Thanks,
I wanted to ask first. I will preface this with, it is not my intent to torpedoe the idea nor to start an argument. Just to put forth something for thought. Sort of like a grad student argues his thesis.
The idea of the airbrush forum is seemingly sound one but is there really enough activity to warrant pulling it out of techniques? Though it seems like alot, in the bigger picture it isn’t. It, like many other subjects and or threads in the forum, is cyclical. Much of what has been discussed has been repeated and in only a few cases revealed new information.
The activity of discussion along the subject of airbrushing has really been well within the range of a technique and less active than painting. (It is a tool of painting). Just for kicks, I put in a search of airbrushing/airbrush in the topic line and came up with 4 pages of results. Conversely, when I entered Paint/painting I came up with 8. Does specificaly airbrushing warrant that much more attention that it could sustain its own catagory more so than painting?
There is a simplicity to the FSM site now that makes it enjoyable to navigate. It is easy to quickly scan the catagories and to find information. There is sufficient argument for many of topics we have discussed in the past, that under the same criteria you are presenting for the creation of the new topic, to also create one for kits, tools, dioramas, civilian, military, post-WWII, pre-WWII, para-WWII, jet aircraft, propaircraft, kit reviews, etc. This will make for a very confusing site and one that its partcipants will spend an inordinate amount of time waiting for refresh rates and screen loads. I would submit you to Major Ron’s web link for Armorama. A very large site chock full of good info and catagories. There are more than a few just for figures alone. While definately enough information to keep everyone happy, and catagories for the die hard specialist, there is little crossreferencing and in some cases it seems overly specific. Meaning that as I scan through FSM I am exposed to several styles of modeling, the result is I was tempted to try an aircraft as a result. When a die hard armor guy like me can try an airplane, think of what it will expose them to and make others want to try. I guess the point I’m trying to make here, is that you unlock Pandora’s box and set the stage for something slower, subcatagorized and more complex than it needs to be or is warranted. The K.I.S.S. thereom works.
Dioramas are a visual thing for the most part. THere has been very little photo activity in this forum. Maybe because of the tech to do it or that people just don’t care or are self concious (sp?)of their work. The community build project is a great example of this. I thought for sure that because everyone was working on this the idea was to show off their finished projects to make comparisons. This has not been overly successful. Am I wrong? Was that not the intent? Much of the information regarding dio’s can be gleaned from the respective catagories, with info specific to its genre and subject matter.
Again, I do not wish to make it sound like I’m against the idea. I will adapt to any changes made in this forum and website and look forward to seeing what you guys have to offer and to help out where I can. But I do want to present another side of the coin so that any or all doubts can be presented and that the site remains an effective one. I apologize for the length of this post and I hope that I have not caused offense by my questions. I also thank you for the ability and respect to express my concerns and questions.
Regards,
Mike
