Thanks for the insights as well as the compliment Mic. BTW I'm a native Austinite, although I don't live down there now.
I think the offered opinions by ajlafleche in particular overly critical and nitpicky and this "critique" is another example IMO of what's wrong with some people in this hobby, who frequently seem more interested in spouting rivet-counting creativity-stifling nonsense than encouraging creative effort.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind criticism, as long as it's constructive. Most of what that guy said didn't qualify as what I consider constructive criticism, since I would normally expect constructive criticism to include positive points as well as negative ones...he only said what he disliked about it, and nothing about what he may have liked. If I were to take those opinions to heart, I would just toss the thing in the trash can. The base has its flaws, and maybe it isn't as representative of a true dio according to some people's criteria as they may like, but as I initially pointed out it is a first effort and in consideration of that I think it turned out fairly well. Most people so far in 3 different forums I've posted this too seem to agree, and that includes people with as much or more model building experience as some people here claim to have.
In response to some of the specific criticisms:
The comment about the rocks was just stupid...am I supposed to believe someone has never, or rarely, seen a rock just lying on the ground, and not buried in it???
"Almost always partially in the soil"???
What flippin' planet are you from and WTF kind of criticism is this? Have you researched the landscape of the area where the movie was filmed? Because I have. I even have stills taken from the movie that show exactly that...rocks just laying on the ground! Now if they were boulders, yeah I might consider that a valid observation. Maybe I'm just more worldly, but I"ve seen lots of rocks (and boulders) that weren't "partially in the soil". In fact, I'd say this is just about the most idiotic criticism of a model project I've ever read on this or any other model forum in which I participate.
The trees: apparently the actual depth of how they're placed just didn't come out in the photos...they're hardly in anything like a straight line. On that size base and considering the scale of the car and how I wanted to place it, there weren't too many options of where to put them. I didn't want them in front of or behind the car. I like the symmetry of having the two big ones on either side, and this was inspired by an actual still photo from the film, although I didn't attempt to make them look exactly as portrayed in the film. The criticism about how they are placed is just more nitpicky crapola masquerading as a creative difference.
The bushes: O.K. so someone doesn't like lichen bushes, particularly in that scale. Great. I didn't see any suggestions for an alternative a person might find more suitable, which would have been actually useful. Again, no points for constructive criticism here. If you're going to tell someone how they did something wrong, a thoughtful critic might actually consider suggesting an idea for doing it "right" (as some people here have).
Also, the comments about using paint, glue, and ballast in the Celluclay, as well as drilling holes in the base were based on uninformed assumptions: this was all done. In fact, I'm quite sure I added too much paint and glue that accounted for the Celluclay being too moist, as I didn't even add all the prescribed water for mixing. I'd definitely be more careful about that in the future, as well as making sure to squeeze out as much moisture as possible before laying it down on a pine wood base.
Making uninformed assumptions doesn't qualify either as constructive criticism in my book.
The poster above didn't offer any positive observations, only highly subjective and what I perceive as minor creative differences, or merely opinions masquerading as creative differences, and some suggestions based in part on an inaccurate assessment. He didn't even bother to comment on the tread marks I did with the hydrocal, which I think came out very well (or at least very well for a first attempt)...certainly better than what I got trying to imprint the wet Celluclay or none at all (I appreciate the more considered opinions of the those suggesting that there should be some kind of tracks)., although he was sure quick to point out a perceived flaw in my process in trying to accomplish this with Celluclay alone.
I would really like to see an example by someone of viewable and detailed rubber tire tread marks in 1:24 scale on Celluclay. And I'm not talking about tank treads, which are obviously fundamentally different things than rubber tires. Because I don't think it can be done effectively just imprinting them in wet Celluclay, and neither do a number of other people who've tried it and whose comments I read on this board before I tried it myself. Using a plaster material over the Celluclay and imprinting that is what worked for me, and I got the idea from someone in one of the forums here.
Furthermore, it occurred to me that ya know....it would have at least been polite to wish someone luck in their first contest (as at least one other person did). And frankly, I would expect a better "judging" job from someone claiming to
have all that judging experience. If this is reflective of the kind of
judging "expertise" I can expect from "experienced" judges of model contests, whether
IPMS or otherwise, I can't say I'm too impressed.
A major part of the model-building process is learning new things and applying and/or acquiring new skills. The vast majority of the comments on the various modles I've posted on FSM up to this point have been constructive, as well as instructive. What I learned here, in case anyone's interested, is that Celluclay generally sucks as a base material, and it's hard to judge the water to Celluclay ratio to the point that it makes predicting how it will act when drying somewhat difficult. I know a lot of people swear by it, and in fact I would use it again if nothing else as a challenge to get it right the next time, but in this case I added way too much liquid to this batch as evidenced by the shrinkage and warping of the base - a self-criticism that I've already pointed out.
Lesson learned, and I didn't need any half-a$$ed critique to learn it.