Whoa JIm, really?  I hope you have a better day tomorrow.

regards,

Jack

I'm mostly a sci-fi modeler, so the "accuracy" concern is pretty much limited to how much I want something to resemble the on-screen or in-studio appearance of something.  Because of that, I tend to leave out PE or resin AM stuff in most cases, since I'm currently of the mindset that I can get something "good enough" straight from the box.

There are exceptions, though.  With the new Battlestar Galactica, I'm not satisfied with what I'd expect the decal nameplate and some of the other details in the box to cover, so I plan on getting the PE sets to get it to where I want it.

I'll achieve my degree of accuracy with either AM or scratchbuilding. My biggest issue in modeling is time, or the lack of it. I've scratchbuilt hundreds of turnbuckles for my projects and they look every bit as nice as the AM ones I sometimes use, but that's a ton of bench time, and when life limits you to about 6hrs of bench time per week, I don't see it as time well spent.

I build armor and usually the only AM I use for upgrading is PE grills and Indy tracks, because they look more realistic and I can't scratch them. I also buy resin zimmerit, because it saves time, mess and is highly accurate.

I forgot to throw that in my origonal post about time saving. As a car modeler there are many different body styles of one car for example the Ferrari 360. There is the 360 Modena, Spyder, GT1, and Challenge Stradale. Now the difference between a stock 360 and a CS is minimal, mostly front and rear bumpers, mirrors, and a few other assorted details inside and out. I could spend tons of time carving, filling with Bondo, and sanding the kit bumper in to shape or I can just get a trans-kit for the CS which includes all of the proper body modifications that can simply be tacked on with CA glue with about 15-20min of fitting work.

To impress people...

And you do a good job at that, Manny.

As for me, I settle for having something done that I'm not embarrassed to have my name next to it.

haha, Manny, you just gave me the "tone" for the next Phinished Phantom

this is best read to yourself as the voice of Bill Cosby doing a parody of Julia Childs on her cooking class

"What we have heyuh is the Hasegawa Phantom with the following upgrade parts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

long list of name dropping everything I have in the stash for a Phantom in 1/72 goes after the word "parts"

edit to add,,,,,,,here is how that name dropping can work, lol

there is a guy selling New Old Stock Aero Master enamel and acrylic paints, about once or sometimes twice a week, the link is given on a popular aircraft site, followed by the usual "ooooo, Aeromaster paints make me wiggle like a happy puppy when you give him a Milkbone", etc, etc, ad nauseum

well, I was in the market for some cheaper Acrylics to fill out the paint rack,,,,so, what could be better than "whoop dee dooooo" matches for FS paints, properly Scale Effected and all?

so, I sent off my $27 for 27 bottles,,,,,,,,I got 6 bottles of Acrylic Paint that is actually useful, because they all display results similar to this,,,,,,keep in mind that I stir, my arm gets tired, then I stir again, then put two coats on each color chip (so, it is not a settled paint thing)

http://www.colorserver.net/showcolor.asp?fs=36473 is the color I wanted for my Air Force Phantoms

http://www.colorserver.net/showcolor.asp?fs=34518 is the color the chips really are, after discarding the first two chips and re-stirring multiple times for each attempt

http://www.colorserver.net/showcolor.asp?fs=34518%2C+16473 is the two colors together

yeah,,,,,,I will be sure and Name Drop in a Snobby voice when I use my 6 good bottles out of 27 bottles purchased,,,,,lol at me

Rex

There are a lot of good reasons. The main one is ,rails for instance. A 1/350 or 1/700 model ship (or any in between ) doesn,t look right without them and molded on rails look like walls. nuff said   TANKER-builder

Ahh, I love this topic...

Frankly, I don't buy any AM parts unless there's ust no other way out.. Think the last one was a Squadron canopy for an Otaki KI-61 Tony, because the kit was an "Ebay kit" i got for four bucks or so, and the canopy was missing.... Still, I had to cut it apart to "open" it, so it wasn't "Straight Out of Box" (SOB)... If I can't scratch-build it, adjust it, modify it, sprue it, etc., I don't need it... The kit-tracks are the wrong type for that tank? So what?? That's what sheet-rock mud and tempera paint is for.. "Gizmology" and "Imagineering" trumps AM...  (See the Glossary for the definitions, BTW)

That said:

What is "After-market" exactly?  Since I DO buy sheet and strip styrene to make detail parts, stretch Q-tips for blast-tubes and gun barrels, use solder, wire (piano and electrical), and rip toys, electronics, and other things I find,  apart for the LEDs, capacitors, transistors, resistors, tires, seats, and other interesting "greeblies" that I can use, am I buying AM parts or just scratch-building materials?

Decals don't count as "after-market", in my book..  If I want to build 12 1/48th scale Monogram P-51s, I don't wanna have twelve copies of "Detroit Miss" lol..

Frankly speaking, I don't begrudge anyone using a bunch of AM parts to super-detail a kit, but  when that model winds up at a contest, and the judges swoon over the fiddly-bits, then I get irritated...  

When a person builds a model for competition, there's a judging-criteria called "Scope of Effort" that's all too often over-looked these days... Asa judge, I feel it MUST be met, and the only way to effectively judge it is how much work was involved, not how much expense, or even accuracy was involved.. I'll score a scratch-built cockpit for a Monogram Zeke or turret-details made from brass tubes and wires higher than a resin detail set or cockpit... Even if the resin is more "accurate".. (Accuracy isn't a criteria, BTW... No judge is walking around with the pilot's handbook for a TBM or the Dash 10 for an M60A2 and checking on it..)

It used to be said at shows, "Wow.. He musta spent a lot of time on that model!"... Nowadays, it's more often, "Wow.. He musta spent a lot of MONEY on that model!"...

I don't care if the guy that scratched the details in the 1/48th Lindberg PT-17 cockpits didn't even use a photo to refer to, but just put in two scratch-built sets of what he thought needed to be in there... As long as he made the parts himself, and he did a good job, he gets the points, all other criteria being met as well... (That's gotten me in more than one arguement with a few other judges, but I'm usually bigger than they are...)

With the plethora of AM parts out there these days, the hard part is indeed, passing on them.. But Gizmology is a dying art, and one I intend to keep on life-support as long as I can, lol..  I'll take a 1966 HAWK, Revell, or Monogram kit over anything that's been released in the last twenty years... 

Hans, how would you score "Scope of Effort" on a resin cockpit that took 3 months to research and paint versus a gizmologist cockpit that took 2 weeks to create and finish?   Not counting the resin set itself, nor the accuracy of the gizmologist's effort- just the finished appearance?

BTW, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious.

No sweat, Dre..  I understand..

Personally, I've never judged anything but dioramas..  And that's the toughest category to work, since EVERYTHING on the diorama, including the base, is judged... But "Scope of Effort" itself has been dropped from IPMS's Judging Criteria..

That said; Were I judging say, the  "1/48th WW2- Luftwaffe" category, I'd score a well done scratch-built 'pit higher simply because it was scratch-built, all other things being equal.. "Research time" isn't counted, since there's no way to tell that by looking at the model...  Also, you have to know if the cockpit has details that were included in the kit, like seat-harness hardware and straps, or if it was AM...  

I'd have to look closely to see if the hardware in the scratch-built 'pit was also scratched, or "store-bought"... But then too, I've used harness hardware from one kit in another kit's cockpit several times.. The ProModeler B-17G and B-24D kits supplied PE hardware for more than a few fighters for me, but that's "kit-bashing" (sorta).  Robbing one kit of parts for another falls into the "Gizmology" department..

I build most harnesses from flattened solder and wire though... I built a jig that allows me to turn out buckles from wire pretty rapidly...  However, I digress..

There's also a tendency among judges to score "Contest-quality" kits higher... For instance, a Tamiya FW190 will score higher than a Monogram FW190... This is a practice by a few judges that I disagree with whole-heartedly... The kit manufacturer should have NO bearing on the outcome, but it often does... If you want to compete anymore, you gotta shell out the bucks to bring your 12.00 kit into the running...  Or... Put in a lot of effort scratch-building.. Judges look at wheel-wells, look for push-rods and ignition harnesses, check flap-actuators, etc..  But that's another thread..

To answer the question though, without your references being accessible during judging, it doesn't matter.. "Accuracy" in and of itself isn't scored... Only basic construction, details, and painting and finishing..

Bottom line though is that a scratch-built cockpit will score higher in "basic construction"  than a "drop-in" AM cockpit for "Scope of Effort" simply because building the cockpit requires more modeling effort.. So unless the scratch-built cockpit is poorly finished (ie; glue marks, paint streaks, sloppy cuts, dust, etc), it's pretty much going to favor the Gizmologist... 

Here's the IPMS Detail criteria for judging aircraft:

Details

 

1.      Thick parts, like the trailing edges of wings and tails, bombs and missile fins, etc., should  be thinned down to scale or replaced.

2.      Wheel wells should be built if no kit detail is given. There should be no “holes” through which the interior of the wings is visible, unless the real plane was built that way.

3.      Intakes should be blocked off if they allow you to see into the empty, un-detailed fuselage.

4.      The openings on guns, exhaust stacks, intakes, vents, etc. should be drilled out if possible.

5.      Details added to the model should be in scale with the rest of the model.

6.      External stores should undergo the same care in construction as the basic kit. Care and research should be applied to make sure the combination of weapons and tanks is consistent with reality.

7.      Any aftermarket parts should integrate well with the basic model. Photo-etched parts that require shaping should be precisely shaped and any surfaces that need to be built up to a thicker cross-section should be smooth and uniform.

Items 2 and 7 is where "Scope of Effort" falls in in my book..  

Did I help you at all?

BTW, this Version of IPMS Criteria is what I use to judge dioramas..

DIORAMAS

 

Judges look for four elements: basic construction (criteria are the same as in the regular categories for each specific subject), story line, presentation and ground work.

 

Story Line:

      The modeler should start with a simple story idea that will be told through the use of scale models. The story may be a duplication of a photograph, or it could be part of history or its chief aim may be humor. Whatever is chosen should be historically correct and make visual sense. Story line is worth about half of the score in the diorama category.

 

Presentation:

       An intangible quality which may be described as making the scene look candid. Examples are: situating the entire scene on an angle to the base, rather then making it square with the sides; posing automobiles with the front tires turned slightly or buildings with windows that are half open. In the event of a tie, the diorama with the better presentation will be chosen as the winner.

 

Ground Work:

        This covers terrain, buildings, roads, etc. The construction elements (vehicles, figures, etc) should set well together. The terrain should blend with these elements in terms of weathering and camouflage.

The above is only a guideline though..

Accuracy is a judging criteria,,,,,,,the actual word is used as an item down near the end of the list of judging criteria,,,,,,,and accuracy crops up in places such as item #6 above

it also pops up when the Orange Battleship is "auto-cut" from the judging,,,,,,or the Fluorescent Green WWII Corsair

in theory, if accuracy truly didn't matter,,,,,,,both of those models could be assembled as something that could win their category and then "best of show"

but, they get "auto-cut" before they get close ("subjective accuracy"?)

things like having a NF tail coded A-4F Skyhawk on the Independence with thermally protected bombs in 1961,,,,,,those won't get judged as inaccurate, but, show up with an absolutely perfect USMC touch up splotched Phantom during the years that the Non Specular paints were being changed to Gloss,,,,,,and an IPMS judge will cross his arms and declare that "only the gloss should be different, not the actual colors",,,,because all the judges KNOW that the "colors didn't change, only the sheen did",,,,,,which is not correct, but, it is what is KNOWN as FACT today, lol (thanks to an error made in an IPMS pub in about 1989)

until people start to model using actual historical fact in all aspects,,,,,,,it is better that accuracy NOT be a main criteria for judging,,,,,,,,,*I* build with accuracy in mind,,,,,but,,,,,,I don't want people judging my models that don't know all the facts they would need to actually give a score to one of them

as long as that is the case, the current way is better, even if a clinker gets through once in a while

I'd have to put separate decal purchases to be considered as after market.   Reason is that with plain decal sheets, you can now make your own, plus there are those builders who actually cut their own masks and paint their own markings, which is a skill all on it's own.

Raw materials like brass tubes/rods, plastic and brass sheets, this would be more defined as modeling supplies, since you still have to do prep work on them (measure, cut, shape, etc.)

regards,

Jack

Hans, I too am a bit curious about this 'scope of effort' concept. If I'm mistaken, please tell me, but the impression I'm getting here is that it leans more towards judging the modeler than the actual model.

Well, Rudd.. You're always judging the modeler as well as the finished model itself, since basic modeling skills are a criteria that has to met.. Dust, glue-smears, brush-marks, overspray, seams, etc.. All that falls on the modelers..  

Tarn, I disagree about that, and I'll tell you why.. I've been in several heated arguements with judges that actually think they know more about a certain aircraft or AFV than the modeler did, even though the modeler was a veteran who actually crewed, flew, or worked the subject, and therefore knows more about what is right or wrong on his build.. And this part of your post is why I get rather disgusted with judges who's only experience with anything military is a Recruiter's office and  flunking the ASVAB when they were 18...

and an IPMS judge will cross his arms and declare that "only the gloss should be different, not the actual colors",,,,because all the judges KNOW that the "colors didn't change, only the sheen did",,,,,

But that's why the modeler needs to have documentation accompanying his build.. Item 2 covers it.. If there's a flourescent green Corsair on the table, there better be a real photo of the prototype, yes.. And judges who make the argument about color-changes should be banished...

 All one needs is a copy of the picture of the P-51B, "Iowa Beaut" to kill that arguement... Yes, the sheen changed over the area of the wings and fuselage where the invasion stripes were, but so did the color, since the original USAAF Olive Drab was in short supply, so RAF colors were used to repaint those areas.....

Painting and Finishing

1.      All glue marks should be removed.

2.      Judges “shouldn’t” nit-pick colors, but any model with an especially unusual color scheme should be accompanied by documentation.

3.      Frames on clear parts should be painted with crisp, straight lines.

4.      Paint should be even and smooth, unless there is prototypical evidence to the contrary. There should be no brush marks, no “orange peel” or “egg shell” effect to the paint. No fingerprints, dust or fibers should be embedded in the paint.

5.      Paint edges that are supposed to be sharp should be sharp.

6.      Weathering should show concern for scale, the terrain and weather condition in which the prototype operated and should be consistent across the entire model.

7.      Decals should be aligned properly, unless the modeler has documentary evidence to the contrary. Decal film should not be readily apparent and there should be no silvering or bubbling of the decals.

Item 2 is also where the most friction between me and other judges happens, lol..   But "accuracy", in and of itself, isn't judged, or at least it's not supposed to be.. What I mean by that is that one shouldn't get overly concerned about the correct tread-pattern on a Bf109G or some other such Rivet-Counter concern..  Sadly, they do, and that's what gets me in trouble at the judge's meetings., lol...

But the way things have been going, the trend,  over the last ten years or so is that without using a hundred bucks-worth of PE and resin AM parts on a Seventy-dollar kit, you haven't got a chance in hell of winning anything..  

Unless I happen to be judging your category that day... You might just do pretty well with the Twelve-dollar HAWK kit and a scratch-built cockpit...

I have always gone along with the idea that some might think that a Modeler is being judged instead of a Model

Since the criteria is the construction of a box of parts, and how well it is done,,,,,,,,,,,one has to conclude that the Modeler is the one competing with other Modelers,,,,,,that was how it was designed from the start

any modern attempts to somehow separate finished Models entered into the competition, from the Modelers that assembled them,,,,,,,,,is not exactly in the spirit of "I won the 2007 IPMS Best Aircraft" award (made up example),,,,,,,,,by that logic, no Modeler has won (or accomplished) anything,,,,,,,,,,,the magic parts in the box did it all

There has never been any confusion among the contestants,,,,,,,,they all knew all along that if Hans was given a Model to build, and Tarn was given the same Model to build, and they are on the same table on the same day,,,,,,,Hans and Tarn are competing, not Aurora 1/48 Sherman Model #13,589 and Aurora 1/48 Sherman Model # 7,549 (the Model # is which molding it was in the 15,000 kit production run)

I buy and use a lot of resin, and I buy and use a lot of Decal Sheets,,,,,,,I can make my own parts, and I can either print my own decal bits, or mask and paint what markings I need on the model,,,,,,,,but, I agree with Hans on the one big point

People should "Build Models", then compete in a category,,,,,,very simple concept,,,,,,,,,People should not take home trophies based on how many pounds of resin has replaced how many ounces of plastic on a kit,,,,,,,,,,,,and if someone has made a complete, believable cockpit from dental floss and used ink pen refills,,,,,,it should count more than when *I* "rip open the blister pack and glue in and paint" my newest resin replacement set,,,,,,,,,"getting the colors painted right" shouldn't count,,,,,,both sides of my example would have to do that

on the other hand,,,,,,a modeler shouldn't get "dinged" on his model just because he used some resin parts from a blister pack,,,,,he should only be judged on whether he was able to glue resin drop tanks on the pylons at the correct angle (if different than parallel, attach a Zerox of the proof)

ahh, sorry,,,,,,,forgot one thing

Hans,,,,,,the "sheen or color change" thing CAN'T be "attached as docs" at a show

it takes the Appendices from the 4 Elliot USN books, the 1969 FS Booklet, the 1984 FS Booklet, and the Dave Klaus IPMS guide as reference to even start to show that NS Light Gull Gray was NOT the same color in 1972 as Gloss Light Gull Gray,,,,,,,,they were the same color as of 1984, though,,,,,,,,,but, I didn't see too many aircraft between 1975 and 1979 that were painted in Post 1984 colors

as long as the judges keep reading and believing that 1969 and 1984 color rules are/were the same,,,,,,,,,we don't want them judging based on "accurate colors",,,,,,,,,,strangely, they have no problem understanding that German aircraft in 1942 had different colors to choose from than German aircraft in 1978

to me that makes USN color choices for 1970 versus 1986 a whole lot easier, since it is completely and fully documented for that time period

I kinda get what you're trying to say, Hans...  I'm not too sure that I agree with it though.

But it would be fun to hash out around a contest table where we could see examples of each.

Well, I agree that it would be fun...  But sadly, most judges won't take the time to tell the modelers why they "lost".. I do, to the best of my ability anyway, try to find the modeler and talk to him or her about their work, and why it didn't score high enough to win or place..

It's a critique sorta, but it's always as constructive as I can make it...  Anyone can criticize, but constructive critcism is an art... You want to make the modeler feel good about his project, but add that this reason or that reason is why things went the way they did.. But, one also has also give advice or tips on HOW they can "fix" it...   Then the modeler is suposed to take that info and go home with it, and then start on the next project, keeping what info he or she got in mind.. Kind of a "Lessons Learned" thing...

However, not everyone takes it well..  And some will just tell ya to go to hell, lol...   Overall though, I think folks that compete will actually be eager to learn a few tips & tricks.. 

Give y'all an example.. "Cropping" models on a diorama, or having "overhang"... Cropping is perfectly OK to do to structures and landscape, but NEVER on a model..  Looks fine in a photo, like two pilots at the front of a B-24, becasue we see enough of it to recognize what it is.. But dioramas are "3-D" photos...  When you put a cropped B-24 nose on a diorama, you just make it look like a chopped-off model and it looks ridiculous..

Same thing with "Overhang".. If you have a tank diorama and the gun-tube is hanging over the base's landscaped edging (and I see that all the time), that's a "down-check".. Next time, use a larger base.. Applies to aircraft wing-tips, too.. Use a bigger base next build, chum..... 

Hans,,,,,,the "sheen or color change" thing CAN'T be "attached as docs" at a show

it takes the Appendices from the 4 Elliot USN books, the 1969 FS Booklet, the 1984 FS Booklet, and the Dave Klaus IPMS guide as reference to even start to show that NS Light Gull Gray was NOT the same color in 1972 as Gloss Light Gull Gray,,,,,,,,they were the same color as of 1984, though,,,,,,,,,but, I didn't see too many aircraft between 1975 and 1979 that were painted in Post 1984 colors

Heh.. I know, lol..

Try an A-20 or P-38 based in Africa after "Operation Torch" in 1942... The pre-war USAAF OD still used back then would color-shift to almost purple in color from the desert sun (same goes for the South Pacific Theater)... But replicate that effect on a model at a show, and the judges will vapor-lock, lol.. Unless you have a color-photo of it accompanying it.. Same goes for the " Synthetic Haze" on an F-5 (That's a photo-recon P-38 Lightning variant for you Jet-guys, not the F-5 Tiger II) in 1943...

I know I,ve answered this once,but with ALL the answers out there I have to pipe in again.I ,as a shipbuilder use lots of P.E. type after-market stuff.The answer is as I,ve stated.The rails look better(I have a U.S.S. SULLIVANS I built as a young-un many years back.) .

  The old ship is nice for my skill level then even with the SILVER painted walls(oops,rails).Now here we are 58 years later and many company,s iterations of the same ship. The P.E. rails,stokes litters,and depth charge gear etc.really make her stand out.WHY ? Well,now she looks like a MODEL of the ship and not a toy shaped like the ship.

  The inclined ladders alone effect a tremendous change and the way the model is seen.Add to that the quintessential (realness factor) that eventually creeps in. DOOGS is one of the folks I can allude to here.I am familiar with his work and I will say,his cockpits certainly look like shrunken down versions of the real thing.

 This is what we all strive for , I believe.getting it to resemble the "real"thing in it,s own right.You,ve all heard about the fellow that puts stuff in there that no one else will see.I am kinda like that.I detail wheel-houses and stuff cause I know it,s there.Same for putting cranks,cams and stuff in a model car engine

 I know it,s there.I believe in using after-market brass-gun barrels and stuff,and resin(for modifying to another ship ,stuff like that).The un-initiated may not realize what they see,but I do.I want to present the work as accurate as I can. As to snobbery,well,I,ve run across that in the real car world from those who chose to belittle my STUDEBAKERS as not CLASSICS.So be it.You can,t please everyone and I for one in models,wouldn,t even try

 I build for profit and my clients can be a real test of my patience.WHY? Well, sometimes they either don,t want to pay for museum grade or they just don,t want that much work put into it , or they just can,t afford that level of work.Those are sleepless nights, till I calm down and realize ,not everyone builds to reality.those who do are to be applauded.Those who don,t are to be applauded too.WHY ? well,they built a pretty nice OOB model,now didn,t they ?Besides, it,s a hobby isn,t it? Gunsmithing is too,I can,t build a firearm to the level of the man that did my special pieces,and wouldn,t even try.That,s where it all stops. We should enjoy ALL we do as modelers and if someone is a detail snob,so be it. that his opinion , right?

 I could go on ,but ,you all get the idea so with that I have to go put bilge keels on another 1/96 scale client model of the U.S.S. KIDD .     TANKER-builder