"John- It was Matt that first brought up the question over the (paraphrased), "T29's Trunnion Bulges being too high, and don't protrude enough" and "don't see 5 large hex bolts, and I'm sure there will be more"- You replied to his post, and you both explored the possible "fixes" to these "details", to which I added my 2-cents by saying that we shouldn't really be "fixing" anything which we haven't got our hands on yet, especially judging only from a "pilot-model or "test-shot" photo taken at a Hobby Show"... What's the big deal?"

Actually Dennis We did not discuss anything, discussion to me implies a back and fourth conversation, all I did was mention "relatively easy fix though" in one post, and "not unfixable though" in another You and Kurt have piled on and brought up releases, test shots and how we shouldn't talk about them.

All I said was that I could fix what I saw in a photo, and how that photo compared to photos of real tanks, are you telling me that I cannot say that?

[Dennis] and Kurt have piled on and brought up releases, test shots and how we shouldn't talk about them.

All I said was that I could fix what I saw in a photo, and how that photo compared to photos of real tanks, are you telling me that I cannot say that?

No John, not you or Matt, specifically- I was saying ALL of US in general, should probably refrain from "fixing" errors that may not even show up in the "production-kits". Nearly ALL of us have criticized, pointed out, and fixed "errors" in certain "test-shot" models in the past, only to find that these "errors" were indeed fixed by the manufacturer(s), by the time that we actually got the "production-kits" in our hands.

.........

So why worry over what's wrong, OR RIGHT, with a "test-shot model"..?

When writing technical design specifications there are usually reviews where colleagues/experts try to find any faults/mistakes.

Quoted Text

---

[Dennis] and Kurt have piled on and brought up releases, test shots and how we shouldn't talk about them.

All I said was that I could fix what I saw in a photo, and how that photo compared to photos of real tanks, are you telling me that I cannot say that?

---

[emphasis added]

Hey - Don't lump me in there with that. I said exactly the opposite:

"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."

[emphasis added]

Writing On the test shots I see x and it looks different in these photos of the real tank. Does anyone know why this might be? allows for discussion and learning while It looks like they got x wrong. doesn't.

Also, I think the later posts in the other thread perfectly demonstrate what I was talking about at the end of my quote above.

KL

"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."

Seems to me too many folks loose sight of the fact this is a Hobby...its supposed to be FUN, Therapeutic and Fulfilling! Build what ya want, when ya want, how ya want.

Just sayin'...

Well Kurt, from your own words, I guess we can end this as far as your concerned, for three reasons, because:

1. I am damned sure that the trunion bulge in the original photo is not the same as the one on the T29 in the photo I posted.

2. I am damned sure that the trunion bulge in the original photo is not the same as the one on the T29E3 in the other photo I posted

3. I AM DAMED SURE I COULD FIX IT IF I HAD TO!!!!

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.

I was going by the T29, and the T29E3 that's actually painted on the tank (by the museum I would imagine) to identify the vehicles. my mistake was that I had not found a photo of the T29E1 yet, (as it turns out it did not exist, thanks Scott) and mistakenly posted the T29 photo instead, which reinforces your point to watch your references when researching, although I had it labeled correctly, just used incorrectly as Steven pointed out.

I was saying ALL of US in general, should probably refrain from "fixing" errors that may not even show up in the "production-kits".

Quoted Text

---

Well Kurt, from your own words, I guess we can end this as far as your concerned, for three reasons, because:

1. I am damned sure that the trunion bulge in the original photo is not the same as the one on the T29 in the photo I posted.

2. I am damned sure that the trunion bulge in the original photo is not the same as the one on the T29E3 in the other photo I posted

3. I AM DAMED SURE I COULD FIX IT IF I HAD TO!!!!

---

You seem to be forgetting the passages you wrote:

Quoted Text

---

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.

---

Quoted Text

---

I was going by the T29, and the T29E3 that's actually painted on the tank (by the museum I would imagine) to identify the vehicles. my mistake was that I had not found a photo of the T29E1 yet, (as it turns out it did not exist, thanks Scott) and mistakenly posted the T29 photo instead, which reinforces your point to watch your references when researching, although I had it labeled correctly, just used incorrectly as Steven pointed out.

---

I assumed incorrectly . . .

Another mistake I made . . .

I mistakenly posted . . .

My mistake was . . .

It turns out it didn't exist . . .

Mistakenly posted . . .

I used it incorrectly . . .

It's your model and you can do what you want, but based on all your mistakes and corrections (or is it mistaken corrections?) I wouldn't do [auto-censored] based on what you've written. What you have finally described may be a 100% accurate representation of the real tank the model is trying to represent but these statements make it impossible to believe what you've written. What are you going to say tomorrow?

What if Hobby Boss and started cutting metal based on your initial statements? Do you think that would be better for all of us?

Hopefully others can see the value in waiting until you've at least convinced yourself before making public declarations.

KL

Quoted Text

---

When writing technical design specifications there are usually reviews where colleagues/experts try to find any faults/mistakes.

---

How does a guy in China know who the experts are?

If Tom says it's only right for prototypes, Jim says it's right for all versions, and no one else gives a response, what should they do?

That is the nut of the issue in a technical sense. In a practical sense it comes down to money. Just like everything else.

KL

In your post of Friday, October 07, 2016 - 07:42 PM UTC, you show a photo of a pre-release model, i.e. a test shot, and compare its features to those of a real tank. I don't understand why you consider that to be starkly different.

John, just to be clear, what is your position on people posting their analyses of the accuracy of subtle model features when the model exists only in preliminary form and the people only have photos of the preliminary models to refer to? Do you think see any downside with people doing this?

KL

Quoted Text

---

In your post of Friday, October 07, 2016 - 07:42 PM UTC, you show a photo of a pre-release model, i.e. a test shot, and compare its features to those of a real tank. I don't understand why you consider that to be starkly different.

John, just to be clear, what is your position on people posting their analyses of the accuracy of subtle model features when the model exists only in preliminary form and the people only have photos of the preliminary models to refer to? Do you think see any downside with people doing this?

KL

---

I'm sorry for this, somehow I missed this post. With all due respect to everyone, I am really curious, is there anyone here who has been following this, besides Kurt who can't tell what my position is?

I [ . . .] 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?

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.

Quoted Text

---

John, just to be clear, what is your position on people posting their analyses of the accuracy of subtle model features when the model exists only in preliminary form and the people only have photos of the preliminary models to refer to? Do you think see any downside with people doing this?

KL

---

I'm sorry for this, somehow I missed this post. With all due respect to everyone, I am really curious, is there anyone here who has been following this, besides Kurt who can't tell what my position is?

You have no idea how many times those errors don't show up in the production kits EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCUSSED on sites like this.

I don't know where people get this idea that I that I think people should never post anything about a model until it is released.

In fact I have a pretty good idea: Most people cannot - or will not - comprehend anything other than simple binary statements. If you say "Some tanks had that" they read it as "All tanks had that." If you say "Be careful about doing that" they remember "Never do that." "I don't agree with you" is treated as "I hate you and am trying to destroy you." Newspeak is upon us.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

John, just to be clear, what is your position on people posting their analyses of the accuracy of subtle model features when the model exists only in preliminary form and the people only have photos of the preliminary models to refer to? Do you think see any downside with people doing this?

KL

---

I'm sorry for this, somehow I missed this post. With all due respect to everyone, I am really curious, is there anyone here who has been following this, besides Kurt who can't tell what my position is?

---

Just giving you the opportunity to make a specific point without the affiliated noise. You have decided not to avail yourself of the opportunity.

KL