RufusLeeking, I really appreciate the compliment! I think speding time here on this forum will help me gain that perspective to "see the guy with the vehicle" as I go on building models in the future.

Gunnie

I like to look at models that are weathered and have a "lived in" look. I do agree with Rob that there is a lot of over weathering going on in the hobby. But I also think that as long as the modeler is satified and having fun, it's OK.
That said, I don't weather most of my models. I don't think I have a knack for it, and I hate to mess up a nice looking model.

PUUHHH!! what a discussion and what a wake up call for the forum!!
I think that most military modellers are lacking the experience of having been drafted or served in units where none of their modelling subjects
were used.
otherwise they would know where a vehicle gets dirty, greasy, rusty and paint chips off and where one would add the extra gear...
these are things one might find out on a public day in a barrack, but it seems that people do not care on these facts as as they are already in their one way street and try more to achieve to do what other modellers are doing rather than to duplicate the real thing in scale.
it also seems to be a habit to make afv's sorta "beautiful" so that they do not appear that odd in comparision to e.g. aircraft and the results I would describe are more artistic than realistic..
I also count those battle weary finished afv's to
this group. they look great and I also would like to achieve this finish but then I think "how long was the estimate battle live of a vehicl ein 44-45??
did it survive long enough to get all this damage?" especially when I think of Jagtigers, Kingtigers, etc.

Concerning the rust streks, chipped off paint I think that people are mixing up the looks from an in battle vehicle with those in a static display in an outdoor museum or vehicle pool.

I must admit that I am struggling to balance all these influences on my models and still have not found the right mix.

werner

Werner - you are correct. That's why I really enjoy this website, I get to talk to guys with different experiences. I was in the US Air Force - didn't have the opportunity to live and breath in the subjects I like to build. I've probably modeled the entire 18th Tactical Fighter Wing in the past - because I pulled security duty around the F15's, but never got to serve in a tank battalion. A tanker might respond to me and tell me I'm nuts, but I wouldn't think they really meant it. Tankers are some of the proudest guys you'll run into.

Therefore, when I can find a tanker to listen to, I pull up a chair (or keyboard in this case) and listen and learn a little bit more. I like to think my modeling is an expression of what I've learned thus far...

Gunnie

I agree with EVERYTHING that was mentioned here. (shhhh, though I won't admit it, shhhh) hehe

Boy, what a shake-up, didn't mean to stir the pot.

Anyway, you can now call me "Kencelot, The Hornet's Emulator" LOL :-)

I couldn´t resist to add a reply and I decided to return to the original post,
What I look is hte weathering effects (or lack of it!) details added to the model (does he/she used an aftermarket parts or not, etc...) and the overall appearence (does the model convinced me?)
That´s it, and I do agree with the most of you have said: Let´s build for ourselves, what we like, the way we like...(like anybody said...)

Have fun building it, learn something, and have fun!

One thing I like to spend a little extra time on is the road wheels of an AFV. Particularly if they have rubber on them (although the principle is the same if it's just a metal rim). I try to damage and give the rubber rim some wear marks. The track (specifically the guide teeth )running around the road wheels tends to damage the rubber to various degrees, but almost always does damage it. I usually do my wear/damage with a sharp knife and a file, and then weather it along with the rest of the suspension. If anyone is interested, I can post some pictures of my regiments tanks road wheels for reference. I am currently serving in the Canadian Armoured Corps and can provide some reference photos for some vehicles such as leopard, coyote, and M113 (older versions I'm afraid) and maybe some usefull info on AFV's in general. Sounds like there is alot of experience on the board with tanks and AFV's so if no one is interested, that's fine too.

Coyote

My point of view is mainly the overall layout and composition. Doesn´t matter if it is just a tank with no figs, or a huge dio with ten vehicles and 40 men. You can place a tank on a plate in a way it looks dynamic and interesting, but you can also waste a lot of stuff in a dio and it doesn´t seem to make any sense to me. One thing that picks my eye is the color balance. I´ve seen VERY detailed, technically well done dios with unbelievably "fake" feeling (..not that I was The Man to judge anything..) and that can be a result of using too variable palette or something. I don´t know.
I get to the micro detail level after I pass the overall design. But that may be just because of my job as a graphic designer...
These are, at least, the main points I try to think about in my own work. That´s why I like to sketch things beforehand.

A good topic!

Toni

OK, I'll wade in here too.... I like to see weathering that is done with some subtlety. By definition that means better than mine, which isn't too hard for anyone to do! I don't use pastels, which to me always seem to have provided the nicest results. My models live on open shelves and get handled when showing them to visitors, so pastels in my case would be wasted. I also tend to wash the models gently in the sink when a suitable case of overscale dust accumulates, and doing so would obviously eradicate pastels.

I also like to see figures, which to me add a real sense of scale--just how big was this thing? My aircraft usually don't have them, but most of my armor will. This despite the fact that I'm not terribly good at them and prefer to use the enamels I've been accustomed to for thirty years rather than tool up for oils. Call me a luddite.

The matter of stowage has been discussed, and I too like to know how something is attached. That said, the attachment isn't always obvious. My M36 has bedrolls and such attached to the turret sides. Seems to have been pretty common, and some photos look to me like the gear "isn't" strapped on. By this I mean that it appears the straps doing the holding go around the object and disappear behind, going throught the stowage loops I know are reall there (and are very poorly molded on the kit!). I did the job with epoxy putty, but didn't add extra straps to tie it in to the grab rail above. Could have, but decided it wasn't necessary. I'm wandering a bit here, I know...In this case the attachment is suggested rather than implied, but it makes sense. What I don't like to see is something attached that has no sense of weight--if it is really hanging, the strap or rope should be tight. Gravity works no matter the scale. I also like to see that the object seems to belong where it is put and would reasonably stay there. I just decided to discard a bucket hanging from the back of the M36 turret because it bcame apparent that rotation of the turret would scrape it off on a stowage rack I built for the rear deck. Common sense, I guess, but it wasn't obvious until I played with it a little. Obviously, I'm not a tanker myself! Enough ranting for one post...
Greg

When I look at a model, especially if it's one I've built, I look at all the sections of the model that that caused me to revert to the language my DI used during basic. Just to see how the other guy handled the problem...I guess, to learn something. I like a weathered look, but only if it adds to the realism of the piece. And, I like to appreciate how much effort the modeler must have put into the piece.

I pretty much build OOB, and while I like to "dress up" a piece with some gear or a figure or two, my talent and confidence haven't reached the point where I'll go too far beyond that. And lets face it, painting IS an art. I think it takes lots of practice to get a good paint job down on a piece. It is the part of modeling that's really driving me crazy these days, so it's the first thing I look at presently. Trying to figure out how they did it.

I don't think I could be a judge at a meet, because I see something great in every model I see, some skill I wish I was better at. I guess I'm sort of like Rob's sign-off comment..."I'm not young enough to know everything". All I know is I want to get better, and working at building the kits, and studying what's been done, is the best way I know how to do it.

Mike

I have almost 20 years of exprience judging model contests and thought I'd weigh in with a few observations:

No matter how much aftermarket stuff you pile on a model, you cannot disguise poor basic skills. By this I am talking about filling and sanding seams, alignment of parts, gravity-defying wheels and tracks, etc. At many contests, I have judged an out-of-the-box model as better because it was built properly and finished nicely.

I've also been approached by people who complained "I used the Aber PE, the Fruili tracks, the Rubio barrel, the XYZ resin conversion and my model didn't even place!" It hurts some egos, but that's when I start pointing out the fingerprints in the paint, the silvered decals, the toed-in running gear, the big seam on the muffler...

Another pet peeve is the "bigger is better" modeler, who seems to believe that if their diorama takes up an entire table at the contest, it should get a medal. Or that they took out a second mortgage to buy that 1/16th scale U-boat and, by God, it should win something. In my experience, making something bigger only means there is more room for error. Big stuff often wins People's Choice awards, though I think this is mainly because it impresses the kids and other inexperienced modelers.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stowage, as I have seen many real soldiers do some awful dumb stuff. I cannot, however, ignore blatant errors. I recently saw a dio at a contest that featured a nicely-done Priest with the crew loading up the ammo. The trouble was that the crew was loading the track with 75mm tank ammo -- not 105mm howitzer ammo. The difference in the ammo was obvious and an otherwise fairly well-done dio was left out of the medalists.

One last pet peeve and I'll end my rant: Please don't paint weapons silver. "Gunmetal" looks almost as cheesy, but I have seen some people use it to good effect, especially when doing Parkerized weapons. German weapons in particular are deeply blued and really have to have a lot of abuse to start showing wear. In general, silver paint has little use in military modeling. I use it for mirrors and interiors of lights, but in most cases that call for "silver" you're better off using an aluminum or steel color. Another favorite is pencil graphite, which if applied properly, can give the appearance of worn iron.

I want to jump in on this one. we are all in a way students of history, Be an ME 210
or a m1a1,we try to recreate what we see. I spent 10 years serving in the army
I agree with Rob in many ways we would not put something on at track jeep,
or truck that is going to fall off or scrape off . As for weathering many over do it
your vechile might be dirty or muddy but that would not last long,routine
maintance would take care of that .The only exception would be in a combat
area. The best part of this hobby is learning to make something better for
ourself . I look at this way this new model is practice for the next one

ponysoldier

THE HORSE THE GUN THE MAN.

Here's my shinny penny's worth. I enjoy viewing the works of art that Gunnie and DG produce. It's like a visit to an art museum. Look at the great shots Jim and crew provided from the latest master exhibits. Superb. Gives you something to shoot for and compare against. :-) :-) :-)
DJ

Guys,

Use photos! You'd be surprised what and where things can be hung off of a track. My experence is with PCs. God the junk we hung off them. We did leand to leave the sides clean except for camo tied on with RT wire. We started out lacing the wire from the tie down loops on the top deck to the brackets for the swim skirts. We found out this didn't work very well and I came up with the idea to tie long pieces of commo wire from the tie down loops and tie on the brush so that it was free to move.



In the desert no problem, western europe problem.

We use to take the seatbelts, yes I said seatbelts, out of the back of the 113s and bolt them on the trim vane to hold the camo net and pole bags.

I did do one, and I agree with you that the sides of a track were left "clean". We did tend to strap everything we could to the sides, front and rear of the turret (on an M60 series) and to the bustle rack of an M1 series tank (turret was vey wide). The back deck of the hull was kept clear. Anything stored there would be covered with mud or might get hung up when the turret traversed.

I look for thedetail's and what I can learn from what they have done. I might have over looked something that they did and I might be able to add it to something else down the line or use it on the next one I do. I love to see other work great for my thinking because, I think about somethings so much I over look some of the small things.

Kencelot, you said it.... Each model a person does, is his/hers representation. Especially when it comes to WWII AFV's. I'm sure everyone here has seen The movie "Patton". Well those German tanks look great.......to bad they are all American!!! :-)