Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RLFoster

  1. Looking good, Mark. Nice save on the fenders! I didn't see it up front...who makes the brass MG?
  2. Joe, I love the build too! You've obviously put a lot of effort into it. I don't know if it's the photos or not, but from my point of view, the contrast between the rusted spots on the car and the original paint is a little bit too stark. I've been asking myself why for a good hour before typing this and think it's that the rusted areas are perhaps too orange/red. Bear in mind, I've seen rusted out school buses, trucks, and cars in NE Michigan forests, so I have a preconception of how they look. Please don't get me wrong. The overall effect is very well executed (I'm guessing primarily the salt technique?). If the rust color was toned down, a bit more varied, or perhaps more brown, the effect would be absolutely dead-on! Once again, an execellent build!
  3. No problem, Chris...and the scratch-built storage box may have given it away for those who really know German tanks. This vehicle will be in a standard grey paint scheme (albeit, heavily weathered) and depict a vehicle from the 24th Panzer Division from late summer 1942 prior to or during its deployment to Stalingrad and its ultimate demise.
  4. Thanks, Mark. I always try to add a little sag to my German armor builds.
  5. I just finished up the majority of the construction on my latest build...Dragon's Imperial boxing of the PzKpfw III Ausf J. The majority of the kit is actually of Gunze Sanyo origin, but DML added a few things and improved a few things. The grey parts are from the kit (including the dark grey indi tracks), the white parts are scratch-built additions, the silver metal parts are Eduard PE, the barrel is Jordi Rubio, the jack block is balsa wood, and the antenna brass wire. All questions, comments, and critiques are welcome...
  6. She's looking sweet, Chris...well done!
  7. Thanks Chris, No, Bob's dio was the vertical cliff face with the special op figures from Afghanistan. It took Best of Show at Eaglequest this year. The dio you're talking about must have shown up after I had already left...bummer. Thanks again...
  8. I went over to the show, but couldn't stick around and didn't enter anything. I agree that they have hit the jackpot in terms of a prime, perfect venue year after year! I am curious though, how did the Thunderbirds group entry and Bob Waltman's diorama (This OP is Compromised) fare in the awards pecking order? Thanks...
  9. Mark, What you are doing is NOT the hotlinking we are talking about. Using an authorized "gallery" to store the basic image (which is then posted on various other sites) is precisely why photo storage sites and galleries were created. The hotlinking we are talking about is posting an image on one forum or website (NOT a gallery) and then linking that image to other forums or sites. For example, it would completely inappropriate to use the NEW upload feature to post an image directly from your computer to this forum, then, turn around and create a post on the LEM forum and post the same image using ...forum.ipmsusa3.org... as the URL for the image. That is the type of hotlinking that is frowned upon (AND forbidden here per the rules). There's a big difference between hotlinking (also known as "leeching") and the normal, day-to-day creation of authorized hyperlinks... You're cool...
  10. RLFoster

    DML SU-76m

    Thanks, Mark.
  11. RLFoster

    DML SU-76m

    Thank you, Chris...so am I.
  12. RLFoster

    DML SU-76m

    Thanks, Jim. Short answer - Model Master Russian Armor Green enamel lightened for scale. Long answer - No color at all (in a way). The whole idea behind the Black and White painting technique is that you don't use a color to base coat the model at all. The technique throws out the old idea of covering the model with a relatively uniform coat of a color and then spending the next 14 finishing steps trying to create the illusion of modulation, variation, and weathering of that base color. The technique calls for you to base coat the model in black and white (and greys) - I refer to it as pre-shading on steroids - and then use the color as a VERY light, opaque top coat...allowing as much of the underlying shading to show through. I know...TMI. Thanks again.
  13. I just posted the first photos I've ever used in these forums over in the Armor area. It works like a charm and is actually a bit easier than some other forums with this feature. Like John mentioned, I'd be curious as to whether these images can now be used remotely in another forum - like any photobucket image - or whether the hot linking is prevented. While hot linking in and of itself isn't inherently bad, if I understand it correctly, it can strain the bandwidth of the host site. If possible, I would recommend we ensure members don't start using this upload feature JUST so they can in-turn use the images on other sites that don't offer direct uploading of attachments. Well done, Chris. Give yourself a raise!!!
  14. RLFoster

    DML SU-76m

    This is my first post in these armor forums...hope this works. My latest completed model was the Dragon rebox of the old Alan SU-76m. If the numbering of their models is accurate, this would have been the first rebox under the DML Imperial Series label (kit number 9001) and the instruction sheet was dated 1993. With the exception of a wire antenna and replacement decals (the kit's were not usable) the model was built OOTB. However, as with most of my builds, there were one of two experiments or new techniques that I tried out. On this one, I wanted to try out a new technique for replicating welds using Apoxi Sculpt. It worked, but the welds are out of scale and I will need to adjust the technique to make them smaller. I also painted this model using the Black and White painting technique for the first time. Like the weld experiment, the paint job looks okay, but IMO I wasn't willing to take it as far as I could have and will need to adjust the technique next time. As far as the kit goes, compared to today's offerings, it is probably only about a 2 out of 5. There are plenty of molding errors, fit issues, and only a fair about of detail. Overall, I only give myself a B- for a grade on this build. It was relatively enjoyable, but the results are only so-so by my standards. All comments, suggestions, and critiques are welcome...
  15. Done and done! Maybe not every model, but definitely more than the ZERO currently posted. Edit: Be careful what you ask for. Just ask the Duke (Mark)...on our other website, I typically post between 50 and 100 images during my builds. I'll probably have to cut that back a bit for these forums...
  16. Excellent...I look forward to hearing (and more importantly, SEEING) more. Cool...
  17. Okay, Chris. I see where you're going and it sounds good. To be clearer, I should have said that the images are not stored as an accessible seperate file. Yes, there has to be an image somewhere on the system, but neither the original uploader or any other member (except perhaps the network administrator) will be able to know where it is stored. Thank you for the info...
  18. Chris, I guess you were addressing both options, my bad...sorry for the misunderstanding. With that said, your next post goes right back to mentioning both a "direct image uploader" and "how the images will be stored". At the risk of sounding pushy, let me state once again...Directly uploaded images are imbedded in forum posts and are NOT stored on the server as a seperate entity. There is NO image hosting taking place at all. If you are truely looking at hosting images, good luck. We tried this on one of the other modeling websites I frequent and had to get rid of it - for the very reasons outlined here, inappropriate images, remote linking, substantially higher storage requirements, etc. Since going to imbedded images only, all of these problems have been eliminated. Good luck...
  19. Once again, I think that to allow members to store images directly on the IPMS servers is a very bad idea. The actual suggestion is to allow direct uploading of images into an individual forum post ONLY...think of an imbedded image in an e-mail - they are tied together, not seperate entities. Under this format, policing the images would be no different - in fact easier - than policing the actual text in those same posts. If direct uploading is technically not possible, then I would remove my suggestion entirely...a member accessible gallery is IMHO more trouble than its worth.
  20. Mr. Beach is correct. Those of us who have mentioned this are, for the most part, talking about uploading images directly into forum posts as attachments. The members would not be able to link those attached images to any external websites. This would increase the storage requirement for the forum itself, but would not require creation of an image gallery. I could never support offering members free image gallery space. On the forums that do use this feature, some allow full size images to be attached to posts while others ask the forum users to resize their images - typically to the 800 x 600 range - before uploading them. Whatever the case, on a site as large as IPMS there are already thousands (tens of thousands?) of images - reviews, events, contests, etc. - posted on the various pages and more are added every month. It's only my opinion, but from a money standpoint, this feature would likely be a literal drop in the bucket compared to what we probably pay already. The bigger issue may be that new forum software is required to allow image attachments and as I've witnessed in the past, just changing the "look" of a forum and some of the functionality can have a significant, negative impact on the satisfaction of people who use it. And then of course, there the issue of changing anything at all...after all, we who use this forum and have suggested this feature are just a "vocal minority".
  • Create New...