Hosted by Darren Baker
Sturmtiger
Rforand
Joined: July 14, 2013
KitMaker: 108 posts
Armorama: 89 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 23, 2017 - 07:33 AM UTC
About 3 months ago I think t was Takom announced a new sturmtiger with interior.As anybody heard anymore on this
Precious_rob
Joined: March 09, 2009
KitMaker: 206 posts
Armorama: 183 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 23, 2017 - 07:46 AM UTC
Rforand
Joined: July 14, 2013
KitMaker: 108 posts
Armorama: 89 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 23, 2017 - 08:20 AM UTC
Ok thanks any idea if it is still coming out
Precious_rob
Joined: March 09, 2009
KitMaker: 206 posts
Armorama: 183 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 23, 2017 - 08:28 AM UTC
As far as i know, yes, they posted some CAD images of it in September on their Facebook page, no idea on the release date though
Vierville
Joined: April 05, 2014
KitMaker: 384 posts
Armorama: 372 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 23, 2017 - 04:05 PM UTC
It should be worth the wait...Rye Field are making some cracking Tiger tanks so this one,I'm sure, will be no exception! I have the Tiger 1 'Gruppe Fehrmann' and Bergepanzer kits and they are lovely! Detail to rival and in some respects surpass even Dragon.
I am particularly grateful that they have chosen to include individual link tracks in their kits and not 'rubber band' type ones.
The Sturmtiger should be another outstanding release!
I am particularly grateful that they have chosen to include individual link tracks in their kits and not 'rubber band' type ones.
The Sturmtiger should be another outstanding release!
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 23, 2017 - 07:39 PM UTC
Where do you think they surpass Dragon?
David
David
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 03:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Where do you think they surpass Dragon?
David
Kit price, for one. Seeing Dragon's retread kits, or a "new" version with a couple extra parts tossed in, selling for $70+ gets old pretty fast. Secondly, RFM's details are good. Dragon kits require certain modifications on the part of the modeler, as indicated on your website, in order to get the correct features of a particular version. I, for one, prefer to do this on a kit that's 20-30 bucks cheaper than a Dragon offering. Besides, if one has previously purchased Dragon Tigers, there always are a multitude of unused parts for the spares bin which can pretty much interchange with the equivalent RFM parts with little or no fitting required.
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 03:53 AM UTC
Thank you, but really, he said "detail" which is not "price".
Most of the Rye Field kits that I've been qualified to speak about, do require a list of modifications; but these are usually needed for accuracy, due to bad research on Rye Field's part, and that's different to changes deliberately requested in the instructions.
Still, I'd like to see examples of what Mr. Thomson mentioned; details on a Rye Field Tiger that surpass the corresponding details on a Dragon Tiger.
David
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 05:41 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thank you, but really, he said "detail" which is not "price".
Most of the Rye Field kits that I've been qualified to speak about, do require a list of modifications; but these are usually needed for accuracy, due to bad research on Rye Field's part, and that's different to changes deliberately requested in the instructions.
Still, I'd like to see examples of what Mr. Thomson mentioned; details on a Rye Field Tiger that surpass the corresponding details on a Dragon Tiger.
David
I wasn't referring to the optional "A", "B" or "C" mods in the instruction sheets. I was specifically referring to the corrections you indicate as required to render an accurate version of each Dragon (and other manufacturers') kit listed.
O.K., how about the tracks RFM provides? RFM's are far better and more detailed than presently available from Dragon.
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 08:08 AM UTC
brekinapez
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 09:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Thank you, but really, he said "detail" which is not "price".
Most of the Rye Field kits that I've been qualified to speak about, do require a list of modifications; but these are usually needed for accuracy, due to bad research on Rye Field's part, and that's different to changes deliberately requested in the instructions.
Still, I'd like to see examples of what Mr. Thomson mentioned; details on a Rye Field Tiger that surpass the corresponding details on a Dragon Tiger.
David
I wasn't referring to the optional "A", "B" or "C" mods in the instruction sheets. I was specifically referring to the corrections you indicate as required to render an accurate version of each Dragon (and other manufacturers') kit listed.
O.K., how about the tracks RFM provides? RFM's are far better and more detailed than presently available from Dragon.
The OP mentions the tracks himself as a separate article, so in my estimation you must answer David with a separate item evidencing better detail than the equivalent Dragon part, or you are simply offering up the same example which is a non-starter since you can say the same about Tamiya tracks and that doesn't hurt their sales. Inclusion of an interior likewise does not count, as that is simply more detail, not better.
Also, your choice to do modifications on a cheaper model does not imply better detail but rather a similar lack of detail that you opt to address by spending less up front. And your admission that Dragon parts can be used to dress up an RFM kit as they are close in fit completely demolishes your argument in favor of RFM having better detail.
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 09:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The OP mentions the tracks himself as a separate article, so in my estimation you must answer David with a separate item evidencing better detail than the equivalent Dragon part. Inclusion of an interior likewise does not count, as that is simply more detail, not better.
Also, your choice to do modifications on a cheaper model does not imply better detail but rather a similar lack of detail that you opt to address by spending less up front. And your admission that Dragon parts can be used to dress up an RFM kit as they are close in fit completely demolishes your argument in favor of RFM having better detail.
My choice is based on the fact that I would prefer to FUBAR a $35-50 kit as opposed to one which cost $70+. What's wrong with that? Also, the detail on the RFM kits doesn't have to surpass any found on Dragon kits. Equalling them is sufficient; and there are numerous areas where this is the case. Sprockets, wheels, suspension parts, hull roof details, etc. are equal to Dragon. Also, pointing out that some, but not all, Dragon parts are interchangeable with those in the RFM kit only means that I have more options when modding a Tiger. Conversely, I can also use RFM parts on a Dragon Tiger if the need arises. None of this takes away from my argument.
As far as lack of certain details, Dragon Tigers have their share of these. I've had to rework details on Dragon Tigers in order to match references and the list of corrections found on David's site. If Dragon Tigers were perfect, there wouldn't be any need for David to list the faults and corrections required, would there?
brekinapez
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 11:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
None of this takes away from my argument.
And yet none of it answers David's question:
Where does the detail surpass that of Dragon?
Equaling is not sufficient when one makes the claim of surpassing.
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 01:24 PM UTC
Well one thing for sure-- the Rye Field Sturmtiger will definitely surpass the detail in Dragon's Sturmtiger. 
VR, Russ
VR, Russ
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 02:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
O.K., how about the tracks RFM provides? RFM's are far better and more detailed than presently available from Dragon.
Yes, that's true. That's exactly what I want to hear about.
David
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 02:25 PM UTC
Quoted Text
https://www.google.com/search?q=let+the+nerd+rage&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS770US770&hl=en-US&prmd=vin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnyNam39jXAhXIzIMKHWstCpkQ_AUIEygC&biw=375&bih=591#imgrc=S7wW2-wKoEAQLM:
Dan, Armorama is a forum about tank models.
But you're not talking about tank models. You're talking about how "nerdy" we are. (Well, what a surprise!)
I suggest that you leave this place, start a Web forum of your own, and call it LAUGHINGATNERDS.COM
That way, your posts will be seen by people who want to see them.
David
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 02:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
the detail on the RFM kits doesn't have to surpass any found on Dragon kits
Did you read the thread? Here's a summary:
Mike said "Detail to rival and in some respects surpass... Dragon"
I asked for examples of surpassing.
And now you're saying they don't HAVE to surpass... ? It's like you have different criteria or you didn't start at the top of the thread.
David
p.s. I'll explain why I think this question is worth answering.
Dragon Tigers have a lot of input from people who have been inside actual Tigers, have measured them, and/or have German diagrams.
I've never seen any evidence that Rye Field are that close to the real thing. They apparently modelled two Tiger interiors without having any person get into a Tiger on their behalf. (correct me if I'm wrong)
When they stray away from territory that other makers have already covered, they make mistakes. (the special "503" bin with its deep weld seams, the "mid" interior with so many errors)
So I get a "derivative" vibe from them, and it would be really interesting to see if they can be the leader in some respect.
ChrisK89
Joined: June 04, 2015
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 73 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 04:23 PM UTC
It's pretty obvious where Rye Field Tigers surpass the Dragon ones... tool clasps, towing ropes, clear parts (NOT included in rerelease of 6253), wing nuts. All things the Dragon offering is lacking on detailwise.
And pls don't use the 10years+ old Dragon kits as an excuse in which PE was included. It isn't anymore and you can't get your hands on the old ones or just for prices that doubles the RFM ones.
It is as it is.. detail is better, accuracy not.
And pls don't use the 10years+ old Dragon kits as an excuse in which PE was included. It isn't anymore and you can't get your hands on the old ones or just for prices that doubles the RFM ones.
It is as it is.. detail is better, accuracy not.
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 04:25 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Texthttps://www.google.com/search?q=let+the+nerd+rage&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS770US770&hl=en-US&prmd=vin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnyNam39jXAhXIzIMKHWstCpkQ_AUIEygC&biw=375&bih=591#imgrc=S7wW2-wKoEAQLM:
Dan, Armorama is a forum about tank models.
But you're not talking about tank models. You're talking about how "nerdy" we are. (Well, what a surprise!)
I suggest that you leave this place, start a Web forum of your own, and call it LAUGHINGATNERDS.COM
That way, your posts will be seen by people who want to see them.
David
Hahahahah
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 05:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
clear parts (NOT included in rerelease of 6253)
Of all the Dragon Tigers, you pick the worst one and compare it to the average Rye Field Tiger?
It's true that Dragon have released some low quality Tigers but let's compare best to best, or typical to typical.
David
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 05:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
the Rye Field Sturmtiger will definitely surpass the detail in Dragon's Sturmtiger.
Picking the nonexistent one is no more valid than picking the worst one!
David
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 06:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
the Rye Field Sturmtiger will definitely surpass the detail in Dragon's Sturmtiger.
Picking the nonexistent one is no more valid than picking the worst one!
David
The reason there is no Dragon Sturmtiger to compare is that Dragon is complacent in a Tamiya-like manner when it comes to releasing what can be likened to Ford Model T's---you can get it any way you want as long as it's black. There doesn't seem to be any desire/incentive to tool up interesting sub-variants, just the same Early, Late Early, Early Mid, Mid Mid, Late Mid, with or without zimmerit, Early Late Mid w/Mike Wittmann and the gang, etc. Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, sub-variants really do upset us if they're not Pz III's or Iv's. At least RFM is attempting to add something new to the mix. It can't be any worse than the Tamiya version.
ChrisK89
Joined: June 04, 2015
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 73 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 06:41 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
clear parts (NOT included in rerelease of 6253)
Of all the Dragon Tigers, you pick the worst one and compare it to the average Rye Field Tiger?
It's true that Dragon have released some low quality Tigers but let's compare best to best, or typical to typical.
David
Yeah true.. the clear parts fail is only in this kit BUT do the other newer kits have PE clamps/clasps like the RFMs? Do they have metal tow cable? Or wingnuts on the sprues? No they don't and that whats makes the RFM Tiger a better detailed one. Not to mention the DS tracks crap.
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 09:44 PM UTC
Quoted Text
At least RFM is attempting to add something new to the mix. It can't be any worse than the Tamiya version.
Spot the self-contradiction !
David
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 24, 2017 - 09:46 PM UTC
Quoted Text
do the other newer kits have PE clamps/clasps like the RFMs? Do they have metal tow cable? Or wingnuts on the sprues? No they don't and that whats makes the RFM Tiger a better detailed one.
Really? Because "made of metal" is not the same thing as "detailed".
I'll take a look at the parts that you mentioned. Thank you.
David
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.