Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi from the sarge

after i read the comment from Chris Bucholtz in the May-June issue of IPMS 2016 vol 87 #03. i have been a little upset about his comments about modelers weathering their aircraft and about other modelers complaining about how much is too much. The problem with the whole thing is, it's not the modeler as they are free to make any changes add or subtract from the basic model as they see fit or for others to voice their opinion of what they think. The problem is the IPMS leaders themselves. They should know that modern day weathered aircraft in real life DOESN'T EXIST. They should have their own category like hypothetical jet aircraft. Or Miscellaneous category or at lease in the Humor one. Did anyone stop to think that the pilot's name is on the side of his aircraft and sometimes the crew chief. If a pilot came out of his morning briefing to fly a mission and seen his aircraft looking like it was just pulled out of the bone yard and he has to fly it, come on give me a brake!! The crew chief better be hiding under a rock somewhere. The pilot would hunt him down, and he would be sent to BUM Fricken EGYPT(military term). As a air force ground crew we have to check out every aircraft everyday. The pilot writes up things everyday he sees need to be checked out. Even a ding in a drop tank or the leading edge of a wing is fixed. How do you think he would feel to walk out and see something like a weathered aircraft to fly that day. And the fact that some of the weathered aircraft are NAVY, OMG doesn't anyone know what happens to an aircraft sitting on an aircraft carrier with salt air and water on it and dissimilar metals corrosion problem. The aircraft crew goes over that aircraft to make sure the wing isn't going to rust off somewhere. And besides the fact that aircraft are washed on a regular basis usually after every monthly maintenance check even the big boys C-130s, B-52s, KC-135s etc. And even the camo ones too. If the pilot wants it washed it's washed. Did anyone stop to think that some poor smuck spent a lot of time researching the aircraft he or she is working on to find the right color of gray yep everyone has a different shade of gray(except weathered) not listed on any paint i know of. The modeler tries to get the proper color, tint and squadron markings and he is sitting next to someone that got some Wal-mart gray, dumped some graphite dust (molybdenum disulfide--mil-m-7866b) that's military too, on it and blew it off, then the judges come by and now have a choice between real and eye candy. eye candy wins time and time again. Because the vast majority of judges have no idea whats real and what's not. You get dinged on not real enough the gray just didn't look right, or the cockpit seat belt just didn't look right and the weathered gets first place. It just looked too real. It would be the same as you have a 57 Chevy and restored it back to original condition it took you a long time to get the correct parts seats radio etc. Then a person gets a 57 from the UP in Michigan that has been driven sense day 1 winter salt and so on. Both take it to a car show, you jack it up, put mirrors under it open to the doors to show off in interior open the hood the engine is factory fresh. The person next to you has his Michigan composite, they jack it up put mirrors under it but take the drain plug out of the oil pan, keep the windows rolled up to keep the pigeons in open the hood and toss a bucket of mud on it. AND THEY GET FIRST PLACE it just looked so real. Oh yea the category was factory fresh but the judges didn't know the difference.

So how about getting it right and put them in their own class to complete with other imaginary aircraft!!

The Sarge

former USAF ground crew

1968 -1972 Viet Vet and proud of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100%. The same could be said for the uniformly flat finished military aircraft models. I'm inclined to think that most of today's modelers of aircraft have never seen a real one close-up, but just build according to a formula they read somewhere once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only recall seeing weathered aircraft in the form of outdoor static displays or as gate guards on posts...until someone has the interest, time, and money to periodically clean them. Aircraft do get dirty, however, from use and foul weather, but, as noted above by Mike, such stains are removed in the maintenance cycle.

 

Oil stains from piston engines and dirty exhausts seem to create the darkest stains.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-14.jpgQuoting a previous post...." They should know that modern day weathered aircraft in real life DOESN'T EXIST."....

Please note the weathering and stains on the wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you're coming from Mike.......that said, I think your looking to the wrong group (IPMS) to "do something" about what you perceive as models being wrongly finished. Let me delineate....

 

1) There is no "wrong" way to build a model. There's only the way YOU like to build it. You have an opinion on how a model should "look", and that sets the standard for you. However, there are always exceptions to every "rule" (see Dick's posted pic); so you cannot say it should be built only ONE way.

 

2) IPMS does NOT judge weathering for accuracy. IPMS contest judging demands consistency in weathering over the entire model; be it light or heavy; and asks that it should be "theater appropriate" (realistic for where it saw duty). Also, IPMS does not give brownie points for weathering, nor does it ding models that are not weathered. Thus, IPMS cannot act as an arbiter to change the way builders weather their models. As to whether or not something is overdone (or not) in competition; that is judged in context with the competition on the table that day. What you perceive as over done or inaccurate in appearance may indeed win; BUT win because the others had more errors in building and paint/decal finishing, and the weathering was never really even a factor over all.

 

3) There's an artistic side to building models that does not necessarily reflect real life. There are finishing techniques that enhance the appearance of a model (such as adding a wash in panel lines) that just aren't "accurate" when compared to the real life subject. But, those techniques are popular because models seem to look better and are (seemingly) better received by others when they're used. In short, what looks good, is perceived as looking right! There's no requirement that people prefer accuracy over what pleases their eye.

 

4) I can't argue with your technical analysis of aircraft finishes. Your first hand experience points to valid conclusions on how REAL aircraft look. The problem is, you've decided that we HAVE to build models with the goal of absolute accuracy; and that's where you lose me (and many others). If accuracy in your finish is YOUR goal when building, have at it. Almost all of us strive for that at least to some degree. But, since this is merely a hobby, and a hobby with a heavily artistic element to it, you cannot boil it down to absolutes for everyone to adhere to.

 

Cheers!

 

Gil :smiley16:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil, Just an excellent summary of the role of weathering in modeling and modeling competition. To emphasize your points, having judged at the National level for over twenty years, and having had the privilege of working with many outstanding judges from across the entire spectrum of attitudes toward weathering, I have never heard anyone say: ' Yes, this model represents superior work, but it isn't weathered, so it does not deserve to win.' Nick Filippone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the reply's i believe i stated in my post that it is up to the modeler to add or subtract from the instructions as they see fit to do so. I love to build large aircraft mostly the one's i have worked on. except for a B 36 Bomber. I also did a B 29 1/48 scale. I had an engine running lights in the cockpit, bomb bay, mid and tail section. Wing tip flashing lights. Also the B 36 had lights but not as good and the B 29. I have taken them to many IPMS shows and the fact that they have about a 3ft wingspan, I have made special boxes to transport them in with the wings off. I put cards by my displays saying. Please let me know what you see that doesn't look right so i can fix it or trash it. Well some shows they pass me by and put on the cards [in real life the wings don't come off] That seems kind of funny when they are looking at the build not whats real as one of the posts said. Also you would be surprised at what the majority of the dings were. Another one i liked was, I had a SR 71 in a diorama with all the ground equipment but no people. They said what did the diorama represent? I told them the ground crew was on lunch break( no it wasn't real enough) also the asphalt lines were to wide (didn't look real) i could go on about a lot of the stuff the informed judges put on paper. I really wish i should have saved them so i could attach them in this post but the list go's on and on. So i really wish they were impartial as you would you hope they would be. But none the less eye candy will win out over correctness all most all of the time. Next time you happen to be at a show check and see just how many weathered aircraft compared to non-weathered and see who takes the cake. Then explain to the guy who didn't that his paint was a little off. 9 times out of 10 The paint is suppose to be that way. But that's the way it goes, the judges are in the know. Besides too late to cry about it the show is over. And the judges live to judge another day. Also about static displays, my brother was a member of the Yankee Air Force (before it burned down) at Willow Run airport in Michigan and he had a display a RB 66 with his name on it. He didn't get paid but he was there just about every week going over it inside and out making sure the visitors on the weekend had something good to look at., By the way he wasn't the only one. The other static ones were stuck on a stick 20 feet in the air with the intakes and tailpipe plugged to keep the critters out of them. And the canape had bird crap all over it. Now that's real weathering at it best. Now if the weathering it to represent static displays, that's fine and dandy. But when the base represents a tarmac, runway or an aircraft carrier flight deck, then they have entered the twilight zone of real life. Now if the aircraft carrier is also a static display i will bet you there isn't any bird crap anywhere on that static display. The Navy takes care of their own.

Well so much about weathering they still should be in a class of their own. Apples to Apples not Apples to Fake Oranges. Or maybe IPMS can have an EYE CANDY section.

I guess i was suppose to have a little info on myself. well i have been building models for some 50 odd years and even in the service in Tech school. i did a B 52 which at that time had battery operated real jet engine sound and an F 104. Upon the weekly inspection they kind of stuck out. The 1st Sargent didn't say anything the next day the Captain over the instructors at the school wanted to know if i would swap the models for the coffee break money. My first big break, they were hung in the office of the instructors.

Well then came the computer and my OCD so now i just build models in the basement for the shows. This maybe the last time i will be online for another 6mos.

Oh yea i have been called Sarge for about 40 yrs so i kind of go by that. But my kids call me dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yea one more comment. if the weathering was to depict the last time it was possibly used in service, It would be at the bottom of the ocean. Like i said no one flies weathered aircraft. In bad weather it's hard to get dirty at 1700 miles per hour. Afterburner would be about 2400 mph. Unless you was to fly through Mt.St Helen at the time of the blast. (C-130's fly about 600 mph and guess what? Yep no weathering. I also got to fly into and through a Typhoon off the cost of Japan in 1971 and guess what? Yep no weathering. It hard to get something that doesn't happen in real life even if someone thinks it does.

The Sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, please note the quote from the above post which says, "Like i said no one flies weathered aircraft." Then please scroll up to the actual, real image of a weathered F-14 in flight."

 

I understand the issue that you are putting forward.....you are not the first to articulate it. It is the Accuracy vs Authenticity issue. You are also discussing judging issues and, it appears, blaming IPMS for the quality, or lack thereof, of LOCAL judges. IPMS does not control the quality of judging at local shows. That is the responsibility of the local club not only for IPMS chapters but also for Open Contests, GSB contests, AMPS contests, and contests which reply on selections made by attendees.

 

As for taking 6 months off from the forum, any forum participant is free to come and go as they wish (except those few who have been invited to "go and stay gone" by the moderators for stepping over the forum rules line. I hoping no one is looking at your comments as "inappropriate" or a rules violation, because that is, in no way, what your posts have been doing.

 

But at the same time your view appears to be laced with comments that clearly are not true (see the quotes above) and therefore, discredit your post in general.

 

Don't like weathering? Ok.... don't model weathered aircraft...........but know that such aircraft have taken flight throughout the history of aviation and did not fall out of the sky. There is documentation of this fact in the form of many images, such as the F-14 image above.

 

One more image showing weathering:

F-18.jpg

Edited by Dick Montgomery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the US Navy (God bless 'em!) flies dirty, nasty looking airplanes, and (personally) I love them all the more for it! :smiley20:

 

Sarge: Your experience with real aircraft dwarfs mine, and probably many others here and at shows too. That said, as Dick mentioned, I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle, especially when it comes to IPMS contests and the results thereof.

 

As alluded to above, IPMS judges all entries on the basics of building and finishing (alignment, seams, rough paint, silvered decals, glue marks, etc.). This is for two reasons. First, no judge can know enough facts about every single subject they judge to render any sort of expert opinion on accuracy; so accuracy is NOT judged, just building and finishing quality. Second, while a judge may indeed be an expert on 1 or 2 subjects, that might cause them to look at those 1 or 2 with a MORE critical eye as compared to the rest of the subjects being judged; and that would not be fair to those 1 or 2 nor the rest of the models in the category. This means that many times what you see "win" in a category may not look as real, or authentic, or as appealing as what you thought would win while viewing the category. BUT, therein lies the difference...you only viewed the models while the judges spent time judging each one. Do they get it right every time? No, of course not! But, the vast majority of the time they actually do, according to the published IPMSUSA judging guidelines, which (unfortunately) many of our contest goers do not know about!

 

And just to back up what Dick mentioned, all IPMS contest judges are volunteers, However, a Local contest will generally have fewer experienced judges compared to a Regional, which will have fewer experienced judges compared the the IPMSUSA Nationals. So, all those judging comments you cited and have experienced have to be taken in context, both within the contest AND the idea of using "basics" to judge instead of accuracy.

 

In case you did not know, IPMSUSA is starting to push to expand DISPLAY areas for models, in addition to the contest tables. You come across to me as someone who might like to display instead of competing, since you seem to have a different criteria you hold your models to (as compared to IPMS judging). The models you mentioned sound very interesting, especially with all of the extras you added; and would probably make for great crowd pleasers any show host would love to have on their tables. I hope you'll keep that in mind as you attend future shows.

 

Hope this helps shed a little light on why you're getting a little push-back on your post. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the post of your opinion or how you build; there's just some differing opinions too. IPMSUSA has to allow for all of them. Cheers!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's the sarge again. well guys here is my point about separating aircraft vs weathered ones. I guess for the same reason you don't see the star ship enterprise in the real space category. because it imaginary and deserves it's own category like sci-fi. even though some people think it's a government cover up it really exist. along with the x-wing fighter from a galaxy far far away and another government cover up aliens do exist. All of these should be in the real space category because they are all just judge on merit, right? no difference space is space. The reason they are separated is the fact that regular people know they are't real and should have their own category. A while back someone started to weather everything old cars in junk yards, old trains in train junk yards. It's funny that all the other weathered models are in some kind of junk yard. anyway they were featured in magazines like scale model builder etc. people said wow that looks cool I'll make one and enter it and with no one to know the difference it started to spread no one said anything so it became the norm. now to the point that modelers think military aircraft get weathered. but why is it only military. how about we all run down to the local airport and check out all the weathered commercial aircraft 707, 747 77, airbus.{NOT} why is it people assume military aircraft are the only one's that are (dirty) they are the most well maintained aircraft in the world. why aren't all the armor vehicles in the same category? because they are different and should be judge that way. or they could be lumped together because they are just judged on merit right? no because they are different and belong in their own category. why aren't fantasy models lumped into just any category they may look like? no because they are different but if we are just going on merit judging shouldn't they be judged the same? no because why? they are different and why are all of these models different because someone told us they were different along time ago. but when no one tells you there is a difference people should listen or at least do a little research on their own or as some say fact check in stead of just going along with the crowd. my mom always told me practice makes perfect but if you practice it wrong that makes it perfectly wrong. difference is difference. sci-fi, fantasy, miscellaneous. the ones in those even though they may look the same and some of the others they are in them because they are DIFFERENT and the are judge accordingly or lumped together because they are all judged on merit right? if everyone jumped off a cliff would you do it? what if everyone told you it was the right thing to do when you were little and they taught it in school throughout you life and when it came you time to jump you would fight to jump because no one taught you anything different. well someone is speaking up and telling you not to jump because there is a difference as long as you fact check it or just listen to the instructors who are telling you to jump because if it wasn't right they would look a little foolish (that isn't a correct word to use but i can't think of a better one) so the will fight to tell you to jump. so jump if you want to but half way down maybe a little to late to just go along with the crowd. even though putting a weathered aircraft in the wrong category isn't going to hurt it's just wrong and a bad idea. and some instructors are just keep telling you to jump because they really don't want to look foolish(their's that word again) and a lot may be pissed because i used it but wrong is wrong.

 

from the desk of the sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sarge again

dear dick the top photo is not weathering but the vast majorly of people thing so but it is underneath the aircraft and is it before monthly maintenance cleaning which most people will consider the entire aircraft must look the same way and therefore do as assume (ass U and me) it must be so. those body panels will either be cleaned or replaced(would michael phelps ware a (dirty) speedo that could cost him .0001sec and a gold medal or a rocket up his tailpipe.

and the 2nd photo, to the untrained eye that looks like weathering but in real life those are called walk way panels. they use a gritty material i'll it sand to keep it simple on the area and a different shade of gray (there go's the special shading again not weathering---research) so the airmen(the term includes a women also---so people won't ding me on the term airmen) where to walk so they don't slip and bust their butt falling 10ft. in some cases the whole area is painted black or has a black line around the area to stay in, and again may say no step so they understand to stay inside of the lines.

 

anyway i know that a lot of people that believe in jumping (as the term i stated in my previous reply to jump or don't jump) will do their research and send me every picture they can on weathered aircraft(without doing research) do i will just quit trying to explain research vs RESEARCH. oh yea please don't post a photo of a c-130's underside and say see 4 dark areas as weathering. that is special metal to disperse the tremendous amount of heat that comes out of the tailpipes so it doesn't distort the aluminum (jump or don't jump)

 

well that it you can believe what you want to that is why we are human beings and have a choice in life and we have to make them for our own good. they are good and bad ones.ones researched and not researched, go with the flow or challenge the flow fact vs fiction (jump or not to jump) one person can make a difference. that is why we have an eagle and not a turkey.

 

that's it no more ramblings you have to make that choice not me. i can't make that for you (jump or not JUMP) but public opinion can like people on a tall building looking down and the people on the street yelling JUMP JUMP. now you have to listen to yourself research or no research, what is best for me and the people my decision will effect. or just say the hell with it, i'm going with the crowd.

 

there i go again ramble, ramble, ramble i could do this all day but i promise this is it!!

 

 

BYE from the sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh no it's the sarge i know i promised but i have a homework assignment for you

 

what color is the black bird (SR-71) and what color is a real black bird I will give you a hint

 

this is a trick question even though one is machine and the other living

fiction vs fact

jump or don't jump

ramble, ramble, ramble

one last ramble

a spec in the eye that can be wiped out or fossil that can be handed off to another

that's it so long, farewell and good bye

the sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, we want to deemphasize accuracy from judging as it turns a lot of people off.

 

For example, I saw a couple guys at the nationals into a deep and passionate discussion about the color of the ship one of them built. One was saying it was the wrong color and the other said he did his research. Want to turn people off to this great hobby,, that's the way.

 

As Gil and other stated about, we want to go on quality of build- seam lines, paint and glue drips, etc. and stay away from the accuracy. Do some modern jets look like hell...yes they do. After spending time on an aircraft carrier at the end of a cruise, the jets are a mess. Painted over patches, leaks wiped off but stained., etc. The F-18 above is actually not that bad.

 

In the end, its all about having fun and if you like weathered, weather away, if not, build as you like. As long as its fun

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buh-Bye Sarge. Come back soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an a/c guy, but I do know from looking at photos of WW II a/c, that they took quite a beating. A/C on the Russian front weren't cleaned and Hurricanes and Spits in the Battle of Britain were a mess. Point is, maybe modern USAF aircraft are clean, but a/c from other eras or maybe even from other countries were and are not. It would require another category, say Post WW II USAF Aircraft, to accommodate the difference. If a modern USAF aircraft is too weathered, perhaps the judges should just take that into account, but i don't think it merits a separate category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i a very sorry Dick!!!! and here comes that famous all inclusive word {BUT}. which goes like this i am very sorry Dick but i just couldn't let this one go. it is the post by Ron Bell. i am not a/c guy BUT let me put my 2 cents into this. First off i said modern day air craft. it is in the 3rd or 4th line of my 1st post. BUT anyway WWII aircraft are weathered and many other things. like exhaust marks, and just plane crap on the aircraft. they even fly with parts missing and bullet holes all over it(i guess i better say not every WWII had parts missing or bullet holes cause someone will post one that doesn't and say got ya). and the best thing this is someone that should know that (i guess). which really he has no idea what he is talking about. he is just assuming like everyone else(especially the judges even ones that say {I've been judging for 20 years}) is doing. that just because they fly they have to be weathered. a lot or the photos people say got ya aren't weathering. one is a serious oil leak under the aircraft. that is why it's on the bottom and coming out of the engine vents. not weathering (but) who cares? i quest i'll be the only one for now. he also states (I) don't think it merits a separate category. i am still puzzled about the OUT OF THE BOX. i have been building models for about 60 + years and can't remember when they put nose weights in the BOX to be out of the box. or how about body filler and sand paper to blend in the seams. and sooooooooooooo much other stuff to the models that doesn't seem to be in the instructions.BUT if you include the instructions in your display, it's out of the box. BUT if someone does an entire aircraft in a mud bath why that doesn't need it's own category. did you know that i can hide a bad paint job, scratches, cat hair( i have a cat) and even a bad seam job and do some heavy weathering on it and can blend it in to look like it is suppose to be there. (you should have seen the guy's face when i took 3rd place and he didn't make it) just to prove my point about having a separate class. (oh yea he was pissed when i showed him all the crap i could cover up by weathering) 99.99% of the modelers that weather their aircraft don't do anything like i did intentionally (or do they?) that is why they should have a separate category. why can't they be in the OUT OF THE BOX all they need it the instructions laying there next to the aircraft. IPMS lets the out of the box slide or fudge the instructions but can't have a separate category because just the way it is. we have been doing it that way for 20 yrs so there. so let be written so let it be done. for people who really don't know they really don't care there mind is(heavily weathered) already made up even before i started to state my case. unless more modelers raise their voices and say why not. it will never happen. i am just blowing hot air falling on deaf ears and a closed(weathered)mind. oh yea as a jet engine mech, if the out side of the aircraft looks like it's been flying for years(heavy weathering which is the only way a aircraft could look that bad) did anyone stop to think what must be inside the engine. i think not. not everything that goes in comes out. and there is such a thing called road kill. just like driving you car down the road that chip monk was waiting for you to come down the road just so he could run out and play tag with your car. maybe some day i will tell you how we can clean out a jet engine still in the aircraft while it is still running. if you feel like doing some RESEARCH i will give you a hint (it's called field cleaning) anyway that is what it was called in the 60's(i had to put that in so i would't get a got ya)

 

well i guess this is another so long from the sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Sarge, why are you calling me out when you are arguing with a comment made by another person?

2. I understand that the post to which you are referring does not address "modern" aircraft.

3. Let's return to your original statement, that being that no modern aircraft that flies will show signs of weathering.

4. That statement has been shown to be false in the two pictures that were posted.

 

I don't really thing that you would continue to suggest that your statement is valid and true in the face of those two images, and I don't think you meant that statement to be taken literally, or at least I hope not. The proof is in the pic, so to speak.

I think your argument revolves around what is sometimes called the "Accuracy vs. Authenticity" debate among modelers. In generic terms, those who are identified as "rivet-counters" follow Accuracy as the ultimate goal of modeling. I am not among those persons. I favor the "Authenticity" view that modelers, through an approach based on skills, techniques, and artistry, strive to "represent" a real-life object through their modeling.

 

If you are a rivet-counter then knock yourself out and count away, but do not expect others to agree with you. Those that favor the "Authentic" view certainly will not agree with you. That disagreement does not mean that they do not understand your point of view, they simply disagree with it.

 

If you are a supporter of the "Authenticity" view than do not expect rivet counters to agree with you. That disagreement does not mean they do not understand your point of view.

 

Beyond that, I would ask if you've ever judged at an IPMS convention (not a local show, but the Big Dog). If you have then you've sat in on the What Do Judges Look For training session, and you've served a stretch of time as an OJT. I doubt that you would make the same argument about OOB if you had "time served".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"will do their research and send me every picture they can on weathered aircraft(without doing research) "

 

Um...what?

 

See ya in 6 months, Sarge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked through 200 or so aircraft models that took an award (1st, 2nd or 3rd) at the Columbia Nats (you can see the slides starting here: http://svsm.org/gallery/columbia2016-awards/100_G) There were maybe 5 that I'd call "heavily weathered", and most of those were WWII subjects (mostly Japanese), I think there were maybe 2 post WWII planes that I'd call weathered, and none of them were the extreme "dipped in mud" look you see now and then. IPMS judges can usually tell when weathering has been done to hide mistakes, and it rarely fools anyone.

 

Maybe 10% of those 200 winning models had darkened panel lines and shading that seemed a little heavy handed in photographs, but probably looked better in person. I know real aircraft don't have black panel lines, but I see it a little like stage makeup on an actress - it isn't realistic but it helps compensate for lighting. The fact that most of those models had much more subtle panel-lines and shading suggests that judges don't really like the heavy handed shading either.

 

Its hard to say what the judges at a local model show might like or not like, and there is no way IPMS/USA can really control that, but at least at the Nats it doesn't seem like weathering on planes of any era is common or helps in taking an award.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, welcome aboard Sarge!

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dick i am here to say i am sorry if you thought i was singling you out for something personal. i wasn't. the only thing i was referring to was the photo's 1 picture is worth a 1000 words except if the picture isn't what you think it represents. then it isn't worth anything. nothing personal ok ? the bottom line is that a weathered aircraft vs a non-weathered aircraft are different and really should be in their own category. it may not happen in my life time but if enough people start to realize that then maybe something will happen but it really looks like it won't happen. it like a rut that's a grave with the ends kicked out. people fall in to one and sometimes just don't want to get out when it is just easier to stay in it. i really am not a rivet counter i just don't believe the star ship enterprise should be in the same category as sputnik. both are space but one is different than the other. that is the bottom line they are different.

and to answer WTF (that"s a cool dog!!) what is meant by doing research but not doing research is that people will do research finding pictures of aircraft that looks like to have weathering(i guess it called weathering because they believe the weather makes them look like that) but if they did the research what it is they are looking at they will find out that it really isn't weathering. that is what is meant by doing research with out doing research.

anyway it really does look like this will be the last post for about the next 6 mos. my adult supervision says my OCD is getting the best of me on the pc. so i have to spend time on my other OCD in the basement (building models) where she knows what i am doing at all times. oh one other thing i do sell my models after they have run their coerce through the shows. that's because i know if i stocked piled them for so called display i would then become a hoarder and i really do know what that is too. If you know anyone that would like to make an offer on about 300,000 baseball cards i can make a deal!! i just really had to find out the hard way what you get when you combine OCD and HOARDING. 1/4 of the basement is no longer usable. and as you can see my OCD is kicking in.

 

 

 

 

 

nice conversing with all of you and when i finally get back out of the basement we'll have a lot more to talk about . THE SARGE .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Sarge.

 

You said, "the bottom line is that a weathered aircraft vs a non-weathered aircraft are different and really should be in their own category."

 

I do not think there is a need for such a distinction. Here's why............the judges do not look for accuracy per se, but they do look at the quality and skill level of the technique being applied.

Take a model that is factory fresh. When judging it the judges look for how well the paint was applied, glue stains, decal silvering, alignment of various bits, etc.

Take a model that represents a very weathered subjects.... the judges look for how well the paint was applied, and the fact that it is weathered or clean is irrelevant. Is the paint consistent? (whether it be dirty or clean) is there overspray (again clean or weathered makes no difference). and, of course, glue stains are not limited to clean or dirty subjects.

 

It is the technique and skill level that is being judged, not the choice the modeler made to make it dirty or clean. No need for separate categories.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...