HI. Have any of you modern builders checked out the DML Abrams that has just been posted on the track-link site? Has a complete interior to it and looks really nice. An inspiration to all builders I'd think.

Take care. sgrity

Very nice Abrams. But it only proves what I always believed - there is no point in adding the complete interior to most tank models. Nothing of it can be seen... Should the author not mention that there is any interior it would be impossible to tell from his photos.

Rgds,
Pawel

I rather disagree. I think if the modeler decides to do that - then more enjoyment for him or her - regardless of whether or not it can be seen in the end. I like the Abrams and it looked like the modeler enjoyed constructing it - over doing it or not. It sounds like you're taking a subtle dig against him for taking an extra step...

Gunnie

No, not really. If you take a look at my recent M923 model you will notice that I added a lot of detail (e.g. to the suspension) that is not visible unless you lift the model and take a look from underneath or is hardly visible at all (e.g. driver's seat suspension). I also built DML Abrams with the interior parts many years ago and I used them all (although I did not add more detail myself) - just with the same result. Almost nothing can be seen So it was just my personal reflection, related to my own work.

I decided that it takes me way too much time to finish a model now - half a year was a standard time in my last two projects. Now I decided to be more careful when choosing where to add detail. For example I have M925 Italeri kit to build and will probably add just half of the modifications I included in my M923 - only those that can actually be seen. This way I will still have good (hopefully) looking model, but will finish it quicker and be able to start another one! And no-one will see the difference.

Rgds,
Pawel

Pawel - you're attempting to preach to the Choir here - I full well know about adding detail and modifications that can't be easily seen in the end...

To me, this is like the reaction others had when Lee Lloyd (Twig) first posted pictures of his Tiger project. I think it is really helpful to the modeling community in general to be supportive - and many let their own "personal perspectives" get in the way of something a modeler decided to share. Many comments came off like a "personal assault" across several sites and their forum(s). I'm personally very happy that Lee decided to weather the storm and found haven here at Armorama.

I personally try to strike a balance between what and where I choose to model extra detail. Lee does, and you do too, as an example. The only thing I really try not to do is to curb someone else's enthusiasm with expressing my personal tastes. I'd rather not post at all if I think that's going to happen...

Gunnie

Howdy all,

This very question has always been a source of.......personal internal debate with me as well. But I will be smart (for once) and not create a public debate about it here.
I do think this same question can be applied to PE, AM goodies, etc.

Tread.

BTW, Vodnik, I've been meaning to ask you, your moniker ' Vodnik', did you take the name from the Russian multi-purpose vehicle, the Vodnik, or GAZ -39371?............just curious.

Hi , I tend to agree with both of you here. I've done one or two models that had a kit supplied interior to it, and once it was done, I personally vowed never to do another one, as it's just too much work, of which most of it is not seen execpt in the builder's eyes.

But then again, it was quite an experience to do and I really enjoyed several different problems that came up on these vehicles as to exactly how and when to paint and mask off certain areas as I went along, if for nothing else. Plus I learned a lot about the interior of said vehicle and it gave a sort of a feeling of what it may have been like to be in one of these things.

So there are good points and bad points either way you go here. And I really admire those who take the time and effort to do such things, esp. if a lot of it is scratch built. It really takes a person's building skills to the max., so to speak. But for me, personally, the only time I will attempt such a thing in the future is if I decide to build a model that has been destroyed or is torn down under heavy maintenance so that such work can be seen and appreciated, if only by me.

Different strokes for different folks. It's what makes this hobby such a 'kick' to do, whether for serious or just for fun.

Take care, sgirty

You're funny!

All I can say here is variety is the spice of life!

I really enjoy viewing what other modelers choose to share - regardless of whether or not it strikes my personal fancy. I think that's why we're all here on Site. I'm markedly unimpressed with the deep pocket approach - when I still see gouges and scrapes in the plastic where the modeler decided to add all those goodies and forgot basic modeling technique(s). No amount of extra goodies does it for me after that. Conversely, I am quite impressed with the guy or gal who just buys the kit and builds it - look at the new posting of a winter-finish Tiger I over at WW2Modelmaker's What's New area as an example. He only added the photoetch screens to the engine deck - Tamiya's I believe. I flat out don't go out of my way drooling over WW II German Armor subjects - but the modeler really did a nice job all around. Would the AM and extra-detail purists out there turn their noses up at this model? I don't know - but it would be a shame if they did. There's some nice skill displayed in that model.

It would be a travesty to give that modeler the impression that the road for getting his peers to accept his modeling efforts can only be found by living inside of some Technical Manual, reference book, and having his browser and PayPal set for accessing high-end AM and Photoetch retailers

I only responded to the original post because of the impression I got from Pawel's comments - it was like a backhanded compliment to me. Those are never complimentary. I'm not picking on you Pawel - I apologize!

Gunnie

Gunnie,
I would not even think about adding such comments, but in this case the author of the model just wrote something himself that was 100% in line with what I was thinking: "I was over enthusiastic and now barely none of the work can be seen." Actually this text was what made me express my thoughts, not the pictures themselves.




Tread,
I didn't even know that the GAZ was called that name :-) In Poland GAZ cars were usually refered to as "Gazik".
"Vodnik" is "English-ized" Polish word "wodnik". In Polish we read "w", the way you read "v" in English. And "wodnik" means "aquarius" - my sign of the zodiac That should explain colors and some wavy motifs on my website.
Actually I believe that "vodnik" is correct spelling of this word in Czech, probably Slovak and maybe other Slavic languages. But this is just coincidence, I found that out after choosing this nickname

Rgds,
Pawel

I am not going to say anything

Rob, as he quietly hides his scratchbuilt hull under his workbench.

Golly, talk about nit picking, no wonder people are sending less quality models for publication :-)

Isn't the journey the reward in model building?

Adam (the builder of the Abrams in question) loves model building and he got a lot of fun out of scratch building the interior of this Abrams. I might add that it is refreshing to see someone add something of their own to a model too.

Paul.

LOL! Should I have done that too!?!

Gunnie :-)

This hobby should be about whatever makes the builder happy! Nothing more and nothing less!

When it is all said and done YOU know what you did and YOU know what rewards came from it!

Jeezzz... Once again I say something in a good faith, or at least without any bad intentions, and start a little storm... I apologize for that, but also want to add some further explanation to make my intentions clear.

I didn't try to attack Adam for his work on the Abrams model in any way. I did not add any commens on the Track-Link page, where there is a place for it, because I did not actually have anything to say about this particular model and did not have anything to say to the author. Except for saying that the model looks very nice, what I wrote here before. He really did a great job on this one!

But I saw sgrity's post here and sgirty wrote that the model "has a complete interior". I was very interested to see the interior work, as I expected pictures like those here: http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/m60a1_hymin.html. But I saw you know what, then I read Adam's comments at the end of his gallery and in a way actually agreed with his words in my comment here - I was not addressing him, I did not expect him to read this, I was just sharing my reflections (and even frustration) with the friendly folks here on Armorama. Where is the better place to discuss what is worth and not worth doing in armor models, if not on Armor Talk?...

Please note that I used words "complete" and "most" in my original post. I believe that, unless you want to display the model with the removed turret or "wide open" in any other way, there is no point to add COMPLETE interior to MOST tank models. Of course some interior - mostly the stuff around hatches is usually worth adding, otherwise you have just black holes in the turret. But it sure is a personal decision of any modeler - if you can afford to spend extra time detailing the part of the model that can not be seen, just do it! You know it is there, right? But I just realized that I have to optimize the way I build my models, because otherwise I will need 30 years just to build models I already have on my box pile, not to mention those I plan to buy in the future.... So I wrote what I personaly believe now, and not tried to speak any general wisdom.

And I never mentioned anything about any other scratch building work, as some of you here seem to suggest. Actually I spend most time scratchbuilding while working on my models. For example yesterday I spent about three hours adding some detail to the front armor plate of the M2A2 Bradley (I scratch built the complete swim barrier mounting frame and some other details around there). I did not attach a single original kit part yesterday

Rgds,
Pawel

Back to the model Great job on it.
(++) (:-)

:-) :-) :-)

Vodnick, should I stop scratch-building the interior of my Cromwell? I am having a lot of fun making it but it does seem pretty stupid to have all this fun considering that most of it won't be seen?

http://www.track-link.net/blogs/1_2

:-) - Paul, I'd love to see both the Interior before you vault it up into oblivion and the Hessian camo too!

Gunnie

Geez, I know I'll probably get flamed for this but here goes anyway. Can people not express their own opinion around here? I've gone back and read Pawel's original reply two or three times now and no where did he say, don't put interiors in your afv models. I also don't see any "subtle digs" anywhere in the reply, he expressed his opinion and it didn't come across as inflammatory to me. Paul, build your Cromwell any way you choose, if that is the way you want to build it that's fine by me. (and everyone else too I'm sure) But that particular post comes off sounding like a "not so subtle dig" to me, and is unnessesary. Pawel has explained himself twice now. I don't think I need to defend him I'm just saying lighten up, take the reply for what it was, someones opinion, and move on. Personally I think Adam's M1 looks good, and I would like to see it in person to check out the interior.

My 2¢,
Mike
OK, flame on

Isn't that the POINT of this Hobby???? Doing something that makes YOU happy.....

My .02 cents.......

No flaming coming your way - but I think what you consider as an "unnecessary post" might not be so to someone else. I think everyone has a right to express an opinion and a responsibility for what they express. If you have a problem with my intrepretation of Pawel's original post - even after I apologized if he thought I picked on him - then simply say (write) it. I expressed what I did as a Moderator reading the thread.

I agree with Paul's sentiment too - and I wonder if this "intrepretation" contributes to the lack of quality stuff submitted to all the hobby sites. Maybe it does...

Gunnie

Gunnie,
You're right, after looking back at my reply I shouldn't have worded it the way I did, so my apologies to you.

Mike

Hey Mike - no problemo! :-) I'm glad you posted and shared your thoughts. If this place is ever gonna get to the heights I think it can - we've gotta quite walkin' on eggshells. I'm probably more sensitive that the rest of you guys

Anybody building models - besides Paul?!?

Gunnie