VERACITY , HONESTY , and MODELING FUN

What?

TB

You have sort of grouped a few different things all into one here. But, the most important, positive thing I can say to you is to not let anyone have that much power over you>

We must be of an age,,,,,,,,I also had to learn Fortran and keypunch, with the dreaded card verifier, in my earliest days around computers, a good long time before the Apples and PCs came around

I also have models that I can talk about, and can no longer verify that I ever owned or built. It is very hard to build for 47 years, change focus a couple of times, with the cleanouts and purges of "old plastic" that is implied there,,,,,,,and still have many of the models from the 60's around,,,,,I have exactly ONE from that time frame,,,,my very first model from the age of 8, in 1965

I have a couple from the 70's time frame,,,,,,,,,everything else here is more modern than that

as for accuracy,,,,,,,we lived in a time period when weapons loaded onto jets were still classified, and not available to put on our models,,,,,now, thanks to accessory sets and resin sets,,,,,,we can hang almost anything we want to,,,,,,,,"accurate loadouts" have become a possible thing,,,,so, some of us do them

same with paints,,,,,,it costs exactly the same per bottle for a wildly inaccurate paint, a close, but not quite there paint, and the exact FS matching paint,,,,,,,so, I figure I might as well get it as close as the paint company allows me to when answering someone's paint color question

what he or she does with the info,,,,,,is and should be, full up to them,,,,,If I say Magenta 37142, and they go and get Purple, grape, brightest possible,,,,,,and paint that on there,,,,,,,,,,,they still hear "hey, good model" from me,,,,,,,if it is in fact a nice build

accuracy in shape, markings, loadout and color is fun,,,,,,,,,if you enjoy it,,,,,,if you don't,,,,,then simply don't do it, and enjoy the hobby your way,,,,,,,,,I won't try to drag you onto the Accuracy Bus, if you won't try to pull me down off of it,,,,,,we can each have fun at this our own way

Just don't let anyone control your hobby,,,,a hobby is something to do to unwind, not to get wound up about

I hope there is at least one good thought in this for you,,,,,,if so, it was worth typing it out

Rex

COBOL and FORTRAN? Someday the man I used to be, AUTOCODER.

(My 1402 Card Read-Punch had an 5 digital identity panel.)

same with paints,,,,,,it costs exactly the same per bottle for a wildly inaccurate paint, a close, but not quite there paint, and the exact FS matching paint,,,,,,,so, I figure I might as well get it as close as the paint company allows me to when answering someone's paint color question

Just to play Devil's Advocate... If you don't "scale" the color, you realize that the exact "FS match" is also incorrect as well, right?  I know the "Paint Gestapo" will vapor-lock at this, but it's true...  Just hold you model at arm's length and then move closer to or farther away from the prototype until they're the same size.  Then check your color match...

I had a big long detailed post here,,,,,,and it disappeared before I hit enter,,sooooooo

Yes, Hans,,,,,,,,except,,,,,,I need to tell the guy 37142 Magenta,,,,,not the Purple (staying with my example),,,,,,,,so that if he believes in scale effect, he starts with the 37142, not with Purple

whether a person uses scale effect or not ( I don't),,,,,,,,decals and paints start out as "full sized", leaving the reductions to the modeler,,,,,because even the guys that believe in scale effect don't believe in the same percentages for each scale

I know,,,,,there were scale effect colors available,,,,,,,but, they aren't in business anymore, either

and if you scale effect a 1/700 ship model at the "correct percentage",,,,,,they are all a muddy, muddled gray,,,,,,liners, or warships,,,,,,because of the number of cubic feet of haze between the viewer and the model ("in-scale distance" distortion)

ahh, I remembered part of my post

If a modeler starts out at Light Ghost Gray to scale effect from, instead of Dark Gull Gray,,,,,,,he is not going to be anywhere near the mark on his finished color on his model

so, if he wants to know the cockpit color of his F-14, he needs to be told the correct FS color,,,,,,,,and then he'll know what to do with that for the scale he builds in (Dark Gull Gray in a Tomcat's cockpit would be far different in a 1/144 or 1/350 model, than in a 1/32)

added: I am willing to be helpful,,,,,,,,but, as a 1/72 modeler, I am NOT willing to figure out the scale effect paint color matches for every scale from 1/700 to 1/32, in Enamel and Acrylic,,,,,,,if you are a "scale effecter",,,,you would have more time in than I do at that part of the game

I would have to agree with taking issue with some of the persnickety-ness that pops up. I painted a helo cockpit with the wrong color, but liked how it turned out and decided to keep it "as is". I then got badgered and called irresponsible for not changing it and my thread nearly got nuked. WTF?!

I can understand this hounding as a result of a person going for absolute accuracy, but I never claimed I was doing that on my kit. Heck, it was my first helo! It sure left a bad taste in my mouth, thats for sure...

GOOD gosh , ! Where did you get that picture ? or is it an example of your first home com[uter ? HE HE HE .That,s part of what I meant . That was HIGH TECH back then .WOW ....tankerbuilder .

Yeah man ,  I know I did , TARNSHIP but I was ,how shall we say this ^&&^%^&$^%&^ and then some .I enjoy modeling to the max and as a retired engineer and designer as well as a retired ship captain I know there,s NO WAY ,(unless you really work at it ) that you will get absolutely accurate in color and sometimes equipment .Then there,s the fact about long ago built models . How many folks have, after the service transfers and moves for jobs have the models ,or , much less the photos of those models .The self so called "EXPERTS " Some are , in those fields they work in  , expert, seem to think that if it isn,t done their way it,s wrong or incorrect .In the case of a ,shall we say a DE that was shot up in WW2 . were they there ? NO WAY !! But to here them tell it , it is wrong ! . This is the point of the post .Do we have a hobby or do we all find ourselves building to some unachievable museum standard .When someone visits your home (and they know you build models ) do they ask how correct the paint is or do they usually say " NICE MODEL " (cause they don,t build ,they don,t know what they are looking at ! BUT , they don,t want your feelings hurt .) There you have it .I enjoy a lot of what ifs and some ships I built just because I like the looks of it , or in the case of a 1/700 scale model of the KALININ .I have never seen a color photo of a modern SOVIET/RUSSIAN ship .SOOO she,s probably going to be innaccurate as the way I,m building her is OOB .She,s also the ONLY  , SOVIET/RUSSIAN ship in my collection , but , she looks neat.    tankerbuilder

well, Ms Owl, that should not have happened

no one should come along and slam a finished model,,,,that is just rude

the "expertiveness" should only come into play when answering questions before or during a build,,,and most of the time, I believe, only when asked

I should not come along during Hans work in progress thread, when he shows a cockpit,,,,,and tell him it needs to be darker, brighter or more vivid, when he already has that part painted and has moved on farther along in the build

but, I do feel it would be Wrong (with a capital W) for me to say the wrong color if someone asks before the build, or while researching what they need for a kit, etc

colors, letter codes, BuNo, squadron, ship name, P-51 D or B, what goes under the wings,,,,,,those are all facts,,,,,,it is not helpful to make those up or give false facts,,,,,,,,,,,but,,,,,,once given,,,,,it IS all up to each modeler how they want to use the info,,,,,or if they want to use any of it at all

small example,,,,,we all have to draw the line somewhere,,,,,,,I don't use RBF tags on my models,,,,or arming wires on my ordnance,,,,,,,,I could, the info is out there, the tags are available, even in my scale,,,,,,,but, I drew the line a while back on just how far in I will dig,,,,,and rigging every bomb for nose and tail fuse wires with drilled out holes for RBF flag pins,,,,,,,,nope,,,,,not going to happen here

my audience doesn't know a Light Gull Gray from a Dark Gull Gray, from a Gull Gray,,,,,,,they don't even know the difference between Gloss, SG and Flat,,,,,,,,but,,,,,,I do,,,,,so, that is how I build

and that is how everyone should build,,,,,to their own eye,,,only exception would be the archival builders for a museum,,,,,,,,and I have seen some of the shortcuts made in 1/1 scale, lol (I know where there is an absolutely beautiful F-8 Crusader,,,,,,,,with Gloss Light Gull Gray for the top surfaces)

If a modeler starts out at Light Ghost Gray to scale effect from, instead of Dark Gull Gray,,,,,,,he is not going to be anywhere near the mark on his finished color on his model

I concurr... My point was that getting bogged down in exact paint matches is an exercise in futility, as I see it (pun intended)... I'm a member of the "TLAR" (That Looks About Right) crew of painters anyway.. See, I have some color-vision issues, namely red-green color discrimination, so certain shades of various secondary (and a few tertiary) colors look much different to me than someone with normal color-vision would see them... Especially in the differences between "interior green" and "Zinc Chromate Green"... Side by side, I can see a "tonal" or "darker/lighter" shade-difference, but not an actual "color" difference, and if separated, can't tell one from the other at all..  Some shades of light purples/lavender can look like light blue to me, and I also have problems with some pinks/purples looking "redder" than they really are... 

In the Aircraft Hooch, there's always an ongoing discussion over the shade of Grey used on the IJN aircraft at the beginning of the war, and I prett much stay out of it, since someoe posts three different shades of the same color, and they all look the same to me... So I just paint IJN aircraft Testor's Model Master Camouflage Grey... That color is what looks right in MY eyes, lol...  Conversely, I also use it instead of Insignia White for the undersides of US Navy WW2 aircraft... I think Insignia White is too intense, too "bright" as it were, for 1/72 to1/32 scale...  Plus, using white as the primary color gives me nowhere to go in highlighting...

As for cockpits that're black, I tend to paint those with very dark grey to begin with, since even cockpits that are painted all-black at the factory have usually faded to a dark grey after a few months of sunlight hitting them through the canopy...

However, I digress...

Overall, I think that TB's issues with the hobby being "fun" vs "accuarate" is an easily-obtainable "Happy Medium" if one decides from the beginning whether he's going to display or compete... Competitions have sorta "monstered" of their own accord, since there're SO many things that can make a particular build go "bad"... Like...

All other things being equal, two F4F Wildcats, identical in every way, are sitting on the table and a tie for 1st and 2nd...

No. 1 is in "Battle of Midway" livery, as is No. 2... However, No. 1 has the red/white rudder stripes... No 2 has Fighting Eight's insignia on the vertical stab.  Who's more accurate? No.1 or No. 2? But wait.. There's a third one with a couple of missed canopy-scuffs, but it's flawlessly and accurately decaled.. 

So, do we go with basic skills, decals that're vague as to the exact date, or accurate decals in the wrong position as the deciding factor? 

Another possible scenario...

Two F-4 Phantom IIs, one US Navy, one US Air Force. Both are the same kit, same production-run, same flawlessly built and finished, with accurate weapon load-outs. However, the USN Phantom's load-out is festooned with RBF flags (although a couple are missing), the USAF's isn't.  

Both Phantom's have the same AM resin/PE cockpit detail sets and are identical in construction, with no visible differences. Same four sticks, same mirrors, same four seats, four ejection handles, throttles, flaps, hoses, wires, etc... Both modelers have the same number of years of experience, same references were used, and  

One of them IS more accurate than the other, however... And the difference is NOT the RBF flags...

Anyone?

CallSignOWL

I would have to agree with taking issue with some of the persnickety-ness that pops up. I painted a helo cockpit with the wrong color, but liked how it turned out and decided to keep it "as is". I then got badgered and called irresponsible for not changing it and my thread nearly got nuked. WTF?!

I can understand this hounding as a result of a person going for absolute accuracy, but I never claimed I was doing that on my kit. Heck, it was my first helo! It sure left a bad taste in my mouth, thats for sure...

Musta missed that one, Owl.. Was it the 1/48 Monogram Huey Hog kit, by chance? The color call-outs on that kit's instruction-sheet has always been ate-up, even when it was re-released under the Revell name...

Hans von Hammer

 

 

 

Both Phantom's have the same AM resin/PE cockpit detail sets and are identical in construction, with no visible differences. Same four sticks, same mirrors, same four seats, four ejection handles, throttles, flaps, hoses, wires, etc... Both modelers have the same number of years of experience, same references were used, and  

One of them IS more accurate than the other, however... And the difference is NOT the RBF flags...

Anyone?

 

 

The USAF one would be more accurate if the cockpit had 4 control sticks in them.  Navy variants of the F-4 did not have "sticks" in the RIO's cockpits.

the engines on either of them would (or could) be wrong, also

there are only two ways to build Phantoms that are "same kit" for USN and USAF builds

an early F-4J,,,,,,,and an early F-4D or late F-4C (hmm,,,,,,that won't work either,,,,,,"slots or no slots on the tailplanes" comes up)

so, okay,,,,,,,only RF-4C and RF-4B,(the B has to be late production, pre Slep, pre Sure, though),the rear seat stick/no stick thing, and some minor stuff on the nose gear door

anything else and you end up with mismatched wing thicknesses, or tailplanes,,,,,ECM on the tail tips, engine exhaust size, etc

you only get the C,D and RFs to match up,,,,and only to B, J or RF,,,,,,,,,B won't match C or D (wing thickness),,,,,,,,and J won't match C/D (engine size and slotted tailplanes),,,,,,,,,that leaves RF-4's with the stick/no stick deal

Rex

added: oh, and in case anyone is thinking of asking,,,,,,,,,,Yes, I am building one of each variation of each letter type of Phantom for my collection,,,,,and yes, I do think each detail is significant enough to warrant a separate model,,,,,,if you know the difference in an early as built RF-4B and a late build SLEPed and SUREd RF-4B, then you know why,,,,,,it is almost like the difference between a Tempest II and Tempest V,,,,or an FW-190A and an FW-190D

Hans von Hammer

 

CallSignOWL:

 

I would have to agree with taking issue with some of the persnickety-ness that pops up. I painted a helo cockpit with the wrong color, but liked how it turned out and decided to keep it "as is". I then got badgered and called irresponsible for not changing it and my thread nearly got nuked. WTF?!

I can understand this hounding as a result of a person going for absolute accuracy, but I never claimed I was doing that on my kit. Heck, it was my first helo! It sure left a bad taste in my mouth, thats for sure...

 

 

Musta missed that one, Owl.. Was it the 1/48 Monogram Huey Hog kit, by chance? The color call-outs on that kit's instruction-sheet has always been ate-up, even when it was re-released under the Revell name...

 

no, it was an Italeri Mh-47 kit. And the instructions did call for grey, but it shoud've been black.....

I'm glad Rex and Hans were able to help you out TB, because your post is very difficult to read. Try using the "enter" key to break it into paragraphs. It will help readers and assist them in helping you.

To be honest, it looks like a page of binary code 1010110101010...

Modeling fun is determined by the modeler, not by his fellow modelers. What is fun modeling to you, may be a drag to me. You build vessels using blueprints, I build tanks from kits. I have fun at what I do, you have fun at what you do (or so I assume).

Even within a genre, take armor for instance, there are guys who love to build German WW2 tanks and guys who like to build modern tanks. Each one may think the other's subject is not fun to build. Neither one is wrong.

Now within the German WW2 armor genre, there are guys who like to build kits OOB as they come and set it on the shelf. Then there are guys who do extensive research, add hundreds of dollars of aftermarket, make countless minute changes and corrections that the average person wouldn't notice and place the kit on a well thought out diorama.

Again, both modelers are having fun in their own way and neither one is wrong.

It's like mowing your lawn. Just because your neighbor uses a riding mower and you use a push mower, doesn't mean either of you is doing it wrong. He edges his sidewalk with a blade edger and you use the string trimmer, again, neither method is wrong.

You paint with a gray color that "looks about right" and the other guy gets an FS paint chart out and matches it exactly, again, neither one of you is wrong.

Bottom line, you're only wrong if you let it bother you. Your frustration level shows in the vast majority of your rants. It is a hobby; it's supposed to be fun. If someone else's views from their perspective regarding a leisure time activity that you both share "get your hackles" up, then you may be the one taking things too seriously.

I build for me.

At the end of the day, that's all that matters. This is not a holy calling and we are not on a mission from God.

Hans von Hammer

Overall, I think that TB's issues with the hobby being "fun" vs "accuarate" is an easily-obtainable "Happy Medium" if one decides from the beginning whether he's going to display or compete... Competitions have sorta "monstered" of their own accord, since there're SO many things that can make a particular build go "bad"... Like...

All other things being equal, two F4F Wildcats, identical in every way, are sitting on the table and a tie for 1st and 2nd...

No. 1 is in "Battle of Midway" livery, as is No. 2... However, No. 1 has the red/white rudder stripes... No 2 has Fighting Eight's insignia on the vertical stab.  Who's more accurate? No.1 or No. 2? But wait.. There's a third one with a couple of missed canopy-scuffs, but it's flawlessly and accurately decaled.. 

So, do we go with basic skills, decals that're vague as to the exact date, or accurate decals in the wrong position as the deciding factor? 

Assuming those are the only kits in class or the top three, here's how I would place them:

Rudder strips = 1, simply accuracy and, per IPMS rules, accuracy does not come into play.

Canopy scuffs = 2  that's basic skills, but otherwise a good build

Rudder insignia =3  not following instructions

I could persuaded to switch 2 and 3 however.

Hans von Hammer

Another possible scenario...

Two F-4 Phantom IIs, one US Navy, one US Air Force. Both are the same kit, same production-run, same flawlessly built and finished, with accurate weapon load-outs. However, the USN Phantom's load-out is festooned with RBF flags (although a couple are missing), the USAF's isn't.  

Both Phantom's have the same AM resin/PE cockpit detail sets and are identical in construction, with no visible differences. Same four sticks, same mirrors, same four seats, four ejection handles, throttles, flaps, hoses, wires, etc... Both modelers have the same number of years of experience, same references were used, and  

One of them IS more accurate than the other, however... And the difference is NOT the RBF flags...

Anyone?

Assuming everything is perfectly straight, no seams anywhere on either, no silvering, no glue marks, no finger prints, flawlessly applied paint, consistent finish refl;ectance, equally clean or weathered, etc., I'd vote for the Air Force one due to the consistency of the build (NO RBF's) vs the apparently missing RBF's.

All the added resin doodads make no difference in the IPMS handbook. The one factor you've described is the presence of some flags on one, with no figures present to be removing them and a consistent build with no flags. 

holy wall of text, tl;dr

"simply accuracy and, per IPMS rules, accuracy does not come into play."

actually, accuracy is one of the judging criteria, it is just farther down the list

but,,,,,if 2 models were tied all the way down until the accuracy question came into play,,,,,it would be used

and "accuracy" does not mean "you didn't add a detail that you could have",,,,,it means "the detail you added is right or wrong,,,,,or is done right or wrong",,,,,,

adding or not adding RBFs to a model makes no difference,,,,,,,but,,,,if you add them,,,,,you can't just hang them any ole place, that has to be done right,,,,,,adding them on the bombs wouldn't mean I would get gigged for not adding them to the landing gear lockouts

TarnShip

"simply accuracy and, per IPMS rules, accuracy does not come into play."

actually, accuracy is one of the judging criteria, it is just farther down the list

but,,,,,if 2 models were tied all the way down until the accuracy question came into play,,,,,it would be used

and "accuracy" does not mean "you didn't add a detail that you could have",,,,,it means "the detail you added is right or wrong,,,,,or is done right or wrong",,,,,,

adding or not adding RBFs to a model makes no difference,,,,,,,but,,,,if you add them,,,,,you can't just hang them any ole place, that has to be done right,,,,,,adding them on the bombs wouldn't mean I would get gigged for not adding them to the landing gear lockouts

Here are the aircraft rules and the FAQ on accuracy, taken directly from the handbook: (to be honest, there's some contradiction between the two and the fact is in all my years of judging, I can't recall any time where any one on my teams had to go to  "Contour errors corrected" to choose the winner. basic construction and paint will break virtually all ties.

Basic Construction

1.  Flash, mold seams, sink marks, copyright marks, ejector-pin marks, and similar molding flaws eliminated.

2.  Seams filled if not present on the actual aircraft.

3.  Contour errors corrected.

4.  Any detailing removed while correcting errors, filling seams, etc. restored to a level consistent with the rest of the model.

5.  Alignment

A. Wings/tailplanes: same dihedral or anhedral on both sides.

B. Plan view: wings and stabilizers aligned correctly with, and identically on both sides of, centerline.

C. Multiple fins/rudders: fin-to-stabilizer angles correct; aligned with each other in front and side views where appropriate.

D. Engine nacelles/cowlings: lined up correctly in front, side, and plan views.

E. Landing gear: components properly aligned with airframe and with each other in front, side, and plan views.

F.  Ordnance items (bombs, rockets, pylons, etc.) aligned correctly with aircraft and with each other.

6.  Canopies and other clear areas:

A. Clear and free of crazing caused by adhesives or finishing coats.

B. Gaps between windscreen, canopy, or other clear parts eliminated where applicable.

C. All clear areas scratch-, blemish-, and paint-free.

7.  Decals must look painted on if depicting painted markings (conforming to surface contours, no silvering or bubbling, no decal film apparent).

Details

1.  Thick parts should be thinned to scale or replaced; e.g., wing trailing edges and similar surfaces, ordnance fins, landing gear doors, edges of open panels, etc.

2.  Wheel wells, intakes, scoops, etc. should be blocked off to prevent a "see-through" effect.

3.  Gun barrels, exhaust stacks, intakes, vents, and similar openings should be opened.

4.  Details added to the model should be in scale or as close to scale as possible.

5.  External stores should be built to the same level of quality as the model to which they are attached. Stores/weapons combinations on a model should represent only those combinations actually carried by the real aircraft.

6.  Aftermarket parts (photo-etched, white metal, resin, etc.) should integrate well with the basic model. Photo-etched parts that require forming should be precisely shaped and any surfaces that require building up to a thicker cross-section should be smooth and uniform.

Painting and Finishing

1.  The model's surface, once painted, should show no signs of the construction process (glue, file, or sanding marks; fingerprints; obvious discontinuities between kit plastic and filler materials; etc.).

2.  Finish should be even and smooth. If irregularities in the actual aircraft's finish are being duplicated, documentation of such irregularities is required.

A. No brush marks, lint, brush hairs, etc.

B. No "orange-peel" or "eggshell" effect; no "powdering" in areas such as fillets or wing roots.

C. No random differences in sheen of finish caused by misapplication of final clear coats.

3.  Paint edges that are supposed to be sharp should be sharp (no ragged edges caused by poor masking). Edges that are supposed to be soft or feathered should be in scale and without overspray.

4.  Framing on clear parts should have crisp, uniform edges.

5.  Weathering, if present, should show concern for scale (e.g., size of chipped areas), be in accordance with the conditions in which the real aircraft was operating, and be consistent throughout the model (a factory-fresh interior would be unlikely on a 100-mission aircraft).

6.  Decals:

A. Aligned properly. (If the real aircraft had a markings anomaly; e.g., an inverted U.S. insignia, the model builder should provide documentation to show that he is deliberately duplicating someone else's error, not inadvertently making one of his own.)

B. Some modern aircraft use decals rather than paint for standard markings. If the real aircraft suffers from problems with decal application, such anomalies should be documented if duplicated on the model.

7.  Colors. Paint colors, even from the same manufacturer and mixed to the same specs, can vary from batch to batch. Different operating environments can change colors in different ways. All paints fade from the effects of weather and sunlight, and viewing distance alone can change the look of virtually any color. Poor initial application and subsequent maintenance compound these problems. Therefore, aside from gross inaccuracies such as a light green "Red Arrows" aircraft, color shades should not be used to determine a model's accuracy or lack thereof. Again, models with unusual colors should be supported by confirming documentation.

ACCURACY

Absolute accuracy is a noble, but probably unattainable, goal. No scale model is ever 100% accurate, yet some people urge that models be judged principally on their accuracy. This is a real minefield. Yes, gross inaccuracy should be easy to spot — most would agree that a model of an F-86 with forward-swept wings is inaccurate. Beyond that, however, the situation quickly becomes murky and can lead to unfairness in judging. For example, suppose one of the judges for the 1/72 Multi-engine Jet category had spent the better part of 20 years as a USAF F-4 crew chief. That judge is going to be an absolute expert on Phantoms and probably will be able to find inaccuracies of one type or another on every F-4 entered in the category. But is he equally knowledgeable about Canadian CF-100 Canucks? Probably not. So, if he judges solely on the basis of accuracy, there's a real risk that he will unfairly penalize those who entered F-4 models. The Chief Judge and Class Head Judges take pains every year to remind the judges to be aware of this problem and to be fair to all on this issue. But before we get too wrapped around the accuracy debate, remember that judges concentrate first on the modeling aspects. A model with every component built absolutely accurately probably still won't win if seams between the components aren't filled properly. Conversely, a superbly built model containing an inaccuracy could win if it is, in all other respects, the best model in the category. Judges take lots of hits from modelers who know some minute aspect of a prototype and mistakenly believe that judges must also have that much detailed knowledge and more. It's simply not possible for all IPMS judges to match, model for model, the expertise developed by our disparate and incredibly knowledgeable membership. Don't assume that the judges know all the details you know. Help them and help yourself by putting a little time into the entry sheet or any other display material you put out with your model. Judges do read that stuff, and it could make the difference for you.

we need a rules book on "how to win at internet posting arguments"

you have cut off the IPMS rules before getting to the section on accuracy, and substituted the touchy-feely convo FAQ paragraph (there is an actual section on IPMS accuracy in judging)

and FYI,,,,if anyone reads that slowly enough,,,,,accuracy is all throughout the portions of the rules you have posted,,,,,,,if you can't build a Green Red Arrows aircraft (cited example in the rules), then they have left it open for any tank building judge doing the aircraft category to eliminate any aircraft they think is "wrong colored",,,,,at the very beginning of judging,,,,,,,and the "no fake weapons load" criteria,,that is the rule that is keeping the really interesting stuff from hitting the table,,,,,,it is an answer to a question I had a long time back on the forum,,,,,and explains why there are no Banshee models on the tables loaded with MK-7s,,,,,,the judges would kick them out of contention by "knowing" that the landing gear is on wrong, to poor model building skills,,,,,,and that the weapon "doesn't fit"

you know what?

Just forget I said anything

every couple of weeks, I forget myself,,,,and try to convince people online that striving for some level of accurate details, paint, markings, loadout or tail codes is something that scale modelers do

truth is,,,,,it is what Fine Scale model builders USED to do, and USED to strive for

now,,,,it is just "slap any paint on any shape, load any thing under the wings,,,,,with any random code and carrier name"

I only fight it because I refuse to spend $50 on the kit, $12 for weapons to hang on it, $20 per sheet for decals (I have already built all the "free" oob decal options),,,and then use 10x $4 or $5 bottles of paint on it,,,,,,,,and do it all without accuracy as a goal

added: there are 14 derogatory names for a modeler that tries to get things right,,,,,,,,we need a good, hateful name for the LasseeFairs that only live to drag the "accu freaks" down,,,,,,,fair is fair (if it is not fair for ME to say that,,,,,it was NOT fair to have to put up with it)

I am sure no one will "get" why that post ticks me off,,,,,,,but, here is the real, public quote of the rules that the entrants have to go by,,,,,,as of the 2011 NATS

"

II. CONTEST DEFINITIONS AND JUDGING

JUDGING. Models will be judged for skill in construction, finish, realism, scope of effort, and accuracy."

now, I am one of them thar barely liter rate Marine type Accountant types, that now lives heyah in da south,,,,,,but, I get from that that the order of consideration is

1 construction (da buildin' of da kit)

2 finish (dat be how de paint be squirted on the builded kit)

3 realism (dis is where it tells us that in order to win, it has to be pre and post shaded, scale effected, weathered, properly faded, and that it is okay if you don't start at the real color, or arrive at the real color),,,,,,even if you have 6 1000 pound bombs on each MER,,,,or can manage to get 8 bombs glued on somehow per MER

4 Scope of effort ,,,,,,,this is where it adds up in your favor if you take a year to build the Starfix T-38 into the finest looking NASA chase plane in 1/72, without using a single store bought decal

and then #5 Accuracy,,,,,,this one is cool,,,,,,,,this is where the Tank modeler that is judging Aircraft, kicks out a model before it gets judged by criteria number one, because it has the "wrong two greens" on the camo for SEA, or where the Aircraft guy throws out the Ship model, because it is Pink,,,,,,or the Car guy judging Tanks doesn't "believe in" a six barrel AFV or a WirbelWind,,,,,or an Aircraft guy eliminates a Mercury Cyclone because the name "Yarbrough" is soooo obviously spelled wrong (it would be correct)

in all of my made up examples,,,,,and many more Real ones that I know of,,,,,,,,#5 cuts models *From Consideration*  BEFORE the first seam is looked at,,,,,,,cut right out of the contest by an "expert"

maybe a judge that says that accuracy is not considered,,,,,,,when IPMS says it is to be #5

so, yeah,,,,,,,that is why I get ticked,,,,,,it is not the 15 *azi type names,,,,,,,,or the fact that there are no matching names for the other kind of builders,,,,,,,,it is the talking out one side, while whispering out the other side of the face crap

The old RMS curmudgeon used to have a contemptful name for those people, he called them "kit assemblers". Anyone can assemble a kit; in his view, the only "true" modelers were those that constructed their kit from styrene stock, plastic card and various bits from the odds & ends drawer in the kitchen.

If you're on your way to his neighborhood, give him a shout out. He's probably very lonely out there.

Basically, what you're expecting is that each and every judge must be a complete expert on each and every subject in the category he is judging. If not, how can you expect that judge to be able to adjudicate which kit is more accurate.

I've spent a lifetime on various US modern tanks spanning nearly 30 years and three basic types (M48, M60, M1) of main battle tanks. Even I would be hesitant to declare myself an expert on any one of those vehicles. If there were two, say M48A5 tanks in a category I was judging, one a US National Guard and the other a Turkish Army tank, I could judge how accurate the US tank was, but how would I know if the Turkish tank was more or less accurate? I know Turkey has their own organic upgrade programs and have received some upgrades from Israel. I could identify the differences from a US tank, but I'd be hard pressed to know if the additions were accurate or even real.

To those that strive for 100% total accuracy; more power to you. To those of you who think I'm doing it wrong because I'm not striving for 100% total accuracy; well, you know where you can go.

[Sarcastic mode: on]

Hey, all you weekend golfers out there; if you're not striving to qualify for the Masters, you're wrong. Put the clubs up and stop cluttering up the tee times.

Hey, all you kit assemblers out there; if you're not striving for 100% accuracy, you're wrong. Toss that kit in the trash and stop cluttering up the model contest with your inacccurate entries. Your inaccurate assembled pieces of plastic are blocking the judges' view of my 100% accurate masterpiece model and taking up valuable time onlookers could be spending oohhing and ahhing my build.

[Sarcastic mode: off]

see Rob,,,,,,,,that is exactly my point

you can sit there and tell an Accu-Nazi to enjoy his time out there by the RMS curmudgeon,,,,and then tell him to stuff it if he doesn't like your building style

but,,,,,if an Accu-Nazi gets tried of the insult,,,,,and bristles at the difference between the judge's list of criteria and the order of those criteria,,,and the IPMS official order of criteria,,,,,,he gets called out,,,,,so, yeah

what you missed in your skimming is that I am 100% in favor of the person building a Purple Tiger II with Magenta tracks,,,,,,,because it is supposed to be criteria step #5,,,,,,in your rush to call names,,,,you missed the "open minded" acceptance part that Accu-*** have to have to get along,,,,,,but, Purple Tiger builders don't have to have

First of all, I never called you a name. I referenced an old grumpy modeler that has long vanished from internet modeling posts. He had genuine contempt for anyone who assembled kits yet considered themselves modelers.

Secondly, you missed my point. How can anyone expect a group of 4-5 randomly assembled individuals who volunteer to judge a category to be experts regarding accuracy of the kits in that category? Realistically, you can't. You can't even predict with any degree of certainty what kits will be entered in any given category other than the category's general subject/scale definition.

Even the modeler who strives for accuracy will have his own limitations. I know plenty of German WW2 armor experten who know a couple of vehicles in that genre well enough to call themselves experts on. Yet if they are judging, they bring with them a general knowledge of other things beyond their area of expertise. But to ask them to apply accuracy to a model kit of a subject they can identify but are otherwise unfamiliar with is an injustice to the judge and contestants.

We owe a lot to the modelers who strive fore accuracy. It is their thorough research and demand for accuracy that gives us the high quality uber kits we have on the shelves today.

my point was the same thing I have been saying on FSM since I joined here,,,,,and what I have said before there even was an FSM forum

those "weird" colored models I listed,,,,,should all have a shot at an IPMS contest,,,,even if they were complete fantasy

if the seams of the Pink destroyer were better than mine on my Dazzled DE,,,,mine should get pushed aside, and the Pink one get to the next stage

the Lee Roy Yarbrough car should advance to the next step over the Cale Yarborough car, if the engine is straight under the hood, and the rear end of the Cale car is canted

the spark plug wires being installed in the correct firing order (to break a tie) should come up at step number 5 of the judging,,,,,,per the IPMS rules posted on their site for the Omaha meet http://www.ipmsusa.org/NCC/Rules_2011.htm

I am the guy that constantly says I enjoyed the Whiff Maroon Corsairs on that Nats table a few years ago,,,,,,but, I also finally have enough references, quality kits, detail parts, and decals to build the way I wanted to when I was 12,,,,,so, in addition to me making room for the Maroon Corsairs,,,,I would like room for the Aircraft Gray USAF Phantoms (including the one that tested Genie and nuke Bullpups),,,,,without me calling the Corsair builder a Kit Assembler, or him calling me a Detail Freak,,,,,,,,sort of the way I talked to Ms Owl about her model earlier in this very thread,,,,,or the sign off I use on my Blog

Bronto

Hans von Hammer:

 

 

 

Both Phantom's have the same AM resin/PE cockpit detail sets and are identical in construction, with no visible differences. Same four sticks, same mirrors, same four seats, four ejection handles, throttles, flaps, hoses, wires, etc... Both modelers have the same number of years of experience, same references were used, and  

One of them IS more accurate than the other, however... And the difference is NOT the RBF flags...

Anyone?

 

 

 

 

The USAF one would be more accurate if the cockpit had 4 control sticks in them.  Navy variants of the F-4 did not have "sticks" in the RIO's cockpits.

Bingo...

only for RF-4s though, Hans,,,,if they were fighter aircraft, they had more differences that the control sticks,,,,,,,,RF-4 are the only airframes that look the same between both services

ahhh,,,,,,,one very small group of exceptions,,,,,the Gray over White F-4B that the AF borrowed from the USN and then later returned to the USN,,,,,,but, then,,,,the stick deal doesn't apply