Merlin,
As a 100% rookie builder I know that I would enjoy seeing more full builds. This kind of feature gives new builders like myself an opportunity to learn from the more experienced members of this site. I view a build log as a learning experience (hey, even if I dont like the kit I can still learn about some techniques and tricks of the modeling trade) and a supplement to a kit's instructions. Often times, I think the step by step build logs on this site are more explanatory than an instruction manual, and will go in depth into things that the company did not. Just my 2 cents, keep up the great work!
General Aircraft
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Aeroscale Reviews Policy - YOU Decide
afern401
Joined: October 06, 2009
KitMaker: 34 posts
AeroScale: 22 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 03:29 PM UTC
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 09:43 PM UTC
I don't think the two original options are exclusive alternatives. I'd be happy to have just as many in-box reviews and add more full-builds, rather than reducing the former to make way for the latter.
I'm also happy to add myself as a reviewer. I've just had me first one published and will gladly add as many more as I can produce. I've noticed that a lot of my stash doesn't appear in the reviews list, so I could concentrate on kits that seem not to get reviewed anywhere else. I can even do reviews of older kits in case anyone's interested in picking them up second-hand. As I build slower than the average glacier flows, though, these will have to be mainly in-box.
I'm also happy to add myself as a reviewer. I've just had me first one published and will gladly add as many more as I can produce. I've noticed that a lot of my stash doesn't appear in the reviews list, so I could concentrate on kits that seem not to get reviewed anywhere else. I can even do reviews of older kits in case anyone's interested in picking them up second-hand. As I build slower than the average glacier flows, though, these will have to be mainly in-box.
GastonMarty
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 11:09 AM UTC
I think full-build reviews are not an absolute necessity as I can usually sort out fit problems myself... And full-build reviews will be delayed compared to in-box, which is not a good thing...
What I do think is necessary is comparing the in-box parts to available 90° angle centered photos, with maybe a few tape-assembled OA measurements thrown in.
The recent review of the pretty poor Ki-48 "Lilly" is exactly what I think we should see on a regular basis. The problems were quite in evidence in the comparative profile montage, and that review was as a result most useful...
Gaston
litespeed
News Reporter
Joined: October 15, 2009
KitMaker: 1,976 posts
AeroScale: 1,789 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 12:35 PM UTC
Hi Rowan
I have to agree with Nicolas about putting the scale of the model being reviewed on the banner or notice of a review on the homepage. I know it's mentioned on the last bit of the review. Other than that I find the in box reviews really helpfull and much prefer to see them than the build reviews. I us the reviews to aid me in the purchase of models. I think it is all about timescales and obviously trying to get a built review is going to take much more time than an inbox review. It also puts a huge pressure on the reviewers if they are having to submit a built review as fast as possible.
tim
I have to agree with Nicolas about putting the scale of the model being reviewed on the banner or notice of a review on the homepage. I know it's mentioned on the last bit of the review. Other than that I find the in box reviews really helpfull and much prefer to see them than the build reviews. I us the reviews to aid me in the purchase of models. I think it is all about timescales and obviously trying to get a built review is going to take much more time than an inbox review. It also puts a huge pressure on the reviewers if they are having to submit a built review as fast as possible.
tim
Littorio
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,728 posts
AeroScale: 1,351 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 03:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Uhm... this makes sense in my head - is anyone else have a clue as to what I am saying?
I'm with Vance on this one if there is a way to achive it, or I was up to that bit above then he lost me
I think if I'm correct what Vance is saying is a in box review is carried out then when a full build is available this is linked to the in box so your for example Messerwulf Me.4098i in 1/56 scale form Tamigawa will have a review box which when opened will lead to choise of in box, full build, AM, ref etc with all these being updatable so as new AM becomes available it can be added.
It's possible that if we get any 3 in 1 (option to build three distinct versions from same kit) aircraft kits you could link several different full builds to the same review box
And note to self do some reviews even if in box.
Luciano
Merlin
Senior Editor
#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 11:01 AM UTC
Hi everyone
Thanks for the continued feedback. Getting the scale onto the Frontpage is on Jim's list of things to to when he gets a chance - and I think he should be able to put it at the top of the review in the title line as part of the same process.
Including reference and comparison photos in reviews is a potential can of worms. While I'd love to do so more often myself (I could certainly have used them to good effect in the recent Ar 196 review), I'm loathe to include material for which I don't have permission or hold the copyright. As much as we can argue "fair use", there are plenty of corporate lawyers ready to pounce from a height, so I'm afraid it's likely to remain the exception rather than the norm.
Cross-linking reviews is an appealing idea, and would be very useful. I don't know if Jim has anything up his sleeve that could accurately cross-relate all the reviews of kits and their corresponding accessories automatically. At the moment it would need to be done manually and would be very time consuming.
All the best
Rowan
Thanks for the continued feedback. Getting the scale onto the Frontpage is on Jim's list of things to to when he gets a chance - and I think he should be able to put it at the top of the review in the title line as part of the same process.
Including reference and comparison photos in reviews is a potential can of worms. While I'd love to do so more often myself (I could certainly have used them to good effect in the recent Ar 196 review), I'm loathe to include material for which I don't have permission or hold the copyright. As much as we can argue "fair use", there are plenty of corporate lawyers ready to pounce from a height, so I'm afraid it's likely to remain the exception rather than the norm.
Cross-linking reviews is an appealing idea, and would be very useful. I don't know if Jim has anything up his sleeve that could accurately cross-relate all the reviews of kits and their corresponding accessories automatically. At the moment it would need to be done manually and would be very time consuming.
All the best
Rowan
AiwaSoundSystem
Joined: February 01, 2008
KitMaker: 52 posts
AeroScale: 49 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:23 AM UTC
I like the idea above about linking the Full Build review to the in box review. You could also add other reviews for that kit to include different subjects related to that kit. For Example.
1. Reviews of - Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
A. In Box Review for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. In Box Review of Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer by Rowan Baylis
B. Build Reviews for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. Build Review of - Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
b. Build Review of - Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
C. Aftermarket Parts Reviews for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. Aftermarket Detail of - TwoMikes Resin Tire set for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
b. Aftermarket Detail of - Scaled Aircraft Conversions Landing Gear for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
D. Decal Reviews for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. Decal Review of - TwoBobs "48-204 B-1B Dakota Back Bone" Decals for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
And so on and so forth for different kits. Then different reviews for the same kit could be organized and kept together, but would still allow the flexibility to allow multiple reviews from multiple sources. Different members and/or staff could submit their own reviews to the list and it would all stay organized.
I think that would also keep everyone happy with what they want to see. You get in box and build reviews together for the same kit.
1. Reviews of - Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
A. In Box Review for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. In Box Review of Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer by Rowan Baylis
B. Build Reviews for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. Build Review of - Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
b. Build Review of - Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
C. Aftermarket Parts Reviews for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. Aftermarket Detail of - TwoMikes Resin Tire set for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
b. Aftermarket Detail of - Scaled Aircraft Conversions Landing Gear for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
D. Decal Reviews for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer
a. Decal Review of - TwoBobs "48-204 B-1B Dakota Back Bone" Decals for Revell 1:48 B-1B Lancer - by "Insert Name"
And so on and so forth for different kits. Then different reviews for the same kit could be organized and kept together, but would still allow the flexibility to allow multiple reviews from multiple sources. Different members and/or staff could submit their own reviews to the list and it would all stay organized.
I think that would also keep everyone happy with what they want to see. You get in box and build reviews together for the same kit.
litespeed
News ReporterJoined: October 15, 2009
KitMaker: 1,976 posts
AeroScale: 1,789 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:59 AM UTC
Jason's idea is good, very similiar to the way 'Cybermodeller online' do their aircraft reviews. Although this would take an awful lot of work for folks to cross reference material in all scales.
tim
tim
airfix627
Joined: December 05, 2009
KitMaker: 39 posts
AeroScale: 7 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 08:08 PM UTC
Hi All
Just to add my bit, it's fine as it is.
Just to add my bit, it's fine as it is.
AussieReg
Associate Editor#007
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 12:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi All
Just to add my bit, it's fine as it is.
"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" I am inclined to agree with Stuart, I can generally find whatever info I require with a quick search.What I do like however is the current dual Fw 190 Eduard kit build that Rowan and J-L are undertaking, with one OOB and one modified to correct any obvious errors or omissions. Great concept and well executed so far.
Cheers, D
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 01:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
... What I do like however is the current dual Fw 190 Eduard kit build that Rowan and J-L are undertaking, with one OOB and one modified to correct any obvious errors or omissions. Great concept and well executed so far.
Cheers, D
Cheers Damian
To be honest, that wasn't the original intention of the dual-build - it was more aimed to show off the different ways the kit could be built - e.g. with etched or styrene parts, and the covers open or closed. The chance to throw in some modifications was almost a "bonus" as things turned out, so I can't promise that every time, but dual-builds are certainly something I'd like to see more of (and just full-build reviews in general).
All the best, and thanks to everyone for the continuing feedback.
Rowan
thegirl
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 6,743 posts
AeroScale: 6,151 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 02:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text... What I do like however is the current dual Fw 190 Eduard kit build that Rowan and J-L are undertaking, with one OOB and one modified to correct any obvious errors or omissions. Great concept and well executed so far.
Cheers, D
Cheers Damian
To be honest, that wasn't the original intention of the dual-build - it was more aimed to show off the different ways the kit could be built - e.g. with etched or styrene parts, and the covers open or closed. The chance to throw in some modifications was almost a "bonus" as things turned out, so I can't promise that every time, but dual-builds are certainly something I'd like to see more of (and just full-build reviews in general).
All the best, and thanks to everyone for the continuing feedback.
Rowan
Yes , more build reviews in general would be super to see on the site .
I do understand that time also play's a big roll in this as well and not ever one has the time to do it . It's just nice some times to see how a kit builds out of the box 
md72
#439
Joined: November 05, 2005
KitMaker: 4,950 posts
AeroScale: 3,192 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 09:39 AM UTC
I'll throw in my $.02, even if I can't refund the half pennies.
The reviewers are doing a good job. There's just not enough of them (yes, I know that's partly my fault). And finding the reviews seems a bit dicey; perhaps the Wiki approach might solve several problems here. Wiki or some sort of database structure linking preview to review to detail sets to decal sets to references seems wonderful but will probably take a small army of paid staffers to implement. 8^(
Both types, first look / in the box and build reviews are needed to tell the whole story. I do look at another site that does in the box and build stories (not always a strict OOB build review). They do tend to link reviews to previews, but not previews to reviews, and there's nowhere near a 1 to 1 correlation.
On new releases, speed is important. So getting first looks out quickly, with the ability to update, seems to be well within the Aeroscale community ability. Getting new build reviews is going to take a while longer, if we're not seen as a valuable opinion leader by the molders and they don't send pre-release kits. Then we're going to have to be patient and wait on a member to buy the kit, build it and publish a review. I also suspect that the molders aren’t going to give a new kit to just anybody for a review, they’re going to want a ‘pro’, someone with real modeling chops who’s not going to butcher their kit or take years to finish it and publish.
On the older kits in our stashes (we all have them), timing isn’t an issue. The reviews can be a lot more fun to do. You can tell your story, the way you want it told and you’re not under someone else’s deadline. They can also have greater personal impact, imagine contemplating an e-Bay bid on a “Rare, NIB, OOP 1/72 Aurogram G-51D” only to check a review and find out it’s been re-boxed 5 times by 3 manufactures, it scales out at 1/63, it’s covered in watermelon size rivets, WWI deep trenches, Tamagawa released a much better version last year and 3 out of 4 reviewers would be embarrassed to have it seen in their trash cans.
For a glimpse at how other sites do it, I suggest Modeling Madness and Rajens_list.
As I said my $.02, no refunds.
The reviewers are doing a good job. There's just not enough of them (yes, I know that's partly my fault). And finding the reviews seems a bit dicey; perhaps the Wiki approach might solve several problems here. Wiki or some sort of database structure linking preview to review to detail sets to decal sets to references seems wonderful but will probably take a small army of paid staffers to implement. 8^(
Both types, first look / in the box and build reviews are needed to tell the whole story. I do look at another site that does in the box and build stories (not always a strict OOB build review). They do tend to link reviews to previews, but not previews to reviews, and there's nowhere near a 1 to 1 correlation.
On new releases, speed is important. So getting first looks out quickly, with the ability to update, seems to be well within the Aeroscale community ability. Getting new build reviews is going to take a while longer, if we're not seen as a valuable opinion leader by the molders and they don't send pre-release kits. Then we're going to have to be patient and wait on a member to buy the kit, build it and publish a review. I also suspect that the molders aren’t going to give a new kit to just anybody for a review, they’re going to want a ‘pro’, someone with real modeling chops who’s not going to butcher their kit or take years to finish it and publish.
On the older kits in our stashes (we all have them), timing isn’t an issue. The reviews can be a lot more fun to do. You can tell your story, the way you want it told and you’re not under someone else’s deadline. They can also have greater personal impact, imagine contemplating an e-Bay bid on a “Rare, NIB, OOP 1/72 Aurogram G-51D” only to check a review and find out it’s been re-boxed 5 times by 3 manufactures, it scales out at 1/63, it’s covered in watermelon size rivets, WWI deep trenches, Tamagawa released a much better version last year and 3 out of 4 reviewers would be embarrassed to have it seen in their trash cans.
For a glimpse at how other sites do it, I suggest Modeling Madness and Rajens_list.
As I said my $.02, no refunds.
RotorHead67
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 1,174 posts
AeroScale: 226 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 - 08:30 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi all
Our Reviews Section has expanded beyond all recognition since I first joined what was then Armorama several years ago. Having just published my 200th Review, it seems like a good point at which to pause for breath and get some feedback from you all on how we're doing and ways in which we can improve things to make our Reviews as useful as possible for you.
One thing that's apparent is the imbalance between In-Box and Full-Build Reviews. Now I'll nail my colours to the mast and say I'd like to see us carry far more Full-Builds, but our Reviews aren't for my benefit, or any of the other writers - it's you, the readers, that they are there to help. So the basic question is simply this:
What would you rather see us carry more of more of - In-Box or Full-Build Reviews?
Obviously, if the answer is the latter, they'll take time to appear so, unless we're lucky enough to get a test-shot of a kit, any Full-Build Review will probably be published sometime after the kit's available. Which brings up a second point - we have a category in the Reviews Section called First Look which we've seldom actually used on Aeroscale. It's intended for a brief outline of the contents of a kit - so, probably not as detailed as our present In-Box Reviews, but it could work well to allow a very up-to-the-minute report on a new release, with a Full-Build to follow later.
The choices seem to break down basically along these lines:
1. Leave things as they are - and concentrate on In-Box reviews with occasional Full-Builds.
2. Concentrate on Full-Builds with First-Looks when a kit comes out.
Even if we change the balance somewhat, there'll obviously always be room for In-Box reviews as we now have them - and major kit releases will certainly justify them. It's also inevitable that we simply won't be able to publish a Full-Build for everything - there simply aren't enough modelling hours in a lifetime! LOL!
But enough of my waffling! You may have completely different ideas to those I've outlined. What would you like to see on Aeroscale?
All the best
Rowan
Rowan;
Because of the time needed to complete a full build review. And the release rate. I think its better to get the first in box type review upfront and formost, with research of kit accuracy and the kit componants and parts, decals,etc.
With a First Look post an modeler can get a pre-look of whats in the kit, and how much it costs, to decide wheather they want to purchase the kit. The building and correction or conversion is up to me when I have the kit in hand. I want to see what Im paying for, before I make a purchase.
This is why I think the First Look Review is more important than a Build review. Just my bannter. Todd
vonHengest
Joined: June 29, 2010
KitMaker: 5,854 posts
AeroScale: 372 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 07:30 PM UTC
Just a couple of quick thoughts.
1) Everyone here is doing a great job, that's why I joined the network in the first place. I probably wouldn't have even bothered starting model building in the if this community didn't exist. I would have just been collecting kits, and then wondering what the heck I was doing with them.
2) First Look or In Box previews/reviews actually tell a lot, and are all that I really need. They benefit everyone, it allows the reviewers a workable time line, and it shows the rest of us what we are getting for our money. I'm all for build reviews, but those can come later and aren't quite necessary IMHO.
The Reviews setup is just fine the way it is, and I think with a little tweaking it can be even better. I would be a happy either way you guys choose to go.
1) Everyone here is doing a great job, that's why I joined the network in the first place. I probably wouldn't have even bothered starting model building in the if this community didn't exist. I would have just been collecting kits, and then wondering what the heck I was doing with them.
2) First Look or In Box previews/reviews actually tell a lot, and are all that I really need. They benefit everyone, it allows the reviewers a workable time line, and it shows the rest of us what we are getting for our money. I'm all for build reviews, but those can come later and aren't quite necessary IMHO.
The Reviews setup is just fine the way it is, and I think with a little tweaking it can be even better. I would be a happy either way you guys choose to go.
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 02:10 AM UTC
Hi all
Thanks once again for the confirmation that the Reviews section is useful. I would like to include more builds if we can - and I'd really like to see more members come forward to review kits they've bought that we haven't managed to cover - but it's great to read that we've got a balance that's popular with so many of you.
All the best
Rowan
Thanks once again for the confirmation that the Reviews section is useful. I would like to include more builds if we can - and I'd really like to see more members come forward to review kits they've bought that we haven't managed to cover - but it's great to read that we've got a balance that's popular with so many of you.
All the best
Rowan
warreni
Joined: August 14, 2007
KitMaker: 5,926 posts
AeroScale: 2,201 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 04:26 PM UTC
Inbox as I don't think this site is really meant to be for very in depth reviews like PMMS. One suggestion though, put the scale of the item being reviewed in the heading so I don't get excited over what I think could be a 1/32 Wirraway review when it is only 1/48..
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 10:34 PM UTC
Cheers Warren
Actually, the scale does appear with the title on the Reviews main page - so if you include it as part of the title too, you end up with the scale twice, which looks messy. But it would be good if that data could also appear on the Frontpage. I'll see if Jim can add it to his list of "To-Do"s.
All the best
Rowan
Actually, the scale does appear with the title on the Reviews main page - so if you include it as part of the title too, you end up with the scale twice, which looks messy. But it would be good if that data could also appear on the Frontpage. I'll see if Jim can add it to his list of "To-Do"s.
All the best
Rowan
48props
Joined: February 04, 2011
KitMaker: 12 posts
AeroScale: 12 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 01:43 AM UTC
1) Leave things the way they are. Full builds will be difficult to do with out lot's of help. To do them justice you have to have to be very interested and educated on the subject matter and it's hard to be an expert on so many subjects.
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011 - 05:28 AM UTC
This is for anyone interested. This is in response to a query on what should be in a review. An "in the box or first look" kit review by nature does not include comparisons between real and scale dimensions. That usually is seen in the forum "build logs" (blogs) or an Aeroscale "build review".
The "in the box or first look" kit review does deal with history, kit contents, (sometimes) instruction step explanations & clarifications, decal details and I include references. Only recently have I added images of temporarily joined (taped together) major components to show fit concerns. By the way a few posts back I did add the links to the membership's online builds here. I usually do that in these review discussion threads too.
But to repeat the kit has to be put together for dimension comparisons so you usually won't see any in an "in the box" or "first look" review.
Now having said that, here is a place where the membership can voice its opinion about review content.
The "in the box or first look" kit review does deal with history, kit contents, (sometimes) instruction step explanations & clarifications, decal details and I include references. Only recently have I added images of temporarily joined (taped together) major components to show fit concerns. By the way a few posts back I did add the links to the membership's online builds here. I usually do that in these review discussion threads too.
But to repeat the kit has to be put together for dimension comparisons so you usually won't see any in an "in the box" or "first look" review.
Now having said that, here is a place where the membership can voice its opinion about review content.
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011 - 10:15 AM UTC
Hi there
As a bit of extra clarification, as I understand it, Staff_Jim actually intended First Look and In-Box reviews to be two separate categories.
So, a First Look would consist simply of a description of the contents, and wouldn't neccessarily include any attempt to judge accuracy. It's just a comment on the quality of the presentation, moulding and the options offered. It's almost mid-way between a News item and a Review.
An In Box review goes one stage further. While you're still not assembling the kit, you may well take time to judge the main parts against any references you have available. It's obviously easier to compare the dimensions of parts against plans before you assemble them. Personally, I also try to include a basic dry-fit of the major components where practical.
And then of course there's the full build. In the case of something like a biplane (which is maybe where Stephen's coming from), it's only really at this stage that questions such as the interplane spacing might become apparent. For other genres, it's the crucial "sit" of a model. Of couse, you can always build a kit without any comment on its accuracy - it's perfectly valid to review a kit just on how well it assembles, but that should be made clear in the text.
All the best
Rowan
As a bit of extra clarification, as I understand it, Staff_Jim actually intended First Look and In-Box reviews to be two separate categories.
So, a First Look would consist simply of a description of the contents, and wouldn't neccessarily include any attempt to judge accuracy. It's just a comment on the quality of the presentation, moulding and the options offered. It's almost mid-way between a News item and a Review.
An In Box review goes one stage further. While you're still not assembling the kit, you may well take time to judge the main parts against any references you have available. It's obviously easier to compare the dimensions of parts against plans before you assemble them. Personally, I also try to include a basic dry-fit of the major components where practical.
And then of course there's the full build. In the case of something like a biplane (which is maybe where Stephen's coming from), it's only really at this stage that questions such as the interplane spacing might become apparent. For other genres, it's the crucial "sit" of a model. Of couse, you can always build a kit without any comment on its accuracy - it's perfectly valid to review a kit just on how well it assembles, but that should be made clear in the text.
All the best
Rowan
GastonMarty
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 07:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
While you're still not assembling the kit, you may well take time to judge the main parts against any references you have available. It's obviously easier to compare the dimensions of parts against plans before you assemble them.
Rowan
My thinking exactly, which is why this particular level of review is the most valuable for me before making a purchase, and not being a full build, it can come quickly enough for me to hold off spending!
For the full builds themselves, I particularly appreciate those that include modifications, as they are usually much more memorable. I tend not to like out-of-box builds unless the kit is really excellent, and at least the decals should not be the box decals if possible (but could be tested on scrap: A review of AM decals is actually more useful to throw into the review for me)...
Gaston
CptSpitfire
Joined: May 26, 2012
KitMaker: 41 posts
AeroScale: 8 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 08:18 AM UTC
I'd like to see more full builds, but it would be perfectly fine if the kit was just built using only cement and no putty nor paint. That would show how the build goes together, any fit issues, any accuracy issues, any instruction errors, etc.
bdanie6
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 615 posts
AeroScale: 459 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 08:52 AM UTC
Spitfire! There was a magazine, here in the U.S. ,back in the 1980's that did just that. I wish I could remember the name of it. I think I was only one of a few people who actually subscribed to it. What they did was; take a new kit and build it, without paint or putty and show exactly how the kit went together and what it's faults where. They never delved into inaccuracies of the subject, only on fit and finish.
They shut down after 2 years because no kit manufacturer would buy advertising in them since they (the manufacturers) couldn't control the reviews.
I really miss that mag, and I have always wished that somebody else would have the strength to do it again...
They shut down after 2 years because no kit manufacturer would buy advertising in them since they (the manufacturers) couldn't control the reviews.
I really miss that mag, and I have always wished that somebody else would have the strength to do it again...
CptSpitfire
Joined: May 26, 2012
KitMaker: 41 posts
AeroScale: 8 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 09:04 AM UTC
Can't say I've heard of it. I'm thinking of what model companies do for shows and previews were they show the assembled model, but without any paint.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 AeroScale and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.