Call of Duty scene

True, I should never give advise that isn't true, but I still like this website and forum./

Also I'm half french!

If t-rex makes scratchbuilt ruins like the inspiration he saw on the said game..i mind saying hey..its inaccurate...go on t-rex you will learn about the accuracies later..remember there are two types of pro-plastic modelers in the world.....the one who remembers that once he/she was a newbie and the other one who thinks that he/she was born with reference and Air brush in both hands...i assure you in your 4,000th post here at forum you will be the one whos giving advise,criticism and most of all you earned friends. just be nice to everyone.i know youve learned about different attitudes here...its global you know.

i dont mind  your spelling....i know in your language your the expert.

put this in your mind.....if your diorama looks great someone will find the boots of your figures inaccurate .. take it as a challenge,

remember its all modeling.

heavy arty wrote: "If you read the entire thread, as opposed to the parts that fit your agenda, you will see that we all said if he wants to do a scene from the game, go for it.  We also stated that it shouldn't be used as a historical referance. There was no belittling involved.  Later in the thread, he started asking questions and making assumptions about actual weapons and tactics based on the games and movies he has seen.  We simply provided him with the historical accuracy to his questions."

I did read the entire thread.  I'm not going to cite every example from the entire thread. My only "agenda" was to show T-Rex is right in following his inspiration in whatever way he sees fit.  An added benefit was showcasing your pompous attitude.  Look your first response on page 1 and all your responses thereafter and you will see evidence of this.  

You think everyone has to fall in and interpret things as you do. 

p.s. You would think a person hell-bent on accuracy would spell R E F E R E N C E correctly!

T-rex wrote:

Man, I didn't though this would go on like this, espesaly now were off topic thats all from me.

Relax, it's just a discussion, sometimes heated, but still just a discussion.  No need to go away.

Looks like this thread has really become hot for a few people here. Here is my take on the issue. If you want to use the game as inspiration go for it. If you want to take a scene from the game and create a dioroma out of it....go for it. Just know, like many have said on here already that any scene from a movie or a game will not be 100% accurate. But neither is any other dioroma out there unless the person has copied just what he/she actually saw, and even then its iffy. I look at dioromas the way I look at paintings or movies. Most came from the creater's imagation that was inspired from somewhere, just like movies and games. I have never seen a dioroma and thought that "that was how it was like". Remember no matter how good a model is, it will never be 100% accurate. That just the nature of the beast. You can get close but you will never get all the way there. Just like movies and games. Personally I think some of the scences I have seen from the games are pretty cool and would like to see some of the scences turned into a dioroma. I might even do it someday, once I get figure painting down to past my standards, which seem to be too high for me right now. Anyway... 

Now for those that down blast games because the character can take several hits and keep going or reheal or what not. Remember its a game. Games have to allow that or they would be unplayable to most gamers. Combat is deadly business and even those with high training get wounded or killed pretty easily. I bet 99.9% of us would be dead in a matter of minutes if we went into combat. Those that didn't either hid pretty darn well or got extremely lucky. Now who would want to play a game were you were going to die 99.9% of the time? Not very many.

On the matter of weapons in the games. The best a game can do is sound like what the real verison sounded like. But considering that captured sound rarely sounds like what the real object sounds like in real life, that is extremely hard to do. Gun shots just don't capture well. That is why the movies doctor them up. Also a controller is nothing compared to having the real thing in your hand and feeling the weight and the recoil of the weapon. Anyone actually carried or fired a BAR. I would be tired just after a few minutes in real life from carring that thing. And I don't think of my self as all that weak. Firing it, heck my shoulder would be bruised for a couple of days just after a few bursts I bet. So yeah you can't get the true feeling of the weapons through a game. Just not going to happen. At least not yet anyway.

The bottom line is this. This is all surpose to be fun. If building a dioroma of a game scence sounds fun. DO IT! It will look cool and it'll be fun. If you want to make one from a picture you saw or an image or idea you got in your head. Then do that. Whatever you do have FUN!  

I'm not taking it as an attack.  I just don't see how you can discount history so much.  For proven tactics, I mean the bazooka and sniper tactics, not semantics like fire extinguishers and road wheel seams.  Sure there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, not the norm or the standard practice.  Sure a 251 could pull an 88, so could a jeep, but neither would get very far since the engine and drive train were not strong enough to pull it and would fail after a short distance.  Anything is possible, but some things are just not likely or not technically feasible.

Proven tactic?  A 251 never pulled an 88, there were no red fire extinguishers, there were'nt seams on road wheels?  There are exceptions to every "fact" that is presented by historians, so why can't these expections be posed in a diorama? 

this is not an attack on you arty, your just defending your point much the same as I am defending mine.  don't take it as an attack against you. 

and I'll keep working on my time machine...

Oh yes, you are so right!  Lets just ignore historical accounts, records, and proven tactics and procedures, they are all B.S. anyways.  How could we dare to give any type correction or advice! 

How about this...It looks great!  Great job!  Everyone is a winner!!  That is the best ___ I have ever seen!!!

I don't care if you studied WWII for 40 years, and interviewed 2000 Vets...you still will experience discrepancies in History.

Combat is a very mental process, the stress of the moment makes memories blured.  Post Tramtic Stress cause memories to be distorted. 

People that have been interviewed can twist events to favor their agenda.

Ask 10 Sherman tanker's what type engine his tank had in it...and I'm willing to bet you get 3 or 4 different answers you don't thinks that's true, read the book "Cuttthroats"

What's my point?  accuracy freaks, "experts" or what ever are just urban myths, there's no such thing...until we invent the time machine and go back in history, we will never know if all fire extingushers were red, we will never know if snipers never traveled alone, we will never know if bazokas were as reliable as advertised, we will never know if a 251 could pull an 88, we will never know if chains were used on tanks, we will never know if there were seams on the road wheels on a Sherman.

Just consider this...photographic recordings are only available for 2% (approximitly) of the action that took place during WWII...

Trex, use that video game and make a great dio, put it on your shelf and be proud! 

mildly_offensive wrote:

Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever??) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask. I didn't ask.

I wasn't referring to "you", meaning Mildly_Offensive (how fitting a screen name).  I was using the generic "you" to refer to anyone who posts. 

Judging by the thread's first post, I thought it was evident that T-rex wanted to use Call of Duty as source material to recreate the scenes he indicated.  He shouldn't have been belittled for using said inspiration.  Your response came off as elitist and unnecessary.

If you read the entire thread, as opposed to the parts that fit your agenda, you will see that we all said if he wants to do a scene from the game, go for it.  We also stated that it shouldn't be used as a historical referance. There was no belittling involved.  Later in the thread, he started asking questions and making assumptions about actual weapons and tactics based on the games and movies he has seen.  We simply provided him with the historical accuracy to his questions. 

I am a believer in research and superdetail for achieving realism.   I do, however, think there is a time for it.  Not every project requires historical accuracy!

No one said it does, except you above.

I'm seeing a simple case of jumping on the bandwagon here.  If any of you are insulted by the term "accuracy freak", then I suppose it applies.  Some of the points I wanted to address:

Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever??) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask.

I didn't ask.  

Judging by the thread's first post, I thought it was evident that T-rex wanted to use Call of Duty as source material to recreate the scenes he indicated.  He shouldn't have been belittled for using said inspiration.  Your response came off as elitist and unnecessary.

I am a believer in research and superdetail for achieving realism.   I do, however, think there is a time for it.  Not every project requires historical accuracy!

For some, it is best to dispense with the excessive details that may intimidate, overwhelm and create more stress than enjoyment.  The process of research and accuracy may prove to be enjoyable to some, but it is folly to assume that it applies to all and that everyone wants to hear self-indulgent technobabble.

Also, who is "us"?

Absolutely, Gino! How you (or anyone else) can be blamed for providing an accurate answer or correcting an error, is beyond comprehension.

Blaming?

If I criticized for his spelling errors or grammatical mistakes, then you can call me I'm a freak.

It's borderline but I'll take it:

Now, big question is, is METALS of HONOR some sort of heavy metal band that I do not know about?

Freak!  -Do love the sarcasm though.

I don't know what to say.

A modeler at the contest told me "just take one step at a time, start from basic to more profesinal work, and just take your time modeling is about patience, well made models can take months even years to do contest winning models" the model I did the longest is my tiger 1, more than two mount of hard work and still not done.

The web is the best sources for info about the mititary and models and I have learn so much lately, but no where as good as most of all your models.

I appericiate your help, thanks all.

Bgrigg wrote:

HeavyArty wrote: In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it.    This and all the above by Bgrigg are true.  On the same note, when he asks historical questions (or makes incorrect assumptions) about weapons and battles, he should be given the accurate answers.  Whether one chooses to use them in his model building or not is another issue.  Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever?? ) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask. Absolutely, Gino! How you (or anyone else) can be blamed for providing an accurate answer or correcting an error, is beyond comprehension. We're all right, and nobody is wrong, when it comes to what we like building as models. As long as we don't misrepresent our work, who should care? Bill

Bill, Gino,

You guys are absolutely right.

I don't think I or anyone else in this forum was saying he can't do what he wants to do.  T-rex posted and asked questions such as Bazooka being one shot disposable weapon and how PanzerSchrek was not a single shot weapon.  He asked, we answered.  He asked whether German Hanomag carried .50 Cal Machine Gun or not.  We answered no, that is not the standard weapon of German Military.  So, how is that being a "Detail Freak" ? 

I posted answers and also try to help him by stating that most of his questions can easily be answered if he read some books that contains his area of interest.  He is free to do what ever he wants to do and whenever he wants to do.  No one is going to stop him from doing what he wants to do and I certainly is not going to criticize for building something that he is going to enjoy. 

If I criticized for his spelling errors or grammatical mistakes, then you can call me I'm a freak. 

HeavyArty wrote:

In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it.    This and all the above by Bgrigg are true.  On the same note, when he asks historical questions (or makes incorrect assumptions) about weapons and battles, he should be given the accurate answers.  Whether one chooses to use them in his model building or not is another issue.  Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever?? ) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask.

Absolutely, Gino! How you (or anyone else) can be blamed for providing an accurate answer or correcting an error, is beyond comprehension. We're all right, and nobody is wrong, when it comes to what we like building as models. As long as we don't misrepresent our work, who should care?

Bill

Exactly, do you think I mind that my coirsail is alumiume with a flaming ace on it, No! well maybe a bit it was painted by my brother, but its still cool. Right now i'm painting a mustang blue and silver.

In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it.

This and all the above by Bgrigg are true.  On the same note, when he asks historical questions (or makes incorrect assumptions) about weapons and battles, he should be given the accurate answers.  Whether one chooses to use them in his model building or not is another issue. 

Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever?? ) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask.

m1garand wrote:

Accuracy freaks?

AKA Rivet Counters or Historical Buffs.

Not that there is anything wrong with being accurate, just as there is nothing wrong with painting a flame job on a P-51. Just don't paint the flames, then claim it's accurate.

Accuracy is a point often brought up on the forums. Too clean, too weathered, inaccurate color, zim pattern the wrong shape, width, height, treads sag too much, not enough, shouldn't sag. Tires bulge or don't. Prop shape wrong, or pitch is at the wrong angle.

While all of these things may be true, some of us build for fun and pleasure, and some build to reflect reality. It's the difference between Rembrandt and Picasso. Both are great artists, and in the end it all comes down to a matter of taste.

T-rex is interested in building a dio of a game scene, and why not? Inspiration is inpiration, and should be explored by those who wish to, without limitation or criticism. If this hobby was restricted to only the things that were true and accurate, then you would have to kiss off Star Wars models or Mechs, or Gundam, or Movie Monsters, or ...

Your right, you can never, never NEVER be 100% accurate (unless you been studing on s specifique unti in a battle AKA accuray freak) but its best to make it accurate, just not completely.

Okay I think thats enought on this subject, but I get the point of leaving reality at the door.

T-rex wrote:

I know this is more of a childish subject but in another forum called "Ideas from images", I learn you can get ideas from anything and so I got alot of ideas from the video game "Call of Duty Roads to victory" for PSP (play station portable). I think it one of the best WW2 base game ever made and funn too, but best of all there are many scene that are mostly accurate events like Operation Market garden 1944, and fairly easy to do for a dio. My head is bobbly with ideas, what do you all think?

T-Rex:

I can appreciate what you're trying to do.  I'm a fan of the Sniper Elite and Brothers in Arms series and actually considered making a diorama modeled after the respective games.

In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it. 

I model armor quite frequently and sometimes its a lot of fun to dispense with the rigidness of accuracy.  After all, if you're modeling the game, it can be "accurate" to be "inaccurate"! LOL

Its like they say, "sometimes the trust hurth".

or is it "you want the truth, you can't handle the truth".

Not suprise, althougth Vassili was a real ruissian sniper, his rifle is on dispaly at stalingrad.

One day I will make a diorama of stalingrad with a T-34, maybe beside my czech buliding converded into a ruissan building.

Bgrigg wrote:

HeavyArty wrote: Enemy at the Gates is about German and Russian snipers at Stalingrad (not Stalingraph).  It is loosely based on a story of dueling German and Russian snipers, more of a legend than truth. Loose is right! Both Germany and Russia used snipers, and Stalingrad existed. Other than that... Mind you I enjoyed the movie, it was well acted, and the CG aircraft were great. For history buffs, it was a great disappointment, as are most war movies.

You mean Vassili Zaitsev and  Tania Chernova  didn't really fall in love in Stalingrad?  Comrade Commisar Danilov didn't give his life up so that Vassili could take the shot at Major Konig?  

NO CAN'T BE!!! My young Innocent heart is broken!  You bad movie producers! 

HeavyArty wrote:

Enemy at the Gates is about German and Russian snipers at Stalingrad (not Stalingraph).  It is loosely based on a story of dueling German and Russian snipers, more of a legend than truth.

Loose is right! Both Germany and Russia used snipers, and Stalingrad existed. Other than that...

Mind you I enjoyed the movie, it was well acted, and the CG aircraft were great. For history buffs, it was a great disappointment, as are most war movies.

The anti-magnetic coating was called Zimmerite and was only used by the Germans.  It was in response to a perceived threat of magnetic mines.  However, the Allies did not have any magnetic mines and after a few months it was no longer applied to German tanks. 

Snipers work in 2-man teams.  One is the shooter, the other the spotter.  They often alternate positions as well.  You never send out a soldier alone.  We always work in buddy teams. 

Enemy at the Gates is about German and Russian snipers at Stalingrad (not Stalingraph).  It is loosely based on a story of dueling German and Russian snipers, more of a legend than truth.

Metals of honor isn't a band, it's another WW2 shooter game, similar to Call of duty.

I'm sure there were magnetic mines, but some tanks have anti-magnetic armor, its like a clay substance made it invoruble to magnetic mines.

Sinpers were they on teams or alone? I think it would be better alone for less chances of begin notice. The movie "enemy at the gate" is about snipers but not in britain, its a true story in stalingrad about a russian sniper.

T-rex wrote:

Here's another question, Did british, canadiens and U.S soldiers had exploded charges with them, or at least smoke bomb? charges are use to blow tanks up, while smoke bomb were to tell the location of a target to air support.

U.S. Soldiers carried Sachel charges and hawkins mines, which were explosives.  They had smoke grenades, which were used to signal, mark targets/landing zones or conceal/cover movements.  Those were also used to confuse the enemy as well. 

Now, big question is, is METALS of HONOR some sort of heavy metal band that I do not know about?

T-rex wrote:

Here's another question, Did british, canadiens and U.S soldiers had exploded charges with them, or at least smoke bomb? charges are use to blow tanks up, while smoke bomb were to tell the location of a target to air support.

If you are talking about anti-tank mines, yes.  They were used by all the Allies and by the Axis Powers as well.  Smoke grenades of various colors were also carried by the Allies and Axis.  They were used for much more than marking for aircraft though.