I started building models in the late 60s. Stopped around the early 80s as other hobbies took over and returned to the hobby 3ish years ago. Today I build 99% aircraft including helicopters.
Back in the day I wished for more detail and accurate detail. There is alot I’m grateful for that has advanced in this hobby. But there is one thing I’m starting to “not like”; overly complicated models (IMO) with so much detail and too much use of computers to design kits, but not engineered to be an easier buildable model.
I’m grateful for the selection of models, the recessed panel lines, the ability to build them in different configurations, more accuracy and looks great when finished.
What I dislike is the lack what I call “modeler in mind” when designing kits. I really dislike the way antenna and tubes that attach to aircraft that aren’t notched or keyed. You simply glue to flat edges together. Thankfully there’s one drop glue, but I find this frustrating trying to locate the position and they trying to have an pitot tube flat on flat.
The next is super detailing that appears to have been created using a computer to take subject ask it to decompose it into a model then send it to another machine that creates molds, and starts injecting mold. Even the companies that use 3D modeling appears to not actually build the model after they designed it. And I’m talking the average modeler. As an example I wanted and bought a Meng Apache 1/35 scale model. OMG! That rotor assembly is broken down to every component of the rotor hub. They also aren’t notched or anything to guid in assembly/gluing. Super tiny parts. Guess what it’s overwhelming for me and is still sitting in the box.
While I can appreciate there are people that want that super detail and building challenge, I’m sure the vast majority of us just want a really nice representation. There are so many details that even with door or whatever, the details will NEVER be seen. I don’t enter contest, I build for myself and friends to enjoy even some that have served and operated some of the aircraft I’ve built. That level of detail is generally not recognized by them.
One brand I’ve seen the over-engineering are Trumpeter aircraft. Early ones lacked some detail and simple. The middle year ones had, IMO, the right amount of detail and not bad to assemble. The latest such as the F-35A is a bit of PITA. So much internal engine and ducting detail you’ll never see. The engine a nice option to build on, but it lacks so much detail, it’s an entirely different project if you want to display it as such.
Your points are valid,for you and probably a lot other modelers too,however there are many modelers who enjoy an extremely high level of detail on their builds,and if its not there they scratch or buy more.
Who’s right or wrong,neither.
What you need to do is research any kit or company’s reputation to see how it builds.Everybody knows Tamiya’s reputation,likewise Dragon’s.I have heard that Miniart is highly detailed,I wasn’t aware of RFM’s level of detail.This will help you avoid the type of kits that you dislike,or may give you enough info to give one a shot.
I’m not taking this as a rant. You bring up some great points. The old Monogram models I built as a child (looking at the P-40 in particular, but the criticism applies to most of their kits) were overly simplistic, and often had gaping holes where there should have been something. This is what I consider to be the base level of a kit. That P-40 featured operating flaps, but they didn’t bother to close up what would have been the top surface of the wing; instead there is a hole into which you can see the cockpit area (which was nicely detailed to an extent). I have built this kit several times as an adult, and each time I’ve scratch-built details to close off that hole and provide intake vents on that big “chin”.
The other extreme is something like a typical Trumpeter kit, such as you mentioned, or the huge 1/24 F6F Hellcat I did last year. That Hellcat kit included radio equipment that is located in the fuselage behind the pilot. It will never be seen unless one opts to cut open the access panel for a diorama scene. I didn’t want to do that; I just wanted a big Hellcat sitting on a display shelf. I ended up installing all those unseen parts, but I didn’t bother using any paint in those areas.
The kit that I am getting ready to start, HK Models’ 1/48 Avro Lancaster B Mk. I bomber, appears to contain a whole lot of interior detail that will never be seen. My mantra here is to build as detailed as possible (either with kit parts or scratch-built/aftermarket stuff) anything interior that will be visible through canopies or other window ports, but to only complete basic construction if there is no chance the additional detailing will be visible. With the Lancaster that I am going to build, it is one that had the fuselage windows painted over, so absolutely nothing beyond the cockpit will be visible. I’ll probably stick those parts in there, but they won’t receive any further attention.
Agreed that some kits have either stupid engineering or unnecessarily complicated assemblies. Trumpeter seems to like providing 100’s of tiny PE chips to be glued onto tank hulls that could have easily been molded in place. I have a bunch of Soviet-era tanks that I am reluctant to start because of this.
And then they provide what look like molded-on candy bars that are supposed to be vortex generators on their 1/32 Skyhawks. So it’s kind of like they don’t seem to know when PE is appropriate. They just want to make the kit fancy (or not).
And then there is the thing about providing a basic jet engine that is buried in the fuselage with no way of displaying it. But they neglect to provide an intake duct. I am still mulling making intakes for their F-111 and RA-5C.
But I do like maximum detail whenever practical. I think Monogram did a great job in the 1970-1980 period, providing very busy looking cockpits and gear wells. But yeah, their overall fit left a lot to be desired.
I do think Tamiya achieve a good balance between detail and buildability, and that is their core philosophy. I think they have been feeling the pressure of adding more detail lately though, as some of their newer kits are really well detailed at the slight cost of a more intricate build.
And this is indeed a shame. I sometimes wonder if those who design such models actually understand the subject at hand or not. If, as you say, your Lancaster had the windows painted over why then cram a box with all those detailed interior pieces at all? I suppose it is to keep the price heavy instead of offering a lower one. Or do they think that by including it you will then buy a micro camera and film it from the inside and show it on a large screen in a second time?
I could still conceive a “see-through” model, in which you may be able to either show it with one or more panels open and then also be able to reapply them unto the model once shown the interior. Nothing so special after all.
I could very well think of a clipping method, in which like in a battery box, you can remove and again close those panels with ease without marring the rest of the model.
It would be practical and indeed rather interesting for those who have never seen a WWII RAF bomber from the inside.
But like this, it is just ridiculous and time consuming. A time you could better spend with other more logically conceived models. But alas, as even Spock might say, “who said that human beings are logical?”.
Live Long and Prosper! Qapla!
Such a great post; I don’t feel alone anymore.
My current Trumpeter 1/350 battleship is extraordinarily intricate, and since I build and paint in sections it is tough to know what elements will actually never actually be seen.
Personally, I think there is a fair number of folks who have kits in their stash that they keep rebuying when the new “improved tooling + photo-etch” version comes out, and they buy those without second thought to “upgrade” their unbuilt project, repeatedly, without actually ever building them. So the companies keep churning out more and more complex kits.
I have to say that I agree with you, @F35Bart, to an extent on this. As some of the others said, it’s a good idea to check how complicated and detailed a model is going to be beforehand. Currently, as one of my projects, I am building a T-34/85 from MiniArt with interior. It is very detailed, intricate, and rather complicated. I’m not enjoying it as much as some other simpler models. But, with it being an interior kit, I get it, they might as well go all in with detailing.
It seems like this topic pops up from time to time but it has gotten more frequent lately.
I grew up in the 80s/90s and I remember when they had “skill levels: 1,2 &3”). Level 1 was basic, Level 2 was for the moderate builder and of course Skill Level 3, which was for the advanced.
Maybe one or two photo etched pieces and man, that kit was the cream of the crop!
Monogram was well known for this and other companies followed suit for a time. At one point Monogram had a line called “High Tech Aircraft/High Performance series” and those kits had a fret of photo etched that comprised of a handful of PE parts or a rubber tube to act as hose or even spark plug wires for the car series.
Somewheres the model manufacturer lost touch with us, the modeler(s).
I know we all want the bigger better model but somewheres, a line has to be drawn.
We all do not come from the same mold.. Don’t get me wrong, I love a 1:1 scale P-51D in scale form but I also like simpler kits like Monograms 1/48th P-51B, even Tamiya’s F4F-4 Wildcat or even Monograms Ford F350 duallie.
I get it that modelers want 1:1 scale detail but don’t forget about the ones who want the basic kit(s).
There should be a happy medium.. Heck, bring back the basic and skill level kits.
Happy Modeling,
Mike
The only Trumpeter kit I modified so that you could see both engines. 1/32nd scale P-38 Lightning. I scratchbuilt the attachment supports for the cowling panels. I like to add as much extra detail as I can. You would think by now, that Trumpeter would give you an option to have open or closed panels.
theres a fine line between super detail and necessary detail.
That line is in a different place for everyone.
I persoanlly dont need a model that looks like it will fly off the shelf at any moment..
but I like that. And I want it.
I just dont like paying the prices today to have it. The detail comes at a cost.
So my balance, my “fine line” is there: cost vs. detail.
I accept a compromise at that point, because I cant pay 75 dollars for a kit destined to gather dust on a shelf
