FEB 2012 FSM Issue Issues

Hans, first things first: REWRITE THAT ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!!

Second, don't use a Hawk kit, use the T-28. A side by side comparison would clearly illustrate your point and you could give a price breakdown for each area modified. As far as the idea that you need to get the goodies to build a quality kit, the reason is clear, just look to the right of this page. It's advertising! Why sell someone just a kit when you can also add on another $50 in accessories. How many people do you think looked online at aftermarket products sold by a FSM advertiser after reading that article? It's the same reason people get rid of a perfectly good car after 2 yrs. because the new one has GPS, a 2.29 gigawatt sound system, and quad-zone climate control. 

Before the "serious" modelers jump ugly on me(because they are a sensitive bunch ), I am in NO WAY diminishing the fine work you do at your bench. What is done here by both sides of the debate amazes me and inspires me at my bench.

Hans,

Bottom line, we can't run articles we don't get. If you have an article dealing with scratchbuilding details, by all means, send it in. We'd be happy to look at it and, given the nature of the subject, if the photographs are decent, we would more than likely be interested in the manuscript.

Yes, we run a lot of articles about using resin and photoetched metal to improve kits, in large part because there's a lot more aftermarket stuff available that there was 20 or 30 years ago. I don't think it's either good or bad. Modeling is a hobby and it's up to the individual to get out of it what they want, whether that's cutting resin, scratchbuilding all kinds of detail, or slamming a model together out of the box. I've done, and still do, all of these, and I'm happy with my models no matter the approach.

Cheers, Aaron

Dude, write the article, and add whatever you can about handpainting markings. Yeah, I know, they are "free", but they also are a huge place for improvement.

My issue came today and I was eager to see what the article was all about.

My two bits are just that the whole thing made me a little uneasy.

The basic model, and the airplane for that matter, have a certain kind of tubby Gestalt that has a charm.

The intervention with all that great stuff was certainly successful, and it made for a much better model.

I think it really came off well. The modeler did a great job.

But, it just seemed like an old friend had a redo that took the original funky charm of the old model out of it's context. And that made me feel... restless.

Just my opinion, and it doesn't matter to the original modeler I hope. But maybe that's where you are getting the stomach ache from, Hans.

I think that Beaver floater is really wonderful. What a whole collection of nice moves that all came together, starting with a toy and making something special out of it. There's one of those that is a sightseeing flight that comes over my house at about 3000 all day Saturdays. I'll be gardening and hear that radial, and have to put down whatever I'm doing and watch her float overhead. When she's in still air, the note is a purr, but when she's climbing into a headwind from the west, she can really snarl.

I for one would like to see more articles on scratch building and making the best of what came in the box.

 Sure there are a lot of resin and PE add-ons out there. And most come with instructions on how to install/use them. We don't need yet another article on this. Again.

Well, y'all have certainly given me some much-needed inspiration...  Having read and re-read your various replies and your thoughts on the issue (of scratch-building, not FSM) and mulling it over repeatedly, I've decided that I'll indeed re-write the article...  Seems that the interset is there...

Whether or not it gets published is going to be pretty dependent on my photography skills, which, while I some talent for layout, composition, and lighting, I'm not exactly wat one would call a "Photo-bug", lol..

I really don't think I'll purchase a new camera, is what I'm saying... Perhaps, while not being of magazine quality, they will at least be usable here... 

Thanks fellers, and gal...

Hans von Hammer

Well, y'all have certainly given me some much-needed inspiration...  Having read and re-read your various replies and your thoughts on the issue (of scratch-building, not FSM) and mulling it over repeatedly, I've decided that I'll indeed re-write the article...  Seems that the interset is there...

Whether or not it gets published is going to be pretty dependent on my photography skills, which, while I some talent for layout, composition, and lighting, I'm not exactly wat one would call a "Photo-bug", lol..

I really don't think I'll purchase a new camera, is what I'm saying... Perhaps, while not being of magazine quality, they will at least be usable here... 

Thanks fellers, and gal...

 

I may be a little late to this conversation but I understand where Hans is coming from.  I skimmed right over that article because at this stage of my time in the hobby I already know how to use aftermarket items to improve a kit.  Back In the stash accumulating days I am not ashamed to admit to snagging all the various AM goodies I could find for my kits but since my wife went from full time teaching to only half and the arrival of my daughter the money for AM is just not there.  I would have much rather had an article on how to scratch build a 1/32 P-61 from a gum wrapper, two Popsicle sticks. Some spruce and happy thoughts.

Glad to hear that you are reconsidering the article! 

I use both AM and scratch built detail.  If I can't achieve the look I want on my own and AM is within my budget, I'll buy the parts.  In the end, I enjoy the process more if the detail is my own work but it can be time consuming.  In my opinion, combining both approaches expands my modeling more than sticking to one or the other.  As my skills improve, I find my self doing more and more of my own work but I do us AM stuff occasionally just to save time.

But what if what you want to build isn't available?  That is the situation I found my self in when I decided to build and Iraqi Mi-171.  While the Mi-17 kit is easy to find, many modifications are needed to make the Iraqi A/C and there are no AM suppliers for many of the changes needed.  I have to scratch build the rear ramp and move details around.  Since clear photos of some items are difficult to find, gizmology is going to play and important role in this project.

Hans, I believe that there is an audience out there for your article.  There are some out there that like to get the shopping list and put it together because that is what they like to do.  There are others out there that buy the shopping list because they don't know how to do it any other way.  Rest assured that your article will expand the possibilities of every one who reads it and many will put you techniques into practice!  You may even encourage some who are thinking that the modeling hobby has become too expensive to continue.

I know Im the new guy, and Im late to the game, but perhaps I can add some of my own personal, meaningless insight here... 

Im one of those car-guy gearhead nut types.  I watch all the Television I can about hot rodding your vehicle, painting, body work, whatever.  Those shows both tend to show two different philosophies:

1) They have projects full of crate engines, fiberglass parts, and top end suspension, chassis and interior buildups.  Stuff that would take that average guy 10 years to be able to afford.

2) They also show quite a few "budget builds".  Junkyard engines, with junkyard parts, DIY.  How to modify parts off another vehicle to fit yours. 

I dont think that the art of scratchwork is dead, I just think many, myself included, just dont know all the old timer tricks of the trade to make it work.  So rewrite your article, and be proud.  You will impress on somebody, I guarantee it.  Hell, I remember YEARS ago, in a modelling magazine, someone built a YB-40 and used an R2D2 head to round out the roof over the radio room in front of the second twin 50 turret.

-Nick

I think you'll agree with me that there isn't much real estate these days in most magazines dedicated to featured articles as there needs to be.

An article discussing and showing step by step would take up a huge about of space. There are three common used magazine formats...content driven, advertisement driven and a combination of both (not necessarily a perfect balance of each).

When I pick up one of the magazines I subscribe to...Diesel Truck, as with most automotive magazines 96% of what's between its covers is pure advertisements and I knew that going in.

Each magazine operates under a specific model/layout and they have to first fill the advertisement allocations, then featured content. You have to pay the bills. It may require allocation of 18 pages to do the article justice, but when you can only provide 3...you have to either cut and leave most of the good stuff out or run a series of articles.

Magazine size too plays a role. The extra inch in page height like those magazines produced in the UK, well an inch does give one more space on the page.

Now if FSM eventually goes full digital, then maybe the amount of real estate allocated to a project/author will expand. Then you'll get to see the article as the author intended it to be seen.

There are some out there that like to get the shopping list and put it together because that is what they like to do.  There are others out there that buy the shopping list because they don't know how to do it any other way. 

Well, the latter group, as well as beginners, is who I'm targeting...  

I think part of the reason is that too many guys were at competitons "back in the day" and didn't place well with their mostly SOB builds against the guys that dove into a kit with strip, sheet, rod,  supplemented with a well-stocked junk box.. Just as PE rails became required for ship builders back in the 80s, so too did full cockpits, engine wiring harnesses, brake-lines, fuel lines, and saggy tracks..

Same with figures... There weren't many, so one HAD to learn a little Frankensteining or every 4th guy on a diorama was gonna be in the same pose...

Well I picked up the issue this past weekend and of course had to read the article to see what all the hubub was about. I came off a bit disappointed, but for different reasons. In the opening stage he talks about the surface detail, yet in the body of the article, there is nothing mentioned about it. did he sand off and rescribe? Leave the surface detail as is? Use those new fangled rivet decals that are brielfly mentioned on the flaps? Yes it was mainly about how he added this and that after market product to greatly improve a very old kit. A bit of painting info. And next to nothing about things like landing gear, surface detail, etc. Ah well. I guess I will dig thru my FSM Back Issues library and find another article somebody did on the same kit some time back that involved some of the more "old school" methods IIRC.

Shameless self plug- my tip on goggles for figures did make it into the tips section of the issue

Heh..

'Course, I didn't even read the entire article.. Read the first page ("Hell yeah!", I thought, because I saw "Monogram"), but then felt a cold sweat develop at the back of neck,  checked out a couple "steps", then went straight to the last page, saw the "shoping list" and went ...

Folowed immediately by a loud "YA GOTTA BE S***IN' ME!" and a few other words ya can't even use asterisks to represent...

Once the wife was brave enough to come back the War Room and find out what the swearing was about, I read it again...

Haven't been able to open it back up, so sorry I missed reading about your goggles, Stikker...

HANS ,Whoa there ! I am on your train 100% !! I do use P.E. because for some things it,s easier with these shaky old hands .I still scratchbuild too .As a matter of fact I enjoy it when Jimmie,s bead bits become fenders on a boat model .Or that strange thing that fell out of my broken flat screen  ,  is now a compressor and built on manifold for a dive boat ! H%$#  ,I actually enjoy looking at beads , stained glass gizmo,s and stuff like that .Why , well they might have something I can use .Have you EVER seen a research submarine scratchbuilt from the bombs from the "ENOLA GAY ' Version of the venerable LARGE B-29 from MONOGRAM ? Well that what happened to mine .I could go on and on , BUT , you are so right .I still cut up soda cans for gun tubs on ships etc. And YES ,  P.E. is easier ,BUT , I often don,t have the cash for the stuff . so I scratchbuild the thing or things I need ! We AULD PHART,S are an enigma , and I guess the new generations don,t like spending the time or sitting and THINKING about how to do it ( H%$# maybe that gives them a headache (thinking that is ). I have found the younger folks half the time DON,T have the capability to create IN their MIND a picture of how to create something out of nothing as it were . I blame part of that on this technology we communicate with for part of that .You have so forcefully said what I have espoused for years .THANK YOU SIR !!!      tankerbuilder

I have to take issue with you here , oddman ,   In your first paragraph you state and I quote "RESIN parts look like they are intended to look like " That is so NOT TRUE !! I have a friend who got so caught up in the RESIN and P.E. hype that he spent all this dough to get the 'CORRECT " ship model only to find the resin not only was to much work to fit , the finished product would NOT be a correct version of the kit so he gave up on it .Those resin conversion kits cost some bucks AND they are NOT always correct themselves  . It,s kinda like when I wanted a FRAM version of the GEARING class ship I was on for a while .There was NO aftermarket kits to do that job to any ship model , especially the size of the LINDBERG "Blue Devil destroyer .First the hull had to be stretched and widened and then the fun began . Now as far as there being a bogus outlook on stuff , when did you last scratchbuild something for your models ?? TRY it you,ll like it " is my motto . I like to do both and I think scratchbuilding AND using aftermarket are BOTH good for the hobby .What has NOT been said is how many times did someone DESTROY part of a model to get it ready for p.e. and then have to scratch build the part so they could use tha expensive p.e.part ? Now that is something to think about , right ?   tankerbuilder

Guys,

These are all good observations. I don't think there is a right way or a wrong way to build models. As I said earlier, I do a little of all of these things in most of my builds and I don't criticize those who choose to do it a different way.

Cheers, Aaron

Just so ya know, I was only kidding about the " yelling " stuff in the War Room, Aaron...

We AULD PHART,S are an enigma , and I guess the new generations don,t like spending the time or sitting and THINKING about how to do it

Enigma is as good a word as any, Tanker, lol.. I reckon we are...

I used to read Shep Paine's stuff and then look around the house for I had that would do the same for what he did... If I had to buy something, it wasn't gonna happen, lol..  

I also remember reading an article in "Another Model Mag" about the ships done at the IPMS Nationals, from back in the early 80s, where the author made the comment that the ships that won had the scratch-built railings, and he felt that that had set a precedent-No more ships without railings were going win at future IPMS evnts...

Meant to get back to you on this earlier, Nav..

Second, don't use a Hawk kit, use the T-28. A side by side comparison would clearly illustrate your point and you could give a price breakdown for each area modified.

I might, but maybe leave that for a build-log here in the Aircraft Forums.. I don't wanna build the same kit and get a "What, ANOTHER Monogram T-28 article FSM?" post in here, lol...

HAWK (and Testor's) aircraft kits are what I got the most of (next to Monogram of course), and they also represent what I like most about this stuff.. A basic kit that's pretty much accurate... (leave your micrometers in you pants, Accu-nazzis... I don't care if a fuselage is three inches short, a wing-span is a foot long, or the nose's slope is off by 3.2451 degrees... It LOOKS like what it represents.. Close enough for Gizmology-work)

It might even be a 1/32 scale (Revell, probably, but I do have the 1/32 Monogram "Phantom Mustang" too) kit becasue like I said, i don't have any high-end photography equipment, so the bigger the model, the more easily photgraphed, I'm thinking..

The real issue is not about what's available or what's 'in fashion' vs 'obsolete'. It's about a mentality shift.

We are caught in conflicting objectives and there are no silver bullet. If I dish out for aftermarket parts, it's because I can afford it and it saves me effort (or otherwise unachievable result). On a different perspective I have shortened my build hence my enjoyment out of modelling, and that I'm relying on someone else's product rather than own research so the result may actually be all wrong!

FSM also walks a fine line between commercialism and the ideals of the modelling as a hobby. Perhaps it's deemed the majority's skill progression stagnats at 'install these pieces of resin', and hence the content focus, that, like an election, is mostly democratic.

You would think, with internet, research is as easier than ever. There are pitfalls in this thought - other people's builds become more accessible, whilst at the same time the quality of info, previously only available from the library or archives, is now greatly diluted. Where previously one may get fairly accurate info or no info, now it is too easy to get some info but often the wrong info. The same situation is happening in the aftermarket market. We no longer ask the questions that arise before the advent of these sets, them becoming a problem, and a solution in itself. 

potchip

The real issue is not about what's available or what's 'in fashion' vs 'obsolete'. It's about a mentality shift.

Oh, I'll agree with you whole-heartedly about a "mentality shift", and it's come from the "Old Hands" too, more than anyone else...  What used to be a "nice-ta-have-if-I-needed-it" mentality has become, "Gotta-have-it-or-it's-crap" line of thought....

Ohyeah,  I see guys trying to re-invent the wheel with new weathering techniques that aren't really new at all, just the same thing we did for years using a different medium... Hair-spray  and Salt  "weathering" are two that come to mind (And they should be referred to as "masking", not "weathering", BTW )...  

 While I haven't played with the hairspray (I was in the Army during the Hair-Band days oof the 80's so I never stocked up on Aqua-net), the salt-masking technique is a variation on the old stand-by of rubber cement masking given to us by the model railroaders about 50 years ago... (I don't know the exact age of it, but I know that Shep Paine referred to it in his diorama book as the "old rubber cement masking trick" in 1982, lol)

But I digress...

We are caught in conflicting objectives and there are no silver bullet. If I dish out for aftermarket parts, it's because I can afford it and it saves me effort (or otherwise unachievable result). On a different perspective I have shortened my build hence my enjoyment out of modelling, and that I'm relying on someone else's product rather than own research so the result may actually be all wrong!

Interesting point.. It's also one I've made several times before in that each build I do is my own, with no AM-dealer to share in it, lol... My build is unique, even among a table full of the same subjects and even the same kits...  Same way with my diorama figures...

There are SO many figure sets coming out now that diorama builders are able to do more subjects, tell more stories, show more vehicles "doing their thing" than ever before..  But.. Here's the downfall... Just as it was thirty years ago, with everyone who comes up to your table and looks at your diorama, you hear, "Ah.. I see you used the figures from Tamiya's M-113 kit.", but rather, "Oh hey, those're good figures you got there from the 'Dragon German Warriors Set'."...

I don't now, and haven't since about 1978, used figures straight out of the box, with the exception of some pilots and vehicle drivers (and even then I turn/swap heads and move/replace arms)... Yet I see so many guys that, for lack of a  basic modeling skill, constantly getting stuck in letting the available figures tell the story, rather than making the figures conform with it..  So much has been written about this subject that I'm not gonna bother with details here, but suffice to say that I don't think it's laziness on anyone's part anymore, I think it's lack of imagination more than anything else, and that has happened because the "Imagine" has taken out of "Imagineering"...  "Gizmo" has been taken out of "Gizmology" too... 

I really wonder about that "accuracy" thing too.. Before a modeler takes that brand-new "resin razmatazz" home and installs it, did he check his refs for its accuracy? REALLY check?  Did he actually bring a cockpit photo or two along to the LHS? Or is it a case of, "It's resin, it's after-market, so it MUST be right"? How do I know that I ain't getting ripped off (intentionally or not)?

 As for "affording it", well...  I gotta admit that I really do make more money than I let on, but I got other stuff I want from that "Disposable Income" too... Ain't droppin' 50 bucks on parts for a 12.00 kit... Besides.. I can use that 50.00 for another three or four kits!

How many "younger" (meaning both kids and adults who've not built much before now) modelers would look at Shep Paine's P-61 engine today and ask, "Wow.. What Resin Engine set did THAT  come from?"

 See any P/E parts here?

 Nope.. What we got is Plastruct and Evergreen, along with some nut/bolt/washer castings from Grandt-line (Model RR stuff), and some fine solder and wire... Personally, i don't buy any model RR parts either, but I find all kinds of nut/bolt/washers just by shavin' them offa German tank roadwheels...

 Here's my "Derelect P-47D" (1/48 Monogram) about ready for paint..

 Not a "store-bought" part on it there...  'Cept the brass and aluminum tubing that is.. Bought a bag of tubes that was all different diameters and lengths at Hobby Lobby.. The oil tank is a flatten tube with styrene ends, the gizmo on top of it is off an artillery piece, and the various straps, ribs, and bulkhead are all sheet & strips (the red sheet making up the firewall is from an Easter-candy container), and nut/bolt/washers from a Panzer IV drive-sprocket.. The open radio/battery compartment aft of the cockpit are built up from sheet as well..

However, I digress again...

FSM also walks a fine line between commercialism and the ideals of the modelling as a hobby. Perhaps it's deemed the majority's skill progression stagnats at 'install these pieces of resin', and hence the content focus, that, like an election, is mostly democratic.

I too wonder about stagnation... But then, some would say that, since I've stuck with the "Oldies", I've stagnated as well.. It's not true, but it could be argued, I think...

Frankly, no "High-end" kit would ever give me near the enjoyment I get out of cutting and fitting parts "That ain't there"....  No resin part, even if it's bang-on 100% accurate, would work for me... Is it because FSM is ad-revenue based that we see this? I don't think so... At least not intentionally... As Aaron said to me, they print what people "write and send in"...  But I still wonder about the "Shopping Lists" in the articles, too..

You would think, with internet, research is as easier than ever. There are pitfalls in this thought - other people's builds become more accessible, whilst at the same time the quality of info, previously only available from the library or archives, is now greatly diluted. Where previously one may get fairly accurate info or no info, now it is too easy to get some info but often the wrong info. The same situation is happening in the aftermarket market. We no longer ask the questions that arise before the advent of these sets, them becoming a problem, and a solution in itself. 

Heh.. Yeah, one would think that research s easier now, buton the other hand, I've read SO many "experts" out there quoting the same old stuff, word for word, that they got from ONE (wrong) source... So much of it's regurgitated that it's hard, really hard to find the "truth"...  If you don't have the Pilot's Operating handbook. the Dash-10, or the manufacturer's original darwings, you're not using "accurate" infomation...

So why bother?  Just freakin' make it look "busy" in there and forget about "The trim-wheel is a knob and should actually be a lever in the P-147 Thunder-Chicken" or "the tire-tread is wrong on that version and should be replaced with 'Mark's Resin Set of Tires For the Focke-Hawker Bf190 Schmittfire' ." kinda crap already....

Unless that's your thing, of course...  (Someone asked if "accuracy and realism" wasn't what we were after" earlier, and I forgot to answer him...)

My answer to that is unequivically, "No"...

 "Fun " is what we're supposed to be after... 

Hans von Hammer

 

Is it because FSM is ad-revenue based that we see this? I don't think so... At least not intentionally... As Aaron said to me, they print what people "write and send in"...  But I still wonder about the "Shopping Lists" in the articles, too..

 

 

This is a point I want to make really clear: Ads are not a consideration when we choose features. Those two elements  of the magazine — editorial and advertising — are separate, have been separate, and will always remain so.

Frank Cuden's Trojan was chosen because it's one example of what you can do with an old kit. It is not the only answer to the question of how to update an old kit. Look at Andy Cooper's Battle of Britain diorama in February — no aftermarket. In March, Darren Roberts backdates Kinetic's Hawkeye to an E-2B with a lot of epoxy putty and sanding. (For the record he does use Eduard pre-painted photoetched-metal panels in the cockpit, but superdetails the seat with styrene cushions and seats, then cast them in resin.) In December 2011, Carl Knable modified three Revell 707 kits with scratchbuilding. In September 2011, Wayne ***, detailed and converted Monogram's venerable 1/48 scale B-25 without aftermarket parts.

Hans von Hammer

"Fun " is what we're supposed to be after... 

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers, Aaron

Hans, I've been quietly lurking and reading your posts, and one thing -- one MAJOR thing -- that I think you're completely overlooking is that fact that not all modelers are as naturally gifted or creative so as to enable them to build an engine or cockpit such as you've posted. They turn to the AM stuff because it enhances their models to a level which they don't feel that they can achieve on their own. What's wrong with that? You seem to ascribe this trend to simple laziness on everyone's part, and I don't think that's really correct.

Secondarily, I find myself reflecting back on what I've seen you post of your work, and for such an ardent  proponent of scratchbuilding and "gizmology", why don't you stop griping about this "problem" as you see it, and instead commit yourself to a continuing series of posting that would show, teach, and instruct others as to your methods and materials? I mean, you seem to have garnered much inspiration from Shep Paine's photo in his book there--why not do the same for others? Let those who want to go "hi-tech" do their thing, and establish yourself as the standard bearer for "old tyme" modeling techniques!

edit

the doog

Hans, I've been quietly lurking and reading your posts, and one thing -- one MAJOR thing -- that I think you're completely overlooking is that fact that not all modelers are as naturally gifted or creative so as to enable them to build an engine or cockpit such as you've posted. They turn to the AM stuff because it enhances their models to a level which they don't feel that they can achieve on their own. What's wrong with that? You seem to ascribe this trend to simple laziness on everyone's part, and I don't think that's really correct.

Secondarily, I find myself reflecting back on what I've seen you post of your work, and for such an ardent  proponent of scratchbuilding and "gizmology", why don't you stop griping about this "problem" as you see it, and instead commit yourself to a continuing series of posting that would show, teach, and instruct others as to your methods and materials? I mean, you seem to have garnered much inspiration from Shep Paine's photo in his book there--why not do the same for others? Let those who want to go "hi-tech" do their thing, and establish yourself as the standard bearer for "old tyme" modeling techniques!

Pretty much how I see it.

At 56 I have come to realize that every one around me pretty much thinks I know what I am doing, but I have also been somewhat marginalized as belonging to a particular school of thought in what I do- architecture.

I have resolved this year to break out of that mold and become the new guy on the block in terms of creativity. Karl it may hit you some day soon if it hasn't already. It's not a bad thing, a desperate thing or any such BS, but it can be a good time to say WTF and try something new.

I think this is going to be a good year. I've already opened as many new jobs in my office as I had through march last year, and hired two young kids who show a lot of sparkle.

All of which is to say, the new way is really always a new version of... oh never mind.

PM inbound Hans

Wow Hans, see what living on the east side of paradise does, it makes you late to the ball.  I just saw this post, not much to add to it all but had to laugh at this one.

Hans von Hammer

Don't need to know how to drill out the holes in the Monogram SBD's diveflaps.. They make brass ones.. 

That was the model that got me back to the hobby after 35 years (it was actually my son's X-mas gift but I gave him a hand), it turned out but was fun none-the-less.  Wasn't until after I read the FSM book on detailng A/C (features the SBD) that I learned those were supposed to be drilled out.  Why buy A/M when you can drill 200 some odd little holes w/pin vise?  Now THAT'S fun!

Sorry for the late reply, Doog... Been writng..

I think you're completely overlooking is that fact that not all modelers are as naturally gifted or creative so as to enable them to build an engine or cockpit such as you've posted. They turn to the AM stuff because it enhances their models to a level which they don't feel that they can achieve on their own. What's wrong with that? You seem to ascribe this trend to simple laziness on everyone's part, and I don't think that's really correct.

 I guess it's because I see it as growing trend, rather than an "equlaizer" for those that aren't "Gifted", as you put it...  I don't think that I have a "gift" or anything like that, it's just that I have, over the years, developed an ability to "see miniature" in everyday stuff... 

I mean, there's got to be more guys than me that stand in the aisle of a grocery store, looking at some off-the-wall thing that has me going, "Hmmmm..." , or because I'm seeing a 1/35th Tiger transmission housing in that 1.59 "Hot-Wheels"-type toy cement truck,  and I already bought a pack of skewers that're gonna be telephone poles and Belgian Gate beach obstacles, while the wife says, "I knew you were thinking, 'Model-stuff'.."...

I dunno.. Another part of it is the way models are going as far as prices...  Modelers are responsible for it in a large part, simply because more and more of us demanded more and more from the manufacturers, and that has a big price-tag...  That, and I'm not a little mad about the way the manufacturers have all but driven the "cottage-industry" detail-parts guys outta business...  Whatever happened to a pack of 12 sets of "German Rudder Pedals" or "USAAF Seat Harness Buckles"?  Seems like everything went to being for one specific kit, and those kits were already priced outta my range, so I didn't fall for it...  I needed four sets of rudder pedals, and wasn't gonna buy four sets of PE 1/48 Ju-88 cockpit detail parts just for the pedals to put a two-Bf 109s/two Fw190s build, so time to grab the Evergreen or whatever material I had that would work.. (Tea Candles, BTW.. Their containers contain just the right stuff for that, or any other metal parts you need. I sent that in to FSM)

Another part of it is that, as I think about it, I DO have a background in blacksmithing and metal fabrication, as I went to school to learn to weld, and also took a course it auto-body repair and painting, and worked for a while as a welder/fabricator..  There, I sometimes had to figure out how to build something that was drawn on a bar napkin, lol...  And wasn't even sure what it was I was building, lol..

But what I took away from that was that I know that everything is basically made up of just geometric "shapes", ie; circles, squares, rectangles, etc, and that's easy stuff  to make use of...   Also, things just jump out at me sometimes.. Like when I was stumped on making the springs for a Panzer IV seat... Shep had a solution, but I thought it was a bit too much.. Then I was drilling out a gun-barrel one day, and then,  !The little squigglies that accompany that action caught my eye as being the solution for my spring-problem!

Anyway, I don't see it "laziness" on the part of other modelers, more of a short-cut that they take because of a "lack of time" (which I don't understand.. Who has a deadline on a hobby?) or they have a confidence problem... 

I find myself reflecting back on what I've seen you post of your work, and for such an ardent  proponent of scratchbuilding and "gizmology", why don't you stop griping about this "problem" as you see it, and instead commit yourself to a continuing series of posting that would show, teach, and instruct others as to your methods and materials?

That's an absolutely outstanding idea...  I also think that it would probably prove more useful to others than a single article in a modeling-rag (although I'm still gonna write one)... Probably see a few of my techniques or ideas show up in the "Reader Tips" section under some else's name (They have before), but oh, well... That's the breaks..

I mean, you seem to have garnered much inspiration from Shep Paine's photo in his book there--why not do the same for others? Let those who want to go "hi-tech" do their thing, and establish yourself as the standard bearer for "old tyme" modeling techniques!

Just an aside- Shep's work DID inspire me at an early age.. I was about 14 when I got the (then) brand-new B-17 kit, and upon opening it, saw that magnificent diorama of his...  Then it was the P-61, the TBD, StuG IV, Patton, Half-track, all those dioramas... While I didn't have a hobby-shop to go to, I had a buncha stuff in the basement, and Dad's tools, so I went to work on finding substitutes for "hobby shop" materials... From there, it "just sorta growed"...

So yeah.. I'l take ya up on that idea..  I'm sure it'll be in the "For What It's Worth" Department, but if I can grab some of the younger ones (most Auld Pharts are too set in our ways) and show 'em ya don't need a 17.00-per-hour job just to build models...  Just a Monogram kit, some basic tools, and a junkbox...

Thanks, man...

Hans,

I feel your pain about everything being "dumber down" for mass appeal! That's what you get in a materialistic, consumer-driven society!

Many a time I have lamented the dumbing down of, for instance, video games. When I had my spell of addiction to them, I played a LOT of games, and over time they all started to get really predictable and easy-to-beat. Gone were the frustrating-yet-rewarding hours of playing and perfecting to get through that one level or obstacle. Now, video clips and cheap gameplay replaced games that were deemed "too hard" by the general public. It was a noticeable trend.

I understand that your engineering background gives you your perspective, but as one of those "dummies" who can't design a square if I had a stencil, I can tell you that sometimes I find myself daunted by the requirement to scratchbuild a piece, and sometimes just want to "be lazy" for the fun of finishing the model. Luckily, what I have is a good "artists' eye", and can generally copy a piece or "see" it in my mind's eye. But don't ask me to actually "engineer" something---it's all trial and error for me. Some guys, though, just have neither.

I was inspired by Shep Paine too. It was his work, and a statement that he wrote about a burnt-out tank being the penultimate expression of armor modeling/detailing that inspired me to work on my "Spooked" diorama--much of what was scratchbuilt, as far as the interior. So I'm right there in your camp, sir.

I think you should start on that endeavor; to be the "gadget man" here. Show 'em how its done! Don't worry about people "stealing" them--we'll all know where they came from!

And good luck with your article, I think it'll be a refreshing topic and subject to stand between all the new release and AM parts-builds!

Hans,

I recall the P-47 that you did a couple of years ago.  I had been one f those modelers who just built OOB with the occasional PE set just to add a a little pop in a neglected part of the kit.  That build was the first time that I remember being introduced to your creative gizmology concept.  It has inspired me to expand my skills.  Since then, I have ruined a kit or two trying new ideas that turned out to be a "more than I could chew" proposition but I have had more fun doing it.

A year ago, I decided that it would be fun to build one of the Iraqi Mi-171s that I was seeing.  After a little web surfing, I found that no kit was available for this variant of the Mi-8 but a build article that I came across, combined with some simple gizmology would produce what I was looking for.  I was able to get the major portions of the conversion done while overseas and will be able to finish it as soon as the Army figures out how to get out stuff back from Timbuktu. 

I believe that both the article on sprucing up a basic kit and some short how to bits would inspire a lot of modelers to take a chance and try building something that they can't buy.  Since the market has moved more toward super kits and aftermarket detail, I have begun reading old issues of various modeling rags that I have lying around because I enjoy the scratch built details that were much more prevalent a few years ago.

My take here is that without actual tips and pics its all just talk.  I've learned so,so much from my fellow modelers here that my work from 10 years ago looks like child's play.  Most of those tips have come from WIPs and threads about differing issues.  But what it boils down to is explanation and illustration.  That is how we all learn.  The guys building and detailing their work make the greatest impact.  Gosh, I'll copy pictures of Fermis' work and try to duplicate it.  The magazine is great, but it only comes once a month.  You guys are here with something new everyday.

  Hans the subtle hint that I just read is:  show us gizmology, lend us your scratchbuilding skills, don't make us guess what it is that you're looking at on the shelves at the store.  Aaron pointed out all the attempts to show scratchbuilding in the mag.  I believe the Forum is the place for you to showcase the art of scratchbuilding.  It would be a great learning experience for all of us.  Rick