_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML M103A1 - disappointment
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 01:45 AM UTC

Quoted Text

So that is my two cents worth, I look at three things in a kit, accuracy is just one of the three and not all that much more important than the other two.


Fair enough. I'll buy and support your reasoning.

My scale weighs the accuracy part of things much higher so I am more negatively inclned, to be sure. Basic fit and finish things I can fix easily enough and don't mind doing so. Total chop and drop rebuilds just to make it look like what it's supposed to look like I can still do, but it irritates me when there was enough information to do it right and they simply didn't care.

:)

Paul
MikeyBugs95
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 02:51 AM UTC
I was just reading this and for some reason an idea came to mind (not sure how good or bad it is though). I was thinking that if we buy any US armor kit that Dragon makes (except the extremely flawed kits that is, I.e.: the M103, T-28/29) direct from source or from store, then maybe Dragon might realize that we want them to focus on US kits just as they do German kits and maybe make their US kits up to actual Dragon standards... Like I said I just thought of this and have no idea how well or poorly this would work.
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 10:53 AM UTC
There's a small problem with this, Smothers. Not all of us want them to concentrate on US vehicles!

I don't even require that every kit go to the very limits of achievable detail or that the model be inexpensive. All I want is for the basic shape to be pretty accurate. It is apparently too much to ask of the black label line, but that's all I want. Leave the tools and handles moulded to the hull. Omit the stowage and figures and metal barrel. Just make the basic shapes bloody right! That's all I ask, just make the basics right.

It shouldn't require an act of god. Or congress...
Shermania
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 08:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text

There's a small problem with this, Smothers. Not all of us want them to concentrate on US vehicles!

I don't even require that every kit go to the very limits of achievable detail or that the model be inexpensive. All I want is for the basic shape to be pretty accurate. It is apparently too much to ask of the black label line, but that's all I want. Leave the tools and handles moulded to the hull. Omit the stowage and figures and metal barrel. Just make the basic shapes bloody right! That's all I ask, just make the basics right.

It shouldn't require an act of god. Or congress...


I agree, get the basic shape right and most everything else can be dealt with...

About 6-7 years ago, Tasca was releasing a new sherman every 6 months so DML started putting out a bunch of Shermans too. Some were decent but it was infuriating to see them reuse moldings that they knew where bad. What reason they had for doing that, I'll never know. Especially when they had already produced accurate ones previously! The FDA and the FDA side covers come to mind. I was so upset I sold almost every DML sherman I had (~60 kits). I kept a handful that didn't have those issues and have only purchased a handful more since the "purge"

I once owned more DML kits than everything else combined, now I wait to make a very informed decision on their kits.
DaGreatQueeg
Visit this Community
Napier, New Zealand
Joined: August 01, 2005
KitMaker: 1,049 posts
Armorama: 841 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 09:08 PM UTC

Quoted Text

.... Does DML deserve kudos for understanding the infusion of fad WOT modelers wouldn't care?



Quoted Text

I do (begrudgingly) think that Dragon does deserve some credit for seeing the casual modeler and WoT player as an untapped resource ...... It was probably a pretty sound business decision for Dragon not to spend any time or money (on research and elaborate tooling) in getting these kits to market.


Heavens sake. This, the M6 thread, the old T28 threads .... same ole same ole. As a casual modeller and gamer (both wargaming and PC and Xbox) I'm pretty chuffed about the fantastic powers the "elite" modellers have endowed me and my "buy anything" friends with.

Yup, we begged Dragon to make kits that are poor and expensive. And I was grateful when they listened. I asked them to dumb down their 1/72nd range and again I was pleased not only when they listened, but also raised the prices on their newest simplified offerings.

Please think before engaging the keyboard. What's happened here? Well Dragon hyped their new releases on the web with 3D renderings and advertising rhetoric, just like they do with all their kits, believe any advertising at your own peril. And they released some dogs, kits with very poor attention to detail and in some case fit and assembly issues. Like many of their past releases in fact, it's not new for them.

Did they release a cheap budget kit? Heck no. It's a full price release. Are they advertising on WOT or gaming books and magazines? Heck no. They're advertising to modellers, just like they do with all their releases. The WOT market may potentially be huge but WOT players don't generally frequent model shops and modelling forums and have even less inclination to trim, file, glue and paint. Thinking about it if they were diecasts I'd say "very smart marketing Dragon".

So what's my point. Well, don't blame me and my friends. Dragon made crap because they didn't give a toss about getting things right and paying for decent design quality control, not because of the hoards of casual modellers and gamers who are lining up to pay top dollar for poor and difficult kits.

And many of Dragons mainstream kits suffer the same infuriating lack of attention to detail, is that because of casual modellers too?

Please stop blaming us and either concentrate on how things can be corrected kit wise or at the very least take some time to consider the economic realities of companies trying to make as much money as they can for the least cost and realise there's precious little we can do to change their decision making process. Buy or don't buy, fix or don't fix. It's pretty simple really.

Brent

165thspc
#521
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 11:00 PM UTC
Advertising is often not lying but simply "selective truth telling".

Of course we Madison Ave guys are at the mercy of what the design engineering and marketing departments give us to sell!
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 01:58 AM UTC

Quoted Text


As a casual modeller and gamer (both wargaming and PC and Xbox) . . .

Well, don't blame me and my friends . . .

Please stop blaming us . . .



Who on Earth is "blaming" WoT people? As far as I know, gamers did not manufacture these kits, Dragon did. Simply opining that DML may have created them to address a particular market is not assigning "blame".

Once again, emotions triumph over sense when choosing words.

KL

Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 02:33 AM UTC
Anyway, would a gamer be inclined to spend $70+ for a several hundred piece 1/35 kit, or would they prefer a nicely modeled 1/72 scale kit of the same subject? The 1/72's are cheaper, easier to build, and you can get more on your shelf.
18Bravo
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 02:49 AM UTC
If I were a gamer (about as likely as becoming drinking buddies with Nancy Pelosi) I'd opt for the 1/285 Micro Armor. They are incredibly detailed for their size,and require no effort at all to assemble - something I would think gamers would enjoy.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 03:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


As a casual modeller and gamer (both wargaming and PC and Xbox) . . .

Well, don't blame me and my friends . . .

Please stop blaming us . . .




Who on Earth is "blaming" WoT people? As far as I know, gamers did not manufacture these kits, Dragon did. Simply opining that DML may have created them to address a particular market is not assigning "blame".

Once again, emotions triumph over sense when choosing words.

KL



I was going to say the same...
Could not find in this topic -or the others mentioned- any blaming to WOT or other gamers about Dragon's policies and decisions
The general trend is to question or argue about the quality of Dragon's latest kits, and that's manufacturer's choice, no one else.
Guessing that gamers' market could be one of the "aimed at" prospects for these releases is just that, a guess, not blaming anyone -even Dragon itself, they can do whatever they want with their investments-.
rfbaer
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 03:46 AM UTC

Quoted Text

If I were a gamer (about as likely as becoming drinking buddies with Nancy Pelosi)......


I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there.

So on the subject of WoT and accuracy and such, I have to say that I have a 4-wheeling buddy that was an M1 TC in Korea, and he spends way too much time playing WoT. In fact, he doesn't "play" it, he's serious, and he's talking about building the Tamiya M1A1 kit that's been in his closet for a number of years.
Draw you own conclusions, but I'm thinking: "another modeler created".
M-123driver
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 19, 2012
KitMaker: 24 posts
Armorama: 20 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 05:45 AM UTC
From reading all these posts I think we can all agree on a few key points.
1. Thanks to Pawel, and other so called "rivet counters" it is obvious the M103 kit is flawed when it comes to accuracy.
2. For some of us who value accuracy above all else it means we will not purchase the kit.
3. For others who value trouble free assembly, availability of a unique piece of equipment or other standard they can overlook the problems with DML's attention to detail and build a nice (if imperfect) replica that is identifiable as the M103 without too much difficulty.
4. For the extremely talented modelers among us (me not included) this kit has the potential to be made much better with a lot of serious measuring, cutting, filling and scratch building (I would guess a few of you might even cherish that).
5. The idea of having to cut up and replace major components of such an expensive kit just to make it resemble the real thing is appalling.
6. With the volumes of schematics, photos and remaining examples of relatively modern equipment and the technology of measuring, computerized design and manufacturing equipment available to a manufacturer like DML, there is no excuse for such basic shortfalls of accuracy.
7. It would not have taken much for them to have put the minimal effort into the process and gotten it right beyond what it took to put out the product we have been discussing. Obviously their corporate culture is lacking in any genuine desire to produce a top quality product or these easily recognized flaws would have been caught and corrected prior to release of the kit.

If many companies are able to provide accurate scale model kits of long extinct or at least rare items like Panzer I, II and III and the Elefant, then they should be able to get accurate measurements of equipment that sits in museums and in front of bases and VFW halls all over the place. Shame on Dragon for being so careless, they are the only responsible party for this shoddy and inexcusable lack of attention to detail. To me, it demonstrates a lack of corporate ethics and I will purchase kits offered by alternate companies whenever possible.
TankManNick
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: February 01, 2010
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 543 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 06:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Advertising is often not lying but simply "selective truth telling".

Of course we Madison Ave guys are at the mercy of what the design engineering and marketing departments give us to sell!



Lying by omission is still lying.

http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2012/03/19/know-when-someone-is-lying-7-types-of-lies/
Saber7
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: September 05, 2005
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 36 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 07:31 AM UTC
I forgot how entertaining forums could be. It is funny watching everyone crack up over a a plastic tank kit. The funniest part is the guys that are the experienced modelers are the ones that get the most upset if a kit is not dead on. If your a modeler you fix it. You model things to a higher degree of accuracy because you have the resource of time. Manufacturers model for mass production of injection molded kits. Two very different things. Otherwise, your a kit assembler and that is cool too. Either way if you enjoy what you do it does not matter which category you fall into. Besides, inaccuracies are throwing a bone to the cottage (after market) industry crowd. Everyone have a nice weekend building!
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 07:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text


. . . With the volumes of schematics, photos and remaining examples of relatively modern equipment and the technology of measuring, computerized design and manufacturing equipment available to a manufacturer like DML, there is no excuse for such basic shortfalls of accuracy.

. . . It would not have taken much for them to have put the minimal effort into the process and gotten it right beyond what it took to put out the product we have been discussing.

. . . If many companies are able to provide accurate scale model kits of long extinct or at least rare items like Panzer I, II and III and the Elefant, then they should be able to get accurate measurements of equipment that sits in museums and in front of bases and VFW halls all over the place.



These perceptions are common in the modeling community and quite erroneous. It takes a significant amount of effort to produce an accurate model kit (i.e. accurate to the level we like). In addition to the technology required to get dimensional data, there is verification and realization into a format that allows manufacturing molds. There is also the engineering of the kit to allow molding on sprues and assembly by the modeler. Only that last part is common to good kits and bad ones. The cost to get to that point is markedly different.

People simply do not understand how difficult it is to get useful configuration and dimensional data on even common vehicles. For example, where do you think one might find accurate casting drawings for M103 turret and hull? I'm not talking the general outline drawings of Hunnicutt, but useful, verified, drawings showing dimensions and details that we as modelers want to see. These aren't things that can be done properly with a tape measure. I guess people think they could "just" do a laser scan of the tank and go from there. Have you priced one of those machines? Have you even priced what it would cost to hire a service to do it? Do you have any idea of the effort needed to convert the data file into something useful for model-making?


Quoted Text


I will purchase kits offered by alternate companies whenever possible.


Yeah we all say that, but it's really bu11sh1t. It is exceedingly rare that two kits are exact equivalents: same versions, same track or PE options, same level of detail, same engineering and fit. There is always difference, no matter how minute, that lets us rationalize buying what we want. The best examples are the discussions on the "best" Object 279 kit of the three out there. Reading the threads the biggest factor in making a choice was that one had a cool figure as an extra.

KL
DaGreatQueeg
Visit this Community
Napier, New Zealand
Joined: August 01, 2005
KitMaker: 1,049 posts
Armorama: 841 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 11:33 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


As a casual modeller and gamer (both wargaming and PC and Xbox) . . .
Well, don't blame me and my friends . . .
Please stop blaming us . . .


Who on Earth is "blaming" WoT people? As far as I know, gamers did not manufacture these kits, Dragon did. Simply opining that DML may have created them to address a particular market is not assigning "blame".

Once again, emotions triumph over sense when choosing words.

KL



Nope, my turn to suggest reading the threads. Maybe "Blame" is the wrong word but it's regularly inferred, every as every dozen posts of so it's mentioned as an excuse for Dragons poor kit. The lack of quality gets blamed - no wait associated? I'll leave it to anyones better command of the English language to fill in a more appropriate word, on rushing the kit out to gamers, casual builders and the fad WOT market who don't care as long as it looks vaguely like the subject.

The truth for the errors, as always, is somewhere out there mixed up in a lot of factors. Unless a Dragon representative steps up to explain how the mistakes happen we're all guessing. The facts though are that the errors and issues are being repeated on a regular basis now. Coming from an Business Management viewpoint that makes the errors endemic to whatever design and qc process they have chosen to use for this range and some others while they're at it.

They have the basic technology to produce sharp and good quality mouldings so that box is ticked. Don't underestimate competitive market forces to back them into cost cutting as that's most likely where the root cause is. Even they don't set out to make rubbish, it's just a highly probably result as a function of decision making during the design, product development and qc process to limit the effort (cost) put in.

Anyway, the thread title is very apt. With almost 300 replies and 60k views, that's a lot of attention so maybe we have an outside chance that Dragon might listen and return to producing the kits they are capable of and that modellers expect ... maybe ...

Brent
M-123driver
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 19, 2012
KitMaker: 24 posts
Armorama: 20 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 11:43 AM UTC
Theodolite surveying equipment commonly available to law enforcement for mapping crime scenes to the hundredth of an inch is precision digital Laser equipment that can be used to get exact 3-D images of a tank simply by placing a reflector on the tank at multiple points and Lasing each point from a fixed tripod. The more points you shoot, the more accurate the diagram. It will automatically render said 3-D into a CAD drawing that could easily be used to design tooling. These are not cutting edge technologies, they have been around for decades and so are not priced out of this world. under $5,000.00 for a complete set-up. Newer systems are available (for a higher cost) that integrate 3-D photography with the Laser measurements. Seems like a small price for a major kit manufacturer to pay in order to legitimately be able to back up their claims of accuracy in every future release that they already falsely make today.

I'm not saying anyone could whip out perfect replicas at will with no effort. What I am saying is that any reputable company that genuinely cares to put a small investment and some effort to produce high quality products for their customers, has the tools available to do so. Their reputation for such quality will earn them a bigger market share just as the current reputation Dragon is gaining for less than stellar accuracy will eventually start to cost them which is a shame since they do make good quality, relatively easy and complete kits only dropping the ball in the accuracy department. Since they are far from a low cost provider of basic kits it is not asking too much to expect better precision.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 12:14 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I forgot how entertaining forums could be. It is funny watching everyone crack up over a a plastic tank kit. The funniest part is the guys that are the experienced modelers are the ones that get the most upset if a kit is not dead on. If your a modeler you fix it. You model things to a higher degree of accuracy because you have the resource of time. Manufacturers model for mass production of injection molded kits. Two very different things. Otherwise, your a kit assembler and that is cool too. Either way if you enjoy what you do it does not matter which category you fall into. Besides, inaccuracies are throwing a bone to the cottage (after market) industry crowd. Everyone have a nice weekend building!


Your points are OK for kits within average Price range.

If we talk about $70 for the Black Plague kits, just to give you "look like a duck" model, it does not seem reasonable for the majority of modellers -the owners of the money in their wallets- if you take a look to every topic about Dragon's latest releases...

Calling for the use of AM stuff as a solution might be reasonable if you talk about a cheaper kit, but not for a high priced but inaccurate kit with no PE, no metal barrel, no special features. Not everybody is willing to pay more that $100 or 120 just to get a decent model.

Also, its not about people asking just for an "easy build", its a matter of quality for your money.
You can find here in Armorama lots of comments about later Dragon M1 Abrams kits being far better than the Tamiya ones, even when Tamiya's are a lot -believe me, a lot-easier to build...
But those kits are excellent in quality, with PE, optional metal barrels, and so on, and the most accurate in town.
That's the main point, I think.
Anyway, if you are eager to pay these prices for this kind of kits, its your money.
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 12:46 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I forgot how entertaining forums could be. It is funny watching everyone crack up over a a plastic tank kit. The funniest part is the guys that are the experienced modelers are the ones that get the most upset if a kit is not dead on. If your a modeler you fix it. You model things to a higher degree of accuracy because you have the resource of time. Manufacturers model for mass production of injection molded kits. Two very different things. Otherwise, your a kit assembler and that is cool too. Either way if you enjoy what you do it does not matter which category you fall into. Besides, inaccuracies are throwing a bone to the cottage (after market) industry crowd. Everyone have a nice weekend building!


Your points are OK for kits within average Price range.

If we talk about $70 for the Black Plague kits, just to give you "look like a duck" model, it does not seem reasonable for the majority of modellers -the owners of the money in their wallets- if you take a look to every topic about Dragon's latest releases...

Calling for the use of AM stuff as a solution might be reasonable if you talk about a cheaper kit, but not for a high priced but inaccurate kit with no PE, no metal barrel, no special features. Not everybody is willing to pay more that $100 or 120 just to get a decent model.

Also, its not about people asking just for an "easy build", its a matter of quality for your money.
You can find here in Armorama lots of comments about later Dragon M1 Abrams kits being far better than the Tamiya ones, even when Tamiya's are a lot -believe me, a lot-easier to build...
But those kits are excellent in quality, with PE, optional metal barrels, and so on, and the most accurate in town.
That's the main point, I think.
Anyway, if you are eager to pay these prices for this kind of kits, its your money.


Thanks to world of tanks you cant find any accurate info or real photos of a subject the net is flooded with that world ot tanks crap
DaGreatQueeg
Visit this Community
Napier, New Zealand
Joined: August 01, 2005
KitMaker: 1,049 posts
Armorama: 841 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 01:47 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Thanks to world of tanks you cant find any accurate info or real photos of a subject the net is flooded with that world ot tanks crap


Maybe try Google? Just the first search page for M103 Heavy tank found only 1 WOT forum topic listing, the rest were either from genuine modellers or tank forums and general info sources ie Wiki. Most of image listing seemed full of pictures of, well, real tanks. The WOT skins and related entries such as artwork being easily avoided by not clicking on them ....

Also several gents on this thread and Pawels excellent correction build log have posted links to real vehicle walk arounds and Hunnicutt is a great word based source of M103 technical data.

HTH
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 02:14 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text



Once again, emotions triumph over sense when choosing words.

KL



. . . Maybe "Blame" is the wrong word . . .



Exactly my point.

KL
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 02:40 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Theodolite surveying equipment commonly available to law enforcement for mapping crime scenes to the hundredth of an inch is precision digital Laser equipment that can be used to get exact 3-D images of a tank simply by placing a reflector on the tank at multiple points and Lasing each point from a fixed tripod. The more points you shoot, the more accurate the diagram.


Just how many points do you figure it would take to map out the contours and features of an M103 hull and turret to provide the level of accuracy we typically demand? How do you propose they go about plotting the points for features hidden behind fender boxes and suspension parts? How about those on the underside of the turret or hull? What about those reflectors that are at such an oblique angle when viewed from the ground that they don't reflect?


Quoted Text

It will automatically render said 3-D into a CAD drawing that could easily be used to design tooling.


Yeah, easily. That is the nut of the argument. Lay people simply do not understand the amount of effort required to work with these technologies. In engineering and manufacturing we may say that this stuff gets us results much more easily than before, but that's relative term and it's relative to the near impossibility of doing the work before.


Quoted Text

I'm not saying anyone could whip out perfect replicas at will with no effort. What I am saying is that any reputable company that genuinely cares to put a small investment and some effort to produce high quality products for their customers, has the tools available to do so.


And what I'm saying is that most modelers' ability to accurately estimate the scope and costs of design and engineering efforts in a production environment is about as good as my ability to fly.

KL
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 02:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Thanks to world of tanks you cant find any accurate info or real photos of a subject the net is flooded with that world ot tanks crap


FYI, that's "blaming".

KL
M-123driver
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 19, 2012
KitMaker: 24 posts
Armorama: 20 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2014 - 08:43 PM UTC
"Just how many points do you figure it would take to map out the contours and features of an M103 hull and turret to provide the level of accuracy we typically demand?"


I don't know but the least expensive model Total Station equipment has internal storage for 24,000 points. As a lay person, I would guess that would be sufficient, particularly if you work from several angles and partition the subject into several parts. That would also assist in getting the best view of suspensions, tool boxes etc. and since you are shooting points, the reflector does not have to be perpendicular to the surface being marked.



"Yeah, easily. That is the nut of the argument. Lay people simply do not understand the amount of effort required to work with these technologies."


Being a simple cop who learned on the job how to map exact dimensions, positions and intricacies of complex crime and accident scenes that had to stand up in criminal and civil court proceedings, I have some idea. These technologies are available to assist product engineers in conjunction with the tried and true methods that DML and other companies have used in the past to produce authentic reproductions. Why is it suddenly so difficult for them? They have proven that the accuracy we are discussing is possible since there are many highly precise and intricately detailed kits on the market, some made by Dragon. Only a corporate attitude of "just get something on the shelves for the masses to purchase" explains the gross lack of attention to detail. We are paying the price so we should demand the quality. It would cost little more to produce a great kit than it does to market a mediocre one.


"And what I'm saying is that most modelers' ability to accurately estimate the scope and costs of design and engineering efforts in a production environment is about as good as my ability to fly."


And again my argument is we are already paying DML a premium price, it is time for them to deliver a premium product. If they want to provide kits that assemble into a rough facsimile then they need to charge a discounted price. I never expected the same quality from the Revell 1/32 scale F4F Wildcat purchased for less than $10 that I did from the Hasegawa 1/32 scale F6F Hellcat that set me back more than twice that amount. If I pay Airfix prices I am satisfied with Airfix quality. If I pay more, I expect more.

hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2014 - 01:35 AM UTC
This turns again in an endeless arguing.
My question will be why Meng, AFV Club, and others, are able to manufacture accurate kits and charge for them prices according to their quality level, and we have to justify Dragon for being unable to do so?
As a customer, I'm not for doing charity to manufacturers with my $$$. If they cannot keep the path of competitors and market demands, that's their problem.

Again, I'm not asking to forbid Dragon to produce kits in the future, nor sayin´ we should go and burn out their factory.
They have the right to keep doing bussiness the way they prefer, I have the right -so not to bother some people saying I'm "entitled" to- to say that for this price levels their recent kits are almost crap

If anyone does not agree with any or all of my points, good for you, but learn to deal with people thinking different.
Mainly when every single argument was replied and discussed showing no one has the absolute truth nor the new Moses' tables of the law...
These are open and free forums as far as we don't be insulting or offensive, and people´s reasons are as good as any other ones when it comes to decide what to do with your own money.
 _GOTOTOP