Joined
·
9,967 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 13 Nov 2007, 19:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There are several UK RTR products which despite many very good qualities, and their suitability to my modelling interest, I am either reluctant to purchase, or simply will not purchase. In every case the reason is a body shape error. Where there is reason to believe the error may be corrected, the purchase will go ahead, and the rectification required is attempted. If it succeeds then well and good, and there may be further purchases, if not then no more are purchased. Models which defy correction, whether due to the disproportionate effort required, or straight up inability (of Mr Ninethumbs here) to do the job to the standard required; are simply left on the retailer's shelf.
The prime example of this is Heljan's 47. A very good product in so many ways, but I never bought one due to the bodyshape error, particularly when seen in head on view. The prospect of a near complete rebuild of the body shell, and cutting down the chassis block sides did not appeal. Very simply it was going to take near as much effort as building a kit, with some doubt as to whether I could maintain the good finish of the model. Happily in that case a much superior alternative is now available. However, since then there have been several more such flawed body shapes, and the prospect of a better alternative emerging seems slim. Duplication of the commonest BR diesel was a pretty sure bet, but when the prototype is a less common type, a (hopefully better) duplicate will be a long time in coming.
That's unfortunate, and is something that is at greater risk of happening nowadays, with the tool development being carried out by people who near inevitably have not seen the prototype. In an ideal world this aspect of every model would be 'right'. How can that be achieved? The answer may well have been provided by Dapol's experiment of showing their CAD development on-line. However, I can see some sensitivity there, if a manufacturer feels that commercial advantage may best be secured by discretion. Any other thoughts?
*** Its an interesting question. Here's an example of "filling the communication gap"
I am developing a range of realistic trees to market. I made wireframe samples, provided photographs and horticultural sketches and sent them to the mfrs. Things were getting there slowly but to me, they still missed the boat a little.
I added paintings by some of the great painters of the same trees, and suddenly they "got it". I think it is the fact that technical drawings and portrait images simply don't convey the "feeling" and impression of the real thing. In my case, I was able to show them the important aspects of the tree as an artist captures the "character" rather than constructs up from a skeleton, and when the character has been captured, everything else follows naturally....
Re loco's: The classic to me is the current Scot - its really very good, but the chimney is simply not right. I couldn't tell you which dimension is wrong, but it simply looks wrong.... The details are what makes the "big picture" look right.... and in this case, the designers have failed to identify the several things that make a scot instinctively a scot, so have missed the essence that will make it a great model.
this is common with many loco's - the original bachmann Jubilee - oh so nearly right but something lost in the creation... the Hornby Stanier Tender, dimensionally very good but far too 2-dimensional with nowhere near enough detail depth in the axleboxes and springing that are so much part of the tender...the list goes on!
Regards
Richard
The prime example of this is Heljan's 47. A very good product in so many ways, but I never bought one due to the bodyshape error, particularly when seen in head on view. The prospect of a near complete rebuild of the body shell, and cutting down the chassis block sides did not appeal. Very simply it was going to take near as much effort as building a kit, with some doubt as to whether I could maintain the good finish of the model. Happily in that case a much superior alternative is now available. However, since then there have been several more such flawed body shapes, and the prospect of a better alternative emerging seems slim. Duplication of the commonest BR diesel was a pretty sure bet, but when the prototype is a less common type, a (hopefully better) duplicate will be a long time in coming.
That's unfortunate, and is something that is at greater risk of happening nowadays, with the tool development being carried out by people who near inevitably have not seen the prototype. In an ideal world this aspect of every model would be 'right'. How can that be achieved? The answer may well have been provided by Dapol's experiment of showing their CAD development on-line. However, I can see some sensitivity there, if a manufacturer feels that commercial advantage may best be secured by discretion. Any other thoughts?
*** Its an interesting question. Here's an example of "filling the communication gap"
I am developing a range of realistic trees to market. I made wireframe samples, provided photographs and horticultural sketches and sent them to the mfrs. Things were getting there slowly but to me, they still missed the boat a little.
I added paintings by some of the great painters of the same trees, and suddenly they "got it". I think it is the fact that technical drawings and portrait images simply don't convey the "feeling" and impression of the real thing. In my case, I was able to show them the important aspects of the tree as an artist captures the "character" rather than constructs up from a skeleton, and when the character has been captured, everything else follows naturally....
Re loco's: The classic to me is the current Scot - its really very good, but the chimney is simply not right. I couldn't tell you which dimension is wrong, but it simply looks wrong.... The details are what makes the "big picture" look right.... and in this case, the designers have failed to identify the several things that make a scot instinctively a scot, so have missed the essence that will make it a great model.
this is common with many loco's - the original bachmann Jubilee - oh so nearly right but something lost in the creation... the Hornby Stanier Tender, dimensionally very good but far too 2-dimensional with nowhere near enough detail depth in the axleboxes and springing that are so much part of the tender...the list goes on!
Regards
Richard
