_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
I've been Dragoned!
TheGreatPumpkin
Vendor
DECALCOMANIACS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: April 20, 2009
KitMaker: 690 posts
Armorama: 672 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 06:49 AM UTC
Hi All,
I need to rant here and I have no one to blame but myself. I'm currently building DML's STUG III ausf F/8 "Winterketten" Smart Kit. It's a really nice model with nice, fine detail and straightforward assembly. However, THE INSTRUCTIONS SUCK! There are two glaring problems with the instructions. First, in step 1 or 4 (depending on how you look at it), part D-11 needs to be added before the applique plate on the front hull should be added (check your references and you'll see what I mean). I caught that one. The other is in the 3rd act of step 11. They sort of omit the hinges on the hull for the engine hatches (incidentally, they are part G-40). They just mysteriously appear. #$%@! Here's where I'm at right now:



So this really makes a mess of things. I can fix it, but this is the sort of thing that really turns people off.

So where am I going with all of this spleen-venting? I'd like to add a new verb to the modeling lexicon. Dragoned: having your really nice model screwed up by DML's lazy, crappy instructions. Can I get a second for this motion?
Regards,
Georg
Thirian24
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: September 30, 2015
KitMaker: 2,493 posts
Armorama: 2,344 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 07:20 AM UTC
I have yet to build a dragon kit... And the reason? The instructions! They are just mind boggling to me. Today I pulled a few dragon kits out of the stash that I've been wanting to build. I looked over the instructions... And I put them back I the stash. Saying the instructions are confusing, is putting it lightly.
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 08:09 AM UTC
I've built five out of the 73 Dragon kits in my stash, and aside from a couple of misnumberings and some unclear illustrations, I have found them less confusing than some other companies' kits (Looking at you, Alan and Fly). I'm building Revell's BF109G-6 right now and there are several steps where location of parts are not clearly marked or the wrong options are listed (The kit makes an Early or a Late, and the instructions swap them a couple of times so if you're not careful you'll end up with a Frankenplane).

I have scanned through many of the instruction sheets for my kits and the best way to approach Dragon kits is the same with anything else:

Read through the instructions before gluing the first piece; look to see if an area you've worked on gets worked on again in a later step to make sure logic doesn't dictate a different order of assembly; and dry-fit everything.

Do not take the instructions for granted. Bear in mind these kits are made in Asia and things get lost in translation. Sometimes really lost.

BTW - the Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H Tropen I am nearly done with (Dragon 6642) went together almost flawlessly. Certainly easier than the 109.
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 08:19 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Do not take the instructions for granted. Bear in mind these kits are made in Asia and things get lost in translation. Sometimes really lost.


How does an assembly drawing lose something in the translation? Either it is correct or it's wrong.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 08:29 AM UTC
I built it back when it wasn't a very smart kit. I compare a kit and the instructions to references and models on the forums, and still made a similar error a few times. Usually because I glued the hulls together and that little part needs to be added from the inside.

At least you noticed it before it was beyond hope.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 11:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Do not take the instructions for granted. Bear in mind these kits are made in Asia and things get lost in translation. Sometimes really lost.


How does an assembly drawing lose something in the translation? Either it is correct or it's wrong.


Sometimes there are short texts with additional instructions ....
The_musings_of_NBNoG
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 520 posts
Armorama: 516 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 11:33 AM UTC
So far (in 4 years)I've seen no other company have as much negative feed back as DML instructions and DML Black label quality.

My favorite web store has:
5 old reissued versions of the DML Tiger for around $65 ea.
and Rye's new version with FULL interior for $5 more @ $70

""fool me once .. shame on you...""
with quality models at quality prices
I do not want even that 'once'

That's why I have no DML kits in my stash.

Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 11:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Do not take the instructions for granted. Bear in mind these kits are made in Asia and things get lost in translation. Sometimes really lost.


How does an assembly drawing lose something in the translation? Either it is correct or it's wrong.



Something can get lost in the translation between parts assembly and illustrating that assembly. The guy drawing isn'the usually the one who assembled and he may never have even seen the kit so there are plenty of places for confusion to creep in.

Haven't you ever put together a piece of furniture or a bicycle or an appliance and wondered if the guy who wrote the directions ever saw what you were assembling? I used to complain about model instructions. Then I had to follow the instructions to build a piece of do it yourself furniture.
The_musings_of_NBNoG
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 520 posts
Armorama: 516 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 11:59 AM UTC
I respectfully disagree.. We Pay for The entire kit not just the pieces!

My military father built a FULL 'resistors and capacitor and Tubes' Color TV from Heath Kit in 1970 or 71, thousands of pieces that each one had to be soldered onto this new thing...a circuit board. No internet to do any research, nor find feedback, just from the instructions.

Maybe we should buy these new automobiles without an operators manual?

a 100,000 unit release @ full wholesale of $20-30 dollars ...how much would good instructions add to the cost and take away from a 3 million dollar return.....

It IS up to the purchaser to make quality choices with their hard earned money.

And when I see other modelers bemoaning any aspect of Their hard earned money........

I listen...

and I also honor the choices others make, in their search for fun modeling.

RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 02:50 PM UTC
I generally treat the instructions as recommendations and then I go for the large parts first and save the small and fragile pieces to a later stage when I can add them without risking breakage. (Upper hull with a lot of fragile parts shall be glued to lower hull with some delicate parts of its own and then trying to hold it all together while the glue sets => broken parts ...).

Check the instructions for "surprises", check that all parts are accounted for, part on the sprue + not marked as unused + not identified in any assembly stage = problem => check carefully to figure out where the bugger has gone ...

/ Robin
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 03:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

That's why I have no DML kits in my stash.


I don't understand these absolutist positions. You mean to say that if you were at a show and saw a DML tank kit of something you wanted, for $10, you wouldn't buy it? Just to "learn them a lesson"?


Quoted Text

a 100,000 unit release @ full wholesale of $20-30 dollars ...how much would good instructions add to the cost and take away from a 3 million dollar return.....


Where on Earth did you get those numbers? I mean, really, what is your source for that information? Was it DML, or is this production and cost data from some other company, for some other type of kit that you've adjusted for their circumstances? Or is it just crap with no verifiable or even tangible connection to reality?

KL
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 03:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Something can get lost in the translation between parts assembly and illustrating that assembly. The guy drawing isn't usually the one who assembled and he may never have even seen the kit so there are plenty of places for confusion to creep in.


You validated my point. Either it's correct or it isn't.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 03:31 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I generally treat the instructions as recommendations ...


I do the same. I am normally reworking parts, planning for future assembly and painting, or just working ahead such that I'm nowhere close to "following" the instructions. I also don't see a lot of issues others may because in this process I have gone over the plastic and the paper so often and tweaked the parts to get the best (or correct) fit that I don't notice that the directions are ambiguous as to where to place a part.

Should instructions be made so that someone could be able to go through steps 1 to 26 in exact order and make a kit "right"? Sure, I guess, but it's not a significant issue for me.

I often wonder about such things as this . . . I see kit build-ups where people have puttied the [auto-censored] out of a kit and complained about poor fit, but when I look closely at the photos I see seams on the part edges and nubs and bumps from the sprue attachments. Kind of hard to gage the kit's quality in those cases . . .

KL
PantherF
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: June 10, 2005
KitMaker: 6,188 posts
Armorama: 5,960 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 04:58 PM UTC
I don't want to start a flame war or a rash of hate mail but could most of it be lack of experience and preparation? Especially knowing the reputation of their instructions?

I KNOW their instructions are the worst, but knowing that shouldn't we prepare differently?

Try reading through ALL of them first and look for the problem sections. Dry fit as much as possible to avoid the trap of missing parts. I mean, most of what we build are a repetition of what we have built before so we know what should be included in that step and in that area of the vehicle.

You don't drive 2 cars a like or cook 2 foods a like and so on and so forth... assembling their kits is not the same as another brand.

Also, I think it's a product of our own demise. We wanted more detail, more parts and longer build times... they gave it to us so now it's not easy?

If it were so easy EVERYONE could do this.






Jeff
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 05:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I generally treat the instructions as recommendations ...


I do the same. I am normally reworking parts, planning for future assembly and painting, or just working ahead such that I'm nowhere close to "following" the instructions. I also don't see a lot of issues others may because in this process I have gone over the plastic and the paper so often and tweaked the parts to get the best (or correct) fit that I don't notice that the directions are ambiguous as to where to place a part.

Should instructions be made so that someone could be able to go through steps 1 to 26 in exact order and make a kit "right"? Sure, I guess, but it's not a significant issue for me.

I often wonder about such things as this . . . I see kit build-ups where people have puttied the [auto-censored] out of a kit and complained about poor fit, but when I look closely at the photos I see seams on the part edges and nubs and bumps from the sprue attachments. Kind of hard to gage the kit's quality in those cases . . .

KL




Hear, Hear! In my own experience, I've learned that building models is like getting dressed in the morning. It's a sequence that demands logic. You don't put your underwear on over your business suit or street clothes...

When instructions are complicated and/or confusing, one needs to "fine-tooth-comb" them repeatedly before opening up your adhesive, or even removing any parts from their sprues. That doesn't automatically guarantee success; DRY-FIT EVERYTHING, and check the WHOLE ASSEMBLY PROCESS several times before you actually commit yourself to the first step. It was noted earlier that one can't take ANY Assembly Instructions as Gospel-Truth. Yes, DRAGON/CYBERMODELER/BLACK PLAGUE many times have instructions that leave a lot to be desired- But so do other manufacturers.

My biggest beef with C/D/BP are all the slipshod errors and inaccuracies that they include in quite a few of their kits for no extra charge. Their instructions, however flawed they may be, I can handle.

C/D/BP are notorious for showing certain assembly steps out-of-sequence, i.e showing the assembly of certain major components in earlier steps, and sometimes not showing details and smaller components that are required to be added before the major components' completion until a later step that may even be a few pages down the road. I WILL admit that this is not always the case with ALL C/D/BP kits.

A good way to avoid these pitfalls is to READ/PERUSE the entire content of the instructions SEVERAL TIMES. I do this religiously with ANY kit made by ANY manufacturer. If there ARE certain steps that need to be executed before the completion of larger components, I will attach a "Post-It" to my instructions with a simple notation such as "SEE STEP (whatever) BEFORE COMPLETION". This may sound like "Assembling Models For Dummies", but it works for THIS old codger...
MLD
Visit this Community
Vermont, United States
Joined: July 21, 2002
KitMaker: 3,569 posts
Armorama: 2,070 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 05:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Do not take the instructions for granted. Bear in mind these kits are made in Asia and things get lost in translation. Sometimes really lost.


How does an assembly drawing lose something in the translation? Either it is correct or it's wrong.


I read that as more of a translating the instructions from one version offered on a base chassis compared to another. (A Stug IIIG vs a Stug IIIF)
Part of the problem with the Dragon 'we make 497 versions of the same vehicle' philosophy is that they use many of the same sprues (providing generous spares) and cut and paste from the instructions.

I am not a Stug guy, but maybe the missing steps were part of a different build sequence for a separate version on the same chassis.

Should someone from Dragon have caught this before it hit the shelves, for sure!
Should someone at Dragon have to build the kit FROM THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE BOX BEFORE they are released, absolutely!

Sort of like Toyota engineers ought to have to actually use the capstan 'thread the rods together, slide it through a tiny hole in the bumper, engage a gear, and lower the spare' mechanism at -10deg and +100 deg F BEFORE it becomes a 'feature' on their cars.
Having changed two Toyota flats under the conditions above, I can guarantee that NO ONE at Toyota did either before going with this as the way to mount and dismount a spare.
Having to knock a flat tire off the hub with a sledge in the dead of winter is damn therapeutic, however.

So do I stop buying Toyota's? DO I leave it in the driveway?
nope..

Dragon does need to up their instruction game and needs to check their instructions before foisting them off on us.

My US $0.02, your mileage may vary.
KevPak
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 04, 2014
KitMaker: 137 posts
Armorama: 128 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 06:01 PM UTC
Yes - Dragon instructions can sometimes be vague, ambiguous or confusing. These problems can be overcome by careful reading of the instructions before assembly, planning and dry-fitting.

What is more egregious, is that sometimes the instructions are out-and-out WRONG. There is no way to overcome this problem without prior knowledge of the subject being modelled or careful research of the subject as one is building the model. I will offer a specific example from my current build - the Dragon early version Hummel (kit 6150).

In section 17, the instructions show placement of a part (N11) which is meant to help locate the correct placement for another part (O26 - the internal lifting lug). This part (N11) is NOT meant to be glued into the hull or become a part of the final assembly. Yet the instructions do not state this - it is shown as if it is to be attached to the model:



This error is compounded in subsequent steps, where the part is shown actually attached to the interior hull:





Note that the above pictures are actual photographs of the model being assembled - not line drawings. Thus, whoever was building the model for the instructions did not have a clue as to the actual function of the part under discussion - even though he/she was part of the Dragon team!

And just to show that I am not making this up - here are pics of the corresponding section of a real Hummel, showing that no such part actually exists (from the Nuts & Bolts volume on the Hummel, Greenland):



Namabiiru
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
#399
Visit this Community
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: March 05, 2014
KitMaker: 2,888 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 06:05 PM UTC
Kevin,
I built that kit and I know exactly what you're talking about! That drove me crazy!

I've long found DML's instructions problematic; anywhere from incomplete to confusing to outright wrong. Rarely anything a very experienced modeler with lots of references handy can't overcome, but it shouldn't have to be like that.

However, in fairness to DML I should add that I am currently working on my first Great Wall kit and those instructions are pretty bad also (can't blame it on language differences--nothing but pictures).

LikesTanks
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: May 07, 2013
KitMaker: 242 posts
Armorama: 234 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 07:05 PM UTC
The same error occurs in the Hornisse (6165), photograph instructions of the painted model and these parts stay in there nicely base-coated. I managed to bust them out without too much damage.....
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 07:52 PM UTC
Aside from thoroughly reading the instructions, test-fits, I'd look for build reviews / logs -- quite an indispensable reference, and it sure keeps me sane in the end.
McRunty
#491
Visit this Community
Missouri, United States
Joined: April 06, 2016
KitMaker: 602 posts
Armorama: 191 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 07:52 PM UTC
Thanks for that! I have that Hummel in my stash and its next on my build list.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 08:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I respectfully disagree.. We Pay for The entire kit not just the pieces!

Maybe we should buy these new automobiles without an operators manual?




You actually read the operator's manual?

I started building models whose instructions were an exploded diagram and a totally written text. Think Monogram/Aurora from the 1960s. For those, the instructions were sometimes dictated as the guy built the model. So I understand the point with the circuit boards and soldering iron. But from the same time were older Lindberg directions where the diagrams were anything but clear and the part's were only identified by name. If you had missed the part of the directions where they were named you were lost and tons of flipping back and forth because I can't remember the names of things when I only have an hour to build every other day!


So maybe a builder should write the directions like they used to at Accurate Miniatures back in the day. Really complex models that really made you think with detailed written instructions that laid it all out plain as day. They would even spell out which parts didn't quite fit and how you had to do a little filing to get a clean join! Remember in the 1970s when Testors wrote all new instructions for Italeri kits? The original diagrams with completely written directions going over everything and noting some assembly problems. Then I got an Italeri kit with the original directions which was so much circles and arrows, I felt cheated.

Yeah, I've been Dragoned plenty of times with the directions for plenty of things, not just models and not just with Dragon.
ogataikhan
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 01, 2013
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 09:35 PM UTC
I have also had my share of dealing with Dragons faulty instructions. I have built several Dragon kits: T-34/85, SU-100, BRDM-2, IS-2, and ISU-152. All of these builds presented unique challenges when trying to interpret the build instructions. Having stated that, sometimes I have run into build instructions from other model companies that are worse than anything I have seen from Dragon. Case in point, I am currently building a T-70M and T-80, both from Miniart. The instructions for the T-70M are very good, but the T-80 instructions remind me of the horrid instructions from some of the old Eastern European companies of the 80's and 90's era. I can't even begin to explain how bad these instructions are. If I wasn't building the T-70M which shares a lot of the same parts with the T-80, I am not sure I would be able to get through the build process.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 09, 2016 - 11:41 PM UTC

Quoted Text



... You don't put your underwear on over your business suit or street clothes...



Superman does .....
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, June 10, 2016 - 12:44 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text



... You don't put your underwear on over your business suit or street clothes...



Superman does .....




Yeah, but Superman is FROM A DIFFERENT PLANET, remember? You can't expect an ALIEN to behave like a human (?)...
 _GOTOTOP