Check this guy out. SuperDetails. Is his build awesome or what?!

Talal visited here a few times last fall, probably just before you joined up.

Those are indeed slick!
The amount of detail on the 1/16th kits is borderline scary.

Wow, awesome models, I believe his LAV-25 will be in the next issue of Fine Scale Modeler, can't wait to see it

WOW!Thanks for sharing!

Yup his M2A2 was featured too in the july 2002 issue.

Talal's scratchbuilding talent is just amazing. His LAV-25 is just a work of art!

But I wouldn't be myself if I didn't notice that M2A2 has many inaccuracies. It is quite obvious that Talal used Tamiya kit as a reference for scratchbuilding its "bigger brother" and unfortunately repeated most of errors of Tamiya kit and also added some others. But it doesn't change the fact that the model looks impressive and Talal's modeling skills are second to none!

Rgds,
Pawel

This guy is INCREDIBLE!!!!!! 1800 hours scratchbuilding a LAV... WOW.

I'm totally amazed with how well this guy has done things!!!!!!! He's so bloody perfect in his detailing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I showed them to my wife and she wasn't sure if they were real or models!!!!!

According to his website, if one reads the text that accompanies the pics rather then just looking at the pics themselves Talal states that "This model was constructed with the help of actual blue prints, tech manuals, photographs and several trips to Fort Devens (Massachusetts). 2 months of extensive research, 10 rolls of films, a 3 hours video of the vehicle and several reference books"
If the above it true, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, then I doubt that the model has many inaccuracies at all. Then again I've never actually seen a Bradley in the flesh so I can't be considered an expert on them. As for the model....jeez, I'm gonna quit and find a new hobby! :-)

It brings back up the question of is it scratchbuilding if you're using CAD/CAM and rapid prototyping that was raised among the online community right after he showed the LAV at AMPS East last fall

Also the issue of 'professional' modlers entering was raised.

I don't have the answer to these, but in my opinion he did not handle his frustration at not winning best of show at AMPS East very well. He pitched quite a fit.

Beautiful work , absolutely.

Has he got more help , between his access to info through his work and tools than the rest of us have...for sure.

Fun to look at, also surely.

MY US$0.02

He said something similar for the Abrams he did in 1/16th. However I have found the construction to be significantly different from that of an actual Abrams. The sides of the hull are cut down like all the kits, whereas the actual Abrams hull sides are significantly taller. In this I am referring to the sides of the hull, not the sides of the sponsons. There are a number of other things that are innaccurate in it that were simply carry-overs from the Tamiya kit if I am not mistaken. This is not however a criticism of his work or the ammount of detail that goes into it. His detailing is quite superb, especially on the LAV.

Rob

I did read every word he wrote there. I'm afraid his research on this particular subject was not as thorough as he suggests.




This really is no place to discuss inaccuracies in his model - take a look at my article about accurizing Tamiya kit here: http://vodnik.net/index_feat.htm and you will realize that almost all inaccuracies of this kit I described there are repeated in Talal's model. You can also check any photos of real Bradley to see that what I wrote in the article is true.

Again: lack of "total accuracy" (if there is such thing...) in this particular Talal's model doesn't change the fact that his models are true masterpieces of modeling and scratchbuilding!

Rgds,
Pawel

Wasn't he the one who returned all of his trophies?


Agreed, he builds an impressive model.

How do you guys define scratchbuilding?

Gunnie

Just my € 0.02 , coming from a guy with no clue about modern armor...

You all talk about these inaccuracies, even though he (Talal) states that he has done some thorough research... this made a few questions pop up within my head..

• Are these differences of such from that they actually alter the performance/capabilities of the vehicle ?
  
• Can these differences not be unit specific, and therefor be alterations made by the workshop of the unit, and not at the factory ?
  
• Are all vehicles built at the same facility or not, and if not so, can it be that the differences might be factory specific ?
  
• Can it be that there have been changes have been made during construction, either to ease construction or to implement things learned from past experience, but have not warranted a change in the designation of the model ? (not unlike the IIRC vision ports of the Tiger I turrets, or the Panzer IV H/J, with its endless discussions about alterations made during production)
  

If these things have happened, actually both might be correct.

Just the thoughts of a guy with no knowledge about modern armor, and a tiny scratch of knowledge about German WW II.

OK,..first of all....there is no doubt that he does wonderful work....I think we can all agree on that.
I have talked to someone that knows him in passing, and he did apparently take quite a fit at that show that he had the Bradley and LAV in and didn't win best in show.

Also, granted alot of the kits are scratch built, but some of the pieces are actually one off manufactured pieces. This guy builds models for the military, this is his profession, he also has access to a $3million computerized milling machine that he can mill out of blocks of styrene/resin in to upper and lower LAV hulls. Use a 3D CAD model of the vehicle, have the computer scale it down, and mill it out of a solid block of styrene/resin.
Would this still be considered scratch building???? Would be a fine line I would think. This is not to say that 75% or more of the parts on there aren't scratchbuilt....but probably not in the same way that most of us would constitute as scratch building.

All of this not withstanding, he still does awesome work.

It has nothing to do with knowledge about modern armor or how real vehicles are constructed, so don't feel bad...

With CAD/CAM and rapid prototyping, the user can take drawings and measurements from an already "inaccurate" source (like say a Tamiya kit for the sake of expedience) and enter them into a computer-controlled Laser Die cutting system. This effectively enlarges the parts and cuts them out neatly for the user to then assemble like any other scale model kit. However, the machine can only perform as well as the information input to it - the programmer's term "garbage in - garbage out". If the enlarged product still bears the inaccuracies of the smaller prototype - what does that say? Is this employment of computers and computer-guided cutting tools "scratchbuilding"?

The second rub in the issue is putting it all together. It still comes down to basic construction techniques and skill in painting, marking, weathering and finishing. The CAD/CAM and Laser Cutter can't do it all for you. The model did not win because it just wasn't assembled nor finished as well as another entry. The builder felt quite differently about it though...

I think a lot of modelers place additional emphasis on "scratchbuilding" without understanding what that really means. I don't feel personally that this was an issue about scope of modeling - as it was an example of kit assembly taken to a larger scale - an extreme if you will.

In a pure evaluation or competition - there shouldn't even be a distinction or handicapped category for "scratchbuilding". The miniature should be put down for the participants and the judges to evaluate on the merit of what's there. Because, in the end, even if you carved your own parts out of the ether - we all still "assemble the kit"...

Gunnie

Guys, how Talal responded to the judges' decision at AMPS East is irrelevant to the discussion and relaly has no place here. I don't know a lot of people who have always responded perfectly to every disappointment.
Accuracy of the build, quality of the finish and overall reaction to the model, along with what is scratchbuilding is what we should be looking at.
Talal has always taken hits because of the machinery to which he has access. I don't think this is fair criticism any more than the person who can'f afford PE and resin upgrades should denigrate the work of the person who has more funds. That Talal has a job that allows him access to the actual vehicles, well, more power to him. He was lucky enough to have the talent to produce excellent models be recognized as such. We are all on a continuum from the oob builder with his first kit to the professional builder/sculptor who also enjoys entering contests.
I don't care if the parts were cut from a sheet of evergreen stock with dull #11 using a grainy black and white magazine photo or from a block of styrene on a milling machine using original blueprints. It's scratchbuilt.

Yes, in some cases, like the use of old type of missile launcher from M2, never actually used on the real M2A2 Bradley. Tamiya made this mistake, because they used parts from their older M2 kit. There was no reason why Talal couldn't have made correct launcher, but he copied Tamiya inaccurate part instead. Similar mistake is the use of old exhaust system from M2 - again Tamiya used parts from their earlier kit and Talal just copied them without making necessary changes.




Those differences are vehicle construction features and are not unit specific. Yes, there is a program of upgrades ("ODS") and some of them are applied on the unit level, but Talal's model shows early pre-ODS variant. Pre-ODS Bradleys were quite standardized.




I think all Bradleys come from the same manufacturer. I have never seen any noticeble differences between various pre-ODS M2A2s.




There are such changes indeed implemented in newest ODS version of M2A2 - while they are all called M2A2ODS they differ significantly. But as I mentioned before, Talal's model is early M2A2 from 1991 and cannot have any of those changes on it.




No, unfortunately it cannot be correct and it isn't. I don't know how thorough Talal's reasearch of M2A2 was (obviously not so much...), but I know how thorough mine was and I tell you that Tamiya made a lot of mistakes in their kit and Talal just repeated most of them.

If you want more details, please read my article.

Regards,
Pawel

well, I guess since I have heard that he has access to plans and other official blueprint type documentation, CAD, and CAM.... scratchbuilding is most anything but that.

Smart arsed answer aside..for me it is when the builder fabricates parts from raw materials by hand.

Mike

yeah....what he said

I am going to agree with Pawel here, these are more than minor things. I will also amend my earlier post to say that Talal answered some questions of mine about the Abrams. This was his first attempt at scratchbuilding, just like the one I am doing in 35th scale is my first attempt. I have had to go back and change things so many times on this that sometimes I want to leave them innacurate cuz no one will know different. However I continue to go back and correct every mistake I find because I am an idiot like that. In 1/16th scale it is a little harder to do that and reference material for some of this stuff was non existant when I started this project a year or more ago. I had to go get my own pictures of the interior of the Abrams, I had to go get my own dimensions, I had to talk to every tanker I could find, and the process is still continuing. I still need some critical information about the area under the turret floor which doesn't exist outside a TM or the actual tank. I can see why there might be shortcomings in Talal's Abrams because he didn't have the access to them like he does now. If he had to go back and change everything like I have had to do twice it would cost a small fortune in styrene. I will say this much, the parts he copied from the Tamiya kit are very accurate to the kit, if not the real tank. This shows me he actually does have a lot of skill that didn't come from a CAD/CAM rapid prototyping system. And be honest with yourself, if you had access to that kind of sytem, would you not use it? I would out of the sheer fun of it. Maybe I wouldn't do everything out of it, but I doubt Talal does it all that way too.

Rob

Just my impressions here and not meant to continue or inflame modelers who disagree:

No one is debating the tools and methods available to build his model. If you've got it - use it! The rub is labeling the effort "scratchbuilt" - and how different modelers perceive what this description actually means.

When George Lee built and entered his Keystone Bomber into IPMS/USA National Competition - it caused quite a stir for many reasons. Despite the many opinions out there - no one questioned that this model was "scratchbuilt". Sure, he had references and plans to guide him along - but no die-cutting machine to fashion his parts. Would he have if he had access to one? Don't know - George isn't alive today to ask. What is apparent is that this modeler fashioned his parts by hand and put them together to the best of his abilities.

Here, it seems there are passionate views about mixing the description "scratchbuilt" with this modeler's miniature. I've spoken to many accomplished modelers who impress me that personal feelings about how the modeler expresses both disappointment when he does not win at the same time as hanging on a laurel about superior research and fidelity to the actual subject in "scratchbuilding" efforts aided by computers and laser-cutting machines is actually the issue - not whether or not the model is "scratchbuilt". It's like the "Cult of Personality" going on inside of AMPS - in that modelers get polarized pro or con in debating whether or not this guy's model is "scratchbuilt" or not and rallying to some "battle cry" in defense or assault.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally, I'm going to spend time modeling and enjoying my personal time away from the really important issues in life and career...

Gunnie

Good points, Jim.