Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 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...
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 2 points
    Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.,
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 2 points
    Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave
  11. 1 point
    This is the start of the Hasegawa 1/48 F-22 Raptor. I will also be using Ares resin cockpit and Eduard photo etch to detail this kit. The F-22 Raptor is fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine super cruise, super maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The Ares resin cockpit required the removal of the dash hood/HUD panel so that it can be replaced by the resin part. The nice thing about resin parts is they have much better detail than the injected plastic kit parts. The cockpit tub just required a couple of photo etch parts like the pedals and levers then was painted. For the resin dash I found a photo of the F-22 dashboard for the F-22 simulator. Using Adobe Photoshop I cut and sized the screens to make decals for the resin dash. Once the decals were applied and coat with clear gloss, the dash buttons and controls were painted. The ejection seat was painted and detailed with the Eduard photo etch parts. After installing the seat into the cockpit tub the cockpit was weathered with dark gray pastel chalk. The dash was then installed into the fuselage and resin details were added to the fuselage for the canopy mating hooks. Next I will be working on the main bomb bay section. For more photos see my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  12. 1 point
    After some marathon building over the past couple days, I finally have a few models to show. These are my armor models completed as of yesterday. I have eight of them finally done. First is the 1/72 scale ACE Italian 508CN Coloniale Staff car: My apologies for the poor pics. This is a tiny one and I seemed to have had a tough time keeping steady on this one. In keeping with the theme of tiny vehicles and such, here is my 1/72 scale Airfix British Airborne Jeep from the British Airborne Set: It also came with a pallet to land this thing from aircraft. Here it is sitting on that pallet: This Jeep above was also equipped with a trailer: It was also equipped with a 75mm Pack Howitzer to assist airborne troops with artillery support: Here is the whole British Airborne Set together: Next up, my Japanese Army takes delivery of the 1/72 scale IBG Type 3 Chi Nu Medium Tank: And finally, my Russian Army has taken delivery of three new vehicles. This first one is the 1/72 scale ACE BREM recovery vehicle: It doesn't show well in these pics, but that hook is painted a steel color. I don't know why it shows up this way. Moving on, I also finished up the 1/72 scale Takom MAZ-537 Tractor: Also, in that same kit was the 1/72 scale Takom KZKT-537 Tractor: And that completes my latest run of models for April. I might even have more finished in a week or three. Stay tuned and thanks for looking in, comments are welcome.
  13. 1 point
    Ok, they must have some time on their hands at the museum today. This is the second video release in the last hour.
  14. 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
  15. 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/
  16. 1 point
    Thanks guys! I had to make one fix, and it is done. I'll post the pics for it soon.
  17. 1 point
    Took a small break from modeling. Back at it again. Finally finished adding the photo etch to the engine, and cockpit. I purchased 4 sets from Eduard. Engine, cockpit, seatbelts, and gun bays. I also purchased a set of resin tires, and propeller with spinner. The kit rubber tires had nasty seams down the middle. After cutting the engine panels apart, I added photo etch to the inside of each one. I took the paper fuel tanks that came with the kit, and added them to the display. I used Testor's Metalizer Lacquer to simulate metal . This stuff is fantastic. I used it a lot for the engine components. Spray it on, let it dry, then buff it out. I seal mine after buffing. This prevents getting silver finger tips. One of the guys in our local model club was commissioned by the pilots son to build this exact same kit.The son gave him a copy of his fathers flight logs, and a very descriptive book detailing every one of his father's mission during the war. Thanks Ted for letting me use this info while building this kit.
  18. 1 point
    Stripped and restored this original Aurora. Missing tree and snake but I’ll find originals for it. First pic is what I started with.
  19. 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
  20. 1 point
    The MIG-21 PFM is now complete. I detailed the canopy and opted to leave it open to show the details of the cockpit. After reviewing some photos on line I dulled the finish a little. I then detailed the R-3S missiles by making the sensors look realistic. The method used is in my Tips and Tricks section. https://davidsscalemodels.com/tips-and-tricks/how-to-make-laser-and-ir-sensor-heads/ The missiles were then mounted as the final step. This was a very nice model to build. The fit was very good with very minor work required to line up the parts. Aside from the numerous decals they all went on nicely. Thanks for following along. Here are the final photos. To see all the photos from start to finish check out my build log. https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-mig-21-pfm/
  21. 1 point
    Like I said Duke, I really hope you'll be able to make it, so we'll start praying out here! Mike
  22. 1 point
  23. 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.
  24. 1 point
    Just a quick post to let y'all know that my latest Marmo Modelbuilding Guide will be available within the next few days. #9 in the series, this one focuses on the 1/32nd Revell AH-!G HueyCobra. That's right, the one first released in 1967 and still the only 32nd scale kit ever produced of the original AH-1G design. The Guide adds a Cobra Company aftermarket cockpit and rocket pods, along with a scratchbuilt revetment wall to form a Viet Nam vignette. One more thing. The Guide subject wears the familiar SEA three tone camouflage. As far as I've been able to determine, only four Cobras ever carried that scheme.
  25. 1 point
    Welcome to IPMS/USA! You mentioned having been a mech on USMC H-34's in the early 1960's. Did that perhaps include the USMC H-34 squadron TDY at Danang in 1963? Our C-123 squadron was there on the other side of the runway, on a temporary duty six month "Joint Training Exercise" from Pope AFB NC. At the time we joked that our "joint training" was mainly providing live targets for VC practice AAA ....and at low altitude and about the world's slowest airplane to shoot at, they still had trouble hitting anything. But as we all know they got better, so the "joint training" must have been effective.
  26. 1 point
    Thank you, Mr. Filippone! I did, in fact, sail through my civics classes with flying colors! So, I'm putting your post down as one vote against using my response as toilet paper. 🤣🤣🤣
  27. 1 point
    Mr. Willis: What you wrote, although a little more detailed and therefore longer than what our Survey working group would have prepared, is exactly the way we wanted the description of the 123 judging system to appear on the ballot- factual, unemotional, objective. Designed to inform, but not to persuade. Kudos to you! You must not have slept through those Civics classes that covered voting in an open honest system of government. At least somebody else gets it! Thank you. Regards, Nick
  28. 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
  29. 1 point
    Lots of work completed on the AR-196A. First, assembled wings and found that the fit to the fuselage has an issue. There is a large gap on the port side. The other side and bottom also have small gaps. These were all filled, filed and sanded. Then the floats were assembled and detailed with photo etch parts. The oil cooler was replaced with photo etch parts and added some more photo etch details to the fuselage. The rear machine gun was then detailed, painted, and mounted. The dolly was then assembled and painted. I painted the “wood” to look weathered and aged. Painted a brown base, then dry brushed tan and finally lightly dry brushed light gray. Once the paint was dry I used dark brown and black pastels to add weathered and dirt to the surface. Now working on painting the base coat on the aircraft. The first color of the scheme is done. Letting it dry overnight before I mask and paint the other color. Many more photos can be viewed on my blog at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-arado-ar-196a/
  30. 1 point
    Only the Japanese... Very cool! Bill
  31. 1 point
    Another great event Gil!! Congrats to you and your team for putting together another fine show!! Doug
  32. 1 point
    Here's a photo of a weary Abrams that shows how the road wheel hubs look. The blackened road wheel had a blown seal.
  33. 1 point
    Noel: to answer your question, the IPMS Nats is judged on Friday evenings starting about 7pm. Thus, they have no time constraints on getting done for the public since the room is not due to open until the next morning. There have been times when the judges weren't done til after midnight and the final Grand Award winner wasn't picked until close to 2am, but that's rare now. Generally, they're all done by midnight. The ONLY time constraint I'm aware of is occasionally the VENUE will have a "lights out" policy for the entire convention center of midnight, and THAT does cause some headaches; but as mentioned it is VERY rare. By the way, many years ago judging was on Saturday morning and there was a "rush" to get done so that the people would have enough viewing time on Saturday afternoon. That's why judging was moved to Friday night, and it's worked very well; though it completely eliminates the ability for anyone to come and enter anything on Saturday. And Rusty, it IS possible to be overly zealous as a moderator. It's one thing if one member insults another directly by labeling them as deceitful, even if done with flowery language. But, making a point, even with a bit of sarcasm, is not entirely out of place. It's tougher to discern intent on a forum because there's no voice inflection, but I think a moderator can simply question a statement before accusing or warning someone about it. Stepping in TOO often can kill an ability to have a flowing dialog, which is the purpose of a forum like this! GIL
  34. 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.
  35. 1 point
    Trumpeter KV-5 built as a BeutePanzer. Because why not. Needs some minor clean up before paint. Added lots of pieces from the spare bin or items I recently picked up at local shows. Lionroar tow cable ModelKasten clamps Tasca jerry cans with scrap PE bracket Aber tow loops for the Tiger 1 MIG productions resin tail light Copula, Notek, horn, etc from Dragon bits and pieces Still need to make the brackets to hold the spare wheels and tracks. A couple of color studies:
  36. 1 point
    Howdy, I've been building plastic models, off and on, since I was 9 (1967). As a kid I build everything from cars to Revell's famous "Spanish Galleon" model. I revived my model building interest in the mid 1980s, and built a lot until about 1994 (marriage and a young son will do that). I spent a couple of years working at Tomcat Hobbies (1987 to 1989) in Riverside, CA. Some of you may remember that store's owner Tom Brown (RIP). I'm jumping back into building. First on the agenda is a DML Early Tiger in Das Reich livery. I remember learning all my techniques from the works of Shep Paine, and the Kalmbach books.
  37. 1 point
    Way to go Kevin. "Bob" looks great! I agree with Gil about the shirt. Bill
  38. 1 point
    Excellent!!! That really is an effective camo scheme. Great work again, Bryan. Bill
  39. 1 point
    Thanks, Gentlemen! Gil, I used paper masks and Silly-Putty for the camo. I started with the Putty but with the plane being so small, it was difficult to get it right. So, I just ended up cutting paper masks from Post-It notes. These worked well as they didnt have a lot of 'stick' on them. Bill
  40. 1 point
    Fantastic build David. Love the weathering. Not over done. Congrats!
  41. 1 point
    Simply amazing! You have the Midas touch when it comes to finishing something ins a realistic manner. Way to go Bryan!
  42. 1 point
    Thanks! I wish I had the set up for SBS photos but I work at the diner table most of the time. 😑
  43. 1 point
    It's tough to make a criticism of a Nats convention hotel here in the USA without coming off as a bit whiny. We're simply at the mercy of the venue the host chooses to use. They, on the other hand are at the mercy of the "calculus" Nick describes in balancing costs vs. what we cheap model building convention goers are willing to pay (and we make Scotts look like drunken sailors! !) And, the E-board, who ultimately decides which host gets to throw the Nats is at the mercy of who bids, IF more than one host does for any particular year.... Are some hotels and "chains" better than others? Sure...and even within certain chains some franchise owners are better than others, so that's why one Marriott might not measure up to another. It's tough to beat Embassy Suites...I mean- FREE HAPPY HOUR and FREE BREAKFAST!?? But not every city/host has one of those available. And, some cities have great convention centers but NO connecting hotels, meaning we have to walk more than we want. And parking? Heck, we've been VERY fortunate for the most part so far....I paid $65+/day in downtown Philly this last summer (off site too)! I cannot recall any convention approaching that (yet). Want to talk Nats hotels? How about the MOTEL used in DC in the 80's? How about the Phoenix show hotel where we had to walk 3 blocks in 100+degrees to get to the convention center (but there were nude statues to cavort on along the way....)? Or the hotel (Oklahoma?) where the second floor on one side of the main lobby didn't connect to the 2nd floor on the OTHER side of the lobby (very sad story behind that one actually)? Or the downtown Miami hotel where you might not want to linger in the parking lot or tour the neighborhood it was in? Or the St. Louis hotel that had banquet rooms SO small that many of us had to watch the awards via closed circuit TV? And those are just MY experiences..... The solution is to simply reserve and stay where it suits you. While most modelers actually scrimp and save a few bucks by opting for a local motel and NOT staying at the convention hotel; you can always book yourself into a hotel with ALL the amenities you're seeking, even if it costs a few bucks more per night. Don't like walking? Find a cheaper motel and use the difference for cab fare back and forth. In other words, MAKE it work out so you get what you want or need when it's not handed to you. The bottom line is that every host does the best they can to give the best "bang for the buck". Some hosts are simply better off when it comes to a hotel chain and convention center combo. Others have to take what they can and make the best of it. I've never know ANY of them to not try to give us the best that they can for the price range we've all become accustomed to expect for a Nats. We're accustomed to "rock bottom" prices and we've actually been spoiled more often than not for those low prices! And as for working a "deal" with a chain.....that's been tried and tried. The sad truth is that IPMSUSA is not worth their time and effort, especially when they look at all of the other business conventions that use more room nights and less floor space than we do. We come with some baggage (space needs) that most conventions our size don't; and we just cannot compare or compete with the others. And then there's the fact we tip lousy.......so do NOT look for us to work any deal with anyone nationally anytime soon. I have to agree that in the end, it's the SHOW that sticks in my mind more than any hotel room much more often than not. And, even the shows with less than ideal hotels often seem to become funny stories and flavorful backdrops to those shows where we had to be inconvenienced a bit. GIL
  44. 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
  45. 1 point
    For me it was with transparent green from Vallejo mixed with future. SPRAY... not enough... SPRAY... not enough...SPRAY... ARRRGGHHH too much. 😞 😉
  46. 1 point
    Very cool build!!
  47. 1 point
    Here it is. Finished it back in early December. The Paper belly tank is from the 1/72 Italeri P-47N kit Paint is RAF Dk Green over RAF sky gray. Modelmaster enamels with Testor's dullcote. Decals are Superscale 72-886 First time for me posting pictures on this forum. Thanks for your feedback back in October. Got 3rd in our local P-47 contest.
  48. 1 point
    I'll be there and looking forward to seeing everybody, especially the vendors!!!!
  49. 1 point
    The "moving venue" is, in my view, an excellent approach. As Kevin mentioned, attendance at the convention can be built in to the "family summer vacation". Wife and I have visited all fifty states/state capitols/multiple National Parks and Monuments, State Parks, beaches, mountains, prairie land, and historic sites of all kinds as we travel to and from a Nats. This is a definite advantage that the current system has over a permanent and fixed location, or even two or three fixed locations. I would suggest that having a fixed location would result in the need for the hiring of a professional staff to plan and execute many of the administrative functions at a convention. Some immediate effects would be 1. conventions become more expensive with higher costs being placed on the attendees, and 2. a huge burden being placed on the nearby IPMS Chapters who would, year after year, be called upon to provide staff to run the convention activities. 3. Fewer participants would attend from those areas farther away from the convention, an issue that we currently experience, but that would be multiplied year after year as those out-of-towners loose interest in returning to the same city, or 2 or 3 cities, year after year. 4. I don't believe any research has been done in this area, but a sedentary venue would most probably result in a concentration of attendees within a single day's driving distance from the event, and an unintended concentration of winning entries from that same radius of attendance. Over a number of years such an issue could have a very negative impact on IPMS. The current system allows for any chapter, in any part of the country to offer a bid for one of two convention dates, either two years out or three years out. In many cases, bid preparation results in a number of chapters working together, leading to cooperation in other areas among those chapters in issues not related to a bid. The current system creates opportunities for attendees in the nearby area to volunteer their time during the convention, serving in staff positions. The fact that the convention will rotate to another part of the country means that these volunteers will not be expected to serve every year in these roles, and that others who cannot travel long distances to conventions will have the opportunity to serve on staff. The current system does not favor those living in an area that is close to the convention site year after year, benefiting from lower transportation costs. That particular happenstance rotates through the IPMS population due, in fact, to not having a permanent location. Clearly, my personal preference is to continue the current system which allows for bids from any chapter, located anywhere, relying on the Host chapter(s) to plan and execute a successful and enjoyable convention. And, at the same time, providing attendees the opportunity to visit a part of the country they've not visited before, or visit that part again due to the variety of sites and activities which call for a 2nd visit. I'm very much looking forward to going to the Chattanooga Convention in July/August of 2019. Wife and I have not visited Nooga and we've already got a list of places to eat and things to do on our way there, while on site, and on the way home.
  50. 1 point
    I'm going to have to defer to our legal eagle to get a ruling and get back to you. I don't want to use the wrong words and convey the wrong thing.
×
×
  • Create New...