Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Scale Motorsport has just announced a new super detail set for the Revell GT 40 kit. It is not on their web site yet, but it is up on their facebook page. No information about what will be included but if I know Matthew Wells(and I do) it will be outstanding! Glad to see new product coming out! It has been a while.
  2. 2 points
    Two models completed in one year so far!! WooHoo!! 😁
  3. 2 points
    This week’s update on the F-22 is a small one. Between my oldest son’s graduation from college and life getting in the way I was not able to spend a lot of time on the bench. However I was able to complete the main weapons bay doors. The small doors had 14 parts and the larger doors had 50 parts each. The braces are 1mm X 1mm styrene stock and the hinge shaft is 28awg wire. Next I will be assembling the photo etch replacement missile bay doors and then priming all the doors for paint.
  4. 2 points
    This week the Raptor build is moving forward with many details. To start with the kit does not come with any weapons so I purchased some Eduard Brassin AIM-9X and a few AIM-120’s to load up the weapons bays. I finished the main landing gear bay walls then moved on to the exhaust. The photo etch kit supplies the inside details of the exhaust. Once installed they were painted then weathered with pastel chalk. The top part of the fuselage is also the top of the main landing gear bays. I added the kit parts then detailed them with more wire and cable mounts. I turned to the intakes by painting them white and adding the decals. I like that the intakes assemble on the edges instead of the middle. Makes the intakes look seamless. Finally I assembled the fuselage halves together. This was a bit tricky especially around the intake openings. But once I got it lined up and some minor trimming they fit well. Will need some minor putty in a couple of areas to smooth out some minor gaps. The next step is to address the fuselage and some overly thick RAM panels. See all the photos and notes from the start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  5. 2 points
    My model is the Italeri 1/72 scale Fiat CR-32 Chirri." It represents an aircraft assigned to XXIII Grupo Caccia, Aviazione Legionaria. The unit was led by Lieutenant Colonel Andrea Zotti and based at Puig Moreno, Spain, June-July 1938. The unit formed part of the Italian contingent fighting for the Nationalist cause during the Spanish Civil War. I used the Osprey Fiat CR-32 Aces of the Spanish Civil War (Aircraft of the Aces 94) for inspiration; profile 28. I wanted to model Zotti's aircraft; he flew "3-4", but I only had the decals for "3-6". The model was built out-of-the-box except for the rigging. Took me 3-months to figure out I can't paint Italian camouflage with an airbrush freehand and another 3-months and a lot of Tamiya tape to manage that effort. I enjoyed the build; never worked harder to complete a model...
  6. 2 points
    Continuing onward this week I am working on the main landing gear bays. After locating reference photos on Google, I started by drilling many, many holes to install the numerous hydraulic lines. Using a .09 drill bit I drilled out the many locations where the lines go to. I then took 32 awg wire and ran the individual lines. I then added the electrical cables and routed them. Still have a couple of more lines to run then need to do all the yellow and blue connections and holders on the lines. Then I can weather and highlight the bays. See all the photos from start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  7. 2 points
    Kudos for one of the Head Judges and NCC member for monitoring and stepping up to answer a rules question in a concise manner. This gives us an authoritative determination of the rule, as opposed to the rest of us offering our opinions. I hope more Head Judges follow this example! GIL
  8. 2 points
    It's now halfway through March and I'm finally able to post something finished. These are my two latest finished armor models . This first one is of the Military Wheels 1/72 scale Soviet SG-122. It's a 122mm cannon mounted on a PzIII chassis and hull and covered with a casemate. It was a stopgap project that only had a bout a hundred or so built before the SU-122 was accepted: The next one is the Trumpeter 1/72 scale Russian SA-6 Gainful. I made this as an East German machine that was repainted with the West German insignia after the German re-unification: My apologies for the poor pics. These look better in person. Well, that's all I have completed so far. Stay tuned, I have more to come.
  9. 2 points
    Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.
  10. 2 points
    I finally finished this baby last night. My first competed build for 2019. It's the Tamiya kit built in Operation Iraqi Freedom (thanks for correcting me, Rob) scheme. I used mylar for the optics and a resin set from Red Zebra for stowage. I also printed out cardboard boxes for MREs from Freddie's set and assembled them for a neat look that breaks up the stowage on the tank. I added a boom mic to the tank commander with copper wire. I used the hairspray technique on this one and tried to bring out the NATO woodland scheme underneath like the original. It didn't work out too well in that the top coat was very tenacious and didn't want to come off easily. Final weathering with Wilder oils and Flory pigments. I also made use of an item called "ceramic wire" for the aerials. I'm pretty satisfied with this build. The kit is highly recommended.
  11. 2 points
    As one of the individuals involved, and as a proponent for Open Judging, I read the NCC's summary. While the mechanics of a possible Open Judging method were not fully developed at this time, I see several flaws in the NCC's assessment of how they believe Open Judging works. Here's my counterpoint to the NCC: There is no "Ideal" or "Standard" (other than the Contest Rules) that needs to be met in order for anyone to enter models. You can enter as many models as you wish as long as you pay the entry fee, the same as has always been done. Models are judged using the very same criteria set that is currently employed by IPMS. Rather than counting flaws and making cuts, each model is evaluated as to how well the modeler met the criteria. Nothing has been said about skill levels. Had these been mentioned, I would suggest that it would be initially left to the entrant to determine their own skill level. Once they've won Golds at their current level, they get promoted to the next level. But that's step 1,278. We're on Step 1. The judges would still be your peers within IPMS--It isn't as if IPMS will all of a sudden start using some "Intergalactic Model Judging Guild" to judge the show. Because the models aren't compared to each other, the judging can begin as soon as the first models reach the display room--they get placed on the display tables and are judged as they sit. Done properly, judges will be able to pick what shifts they want to judge, rather than having to cram it all into a few hours on Friday night. As soon as each model has the required number of judging sheets, it can be tabulated and the award determined. Class Awards, Best-of-Show, and Special Awards are judged as they always have been--all the Gold winners in a given class are compared and a "winner" determined. The work is spread out over several days. Start a Sign Me Up page or make other efforts to get volunteers to assist in tabulating the data, same as we do for other show volunteers. I'm sure there are folks who want to see how the sausage is made after the judging itself is done. IPMS/USA designs a standard, non-show specific Field Award (medals or challenge coins, ideally) to be used at ALL National Conventions. Order in bulk, the ones that don't get used this year are saved for the next year, or the following year, etc. Put that onus on IPMS/USA and the NCC. This will actually save money--ask me about the boxes of unneeded field awards left over from the 2016 Convention sitting in my garage. They cannot be re-used as contest awards--most of them will have had the plaques torn off and the wood used as model bases by the time they're all gone. In effect IPMS/USA tossed that money in the county landfill. Only the Class Awards, Best of Show, and Special Awards need to be designed and tailored to the current Convention's theme. That work will still fall on the host chapter. Not everyone wants a 'contest'. Many modelers want to be informed/educated, and many others certainly do just want to show off what they've done in a Display Only format. A model that doesn't win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd under the current system doesn't meet the IPMS Standard. While every model should have at least one comment, there is no requirement to comment on each model in the room. These comments are quick notes--"There's a seam on the right wing", not short versions of "War and Peace". Dragging out the "every model wins a trophy" argument is beneath you, Mark, and I wouldn't have expected to see it. Should the membership opt for Open Judging, it won't happen overnight. I estimated a five- to seven-year implementation plan when it was discussed, starting at the local level for a few years, then migrating to the Regional level. By the time it gets rolled out on a National level, most of the bugs will have been discovered and the wrinkles ironed out. Like anything new, it won't always go to plan--I doubt our current system was seamless and foolproof when it was first used, either. But the benefits of a properly designed and implemented Open Judging system--specifically the score sheet and feedback--outweigh the growing pains I know will happen. Ralph Nardone President, IPMS/Mid-Carolina Swamp Fox Modelers IPMS #33984 AMPS #2540
  12. 2 points
    Let me now provide the history of the preparation of this ballot It began after last year’s National Contest with the annual forum debate on open judging (GSB) vs. 123. I joined the discussion and innocently made what I believed to be a practical suggestion: attach a simple tear-off ballot to the National Convention Contest registration form, deposit it in a box at the time of registration and add them up. That was rejected by the IPMS leadership, but, to their credit, they asked a working group of those interested in the question to create a ballot that would be included in an issue of the Journal so members could vote. I was one of the group, as was Rusty White. Again, to the credit of the leadership of IPMS, we were to be allowed to prepare the entire ballot. Our goal was to prepare a dispassionate, objective description of each system. It would be brief, fair, balanced and unemotional. At the beginning of the preparation of this ballot, I offered to write the initial description of our current 123 judging system for this ballot. However, Rusty White, who, from the start, had arrogated to himself the position of working group leader, rejected this offer and unilaterally decided to have someone from IPMS administration prepare the portion of the ballot that would describe the 123 system for the voters. I can only assume that Rusty decided that I, who he perceived as having some deep-seated and unalterable pro-123 bias, would somehow scupper the attempt to create a fair ballot. No one else in the group was allowed any input in this decision.There was never any question about the group’s other members being able to be objective about GSB open judging. I, however, was apparently not to be trusted to be fair. The irony is that I worked as hard as anyone in the group to prepare an accurate and fair description of open judging. We argued back and forth to create what you now see as the “position paper” for open judging. I insisted, as did others, that it take the form you now see. We wanted to provide basic facts and let the members decide. The Forum can provide the platform for debate and comment. We did not want that discussion to take place on the ballot. Then, without any warning or preparation from Rusty, the entire ballot suddenly appears as you see it. The working group was not permitted to sign off on it in it’s entirety. We never would have! And that is because the “position paper” for 123 was everything the group wanted to avoid. It is not brief or fair or balanced or unemotional! It is electioneering ON THE BALLOT by the very people who will be counting the votes. If I sound like I am whining, it is because I am. I am trained as a scientist. I want facts obtained honestly and objectively. I also have great respect for fairness in any vote. This ballot, as presently constituted, is not fair and should be seen as an embarrassment to this organization! I worked hard on this project. So did the others. We deserved the opportunity to produce something we could take some satisfaction in, regardless of the outcome of the vote. That opportunity was taken away from us by the very person in the working group who assumed the leadership position for himself and got out- manouvered. Please don’t blame me. Thank you. Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.,
  13. 2 points
    Interesting. In my opinion, the referendum implies an immediate change to our system. As such it will of course be rejected. Let me explain. I have been a judge at IPMS National Conventions for 20 years. I’ve also been the head judge at the Three Rivers IPMS contest for about that same length of time. Our show uses open judging. There is a common thread to the discussions on this and other forums regarding the GSB system. The topic is nothing less than radioactive. This is not intended to be an ad hominem attack on any individual or group of individuals, but again through years of experience I have some idea of how these things work. Mr. Dedig has a very good point. One could easily see his description of “Lobby Champion” in the definition of the 1-2-3 system. It is not so much a definition as an indictment. I will interject in the definition below. Definition: Currently, model entries are evaluated based only on the entries in that year’s contest - comparing them only to each other. Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria. Nor are entries judged, based on any perceived personal expertise of the entrant (“beginner/advanced/master modeler”). This is absolutely true, and the inherit weakness of 1-2-3 contests. Much of any judging team’s time is often spent finding the “best of the rest” to fill out the 3rdor even 2ndplace winners of a category. The first plane winner may be obvious, but the rest could have so many problems that the team simply adds up the flaws of one model vs. another to determine the remaining winners. This frequently results in models winning at a national level that would not win in the open (GSB) format. Is that what we’re striving for? I’ve heard the argument that this point doesn’t matter. The three best models on the table in that group on that night won. Well how about the larger categories with 20-30 models that typically attract very good builders? I know we tend to split larger categories, but occasionally that can’t be accomplished due to the finite number of splits available. So here some very good models will not place, where in the first example, some not very good models will. There are no “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” that I am aware of. But there are good and bad paint jobs, decal applications and basic construction. These can be dispassionately scored and the results evaluated. Perceived personal expertise of the entrant? We don’t do that now and would not in the open system either. Judges are your IPMS peers, who volunteer a portion of their convention time to support the contest. They follow the guidelines in our Modeler's Guide To IPMS Contests. On average, we get 204 judges each year to cover 2,350 model entries. They ‘score’ an average of 600 winning models. Want to require those 204 to spend three times longer at their tasks, to ‘score’ all 2,350 models? Currently, any judge can leave comments on any entrant’s model-entry sheet; want to require them to leave comments for all 2,350 models? Are you going to make the commitment to help accomplish that task? We do evaluate all 2,350 models now. Some take very little time due to obvious flaws. Depending on the open judging format, this may not be necessary in GSB either. A scoring sheet does codify the results and focus judges’ evaluations. It does take more time. But judges at Telford use one and I haven’t heard any complaints about that. I’m not sure why this would take three times longer. Also, comments would not be required. A recent Regional Convention that I attended (and judged) solicited comments from judges. Some were helpful; most were not. The scoring speaks for itself. If you score 3 out of 10 in decal application the judging team doesn’t have to comment that the model didn’t place due to poor decals. Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper, to provide entrant and model names for those winners. They work all Friday night and into Saturday until Banquet time. To do the same for 2,300 entries, are you ready to sacrifice your own convention time to help do that task? This could be an issue, but perhaps not. We have run two Regional Conventions using the GSB system in Pittsburgh. One serious advantage is that judging can take place at any time. Our shows were two day events and judging began on Friday evening and continued through Saturday. Teams came and went at intervals. For a National Convention this would be a challenge to coordinate. But it could be done with proper planning. At the other Regional I mentioned, the judging time commitment was no greater than the typical 1-2-3 event. In no way do I wish to denigrate the efforts of the National’s staff. You all do absolutely excellent work and deserve all the credit we could possible give. The virtually flawless execution of the awards ceremony is evidence of the work of this group of people. For cost efficiency and planning, the 1-2-3 system pre-defines the maximum number of awards to be purchased and presented: 200 categories X 3 awards in each = 600 awards. G-S-B method leaves open the count of potential awards to be purchased (from 0% to 100%), for approximately 2,350 entries each year. How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case? This is an issue. But does anyone seriously think that 0%, no winners at an IPMS National Convention, or 100%, where everyone goes home happy is realistic. This type of argument clouds the issue and exaggerates the risk. Many shows of late have opted for medals as awards. These are relatively inexpensive. Extras could be ordered and some may not be used. If there are not enough, have more made and sent to the winners after the event. This is not a perfect solution, but we could ask other societies such as AMPS or the figure modeling groups how they handle the logistics. Also, there are no categories in open judging. We group the models together along natural lines: aircraft, armor, etc., just for ease of viewing. Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’. How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions? I don’t even understand this point. GSB events are no less a contest than the current system. “Critiquing entries to determine 1-2-3 vs G-S-B rankings is a distinction without a difference.” If this is true why is there resistance? “Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’?” Old line dating back to an unfortunate incident at a National Convention. Every model going home without at least a third place award feels precisely the same now. Our current processes are predictable and efficient. Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments. The volunteer efforts of the judging corps are effective, without overwhelming our available judges. Our current system isn’t ‘broken’ and doesn’t need to be ‘fixed’ – unless what you ultimately want is for every contest entrant to always be a winner! This is true. Except for the last sentence. I’m not even going to address that because it lacks serious merit. To sum up (a little late for that), the arguments against GSB on this forum seem to be more of an attack on an alternative. “This can’t possibly be done because…” Well it is done by AMPS, MFCA and local and regional IPMS shows. It is out there and it is gaining support. The purpose is to reward excellence and encourage improvement in modelling skills. I realize that we will never shift overnight from one style to another. That would be a recipe for failure. But to dismiss the open system out of hand, or continually attack it without considering its merits is also wrong. I think the National referendum should be something like this. “Would you like to see IPMS/USA experiment with the open GSB system at a future National Convention?” There are some excellent modelers who are also excellent judges and event coordinators who would support this. And by support I mean would sponsor trophy packages, offer to judge and help organize the experiment. Members could be solicited from the end of the prior convention, for let’s say a six month period to indicate if they would participate in an open judging experiment and approximately how many models they would enter. These models would not require any more space since they would be entered anyway. The distinction would be that a certain number of tables would be segregated for the purpose. Since we would know approximately how many models would participate, would could evaluate the number of awards to order. If it fails, it fails. At least the question would be addressed and long standing argument, both for and against, settled. At this point we honestly don’t know whether the topic would be accepted by the membership or not. I do know that after judging at our show, even some diehard opponents to GSB have been won over. They have said that our system is actually easier than they ever expected. Isn’t it time that we fairly approached this topic on a national level? Barry Numerick
  14. 2 points
    I think what's interesting is that the 1-2-3 description actually is written as a NEGATIVE towards GSB! Here are some examples: 1) " Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria". Strictly speaking that's true, but they make it sound like having a standard to WIN an award (NOT enter the contest) is a bad thing. Every club that does GSB KNOWS that to be false! And there IS a Standard in GSB... Those same BASICS! 2) "Judges are your IPMS peers"... Seems to imply that GSB uses wizards or outsiders from the GSB galaxy to judge at those shows. Nope! Turns out it's ALSO your "IPMS peers"! 3) " Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper" (etc)...Implies that GSB judging would be IMPOSSIBLE at the Nats because of the logistics of how 1-2-3 is done. FAILS to point out that EVERY GSB system used or proposed does NOT use that 1-2-3 system of recording. IF GSB were ever to be used at a Nats, the system would be entirely different. 4) " How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case?" This next paragraph rightly points out the differences between the number of awards needed between the two systems. However, it WRONGLY implies that you could NEVER know how much you need! This is dealt with by EVERY GSB show in the nation EVERY year; so it IS something you can "learn". Would GSB be a "higher cost" system? YES! But then THAT is the crux of the debate: Should IPMSUSA look to reward MORE deserving builds than they do now? And with the profits that are being made, IPMS CAN afford to by some more awards! The debate, and the PURPOSE of this survey is to try to determine if the general membership thinks that's a good idea or not. 5) " Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’ "; THAT is a BLATANT assumption, and actually not true! There's enough of a question about that to lead to this survey being done! It also implies that GSB attendees aren't looking to "win" (as opposed to "contest" attendees). Baloney! GSB contestants want to win as MUCH as they can; they just prefer to do so while NOT "beating" anyone else, and (when they do win) not limit anyone else's ability to win. 6) " How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions?" What has THAT to do with models in a CONTEST, be it GSB or 1-2-3? People who want to compete enter the show, be it GSB or 1-2-3. Those who prefer to display do that, no matter what format is being used there! 7) " Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’? MISLEADINGLY implies that a Standard that determines WINNERS (not the ability to enter the show) is somehow mean. Well, how does it feel in a 1-2-3 show to go home EMPTY HANDED and not knowing if you even made the cut? BOTH systems still have "losers"...but GSB will have FEWER "losers" than 1-2-3! 8- " Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments" BLATANT BALONEY! In ANY 1-2-3 category with 10-25 entries at the Nats there are 7-22 that go home with NO idea of how they did!! There are HUNDREDS of outstandingly built models that go COMPLETELY unrecognized because the judges decide that there are 3 there THAT day that are "better". The "fair recognition" is ONLY truly fair for the top 3 winners! There's a LOT of advantages for 1-2-3 in IPMSUSA, and the system has some positives that make it preferable to many. There was NO need to write the above in such a negative way. Instead of touting the positives and advantages 1-2-3 offers IPMS members, it's written to PUT DOWN GSB. As the IPMS USA Chief Judge, I could understand if Mr. Persechetti wrote an enthusiastic support for 1-2-3. However, he chose to write it as a condemnation, and actually showed his ignorance of GSB in doing so. I'm greatly disappointed and disgusted with his lack of character and honesty in this matter! Gil
  15. 2 points
    Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    This is a 537 scale kitbash I did last year. USS Akula is a Lynch Class Light Destroyer. Ship design is by Eric Kristiansen who has published several books on Federation ships and technology, most notably the Jackills Guide to Federation Ships. Akula has custom decals from Jbot, lower deflector dish from Federation Models, scratchbuilt connecting dorsal and a 4 color "Aztec" paint scheme using McKenzie water based taxidermy colors. I also put hatches for "life boats" on this build. I am currently working on Akula's sister ship, a 1.350 scale Lynch Class which I am making my first attempt at lighting ( so far so good! lol)
  18. 1 point
    Comments that are critical of ‘finding the flaws’ and ‘ignoring the bigger picture of what the model actually represents’ ( I don’t even know what that means) frustrate me as an experienced and scrupulously objective judge. As long as we as judges are required to identify three winners and X numbers of losers in a finite amount time, we will need a system that is efficient while also is able to be fairly applied to all entries. While theoretically you could compile all the things done correctly on each entry, that would be too time consuming. So efficient knowledgeable judges will start be looking for where most builders make common mistakes. These are craftsmanship competitions NOT an assessment of how much enthusiasm the modeler has for his or her subject. Likewise, the judges are not trying to answer the question: ‘What is the artist trying to say?’ In modeling contests, as in war, the winner is often the one who makes the fewest mistakes. There is a very simple way for the builder to get past this first cut of common faults. Read the Competition Handbook and do what it tells you to do. Despite this, the common errors appear with predictable frequency- admittedly more at the lower level shows than at the Nationals- but they are always there. Most categories will thankfully contain the gross misalignments, the wide-open seams, sloppy paint work, the silvered decals. Once these are out of the running, the really hard work in a 1,2,3 system begins. Now comes the necessary nit-picking. Now some of the virtues of a G,S,B system become apparent. But under either system, there are going to be disappointed entrants. If you do not want to be one of them, you have two choices: build better models or keep your models on the display-only table. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge
  19. 1 point
    The helicopter is just about finished. I have to add some pastel chalk streaks, and REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tags. I've started on the base todays
  20. 1 point
    Beautiful aircraft Ora! You did an exceptional job on it. Well done!
  21. 1 point
    That's excellent Ora! I think mine came in recently, gonna take a closer look.
  22. 1 point
    This was a model I've wanted to get out of my stack for a while. The Stubo II is a Fantastic Plastic offering, that comes back in stock every once in a while. It's another one of the German WW2 planes that never made it off the drawing board. I *really* like this genre! 🙂 The kit comes in 14 parts including a seat and stick, which you'll never see, and I left out. The canopy is clear but following the directions, the majority of it gets painted. Being cast by Anigrand, you know you are getting a good kit. As usual, the parts went together with minimal effort. One thing I noticed with this kit is if the fuselage holes don't match the pins in the wings - swap the wings, don't clip the pins. They are made to fit only to one side. Cool idea! A lil seam filling. The process continued effortlessly, and a coat of white paint, for the fuselage, and V. Game Color Gory Red, was the shade of red I chose. Then it was time for the decals. The decals went on just as effortless as the rest of the build. After a short wait the Micro-Sol went on and suck the decals into all the panel lines perfectly. It was here that I noticed that there was no decal for the gun placement. It wasn't sculpted into the fuselage, so I thought it was a decal. Looking closely at the instruction sheet, it says the model was created after the original which didn't have guns. So if I wanted I could carve wells into the fuselage (THAT wasn't going to happen) or I could create a decals for it. Umm, didn't the FP guy create decals for his? Why couldn't his design be added to the decals sheet? Even if it added another $1 to the price of the kit, I'd pay it. Having no ability to create a drawing for a decal, mine will do without. Hard to see - the skid also went in place with no problems. Looking back one thing I should have done that I didn't was paint the inside of the canopy. With the white paint on the outside and the light tan resin showing on the inside, the windows almost disappear. I'll have to keep that in mind for the next time. While I was waiting for the clear coat covering the decals to dry I went apart creating a base for it. It consists of a square of foam that it coated in DAPs Plastic Wood. I started out using a spatula, but it seemed to go on faster and smoother with just a wet finger. Being the craft just has one landing skid, I created a mini sawhorse to level the plane for display. All done. Thanks for looking. I used Chinchilla Dust for the dirt. Is much more in scale than regular sand.
  23. 1 point
    The more things change..... I've followed this toxic topic for, literally, decades. It have seen the same voices voice the same opinions with something between the same vitriol and the same calm, reasoned discourse. I came to the conclusion, years ago, that IPMS is not now nor ever will be in the least interested in a GSB system because (1) NIH, (2) it's the way we've always done it, and (3) the "real" IPMS long-time modelers don't want it. Some who have supported it have been told, on the predecessor forum, in writing, "If you can't compete with the very best (us and/or me), then don't bother to show up and compete. Stop whining." So, long ago, I shut up. And have increasingly not shown up. I've previously stated that I can judge either way. I have and I will. I do the best I can under the judging rules. But, I do think that 1-2-3 devalues the very, very good model that is not quite a very, very, very good model -- in one category -- whilst in another category a just barely good enough model competing against entries with multiple serious flaws is recognized with the same 1st as a very, very, very, very good entry. I also think that often, in judging three or four, entries which, for all purposes are identical candidates for third place, that each really deserves some recognition. But, on a wing and a prayer, we have to convince ourselves that one is somewhat, somehow, probably, maybe better. (And, please, though I don't expect my request to be honored, don't come back with the not unusual, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of judging" comment. I've heard it before.) Makes no sense to me, but that is the way it is. HST, over the last decade, I've begun voting on this topic with my wallet. Where I used to attend every IPMS Nats and Regional that I could, I now choose to instead attend various figure shows that also have categories for plastics. I enjoy them much more, the spirit is much more collegial and must less cutthroat, there is markedly less chest pounding, and I feel that if I didn't place (the most likely outcome) then my entry was clearly not competitive. So, I have morphed from a regular Nats/Regional attendee/entrant to an occasional IPMS Nats/Regional attendee who seldom enters and am now a regular figure show attendee who always enters. I could well be alone in my metamorphosis, but no matter. I'm happy with my evolution and now figure I have only about 1-2 Nats left in me. All in all, I'm burned out on the topic of judging; I've moved on. So, as to this topic and this survey, in the immortal words of Monte Walsh, "You don't have no idea how little I care."
  24. 1 point
    Maybe instead of an abstain selection, maybe there could be a "No preference" vote for those who don't care which system is used as long as awards are being offered for competition. I for one really have no preference for the system used; I would enjoy the contest either way. Something to consider.
  25. 1 point
    John.....This is just a personal guess, but my understanding is that the purpose is to find out whether GSB or 1-2-3 is preferred among those who DO care. After all, if you have no strong opinion, you're going to simply go with the flow when you attend, and aren't necessarily interested in the direction of IPMS over the next decade (and probably aren't voting in the first place). If you believe that one or the other is better for IPMS, or if you simply like one better than the other, then your vote needs to be recorded one way or the other. As for having it as needed to actually place a vote in order to vote in the general election, I think that's meant to (again) avoid apathy. Only a fraction of the membership will vote either on-line or by mail. If you allow people to abstain or cast a "don't care" vote; IPMS learns nothing as to the preferences of 1-2-3 vs. GSB. I can see where some people like yourself feel like they're being forced to enter into a fight they don't care about. But, I think if you stop and consider it more as a referendum on whether we should change for the future or continue with the status quo for the future; you can come to an easy decision personally. GIL
  26. 1 point
    Hi Joe Rule I.3 states (emphasis is mine): "Prior Winners. Models that have won First-, Second-, or Third-place, or Outof-the-Box awards in any category of any previous IPMS/USA National Model Contest may not be entered in any subsequent IPMS/USA National Model Contest for awards, except as provided in Section II, Rule 19 (last sentence) and Section III, Rules 5--7. Previous award winners can be used as noted in Dioramas, Collections, Triathlon and Group entries. Models that have won an award as part of a Collection, Triathlon or Group entry may also be entered individually in subsequent National Contests. However, models that have won individually, and as part of a Collection, Triathlon or Group entry, are not eligible for subsequent National Contests." Note that there is no exception for Juniors moving up to Standard categories in subsequent years. There is the qualifier in Rule I.2 that a Junior entrant may choose to enter any or all of his entries [for that year] in the Standard categories. Your son's model, and I am assuming we are talking about his excellent Perry frigate from the Omaha show, may be entered for an award as part of a diorama/vignette (II.19) or as part of a Trathalon, Collection, or Group Entry (III.5-7). It may also be shown as a Display Only entry. I hope this answers your question. Ed Grune NCC Head Ship Judge
  27. 1 point
    Spring snow storm update! Yes it is spring and the middle of April but I think someone forgot to tell Mother Nature. Snowing like crazy here. So spent the day finishing the weapons bays and starting on the landing gear bays. The front landing gear bay is done. I added some wiring and hydraulic lines as well. I drew out the shape and laid out the wires then CA glued them together then fit them inside the bay. The photo etch supplied the wall details. I then glued the weapons and nose landing gear bay into the lower half of the fuselage. Next moving to the main gear then the engines. More photos at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  28. 1 point
    Here’s another save from someone’s childhood (before pic at end). Stripped, fixed in spots and 100% hand painted back to glory...no airbrushing here. Here’s a few progress pics. Tks for looking and your comments are welcome.
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
    My most unusually model I’ve built to date is this 1/35 scratchbuild: A short write up here: http://www.arcair.com/Gal13/12001-12100/gal12076-Rabbit-Michaels/00.shtm
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    From Faller, N-scale (1/160);
  33. 1 point
    More progress on the Tigercat. I first cut out the molded wing tip lights. Later I will add clear parts to make the lens. Next I assembled and detailed the main gear bays with some photo etch and detail painting. Moving onto the engines I used the photo etch wiring harness. The engines were painted with aluminum for the cylinders and black for the pushrod covers. The wiring was painted burnt umber and the front cover was painted light gray with chrome bolts. The landing gear was then detailed. The main struts had the hydraulic lines molded on. I cut them off and replaced them with black sleeved 32 awg wire. I drilled a small hole at each end then stripped the sleeving off to the bare wire and CA glued the wire into the hole. I added the one for the nose gear as well. When assembling the fuselage I filled everything forward of the cockpit to the nose with lead weights. Alas even with all the weights the aircraft still wants to sit on its tail. There just isn’t enough room to add more weight due to the sleek fuselage. I am most likely going to make a display base for the aircraft to sit on so that it displays correctly. The fuselage has been base coated and the decals will be the next step. You can see all the build photos from the start on my blog at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f7f-3-tigercat/
  34. 1 point
    All, While we've been quiet on the website front, we have been very busy behind the scenes. Registration is now live. We have a link to the IPMS store shopping cart for on-line registration, and we have a fillable PDF downloadable for those who prefer to register by mail. Model registration will follow later. We've announced two off site events. One is a tour to the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville AL, the other is a BBQ dinner at the Songbirds Guitar Museum in Chattanooga. Both of these will be excellent activities. Check the site for more info on both. We've got a list of vendors who have reserved tables posted. It's a MONSTER list and it's turning into a historic vendor hall. The current record for vendor tables at a Nats is 424 in Atlanta in 2005. We currently have 431 tables reserved. With 5 months to go before the convention, even with some drop outs we really like our chances for setting a record for number of vendor tables. In a huge change from past conventions, we are going without a banquet. See the website for more details, but we're going to have a $5 desert reception to be followed by the awards. We should have seating for over 1000 for the reception and awards, and we're really hoping to have a huge party to wrap up this year's convention. We also have a rather extensive list of seminars that we're working on. Topics and presenters are currently listed on the website, and a schedule will follow soon. Finally, for now, we are really trying to emphasize display only models. We want to see as many as folks are willing to bring. Again, see the website for details. Any questions? Let me know. My email is on the Home page of the Convention Website! Thanks Mike Moore 2019 Convention Chairman
  35. 1 point
    Thanks, Bill, With a meeting theme for March of "anything green," a yellow, orange, white, metallic red, and metallic purple vehicle assembly will fit right in. So I'll be bringing it! Ed
  36. 1 point
    Like I said Duke, I really hope you'll be able to make it, so we'll start praying out here! Mike
  37. 1 point
    And on yet another note...without a doubt, the single most important and beneficial thing that I have done to better my overall skill as a modeler, increase my enjoyment of the hobby, and improve the quality of the models I produce is to apprentice as a judge under an experienced and accomplished modeler/judge, and then judge in my class (armor). In my opinion, the more you judge alongside competent, "non-b-hole-ish" judges, the more constructive and valuable your feedback is (when shared/sought), the better builder you develop into, and the less subjective and more objective your judging becomes.
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    Just a personal life changing story on the subject. Years ago(twenty years ago now) I built a custom model car that I entered in a local contest. I worked very hard on the model and was quite proud of it. It didn't place in the contest. After the show I took it to the head judge for the category. As it happened the judge was Drew Hierwarter. Many of you may know him as a long time staff writer for Fine Scale and Scale Auto. Drew took the time to go through the model with me, pointing out flaws and other things that were detractors. We were both very respectful of the other and it made a difference. Well to make a long story short, I took the model home, set it on the bench and took a deep breath and tore the model apart to rebuild it. The end of the story is that the following show I took it to was Tamiya/Con and it won Best Extensive conversion and an all expense paid trip to Japan for a week. That set me on a lifetime path of working to make the best models I can and seek advise and critiques from many sources. My experience with a judge may not be typical, but it could be. When I judge, I remember my experience and am willing to help any modeler who asks.
  40. 1 point
    Greetings The two replies offer more "definition " than anything in the original posting. Thank you Barry and Gil for clear and detailed information. Your replies shall be 100% more effective in informing members of some of the details regarding "Open Judging" and 1-2-3 Judging. As President of Three Rivers IPMS, I will do my best to ensure our club members are reading this forum and actively involved in this discussion. A. IPMS E-Board please try for an open mind regarding this subject.The survey looks to be a step. B. Thank you Gil and Barry for your time. Regards Bill Dedig
  41. 1 point
    Here's a couple shot of my Billiken MechaGodzilla 2 kit. This is a vinyl kit that includes white metal parts for the "fingers". Once again hand finished in acrylics and Tamiya Weathering System palettes. Thanks for looking!
  42. 1 point
    Another great event Gil!! Congrats to you and your team for putting together another fine show!! Doug
  43. 1 point
    It appears that Shapeways has reorganized its website to make items easier to find. Here is a link to the "Aircraft" index page, where you can filter by scale, type, era, and country. Accessories such as engines are also included. There's even a Norden bombsight! https://www.shapeways.com/marketplace/miniatures/aircraft/ There are also index pages for sci-fi, ships, vehicles, trains, and other items. Note: I have no connection to Shapeways or any of the designers whose work is sold there.
  44. 1 point
    Excellent!!! That really is an effective camo scheme. Great work again, Bryan. Bill
  45. 1 point
    Welcome David! Glad to have you here with us! I think you'll find modeling it like riding a bicycle.....sure, you'll lose your balance and scrape a knee as you regain your balance; but you'll be popping wheelies in no time! Be sure to post your work as you start getting models built again! GIL
  46. 1 point
    That is one vicious looking airplane. One of my faves, beautifully done.
  47. 1 point
    In part, because of low pay in certain jobs. But in places like convention hotels, many guests are on an expense account and tip bigger because it is not directly out of their pocket. The hotel staff tends to believe ALL convention goers are that way. Dak
  48. 1 point
    For me it was with transparent green from Vallejo mixed with future. SPRAY... not enough... SPRAY... not enough...SPRAY... ARRRGGHHH too much. 😞 😉
  49. 1 point
    Very cool build!!
  50. 1 point
    PeteJ, I started this thread not as criticism, but as curiosity if others have encountered such groups. In my description of the AMSO group, I have very charitable of them. They are not really that creative, but merely use it as a an excuse to justify poor craftsmanship. I realize everyone builds models for their own reasons and we have several in both the local IPMS chapters who only build for themselves. They have no interests in contests, nor do they try to build at a high competitive level. I like them and have great respect for them for they accept both complements and suggestions with good grace. You can be extremely creative and be a good craftsman, I have seen that constantly at the Nationals. The man I described in the earlier post hardly ever built a model, but from day one was constantly pestering people to trade stuff with him. And he kept at it until I told him to leave me the F alone. This was not a difference in how to build, but about common courtesy. One was posting racist remarks on the internet and another was a drunk constantly stinking of beer. I would disagree that creativity doesn't win or isn't considered, particularly in the final stages of judging. My experience says those who feel the creativity of their model is over looked, are just trying to rationalize their failure, but it is true different groups see "good craftsmanship" differently. These two photos from OHMS show both creativity and good craftsmanship, IMO. That's Manta Ray Charles, by the way. Dak
×
×
  • Create New...