Complexity could be ruining our hobby - why model aircraft need to be simpler!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- Every new model release coming out these days seems to be bigger, better, more complex, all open panels, full interiors and multiple options, pushing the hobby more and more into making "autopsy" displays of aircraft.
The hobby seems to be moving further and further away from displaying the graceful beauty and aesthetics of aircraft and I think we need to go back to simpler kits to save the hobby...
What say you?
You can find me on Facebook here: / beckermodelling
Wow, over 100 comments in less than 12 hours - this hit a nerve! Cant respond to you all but I will try to keep the conversation going. Cheers, Chris
PS. Oh to those of you who are saying I should take up knitting, or just do Lego, or are heavily implying that I lack the skills to complete a complex kit and therefore am a lesser modeller than you, there's the door, you're not welcome at my channel.
I've just started to make the first Airfix 1/72nd Wellington Bomber....From 1956, so simple and crap it's adorable and full of nostalgia.
Block ‘em Chris they talk shit!
Bob
England
@@beckersmodels ignore them! @hpiguysworkshop gets the same kind of comments because he uses rattle cans and Sharpie pens to paint and detail his vehicle kits - but he gets stunning results! So, who's correct? It's just another string to this immature 'if I disagree with you, I must hate you' culture prevalent today. Ignore it. The more it gets fed, the longer it'll take to bigger off!
I got into this about 2 years ago and love the complexity, and will pay more for higher quality kits.
Agree
And intelligent engendering. No like Edward over ingenering.
I agree. There is always lego and diecast
Complexity does not always equal quality.
@@Donleecartoons Hell yeah !! I started building a Polish made A-40 flying tank last night, and the complexity of maddeningly fiddly little 1/76th scale pieces - even including a full interior, completely invisible of course!! - was jawdropping enough, but the actual part fit was abysmal, and only manageable by setting up plasticine to allow the road wheels and struts to dry without facing in 8 different angles or falling off....
For us in-flight modellers, I beg and plead to the kit manufacturers - give us a pilot in the kit!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!
Hear hear! Its not that hard to do at a good price point either - the Hasegawa figures are perfectly fine in all scales, yet somehow they are the same price as others? I don't believe the nonsense around "it makes kits more expensive"...
@@RichardsModellingAdventures I dont build museum replicas, I display as in flight in the real world. And if you've been to the best aircraft museum in the world - at Omaka - ALL of the aircraft in that museum have 1:1 scale crew....
@@beckersmodels The Stuff at Duxford sure aren't replicase. Flown in and hung up, but I guess if you want real world in flight you're gonna need a pilot.
Fully agree. Pilots must be included. Makes a model much more dynamic. I select kits on pilots included
Agreed, pilots are a must have.
Personally, I love complexity. There are still simple and good model kits on the market, but such abundance in complex model kits was never before and I am welcoming it with smile and open arms. There are lot of people, like me, that waited for decades for that to happen. It's not like simple kits will somehow disappear overnight 🙄.
You raise some very valid points. I'm an older modeller (58) and people may laugh, but I would also like less complexity.
I've worked in computers most of my life, so my eyes have suffered. Recently I wanted to build the British navy Phantom in 1/72, but 300 pieces? Including antenna etc?
I have to admit I now lack the manual dexterity to apply antenna or decals that may be no bigger than one millimeter.
Finally, having a family, I lack sufficient time to assemble a kit of this complexity.
And OMG, for a crew figure and stand! Would love for airfix to make a British phantom in 1/48!
Hello! Agree in total: at age 62 same issues… Opti-Lens on- hands shaking a bit etc. I’m just about to finish the Tamiya 1:48 KI-61 working on/off as conditions allow- 3-months on my bench. All painted on large markings- hair spray chipping and weathering et Al. I wouldn’t DREAM of taking on a 1:72 scale. That said- IF we older “dudes” want a new modern kit- 300 pieces for a 1:72 is nuts! Or a 1:48. 1:32 maybe: but time and SPACE for display lead so many of us into the 1:48/1:72 area… Good Luck and Cheers-
I think it all depends on our individual comfort zones and preferences...just stick with what works for you, and do it your way. The bottom line is enjoy the hobby! 😊
I agree with you 100%. I like my airplane models that look like airplanes, not gutted fish. I deplore the lack of crew figures with most new kits.
As an side - generally, over complexity is a feature of our society these days. It seems designers, planners and organisers think it clever to make simple things more complex rather than working to simplify the complex ❤
Unnecessary complexity is a feature of our neoliberal society. It makes us think that some is better than it actually is. It’s a con like thinking Louis Vuitton products are better quality than the stuff we buy at K-Mart.
@@larrycoldwater1964 honnestly, they are better but not really necessary
Not for me, I love the complexity (as long as the instructions are good) it makes the build more enjoyable and longer which I feel gives better value.
The same trend happened in cycling, to the point where an entry level bike now costs $700+. Ideally something at all levels, the simple (inexpensive) kit, maybe mid-complexity, and real complex for the advanced modeler.
That's what I was trying to say - I've seen this happen in other fields too, more complexity at first driven to "satisfy the customer" but really its making everything more expensive.
Yep, been a mountain biker all my adult life. First bike cost me $350 mid 90s. Now it’s hard to find a decent hard tail under 1k! I’ve spent more on shifter/derailleur upgrades than my first bike cost.
I LOVE complex kits... in fact the building part is my favorite part. I know at the end I could have the same level of detail with a Tamiya kit... but they are just too simple to build to make me happy. It is a matter of preference and there are plenty of very basic quality kits on the market to choose from.
I am actually starting to go back to simpler kits, be that armor or aircraft models, i.e. tamiya classic kits from the 80's, 90's. I had a melt down a few months ago, going through the more recently issues of "super detailed" kits.
I've even gone back a step further with building a few ancient kits, but they are even more hassle than over-detailed new kits, because you either have to scratch all details or carve them out of the roughly shaped lumps of plastic included in the kit...
I've built a couple of the newer kits like the Mini Art P47, and Magic Factory A4M. I still think the old Tamiya P47 is superior in buildabilty and value. I was an A4 mechanic and can't recall ever seeing one with all of the panels opened. Also when parked the flaps may be down and speed brakes slightly opened. As for the rivets, unless you were laying on the wing you are not going to see then. We certainly never used the wing as a putting green. I think what some manufacturers re missing is that alot of us have limited building time and don't want to spend six months finishing every kit.
Throw in the completely inaccurate Livekit A-4 nose area where correctly scaled seats wont fit and older kits are in many ways superior.
I've been saying the same as you for years, and been modeling for 50 years plus!! I love the hobby, but it's just getting ridiculous with all the emphasis on detail, detail, detail and complexity.
Meh, it serves a market. But Tamiya prove that making good kits that are BUILDABLE is always a commercial winner.
Great video mate. I agree completely. This is what makes the Tamiya kits from the 90’s and 2000’s close to perfect in my opinion. Excellent quality, reasonable price and basic but sufficient detail out of the box, but they leave you with enough mojo and pocket money to go nuts with detailing should you want to.
....and Kotare today.
Concur 100%. Tamiya 1/48 aircraft kits from the mid-1990s through mid-2000s got the balance right.
I like the idea of two levels: entry and advanced. The advanced model having a minimal number of configurations and modules that you can purchase to fill out whatever you're going for (e.g., full cockpit, ground mx configuration, etc.).
There are plenty of Revell, Tamiya and older Airfix kits for people who want "simple" kits.
I for one like detailed interiors, however with the close tolerances in moulding nowadays you have to be careful in keeping paint off mating surfaces, and they are not for beginners. However I also like simplicity as well as a break from more complex models. I just put together Tamiya's 1/48 Spitfire Vb - simple, but it has a nicely detailed cockpit, and builds into a lovely kit. This is in contrast to their more recent complicated Me109 which gets very mixed reviews.
Tamiya are still the best. Complexity and detail are just right. Arma & Eduard are a bit OTT - academy and hasegawa are good too.
Tamiya and complexity? Lol
@@willthorson4543 yeah Tamiya are great. Not everyone is an expert some of us like a well a detailed build that quick and easy resulting in a great looking model. Hobbies should be fun and enjoyable not be overwhelmingly complicated. There’s enough of that shit at work and with the family. Unless of course there is no work or family and you need something overwhelmingly complicated to fill a void.
Depends upon the scale. 1/32 aircraft, Hasegawa win hands down for the balance of complexity, accuracy, detail and price. Tamiya sit in between Zoukei-Mura and Hasegawa, but are getting right up there in price. Whilst their parts design engineering Tamiya's remains a standard of excellence, their more recent 1/48 offerings are getting ever more unnecessarily complex, with price points to match.
@@willthorson4543 Exactly this kind of trite elitest nonsense ruining the hobby. Whilst their vintage stuff from the 1970s & '80s might not be "complex", they still sell exceptionally well reflecting a market which rejects insane price points and unnecessary capandering to autistic pedants. Latest Tamiya in both 1/48 and 1/32 is becoming ever more unnecessarily complex reflected in their price points.
@larrycoldwater1964 well said 🏅
100% agree models are not like they used to be, Because of the internet it's become a competitive war with who can make: The best looking - Make the most complicated kit - The most PE or Resin parts used in a kit.....People spend hundreds on airbrushes just so they can be like the 'Kings Of Model Builders' and spend a few thousand on paints/washes etc......I still brush paint my stuff, they say it's an art to airbrush model parts......Brush painting is a dying art now, ditch the airbrush and get learning how to hand brush.
Not gettiing into the brush vs airbrush debate, but that notwithstanding, you are acccurate in your keeping up with the Jones' & oneupsmanship observations. Sadly pathetic aspect of the human condition.
@@theblytonian3906 I see this pre-shading & post-shading on many many models these days to the point it's getting out of hand as everyone copies, same with chipping, mass chipping is fine for a Jap aircraft because of the very salty climate but not on a British wartime bomber, on jet aircraft you see the dark areas between the panels because jet aircraft has very intricate/expensive/delicate workings throughout so water ingress is bad, to stop water ingress the panels had thick oil wiped in the joints, in a hope to stop water ingress, that's why you see the dark edges on such jet aircraft..... But it's totally wrong to do this same effect on prop powered aircraft, everything in mainly mechanical with very little electronics, other that wingtip lights etc etc...... I had to laugh at one model maker who had chipped the hell out of a wellington Bomber, it never chipped on the fuselage wings because they are doped canvass covering.....Know and get to know the subject well and don't copy.
Mate, you've raised some good points and yeah, I share them to an extent. However, It all depends on what you want and expect from a kit at the end of the day. You have to remember for years, builders have been complaining about the lack of details, part counts etc and manufacturers have responded in kind by making these highly complex kits in an attempt to satisfy those builders. In some part, I also think they're trying to compete against the AM detail makers, having more complex kits in order to save the builder some money. As you say, Academy make nice and simple kits to satisfy those of us who just want a reasonable representation of the subject at hand. There are heaps of people who want an autopsy style display and high parts count really matter to them. Those kits like the Airfix Sea King etc are aimed at them - not us. Still, it is a good point and IMO, I'd rather makers engineer their kits better to be able to have it wheels up than having everything on display.
No problem. Each to their own. I can't afford these high end kits but enjoy the work of others and keep it simple on my side
I have budget constraints too so , i build simple kits and add simple improvements to build them to the better stardards of the more complete from the box builds , or builds with more aftermarket. I'm buying less aftermarket tbh .
tamiya got the concept pretty much right decades ago..thats why they are still sought after. pity they don't seem to focus on expanding their plastic kit range
100% agree . I've been saying the same thing since Monogram started putting in all that interior detail in its 1/48 bomber kits . 80% of which dissappears as soon as the 2 fuselage halves are joined .
@@chrisbisho9785 I've never seen the sense in including detail that can never be seen once the model is finished! To me that suggests the manufacturer isn't paying as much attention to getting the things that can be seen correct, and there's one word which sums that up - Rivets!!
I’ve just got back into the hobby after a 35 year break, I’ve bought a bunch of kits in various scenes, from 1/24, 1/32, 1/48 and 1/72 from Airfix, Revell, Hasegawa and ICM, I’ve been taken aback by the level of detail in the 1/48 scale kits, way more complex than I’ll ever need. I remember back in the day if you wanted something cheap and cheerful you went with Airfix, if you wanted something fancy you went with Tamiya or Hasegawa. I definitely think there needs to be a balance between the two ‘styles’. There’s nothing wrong with detailed interiors, if that’s what interests you, but there should be a less detailed, more affordable option of the same kit for those who aren’t interested in details as small as the pilots lunch sandwiches being shown.
I couldn't agree more...thank you! (I had never heard the term 'autopsy model' before, and I love it). I make models, and I am a hobbyist photographer. Modern models are harder to build than those that were around 20-30 years ago, whereas modern cameras make it easier to take fabulous photos.
eduard do weekend and profi sets so you have the choice of extras or not why dont other manufacturers do this
Some people will indeed complain about anything. OK, let's break this down...
1. It's all about the options, and I know many modelers that aren't happy unless they can display the models with doors and panels open. It becomes important for the modelers who like to build dioramas. In fact I can think of a couple that will build up interior sections of the models that no one will ever see short of using a bore scope, kid of like that DeHavilland you had on your video. When it comes to aircraft, most I know will go through the arduous procedure to cut out control surfaces just so they can slightly reposition them on aircraft models.
2. If it's just a matter of having something nice for the shelf or desk top, there are options. Some of those options only require minimal effort or no effort at all. However that's NOT the point of building scale models!
3. There's plenty of beginner kits available. Look to companies like Revell or even the cheaper Tamiya kits that don't offer a lot of detail on their kits.
4. The reason manufacturers don't offer a lot of separate options for their kits is that it costs more from a manufacturing standpoint, and it can be confusing to people who don't know what they are looking at. Tamiya of all manufacturers is bad in this regard in that they may offer the same basic model with different options or include an extra vehicle found in many of their kits. The box art will be almost the same, and it's only looking VERY closely that one can tell one version from another. Would you like me to cite several examples?
5. I actually do agree with you about the rivets, BUT... There are a lot of things on many model kits that are done in what I call "artistic liberty" just about every model ever made that you wouldn't find on the full scale version, ESPECIALLY aircraft. Panel lines are another big one. I don't care what plane it is, go and look at the real life version of it, you won't see the panel lines or they will be so faint as they wouldn't translate to an actual scale model to any realistic degree. Most manufacturers mold panel lines that if they translated to the actual aircraft would look like the Grand Canyon.
Which seques into...
6. And my personal pet peeve is weathering. I only bring this up by the examples you show, and again the artistic liberty thing. Most modelers WAYYYY overdue it on weathering. When I was getting my airframe and powerplant tickets, we used junk aircraft for our projects. I mean in the sense that these planes were serious beaters that were no longer airworthy and probably spent a couple of decades sitting outdoors on the flightline exposed to all sorts of conceivable weather and careless students who couldn't give a damn about caring for the planes. Got the picture in your mind yet? Yet those planes didn't begin to look as rough as some (read many) of the weathering jobs I have seen. And yet it seems as if the plane isn't built to look like someone dragged it through a swamp it's "too clean" or a boring model. Go figure!
7. Pilots and figures. I'm actually OK with these kits NOT including a pilot and or figures in a lot of cases. Why? 98% of the pilots included in these kits look absolutely horrible. Very rigid posture with their arms sitting in their laps or on imaginary arm rests, misshapen heads and poor details. Some of the better pilots have separate arms that always leave gaps and/or never line up to the body quite right. The few kits that actually include a decent pilot or obtaining an aftermarket pilot are EXPEN$IVE!
8. Market Dynamics. Simply put, manufacturers wouldn't be making these complex kits if there wasn't a demand for them, nor am I convinced that people are necessarily scared off by complexity. I look at some of the large LEGO sets out there that are very involved and have thousands of pieces, and people buy those up too... my ex was really into that and built some really impressive structures. These new kits are extremely well manufactured, have excellent fit, and improved quality; even the cheaper ones compared to what they used to be.
Well said, your right on the money here 👍.
Well thought out and expressed-
Well said!
my 5c worth
1. ok there are those people who want a highly detailed complex model but what about those that don't like the people who are thinking about getting into the hobby they don't want a model with 300 part count especially if they are a 10yo kid as I was my first Kit was a matchbox Jagdpanther then the F4U Corsair my last was the WNW sopwith camel
2. . If it's just a matter of having something nice for the shelf or desk top, there are options. Some of those options only require minimal effort or no effort at all. However that's NOT the point of building scale models! people can do whatever they like when it comes to this hobby THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS HOBBY
3. yup
4. if a manufacturer planned the sprew layout better there would hardly be any extra cost and if there were it would only be minimal mainly printing for a new beginners box and advanced box
5. yeah well most kits have "artistic liberty" be it scaling a part up or down to fit having rivets too big or small too many or not enough rivets oversized panel lines we all have to work it out or live with it
6. I am in the less is more camp and yes there are some that overdo the weathering but it is their model they can do whatever they want but on the other hand some of the warbirds did see a hell of a lot of action and did get beat up have a look at some of the Jap aircraft in the pacific they barely had any paint left on them
7. with modern tooling or 3d printing there is no reason a halfway decent figure couldn't be included in the box at no extra cost
8. I am sure there is a high demand for more highly detailed high part count kits but again a high detail low part count kit would suit beginners
another thing is the more detail the more parts the greater the cost how many people out there have enough Money or the skill to complete say the Border Models Lancaster
Well said on all counts
I love more detail and complexity. Don't care for the expense but I love detail and learning how things work.
as someone who built aircraft at full scale....the only way you should be able to a flush mounted rivet is because it's a different color, when it's painted they are difficult to see unless you're very close to it. I believe the tolerance was +/- 0.002.
I myself prefer kits which offer versatility, in other words, allow me to pick the version, nation, etc. And also offer all the detail I need in without needing to buy extra material from external sources.
I understand your point, but there are many simple and cheap kits out there. One just has to decide which kit suits better: the simpler one, or the super detailed on :)
I think it really depends what you are trying to get out of the Hobby. There are many like myself who like a high parts count, complexity and detail. Others like a more middle of the road approach and then there are those who want to model like they did when they were kids, simply putting a kit with a low parts count together, slapping some paint on it and some decals and calling it done. whichever way you prefer to build, there are models out there for all to enjoy their hobby they way they want to enjoy it. New complex models are not ruining the hobby, the demand is there. It's up to those individuals with a different modeling philosophy or a lower skill set to know what they are buying.
I got into the hobby as a child in the 60s. I was obsessed enough to buy and devour the monthly Airfix Magazine. The models were very simple, but the essence of advanced modelling in those days was conversions. I remember a couple of projects that I read - converting the Lanc to a York (fuselage carved from a length of block balsa) and an operating retractable undercarriage for a Stirling! I also learned about making canopies or tank turrets from acetate or sheet plastic. The point is modellers were encouraged to add their own complexity.
I got the ZM 1:32 Horten 229, but I'm not using any of that full interior detail 😞. Gear up and hanging from the ceiling it will be...
yeahh I think unless you are willing to participte on a contest... it´s a MUST to build the detailed interior
I love complexity because you get more details that make it look real.
Too much detail can sometimes actually detract from the look of a model, making it look more like a miniature. On prototype photos you often can't see tiny details.
The nerd in me loves this detail....
Modeling to me is all about variety. I like all these new opportunities like 3D printed parts, being able to pose panels open to show interior, seperate flight control surfaces etc. After all it's just a matter of personal taste and preferences. I do aircraft, armor ,SciFi and civilian stuff. I build my aircraft in all possible szenarios. On ground, airhorne, crashed, drowned or under maintenance. Sometimes I love to go overboard on detailing, while on the next model I might keep it simple oob. Having worked in both civil and military aviation all my life I saw a lot of different states an aircraft can be in. So I can say if an aircraft is parked or under maintenance it's surely not a car 😅 I do agree that kits have reached a price range and parts count peak. There is no reason to make something multi part when it can be done in one part. Clever engineering is the key as GWH, Tamiya and Eduard kits show. But unfortunately clever engineering is rare and drives the prices even more...
I think you are right about this point.
I like the way that Eduard sells different editions for modelers to choose from, with corresponding differences in price. Some kits are subjects that I want to add the photoetching, resin, etc details. Other kits I just want a simple kit that will look nice on the shelf without having to toss out all the interior detailing. Italeri's Stirling is a perfect example of loads of interior detail that will never be seen.
I build primarily 1/32 aircraft and love the likes of Tamiya and Zoukei Mura who produce some of the more complex and detailed kits.
Just because they provide the options for having all panels open it does not mean you have to actually have them open. In fact I usually just have the cockpits open while installing other internals with closed panels.
Though I don’t install pilots as I don’t want to obscure the cockpit detail, I do agree that a pilot should be included for those who want them, otherwise one option is closed down.
Ultimately we have a choice and choice is important.
Basic and more detailed is a good idea, I agree.
Reminds me of your "Boxart Paradox" video from 8 years ago. I always build my model aircraft in flight, wheels up, and I agree with most of your concerns. If a manufacturer is going to load up the sprues with a couple of hundred parts, there is no reason not to include a pilot figure and closed doors for undercarriage and bomb bays. If Tamiya and Academy can do it, so can Airfix and Eduard. The incremental cost is negligible. I'd prefer a display stand, but I usually build my own.
With modern CAD systems, a simplified kit can still be as dimensionally accurate as the "advanced" version. Sadly, some manufacturers forget this. Case in point: the Airfix F-35B (the 1/72 kit, not the QuickBuild), which is embarrassingly bad.
Depends tbh, I would pay around 60+ dollars for a premium kit with great detail and fitting (rivets, panel, etc) but not 120+ for gun detail, full engine knowing most of em will eventually be covered. I just bought Bandai's star wars series (X, Y wing, and Falcon) absolutely amazing detail without feeling overcomplex.
Model kits are going the same way as model railways, some people want high detail and others just want to build the model and display it. I totally agree there needs to be two options, basic and detailed
Zoukei Mura are the kings of this. I like their Ki45, HS-129 and He-219 but I would never buy them, I have ZERO interest in seeing every bloody internal part. I like the look of an aircraft externally. I enjoy the painting of a scheme most when I do a build. If they bought these kits out minus the internals, I'd be all over them like white on rice. But horses for courses, some modellers like this, so their wants and needs are met. It's like you said, it's keeping up with the Jones'. It's the OHH and AHH factor. When you see model shows and the average Joe will ohh and ahh over these models. I think model companies are in cahoots with each other anyway. How many times do you see the same bloody aircraft come out from 2 or 3 different manufacturers within 6 months of each other? I can think of 3 or 4 last couple of years, (probably more). For smaller parts count, I want ONE piece injected wheels! The glue 2 halves and sand and obliterate surface details is ridiculous. And I am fine with ONE piece moulded flaps/slats/ailerons! I will still pay the same price for the kit, but manufacturers think that is reducing the parts count, so no good. But again, it's what people want, I do not enjoy the construction part of a build, I just like thee painting part 😁
Hi, Chris. I know you're not a great fan of Airfix for beginner kits (for middle aged blokes like me, at least) but their newer starter kits do at least come with a stand and can be posed wheels up even if they are oversimplified. What I am bemused by is that lots of Airfix kits at 1/72 and 1/48 can be built wheels up but they don't sell stands (other than those old slot stands that I remember from my childhood but which don't match the newer kits).
I do like the older style of Airfix kits - unfortunately even their beginner/starter kits are getting quite expensive and are somewhat oversimplified as you say. I'm not happy with the majority of their so called intermediate kits either, not yet had one I could say was good overall.
You very much have a valid point. I came back to the hobby during COVID after not so much as thinking about modelling for many years. As I think some others have said my initial reaction was "Wow, used to dream of things like this when I was a kid/younger". Having built newer kits there has been more than one occasion when I've wrestled with part of the process and after succeeding (eventually) thought, did it really have to be designed that way? Was it really necessary to break that assembly down like that? I think there are quite a few examples where complexity is unnecessarily built in just for the sake of it, having absolutely no effect on the finished article at least that I can see. Yes, the nerd in me thinks 'Lovely' but I'm afraid the older and much less nimble fingered and much more short-sighted me thinks 'Hell no'.
I think you nailed it. Sometimes more (parts count), doesn’t always equal better. Good food for thought. I hope the manufacturer’s are listening
I mostly agree with you on this. We want accuracy (but for the scale) and fidelity with good fit. Where an interior ought to be visible (the open door on the Sea King for example), it should be there at a reasonable level of accuracy.
I like the miniart approach with the recent P-47D kits, which have a cheaper basic kit and a super detailed version.
I dont want to spend £ amd effort to build engines you cant see, but i am very happy that there are kits where panels can be opened for those that want it as well.
Its the same with photo-etch. I dont want it, so if you include it then make sure all parts are in plastic as well.
💯 agree Becker. Was reflecting on this very topic today after picking up a 1/35 tamiya flak 37 north african campaign. Yes it's an old tool (early 70s for the gun) but kudos to tamiya for including new parts in 2006 like highly detailed DAK figures, motorcycles and crates to bring the kit somewhat up to modern modelling standards, has minimal part count, looks great and won't take six months to build up... let's see more of this design thinking from other manufacturers.
Absolutely TRUE...The bitter truth is that these manufacturers are in a" wrestling lock" competition...trying to outdo the other with greater complexity and in result...put a bigger price tag on it....meaning more profit.
Check the quality of the styrene/plastic, clear parts, PE,some with rubber tires...it's horrible...parts joined too close to the sprues, lots of clean-up needed, decals thin as wafers,majority have wing root alignment problems, mislabelled parts, pre drilled holes in the wings are out of sync with the pylon tabs....list goes on and on.
I compared the 1969 Aurora model C 119 G packet with the 2002 Roden AN 12 BK Cub...Oh...what a difference in quality and price...
A zillion thanks for bringing up this issue...
If you look at the average Seaking it is festooned on rivits just like the Airfix kit if you don't believe me take a look at one!!!
The absence of stands for in-flight display is particularly frustrating. I build airliners and finding the cg and posing the models isn’t so easy. Also, airliner kits are few and far between, and they tend to actually lack detail (e.g., flaps, slats). Model kits definitely are getting very expensive. Thanks for the good video!
I understand his point, but I also do believe that if someone would like to do the hyper complex version, it's great to have that option. Ideally, I love to see what Bandai has done with their gunpla kits - Have a basic version line and have other lines of increasing complexity of the same subject. And price points to match. It's a great way to draw in beginners and allow for modellers to continue to challenge themselves as their skill improve
YES!! Absolutely! Tamiyas 1:48 P-51 is actually a perfect match of complexity and buildability. Trumpeter is the opposite.
I believe Kotare have the correct approach. High precision, low parts count. My wish is that the manufacturers work with aftermarket companies for the add-ones. Then everyone gets a good suck of the pineapple. Manufacturers can build great models. Modellers can then choose to have out-of-the-box or go full tilt and buy everything. This spreads the risk and reduces costs.
I raised this in a modelling group I belong to, voicing the same sort of concerns, three or four years ago. I was berated and advised to buy Lego kits instead, which I took objection to. But I'm of the same opinion of Becker. First, I am for accuracy and fit, overriding that is fit. I can live with erroneous rivets and panel lines, so long as they're not wholly imaginary.
What I don't want is interminable interior detail that's never going to be seen. The Sea King being a case in point. Lovely kit, I enjoyed building it, no question. There's a full interior with floor detail, but once the fuselage halves are closed - main cabin door open or not - virtually nothing is going to be seen.
So why bother with that research and development, adding to the cost, when the kit is missing decent detail of the port side entry steps? Or, in being able to fold the main rotors - beautiful touch - yet missing the 'socks' that hold the blade tips? (I can live with the omission of the cabling, someone building the Sea King is going to be a more experienced modeller and can add their own).
It seems the trend is for a higher part count to make any one kit look better quality and/or value but I think that's a false selling point, although I would make the distinction of separate parts being available to make it easier for the modeller to - say - paint that and other bits to avoid over-complex masking. But the trend to merely make higher part counts is counter-productive. Beginners will get bored if not frustrated.
There's plenty of after-market for those with the experience and love that extra detailing so I return to my first sentence. Accuracy and fit, avoid the unnecessary high part count, particularly where it's never going to be seen again. Concentrate on and make good what's going to be seen.
I love the new details in kits now, but id love for them to focus on finally fixing fuselage assembly. Zoukei Mura goes off of panel lines, i just wish there was more of that instead of paying more for parts.
Fine Molds is also going down that path. Their A6M5 kits due for a December release follow panel lines. Looking forward to those kits. Their F-4 Phantoms also follow a similar parts breakdown.
@@richarddouglas688 You'd think with all the tooling technology it would become the standard. I think it would bring Revells reputation up a few notches.
Agree most heartily, seeing what appears to be a trend of pushing higher parts count that are not visible nor necessary just to justify a ridiculous price while not providing basic options like wheels up or crew( a real bug bear of mine)
My suggestions:
1.foundation kits..
Manufacturer sells base kit for a reasonable price but offers small “hop up” add on kits (similar to the now very expensive 3D resin aftermarket kits, eg- resin cockpit for my new OV 10D+ Bronco that was $59 more expensive than the kit itself) for more advanced builders specifically for dissection dioramas that way newer modellers are still included.
2. Wheels up options ALWAYS (for goodness sake’s people it’s an aircraft not a car)
3. Crew.. In flight or wheels down I believe a kit without crew looks lifeless.
4. More scale options for each available kit (it can’t be that hard, rescaling a 3D print file is a piece of piss, I can do it and I’m hopeless)
That’s about it for now, rant over thanks mate for another great vid keep up the good work
Davey NoNo out👍🇦🇺
100% agreed. I like my builds (aircraft mostly) as smooth as possible. Rarely I leave a panel open (speed brakes included) unless it definitely adds something extra to the finished model.
That’s because you haven’t seen the 1/48 su-33 from minibase… 670 parts 😅 it took me a year to finish …
The older 1/32 Hasegawa kits are my favorites. Good clean starting point for a simple build if you like, or add as much detail as you wish with aftermarket sets. I applaud the Kotare approach, yes it’s expensive with a complex cockpit, but that’s where it stopped. No engine needed for God’s sake! Great video and a worthy topic.
look at the hobby its full of old people doing it , very few young people .When I started you could buy a kit for 99pence now Its 25 /30 quid
good video - about time someone called out the model companies - I buy older kits from eBay and model shows
As a former model builder, I prefer the newer models and the details. The reason is you don't have to include the interior, you can just paint the windows blue and call it a day. As for the detail, why would any model builder want less detail. Details are part of the reason we build them. As for the rivets yeah I guess I can understand they are out of scale, however as a former member of HC-85 the Golden Gators base at NAS San Diego I remember those rivets when I washed the helicopters, and even if they are larger on the model, they bring back good memories. It was a great review of the kit. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya
I like the complexity to a degree, I used to like basic kits and scratched the details but I just don't have the time anymore. Not really a fan of all the internals though, I rarely open panels to see engines etc. But yeah can we get some pilots/aircrew?
David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Friday, 11 October, 2024)
Hello, Chris. I hope you and yours are doing well, physically, materially, and otherwise.
In your editorial, you make a point of merit.
I say keep the accuracy and the detail, though we also must address the cost, the complexity, the parts count (driving both my immediately preceding issues), etc. 3D printing looks that it perhaps can offer us greater fidelity, whilst more efficiently expressing that with a relatively modest count part; I saw an entire 3D engine fashioned of one astoundingly well-articulated piece of resin!
A separate, though related issue: for 3D printing to require several hours to produce one component (however intricate) hardly is conducive to the requirements of mass production; we need for 3D printing productivity to scale up ten-thousandfold in volume or better: yes, instead of making one item in five hours, manufacturing simply must have several tens of thousands of parts ready for assembly (would these be polystyrene sprues?) in one-tenth the time (or less!) of today’s capacity.
Let us also be candid about injection-mold manufacturing: it is no worthy standard for the rest of the market to meet (it simply had defaulted to one, because following World War Two, that was the state of the art in industry then available to kit makers): its molds are 1) costly to produce (often, terribly so), 2) lack the details other methods routinely make, wear over time, further reducing quality, etc.
I also like your idea of two versions of a kit: 1) standard, and 2) advanced. This approach would give both manufacturers and retailers additional revenue, and the buyer appreciably greater flexibility in choosing a kit. A modern, well-made standard kit would be serviceable for a reasonably detailed model built all closed for flight. The interior advocates can knock themselves out on doubling the cost and tripling (or greater) the time for assembly.
I, too, prefer (on most occasions) to build aircraft models in flight (some open displays have merit; I would do so in service to a wordless, visual story, e.g., depicting a flight crew helping their mates to escape the wreckage of their burning bomber), the propeller(s) spinning (if so equipped), a pilot figurine in the cockpit seat, the harnessing securely enveloping him; or a bomber crew at their stations, the undercarriage retracted and their doors closed, the flight controls deflected befitting highly dynamic movement of sharp manœuvres, etc.
Incidentally, can one build a U.S. Navy version of Airfix’s 1:48th-scale kit of Westland’s Sea King Helicopter? I specifically consider Sikorsky’s CH-5 Sea King Helicopter, a few of which had recovered NASA’s manned spacecraft capsules of the 1960s and early 1970s.
At 7:33, you refer to the United Kingdom as “Brexit Land”; therein lies an editorial I would like to hear (or read)! Pray, sire, say on!
Totally agree Chris...i think a lot of the enjoyment of producing a nice model these days has gone purely because of the complexities...wherein yr mojo suffers a hit and it's relagated to the shelf of doom...i love the older Tamiya 48scale Spitfires and Mustangs, they might not have the detail of the newer Eduard releases..but do i really want to assemble a multi part wheel well when sufficient detail exists for the most part in the earlier kits even if a little shallow in the Mustang.
Way to go sir, hope the manufacturers take on yrs and Paul Budziks comments...the new Kotare Spitfires seem to be going that way with great detail already moulded in without a corresponding high parts count
Regards Howard
Spot on. The new kits tend to be tedious. The slide mold cause them to change the styrene formulation so they don't glue well for me in my hot garage. Don't fit as well either. The 1/32 Tamiya Mustang was a slog. Just reboxed the 1/32 Devastator. Done for now with the tedium.
Totally agree with you dude…
Curious as to how you get pilots for your projects…3d prints form purchased or free stls or 3rd party resin manufacturers?
Ive collected a catalogy of aftermarket pilots- most of which fit somewhat, some dont, I'm also collecting 3D pilots and have used one so far (Airfix Bristol Bulldog) and may go down the route of just designing my own...
I understand, that for a beginner, a complex (and expensive) model is scary. But there are those of us, for which model building is therapeutic; so the complexity is definitely welcome.
This is where ICM wins. I’ve built two of their 32 scale Gladiators and they’re brilliant, basic builds, low part count, they look great. About to start the 32 scale Falco and that should be similar. I totally agree with you mate
Yep I got the ICM Falco recently and its definitely a great intermediate kit. I'm thinking about the Gladiator too - in fact a lot of the newer ICM stuff is really interesting me these days...
I'm with you all the way. I've just restarted after the best part of a 50-year lay-off. I'm a Vietnam Vet, and that era is what I'm building. I nearly always saw them flying, usually low, with the crew working their arse off. These new kits with no crew, wheel bay doors that don't fit, and useless detail that can't be seen make me bloody annoyed. Aircraft are meant to fly!
P.S. Anyone know where I can get a decent UH-1 Huey 1/48 scale gunship kit? An iconic aircraft if ever there was one and no kit that I can find except slicks.
Interesting thought. I may talk about this on my livestream tomorrow night (pm east coast time USA).
Go for it! Be interesting to hear other's thoughts...cheers Chris
It cuts both ways. Some of these new kits are soo good I have to have them. Many of the older Tamiyas and Haegawas are entirely what I want. It depends on the airplane type and how I anticipate displaying it. It is really fortunate that we have so many choices. Lots of good stuff out there!
Well, I agree. Eduard releases weekend edición of its models which are what you promote, basic interior with very fine exterior.
Thanks for your proposal
I like Airfix kits. Instructions are good, but...... No stands anymore you have to buy them separately. No pilots. You always got pilots, you want them if you are going to display a flying aircraft. The times I have spent hours detailing the interior, and enjoyed doing it but it can't be seen once you put the fuselage together. So what's the point? And all those tiny parts. I have sausage fingers, I just get frustrated trying to fit them, so unless they are visible on the finished model I just ignore those parts.
100% Agree. Why include the entire interior that’ll never be seen? I do appreciate a well detailed cockpit though.
You can always skip the interior if you don't want to have it. Ofc you're paying for those parts so I see your point
The complexity is what is attractive about modeling.
I noticed you had a post on the subject 2 years ago, and many of the issues then are still here. Many too many modelers just want to be Sheperd Paine. It isn't just scale aviation, but cars and armor as well. On the plus side, it doesn't seem that complex kits have meant the disappearance of simpler kits from store shelves. I do suspect that it has raised the price point of models in general. Undoubtedly if you tool for complexity, it's going to cost more. Not only that, but the general scale of subjects has increased. The desire for the "coffee table" model with all the bells is also a factor. I've seen this in SF modeling where there's a demand for "studio scale" which while undefined invariably means very large models. Again that much plastic will cost a lot. On the other hand when you look at the prices for piece-part magazine models that some are buying, there is obviously a market for it.
You can see several poor reviews of re-releases of models with respect to accuracy, fit, scale (non-standard) or level of detail. Sometimes these kits are still relatively expensive when one considers these are not new tools - and it is not inflation, you can compare. On the other hand, they are at least viable projects for a weekend or two and generally fixable with a bit of work. I read an interview of the CEO of Lego where he discussed that kits that are intended for adults, namely their architecture sets, have a natural higher price point. Adults have salaries, not allowances.
It is perhaps a pipe dream to think that scale modeling will ever be a young person's hobby again, but I do feel it is becoming an old person's hobby. I never worried terribly as a kid and beginner of totally wrecking a $1 airfix baggie, and I pretty much bought one every week. I recently found an old 1/48 Monogram P-39 kit. I remembered building this thing when I was 10 and was the first kit I ever finished, painted and decaled. For a 1969 mold it's pretty nice. A "realistic" modeler should find workable, and the rest a fun build.
Good points, Chris. While I don’t have an issue with having more choice and options for kit complexity, it is rare for open panel kits to have perfectly fitting panels if you want them closed. Sure, that’s what modeling is all about but when you are asking for premium pricing then you ought to be delivering a premium kit.
It’s about time someone addressed this issue! This hobby has become more or less for only experienced people not your average modeler who does not have the time making contest models.
They don't hide the earlier , more simple kits . Build for you , those who build the more complex kits do or else they wouldn't. M
I agree
@@ekspatriatand speaking plainly, Tamiya’s WW2 in 48th are accurate renditions and outside of the P-38 are nice builds and easy weekend projects. You can add some PE to drag them out if you choose. But they build up nice, minimal seams, sharp detail. Great price and address what he’s discussing in my opinion. Yes, their jets do jump in price and parts count by their WW2 are gems in my view.
@@ThomasGrindberg-e6s I don’t agree at all. There is plenty of content for beginners on youtube. If you focus on watching build videos then yeah it might seem like an issue. But there are so many old and simple kits out there that you’ll probably run out of place on your shelves before you’ll build them all. Back in the day when I started there was Florymodels channel where you only saw the beautiful finished modela and that’s it. You had to basically figure everything out on your own.
What I’m hearing is that there is enough variety out there to satisfy both modellers who want simplicity and those who want complexity. The Airfix Sea King falls into the latter category, which sounds like the source of your frustration.
I’ll defend some kits that seem complex- like Eduard’s Wildcat - the multi-part cowl fits so perfectly that it literally made me smile as I was slotting the pieces in place. The seemingly-complex landing gear falls together if you take it slowly and have patience.
I guess my point is I’m less worried about complexity than I am about engineering and fit. A simple kit that you have to fight to assemble and waste time and effort on filling, shims, sanding, more filling, etc. does more to turn off novice aircraft builders (which I am) than a kit with a lot of parts that goes together as advertised due to excellent engineering and moulding.
I think more parts (the Arma mustang landing gear for example) offers flexibility for painting methods. Glue it all together then paint, or you have the option to paint the sidewalls before assembly. I loke optionality like that. But yeah, i prefer the maintenance hatches closed, and like you in most cases the gear up and in flight. Agree with the calls for pilot figures, especially seated in thr cockpits would be very nice.
You pays your money, and you makes your choice. Dont buy what you wont enjoy building would be my advice. There are models for a range of skills as indicated on the boxes. 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Gday Chris, ah, the background sounds of crickets chirping away, YOU trying to make me homesick or what ! 🤧, cheers, Gaz 🇰🇷🇦🇺.
Gday and a big AMEN, Chris, perfect video, I can add no words except I totally agree. I can add a conformation - I reentered the hobby going on two years now and it was like Rip Van Winkle coming back in. Cost of kits, materials etc. I have been buying the new kits but at a lower rate than before. Ironically my stash is at the point you reference circa 1990's. Plus while vintage kits on eBay can be expensive, most are reasonable prices and a good source. You've developed a fantastic way of displaying in flight modes. Other wise, without stands the only way to show them in flight is to wire them up to the ceiling, and that kind of sucks and defeats the purpose of a nice build. One of the only reasons I bought an ICM last August was because I got a hefty gift certificate from one of my sons. I also think the on line hobby shops are feeling the pinch of your opinion too, I buy from Sprue Brothers and Andy's Hooby on line, for the last several months they have been having 20 to 25% off specific brands weekend sales to move over stocked inventory on high dollar kits. Which I love but keep breaking my piggy banks to grab a lot at a decent price. In fact I've frozen my budget foe 2024, unless I encounter these darn weekend sales - then resistance is futile :-) You're one of my go to model builders as I'm trying to get my skill set back, I always learn something every video, bit this one really adds to the mental and financial aspects of the hobby. Bless Penny for leaving what I call " memory contamination " - all of our cats are gone now but I have old models with the occasional hair In the paint scheme - Cheers Bob
Missed your comment Bob, sorry for late reply - too many comments on this one to keep track of!
@@beckersmodels no problem, you definitely turned up the volume on this subject.
Late 60's early 70's I built many 1:32 scale Revell and Hasegawa kits. They were all nice to build maybe just maybe on the simpler side. I also built the Hasegawa 1:32 F6F Hellcat and F-86 Sabre. They were great kits and were about as complex as a kit should be. I also built several of the Airfix 1:24 kits. I liked them. And of course a lot of 1:72 scale and 1:48 scale from different makers.
I fully agree that kits today are far too complex. And it is in fact difficult to build many kits in flight, something I like to do. The landing gear covers can be difficult to make fit.
I definitely think that there would be a market for two-tier models - a bit like Eduard's Week-end and Profipack versions, but more so. I applaud Kotare's approach - great engineering, but a reasonable parts count with fantastic moulded in detail. Any kit with open panels is a diorama not an aircraft model.
Finally someone said it... more parts does not equal a better designed kit. Great video. Cheers!
I have to agree, i have been building modelsfor40yrs, and this is getting to be a problem,as a kid i was excited to be building a simple model, i lovemaking tanks , but now its getting stupid ,the amount of complexity they has become to detailed ie parts so small you need a bloody eye glass to even see some of the parts,enough is enough ,i want a model that i will enjoy building not getting stressed and the more complex the higher the price.
It's almost unheard of for me to buy a modern kit. So many parts you won't see. I buy the older stuff, that is often more accurate if less of a challenge to build. I've been modelling for 65 years, and I don't have the lifespan for a stash full of kits with parts running into several hundred. And rivets and panel lines. Real aircraft often don't have them - I help restore 1:1 scale as well. Make it accurate, and keep the part count down. I can build 10 old kits for the time it takes to build 1 new issue. Classic example of overkill Bartini-Beriev VVA 14 in 1/72 scale by Modelsvit
2 x ejector seats with 27 parts to each seat. Madness. Lucky I have 2 replacement resin seats.
Similar thing in model railways. We are now at a point where it is difficult for locomotives to arrive safely or to pick them up without breaking something. I want to enjoy my model, not be afraid of it.
Is good to have plenty of options. I love old Models kit for its simplicity, even most of them are toy like.
But certainly I'm becoming fan of models with interior parts, It Is incredibly to show what Is inside.
Nice to have that variety of choices, jus enjoy what you like 👌
Oh boy, car enthusiasts have been saying this for years. Things are getting too complicated, and it's billed as "progress"
I couldn't agree more, having just returned to modeling after 40 years. It almost enough to make me looking for older kits only. They are more fun with less engineering.
I stick to kits by companies like PM, all you get is wings, fuselage and a five piece cockpit.
Even I can manage that.
Purists will faint at what I will write, but when building any kit, if the parts are never going to be seen, I leave them out. As long as the external model is painted well, and looks good, no one is going to see or know if I left out the driver seat in a Tiger one if the hatch is closed.
I actually have a large box full of landing gear parts plus interior parts Ive collected from building nearly 150 aircraft models in the last 10 years - great greeblies for scifi projects!
I do the same
I haven't built a scale model in years, but I remember very well how rudimentary the "cockpit" used to be back in the late 70s/early 80s (a cross-bar for the pilot to sit on), and now I see that even the 1:72 single-seat prop fighters are getting detailed cockpits that I would need a magnifying loupe to put together.
I've considered getting back into the hobby a couple of times, but the expense is just crazy - and that's before you splash out for paints, brushes (or an airbrush kit), glue, etc.
100% agree with you. The price and complexity is turning away newer modellers. I originally transitioned from lego to plastic models because lego was becoming way too expensive and now models are following.
Hi Chris, I must say, I agree with you 110%, aircraft kits in particular are getting way too many parts, I am not a fan of PE at all, I can understand jet aircraft having full interiors but not armour kits (my main interest) as to the Seaking, we do not need a full interior with the exception of the cockpit, best regards from a Kiwi living in Melbourne, Les