Anyone seen the article on how to make mud in the newest FSM?

While the methods may be fine and dandy, did you notice the giant gaps in the front hull of the example model in the first photo? Yikes! Actually, the whole model is 'yikes'!

Wow, I hate to be so critical, but FSM really seems hit or miss lately when it comes to the quality of the models. Some other publications are blowing it away...

Steve

It appears that the author over did it a "little". I 'm sure he was trying to capture a certain
look but wow. The following on stains though I thought was very informative.

Jeff Stevens

Steve:



I just read my issue and could not agree with you more.

It was a great "mud" article, but the model should have been cleaned up. The gap in the hull that you mentioned, a "difugility" where the gun tube attaches, and the overall "look" of the top half of the A2---Jeeze you'd think someone would have seen that and taken care of it---like slapping some mud over it (lol).

Steve aka WeWillHold

Yeah, I have to agree with everyone. But, FMS is the best thing going. Has anyone in here ever taken the time to submit an article? Or even send in a tip? I realize some of the stuff in there is really lame but I don’t know that there is a decent alternative. I know I look forward to my copy. Maybe we ought to start sending in articles and pictures for the gallery section. I don’t know if they will accept digital pictures yet but maybe we ought to try to change content from within, so to speak. There are probably an awful lot of kids that pick up a copy of FMS after they bought their first model and thought “Man, someday my model is going to look like that one.” I know I did.

ALTERNATIVES TO FSM: Finescale definitely has its place. However, if you want to look at alternatives in the AFV realm, I'd recommend the following:

USA: Military Minatures in Review (MMIR)
UK: Tamiya Modelling Magazine
UK: Military Modelling
UK: AFV Modeller
Japan: Armour Modelling Magazine
France: Steel Masters

The first three are readily available at hobby shops. My opinion is that these are for the more serious AFV modeller. (I let my FSM subscription lapse about 7 yrs ago)

FSM has it's place. I definitely look forward to the next issue each month. And I did find the "Mud" article interesting and informative.....but, I have to concur that some of the models that are featured are less than Master Class. Shouldn't a publication that specializes in models know a well constructed one from a poorly constructed one?Oh well.
Let's return to the first statement...it has it's place and I look forward to the next issue.

If I thought I can do better, I would start my own magazine. Ha! They're doing a much better job than I could.

Don

I don't know.... Maybe it's a good thing to show a range of models from differnt levels of skilled modelers. It helps reassure some of us that our attempts ain't so bad #:-) :-)

I did find the stains article very infomitave.

:-)

Yes, the 'stains' article was nice and the model undergoing the treatment was well-done. But, considering the author, that's not a huge suprise. I'm sure us Internet users have seen his work before.

About FSM, I understand that they recently underwent some editorial staff changes. After haven spoken to someone involved in the publication and who is also what I would consider a 'Master' Master Builder, the changes may not have been for the better. At least when it comes to knowledge of the subject matter.

Unfortunately, I don't get the other magazines mentioned above (need to correct that) but from what I have seen of them, the level of the models in them is leaps beyond FSM.

No, I don't hate FSM and still pick up most every issue (though that's getting more infrequently) but can't say it inspires me as much as what I see here on the web or in other publications.

Steve

Hi.

I was just at the book store and looked at the issue of FSM with the mud article.

Oh my goodness that is a poor example of modelling! Frankly, I want to see stuff that is either better (or different) than what I can do in a magazine! That M60 is coated in mud, which is well done, although it looks too 'gloopy' without grass and other texture visible. But the overall green finish has no other weathering! Not a muddly footprint, or stain, or anything! And the gaps in the hull are pretty poor. Either FSM accepts anything it gets to publish, or I don't know what.

Bob Collignon's articles are always nice, and the model in the article on weathering running gear are SO much better than the one in the mud article.

It reminds me why I get Military Modelling or Steel Masters for my fix!

I think there may be too many mags on the market right now, and that dilutes the content.

Too bad, because FSM is the one mag you can find everywhere.
Andy

I think thah's something wrong in general with magazines, at least over the last couple of years. Ok, I agree that they have to survive and often have to come to compromises with the industry, but on the other end they're completely losing contact with the "normal" modeler.
I've got the impression that they only want to impress their audience, and I do not agree at all with this "mania" to overdo everything. If a youngster reads the magazines he gets frustrated by the fact that to build a model he "needs" at least a couple of hundred bucks of after markets details. I don't remember on which magazine, but seems to be the latest trend, an author considered himself lucky because he owned two kits (one of these was a re-issue with some extra parts and PEs of a previous one) and from two he was able to make one hit as he wanted to. I use very few PEs and scratchbuild a lot, at first sight it can look difficult but with the time it gets easier and easier, and I really enjoy it. You can see on the magazines quite a bit of scratchbuilt enhancemente to models, but it seems that everybody is too jealuos to share his abilities with the others. Italian modelling magazines are even worse, there'se not a single one with a column dedicated to reader's letters, but I tried to write a few times to international magazines as well to tell them what I said above, but to date I had not a single reply. In the end we are "addicts" to the hobby and the most part of us will continue, but I think that continuing like this these magazines will obtain the only effect to demotivate and put out of the hobby the youngsters.
Ciao

Hi Fabio.

I agree, I've seen a lot of MMIR articles where the PE madness is evident. And I can only look at Zaloga's models in Military Modelling and dream. The problem with the M60 in the mud article is that it is not built to basic standards. There's no need for a lot of aftermarket stuff, but I think that someone spending that much time on the mud would have finished the vehicle so there were no gaps and with some other weathering.

I think the web is really filling the niche of models of all types. Magazines have a tough time competing I'm sure.

Andy

Exactly.

No, you don't have to have PE and other aftermarket to have a good looking model. But, magazines should make sure that what's in their pages are examples of the good basics of modelling.

All of us build and use those skills no matter how much we spend on the hobby or our level of involvememnt.

Steve

I glanced at the article when I got my copy in the mail, but didn't have time to read it cover-to-cover like I normally do. Now, when I go back and read the issue more carefully, I know the first thing I will look at is the bad model in the mud... sort of like looking over at a wreck on the highway....

I did not like the model pictures at all. way he has it it looks really sucky. now the next part on the oil stains was great.. I used the mix on my sherman firedly and basicly washed the entire tank very unevenly I might say and then oversprayed it. with the base coat and it turned out wonderful.. the current pics are on the rivit review form.

I checked out article out again yesterday, and yeah, the build on the tank is pretty "slipshod." But the article isn't about the tank: it is about the mud. Notice that the upper hull isn't even weathered. I learned a new groundwork technique and I already know how to take care of the gap in the front of the hull so that was enough for me. But, you guys are right, the basic build on the tank could have been better…

Now, I'm a newbie amateur modeler at best, but I think maybe the point of the article was, well, the mud. Maybe they don't have the staff hours or manning to complete a "tight" model only to use it in a mud demonstration. I don't think the point of the article was the entire project; if that was the case, they would have used a previously featured article and performed the mud application on that model instead, making it a "project" instead of a how-to-do on mudding.

My 2 coppers.

Well the model sucked. I really don't see anyway to get around that.

They don't have a 'staff' sitting around building models all day. The articles and photos are usually submitted by everyday people like you and I.

If it was a time issue, etc. why not just use Photoshop to blur or remove the 'offensive' part?

Look, FSM is a good mag, but if they let things slip and publish shoddy looking work people will start looking elsewhere. Just find a copy of Tamiya Modelling mag or Military Modeling International, etc. and you will see the difference.

And, if it's just about being a beginner thing, I say look at the best work out there and 'aim high!' Why not emulate the really good stuff?

Steve