Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/20/2019 in Posts

  1. 4 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. 3 points
    This is the Platz 1:72 kit with Eduard photoetched interior panels, modified control columns, and True Details seats. I added wiring the seats, scratch-built the canopy piston housing and the canvas cover over the rear panel from CA-impregnated tissue paper, and cut the kit canopy. The wheel wells were detailed and the airbrakes were re-built and their bays were detailed. Anti-torque scissors were stolen from an F-80 photo etched sheet. The decals were sourced from 14 different sheets from Iliad, SuperScale, Fox One, AeroMaster, an Italeri B-66, and even a MicroScale railroad sheet. Weathering was limited to a wash and some scuffing on the non-skid panels. I finished it just in time for a club contest - but, since only four or five people finished their T-33s, the contest was moved to March!
  3. 3 points
    Model built for a Local Boy Scout Troop to Honor a local pilots service. P-38J from 394th FS of the 367 FG. Pilot perished in the channel on July 20 1944. Pilot was 1st Lt William L Mushrush from Steubenville OH Minecraft 1/48th P-38J with True Details interior, Eduard tires and Karaya gun barrels.The Aftermarket stuff way surpassed the Minicraft kit. Uschi Lines for antenna into a filament spring( Which you really can't see🙃) Alclad Polished Aluminum over Gloss Black Thanks for Looking Regards Bill D.
  4. 3 points
    Let me re-make a point here. Where is it written that a person MUST care if they win or lose at the contest? I know several people who attend, put the model on the table, and enjoy the rest of the convention without another thought about the contest. They enjoy looking at a roomful of models without it impacting their self-worth. Winning an award is gravy.
  5. 2 points
    This week’s update on the PZL-23B covers the fuselage and wing details. I assembled the wings and then added the photo etch details like the entry steps and hand holds, wing joint covers, and aiming scales to the nose. The engine was then mounted. I needed to paint the base coat on the fuselage prior to mounting the exhaust as it runs along the fuselage. The underside was painted using light blue and the top was painted olive drab. The two color reference photos depicted a panel pattern on the wings. I duplicated this by adding a little green drab to the paint and painted the alternating panels on the wing tops. The main landing gear shrouds house landing lights. The kit provided the clear covers for them but no details behind them. It was just an open hole. I used a clear sprue from my scrap bin that was fit into the hole. I trimmed it flush then drilled into it with a drill bit to make the reflector. Then a smaller drill bit to make the bulb area and finally a tiny one to simulate the filament of the bulb. Stay tuned as next week as I apply the decals and final paint to finish this unique Polish aircraft. You can see all the details and photos from the start in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-pzl-23b-karas/
  6. 2 points
    Finally the last of my Christmas presents came in. This is several sets of 1/72 scale resin tracks for a few different tanks. I got these to replace the tracks on several of my older models that lost them for whatever reason. I also got the AMX-30 tracks to replace the horrible ones on my French AMX-30 from Heller: That's it until my birthday....
  7. 2 points
    If we didn't try new things, judging would still be 6 AM Saturday morning with the venue closed all morning instead of someone saying "Hey why don't we judge Friday nights?". One of the best ideas ever. If you are not changing, you are dying a slow death. Sure, some things don't work but many do. Some great ideas. Dave
  8. 2 points
    I agree....nostalgia builds are fun, and you can even limit what you do to them to make them a bit more "authentic" to their past. Look at some of the builds Ron Bell has posted here for very good examples. Here's my rebuild of the old 1/48 Aurora Me-109....which I built a few years ago to commemorate (and duplicate) my very first model build...minus the gluey fingerprints! GIL
  9. 2 points
    I agree. Back in 2003 when I chaired the Nats in OKC, everyone I talked to said a slide show at the awards ceremony just couldn't work with programs available at the time. Guess what. We figured it out and the slide show came off without a hitch, WITH the program everyone had failed with before OKC Metro. Never be afraid to try something new and different.
  10. 2 points
    Here's a trip down memory lane for you modelers "of a certain age". This kit was first released in 1958 and It was state of the art at the time. It has decent engraved panel lines, was light on the rivets (but I sanded them off anyway), and had the embossed decal locators, which had to be removed. I replaced the gear doors as the kit ones were just too thick and the decals are cobbled together from my spares as the ones in the kit were much too yellowed to use. The finish is Alclad over some panels primed in flat and the rest in gloss black. It I could have produced this model and taken it to a contest in 1959, I might have won something, but today, it's just a nostalgia piece, but it was fun to build.
  11. 2 points
    Here is another 2020 completed build. This build started life as a Jimmy Flintstone resin body and interior and morphed into what you see here by utilizing a lot of scratchbuilding and kitbashing. I used more different materials on this from brass, resin, styrene sheet, old necklaces for chain, Bic pens for exhaust stacks and a little bit of 3D printed parts.
  12. 2 points
    Happy New Year! This will be my first build of 2020. It is the Hasegawa 1/48 AH-64D Apache Longbow Attack Helicopter. I will be adding details from the Eduard photo etch cockpit detail set, the Master Model chain gun detail set and using the decals from the IPMS 2010 National Convention. This set covers the AH-64D Apaches from the 1-285 Aviation Battalion of the Arizona Army National Guard. The specific aircraft will from Charlie Company Lobos. Starting with the cockpit, The Eduard set comes with placards for the display screens for the dash. These were cut out and trimmed to fit. A few photo etch accessories were added to complete the dashes. The control pedals and seats were then added to the cockpit tub. The cockpit tub was then installed into the fuselage along with the engine and base of the rotor assembly. You can follow the build in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-apache-longbow/
  13. 2 points
    The Hasegawa 1/48 AH-64D Apache longbow is now complete! As typical with most Hasegawa kits this one went together very well. The kit decals that I used worked very well and the IPMS 2010 convention decals worked out perfectly. The detail of the kit is very good by itself. The photo etch set add the super detailing and the Master Model chain gun is great. If you are looking for a nice kit of the AH-64D, this is the kit I would recommend. Thanks for following along. See you next week for the next build. You can see the entire build from start to finish in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-apache-longbow/
  14. 2 points
    The ancient Monogram HU-16E Albatross, built OOB. Markings are USCG early 1960s, from the Print Scale sheet. The mold dates from 1957, kit was real pain to build. I glued the “moveable” gear in the down position to make it sturdy, and added some lead shot to keep the nose down. Paint is Tamiya white and some of my hoarded MM “Coast Guard Red-Orange” from their discontinued Marine colors line. All the orange bands and black stripes were painted- lots of masking there! I was impressed with how well the Print Scale decals went down over the big rivets... DUKW is the Italeri kit, in USCG colors from the same period....also OOB. Photo courtesy of Pip Moss.....
  15. 2 points
    Folks, a couple of comments have been deleted from this thread because their content was more socio-political and less modeling in nature. The comments would have been better suited for "The Bullpen". Follow the forum rules, and model-on.
  16. 2 points
    This weeks’ update on the AH-64D Apache Longbow covers the assembly and details of the fuselage. The landing gear was built and detailed with photo etch. The fuselage had some vents cut out and replaced with photo etch parts. I drilled a hole thru the vent then cut out with a hobby knife and finally shaped with a small file to fit the photo etch piece. The engine exhaust was then assembled and detailed with photo etch. Once assembled the fuselage was base coat painted with the black green color. Have a few more details to add to the fuselage then on to the rotors and chain gun. You can follow the build in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-apache-longbow/
  17. 2 points
    my first movie crush, the 13 yr old me wanted some princess.
  18. 2 points
    I just got my first box of True North paint in. Haven't used it yet and know nothing about it beyond their website and a couple of telephone conversations with the company president. I'll let you know what I think about it as I start using it. About all I can tell you right now is that I'll be using it in my next Modelbuilding Guide ebook, I opened a couple of bottles and I like what I see, definitely thick enough to hand brush nicely, still thin enough to airbrush without being prethinned AND it isn't an acrylic. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The FS numbers are on the back of the label in font that's large enough to actually read. Odd place, you say? Well, it beats having it squeezed down to the point you need an Optivisor in order to read it on the front of the label.
  19. 2 points
    Here is the Kiowa Warrior from MRC. Great build. Very wordy directions, but comprehensive. I also used the Zactomodels exterior details. I added some seat belts, a CAR-15 on the IP.
  20. 2 points
    Here are some more photos of the build. The model was pretty easy to paint; overall MM Acryl Army Helo Green (FS 34031) on the outside and on the inside I used Tamiya NATO Black. Other shades were also used to break up the overall colors. The inside of the engine area was MM Yellow Zinc Chromate with a mist coat of fluorescent green from the square bottle in the transmission area. Adding the Zactomodels exterior set really helped the kit also. So, here they are... I used Lite Bright pegs for the screens on the IP. I wired up the Disco Ball and the tail area. On the rotor, I placed dots of red, blue, green and yellow with a toothpick for the maintenance indicators. I also made umbilicals from the fuselage to the weapon stations. After everything was together I gave it a dry brushing with Tamiya weathering powders.
  21. 2 points
    Dang Nick....learn the difference between a VALID question and a complaint.....All of us know how well our volunteers do. Gil
  22. 2 points
    1/48 Accurate Miniatures Wright Patterson AFB P-51 NA prototype 1/48 Ta 1831/48 prewar Tamiya Zeke
  23. 2 points
    I agree, but at the same time realize these are things often hard to judge without first hand knowledge. Every operational vehicle I have been on or in is covered with foot prints. Still, many build their models as a case of immaculate perception. But it isn't fair for someone to do things correctly, but lose to a model with a lot of inaccurate, but aesthetically appealing details. I would love to see someone do a piece for the Journal on the basic dos and don'ts of modern armor stowage. It wouldn't have to be an in depth thing, just a photos and such showing authentic things. The more people know will make them better builders and judges. Dak
  24. 2 points
    This build is the Tamiya 1/48 scale P-47D Thunderbolt “Bubbletop”. It will be detailed with Eduard’s Big Edition photo etch set. For this scheme I will be using the brand new set of decals from Thunder Cals. This is their latest set featuring P-47D’s from the European Theater. I will be doing the “Ozark Queen” of the 84th FS/78th FG from the 8th Air Force. It was flown by Captain Alfred F. Eaton in the summer of 1944. You can check out the details of their new set on their website at https://thundercals.com/48006-78th-fg-365th-fg-bubbletop-and-razorback-tbolts-new-decal-announcement/ As typical with aircraft builds, it all starts with the cockpit. While the Tamiya cockpit is highly detailed out of the box, Eduard does add some placards and fine details that further enhance the cockpit. Once the cockpit was built up I started preparing the fuselage to install the cockpit. Eduard does provide an interesting add on. Typically the intercooler on 1/48 scale P-47’s has an opening that just goes into the fuselage and is typically open. Eduard actually includes all the duct work to the intercooler. It is difficult to photograph but I was able to just get a good angle to show it. If you want to see more photos and follow along check out my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-p-47d-thunderbolt-bubbletop/
  25. 2 points
    I've had this one done for a while and just got around to rigging it. Usual out of the box with a minimum interior added. The decals were way gone and I didn't want to spend stupid money for new ones, so these are spurious markings I cobbled together and a paint scheme that is an amalgam of several I have seen. The rockets were used to shoot at zeppelins and observation balloons, but most sources cannot site where one was actually shot down with them.
  26. 2 points
    Excellent work. Just for comparison, here's the first model of this vehicle in 1/35/2 scale, the old Monogram one. What a difference 40 years makes.
  27. 2 points
    Since when did abdominal laparotomy sponges become a household item? 😳 Does the Health Department know about this? 😀 Nick Filippone
  28. 2 points
    Nick, I am not the only moderator here. I can't read/moderate everything, on every forum, so I must rely on my fellow moderators to help out. Sorry if you're feeling I'm picking on you. I promise you I'm not. I can only answer for what I see. And yes, I have made mistakes or just missed things in the past and unfortunately will do so again. For that leniency I apologize, but not for enforcing the rules. I have chosen in the past, to give everyone a little leniency with the rules for the sake of debate, but apparently you are calling me on the carpet for that. So, in the future I will call it when I see it. I'm not looking for respect or anything else here. I'm just doing my job as best I can. All I ask from everyone, is common courtesy so we can all enjoy your and Dave's comments and lively debates.
  29. 2 points
    As a diorama judge for many years, my first question when I look at a diorama is "What story is it trying to tell me?" Those that make it very obvious, very quickly will have a greater chance of making it to the Final Three for that category. Another criteria is the consistency between items on the diorama. For example, if showing a desert scene, and 5 vehicles have matte finishes, but the 6th is glossy, I go read the entry sheet to see if the builder discusses why he/she did it this way. If there's no explanation, that inconsistency will make further progress more difficult during the rest of the judging session. The use of space is considered, but not as heavily as these two criteria. I hope these comments help you!
  30. 2 points
    This week’s update on the Thunderbolt is for the detailing of the fuselage. The oil cooler vents just behind the cowl, like the intercoolers, has nothing behind them and the detail kit does not provide anything as well. I searched thru my miscellaneous photo etch extras and found some oil cooler grates and used these along with some styrene stock and added details behind the vents. Then I started on the engine. For the firewall I drilled out the lower intakes and added photo etch details. I then added some photo etch details to the engine cylinders and painted them aluminum. The fuselage was then assembled and now I am working on the engine mountings and the wiring. Also I am checking out a new paint source. The interior of the fuselage was painted with yellow zinc chromate. In order to replicate this color I ended up purchasing paint from Mission Models. The color is very accurate and the paint goes on very well. For this being the first time using this brand I am very happy with the results. Will need to try other colors later. Now onto the photos. You can see more photos and details in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-p-47d-thunderbolt-bubbletop/
  31. 2 points
    I don't like their paints anymore so no effect for me. Using Tamiya and others Dave
  32. 2 points
    You could try to compare them visually with the new Foxbot set: More info HERE and HERE Regards, Aleksandar
  33. 2 points
  34. 2 points
    My largest misgiving on this whole survey is that it put the cart before the horse. I stated such when work began, I said so when the questions were being written, and I'm saying it now. The first question that needed to be asked is "What does IPMS/USA envision the purpose of it's National Model Contest to be?" Does IPMS/USA want to simply pick the best models presented at that show on that day? (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to recognize well-built models and more or less ignore the rest?) If that's the goal, they already have it in the 1-2-3, comparative/triage judging currently in use. Does IPMS/USA want to aid modelers in their efforts to become better modelers? (OR--Does IPMS want to offer structured feedback and advice to the modeler in an effort to help them help themselves?) If this is where the aim is, look to the AMPS system. Does IPMS/USA want to recognize a modeler's body of work entered in a given show on a given day? (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to reward a modeler for their effort on that day?) If this is what they're looking for, check out the MMSI Chicago System. (As an aside, I note that several of the IPMS Open Judging systems in use on the local level--Jaxcon, Chattanooga, etc.--are a hybrid of all three.) Those questions needed to be asked before the survey questions were issued. They needed to be asked before the questions were written. Next, a rudimentary structure for said Open Judging system needed to be developed before the survey was released. Why? We now have four (maybe five by now) pages in this thread of "why". The way the survey is worded is akin to asking your kid if he wants baked chicken for dinner, or "something else". When the kid asks, "What's the something else?", the only answer you have for him is "I don't know, and I can't tell you until you choose it--it hasn't been defined." So, the kid either goes with chicken, something he knows and kinda likes, or--if he's adventurous--takes a stab at the pig in a poke, which could be pizza. It could be liver. Or, the kid could spend the next day speculating as to what "something else" is and go hungry. The smart kid goes with the chicken. What infuriates me is the President's Column in the July/August Journal, where Ron Bell stated that, and I quote, "We just thought it was time to get this issue settled once and for all and put it behind us, one way or another." (Emphasis is mine) What this tells me is that the E-Board has a closed mind and has no vision of growing and changing the Society with the times per the membership's wishes. This attitude, I believe, has caused people to leave IPMS/USA and go to AMPS and to other organizations (even forming other organizations--look to the South Carolina Modelers Association as an example), never to look back. I personally know at least a dozen former IPMS/USA members who left and won't come back. One (a former E-Board member, no less) once told me that he tried to change the system, but was met with, as he called it, "the IPMS/USA Good Old Boy's Stone Wall." When I asked why a stone wall, he stated that "it is cold, deaf, uncaring, and unyielding." Couple that to the IPMS/USA Chief Judge's attempts to color the current system as "The Best. Judging. System. Ever.!", and paint Open Judging as an effort to see that "everyone wins a trophy", and it indicates that the E-Board is using this survey merely as an attempt to look like they are listening to the membership without intending to change a thing. The motion will fail, then they will say "We've done that, it failed, end of story" the next time this same issue is brought up. In this thread alone, there's already an IPMS/USA Past President doing that very thing, looking back to a failed effort in 2004--as if nothing changes over time. I am a proponent for Open Judging, believing that a well developed, uniform system could yield good results over time. A well-defined, thought-out system CAN work--but it will require several things to happen. Most importantly, it requires a buy-in from the majority of the membership. If the membership doesn't believe in it, it won't matter what system is used--it will fail. It will take time and a lot of effort to change--it won't happen overnight, and will probably require a years-long phase in. Start at the local level, iron out the bugs, take it to the Regional level, work out the new bugs, then move it to the National level--where, undoubtedly, more issues will come to the fore and will need to be dealt with. Rome wasn't built in one day, nor will any sort of new-to-the-organization judging system. My vision for an Open Judging system extends to more than the Nationals--it needs to be a UNIVERSAL system, required to be used by ALL IPMS/USA Chapters at ALL IPMS/USA sanctioned contests, whether they be local, Regional, or National. Judges will need to have formal training and periodic re-training. Whatever system used needs to be applied consistently and reviewed periodically, updating it as needed. Without these things, all you will wind up with is an Open Judging version of what we have now. The current system is only required to be used at the Nationals--local contests can simply say they will hand out medals to every fifth pink model that comes through the door and call it an IPMS contest, if that's what the host Chapter wants to do. The word, and I've used it many, many times before, is Standardization. Have a standard, uniform, universal system that is required throughout IPMS/USA. "But, how can you require us to do anything?" Easy--it comes with the deal. You wanna be an IPMS/USA Chapter? You agree to the terms set out by IPMS/USA. Period. Don't like it? Don't play. But that probably won't happen. If we talk about the Chicago System, some see it as "limiting the number of models on the table"--when, actually, nothing is limited EXCEPT the fact that the entrant, if the scored model in their group scores enough points, takes home ONE award for their body of work. AMPS, likewise, encourages the entrant to self-asses their work and only enter one model per category. Why? Because they will only take home the award for their model that scores the highest in any given category, so even by entering eight M4 Shermans into Allied Armor, WWII will only yield ONE medal. "But I want the feedback!" Usually, as the models are judged, the same faults are found on all the models entered by that person. How many times do you need to read "Watch the floating tracks" before you realize that you need to do just that? The examples above also serve a purpose--it eases the burden on the judges. They don't have to judge 500+ (or 1000+, or 10,000+) models, the judging goes quickly, and the end result is the same. This is why "Display Only" has been a standard category for AMPS for as long as I've been a member. Submit your best work for evaluation, put the rest in Display Only. The goal of the show isn't about "winning" or "losing", it is about showing off your work. But I am not optimistic that any of what I just wrote will come to pass. IPMS/USA has slowly evolved their contests into bloodsport--the winner take all, "I'm the GOD OF STYRENE!" attitude has eroded any semblance of friendly competition. Even the survey says it--Advantage #2 of the 1-2-3 system is stated as "models vie head-to-head for awards, creating a healthy (really?--me) spirit of competitiveness amongst (sic) our members." And why do we feel the need to compete, anyway? I get it--'Murica and all that. But a very vocal minority has taken an enjoyable pastime and twisted it into yet another way they can climb to the top of the pile, beat their chests, and wail at the moon... I will now go back to my position of a few years ago--Exhibition only, no contest, no awards. Make it about the models, NOT the medals. After all, everyone says they enter shows to show off their work, right? So, by their own admission, the awards don't matter--and following that logic, that means the method used to determine the awards likewise doesn't matter, but some will NEVER enter a contest judged by a system they don't like. Funny, that... Club stands, SIG stands, vendors, food, and friendship. Hang out with a bunch of like-minded people and enjoy the show by looking at, talking about, and sharing techniques for scale models. Screw the contest, screw the judges, and screw the awards... Ralph
  35. 2 points
    You're right.....all of us who tout GSB are really just aiming to undermine IPMSUSA and ruin the Nats. It can't possibly work (because it's never been done). And of course you, like the NCC, want a fully written and detailed proposal to be examined and parsed (and then dismissed) because it doesn't look plausible on paper (to you). That can never be done, so people who want complete assurance that it'll work with no problems or adjustments will never be comfortable with any "proposal". As I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, but GSB proponents are making it work NOW. But, since you think you have a better idea, exactly where are YOU implementing your SWS? Where are you putting your ideas on the line to be tried? If we agree that the 1-2-3 system (although it does work) is the least beneficial to IPMSUSA for future growth of our Society, then start working towards making a change where you are. You may indeed have a better way, but I guarantee that even if you crossed all your T's and dotted your I's in a "proposal"; it would be dismissed by IPMSUSA and the NCC just as quickly as GSB (or simply put out in a "survey"). Show them how good your idea is by making it work at a successful local and/or regional show. As for our show, Jaxcon, we're looking to keep growing our show so that we HAVE to "scale up" our GSB system. We're already 1/3 the size of the Nats and hope to hit 1/2 (1000+ models) in the next 5yrs. We currently judge those 600+ models in 4-5hrs with only 20 or so judges. So yes, I DO think that 4 to 5 times that number of judges over 2-3 days could judge 2000-2500 models. Until that's actually put to the test, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Part of this debate and discussion has a LOT to do with breaking "traditions". As I stated above, IPMSUSA does NOT like to do that, and thus not only do you have to prove a new system will work, you have to overcome people's wanting to poke holes in new ideas and their loathing of change. Best of luck, whichever side you end up on, I've covered everything I can think of. Y'all can have at it the rest of the way! GIL
  36. 2 points
    This was a bust I found on one of the announcement pages on FB. It's by Grimm. I tried looking for his info for this write up, but after an hr., I could find it. If I do I will make an edit and add it. The kit is one piece sculpt, very well done, in a gray resin - no bubbles, or seam marks. The figured reminded me of one of the villains in a Scooby-Doo cartoon, so decided to make him a ghost. Started with the black primer, and then was working on his navy colored coat. Then added a dark gray drybrush to the face, then added color to the barnicles, seeweed, and sweater. Another lighter gray - I want to make the glow coming from his face and OCL lighting on parts of the beard and coat. A little highlight to the coat and cap. I thought I took a pic of the ghostly glow, but didn't. The bluish,green glow color was made by drybrushing Citadel's Nihilakh Oxide where I needed it. I then highlighted that with V's Foundation White. I touch the Nihilakh Oxide and White to the rips in his coat to make it look like glow was coming out of them, and for a little added color. Thanks for looking.
  37. 2 points
    Finished the Saturn Knight. Additional images can be found here: MK44 SaturnKnight And I got the family together for the weekend.
  38. 2 points
    FYI, it is farther from my house to Chattanooga than from Scapa Flow to London. In the UK, they think 100 miles is a long way. In the US they think 100 years is a long time. Dak
  39. 2 points
    Here are the final photos of my conversion of a Monogram F-105D kit into the prototype YF-105A, and here is the Build Thread And for a little comparison, the original Monogram F-105D alongside: If you check out the build thread, you will see that it was a long ride... Ed
  40. 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.
  41. 2 points
    Two models completed in one year so far!! WooHoo!! 😁
  42. 2 points
    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
  43. 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/
  44. 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/
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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.,
  49. 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
  50. 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
×
×
  • Create New...