Hi Matt, I see what you mean about the bulges I would be willing to work with that though, and maybe (hopefully) the missing bolts and bulge height issues are just due to un- flattering camera angle and lighting, tough to tell in that photo, nice call though. Again it's tough to tell from that angle but there might be an issue with the turret undercut just above the turret ring, that would seem to be another relatively easy fix though. Do you see anything else?

I was comparing photos last night, and noticed that the "trunion bulges" on the kit, which look too me more like flat plates in the photo, would actually be closer to the T29E3, if they are in fact flat plates. It seems though that your 85% to 90% accuracy ratio is pretty spot on, because that feature doesn't seem to be quite right for either version, not unfixable though.

. . . why shouldn't we have a reasonable discussion about the "possible" inaccuracies in what we see?

That being said, the best time to talk about this is BEFORE the kit is released, not AFTER. but this is just my opinion

True, but at this point it's too late. I don't recall Hobby Boss ever correcting molds between releases in one of their subject series. They needed the info during the design phase, but my understanding of Hobby Boss and Trumpeter is that they are essentially immune to outside advice.

KL

. . . why shouldn't we have a reasonable discussion about the "possible" inaccuracies in what we see?

Quoted Text

---

. . . why shouldn't we have a reasonable discussion about the "possible" inaccuracies in what we see?

---

"Not to speak for Dennis, but I imagine that he would agree that a reasonable discussion is proper. He is probably questioning whether a discussion at this level of detail, about photos of what is undoubtedly a test shot, meets the definition of "reasonable"."

As I stated in my post, I was well aware of his opinion that he stated much earlier, but as I also stated " We were not ranting about how angry we are that they got something wrong, only having a conversation". That's what I was referring to when I used the term "reasonable conversation"

If I may, I would like to try to nip this one in the bud. Dennis, and Kurt, with all due respect,(meant with true sincerity) it is my opinion you both seem to have a certain dislike for this type of post. While I only speak for me, I understand and respect your opinions, but I still, (and other people have also, obviously), wanted to ask my questions anyway. That being said, would it be possible for you to respect my right to ask the question, I would really appreciate both of your opinions about the topic itself, but as I have stated already, I am aware of your views on weather or not I should have asked the question in the first place, so I don't understand why (In my opinion) you want to waste your time constantly reiterating your "dislike". Wouldn't your time and knowledge be better utilized contributing constructively to the CONTENT of the original question?

Quoted Text

---

True, but at this point it's too late. I don't recall Hobby Boss ever correcting molds between releases in one of their subject series. They needed the info during the design phase, but my understanding of Hobby Boss and Trumpeter is that they are essentially immune to outside advice.

KL

---

that is not entirely true. Their Is-4 kit was delayed for some time because of inaccuracies people have pointed out based on the photos they posted. Kinda difficult with this kit though as there were no real "previews" of the kit during the manufacturing stage.

Quoted Text

---

. . . why shouldn't we have a reasonable discussion about the "possible" inaccuracies in what we see?

---

"Not to speak for Dennis, but I imagine that he would agree that a reasonable discussion is proper. He is probably questioning whether a discussion at this level of detail, about photos of what is undoubtedly a test shot, meets the definition of "reasonable"."

As I stated in my post, I was well aware of his opinion that he stated much earlier, but as I also stated " We were not ranting about how angry we are that they got something wrong, only having a conversation". That's what I was referring to when I used the term "reasonable conversation"

If I may, I would like to try to nip this one in the bud. Dennis, and Kurt, with all due respect,(meant with true sincerity) it is my opinion you both seem to have a certain dislike for this type of post. While I only speak for me, I understand and respect your opinions, but I still, (and other people have also, obviously), wanted to ask my questions anyway. That being said, would it be possible for you to respect my right to ask the question, I would really appreciate both of your opinions about the topic itself, but as I have stated already, I am aware of your views on weather or not I should have asked the question in the first place, so I don't understand why (In my opinion) you want to waste your time constantly reiterating your "dislike". Wouldn't your time and knowledge be better utilized contributing constructively to the CONTENT of the original question?

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

. . . why shouldn't we have a reasonable discussion about the "possible" inaccuracies in what we see?

---

"Not to speak for Dennis, but I imagine that he would agree that a reasonable discussion is proper. He is probably questioning whether a discussion at this level of detail, about photos of what is undoubtedly a test shot, meets the definition of "reasonable"."

As I stated in my post, I was well aware of his opinion that he stated much earlier, but as I also stated " We were not ranting about how angry we are that they got something wrong, only having a conversation". That's what I was referring to when I used the term "reasonable conversation"

If I may, I would like to try to nip this one in the bud. Dennis, and Kurt, with all due respect,(meant with true sincerity) it is my opinion you both seem to have a certain dislike for this type of post. While I only speak for me, I understand and respect your opinions, but I still, (and other people have also, obviously), wanted to ask my questions anyway. That being said, would it be possible for you to respect my right to ask the question, I would really appreciate both of your opinions about the topic itself, but as I have stated already, I am aware of your views on weather or not I should have asked the question in the first place, so I don't understand why (In my opinion) you want to waste your time constantly reiterating your "dislike". Wouldn't your time and knowledge be better utilized contributing constructively to the CONTENT of the original question?

---

Well, unlike Dennis, I do dislike posts that declare that there are subtle inaccuracies in kits based upon nothing more than photographs of a test shot or, as I have seen more than once, the [auto-censored]ing painting on the boxart. If the test shot has eight wheels and the real tank had seven, fine, but casting contours? Come on. For that level of examination, can't we at least wait until we have the thing in hand to put the whole thing, literally, in perspective?

John, I think you said you've been away from the hobby for awhile (You were a frequent entrant AMPS when it was in HdG, IIRC) so you may have missed an even louder discussion like this when trade show photos of Tamiya's Somua appeared. One guy was quite critical of some small details, but once he laid hands on the kit he acknowledged that these errors were practically invisible when looking at the actual kit; the macro photos on the web being about 50 times larger than the plastic part.

My concern is that this sort of discussion is not without risk. People have acted based upon bad info in the past. I'm not saying that these threads should banned or anything ridiculous like that, merely that if an author is going to declare that there is a problem, or even a possible problem, he had better be damn sure he is right and applied enough self-doubt and internal criticism to be able to back up what he is saying. Time and reflection may keep you from being first but are necessary to be considered the best. (*)

KL

(*) There are a couple of people on the sites who are always quick to chime in with an answer but also quick to be proven wrong.

Just because a "test-shot" model, or a CAD drawing displays some pretty obvious mistakes or inaccuracies, there is NO earthly reason to suspect that the SAME ERRORS will be "included" in the boxes of the "production-kits". Except maybe, if the manufacturer happens to be CYBERHOBBY/DRAGON, or BLACK PLAGUE-

That's all...

Are Merit and Hobby Boss both subsidiaries of Trumpeter? If so, is this just for sales to dealers?
Mike

Quoted Text

---

Just because a "test-shot" model, or a CAD drawing displays some pretty obvious mistakes or inaccuracies, there is NO earthly reason to suspect that the SAME ERRORS will be "included" in the boxes of the "production-kits". Except maybe, if the manufacturer happens to be CYBERHOBBY/DRAGON, or BLACK PLAGUE-

That's all...

---

I have no issue holding off in the spirit of camaraderie and general happiness! I held off on several observations for just the reasons that you cite. With that said, I would push back a wee bit against your comment about no earthly reasons, especially for a test shot on display less than a month before the anticipated ship date for the kits that are presumably already being poured to make the distributors. For the vast majority of the occurrences that I've noted with Trumpeter and Dragon, when we see a built up test shot (not a mock up, remember that lovely Al Khalid that has never see the light of day!?) the production kit has matched it. The exceptions are when the nitpickers point out the flaws (i.e., the IS-4) and they pull it and retool it to make it more accurate but that has been quite rare.

We'll know for sure next month and I look forward to building it and nitpicking the hell out of the thing (in a loving way, as what I see in the test shot is more than past the personal accuracy bar I have for a good kit)! It's my favorite tank bar the IS-7 but it differs in that I've had the opportunity to crawl all over it and measure the thing! LOL

Matt

I was comparing photos last night, and noticed that the "trunion bulges" on the kit, which look too me more like flat plates in the photo, would actually be closer to the T29E3, if they are in fact flat plates. It seems though that your 85% to 90% accuracy ratio is pretty spot on, because that feature doesn't seem to be quite right for either version, not unfixable though.

Thanks for pointing that out Steven, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was being pompous and dogmatic, but I haven't been able to find any photos, in the Hunnicutt Firepower book, or on the net, that have anything like what is in that first photo, so I assumed incorrectly that the styles shown in the second and third photos were the only two types that existed, but if you look close in the second photo, the tank behind seems to have a third type of bulge. You also pointed out another mistake that I made, The first photo is listed as the T29E1, and I mistakenly posted a photo of the T29 instead of a T29E1. Can anyone tell me the difference between the T29 and the T29E1? were they internal, or were there external differences also? I could not seem to find any mention of it (T29E1) in the Firepower book or on the web. This why I wanted to discuss this topic, because I have so much to learn about this tank.

Quoted Text

---

Thanks for pointing that out Steven, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was being pompous and dogmatic, but I haven't been able to find any photos, in the Hunnicutt Firepower book, or on the net, that have anything like what is in that first photo, so I assumed incorrectly that the styles shown in the second and third photos were the only two types that existed, but if you look close in the second photo, the tank behind seems to have a third type of bulge. You also pointed out another mistake that I made, The first photo is listed as the T29E1, and I mistakenly posted a photo of the T29 instead of a T29E1. Can anyone tell me the difference between the T29 and the T29E1? were they internal, or were there external differences also? I could not seem to find any mention of it (T29E1) in the Firepower book or on the web. This why I wanted to discuss this topic, because I have so much to learn about this tank.

---

Another thing to consider, regarding the PHOTOS- Could it be that the vehicles themselves IN these photos have been misidentified by the photographer, author or publisher of these photos? Stranger things HAVE happened...