Honestly, why can’t Dragon do a better job with their instructions? I mean, I buy tons of stuff from them so I have no “dog in the race” in terms of them vs Trump, Tamiya, etc…but c’mon—EVERY review you read that is even remotely impartial mentions their instructions as a con…a REALLY BIG CON…
I mean, do they first write them in Chinese then run 'em through a $15 program that translates them into English??? What gives?
Are they just really stupid in this one area? Do they take their model-buying customers for granted? The world wonders…
Know what you mean Manny. I am currently working on a German Artillery piece. Thankfully their instructions have decent enough drawings. When you compare the part numbers given with the part shown on the instructions, it can be something on a completely different sprue.
Whenever I build a Dragon kit, I shoot their customer service an email with the problems I encountered with their instruction sheet. I get the same response from them, being that my suggestion will be “passed on to the designing team”, what ever that means. [^o)]
I just don’t understand Dragon. They are able to produce fantastic kits with incredible details but their instructions are just the opposite. Dragon should look up WNW’s instruction sheets for some good ideas on how an instruction manual should look like.
Dead on, Goose! Dead on! Last time I bought a kit with “furrin” instructions, I had to scan the sucker though my flatbed scanner and blow up the image a few hundred percent before I could puzzle out what was expected. (Complicating things, I was going to modify it, of course.)
Apropos of nothing, the Shinkansen (bullet train) used to have warning signs something like “Not to exit while train is motioning, otherwise injury or great death may result.” Bablefish’s fractured translations have become the world’s standard.
As someone who spends all day creating engineering drawings, it becomes easy to disconnect yourself from the end user, you know how it goes together, the instructions make sense to you, but when you pick them up 6 months later its usually “what the hell was i thinking?” its easy to do, especially when you spend all your time working on the 3d models.
It’s more common than that. I had what is sometimes called “a diagonal career”, and in every one of my endeavors, my co-workers had some phrase that covered the situation, “what was I smoking?” being one of those printable. I suspect it’s simply part of the human condition.
I agree to a certain point…but remember, many of their errors are simple things like mixing up part numbers (like, ‘place part B-3 on part J-57’—when is should have been: ‘place part D-3 on part J-7’…), which is not a mistake or assumption in abstract thinking but more of a mental lapse or sloppy proof-reading…
Ill agree with sloppy proof reading, this tends to happen when designers/draughtsmen are left to their own devices. If someone else isnt reading your work, you make mistakes regularly.
Even with the upgraded 15 rotor enigma I still have trouble with Dragon’s instructions. I usually need all of Squadron’s books and any other prototype photos I can study in order to put their kits together right.
Let me 'splain something to you. The “hand hold” crowd are those people who NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, will always say things are too hard. I help out at a model shop on a regular basis and we have people who come in and say pre-painted snap-tights are too hard.I’ve seen guys who are so afraid of “messing up” a kit that they won’t even start it!
Wow! You certainly are a great and unselfish man for taking time from your busy day to help the poor, unskilled, unwashed peasant kit builder. Thank you soooo much. Next time I’ll scatter rose petals in your path as you enter the forum.
Methinks you should just slink back to the basement and forego any more attempts to talk your way out of that arrogant and stupid statement you made.
Did somebody here need to borrow my enigma machine? It’s in the basement under my winter tires, but I can dig it out if needed…
I think I have only ever built 3 maybe 4 Dragon kits. The Dornier 335 in 1/72 with no issues that weren’t my own doing; the Ki61 in 1/72, no issues there beyond my recent slackness; and the Heinkel 162D in 1/48. That one had some fit challenges, and a complex landing gear bay, but nothing I would ID as an instruction problem. Manny, are you talking armour & ships more than aircraft??
In my opinion they make good models, but they must be hiring useless draftsmen for the drawings.
Sure you can say they beat Tamiya in a few cases with a few tanks that use a few additional parts, but they are not even half as good at making instruction sheets as Tamiya.
And if this thread is any indication, anyone wanting to make their kits, likely better already know where the parts actually belong.
Not that Dragon is alone. I have seen a few companies make decent enough kits, yet they can’t seem to master the art of explaining how to assemble the kit.