David Thorpe wrote:Good post, Knuckles. I have to say that it largely sums up my own modelling philosophy as well.
DT
Ta Moowch.
Jol Wilkinson wrote:I don't like the effort involved in removing moulded details to replace them with more realistic items. That's why I have only one Ratio LNWR carriage in my stock. Painting and lining complex liveries with handles already fitted makes life more difficult too, for me at least. Brass paint doesn't look much like real brass either. I prefer separate door and commode handles. So a kit with holesfor these (or markers showing where to drill) would be my choice. Commode handles can be made from wire, not too difficult if a folding jig is part of the kit. Door handles are easily made from brass lace pins with a file.
If I one day design coaches a quick email for example could get the handles pulled off the CAD and holes designed in. Is a very simple fix in this example.
If 3D printing is the answer to a maiden's prayer that some believe it is, then why not print the handles for subsequent fitting?
I’ll let Bill answer that as he indeed has…
billbedford wrote:You can't do that. It's to do with the resolution of printers and the fragility of thin sections of resins. The recommended minimum sheet thickness for my printer is 0.4mm, which is about double what is needed for stand-alone door handles.
I mean, you could do it if you were lucky, but it’d be like giving a bear a few eggs and telling it to climb a tree without breaking them.
This is reminiscent of the early days of etched kits where some designers tried to etch nearly everything. If you are designing kits it is important to recognise that multi material or composite kits attract the more experienced modeller, while "simple" kits aimed at beginners may not do so if there is too much work needed to uplift them and alternatives are available.
I’d agree multi media is good but it depends what is being designed, it also depends on a designer’s skill set. I for example have 3D design and printing but haven’t yet figured a way I can draw suitable 2D files for etching….as backwards as that sounds. Most of my own stuff is designed more for beginners because, lets be honest, most things are too daunting for a lot of n00bs and a lot of them are scared of soldering or just don’t want to….or haven’t got the time and want something quicker, or……yeah, can’t please everyone. But what is 3D printed can be re-modelled or re-detailed to look more how you would want anyway.
essdee wrote:I'm firmly with Gavin - a well-thought and presented viewpoint. And, at rising-65 here, ever more relevant. The two/three-foot viewing rule is a very sensible guide for the layout builder, as opposed to the 'showcase fiend' (which is me, too, on a bad day).
---snipped content---
Leaving off handles certainly eases the task for the 'super-detailer' - remember that term of yore? But will deter the newcomer/less experienced/more time-pressed. I suspect the latter category represents a bigger market?
Gavin has now (dammit) placed the temptation of some lovely FR models, as a sideline, within my reach in terms of timescale required. In this latest development, I would agree with Gavin and Bill - yes please, gents, with moulded handles.
Steve
Thanks, not much else to add but I agree.
LesGros wrote:An interesting debate; with much to agree with on both sides.
Better modellers than I, have written; that in a display layout it is more important to be consistent in the degree of scale veracity across the layout, than having a perfect Fine scale loco sitting in a medium scale landscape. Such inconsistency jars, to the detriment of the intended illusion.
Knuckles has a bespoke-ish market niche, with the equipment, skill, and ability to meet his customers' level of requirements; including decisions about practical levels of detail.
Thank you for sharing Knuckles.
No probs, and thanks for the thumbs up. I’d agree about consistent standard of finish, but side tracking a wee the biggest visual jar for me is the out of control plague of sodding Metcalf kits on 75% of non finescale layouts out there….baaah! Kill ‘em! Fed up of seeing ‘Metcalfeville’ everywhere. Can sniff them out 4 layouts away at a show, too damn obvious. Sorry if that erks someone but someone’s gotta say it.
billbedford wrote: Oh, and the market is not for 'simple kits for beginners' it is really for sophisticated kits for people who have realized that life to too short to get their magnum opus layout finished with the standard 1000 piece three-dimensional jigsaw puzzles that pass for 'state of the art' kits.
I agree largely here too although it is important to realize there are different markets, wants and needs out there. There is nothing wrong with kits that have loads of pieces as in some ways for some kits it may be necessary or the best option and there are those who prefer to build these type of kits as they are found to be more fun for them or provide more build options.
For me though, minimum amount of parts is the best as long as the result is good, plus I don’t enjoy every build. With railway modelling there are so many different disciplines and it’s mad to think everyone enjoys all aspects of them, good for those rare few though. Anyway, time is ticking, I have a LOT to build, no 1000 piece puzzles for me, I'm with Bill here...