with producing "art" than a model that will bear the scrutiny of "rivet counters". I also suspect that we enjoy our modeling more than the latter as well.

I have to go with Rex on this one Doog; I know too many modelers who thoroughly enjoy trying to replicate each and every detail. If that is their way to enjoy modeling, who is anyone to say that their personal way is more fun than anyone else's?

I personally like to replicate some details, but other details are either too much bother, won't be seen or might be more hassle than they are worth to me.

I often compare it to yard work. Just because you use a push mower and I use a riding mower does that mean that I enjoy mowing more than you because my way might be easier? Perhaps I hate mowing in any form and you love making your yard nice and pretty by using a more precise method. Then you have the guy who hires a lawn service (Model Maniac). He likes to show off his nicely paid for lawn.

Bottom line, to each his own, but just because an error doesn't matter to you or me doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think we all have our areas which we spot problem/errors with kits. I have to be honest I have had a smile on my face with a few magazine/expert builds of armour who make so many changes to a kit then weather the hell out of it covering it in mud and other things so you cant see whats been changed anyway.

At the end of the day its all personal, I built a Wingnut Wings Sopwith Pup and put in all the control cables in the cockpit as well as the reinforcing wires. No one can see them anymore and no one will, but I know they are there and thats enough for me.

For me its simple if I want to build an aircraft, as they stay "fairly" clean, I like it to be visually accurate. Ifs its armour then I can honestly say I dont mind it it has the wrong drive sproket for a Ausf j made in August in a Bonn factory.

I have asked for a critical replys on here and I think that has to be the point where you can look at things like accuracy or errors and give replies at that level.

Phil

I'm really enjoying this post and learning much because of you guys "in the know" of all things modeling.  kudos to whomever started this thing.

As being relatively new to "modern modeling "  I am trying something new on each and every kit I build. That being said, I attempt to be as accurate as I can with the particular subject just to see if I can do it.

I am building a 1/48  Academy P-40  Pearl Harbor at the moment and I'm enjoying the accuracy issues

considering them as a challenge to be the best that I can be.  I rather doubt that I'll ever win a contest,

but it's very satifying to know that every model I build is better than the last one, thanks to you guys and posts like these.

Depends on if you're building a pine wood derby racer, or a Rolex watch. I always use the "close enough for government work" evaluation!

I don't break out the calipers or anything but I do want accuracy in my kits. I guess the difference with me is that I don't necessarily get bent out of shape over what a kit manufacturer provides and instead see it as an opportunity to grow/test my skills by identifying and fixing the problem(s) myself.

I figure that in the end, I'll have a "special" model that won't be like everyone else's and that makes me more of an artist than an assembler.

That tickles me some, and what good is a hobby if doing it doesn't make you feel good?

BTW, here's my current project, a 1/200 USS Iowa... Trumpeter's 1/200 ships are infamous for their inaccurate hulls but I won't let that stop me. Besides, who else is offering a 5 foot long monster kit of my favorite ship?

I'm in the "I build for me" club,and it looks good from 4 feet away, I'm generally good with it. Ie.-I'm in process of a 1/48 Has RF4E that will be done OOB and painted is SEA camo as an RF4C with no corrections to the airframe or wings.  The 1/32 RF4C will be done with some AM resin and PE parts and also done in a SEA paint job.  That one will hopefully end up at our vets home here in town, so I want to do a little better on it.

If the kit I buy does not look the part when I get started on it it tends to go away in the once weekly pickup, or gets slapped together and used for target practice

But if the real one has slats on the wings and the kit doesn't, or vice-versa,  I'm not going to worry about it.

I'm in that same group of builders "club" as goldhammer; I simply build models for the enjoyment of seeing it come together and relaxation.  I seriously doubt that I will ever enter anything into a contest; not because I don't have confidence in my ability, but because I'm not doing it to please anyone but myself.

I thoroughly enjoy looking at the builds of others, not ever to criticize, especially if I don't know anything about the subject.  I always think that everyone else does a better job than I do (and they probably do :P).  

My kit selections are typically based on subjects that interest me, based upon I may have seen the real thing and thought it looked cool so now I want to build a replica of my own, or because I have some kind of connection with that type of subject.  For example, I am planning on building an example of each of the aircraft flown by the Idaho Air National Guard because I have family members who were or currently serve there.  I am also planning on my first scratchbuild of a pavement winged sprint car because my brother drives one and I want to build a model for him of his car and will probably end up using the Revell sprint car as a base only.

I'm not sure if my comments make any sense to anyone but myself, but I'm putting them out there.

I see discussions (and frequently arguments) about accuracy and construction on modeling forums all the time. Frankly, I don't get what there is to argue about.

With regard to accuracy, whether a kit is "accurate enough" it's 100% in the eye of the beholder. If you're happy with the kit then it's a good kit for you and therefore, in all ways that matter, it's a good kit.

With regard to how best to build, paint, and weather a kit, that's also 100% in the eye of the beholder. If you enjoy the process and are happy with the results then nothing else really matters.

Usually accuracy discussion take place between modelers striving for perfection. One thinks kit "A" is more accurate while the other thinks kit "B" is more accurate and both agree that kit "C" is a dog not worthy of discussion. Both sides will have merit in what they deem is more accurate.

If "it looks good enough to me" is the standard to which you are comfortable with, avoid the accuracy discussions. I build a lot of stuff that is "good enough to me", but still enjoy trying to super accurize the occasional build. So it is nice to know what kit is the best starting point to get to where I want to go.

It's always nice when I'm googling information about a kit and I run across old forum discussions with the accuracy issues dissected.

Rob and Rex, I should have made it more clear that the last sentence in my post was really more tongue-in-cheek than serious. I put that in there because some of these "rivet counter" guys and critical reviewers seem so uptight that they can't seem (to me) to get much enjoyment out of anything that isn't 100% technically "perfect". My admitted bias...

Well, in a weird sort of way, I do agree with you to some extent. I do agree that if the Rivet Counting gets so in-depth in the striving for perfection that no plastic gets cut, glued, puttied or painted, then it has gone too far.

At some point, no matter what level of accuracy we each are after, there has to be some actual model part assembling going on. Otherwise that person is in an entirely different hobby. ("mind assembly exercises"?)

Rex

the doog

Rob and Rex, I should have made it more clear that the last sentence in my post was really more tongue-in-cheek than serious. I put that in there because some of these "rivet counter" guys and critical reviewers seem so uptight that they can't seem (to me) to get much enjoyment out of anything that isn't 100% technically "perfect". My admitted bias...

I was replying to the PepsiCan post, but I know plenty of modelers who get enjoyment out of trying to replicate accuracy down to the type of fasteners used (rivets vs. hex nuts vs. slotted screw heads). That's the fun they get, how much they can fix. If a reviewer just "glosses" over these issues, the review isn't as complete to these guys. Remember, a review is a person's opinion. They all vary. Usually the (let's call them "rivet reviewers") get upset if a new kit comes out and it replicates errors from a previous kit or fails to add the level of detail that another kit already has.

I understand their frustration. For instance, when Tamiya retooled and reissued their M1A2 kits, they added tracks with the "new" pattern (first used in 1989-90). But when Academy reissued its M1A1 with nice new modern OIF fittings, they included the original style tracks from their 1980s kit, which were inaccurate when they came out.