RG-31 MK3 U.S. Army Mine-Protected Personnel Carrier

A descent effort.  As usual no research on the actual vehicle was done.

Why are the windows all foggy?  They should be clean and clear of most dirt.  There may be a little dirt on the windows, but not much.  It does no good not to be able to see out of the vehicle.  Kind of hard to drive that way too.

In actuallity, the windows should have a slight green tint as well.  A five-second Google search would have shown that.

Gino, the fogging on the windows looks like they were installed then the whole vehicle was given a flat coat. I made that same kind of mistake in 1985. I learned never to do that again.

Yup, I know what he did.  It is a common mistake that AI makes.  He doesn't understand that the crew needs to see out of the windows.

I am looking at a kit that is nicely weathered, very well built and presents as an inspiration to fellow modelers.

Thank you for sharing this with us MM / AI !

Please keep your posts coming :)

@ HA, I am surprised. You are trying to make a point i guess.

If talking down to feller modelers is the way I am out.

Regards

Johan

JohanT

I am looking at a kit that is nicely weathered, very well built and presents as an inspiration to fellow modelers.

Thank you for sharing this with us MM / AI !

Please keep your posts coming :)

@ HA, I am surprised. You are trying to make a point i guess.

If talking down to feller modelers is the way I am out.

Regards

Johan

If you think this is very well built,  then you are missing seeing basic building mistakes common to all of these builds - bad parts alignment, molding seams on all the parts, bad seam-work between the parts, incorrect markings, not to mention no research or care for anything other than "if its on the instructions it has to be right" attitude of MM.  The weathering  also seems just like dirt that is applied before the model is painted.  MM isn't being "talked down to", he is receiving constructive criticism, but all he wants to get is "great job" (as is evidenced by the only responses he gives are to those "great job" replies).  This isn't meant as a slam to you personally, but rather to the attitude of any criticism being given is one talking down to a modeler.

I really don't understand the posting of someone else's build - even if it's a commission, especially when they're never really that well done.

Thank you for your reply Bronto.

PM sent.
Best Regards
Johan 

As Bronto says, it is constructive criticism.  I do it so others will not think these mediocre models are great and will not make the same mistakes.  It is not for ol' Model Master since he has shown in the past that he doesn't care.  He is just looking for others to congratulate him on his purchases.  So I am not slagging a modeler at all since he doesn't even build them.

No pain no gain...

Johan, many thanks for your kind comments and support! I really appreciate them!

Arty- those pictures you posted remind me of a building I designed probably twenty five years ago as a US Marshall's substation on an urban street.

The "storefront" was composed of 3 1/4" thick glazing assemblies. It's been so long that I forget the exact spec.s, but it was something like 1/2" tempered glass to strip the copper off the bullet, followed by 2" of Lexan to mushroom the core, followed by 1/2" of tempered glass to stop the forward travel, lined on the inside with 1/4" of Lexan to contain all of the glass shrapnel. All bonded together.

The certification test was a 7.62 fired from an M-14 at several yards range.