annoyances

QUOTE: Originally posted by hou_ge2000 Yes, I agree. When something isn't totally clear, use COMMON SENSE. An engineering background helps too. Usually the instructions from Tamiya and Hasegawa are crystal clear. If you think modeling instruction are hard, just try to assemble one of those office furnitures you get from retail stores.

I've never assembled office furniture, but if you think THAT'S difficult, try asking my parents about assembling my first bicycle on Christmas Eve night.

do those instructions even have drawings? LOL "insert part AA into proper hole on XZ which should easily annoy you since we do not include hole and parts are not labeled. after 2 hours of figuring that out put tab 3 on AA into slot e=mc2, and if you figure that out you're Einstein" LOL

Yes, I agree. When something isn't totally clear, use COMMON SENSE. An engineering background helps too. Usually the instructions from Tamiya and Hasegawa are crystal clear. If you think modeling instruction are hard, just try to assemble one of those office furnitures you get from retail stores.

when something doesn't look good on the instruction sheet, and you can't figure out where your piece goes, hey all you gotta do is some research (common sense helps as well!!!)

I have to agree with the people who say that kit instructions are often unclear and/or badly drawn. (I once wrote a letter to FSM addressing this very topic but it was never published.) The frequent lack of written instructions only exacerbates the situation. I remember kit instructions in the 1970's usually were clearer, with easy-to-understand written directions accompanying well-drawn illustrations. I've got a 1970's edition of Revell's USS Constitution that has the old instructions that clearly show where parts need to go. I miss those!

I realize that some of the problems with unclear instructions can be solved by carefully researching the subject before digging into the kit box with hobby knife in hand. But when you get a set of kit instructions that look like they were drawn by a four-year-old, it doesn't exactly make things any easier.

Painting instructions nowadays drive me bats. It's time to paint the thingamajig before attaching it to the whoozit, but the color indicator on the instruction sheet shows, say a "C" in a circle. Now I can't remember what color that is, so I have to page back through the instruction sheet to find the little color chart that says that "C" is "Metallic." Metallic what? Blue? Red? Silver? Chartreuse? (This actually happened to me.)

Because I do a fair amount of scratchbuilding and adding aftermarket parts, I write notes on the instruction sheet as to assembly, when to add what part (especially if I have to change the assembly sequence) and I mark the paint colors next to the little icons representing them. Sometimes I'll even use different-colored inks (black for general assembly, blue for paint colors, red for "Be careful here!") This helps quite a bit.

Some of the best aftermarket kits out there are put out by Verlinden Productions. But, have you ever taken a good look at their instruction sheets that go with it? Almost no pictures, and half the pieces aren't even mentioned! The A-10A N/AW kit I got from them had well over 150 pieces, but only about half of them were referenced. The picture on the box was all I had to go by for the longest time during the build. Bad instructions I can understand sometimes, but incomplete? That's inexcusable, especially from a reputable company. As I stated before, I know that it takes alot of time and money to make the manuals, but to see good model companies drop the ball like that is truly a shame. Doesn't necessarily mean that I won't buy anything from them again, it just means that I have to do more research to make things correct.

I agree with Jim. More companies should consider doing what AM has done with their website. It would make things much easier, especially for those "trouble spots" in the kits.

demono69

QUOTE: Originally posted by nsclcctl There is a need for someone to say OK, if you build that 1:32 Revell corsair right out of the box, here is how to do it. If you want more realism, you will need to buy such and such to make the cockpit more realistic, make the engine more correct and so forth and so on.

I have noticed that the British and Japanese magazine are a lot better at that than the domestic magazines. (Sorry, FSM) Their articles tend to have a lot more step by step pictures along with detailed assembly instructions. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why that is but I always enjoy picking up a foreign publication, when I can afford it.

Ray

QUOTE: Originally posted by rossjr What about having the insturctions on line along with reference materials link to each page or each assembly.

An excellent idea. Check out the "Online Build" pages on the Accurate Miniatures website at http://www.accurate-miniatures.com/builds/builds.htm . For a neat little surprise, on the SBD-1 build page, they show the easy way to install the rear turret on the TBF/TBM kit. I'd like to see more manufacturers pick up on this.

Cheers,

Jim Whitley-Brand new FSM Forum member.

The thing that always amazes me when reading new kit reviews is how often the subject is reported to be the incorrect scale size. Given the amount of printed reference material, not to mention the existence of actual examples of the subject, there is no excuse for a kit to scale out at, say, 2 feet too short. OK, in most cases you can't really tell, but if they got something as simple as the dimensions wrong, what else is wrong? It's just one of those burrs that gets under my saddle.

Long Island Ed.

There are always going to be vague instructions I think. I work with the IRS on a regular basis, and if you think model instructions are hard to follow...try wrapping your head around some of the W's new tax laws.

The talk of a book or guide for basic modelling sparks my interest.

I'm curious to hear what anyone would want in something like that.

Personally I think both the industry and us as modelers have failed to educate the manufacturers on the best way to do this. What about having the insturctions on line along with reference materials link to each page or each assembly. The kit itself could include a generic pictoral set of instuctions with the URL to the manufacturers web site and kit. They must have reference phots since they had to have something to reference when the made the molds. They could also point to magazine sites like this one for kit reviews and other reference material or aftermarket sites for more information.....

OK Sorry for being stupid....

Actually, I like pictures on the sides of boxes. Your point is well taken though, if they use parts that are not in the box to spruce up the model and you are trying to figure how they got that effect.

I think in some ways I was hammered on a post I did about the new Warbirds issue by FSM. The reason I liked it was I could look at what was done and with what extra parts to make those WWII palnes look so awesome. There is a need for someone to say OK, if you build that 1:32 Revell corsair right out of the box, here is how to do it. If you want more realism, you will need to buy such and such to make the cockpit more realistic, make the engine more correct and so forth and so on. Right now, shlocks like me are stuck with a situation where until I get more experience, I have to take what I get. I simply don't have the time to do all this research, find these parts that I do not know go with the model or not, figure out paint schemes, do my job, raise 4 kids, take care of my lovely wife if you know what I mean, give praise to the Lord on and on and on .Make our lives as modelers easier. There will still be those who say, I want to do it myself and it may be wrong info in the instruction sheet. But for those of us who are shlocks, help pleeeaaaaaassssse help!!!

For instance, I just finished an Italera 1:72 F18. The kit was missing a pylon to mount a rocket. Either the kit was missing it or it is in the belly of one of my cats. So, Italera did not respond to my request for a piece. So, what did an idiot like me do? I constructed a pylon (if that is the name of it) out of two pieces of sprue. I glued them together, glued them to the wing, and mounted the rockets on them, both sides. If the navy sees it, they may actually say, hey, looks good, good idea. If you all saw it, you would fall over hit your head from laughing so hard. However, if I don't lift the model up, the rockets look good.

So, there are clearly levels of ingenuity out there. If I were a caveman, fire would have been out of the question except for what lightning hit. In terms of a wheel? Walking is more healthy anyway. Good day! Help us shlocks out Revell, Tamiya, etc.!!!

Better instructions do not necessarily imply better fit. That's left to how the model was designed and who by. Granted, a number of companies do not seem to spend a lot of time in designing and printing instruction sheets, but as a pattern maker for a number of garage companies, let me tell you that it is not THAT simple to design a kit where everything fit like it should. Maybe big companies such as Tamiya and Revell can play a little bit more with prototypes, but as far as I'm concerned, when I design a pattern, I often do not have the chance to do anything more than dry-fit and hope it works when it's released as a kit. Resin and, in particular, metal kits also come with the extra poblem of shrinkage during the molding process and that alone can mess up a beautifuly designed kit.

Personally, instead of instruction sheets, I'd rather have artist's drawings, in colour, of what the cockpit, the landing gear doors and bay, the engine,... are supposed to look like, and a detailled 3-view scale drawing that shows the whole thing as it should look.

One thing I do hate though, on some kit boxes, are pictures of a completed model. Revell is particularly bad for that, with several close-up shots of a kit, usually a prototype (this being wrien in small caracters of course!), that shows stuff that is actualy not in the box... Many times, I've been deceived by those pictures on the side of Revell boxes...

hi eric..
how about aftermarket resin figure instructions too.... why can they (the manufacturer) make one of these... they i think i know the color for their figure??...

HA, you think kit instructions can be hard to interperet?? Try some of the resin and/or photo-etch instructions-if they come with any!!!
I feel your pain though. Some of the kits are pretty bad.

Eric

I agree with some of u...sometimes assembling some parts especially the wheels compartment, landing gear etc..etc is headache....following the instructions, we were limited to the drawing...some drawing showed the part with different angle, when u fit them, they were not sitting as drawn in the sheet....so which is correct?? the drawing or the part??...trying to figure it out then u found yourself searching for other references, correction sets, etc, etc.... and i agree with demono69.. it's the challange that make us hook in this bussiness...Perhaps it's time someone do an alternate instructions...those day we dont even think about aftermarket details set, resin accsessories...so now, how about an aftermarket instructions... someone interrested??
cheers...

Sounds to me like there's a market for a book or series of books of aftermarket building instructions for contemporary as well as older kits. What do you all think? I'd be willing to buy it, or them, or whatever, since I have the same issues as the previous posters. Just a thought. - Ed

Thank you, enough said. When a model cannot be easily constructed because of sloppy directions, there is a problem! There is enough to the hobby in terms of detailing not to speak of the number of kids that have to deal with these stupid instructions. Send a message, pay someone to proof them and get them right!!! I will write interesting hostories if they want, just hire me online!!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyfo What do you want? A better fitting product, or better instructions?

Better instructions result in a better fitting product. That is to mean, "Better instructions results in a better finished product". If a person doesn't know where a specific part is to be installed, or how that part is to be installed, the end result will be a completed kit that isn't complete at all. I am not into building ships, but the last one I built, someone looked at it and commented that I had the ladder, life boats and mast in the wrong position. The instructions were so misleading I thought that was where they were supposed to go. How many new people have been turned off from modeling, due to the instructions, or lack of?

Granted, the more time a person spends in this hobby, the more they are able to "read between the lines" with the instructions. I would be hesitant to start a model in a subject I am not familliar with, such as another ship.

All of you have valid points. Yes, I get fairly frustrated with some of the companies' attempt at instructions, especially some of the Hasegawa kits. But what can they do to make it better? End table quality instruction books? Interactive assembly drawings on CD? A 24 hour home assistance service?

I know I'm being a bit extreme, but you get the point. Honestly, I don't really mind so much anymore. One of the reasons I got into modeling is for the challenge. If I have to do a little research to see exactly what position the landing lights are in, what's the harm? If everything is drawn out for you step by step, with complete measurements for the positioning of every piece, where's the fun? Not to mention the cost of the kit. One pound assembly drawings scare me.

Granted, there is room for improvement, and the newer kits are getting better. Just try to draw and write those books for the entire world. I think I'd go nuts, and there would be lots of badly done kits out there. For the most part, those guys do a really good job at something that for most would be impossible, and at least the last kit you built looked like it was supposed to, right?

demono69

I tend to agree...for the most part....

But, I will play devils advocate here for a second

What do you want? A better fitting product, or better instructions? I'm on a budget like everyone else, and I have to decide where to spend my companies money. I can find a fresh out of trade school drafting student to do my instructions for cheap probably.

The lack of more than a paragraph of history has never really bothered me, as I do most of my research.

I think a lot of it comes down to how much space they have to present the information given. They're trying to reach a mass market (although perhaps poorly) in a variety of countries.

Keeping in mind...I'm only devils advocate here....

You have a valid point. When looking a some illustrations, looking at the part in hand and trying to figure where to position the part so it will fit once it is installed can be very frustrating. Have you ever tried to build a complete landing gear strut assembly and then install it in a wheel well where all parts fit in their exact location? Another problem is cockpits where you build all components and then install after. Always, something will not match up or fit properly.The only way to get by this is to do a lot of dry fitting. It would be nice if the instructions would show exactely where the strut arm would mount on the strut and the angle of the part. The only reference is the two parts and an arrow showing where it is to go, which is open to a lot of interpretation.