Hasegawa Nagato CAD line fix?

I remember this thread, thanks for digging up this zombie, Gaston.

 I recently saw this kit in Montreal going for an astounding $400 at Udisco... It is routinely around $200 online...

 That some try to excuse this crap is amazing. People don't always know everything,  and they do go by brand names all the time... This is really Bernie Madoff territory... And they are not even hull plates...  Insane...

 Gaston

sfcmac,

Thank you for your support and for sending that letter! I really appreciate it.

Bill Morrison

If we all worked with Tracy's logic, we would still be stuck building the Lindberg ''Bismarck' and 'Hood'....... I think I will just sit back and wait awhile to see what else comes down the pike.  I do pity the poor distributors who may get stuck with the 'Mutsus' though, and I magine they will be forced to discount the heck out of them just to get them off the shelves!  I have also heard it said (by Prof Tilley I think) that a model company needs to sell some enormous number of kits to pay off the cost of producing a set of molds, which is why many companies would prefer to keep 're-releasing' old kits (are you listening Revell and Airfix?).  If this is the case (and I have no reason to doubt it for a moment), the combination of a very high initial price, plus a flawed production run means Hasegawa simply will never recoup their money on the Nagato and Mutsu turkeys, and instead, will have to eat it themselves.  If they try to spread the cost by raising the price of their other kits, they will simply be undercut by their competition (and Trumpeter has long since caught up with and in many ways surpassed Hasegawa long ago, and Fujimi and Aoshima are hot on their tail!).  As far as Hasegawa's investors are concerned, 'There is no joy in Mudville!'

 I'm with you Bill. Sent a letter myself and noticed the price is already dropping on the Mutsu. I don't expect any kit to be 100% accurate, A brand new kit sold for $200 bucks plus should not have 21st century animated drawing lines recessed on a early 20th century ship. It is not an inaccuracy it is an abomination. I have joined you in no longer purchasing ANY Hasegawa kit until they have shown enough pride and dedication in their work to do create a better kit. Too many other companies have done better and they will get my $. I actually felt like the ripped me off.

So, let me get this right . . . Tracy White is okay with the CAD line dilemma on Hasegawa's NAGATO and MUTSU?  Is it his insinuation that those of us who object to this kind of corporate inattention to the detail of their product are nothing more than "accuracy police"?  I have a suggestion before this kind of negativity gets out of control . . . Tracy, you have your opinion and we have ours.  If you don't want to send a letter to Hasegawa, then don't.  But, I have done so, and I encourage any others to do the same who object to this kind of shoddiness in manufacturing.

Bill Morrison 

searat12 wrote:

Hasegawa will be stuck with a dud mold and a lot of expensive unsold inventory.  And that's pure economics!  I expect Dragon hasn't sold too many 1/700 Essex kits in comparison with those by other manufacturers that 'got it right!'

I would imagine that the vast  majority have already been sold to distributors that will be stuck with them on their shelves, forced to sell them at a sweet deal to get them to move, which will cause them to raise prices on other products to make up for it!

In terms of the Essex kits, it's sort of six of one, have dozen of the other. NO ONE makes an accurate kit. The "long hulls" were all shipped with flight decks that are incorrect for any ship or time period, but really, only the accuracy police know.

Tracy White wrote:

searat12 wrote: and certainly not make the same mistake twice (i.e. the planned release of 'Mutsu' with the same stupid problem). How about three or four times? I helped Dragon with their 700th Essex kits and they made mistakes for every deck past Essex, mistakes we told them before release were there, and they declined to fix the problem. It's pure economics.  By the way, your arguement about collectors is not worth while. How is Hasegawa going to benefit in the slightest from the secondary sales market? Now, I know some of you are going to jump on me and say "but that's different." No, it's not. The degree may be different, but the decision is still the same; we don't think it is worth our time and money to fix. You can take it or leave it; those that are leaving it are making the right decision in my view. Those that are expecting Hasegawa or a third party company to fix the problem have unrealistic expectations. I'm not saying your letter was a bad idea, I'm just saying don't hold your breath.

Well, I look at it this way... Fujimi recently came out with a perfectly splendid 'Kongo' in 1/350, and now I understand Aoshima is also about to release a 'Kongo' in 1/350.  If the Fujimi version had turned out with major issues, you can just bet the Aoshima boys would have scooped up the market (who knows?  They may have been Machiavellian enough to have that as part of their business plan, though my guess is they simply didn't know about the Fujimi kit). 

How many companies produce a 1/350 'Yamato' or 'Bismarck?'  With the use of the CAD program, producing molds is far easier and far cheaper then ever before, and it is my guess that some company other than Hasegawa will soon come up with a 1/350 'Nagato' on their own, without the stupid CAD lines reproduced on the hull, and when that happens, Hasegawa will be stuck with a dud mold and a lot of expensive unsold inventory.  And that's pure economics!  I expect Dragon hasn't sold too many 1/700 Essex kits in comparison with those by other manufacturers that 'got it right!'

well, here is the Mutsu announcement, in all its "CAD" glory (check out the middle pic)

http://www.dragonusaonline.com/item_detail.aspx?ItemCode=UMLHA40067A

 

 

As the advocate of writing a letter or a petition to Hasegawa, I am most assuredly not holding my breath that Hasegawa will take corrective action. They probably won't.  But, history is replete with examples of disgruntled consumers forcing corporate change by banding together to voice their disgruntlement.  We'd still be driving Corvairs without Ralph Nader.  We'd be eating beef from diseased cattle without CNN reporting these practises.  Let's face it, no action has ever taken place on behalf of consumer rights without consumer outcry.  Corporations need to be made aware of consumer dissatisfaction; without consumer activism, we'd be stuck with inferior products.  No doubt, Hasegawa will NOT have the same issue with CAD lines disfiguring their future release of AKAGI.

However, I will not see that product first-hand.  As stated, I will buy no further Hasegawa products until the NAGATO and MUTSU are corrected. So, rather than holding my breath, I am simply spending my money elsewhere.

Bill Morrison

searat12 wrote:

and certainly not make the same mistake twice (i.e. the planned release of 'Mutsu' with the same stupid problem).

How about three or four times? I helped Dragon with their 700th Essex kits and they made mistakes for every deck past Essex, mistakes we told them before release were there, and they declined to fix the problem. It's pure economics. 

By the way, your arguement about collectors is not worth while. How is Hasegawa going to benefit in the slightest from the secondary sales market?

Now, I know some of you are going to jump on me and say "but that's different." No, it's not. The degree may be different, but the decision is still the same; we don't think it is worth our time and money to fix. You can take it or leave it; those that are leaving it are making the right decision in my view. Those that are expecting Hasegawa or a third party company to fix the problem have unrealistic expectations. I'm not saying your letter was a bad idea, I'm just saying don't hold your breath.

I absolutely agree with jtilley and searat12.  We are in a golden age of ship modeling and it is continuing to get better.  Except for those awful CAD lines, the Nagato kit is outstanding! And, I am continuing my work filling those lines with putty and sanding them, a few at a very painstaking time.  But, given my age-depleted eyesight and slight arthritis, this will be a very painful process as well.  However, the Nagato is a welcome addition to my collection of 1/350 scale battleships.

I still believe that Hasegawa owes us a "fix" to the problem.  If they neglect to allow buyers to return the hull for corrected copies, they should at least fix the problem in future molds.  It's going to be a long time before I get these lines filled!

Bill Morrison

Agreed. And to tell you the truth, it is my expectation that one of the other companies out there will produce a 'corrected' version in the not too-distant future.  Part of the issue here is that fact that a lot of us bought this kit by advanced ordering based on rave reviews, etc, and have been quite scandalized as a result.  As for myself, I will look at any future kits, at least from Hasegawa, very long and hard before putting down any money in advance, even if it is a 'cheaper' price....

Mr. White's posts pretty much confirm my understanding of the situation. 

I certainly agree that "accuracy" is a question of degree; there's no such thing as a totally accurate model.  Just what constitutes "acceptable" accuracy is - and in my opinion always should be - up to the individual modeler.  I've spent a lot of time over the years trying to turn mediocre products into reasonably accurate scale models - and I've certainly worked on a lot of kits that don't approach the standard of this one.

I don't imagine I'm much different from lots of other modelers in that I take several things into consideration when I decide whether or not to buy a kit.  The three big ones are the subject matter, the accuracy of the kit, and the price.  If it's a subject in which I'm obsessively interested, I'm willing to spend money on a lower qaulity rendition of it than I otherwise would be.  If, on the other hand, the subject is of less personal interest to me and the price is astronomical, I'm not likely to be enticed into buying the kit.  Yet another consideration is the amount and quality of the competition.  I think Japanese WWII battlships are fascinating and important things.  On the other hand, I don't find the Nagato a more or less attractive subject than several other Japanese battleships that, apparently, either have already appeared in 1/350 kit form or will shortly.  And that price tag of $350 is simply a great deal more than I'm willing to pay for anything short of extremely high quality. 

I've never swooned over the sight of a Gleaves-class destroyer, and I think $40+ is a great deal to pay for a 1/350 destroyer kit of any sort.  But after looking over the reviews and ads for the new Dragon Buchanan for several weeks I sent off my money, and the kit is now awaiting my attention.  I am not, however, going to buy the Hasegawa Nagato.  For me personally the combination of high price, ok but not breathtaking subject matter, and a howler of a mistake in the design and producton of the hull mold knocks the kit out of contention.  These days (I firmly believe we're in the midst of a "golden age" of warship modeling) there are just too many better, more reasonably-priced kits out there.  Other modelers are, of course, perfectly entitled to disagree.

The NAGATO is not another Trumpeter kit. It was advertised as a state of the art upgrade in ship modeling detail.  The total cost of the kit and accessories is approximately $350.00, not the $120.00 of the average Trumpeter kit.  I most emphatically believe that Hasegawa has an obligation to correct this problem. Whether they provide an exchange program to their loyal customers who bought this kit with the expectation that the model would be reasonably accurate and superbly detailed is a matter of integrity.  I will not buy another Hasegawa kit until they do the right thing by the customers.  I have written and told them so.

Bill Morrison

There is a difference between a porthole slightly out of place or a slightly out of scale guntub, and a complete botchup of the single most noticeable part of any ship model, i.e. the hull.  While I do not really expect Hasegawa to replace hull molds, I do expect them to take corrective action to make sure that further production is not affected, and certainly not make the same mistake twice (i.e. the planned release of 'Mutsu' with the same stupid problem).  Such corrective action might actually rebound in their favor, as the 'CAD line' model could become a real collectors item (as in postage stamps, the Edsel, etc.).  If Hasegawa faces an initial financial loss in order to correct the mistake, then that will be the 'market at work,' and teach them that there are consequences for screwups!

A couple points. I wasn't referring to any one person in general, more the general "let's demand replacement from Hasegawa" attitude.

CAD is a generic term, and there are many CAD programs. Generally they use the CAD plans to machine out the molds, not create a plug that a female mold is formed from. It can be used with rapid prototyping to create masters for *RESIN* ships, but Nagato was put straight into the mold with a CNC (computer numerical control, basically computer controlled machining). What I was told initially was that the grid line was actually a misinterpretation of station or CAD lines by Hasegawa as hull plating, and that's why it remained.

As to the bit of "they messed it up and sold us an inaccurate kit,"  well, who hasn't? No Trumpeter kit is accurate, no Tamiya kit is accurate... are you going to demand they all fix the problems and replace all the inaccurate parts? It's not going to happen, and you'd either bankrupt the company or quadruple the cost of kits at least if you forced it.

Accuracy is definitely susceptible to the law of diminishing returns.

How about if we have a sit-in at the hasegawa stand chanting, "We shall overcome!"

Bill

I'll bring the pitchforks and torches!

jtilley,

It would almost be worth being the instigator and being hauled off in handcuffs! Afterall, I am a veteran of the '60's!

Bill Morrison

A riot at the Hasegawa stand!  Nagato and Mutsu boxes burned in effigy!  Let freedom ring! ;o)

One especially useful feature of the CAD program is that you can 'grab' any of the lines that have been drawn, and 'stretch' or 'flex' them in any direction and all the other lines will adjust to conform to the adjustment, and the statistics and specifications will automatically adjust also.  This means if you thought you have drawn a ship with a displacement of 10,000 tons, but the math comes out to 10,500 tons, you can shuffle the shapes around a bit to make the correction without having to redraw the whole thing (saves a lot on pencil erasers!).  You can also make the ship faster, more stable, etc, etc, all with just a single adjustment (or combination of adjustments).  When you think back to all the problems shipwrights had meeting assigned specifications in the past (and the Japanese really had a LOT of problems with this in dealing with 'Treaty Cruiser' designs), you can see how the various CAD programs are considered a God-send by naval architects, and up until Hasegawa's latest error, ship modellers too!

The CAD system is, in essence, a computerized elaboration on the concept that's been used for drawing plans of ships (and various other objects) for at least three hundred years.  It creates a series of cross-sections parallel to three imaginary planes passed through the object at 90 degrees to each other, and uses those cross-sections to plot, much faster and with greater precision than was possible previously, where various points on those cross sections lie on the surface of the object (and, for that matter, inside it).  The examples in Searat's post show what would, in the traditional system, be called "station lines," "buttock lines," and "waterlines" just as a nineteenth-century draftsman would have drawn them; there are just more of them (and they're probably drawn more accurately).  A model of a nineteenth-century ship with engraved lines all over it corresponding to the station lines, buttock lines, and waterlines would amount to pretty much the same thing as what Hasegawa did - and would look just as ridiculous. 

My earlier point was that some of the lines generated by CAD - the ones that outline the hull, for example - do belong on a model.  It sounds like, in this case, whoever was responsible for converting the lines generated by the software into the master for the mold didn't understand which lines represented actual shapes and which ones didn't.  If my understanding of what happened is correct, Mr. White's use of the term "grid" is on target.

My understanding is that the difference between the "grid" and the actual outline of the object is normally explained by having the program draw the lines in different colors.  It would be interesting to know how the system broke down in this case. That kind of thing most emphatically should not happen, and - especially in a product of this expense, from a manufacturer of such stature - somebody ought to be held to account.  (For all we know, maybe somebody already has been.  It would be interesting to see if the personnel roster at Hasegawa, or at the company that made the molds, has changed recently.)

I've never heard of an actual recall of a plastic kit (I don't think Trumpeter actually recalled those 1/32 F4F moldings), but that certainly would be a reasonable thing for Hasegawa to do.  Failing that, maybe, just maybe, the company can be persuaded to revise the molds and send free replacement parts to people who request them.  A few years ago I would have said such a suggestion was hopelessly naive.  In the present atmosphere of competition among the Japanese and Chinese companies in the styrene warship kit world, though, I can believe that it just might happen.  It's clear that Dragon, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Trumpeter, and Fujimi, unlike most of their American and European counterparts, are competing vigorously for the attention and money of the serious adult scale ship modeler.

One other thought.  Dragon USA is holding its annual "Dragon Expo" at the Virginia Beach Convention Center this August, adjacent to and simultaneous with the IPMS-USA Nationals.  The schedule (which is at the Dragon USA website:  http://www.dxpo.com/dx/08/news.asp ) indicates that Hasegawa has booked a booth.  A horde of screaming modelers waving Nagato and Mutsu boxes might attract the sort of publicity that manufacturers don't like - especially in the presence of their competitors' reps and members of the media.  I wouldn't want to be thought of as an incitor of riots, or the instigator of the incident that led to Warshipguy's being hauled off in handcuffs, but the concept does lead one's thoughts in some interesting directions.

sfcmac wrote:

http://www.swannysmodels.com/Surfacer.html http://www.greatmodels.com/  Here is the review explaining it and the only web store I know that sells it. I think they only ship it domestically though.

Glad to see that GM is stocking Mr Surfacer again...once in awhile US distrubutors run out of Mr Surfacer and due to its organic volatile nature and bizantine regulations, cant ship new inventory on time (happened last year). In such cases, you can get it from Lucky Model

http://www.luckymodel.com/

Thats one technique I will try with my nagato

jtilley wrote:

I've been following this discussion from a distance.  I don't have either of the kits in question - and frankly I wouldn't be likely to buy either of them soon under any circumstances.  I can't afford to pay that sort of price unless I can actually tell myself I'm going to build it in the foreseeable future - and there are too many other projects claiming my attention. It took me a little while to figure out the nature of the problem, but I think I've got it now.  What confused me initially was the phrase "CAD lines."  That term doesn't really mean much in this context.  It does seem reasonable to assume that the Hasegawa designers used CAD (or maybe some similar Japanese software program) to design the kit.  If so, all the lines forming the parts are "CAD lines" - including the outlines of the parts and all the other shapes that ought to be there.  A petition using that term is likely to leave an engineer scratching his head. It sounds like the problem may be that the cross-sections of the hull - the waterlines, station lines, buttock lines, etc. - got engraved on the plastic parts, either by accident or because somebody involved in the process didn't know what they were.  If that's what happened, I have to agree that it's a pretty inexcusable mistake.  Whether they were drawn by the CAD program, or with pen and ink by the designer of the original ship, they certainly don't belong on a model - in any form, raised, engraved, or otherwise. Regarding the "caveat emptor" department - I have to agree with Warshipguy.  These kits are, by almost anybody's standards, expensive pieces of merchandise.  I don't believe the modeler should have to study a website in order to avoid being taken in by second-rate products.  Whether those lines degrade these particular kits to the level of "second-rate" is, of course, for the individual modeler/purchaser to decide.  Personally, if I were looking for a 1/350 Japanese battleship kit, this goof would stop me from buying either of those kits.  I think we ought to be able to assume that a new kit in such a high price range, from a manufacturer as experienced and prestigious as Hasegawa, comes up to a higher standard than that. Other modelers are perfectly free to disagree.  Since I haven't bought the kit, I don't feel entitled to take part in the petition campaign.  I will, however, be most interested to hear whether anybody from Hasegawa responds to it.  (I suspect the company office has already heard quite a few howls of protest from Japanese modelers.)  Those people have a fine reputation, and they surely know it.  Maybe they'll listen this time.  I don't know just how Hasegawa's actual design and mold-making process works

Right!  First thing we need to understand is what a CAD program is, what kind of a product you get from it, and how it differs from the traditional lines plan, which uses things like waterlines, station lines, buttock lines, etc (mostly hand-drawn with battens and french curves).  A CAD program doesn't really use any of these, although the product in some ways resemble/mimics them!  One thing that modern manufacturers have access to these days, is essentially a 'copying machine' that will produce a 3D resin rendering of whatever design you want, using the electronic information supplied by the CAD program, and not some artisan whittling something out of wood or wax as in the past.  It is this new system which is being used to produce male 'plugs,' which are used to produce female molds.  However, while the surfaces of the resin model can be rendered very accurately, it is important to remember just before hitting 'print,' to mask the CAD lines which designate the various surface depths.  If this is not done, then the product will look like a LEGO ship with a set of lines plans drawn on it (as is most definitely the case with the Hasegawa 'Nagato').  CAD programs have been used almost exclusively in ship and yacht design for about the past 15 years, and it is only a few 'old salts' these days that prefer the old tradional lines plan methodology (although I still feel they are more useful for making half-models, etc.).  Please have a look at the following website, which offers a very good explanation of a CAD lines program, with demonstrations of what kind of a plan gets produced:  http://www.worldwideflood.com/CAD/start.htm

Here is a CAD program rendering of a ship's hull:

 

As against a more traditional lines plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note, while there are similarities, there are differences as well!!

Thanks for the tip on Mr. Surfacer. I will order it and try it, a few CAD lines at a time.  As for any potential recall, it seems fair to point out that defective products are recalled frequently, at least in the U.S. I believe that we have a case to make, and that Professor Tilley has given us a pathway; that is, through the distributors. My pen is warming up for the effort!

Bill Morrison

 Fixing the molds? I have heard that the mold itself is the most expensive investment but I would think the technology exist to fix it easier than we can fix our hull simply because the Computer Animated Drawing lines would be raised in the mold where they are recessed in the hull. I am still shocked by the goof as there had to be an enormous amount of work involved in creating this model. Minus the goof I think it is top notch quality , modern slide molding, extc of a subject that is worthy. I wasn't nearly as distressed until I saw the marketing for the Mutsu high tech ship with the same issue. I would think they owe it to their design team as well as the customers to at least make an effort.

I've been following this discussion from a distance.  I don't have either of the kits in question - and frankly I wouldn't be likely to buy either of them soon under any circumstances.  I can't afford to pay that sort of price unless I can actually tell myself I'm going to build it in the foreseeable future - and there are too many other projects claiming my attention.

It took me a little while to figure out the nature of the problem, but I think I've got it now.  What confused me initially was the phrase "CAD lines."  That term doesn't really mean much in this context.  It does seem reasonable to assume that the Hasegawa designers used CAD (or maybe some similar Japanese software program) to design the kit.  If so, all the lines forming the parts are "CAD lines" - including the outlines of the parts and all the other shapes that ought to be there.  A petition using that term is likely to leave an engineer scratching his head.

It sounds like the problem may be that the cross-sections of the hull - the waterlines, station lines, buttock lines, etc. - got engraved on the plastic parts, either by accident or because somebody involved in the process didn't know what they were.  If that's what happened, I have to agree that it's a pretty inexcusable mistake.  Whether they were drawn by the CAD program, or with pen and ink by the designer of the original ship, they certainly don't belong on a model - in any form, raised, engraved, or otherwise.

Regarding the "caveat emptor" department - I have to agree with Warshipguy.  These kits are, by almost anybody's standards, expensive pieces of merchandise.  I don't believe the modeler should have to study a website in order to avoid being taken in by second-rate products.  Whether those lines degrade these particular kits to the level of "second-rate" is, of course, for the individual modeler/purchaser to decide.  Personally, if I were looking for a 1/350 Japanese battleship kit, this goof would stop me from buying either of those kits.  I think we ought to be able to assume that a new kit in such a high price range, from a manufacturer as experienced and prestigious as Hasegawa, comes up to a higher standard than that. Other modelers are perfectly free to disagree. 

Since I haven't bought the kit, I don't feel entitled to take part in the petition campaign.  I will, however, be most interested to hear whether anybody from Hasegawa responds to it.  (I suspect the company office has already heard quite a few howls of protest from Japanese modelers.)  Those people have a fine reputation, and they surely know it.  Maybe they'll listen this time.  I don't know just how Hasegawa's actual design and mold-making process works; maybe the mistake happened at the company that actually machined the molds, in which case Hasegawa might have grounds for a lawsuit.  At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens.

I'm aware of two cases in which plastic kit manufacturers have taken kits off the market or revised it because of protests from the modeling community.  Quite a few years ago - in the early 1980s, I think - Revell reissued its old, mediocre, 1/125-scale Type VII U-boat kit in the markings of U-505, the Type IX U-boat that's preserved at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.  (To be fair, it may have been a more-or-less honest mistake; it's entirely possible that the people running Revell at that time genuinely didn't know there was a difference between a Type VII U-boat and a Type IX.)  The now-defunct magazine Scale Ship Modeler (the editor of which at that time was the estimable Loren Perry, the driving force behind Gold Medal Models) blew the whistle - as, apparently, did numerous customers who'd bought the kit at the museum gift shop and quickly realized how little resemblance it bore to the submarine they'd seen.  The gift shop announced that it wasn't going to sell the kit any more, an Revell pulled the kit off the market.

The other incident occurred just a few years ago (I don't remember just how many), when Trumpeter released its 1/32 F4F Wildcat.  I haven't seen the original version, but apparently the outline of the fuselage deviated from reality by something in the neighborhood of 1/4".  The people at Squadron Mail Order heard about the problem, and Squadron refused to stock the kit.  Trumpeter changed the molds.

That example suggests an approach that might work.  I don't have a great deal of confidence in plastic kit manufacturers' responses to the individual modeler, but they have to listen to distributors.  If Squadron, Internet Hobbies, Pacific Coast Hobbies, Dragon USA (which currently has the forthcoming Hasegawa 1/350 Isokaze at the top of its "Top 10 Most Viewed Items" list) and a few other distributors were to announce that they wouldn't sell the kits unless Hasegawa changed the molds....

http://www.swannysmodels.com/Surfacer.html

http://www.greatmodels.com/

 Here is the review explaining it and the only web store I know that sells it. I think they only ship it domestically though.

sfcmac,

I'm not sure that I've heard of Mr. Surfacer.  What is it? I am willing to consider almost anything to make this an easier process.

Bill Morrison