PDA

View Full Version : Hey, all scale model builders! U think your good? Check this...



tigertalon
06-20-2006, 04:41 PM
F/A-18, 1:32, academy:

http://www.carrierbuilders.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=623&st=0

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Smileys/surprise.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
06-20-2006, 04:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

danjama
06-20-2006, 04:53 PM
That is impressive.

Bearcat99
06-20-2006, 05:19 PM
D@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@mn.................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Now that is some modeling....

JG52Uther
06-20-2006, 05:31 PM
Fantastic

ChwyNiblet
06-20-2006, 05:39 PM
Wow...thats amazing. I mean, the first picture looks extremely life-like. Wow, hats off to that model builder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Waldo.Pepper
06-20-2006, 05:51 PM
No prop! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Still - jaw dropping.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 06:22 PM
That is a phenom diorama, but, it is not 1:32. That figure could not be 1:32. If I'm wrong, I'll do the Roman thing and throw myself on my X-Acto knife.

TC_Stele
06-20-2006, 09:47 PM
That's awesome. I could see some of that for WW2 era for sure.

DHC2Pilot
06-20-2006, 10:02 PM
That is just SICK!! I've seen some incredible diarama's before, but nothing even approaching this!

Enforcer572005
06-20-2006, 10:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif Im going to take all my old models outside and use them as skeet targets.

The sailor in camo working on the F18....now i dont see how it could be 1/32, but if this guy can do all that other stuff, Ive no problem believing he could do this to.

Im impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Foo.bar
06-20-2006, 11:10 PM
Very nice model and diorama. But the figure isn't a model, no chance. Looks like a PS-job, shadow doesn't fit and grade of details is way to high for a 1:32 model.

But the rest is superb! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Badsight-
06-21-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif Im going to take all my old models outside and use them as skeet targets. i feel exactly the same way - simply cannot begin to compete with that level of detail . regardless any PS use , its impressive

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 12:08 AM
Agree Foo.bar---either another depradation of unholy Photo Shop, or that is a 1:6 scale "action figure" and that is the mother of all Hornet models. No denying it is remarkably clever but I do not buy that is Academy's 1:32 Hornet. I fault the builder for disingenuousness. Isn't it enough to make a fantastic model and diorama?

badatflyski
06-21-2006, 02:45 AM
yeah nice one, welcome to france!(and no totoshop on this one!) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

if you wanna see the hole building of it:

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=96252

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=125517

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 04:22 AM
If that kneeling figure is 1:32 scale, I'm Charles de Gaulle!

I450IVex
06-21-2006, 05:37 AM
bloody hell, he mustn't have a wife... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

joeap
06-21-2006, 06:01 AM
No comment however it was done... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

-HH- Beebop
06-21-2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Agree Foo.bar---either another depradation of unholy Photo Shop, or that is a 1:6 scale "action figure" and that is the mother of all Hornet models. No denying it is remarkably clever but I do not buy that is Academy's 1:32 Hornet. I fault the builder for disingenuousness. Isn't it enough to make a fantastic model and diorama?
Well nothing says 1:32 better to me than this-
http://www.ifrance.com/F15E-KIT/ddoit46.jpg

I used to do 1:24 car models as a kid and became quite good at it, winning several 1st and 2nd place prizes in local contests. I thought I had seen some good models before, but this guy is just bloody amazing!

Worf101
06-21-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
If that kneeling figure is 1:32 scale, I'm Charles de Gaulle!

Nice ta meet ya Chuck...

(Sorry couldn't resist)

Da Worfster

HayateAce
06-21-2006, 11:19 AM
Mostly real DIO, PhotoChop Figures. Look at the poor shadow work. And we are only allowed to see this figure from a single perspective/angle.

http://jetblast.ifrance.com/repare-ejectable.jpg

LEBillfish
06-21-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
yeah nice one, welcome to france!(and no totoshop on this one!) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

if you wanna see the hole building of it:

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=96252

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=125517

Nice link......1/100 of the detail in this thing never to be seen....What's even more interesting is the research and personal notes made on how to build it......In the end such efforts would truly make someone an expert without question. Amazing what patience, and a little effort can accomplish.

As to those desperately seeking to find flaw, I'd be more impressed by comments coupled with your work to one up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 12:48 PM
Silly poodle!

Capt.England
06-21-2006, 01:22 PM
Nice model, shame about the photo shop man! look at his knee that appears to me to block out part of the chair. He looks real life to me, not a model.

AVGWarhawk
06-21-2006, 02:05 PM
Not to mention the figure has in his right hand looks to be a wired remote to flash the camera. Notice the wire disappears into thin air. Definitely a chopped and cropped photo. This is a real person for sure.

luftluuver
06-21-2006, 03:17 PM
Notice how heavy and stiff the clothing is. You only get that with miniatures. Real life clothing is more droopy.

BTW, 1/32 scale miniatures are available.

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 03:44 PM
I've been a plastic, resin, vac-form, and paper modeler for 49 years, and, let me assure you, there is no 1:32 scale figure in creation which could carry all that detail regardless of medium and the modeler's skill. I support the real person theory. Actually, the rigidity of the clothing reminded me of 1:6 scale "action figures," but now they remind me more of freshly cleaned and ironed clothes (which would be typical for U.S. Navy).

I_KG100_Prien
06-21-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I've been a plastic, resin, vac-form, and paper modeler for 49 years, and, let me assure you, there is no 1:32 scale figure in creation which could carry all that detail regardless of medium and the modeler's skill. I support the real person theory. Actually, the rigidity of the clothing reminded me of 1:6 scale "action figures," but now they remind me more of freshly cleaned and ironed clothes (which would be typical for U.S. Navy).

There isn't anything ironed or clean about flight deck attire. Sure, they get run through the laundry from time to time.. Sailors have priority and ironing a set of BDU's worn soley for dirty work is not one of them :P

tigertalon
06-21-2006, 04:40 PM
90% with leitmotiv here. Max. scale I was building was 1:48, however IMO there is no way of building a figure like this in 1:32 scale. Also check the lightning of objects. All object on photo seem to be illuminated by a diffuse light with majority of light coming vertically, from lights on the ceiling, only the figure gets more light from his back side (judging by reflections on his helmet, earphones, illumination of clothes...). In this case upper part of seat - headsupport should be brighter on vertical surfaces facing left.

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 05:01 PM
One of my friends is a competition-level 1:35 scale figure modeler who can do mind-boggling things with paint and bits of aluminum foil or whatever---but this! Good Lord, look at those sleeves! We are supposed to believe all that is on a figure which would be 2.5" tall standing up?! I'm stunned at this guy's audacity. If he were honest, he should get full marks for a brilliant blend of modeling and photo manipulation, but, apparently, snookering people is important to him, too. Pathetic charade.

Arkasha_1960
06-21-2006, 06:41 PM
I have also been a hobbyist for many years, and I have to say I am suspicious about that figure. I would like to see the original, if it exists, because I want to see how a sculptor managed that level of detail in 1/32.

Pirschjaeger
06-21-2006, 07:05 PM
I believe the plane is a model but everything else, the figures, toolbox, those are real.

-HH- Beebop
06-21-2006, 07:16 PM
I can't believe it. Oh yes I can.
Here we have one of the most incredible models/dioramas I've ever seen and some of you want to carp about the figures. Pulleeze! They may not be 1:32 figures, they may well be "Photshopped" and what we get instead of a bunch of "Great Job!"/"Looks very real!"/"What talent!" is a bunch of folks who just want to find fault, any fault, in what otherwise is a superb effort. Like his putting in "photshopped" elements takes away from the obvious skill he has.

Sheesh! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I'm with Billfish.

As to those desperately seeking to find flaw, I'd be more impressed by comments coupled with your work to one up

VFA-25_Cobain
06-21-2006, 07:21 PM
That is AWESOME.

I used to be in the virtual VFA-25... so that sparks other interests, as well...

S!, thanks for sharing.

JG52_Helgstrand
06-21-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
There isn't anything ironed or clean about flight deck attire.

That's true on the boat, but this is on land.
Why is the guy wearing a 'float coat'? Also only worn on the boat. No water to fall in where he is...LOL

It's definately a real pic of someome aboard ship. Looks more like Marines than Navy too.

When I was in the Navy we never wore camo's. Aboard ship it was plain greens, on land blue coveralls over dungaree uniform. Jackets were also plain green, not cammo. Maybe things have changed?

Still nice model though, even though I wonder now what else is photoshoped...

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 09:40 PM
I can't admire an effort that pretends to be what it is not. I haven't gotten to the point I enjoy shams. Again, if he had made clear it was a combined modeling/photo manipulation project, I would have seen some merit in the effort (but not much), but he tried to pass off an object which clearly had many Photo Shop'ed elements as an image of a 1:32 model diorama---which it isn't. Fraud is fraud and it demeans the real hobby aces who would never resort to such sleight of hand. Imagine your sentiments to find out a person who had been racking up an incredible record playing IL-2 online had done it by hacking the program to give themself invulnerability? I have to wonder how enhanced the images of the airplane model are. Here is an example of something done with integrity and no image manipulation (1:35 scale). Note the difference between real figures in the 1:32-35 scale range and the manipulated images:

http://tinyurl.com/o7zww

-HH- Beebop
06-21-2006, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I can't admire an effort that pretends to be what it is not. I haven't gotten to the point I enjoy shams.
And the sham is what....it's not really a model?

Again, if he had made clear it was a combined modeling/photo manipulation project, I would have seen some merit in the effort (but not much),
Perhaps he was trying to give it an element of better beliveability. Personally I can't fault him for that. Too bad you don't see merit in the rest of the work. I certainly do.

...but he tried to pass off an object which clearly had many Photo Shop'ed elements as an image of a 1:32 model diorama---which it isn't.
Really? How many? Outside of the one figure, I don't see anything "obviously" Photoshopped. He only said the kit was 1:32.

Fraud is fraud and it demeans the real hobby aces who would never resort to such sleight of hand.
Hmmm. I thought the whole point of a diorama was to make the most realistic model and setting possible. So your saying if someone looks at a diorama that is done very well, such as this one, and thinks, even for a minute that it's real the modelmaker used "sleight of hand"? In my opinion he used ingenuity and creativity.

Imagine your sentiments to find out a person who had been racking up an incredible record playing IL-2 online had done it by hacking the program to give themself invulnerability?
Which is why I carefully choose who I fly with online. Even if I found that out I would feel pity for that person because felt they had to resort to those kind of tactics instead of being honest.

I have to wonder how enhanced the images of the airplane model are.
What a cynic.

LEBillfish
06-21-2006, 11:27 PM
Did you guys even go through the 65 page link to make the plane itself?..........

The plane and it's realism is the point of this.....The research and notes alone invaluable. Who gives a ratz azz about the rest....Look at what went into the plane 90% of it to never be seen again....

Then realize how petty the whining you're doing is................Sounds like green faced jealousy to me.

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 11:31 PM
We recently saw some girl at Harvard flagrantly plagiarize whole sections of a novel she ostensibly wrote---a novel which was celebrated by some, and which had been published much to her profit. Some think we have no need of standards. On this matter I disagree. This is F/A-18 project is film studio work. It is not classic modeling, and I think there needs to be a distinction.

As for reducing the matter to base envy, that shows an understanding of the matters of life as deep as a petri dish.

LEBillfish
06-21-2006, 11:46 PM
Kewl........post your best, would love to see http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 12:03 AM
My brilliance as a modeler, or lack of, is completely irrelevant---like saying one has to build a real airplane to identify it in a photo. Won't fall for that old red herring. When I'm bloated with pride and post some image of a new model on this website---let fly!

LEBillfish
06-22-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
My brilliance as a modeler, or lack of, is completely irrelevant---like saying one has to build a real airplane to identify it in a photo. Won't fall for that old red herring. When I'm bloated with pride and post some image of a new model on this website---let fly!

Has anyone even thought to go to the threads on the website and ask?...........May sound goofy, but why not find out what the intent was before passing judgement.

BTW......The pics come from a website unrelated to the builder......He may have originally advertised his work as "X"....not "Y".

micksaf
06-22-2006, 01:03 AM
you've got 64 pages here if you want to convince yourself this (crazy Frenchie) guy ain't a hoax ...

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=125517

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 01:39 AM
I freely confess to having misread a caption and did not note he declared only the airplane model to be 1:32---thus, there was no claim the entire diorama was constituted of 1:32 parts, thus, I am throwing myself on my X-Acto knife like a good (Roman) sport. Clearly the model of the F/A-18 is genuine from the stupendous documentation of his sketches and build photos. It is truly an epic production and absolutely genuine nose to tail. I am sick with envy. He is clearly a swine...

badatflyski
06-22-2006, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Mostly real DIO, PhotoChop Figures. Look at the poor shadow work. And we are only allowed to see this figure from a single perspective/angle.

http://jetblast.ifrance.com/repare-ejectable.jpg

Lool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif... look at the ceilling, there are also spotlights, that's why you get a "vertical" small shadow. And no the toolbox is not a real photoshopped or not is the cocke light-can!
BTW, he needed about 2years and a half to complete the plane and the diorama! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Arkasha_1960
06-22-2006, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Did you guys even go through the 65 page link to make the plane itself?..........

The plane and it's realism is the point of this.....The research and notes alone invaluable. Who gives a ratz azz about the rest....Look at what went into the plane 90% of it to never be seen again....

Then realize how petty the whining you're doing is................Sounds like green faced jealousy to me.

I do not wish to argue with you, but I'm afraid you're completely wrong on this issue. If you were a scale modeler, perhaps you would understand better, but I will try and encapsulate the argument for you:

One goal of scale modelling is (among other things) to create as realistic an approximation as possible of "real life." That is why there exists extensive reference works, techniques for painting, assmembling, weathering, etc. But implied in the whole exercise is the notion that you're dealing with models and their limitations. That way, everyone starts out from the same point, as it were, and skill leads to different results.

For example, follow this link to some 1/35 figures:

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/figures/tristar/tri35011f.htm

It shows both the original and the final results in the hands of a skilled painter. If you were willing and able to put in the time and effort, you could probably paint these figures extremely well. So well they perhaps look real. This possibility is open to just about anyone willing to do the work.

However, how would you feel about it if instead of showing you the results of my painting and assembling efforts, I photographed some actual people in the same pose, with the same uniforms, and photoshopped the results into a diorama?

THAT'S what people are objecting to, I think. The results are simply not possible *to anyone* using a 1/35 figure, and the PS job implies they are. By the way, this diorama has made the rounds at several modelling websites, and many *many* people have been fooled by the figures, thinking they were extraordinarily well painted.

But they weren't, were they?

I personally don't think the modeller meant to fool anyone. However, I can also see why people object to what they call a "sham." It has *nothing* to do with "jealousy," and more to do with what people consider to be appropriate in modelling -- which is basically that what is displayed should either be some kind of model, or, (and this considered totally OK), a photographic scene as a *background* to the diorama. It's not real, but everyone knows it's not real, so it's OK.

Grue_
06-22-2006, 07:03 AM
That isn't a model! That's Joachim Phoenix! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The plane is amazing. I can't imagine how much patience you'd need to make that.

LEBillfish
06-22-2006, 07:19 AM
Arkasha_1960.............What did the original builder state the pictures were of?......As I have also seen photographs of diorama's where in a photographic card "background" was used, the photo cropped to hide the edges of the card, and it presented and accepted....

Point blank....what did the builder present it as?......What is it really not all the wild speculation?......and lastly do not fixate on just the part you find flawed, as the plane itself is stunning.

Frankly, a response where all the plusses of a job done are ignorred, yet the poster simply looking for flaws tells me one thing......They have not the grace to give credit where due simply hoping to tear the work down........To their own mediocre level.

That's pretty pathetic......You might want to discover the facts of these photo's before you continue with your ravings.

KOM.Nausicaa
06-22-2006, 08:44 AM
I think the mecano is real. Btw, you can see what looks like the screwdriver he is holding in another picture. The toolbox looks for sure like a model to me. See how the lines of the box are not exactly parallel.

If he can build and paint that seat and those wheels like he did, he can do so with the mecano.

More pics of this plane from the french website:

http://www.ifrance.com/jetblast/cok-cote-ba6.jpg

http://www.ifrance.com/jetblast/moteur-chariot5.jpg

http://www.ifrance.com/jetblast/mot-sorti-axe16.jpg

http://www.ifrance.com/jetblast/trap-complet-desou17.jpg

I_KG100_Prien
06-22-2006, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by JG52_Helgstrand:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
There isn't anything ironed or clean about flight deck attire.

That's true on the boat, but this is on land.
Why is the guy wearing a 'float coat'? Also only worn on the boat. No water to fall in where he is...LOL

It's definately a real pic of someome aboard ship. Looks more like Marines than Navy too.

When I was in the Navy we never wore camo's. Aboard ship it was plain greens, on land blue coveralls over dungaree uniform. Jackets were also plain green, not cammo. Maybe things have changed?

Still nice model though, even though I wonder now what else is photoshoped... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wear camo's to work every day (Navy).. But when I was a ship-squid coveralls or utilities(dungarees) were the order of the day.

However, lots of flight deck crew on Carriers wear BDU's these days. Good functional uniforms geared towards doing dirty work.

All that aside,(This is not directed at the person I quoted, just advancing my response further) it should be obvious to anybody with at least a semi-functional brain that the mechanic is by no means a figure, and it's a cropped in image of a real human being. I picked up on the the first time I looked at it.

It IS sad that some folks here are bearing torches because someone used photoshop or whatever to enhance a photo-diorama of a model that obviously has a LOT of T-L-C put into it.

Who gives a rats hairy a-s-s about some idiot copping off a book at Harvard University.. It has absolutly nothing to do with that nicely done model.

Just live with the fact that you're a jealous arse hat and carry on stupidly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Eagle_361st
06-22-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52_Helgstrand:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
There isn't anything ironed or clean about flight deck attire.

That's true on the boat, but this is on land.
Why is the guy wearing a 'float coat'? Also only worn on the boat. No water to fall in where he is...LOL

It's definately a real pic of someome aboard ship. Looks more like Marines than Navy too.

When I was in the Navy we never wore camo's. Aboard ship it was plain greens, on land blue coveralls over dungaree uniform. Jackets were also plain green, not cammo. Maybe things have changed?

Still nice model though, even though I wonder now what else is photoshoped... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wear camo's to work every day (Navy).. But when I was a ship-squid coveralls or utilities(dungarees) were the order of the day.

However, lots of flight deck crew on Carriers wear BDU's these days. Good functional uniforms geared towards doing dirty work.

All that aside,(This is not directed at the person I quoted, just advancing my response further) it should be obvious to anybody with at least a semi-functional brain that the mechanic is by no means a figure, and it's a cropped in image of a real human being. I picked up on the the first time I looked at it.

It IS sad that some folks here are bearing torches because someone used photoshop or whatever to enhance a photo-diorama of a model that obviously has a LOT of T-L-C put into it.

Who gives a rats hairy a-s-s about some idiot copping off a book at Harvard University.. It has absolutly nothing to do with that nicely done model.

Just live with the fact that you're a jealous arse hat and carry on stupidly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 300%. The modeller never at any time stated that those figures were anything more than part of the story he was trying to tell. He is amazing and the amount of detail is staggering. Give him the kudos he deserves for the 2.5 years he invested in the project and for his creativity to make a story along with it. Sheesh some people just have nothing better to do than nitpick when they themselves could never in a million years do anything of the sort.

Heavy_Weather
06-22-2006, 12:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Stackhouse25th
06-22-2006, 12:38 PM
VFA-25, whatda know. my old virtual sqdn. neato. i have quite a few patches and a model.

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 04:34 PM
First he did an excellent airplane model. Much of the rest is studio modeling. This used to be solely the province of modelers for films. I can see with software like Photo Shop this is likely to be the wave of the future for some modelers. The gold standard in modeling is and always will be the model as it is, not as it photographs. Real modelers will always be wary of studio modeling.

Rattler68
06-23-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
That is a phenom diorama, but, it is not 1:32. That figure could not be 1:32. If I'm wrong, I'll do the Roman thing and throw myself on my X-Acto knife.
You guys may be experten in the sim, but certainly not in modelling. You'd be amazed (and should be!) a the level of skill some people have! Don't knock it unless you can verify it!

Pirschjaeger
06-23-2006, 11:51 AM
Very strange thread.

I haven't bothered to read the whole thing but it seems to me that the presentation is the root of the problem.

Some mistook the complete pic as being the complete model. Some pointed out that only the model is a model and the rest is photoshopped. From there the thread has spiralled downward.

Got popcorn? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lbhskier37
06-23-2006, 01:42 PM
Those hooks on the chain hoists are ****http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif First thing I noticed as I work for a company that makes cranes. The rest looks incredible.

JG52_Helgstrand
06-23-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
I wear camo's to work every day (Navy).. But when I was a ship-squid coveralls or utilities(dungarees) were the order of the day.

Fair enough, I guess things have changed.
Were your camo's issued or did you purchase them yourself? We had plain green BDU's issued to us. On land we weren't allowed to wear anything but dungarees and blue coveralls.

Not doubting you just interestedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW I don't see anything wrong with a little nit-picking. People nit-pick my skins all the time, do I care no. I take it as constructive criticism.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I'd rather ppl nit-pick than blow smoke up my ***. I can choose to ignore it, or act on it.

jarink
06-23-2006, 08:35 PM
As an ex-modler (who has time anymore? Besides, 2 little kids and 3 cats virtually prohibit modelling around my house...), I'd say this is a first-class diorama and kit. The amount of detail he shows in the checksix forum illustrates how much effort he made into making this as realistic as possible.

I am mildly disappointed in the photoshopped mechanic, but that's small beans. It takes nothing away from the rest of the kit.

If you really want to argue about it ruining the credibility of the model, then I'd suggest you go to an IPMS (International Plastic Modeler's Society) convention. Seeing models and dioramas like this in person is the only true way to appreciate them.

Feathered_IV
06-24-2006, 05:52 AM
Real nice work!

I worked 15 years full time as a modelmaker (not any more though - Thank God http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Certainly some parts are 'shopped in, but a great result nonetheless.

Well done I say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

heywooood
06-24-2006, 09:44 AM
it is a fantastic model! and too bad the presentation wasn't spelled out here...although it may have been originally, and left out when the image was captured for further internet consumption.

Presentation can be as challenging, if not more so, than the actual model...and this one in multimedia is very well executed.

Here is a level of skill to aspire to...but I fear it is the artists talent that makes the difference.