No, hence my comment about Tasca/Asuka being difficult to get in the UK

Personally I'm just thrilled that someone as good as RFM are offering a Firefly kit. The parentage be damned as a largely-unimportant detail.

NICE! I have the Tasca kit. I wonder how much better it could be. The Tasca Firefly is a great kit.

I have several tasca kits in the stash and I'll probably add this one as well. The one thing that baffles me is the tracks. Why is everyone making workable Sherman tracks these days? I mean, no droop guys and gals. Asuka "rubberband" tracks are perfect.

Look carefully at the parts included from both the Tasca kit and the RFM one, the layout is not the same and changes are obvious but the parentage strongly suggests they started wit hthe tasca kit . How else do you get identical parts where the Tasca part is their interpretation (Turret 30 cal and mount etc. A lot of the other detail parts are also very similar in the layout and breakup. This kit to me appears to be a retooling and upgrade of the Tasca wiht many changes made and yes, it is a new kit but its parentage is readily viewable Two examples of the differences in sprue layouts: Asuka/Tasca upper hull, turret shell and base: RFM sprues, image from the News-item Asuka/Tasca lower hull: The only similarity is that they are both kits of the same subject. / Robin[/quote] Look carefully at the parts included from both the Tasca kit and the RFM one, the layout is not the same and changes are obvious but the parentage strongly suggests they started wit hthe tasca kit . How else do you get identical parts where the Tasca part is their interpretation (Turret 30 cal and mount etc. A lot of the other detail parts are also very similar in the layout and breakup. This kit to me appears to be a retooling and upgrade of the Tasca wiht many changes made and yes, it is a new kit but its parentage is readily viewable

They have a big mold seam along the edge that is impossible to clean up. It's the biggest drawback of the kits. It's easier and cheaper to replace the headlight guards than the tracks.

Look carefully at the parts included from both the Tasca kit and the RFM one, the layout is not the same and changes are obvious but the parentage strongly suggests they started wit hthe tasca kit . How else do you get identical parts where the Tasca part is their interpretation (Turret 30 cal and mount etc. A lot of the other detail parts are also very similar in the layout and breakup. This kit to me appears to be a retooling and upgrade of the Tasca wiht many changes made and yes, it is a new kit but its parentage is readily viewable Two examples of the differences in sprue layouts: Asuka/Tasca upper hull, turret shell and base: RFM sprues, image from the News-item Asuka/Tasca lower hull: The only similarity is that they are both kits of the same subject. / Robin[/quote] Look carefully at the parts included from both the Tasca kit and the RFM one, the layout is not the same and changes are obvious but the parentage strongly suggests they started wit hthe tasca kit . How else do you get identical parts where the Tasca part is their interpretation (Turret 30 cal and mount etc. A lot of the other detail parts are also very similar in the layout and breakup. This kit to me appears to be a retooling and upgrade of the Tasca wiht many changes made and yes, it is a new kit but its parentage is readily viewable[/quote] Injection moulding in metal (steel) moulds impose certain restrictions which apply to all manufacturers of injected plastic products. Opting for a flat pack hull is not revolutionary (done by Heller decades ago, presumable others as well). Tasca may have set the standard for detailing. Dragon does hull tubs (as did Tamiya and Italeri). Tasca opted for the flat pack system so RFM had the choice of tubs or flat packs. Trying to achieve the same or reasonably similar level of detailing while limited by injection molding technology imposes a more or less similar parts breakdown. I think Tasca engineered their kits for maximum reuse (unlike Dragon where you get a whole sprue simply to provide a few pieces). Another guiding principle is to keep parts grouped in some assembly logic. (Italeri kits have sequential numbering, Dragon kits are labyrinths). Moving parts around is one thing but when everything has been moved I would call it original work (if a model of a 1:1 scale original can ever be called original). Using the same production technology while trying to make a model of the same subject to a similar detailing level leads to similarities. The only freedom of choice is the sprue layout and I would say that the sprues have more than a passing dissimilarity. Plagiarism requires more than using the same alphabet The differences might have been greater if either of the companies had used an incompetent sprue designer I like the fact that RFM has gone the extra mile to produce link by link tracks. No need to swap out the Tasca-rubbers. The side pieces for the lower hull are different. cheers / Robin Edited in reaction to new News-item: Sprockets are different, RFM has more details on the inside faces of the tooth rings. Construction of VVSS bogies is different, RFM has springs where Tasca has small pieces of rubber sheet. Idlerwheels differ in parts breakdown, Tasca has two parts + poly-cap, RFM has 5 parts + poly-cap. Return rollers: RFM provides three types, Tasca has one type. Side skirts are very similar since they follow the real thing. RFM provides towing hooks and shackles, Tasca only provide the shackles. RFM provides four (4) different mounting types for the 50 cal on the commanders hatch, Tasca provides one (1). Both have PE-guards for the periscopes. RFM also provide injection molded periscope guards. Tasca have the drivers & co-driver hull periscope openings molded shut (in the upper hull molding), RFM has openings, periscopes and some alternative 'triangular' covers. Both have openings and periscopes in the drivers & co-drivers hatches. RFM has three types of antenna bases for the turret, Tasca provides one type. The storage bin at the rear is possible to show open, with PE-latches in the RFM kit, Tasca has molded this a single part (i.e. closed). RFM's version has more detail. The lower part of the rear end is similar, probably inspired by the real thing .... The parts for the covers just inside the sprockets are similar but with small differences, Tasca have molded a little triangle on the top edge to fill a gap behind the top edge of the transmission cover. The RFM part has a straight upper edge so they have made a different design decision in this area.

The assembling layout is similar maybe because it is the best way to put them together. Nevertheless, as mentioned, the sprues layout is different, therefore it is indeed new tooling. Making these molds is not cheap, change the layout might as well a making new from the group up. Like cars in the street are made by different manufacturers, but they are still extremely similar that about any garage can fix all those cars. 'Be different for the sake of different' vs 'Refining what worked'

Maybe Tasca got their inspiration to design flat-pack lower hulls from Heller. The parts are different and have been moved around but the principle is the same