But to say someones review of the model is no good just because they review it from a different perspective then you is not fair. If someone is reviewing the kit based on the merit of the model and not 100% accuracy, then that is fine. Just because you don't like the kit due to some minor accuracy faults, it is not fine to say the model is crap.
Some people enjoy a kit for what it is, a model, not an exact copy of the actual vehicle. And for not saying people are doing their research of the actual vehicle, well that is wrong too. I for look at pictures of the actual vehicle and compare them to the kit. I don't get out my measuring tape and microscope to compare every rivet and weld.
As Scott put it early, if it looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
NEWS
The NEXT Model From Kinetic is.....
SgtRam
Contributing Writer
#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 09:21 AM UTC
CMOT
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 10:00 AM UTC
Jason I have to agree with Kevin on this one while understanding your stance. When I reviewed DMLs 25pdr I did the build review and I was accuracy driven all the way as I am around the 25pdr gun a lot, the review was well received on the whole but put off others as it was all about accuracy. I have read many reviews here and elsewhere and my gut instinct is you need to aim at the middle ground to attract the interest of people of all skill levels. If a review is all about accuracy such as plate x is 5mm to big it very quickly turns off a large proportion of readers as it starts to read as a manual rather than a review. However as I said that is just my opinion.
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 10:18 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But to say someones review of the model is no good just because they review it from a different perspective then you is not fair. If someone is reviewing the kit based on the merit of the model and not 100% accuracy, then that is fine. Just because you don't like the kit due to some minor accuracy faults, it is not fine to say the model is crap.
Some people enjoy a kit for what it is, a model, not an exact copy of the actual vehicle. And for not saying people are doing their research of the actual vehicle, well that is wrong too. I for look at pictures of the actual vehicle and compare them to the kit. I don't get out my measuring tape and microscope to compare every rivet and weld.
As Scott put it early, if it looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
There is no need to be defensive. If you have an issue with the comments that questioned the content or quality of your review of the Trumpeter Late Grizzly kit that has nothing to do with me. The comments were not initiated by me...they were initiated by your peer modellers...here and on another site. My comment on the your review thread did not even touch the content of your review and I simply answered the question another modeller asked about the variations in our reviews of both Grizzly kits.
How does one review a kit on the merit of a model? What does that mean?
I made a comment on this post in relation to the review of the M109A2 kit on another site, not you...how does a reviewer of this kit give a 5 star rating on decals if the decals were not even included in the kit?
In regards to Scott's comment on your review thread...stated as expected from a hobby shop owner! LOL!
Let's get this back on track here...Kinetic has produced a kit of the M109A2. It is better than the old Italeri kit and we will have to see how it compares to any future kits of the M109 family that are released by other companies.
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 10:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Jason I have to agree with Kevin on this one while understanding your stance. When I reviewed DMLs 25pdr I did the build review and I was accuracy driven all the way as I am around the 25pdr gun a lot, the review was well received on the whole but put off others as it was all about accuracy. I have read many reviews here and elsewhere and my gut instinct is you need to aim at the middle ground to attract the interest of people of all skill levels. If a review is all about accuracy such as plate x is 5mm to big it very quickly turns off a large proportion of readers as it starts to read as a manual rather than a review. However as I said that is just my opinion.
You have your gut instinct...I have mine. I have never stated a review should be all about accuracy but part of doing a review is to be full and frank and include both the good and the bad. I don't think too many modellers ever say a review has too much information. You sort of contradict yourself by stating your detailed review of the 25 Pdr kit was well recieved on the whole but other were put off by it...you can't make everyone happy all the time...as is the case with Kevin's Grizzly review...some folks will be happy with it...those that aren't have voiced their opinion on the review thread...it is not a personal attack...they were just questioning the wide variations in the scoring of the Grizzly kit reviews. Obviously this is occuring with the available reviews of the M109A2 kit too...seems like folks want to know about accuracy issues and have the free will question that when it is not included in a review.
Perhaps Armorama should start a thread or a poll about what modellers want in reviews?...only non-reviewers get to have input.
pzcreations
Joined: May 24, 2006
KitMaker: 2,106 posts
Armorama: 1,116 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 09:31 AM UTC
Coming from an "ex-reviewer" ..when I read a "/review" that doesnt comment on issues with a kit, be it accuracy or fit issues, to me thats not really a review, but a "preview" of the kit. And I think thats a term that should be considered when any website posts a "/review" of a kit..if its not in depth ,then how is it a review? If the reviewer is just showing what the parts look like and the over-all details.
thats my 2 cents...and now..go back and re-read this post and drink a shot every time you read "/review"
thats my 2 cents...and now..go back and re-read this post and drink a shot every time you read "/review"
c5flies
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 10:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
In the end a modeller should not just look at one review if they are serious about buying a kit. You have to bear in mind that a reviewer may not have as much reference material or information as another reviewer about the actual vehicle. I don't think any reviewer writes a review with the intent of misleading a modeller
Excellent statement Jason, although I don't agree with the last part that I left out, not everyone can find all the other reviews and at the same time actually believe them.
If I'm serious about buying a kit, one which I care about accuracy...which I should mention are the ones that I actually know something about...I'll try and read multiple reviews. More importantly, I'll want to read the discussion thread on the review as one reviewer may not have the knowledge of multiple readers and experts. I'll also want to see if there are any builds of the kit, since accuracy doesn't mean squat if the kit goes together like a dog and I end up trashing it out of frustration. A review is merely a tool to help you decide if buying the kit is worthwhile.
As far as what do readers look for in reviews? I'll venture a guess that there are as many answers to that question as readers
gcdavidson
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 10:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
. If someone is reviewing the kit based on the merit of the model and not 100% accuracy,
It's not really a review then, is it? Might as well take 50 photos of the sprues and post them up without comment. Not that there's anything wrong with that...just don't give people a misleading impression that the kit is flawless.
redleg12
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 12:53 PM UTC
Hummm....lets me say a few things.
1. No kit is perfectly detailed,
2. No kit includes all the details,
3. Not every kit needs to have a bizzilion parts and details, we need kits at all complexity levels to have something for all modelers
4. As for details.....we are modelers, if it is missing a detail, make it. We all seem to want to be just assemblers.Modeling is not just finishing!!
SOOOO...now before you reply, the only other M109A2 kit was the old Italeri kit....with the lousy vinyl tracks, pin marks, sink marks, inaccuracies....but it was all we had. In comparison this kit appears to be far superior (yes I have one of each). It is not perfect, but far better.
It will be interesting to see if AFV does the M109A2 and I would assume they would improve on the Kinetic offering knowing AFV.
We went through a similar exercise with the M2A1 105mm howitzer. All we had was Italeri...the came Dragon which was a big improvement...then came AFV and made the Dragon kit look poor.
As for a review/preview, if you like/build the subject and as long as the reviews are not calling the kit trash, buy it and form your own opinion.
When I see a modern howitzer kit that includes an M90 chronograph and bracket, or a colimeter....then we are approaching all the details.
Just my 2 cents....I am sure my younger brother Gino will be along shortly with his thoughts.
Most of all....have fun, it's a hobby
Rounds Complete!!
1. No kit is perfectly detailed,
2. No kit includes all the details,
3. Not every kit needs to have a bizzilion parts and details, we need kits at all complexity levels to have something for all modelers
4. As for details.....we are modelers, if it is missing a detail, make it. We all seem to want to be just assemblers.Modeling is not just finishing!!
SOOOO...now before you reply, the only other M109A2 kit was the old Italeri kit....with the lousy vinyl tracks, pin marks, sink marks, inaccuracies....but it was all we had. In comparison this kit appears to be far superior (yes I have one of each). It is not perfect, but far better.
It will be interesting to see if AFV does the M109A2 and I would assume they would improve on the Kinetic offering knowing AFV.
We went through a similar exercise with the M2A1 105mm howitzer. All we had was Italeri...the came Dragon which was a big improvement...then came AFV and made the Dragon kit look poor.
As for a review/preview, if you like/build the subject and as long as the reviews are not calling the kit trash, buy it and form your own opinion.
When I see a modern howitzer kit that includes an M90 chronograph and bracket, or a colimeter....then we are approaching all the details.
Just my 2 cents....I am sure my younger brother Gino will be along shortly with his thoughts.
Most of all....have fun, it's a hobby
Rounds Complete!!
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 01:13 PM UTC
Yup, I agree with Mike.
I have the kit too and think it is pretty good. I haven't built it yet, but from looking at the plastic, it is pretty nice. Detail is very high and much better than the old Italeri kit. The nicest part is the suspension. The road wheels are very nicely detailed and in multiple slices to get crisp details and the correct profiles. The idler wheel is molded with the lightening holes as well. It also has the flotation system boomerang removed from the top deck as is correct for A2s and later. All hatches open and have interior details. Also, all tools are molded seperately with separate tool holders so the tools can easily be left off.
The only downside I see is the tracks. The indi-link parts around the sprocket and idler are nice. The longer bottom and top runs are not as nicely molded and have no track pin holes on the track connectors. I would still recommend replacing them with AFV Club tracks or the forthcoming Skunkmodels (affiliated w/Kinetics) indi-link T136 tracks.
Bottom line, if you want a very nice M109A2, I would get it.
My opinion on reviews is to take them with a grain of salt. Unless I know the objectivity of the reviewer, I don't really trust them. Some reviews and reviewers are better than others. Of the two posted, one is purely an amateur and his reviews are pretty worthless. The other one is pretty good. In the end though, I always check out a few reviews before I buy a model, then I form my own opinion on it.
I have the kit too and think it is pretty good. I haven't built it yet, but from looking at the plastic, it is pretty nice. Detail is very high and much better than the old Italeri kit. The nicest part is the suspension. The road wheels are very nicely detailed and in multiple slices to get crisp details and the correct profiles. The idler wheel is molded with the lightening holes as well. It also has the flotation system boomerang removed from the top deck as is correct for A2s and later. All hatches open and have interior details. Also, all tools are molded seperately with separate tool holders so the tools can easily be left off.
The only downside I see is the tracks. The indi-link parts around the sprocket and idler are nice. The longer bottom and top runs are not as nicely molded and have no track pin holes on the track connectors. I would still recommend replacing them with AFV Club tracks or the forthcoming Skunkmodels (affiliated w/Kinetics) indi-link T136 tracks.
Bottom line, if you want a very nice M109A2, I would get it.
My opinion on reviews is to take them with a grain of salt. Unless I know the objectivity of the reviewer, I don't really trust them. Some reviews and reviewers are better than others. Of the two posted, one is purely an amateur and his reviews are pretty worthless. The other one is pretty good. In the end though, I always check out a few reviews before I buy a model, then I form my own opinion on it.
jwest21
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 03:29 PM UTC
Lucky has the Skunk Model tracks in stock for only $12 shipped. However, the picture shows link and length tracks making me wonder will they have the same lack of detail on the end connectors on the length parts that the kit does?
http://www.luckymodel.com/scale.aspx?item_no=SW-35001
http://www.luckymodel.com/scale.aspx?item_no=SW-35001
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 - 10:51 PM UTC
The new Skunkworks T136 tracks are fully indi-links. The pic just shows a section built. They are also coming out with a set of T154 indi-link tracks, which are for the M109A6 Paladin. Hopefully it is an indicator of more to come... 
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 03:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The new Skunkworks T136 tracks are fully indi-links. The pic just shows a section built. They are also coming out with a set of T154 indi-link tracks, which are for the M109A6 Paladin. Hopefully it is an indicator of more to come...
Update --
I have clarification from Kinetic/Skunk Models. The indi-track set is extra sprues of the kit tracks with enough indi-links to allow you to build one complete track set out of only the indi-links. You will have the long lengths as extra tracks.
Quoted Text
The concept of T-136 tracks is: we provide 5 sprues of the track-link inside the kit, where you only need 4 normally, 1 is spare in case of missing. You should use the length and link track for complete 1 M109A2.
In Skunkwork T-136, we provide 10 pcs of the same sprues, where you can forget the length track and use only the individual link to complete a M109A2 without the length track, in this way, you can have the hole at the side.
Sounds good to me.
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 06:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Coming from an "ex-reviewer" ..when I read a "/review" that doesnt comment on issues with a kit, be it accuracy or fit issues, to me thats not really a review, but a "preview" of the kit. And I think thats a term that should be considered when any website posts a "/review" of a kit..if its not in depth ,then how is it a review? If the reviewer is just showing what the parts look like and the over-all details.
thats my 2 cents...and now..go back and re-read this post and drink a shot every time you read "/review"
I think that's a fair point, although I find in-box contents previews really useful as I get to see the parts and molding and level of detail, which beats the Hell out of buying one sight unseen. I do think that differentiating the type of review (preview of contents, partial build review, full build review, etc) is very helpful and I do think it's fair to ask reviewers to include data for their conclusions. If the parts are still on the sprue how can I discuss part fit? If I just dry-fit the various major assemblies together it should be mentioned that that's what I did. Same with accuracy; if you eyeballed some photos that's fine, just mention that it looks right compared to photos but that's as far as you went. I just think it's more useful to know what the criteria/evaluation was for the reviewer when I read one.
I will say though that there's a damned if you do/damned if you don't for reviewers. Get too AMS on the thing and you get hammered by some for being a nitpicker, don't compare it to (hopefully!) accurate plans in enough detail and you lose points for missing a 1 mm screw-up by the manufacturer.
Matt
jwest21
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 06:31 AM UTC
Thanks Gino.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama 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.