Overdone Panel Lines

After reading the all the debate it seems that two schools of thought emerge. 

Those who maintain real aircrafts (BTW, I happen to think that scale aircrafts are also real in sense that I have to pay for the kit vs. if I dreamed one up while sleeping, although somebody might argue that a "dream" aircraft has a "dream" reality as long as you are dreaming) find it sacreligious should someone darken a panel, and the "OCD Panel Rivet Counter" school. They must  make every panel a different shade of grey or the model is not up to standard.   As for me, I feel an inspiration mixed with envy in the case of the FSM front cover model, I can only fantasize my ESCI AC-130 came out looking like that when I build it one day.

Oh, and the third school says that if the picture of your model does not match the picture you were working off, then failed you have.  For perfection strive you must-- a true modeler difference cannot tell  between pictures, M-m.   

I was amazed by the detail that was put on that spectre gunship.  Mw wife was a crew chief on trash haulers and I have been close to many 130s in my time, including #572. The last time I was around her, she had gone from black overall to a grey similar to euro 1.  I can say for a fact that you can't see the panel lines until you're right on top of them or the area has some extra re-inforcement added.  I have a feeling that this color is supposed to be close to the standard grey that is in use today.  The article didn't say.  If it is, maybe they do show their panel lines better.  I can't say because I haven't seen a gunship in along time.  This one looks like it's shaking off a heavy rain storm and is in the process of drying.  As I've said, I loved the amount of detail and work that went into this project, but I think the panel lines are too pronounced, according to my experience.  

After reading through this, I feel compelled to respond.

As with Berny, I too am recalling my days working on F-4s.

And of all things, I PAINTED them!

And the one thing that I haven't seen mentioned here, is the fact that so many of these birds get painted quit often, (in my case,we were 12AF HQ, so they looked good!) and with that, the rivits and nonremoveable panel lines virtually disappear under all that paint thickness.

While preping an RF-4C for paint, I was feathering out what was paint blisters and chips on the lower aft engine door, along the piano hinge area, just behind the trailing edge of  the wing, and noticed that with the feathering process, I counted over 20 coats of paint.

That's,paint,primer,paint,primer etc.... So with that I would say that most panel lines are not seen by the naked eye.

Build quality on everyones birds here, truely show a high level of skill and detail, but like what was mentioned earlier, if the bird you're building, is weathered as it is seen in a photo of the real thing, then you've got it. If your's looks like it has black stripes on it compared to the photo of the real thing, then you've overdone it, and therefore, looks out of place.

And using the excuss that it's "artistic license", then the builds should not be considered scale models, but rather "artist conception of what never was".

I get the feeling, most here are trying to build a little piece of history, and if things continue to get exaggerated beyond reality, will future modelers look back at this, and not really know how these birds were represented in reality, and assume that the heavily defined panel lines were "correct"?

 

By the way, I have the HIGHEST respect for ALL the great builds done here, by you all.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on this interesting subject, because a friend of mine has highlighted the panel lines on some of his builds, and they do bring a certain amount of interest to the subject. It just must be used VERY carefully, as to not OVER do it.

 

Leon.

shaun68 wrote:

I think the general thread we're discussing here concerns older aircraft, yeah? Certainly a modern jet capable of Mach 2 wouldn't need to have panel lines highlighted. If you scaled up some lines I've seen from 1/48 or even 1/32, the pilot would be punching out becuase his plane would just simply fall apart. I

I think the same holds true for new as well as older aircraft.  The paint has to be *very* weathered before the panel lines show at any distance.

I do think panel line shading looks nice from an artistic point of view.  I don't think it looks accurate whether you're talking about an F/A-18 or a B-17.  Even the old bombers covered with warty rivets didn't show much in the way of panel lines 20 or 30 feet from the airplane. 

Last time I was around a B-17, I observed how close I had to be to see the rivets.  It was difficult ro tell if they were raised or flush at 20 feet.  The fact there were any rivets at all disappeared about 30 feet away.  All but the outlines of the doors were invisible at 30 feet too.  In 1/48 scale, that's less than a foot.

I have seen the cover of the FSM people are talking about, though I haven't seen the detailed pictures of the C-130 in question.  There are quite a few modelers who I will never match in skill.  I am in awe of the super detail they put into their kits.  I assume that those who super detail their kits are trying to make the most accurate representation of the original possible.  They fail when they over do the panel lines.  Which I think is what the critics of this practice are trying to do.

If people want to continue the practice, it's their model and they can do what they want.  I think we are just pointing out that it isn't accurate unless they are modeling a derelict abandoned in the desert.  Which would actually make an interesting scene.  I think Shepard Paine did that with Monogram's B-25 in the diorama insert in the old B-25H kit.

Bill

usaf ssgt wrote:

After reading through this, I feel compelled to respond. As with Berny, I too am recalling my days working on F-4s. And of all things, I PAINTED them! And the one thing that I haven't seen mentioned here, is the fact that so many of these birds get painted quit often, (in my case,we were 12AF HQ, so they looked good!) and with that, the rivits and nonremoveable panel lines virtually disappear under all that paint thickness. While preping an RF-4C for paint, I was feathering out what was paint blisters and chips on the lower aft engine door, along the piano hinge area, just behind the trailing edge of  the wing, and noticed that with the feathering process, I counted over 20 coats of paint.   Leon.

When I was at George AFB, we sent the Wing King's jet to Hill AFB for depot.  The first thing they do is a weight and ballance on all arriving aircraft.  We got a nasty gram from depot because the jet had so many paint jobs, it was over weight.  When we got the jet back from depot it had a very beautiful Euro II paint job on it.  As luck would have it, the next jet to roll out of depot had the Hill Gray paint job.  The Wing King wasn't happy.  He ordered that his jet go through the paint barn and get painted with the new Hill Gray paint scheme.  

berny13 wrote:

usaf ssgt wrote: After reading through this, I feel compelled to respond. As with Berny, I too am recalling my days working on F-4s. And of all things, I PAINTED them! And the one thing that I haven't seen mentioned here, is the fact that so many of these birds get painted quit often, (in my case,we were 12AF HQ, so they looked good!) and with that, the rivits and nonremoveable panel lines virtually disappear under all that paint thickness. While preping an RF-4C for paint, I was feathering out what was paint blisters and chips on the lower aft engine door, along the piano hinge area, just behind the trailing edge of  the wing, and noticed that with the feathering process, I counted over 20 coats of paint.   Leon. When I was at George AFB, we sent the Wing King's jet to Hill AFB for depot.  The first thing they do is a weight and ballance on all arriving aircraft.  We got a nasty gram from depot because the jet had so many paint jobs, it was over weight.  When we got the jet back from depot it had a very beautiful Euro II paint job on it.  As luck would have it, the next jet to roll out of depot had the Hill Gray paint job.  The Wing King wasn't happy.  He ordered that his jet go through the paint barn and get painted with the new Hill Gray paint scheme.

 

That sounds SO familier.

We would paint our Phantoms with laquer.If you had ever sprayed it, you would know that it blends quit nicely to the surrounding areas.

But when the birds came back from Hill, they were repainted with a urethane paint system, which, if you'd ever see one, you would notice darker dry edges seperating the camo lines (this was with the Euro1 scheme).

Well with us using laquer, you just couldn't paint over it, like painting over laquer, without the correct prep, so with in a very short time from returning from Hill with there $20- $30,000 paint job, we were sanding them down, and completely repainting them in laquer. This was required, as we were always doing touch-up on the birds. We were basically doing depot level paint jobs on two complete Phantoms a week, and 5-10 touch-ups that same week, which would sometimes result in some of the touch-ups seeing over half of the airframe being repainted. We either did this out on the flight line, or in other maintainance hangers.

I could keep going with these paint stories, but I think I've ran completely off topic here.

 

Leon.

Human perception is interesting.<br><br>

As a retired microscopist, I am always keenly aware of the differences in percieved scale: When I think about something that I have examined with unaided eyes, then at low powers of magnification, and finally at 600X to 800X, my mind remembers all the detail down to that level of magnification—the mental picture has far more detail than the unaided eye can see. To some extent, all humans do this. When you see your spouse, or child, or anyone close to you, at a distance of fifty feet, you cannot see the color of their eyes—but your mind does.<br><br>

When you look at a scale model, at what distance do you "think" you are viewing the aircraft? Are you viewing the "real" aircraft at a distance of a foot or so, or at the scale distance? For many of us, the answer to both questions is "yes."<br><br>

So which is right: overdone (but to many, gratifying) detail that could not be seen at the scale distance, or the lack of detail that fits the scale distance? To a large extent, this is a matter of taste, of which there no disputing is. (De gustibus non est disputandem!)<br><br>

But there is a consideration for the intent of the modeler. If what you are building is intended to be viewed as a 3D photograph of reality, then too much detail will detract from it. On the other hand, if what you are building is intended to be a representation of a mental picture, then the more detail, the better.

I'm not a fan of emphasizing panel lines on models and never have been.  It just doesn't look right in my opinion. However, those who do it have that right also - it's their model and they can persue this hobby in any way they wish.  The only thing that irritates me is a lot of the folks who "grundge" their model in what I considor an unrealistic manor and claim "artistic license" will castigate me unmercifly if I would use Zinc Chromate paint in a model's cockpit when they believe it should be Bronze Green to be accurate.  Can I claim "artistic license"?

In the words of qmiester...

...I would use Zinc Chromate paint in a model's cockpit when they believe it should be Bronze Green to be accurate.

Hey that used to be me!

Quincy said: "The only thing that irritates me is a lot of the folks who "grundge" their model in what I considor an unrealistic manor and claim "artistic license" will castigate me unmercifly if I would use Zinc Chromate paint in a model's cockpit when they believe it should be Bronze Green to be accurate.  Can I claim "artistic license"?"

I once worked in the coatings industry, for part of the time as a quality control wonk:

Not only can you claim artistic license, you can counterclaim probable accuracy in most cases, or lack of accuracy—let me explain.

In a front line unit, if something needed to be painted, it got painted—with the closest thing to specifications at hand. This is from a man who was chief maintenance officer for his squadron in England and the Phillipines during and after WWII.

Furthermore, the color of zinc chromate, or bronze green, or specular sea blue, or most of the other colors used, ESPECIALLY during WWII and Korea, varied rather surprisingly from batch to batch. This was due to production deadlines, variation in raw materials (particularly pigments), age, and how well the drum got stirred before the paint was applied. So their bronze green is just as far off as your zinc chromate—in fact, your zinc chromate might be more accurate, even if out of spec!

Then there is the question how old the paint job is. Most paints fade with age, but a few darken, and many change color rather dramatically and strangely. Add to that the variation in exposure, and the only time an aircraft is wearing the specified colors is for a few hours after the paint has fully cured…

Then, there's the bugaboo of "scale color." While some may believe this can be approximated, I'm highly skeptical for quite a few reasons, among them: pigment cannot be ground fine enough to be in scale; resin polymers cannot be shrunk to scale; film thickness cannot be shrunk to scale; and if you shrink the wavelength and frequency of the light used to view the model… No doubt you get my drift.

Finally, we come back to human perception. What looks like the right shade to one person may well look a little off to the next. Professional paint shaders, using precisely controlled illumination, are largely being replaced by computers—but even the computers don't always get it right, and (in the better producers, at least) require a human to give final color approval.

Next time a munchkin castigates you, hit them between the eyes with the above, and leave them a smoldering ruin in your exhaust…

I have seen a couple B-52Ds with a combination of yellow and green chromate on the inside of the gear doors.  By that I mean one door would be yellow while another would be greeen, not two colors on one door.

Hi Darth Homer

Sorry old boy but I din't say I was an expert!!!!!! I just gave my opinion on the subject......You apparently don't like somebody elses opinion?....

I  respect everyone's opinion even if I don't agree with everyting said.. 

PS: Conserning the C-130 in the FSM cover....In my 51 years of Modelling and flying for 8,  I have never seen a picture of a USAF aircraft in such bad shape in peace time...

The AC-130 that flew for 26 nights (more or less) over Panama City before and during the Invasion, and destroyed many installations, includding private property, and armored cars never looked like that.

........During WW2, Corea and Vietnam planes looked simetimes worst but in war there are prorities to keeping the paint neat. I have seen planes in junk yards that look like that, but they (sadly to say) were placed there to die. So if the model portrays one that has been sitting in one of these aircraft cemeteries for quite a while it should have been said in the article.

Bottom line is, we can model them anyway we like, we can paint them pink and purple if we want.  But if you're trying to make it look like the real thing, and especially when you put in all the aftermarket goodies, scratchbuild, kitbash etc. to make it look as close as possible to the real thing, why on earth would you over emphasize the panel lines to such an unrealistic degree that looks like a gray Excel Spreadsheet? 

It's totally your perogative to do so, after all it's your kit.  But don't expect everyone to love it.  Clearly, many of the kits we've seen presented with the overdone panel lines are still amazing creations.  So many of you have more modeling talent than I'll ever have, and your work and photos inspire me to do better and try new things.  :)

solid wrote:

Hi Darth Homer Sorry old boy but I din't say I was an expert!!!!!! I just gave my opinion on the subject......You apparently don't like somebody elses opinion?.... I  respect everyone's opinion even if I don't agree with everyting said..  PS: Conserning the C-130 in the FSM cover....In my 51 years of Modelling and flying for 8,  I have never seen a picture of a USAF aircraft in such bad shape in peace time... The AC-130 that flew for 26 nights (more or less) over Panama City before and during the Invasion, and destroyed many installations, includding private property, and armored cars never looked like that. ........During WW2, Corea and Vietnam planes looked simetimes worst but in war there are prorities to keeping the paint neat. I have seen planes in junk yards that look like that, but they (sadly to say) were placed there to die. So if the model portrays one that has been sitting in one of these aircraft cemeteries for quite a while it should have been said in the article.

 

Here is what that AC-130H looks like today.

 

I've posted this picture before, the mechanics on this 109 really over-emphasized the panel lines here, wonder what the judges will think? 

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Me109-F4-14-Marseilles.jpg

The bottom line is that there will never be agreement on this issue because we all have a different perception of what realism is.  I like washed panel lines, I feel that it helps lend a sense of perspective and depth to the aircraft and helps convey the sense that I'm looking at an aircraft rather than a painted piece of plastic molded in the shape of the aircraft.  I've got literally hundreds of photos of WW2 aircraft that show aircraft with a noticable dark accumulation in all or nearly all of the panel lines, photos taken from at least 20' away in many cases.  I'll use this as my guideline rather than mathematical formulae that tell me that they should be invisible in "X" scale or other people's preferences.  If you find my models unrealistic, oh well, I build them for me.

luftwaffle wrote:

I've posted this picture before, the mechanics on this 109 really over-emphasized the panel lines here, wonder what the judges will think?  http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Me109-F4-14-Marseilles.jpg

The thing is, you can hardly see any panel lines on the fuselage, when there should be some prominent ones just aft of the cockpit and under the canopy.

Here's a model of a plane much like that one:

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal2/1801-1900/Gal1900_Me109_Ulgur/gal1900.htm

I think the modeler did an excellent job, and his panel lines looks fairly subtle, but they're still more pronounced that what's shown in your photo.

I agree, however, that checking photo references, when available, is a modeler's best bet for getting the "right" look.

Regards,

luftwaffle wrote:

I've posted this picture before, the mechanics on this 109 really over-emphasized the panel lines here, wonder what the judges will think?  http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Me109-F4-14-Marseilles.jpg The bottom line is that there will never be agreement on this issue because we all have a different perception of what realism is.  I like washed panel lines, I feel that it helps lend a sense of perspective and depth to the aircraft and helps convey the sense that I'm looking at an aircraft rather than a painted piece of plastic molded in the shape of the aircraft.  I've got literally hundreds of photos of WW2 aircraft that show aircraft with a noticable dark accumulation in all or nearly all of the panel lines, photos taken from at least 20' away in many cases.  I'll use this as my guideline rather than mathematical formulae that tell me that they should be invisible in "X" scale or other people's preferences.  If you find my models unrealistic, oh well, I build them for me.

One reason you notice the darkness on real WWII aircraft is because these planes had overlapping panels, instead of having joints in the panels like todays aircraft. I think one major thing that makes the cover model look so weird is because of the black used on the panel lines, and the light gray paint used over it. If they would have done a dark gray it may not have looked so prominent!

Hi Berny13:

WOW.....The old " Fantasma" as we used to called it is still a live and kicking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
happy to know that.

16 years ago, about 8:30 PM we started hearing it go round and round, high, until about 2 AM. I remember one night the Guardia Nacional ack ack made a few shots to it but in a few seconds they went silent to never do it again, they never knew where it was.............

The C-130 has been one of my preferite aircraft since it first flew. I lived in Marietta, Giorgia back in 1969 and the Lockheed Plant was only 3 miles away, I used to stand by the road off the runway, with a bunch of other guys, and watch the brand new beauties roll out and fly their first flights for hours.

Thank you for the Photos....is that you by it????

Gera

 

Conserning the C-130 in the FSM cover....In my

Having read through this entire post just today (ah, the quietude of a "rain day" <sigh>), one aspect of all this has not yet cropped up--printing.

I was hugely disappointed in the USS Pennsylvania article, until I saw the detail picture of deck construction which showed the contrast from the deck color versus the "vertical" color.  None of the 'finished' pictures showed any contrast at all (a big bugaboo of mine--similar to using one color to depict the USAF air superiority scheme; just wrong).  What happened was that the limitations of photo printing in periodicals is limited in range.

With that in mind, when ever I look at the Spectre, I 'force' myslef to only look at the detail, not the paint.  The limits of printing, and the limits of the camera/medium used for image capture, dozens of subtle shades could have been lost; the contrast between the shades artificially increases, etc.

That does not mean I have not seen some panel lines shaded like they were window frames--probably as many as really 'needed' some, tiny, shading.

Now, my first impression on seeing the cover was "Huh?  There's an "arctic" paint scheme for AC-130s?"  Having thought about it a bit, it was tempting to go 'capture' the image and port it into PhotoShop and see what happens bringing the base color closer to Euro 1, and bringing the shading lines closer to, say, Gunship.  Some reflex of sanity (or an excess of hours before a CRT) kept me from so meddling, but the thought still remains.

There's 2¢ more to toss into the pot; we've probably almost enough for a plain cup of coffee by now <g> . . .

solid wrote:

Hi Darth Homer Sorry old boy but I din't say I was an expert!!!!!! I just gave my opinion on the subject......You apparently don't like somebody elses opinion?.... I  respect everyone's opinion even if I don't agree with everyting said..

Ah yes, the time tested technique of putting words in one’s mouth.  You’re absolutely right.  How dare anyone except me give an opinion.  String ‘em all up, I say!

 The funny thing is, I never called you out in anyway.  My point was simply that a builder should build for themselves only.

 IMHO, the “so-called experts” are the only downside of this hobby (come to think of it, my other hobby, Reef Tanks, has plenty of these types too.  Yup, I have a Red Sea Purple Tang in with my Indo-Pacific Powder Blue Tang…totally unrealistic…but it is one of the most beautiful things I have had the pleasure of seeing.).  Who am I to say that someone’s model building work in unrealistic?  Who  cares?!?  The builder of said model obviously had a vision in their mind and built (painted) their kit the way they want it.  If I don’t like it, there is a handy little button at the top of my web browser…it’s that magical button labeled “Back”.  I click that, and WOW, I can’t move on and look at a model that does fit what I like to see in a model.

 If some one doesn’t go through and correct every panel line, etc, or paint the plane (tank, car, ship, whatever) in the exact color, so be it.  Does that builder deserve any less respect/praise as the builder who does?  Not to me.  If the builder is happy, I’m happy, and I’ll look at the model and admire the work that was done.  Hopefully I can pick up a technique or two.  Heaven knows, I’m still trying to get my seam work down…grr, what a pain.  I’m going to get it someday.

 I’m a big enough man to say I’m sorry if I in any way offended you.  But I’m also a big enough man to let a builder build and paint their model anyway they want.  There’s room for everyone in this hobby…that is the great thing about it.

 I’ve been building for about 2 years.  I like to use the panel line wash.  I guess that means my models are all unrealistic crap.   Oh well, I like them.  I’m proud of them.  When I look at them, I get that swell of pride knowing that I made them with my own hands.  I have used AM cockpits, PE, Decals on some of them….guess that makes it an even greater waste of time/money since my panel lines are totally unrealistic.

 Oh well, to each their own.  Hope y’all are enjoying your current builds, no matter how you are building it!

 

 

Take Care everyone!

Brian

 

CapnMac82 wrote:

There's 2¢ more to toss into the pot; we've probably almost enough for a plain cup of coffee by now <g> . . .

Now that sounds good.  I think I'll make a run to Starbucks!! 

Take Care everyone!

Brian

CapnMac82: <i>What happened was that the limitations of photo printing in periodicals is limited in range.</i>…

Another good point, and probably dead on.

Having finally really looked at the FSM cover in question, I see why some don't like it, but as CapnMac82 implies, what the camera sees is not what the printer prints is not what the human eye would see looking at the model.

I just got back from the hobby shop (STICKER SHOCK! STICKER SHOCK! …but that's another rant altogether) and there were models on display there that did have window frame panel lines—1/16 inch wide on a 1/48 scale model. Looked terrible close up, but from ten feet away, it looked very good. Photography often consists of fooling the camera to see what you want it to see (or what the human brain behind the human eye would think it sees), and the same holds true in scale modeling.

Here's an example: prominent panel lines on heavy equipment make it look heavy because of the increased contrast between adjacent, massive parts. Here's another: take a color photograph and a black and white photograph of an unpainted steam engine. Notice that more detail shows up in the black and white—strictily an artifact of the photographic emulsion on the film, even the human eye can't do that.

As a physicist who used to be a load toad on F-16s, we are informed by to additional bits of information:

- At a distance of 1 meter, the limit of resolution of the human eye is ~0.1 mm.

- In order to maintain laminar flow, i.e. to minimize turbulence over the wing surface, panels need to have a gap on the order of 1 mm.

Suggestion: Take the scale you are working in and use that to decide which panels need to be accented. For example, in 1/72nd scale, many recessed panel lines in kits amount to huge tranches that would create tremendous drag in real life.

Sure, it's your model, but let's get real about realism.

Brian Willard
National Radio Astronomy Observatory

When next you are flying about in your 1/72 scale F-16, can we watch?

I merely presented information for the good of the discussion, and felt I was quite clear.

The good of the discussion?  I'm failing to see where these discussions do all that much good.  Every couple of months we're presented with a plethora of reasons and scientific evidence why washed panel lines are "unrealistic". 

Has anyone who uses wash in their panel lines abandoned the practice due to any of the evidence or opinions presented here?  My guess would be no.  Personally I'm a little of tired of the implications that my models are unrealistic because I use a technique that some people disagree with.  Debate is good up to the point where you start pissing people off and causing division.  When a new thread on this subject pops up next month and this is re-hashed, I'll just ignore it.

If you don't like to do it, by all means don't.  I promise never to start a thread on why I don't like the way your model looks because you didn't wash the panel lines.

You know, if you think about it... would panel lines on an aircraft really show up if it were magically shrunken to 1/48 size, or even 1/72? my guess would be probably not. But, the model companies give them to us, so I will wash them. Done deal

Good grief!

You were quite clear. You did add to the discussion, specifically to my comments on  human perception—and I thought it was clear that I intended a little gentle teasing—not criticism! Sorry if you thought it was.

 Perhaps I should have used more smilies—or looked for a Babelfish…

With the handle "zaphod" I was sure you'd understand. After all, we're mostly harmless…

I even agree with your realism comment, to some extent. "Real" is 1:1 scale, anything else is an approximation. (I used to know someone who built in 1:1, until the county shut him down.)

As a scientist, I expect you understand the point I was trying to make, earlier—what we think we see is not necessarily what we perceive, or even what we can perceive. Your quantification of human perception makes it easier to understand this.

While this discussion is interesting, I don't think there is any final answer, other than, as someone's sigfile says, "Build what you like, like what you build."

And yes, I do know where my towel is, but not its current state…

luftwaffle wrote:

When a new thread on this subject pops up next month and this is re-hashed, I'll just ignore it.

It's already here: "Opening a can of worms." What an appropriate name for the thread…

My problem is, as a former optical scientist, I find it hard to pass up a discussion involving human perception.

Even doesn't help…

luftwaffle wrote:

The good of the discussion?  I'm failing to see where these discussions do all that much good.  Every couple of months we're presented with a plethora of reasons and scientific evidence why washed panel lines are "unrealistic".  Has anyone who uses wash in their panel lines abandoned the practice due to any of the evidence or opinions presented here?  My guess would be no.  Personally I'm a little of tired of the implications that my models are unrealistic because I use a technique that some people disagree with.  Debate is good up to the point where you start pissing people off and causing division.  When a new thread on this subject pops up next month and this is re-hashed, I'll just ignore it. If you don't like to do it, by all means don't.  I promise never to start a thread on why I don't like the way your model looks because you didn't wash the panel lines.

Thank you. I don't understand why some people (joyless model nazis0 either say its to clean, or its to dirty? Everything was clean at least once in its existence, and everything had to be dirty at least once so it could be cleaned?