Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Nice finish Bryan but then all your stuff is nice.
  3. Hi Stefan. I don't have any actual documentation on German hanger colors but would stand to reason they were painted with colors on hand. So, probably the same colors used for aircraft camo or possibly the same used on vehicles. Did find a couple of videos showing remaining hangers that still have some color to them that look like the original paint but I would take it for what it is worth.
  4. philp

    Medusa Miniature

    Ah, magic bow and arrow instead of magic boobie armor.
  5. Today
  6. Mark told me last year he wasn't handling these duties this year.
  7. While it suggests it might scale up, there is still the question of days running. Is JAXCON a one day affair? How many judging sheets were used? Were the results left out for the public to see? How many awards were given out? How were the categories set up? Were the judges results checked by head judges? My math shows 600 to be closer to 1/4th rather than 1/3rd, based on the 2018 numbers. (2367 divided by 600= 3.945) (This sort of math is what I mean by wishful enthusiasm) The National is not just a contest so there are other factors which effect how people will act. For example, if there is a big tour of a major museum during the day, many might prefer doing that rather than spend several hours judging. Of course, working in the evening over three nights would eliminate this problem. If it continues to grow and experiences large popular support, then it would be worth trying to change the IPMS National. Dak
  8. Gil, I found your last post most enlightening and interesting. Your experience with your show reveals that such numbers of entries can be handled with open judging. More importantly, it shows we can do anything we set our minds to if we need to do it. And that brings us to Rusty’s equally sensible and relevant post- do we need to do it all? That is the first and most important question. Intelligent comments both. Nick
  9. Yesterday
  10. I have a lot of experience with groups getting all fired up over concepts, then having the end result not being what anyone expected. My concern has been that the survey asks too simple a question. Some think you are wanting to implement the AMPS system. Others think it will be that used by MMSI. Others like you say it will be something else. If the majority vote for the GSB, then the fun starts as they try to implement it. I just like to know what I buying before we get all wrapped up in the enthusiasm. If you actually knew me, you would know I was advocating GSB in the early eighties. However, the version I promoted was basically the current system with more awards. I became very disillusioned after participating in the AMPS and MMSI judging and came to understand the problems with making it work for IPMS on the needed scale. When I say the SAS is superior, I base that on your remarks made here. I question WHY we must have awards that rank the winning models. I like winning, but I see no reason to require the contest to rank each model. I am still waiting for you to explain why it won't work or why you must have a ranking award system. It is simple, and can be applied to the current system with virtually no disruption. Isn't getting more awards to more models your objective? One of the reasons we implemented no-sweeps was to get more awards to more people. As you have described you system, it looks like it will require a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current system, perhaps scrapping it entirely. (Please correct me if I am incorrect) People are comfortable with the current system because they have had fifty years to get use to them. Sometimes that is good, and sometimes bad. Also, in some support of your idea, I suggested.... yet, you have not remarked on it. I too look forward to seeing the results of JAXCON. Costs of awards, number of entries, days operating, etc. Dak
  11. Gil, I completely agree with everything you said (or simply put out in a "survey"). Believe me, I sympathize. After about a year of work, my MAP program was hybridized into the program we have now with others recognized for it. However, the first rung of the ladder that MUST be scaled is; "does the membership prefer open judging above 1,2,3?" Until we have that statistic to back us up, the E-board is never going to support change. I hope Jaxcon reaches 1000 models next year which will only encourage the E-board to support change. I hope it happens soon. 😉
  12. You're right.....all of us who tout GSB are really just aiming to undermine IPMSUSA and ruin the Nats. It can't possibly work (because it's never been done). And of course you, like the NCC, want a fully written and detailed proposal to be examined and parsed (and then dismissed) because it doesn't look plausible on paper (to you). That can never be done, so people who want complete assurance that it'll work with no problems or adjustments will never be comfortable with any "proposal". As I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, but GSB proponents are making it work NOW. But, since you think you have a better idea, exactly where are YOU implementing your SWS? Where are you putting your ideas on the line to be tried? If we agree that the 1-2-3 system (although it does work) is the least beneficial to IPMSUSA for future growth of our Society, then start working towards making a change where you are. You may indeed have a better way, but I guarantee that even if you crossed all your T's and dotted your I's in a "proposal"; it would be dismissed by IPMSUSA and the NCC just as quickly as GSB (or simply put out in a "survey"). Show them how good your idea is by making it work at a successful local and/or regional show. As for our show, Jaxcon, we're looking to keep growing our show so that we HAVE to "scale up" our GSB system. We're already 1/3 the size of the Nats and hope to hit 1/2 (1000+ models) in the next 5yrs. We currently judge those 600+ models in 4-5hrs with only 20 or so judges. So yes, I DO think that 4 to 5 times that number of judges over 2-3 days could judge 2000-2500 models. Until that's actually put to the test, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Part of this debate and discussion has a LOT to do with breaking "traditions". As I stated above, IPMSUSA does NOT like to do that, and thus not only do you have to prove a new system will work, you have to overcome people's wanting to poke holes in new ideas and their loathing of change. Best of luck, whichever side you end up on, I've covered everything I can think of. Y'all can have at it the rest of the way! GIL
  13. I'm finishing a 1/48th Yak-9 (Ark#48002). The decal sheet has a number of stencils (items "A" thru "K"), but the instructions give no information on placement. Does anyone have an suggestion?
  14. Gentlemen, (Ladies) I just wanted to pass this along to anyone interested in building this kit. I still use enamels when painting my builds. Testor Model Master, to be exact. After referring to the paint chart recommended by Academy, I went to my local hobby store to pick up the colors. The paints went on great, as always. The problem was that the kit supplied decals were almost invisible when I applied them. After a shot of Dull Coat, they faded even more. Practically nonexistent. I want to say that Academy provides really good decals in their kits. I've never had any issues before with them. (And I've built A LOT of them).I just think that they missed the mark on this ONE kit. I purchased the below decal sheet yesterday. They are made by Flying Leathernecks Decals. These are the best decals I've used in a very long time. They even include a very realistic vinyl sticker for the front sensor ball above the gun. I've always had a hard time replicating the color. This company has nailed it. I hope this helps someone incase they are still using Testor Model Master Paints Regards Christopher
  15. AND A FEW MORE THOUGHTS.... Gil, Open judging over the course of the convention could work if, instead of doing it during the day, it was done in the late evening on Wednesday, Thursday, and of course Friday. After the vendors and seminars are over and the contest room is closed to the public. It would allow the judges to clear the latest entries and deal with problems in an organized, but far less stressful environment. I still feel a three person team is the best way to judge. One person, working alone can miss things; team work allows judges to share information which is important when working with diverse subjects. Judging with the public in the room is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA. The current system has the head judges check the work done by the teams and has them explain their decisions and this is an excellent check and balance developed over the past fifty years. Working in the evenings as a group would allow this to be done while all the judges are together and don't have to be run to ground in the vendor's room. Using the open system in this manner will still take a lot of paper work ….2000+ judging sheets verses the current 200 or so used now. I still feel a Single Award System (SAS) would be superior. Dak
  16. Well, if no one has officially been designated I can take a stab at it. Eric would need to give me some additional training on how to get to the specific pages we plan on using. Assuming the process is the same as the box art galleries, I'm at least partially trained on the uploading. Assuming all of that is a go, then all of us that plan on doing it will need to coordinate file transfers and such at the convention. Rick
  17. Special Hobby has issued a new release in their line of B-18 Bolos. This one is the ASW edition with radar nose and "mad" boom on the tail. It is a great addition to the B-18 series and a unique addition to any ones collection of large twin engine aircraft in 1/72 scale Overview This kit is the fourth in the B-18 Bolo series and is one of the more unique variants of this obscure aircraft. The kit is typical of Special Hobby in that it is a mix of styrene, photo etch, and resin parts and should still be considered "short run" so dry fitting and some slightly more advanced modeling techniques will be needed. Construction Before starting I dipped all the clear parts for this build in "future" floor polish. As there are a lot of windows and clear parts now is the best time as they are used throughout the build. read more View the full article
  18. History The Breguet 690 series resulted from a French Air Ministry competition for a heavy twin-engine fighter. Similar aircraft were being developed in Germany - the Messerschmidt Bf-110 and in Holland - the Fokker G.1. The Br.693 was the most successful of the 690 series designs. Powered by the Gnome-Rhone 14M engine, over 200 were produced and in service against German forces. These ground-attack fighters were loved by their crews but many were lost to anti-aircraft fire and Luftwaffe fighters during the furious battles in May and June 1940. Armament of the Br.693 consisted of six internally stored 50 kg bombs, a 20-mm fixed forward firing cannon and four 7.5-mm machine guns. Three of the machine guns were fixed and one was on a flexible rear firing mount. The Br.693 was a good looking, reasonable performing twin engine ground attack fighter but it was outnumbered and overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe. read more View the full article
  19. History The CM-11 Brave Tiger (Yong Hu Shi Zhan Che ) is a Main Battle Tank (MBT) that was developed by the American General Dynamics and the Republic of China Army (ROCA) Armored Vehicle Development Center[1] It was introduced to the public on 14 April 1990. Being a variant of the M48 Patton, it is also known as the M48H Main Battle Tank. The CM-11 is a hybrid M60 chassis fitted with the turret from the older M48 Patton and the fire control system of the M1 Abrams.[2] read more View the full article
  20. Last week
  21. Gil, I don't buy it. I agree GSB works on a small scale, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea it can be scaled up. Nothing you have posted has convinced me you have a good grasp on what it would take. You talk about fine tuning the GSB to fit the National, but again you offer not proof or clear description of your fine tuning. When you put together a show with 2000 plus models going on for four days and have praises for it, I'll believe it can be done. No, the event I was referring to was when some awards were not presented because "the models did not measure up to IPMS standards". I fully understand the "standards" as you mean them, but the wording still cause some to shudder. I do not believe you can get the needed manpower to do the judging as you describe. I know I would not be interested in giving up my vacation time to do it your way. I like judging on Friday night because it fits my schedule and I believe others would feel the same way when actually confronted with it. I learned a long time ago not to put faith in the promises of good intentions. This would be something to put to actual judges at the National; see how many would prefer it to the traditional Friday night event. Maybe a questionnaire handed out on Friday night. Also, many people do not like judging with public in the room. Many would not like being photographed while judging a model. Yes, you can demand etiquette, but again, we are talking about a larger group. My experience says it would not be good and I suspect it would cause many experienced judges to drop out. And if judges can go about the work over several days, what will be done with the judging sheets? Certainly, you do not plan on leaving them with the model, until all are done. Hmmm... taking pictures using the Single award system...... Early on you said the awards would be about the same number we use now thus costs would not increase much so, if the overall numbers stay the same, those at the awards ceremony would stay about the same. Any change to the system requires adjustment. I remember the days when there were no pictures at the banquet and only B&W pictures came out in the Update. Things have adjusted. Why do we need a system that ranks the models? The Single award system would provide basically what you want with far less work and disruption. How is GSB superior to what I proposed? No, Gil, the more I read your posts, I believe the GSB, as you present it, would not work for the numbers we get, or expect to get, at a national. That you offer a couple different ways to do something says you have not fully developed your plan and that is its weakness. For example, show me what sort of judging sheet you would use, if not a single sheet for each judge per model. (Perhaps, you can create a mock up to illustrate your vision.) If three judges use the same sheet, that would still be a judging sheet for each model. 2018 had more than 2300 entries, so you would need that many, correct? Currently, there are only about 200 judging sheets. Dak
  22. DAK: Again...you're holding on to some old ideas and misunderstood some of what I said. The one thing that would have to be allowed for is judging while people are in the room. I've also done this at a 1-2-3 show and agree that it CAN be a problem. However, the answer is simple: demand good etiquette from the attendees! Judges will have to be avoided by those who are milling about. People placing models can do so in a quiet, polite manner, and then move off. If someone wants to hover, then the team leader nicely asks them to move along. If they fail to do so or start interfering in the judging (talking, questioning, etc.) the team leader gets the head judge and the attendee is put on notice of being disqualified. Failure to cooperate or repetitive hovering will result in disqualification and possible banning from future shows (this is already policy among the judges themselves!). It IS something new to be learned by attendees, but it is also easily explained and easy enough to police. Judging time? As it is now, a judge (or team) donates at least 4-5hrs on Friday evening. If they arrive at the show knowing their assignment, and having communicated with each other ahead of time, then they should be able to get together for an hour or two 2-3 times over the two days. So perhaps they judge for one hour on Thursday afternoon to get started. Then they get together for 2 hours on Friday morning. and then perhaps they use Friday evening to finish up for 1-2 hrs as needed. The judging team could even go out to dinner with wives or friends on a Friday night before showing up to finish up (something not possible now). I agree that this will be something NEW, and it will require a team leader to communicate and coordinate with his two fellow judges so that each of them CAN attend seminars, do lunch, have free time to shop and admire models. However, once the new system is implemented, the teams should actually fall into a routine of sorts. AND, since many genres aren't as "populated" as the aircraft and armor areas, in fact, many of the genres may be pretty much done before Friday evening "judging" (the time used to be sure everything is done). Also, (as added insurance), if some judging had to be done on Saturday morning, it could be done then. While you doubt this could be coordinated (and I agree it could be tough to start if a Head Judge or team leader was lax), I (as a judge) would LOVE to know what I was assigned to do and to be able to get the jump on things! The Nats is the one show that does have enough judges (100 or so on average), and the actual "pool" is even larger. It's also the most experienced group of judges compared to locals and regionals. An adequate number of teams could be assembled and assigned ahead of time, though I freely admit there could be a steep learning curve the first couple of years. If someone feels they need more time for other things at THAT show, then they simply don't volunteer to judge that year (the exact same as now). Holding space? Judging models before they enter the room? Where did you come up with that? This is not Amps and I certainly never said or implied it. All models would be judged in place on the tables in the contest room, just like now. Missing a model? Judging a model more than once? Extremely doubtful, since the team would be able to mark the entrant's paperwork with the model AS judged. Also, the real plus with GSB is there's really NO reason to move a model since they only have to fit into the broadest of "categories" (unlike now). Anything can happen (of course), but you threw that in there without any real probable cause. The 3 man team approach requires no more paperwork than now. The only difference is that instead of 3 lines on their sheet they'll have about 30 lines to record results on (and I don't propose having teams judge more than that at a time unless they HAVE EXTRA time). As it is now, a team will generally judge a category with 20-30 models in it, tops. The splits are designed to keep it at those numbers. The GSB "categories" or display zones (whatever you label them) can be designed the same way (much the same as now). Thus teams will still judge approximately the same number of models as they do now, but they won't have to wait and do it all in one night (unless they prefer to). The other "individual" way does require more time and paperwork, but it's also spaced out over 3 days (including Saturday, which the recorders already work now). That's why I prefer the traditional 3 man team approach. To note another change; the idea that you're going to take pics and show EVERY winner at the banquet has to be tossed. Since you'll be awarding so many more models, it just cannot be done. My proposal would be to simply list the bronze and silver winners in the Journal (their name, and the number of each they got), and then show pics of the Gold winners at the awards ceremony and in the Journal. Want your model up on the wall at the banquet? Up your game and win a gold! That will greatly reduce the stress of WHAT has to collated and coordinated for the awards ceremony at the Nats, while giving plenty of time to sort and record the bronze and silver winners for publication months later. Standards? You are ENTIRELY wrong in citing that old IPMS story....THAT was a proposal to have a MINIMUM standard to ENTER at the Nats, and had NOTHING to do with judging standards during the contest. There IS a standard we use now in our Nats 1-2-3; the BASICS. GSB will use that SAME standard, but draw lines to say which award goes with what level of building and finishing basics (go back and read the Pittsburg GSB standard in the post above by DM). Anyone who thinks there is no "standard" to be met in order to win in 1-2-3 or GSB, or that having one is "dangerous", is beyond help from any of us! Am I seeing pie in the sky, or painting a really rosy scenario? Perhaps....but I did so at YOUR request to "flesh out how" GSB could actually work and be scaled up. In reality (not just theory), we're doing this at Jaxcon. We were able to do it (hiccups and all) last year with over 600 models, and did so over 4-5 hours in one day (we're a 1 day show). The idea is to streamline and improve our system so that we handle all those models and more in an even easier manner with time to spare. We'll see.... This is why I say that GSB has to be PROVED at the local and regional level first. It has to be fine tuned so that we do it as normally as we now do 1-2-3. If that CAN be done, then it CAN be used at the Nats. If it IS pie in the sky, then it'll die its own death of natural causes and shows will revert to 1-2-3. Writing, proposing, and debating GSB will do nothing. Actual trial and error is what's needed to make the switch to GSB. GIL
  23. Gil, I believe you grossly underestimate the problems of implementing a scaled up version of GSB vision. The IPMS/USA National is currently 4-5 times the size of the largest GSB contest noted here. First, you assume an adequate number of people will be willing to take time out to act as judges from Thursday morning to Friday afternoon. Like many attendees, I see this as a vacation. I want to wander the model room and vendors; attend seminars, or maybe take tours. At Columbus, I spent the entire Wednesday at the Airforce museum and Thursday in seminars. To take several hours judging at a time inconvenient for me is not an appealing idea. HOW is this different from several hours on Friday night? By that time, the vendors are closed; the seminars and tours are done. To work for several hours then looking at models, is not a burden for me. Judging the models as they come in, but before they go on display will require an, as yet, unknown amount of holding space. Also, there will be surges of entries arriving. So, you would need to adjust the number of judges to prevent back up. Potentially tying up a lot of people just sitting and waiting. People who might want to be other places like the vendor's room. Also, it was determined over thirty years ago that letting the judges leave before all the judging was done was a VERY bad idea. Such a bad idea, they wrote it into the rules. Having the judges working while people are in the room is also a poor idea. Large numbers of models will be coming in, spectators roaming around, and then there are the lurkers....those folk who want to know about or influence the judging of their entry. Then there is the real risk of overlooking a model or judging a model multiple times by different teams. (I have seen this happen with totally different results for each team.) This sounds like a recipes for confusion. Here you say.... then here.... ….you start talking about scoring. No matter how you do it numeric scoring is going to require manpower. Not just judges. Each entry will need at least three scores and these will need to be checked by the head judges. Potentially, 6000 to 7500 sheets of paper (maybe more) which will need to be held until the contest is done. Compare this to the current 190-200 sheets.....only one for each category. Standards... this is a dangerous word. Back in the late seventies, there was an attempt to set standards and it was disastrous...the Milwaukie National, I think. IPMS/USA has had fifty years experimenting with contest rules. While it needs changes, and tweaks, it has a solid history to draw from. By shifting to an entirely new system without some trial and error work, would be potential disaster. Would you be will to bet all your local clubs money on an untried contest like a National? I for one would like to see an awards system which allows more than three medals per category. I think with the growing number of entries, simply increasing categories is a dead end and we need to find a solution, but simply assuming we can just switch to a GSB without a sound understanding of what we can realistically do is a dangerous route. Would it not be easier to increase the number of awards and apportion them based on the entries numbers in categories and use a non-ranking award, but use the current methodology? No 1st; no Gold, just an award. I. E., In 1/72nd single engine aircraft five awards were given out. In 1/35th Open Topped AFVs, seven were given out. Dak
  24. In case you haven't heard about it yet, Martin Kovac has been putting out some very informative videos on all aspects of armor model building. Great stuff and worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNM5EknY1XBA9buLmJqYLdw/videos
  25. BryanKrueger

    Takom SMK

    Thanks. I agree. I just need to add some light buff patches to complete the look.
  26. RGronovius

    Takom SMK

    Looks good, the scheme resembles the Cold War US MERDC pattern.
  27. GSB CAN be scaled up to the Nats....BUT you have to throw out the idea of trying to judge everything in just one night. The reason we judge everything in one night under 1-2-3 is the need to wait until EVERY model has been entered so they can be judged one against another. There's no need for that with GSB. Each model is being judged against a standard, and it can be judged as soon as it hits the table, as long as their are judges available. There's a couple of possible ways to do this, neither of which require scoring, points, or math on the part of the judges. The first way, and the most familiar way is to retain our teams of 3 judges and they evaluate each model in their assigned area (for ex. 1/72 prop) and decide what award (if any) each model in that "category" deserves. BUT, the team has 2-3 DAYS to get it done. They can meet several times at their own convenience to judge their assigned area, moving on to what's arrived and hasn't been judged yet each time, and having to be done with all of them (like now), by 11pm on Friday evening. This WOULD require that the Head Judges organize, assemble, and assign their judging teams BEFORE the Nats starts. However, with the ease of modern communications that should present few problems, especially after the first year or two. After that, experience and even repetitive assigning would ease the job. The second way is that each judge works independently, at their convenience on their assigned area. Again, they have 2-3 days to get them all judged; BUT, in this case they would need to hand in their work each time they took a break to a scorer. The scorer would be tracking the awards (if any) each judge thinks a model should get. Under this method you could have a "category" (and each model in it) actually judged by as many as 5 judges. In the end, the scorer simply looks at what the majority of the judges thought an entry should get and marks it down for that award. This method does require more "paperwork" by the staff, but it also allows easier organizing of the judging pool and for more opinions (and perhaps a fairer outcome) in the actual judging. Keep in mind that the National Judges are the MOST experienced at their craft. They KNOW "excellent" from "very good" from "good" from "not good enough". Currently, they use that knowledge in comparison to other models beside each other. They can just as easily apply that knowledge to award a gold, silver, or bronze based on a written standard. A team of 3 might operate this way: the FIRST thing they do when they look at a model is ask each other for an immediate opinion. If they all agree, BAM, they're done! They mark that award (or no award) down for that entry and move on to the next. Thus the BEST and the WORST entries will be done quite quickly. If there's a split in the thinking, then they discuss it (as they do now) and come to a consensus. This will happen with those entries that appear to be on the cusp....should it get a bronze or no award? Should it get a silver or a gold? The key is to have the standard written so that it's easily understandable. As I said, the Nats judges already know what's right and wrong when they look at a model. All they need is guidance on where to draw lines for each award. The golds and "no awards" are easy.....it's the standard for the silver and bronze, where there ARE some problems on the models that require some thought and care. If the Nats were to stop trying to judge everything in one night, and allow the judges (in teams or individually) to judge their assigned areas starting on Thursday morning; then 2500 models COULD be judged by 11pm on Friday evening. It can be done, but you have to let go of old habits and ideas to do so. GIL
  28. Greetings David In the section on the Judging Survey I have posted some information regarding the "Open Judging " used by Pittsburgh. I would be more than willing t talk to you regarding this system and why Pittsburgh has chosen it. Dave Morrissette has posted my email and my mobile number is 412-449-7505. I would be more than happy to talk with you and offer any support needed. Best Regards Bill
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...