Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gallery & Designs' started by thewoodengraver, Nov 7, 2006.
*Runs screaming from the room*
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Large models require more detail parts to make them look realistic....smaller models need less to get the same effect. If small models have too many parts, they tend to look "wrong". I am a model railroader as well as card modeler, working in N scale---I like a lot of detail, and mini scenes within my layout--but it quickly becomes apparent that too much detail makes a scene look contrived, rather than naturally occuring. when I model something--I always think about how something will look from the distance the model would appear to be seen from--in my case, 2 to 3 feet away....whichin N scale, would be somewhere between 300 to 500 feet. How much detail can I see from that distance in real life? A plane in 1/50 scale would appear to be about 100 to 150 feet away. Again, I ask myself "what do I see?" That's what I need to include in a model. So it's not how complex I want the model to be, it's more: is the complexity correct for the size and scale?
I agree with rob. I often enlarge my Halinski and more detailed GPM airplanes to about 1/24 scale. It seems to me that they were really designed to be built large, but were squashed down to 1/33 because of popular demand, leaving LOTS of tiny parts that are superfluous when built small. Its easy when designing however, to get carried away with parts counts, especially when you've got good resources. All those little mating strips, wheel slices, seatbelts, etc. count as parts too. Even the most basic GPM kit from the early 90s will have at least 200-300 parts total when you add up everything you will have to cut out and glue.
Can someone please explain to me why people bother to build all the rows of a radial engine then stick a cowl over the top of it?. When I get round to building a radial engined plane I will either skip most of the enigne or leave the cowl off and show it as a plane under repair.
I can think of four reasons why:
1-People build these options sometimes because they want to NOT put the cowl on and showcase the detail, or at least make the cowl removable (like you said)
2-Occasionally the engine is integral to the model's structure, so leaving it out will make the model unbuildable.
3-Also, some people have favorite parts of an airplane that they obsess about. Naturally they will build that part before anything else. I personally love aircraft powerplants, and often consider them more interesting than the aircraft they power.
4-Another reason people build engines is because it is part of the building process. Many modelers love the process of construction as much as the finished product. It's why we keep building one after another after another.
Yeah the Zen thing.............. the journey is more fulfilling than the destination. Ohmmmmmmmmmmm..............:grin:
It really depends on the model. If it is one I wanted I'll go higher then 5 pages but most of the time I'm a 1 to 5er.
I jumped into card modeling and immediately got in over my head. Tried one of the Foker DIIIs and it was too much for me. I've been doing simpler models to build my skills. Right now, I'm putting together the lucky bamboo from Epson. 3 pages of nice big parts. I'd like to do the Serenity model from Chihuahuadepapel. It's about 12 pages. Lots of parts, but they are mostly large.
Some good points but it if can't be seen then why bother? doesn't make sense, I like building small detail but if they were hidden I wouldn't bother. I suppose its like people that paint the back of a drawer set when it will never be seen.
It depends on the model I'm building....no matter how many or how few the partscount are. My recent model is the SDKfz 250 and contains 1583 parts...
Most of my models are below 200 parts:
To me, detailing models is like playing an elaborate accompanying picking pattern on the guitar to a song I sing:
Add enough details to make a model / song interesting and "alive" but not so much to clutter it up. As I am into WWII single seat fighters and - on the guitar - folk songs, those subjects are fairly straightforward and are meant to be that way. A Spitfire / Warhawk / Mustang / Song by Gordon Lightfoot / Jim Croce are meant to be clear and simple in appearance.
Returning to cardboard kits only, I detail the cockpits just to that extent I can imagine a miniature copy of myself hop in there and take a spin. I am in the process of souping up an old kit of the CAC Boomerang "emergency fighter": Quite understandably I will at least build the front row of that lovely radial engine to give this part of the aircraft with all those lovely valve rods etc. to give the appearance more depth.
Last but not least: To me, part of the charme of a cardboard model is trying to imitate threedimensional details by skillfully drawing them, so superdetailing can be quite detrimental to the character of a model! To me, cardboard building means to visit the playful ten years old boy who is still sleeping within me and letting him play with and dream about aircraft.
Why you are worried pages' number about?
Change scale from 1/33 to 1/72. You will have less number of pages but same number of parts.
i have a 45 IJN carrier in ww2, i hope one day i will start building it