GPM reprints esp. Panther 040

[SJPONeill]

Originally Posted by Tim Crowe

Am I the only person that doesn't bother translating instructions?

Tim

Nope but I think that it does depend on the model - I can follow the graphic assembly instructions OK but I have had to resort to translation when trying to work out optional parts which are not covered on the graphics and sometimes not even in the written text (but you have to translate to know that). A good build thread with pics in any language is always a good aid.

[Willja67]

I know this is primarily about afv but if you ever consider going over to aviation stay away from the GPM F8F bearcat. There was a fairly noticeable fit issue in the fuselage just aft of the cockpit and trying to figure out how to build the gear down version was a pain. The fit issues were not beyond my ability to deal with but ultimately soured me toward the model and I chucked it uncompleted. I was surprised that a newer GPM kit would have problem like that.

[medved]

@Clashster - this is what I mean about needing a sliding scale - I just don't know enough to accurately make these calls
@Willja67 - thanks, thats the kind of info I need - I like the curvy gals of the 40's when it comes to aircraft far more than their modern jet descendants

I have seen that there are different levels of complexity within each range, it's just the general sense I get reading about them & looking at pics.
I had eyed the GPM Stug & seeing the modded tracks (which in their normal format are pretty daunting) I thought thats one that will be way too tough for me right now.


I want to try & get to grips with different types & levels of model, but I don't want to ruin a kit cos I don't have the skill. That said I want something that appeals aesthetically to give me impetus to complete it.
I recall reading about getting a wow factor from a 'modest' input/build helping inspire & develop the skill set. I think thats very true but I also find it needs to be quite tough for me to try it. There is a bonus achievement feeling in winning a fight like that.


I don't mind too much about non-English instructions if there are pictures to study, I wanted the Modelik pdf so I could study what I would face were I to buy it - used to do the same with the plastic & metal kits I was interested in years ago. Any instructions to download would have been good. I guess I could email them & ask...

[Clashster]

Take a look at the M3 Grant at Gremir models:

M3 Grant

I built this a couple of years ago... Not too difficult but the results were great (in fact, it is my avatar). Plus, you could print out another sheet if you made a mistake. This was highly enjoyable.

[medved]

Originally Posted by Clashster

Take a look at the M3 Grant at Gremir models:

M3 Grant

I built this a couple of years ago... Not too difficult but the results were great (in fact, it is my avatar). Plus, you could print out another sheet if you made a mistake. This was highly enjoyable.

That looks pretty good, it will have to go on my list! :D

[medved]

Originally Posted by CharlieC

I haven't seen the GPM 040 - but a model that old is going to be hand drawn and probably fairly simplified. It would probably be a hard slog to get the model to go together well. If you really want to build a WW2 Wehrmacht tank which isn't too difficult why not try Modelik's Panzer IV Ausf G - that's a more modern kit and seems to go together pretty well.

Regards,

Charlie

Decided to take your advice & order a Modelik Pzkpfw IV.... If I survive the shock of trying to build it I'll let you know!!!



Merry Xmas everyone

[CharlieC]

Originally Posted by medved

I am somewhat curious about hand vs machine drawn models - given a lot of the greatest architecture & technology was draughted by hand, surely a model has a chance of accuracy? (Print quality is a different thing entirely & I would expect a modern press to create a higher % of exactitude & colour range.)

I'm been meaning to reply to this and finally got around to it...

You are right - pre-computer all design was by hand. Hand design came complete with an array of techniques to try to correct errors in hand drawing. For example, all car bodies used to be modelled in clay from the drawings - there was an iterative process until the designer/draftsmen/tool makers all agreed on the design. Tooling was then built from the clay model. There were analogous techniques in most industries. For cardmodels hand drawn designs were usually checked by building lots of prototypes - however with the usual imperatives of publication deadlines and slim profit margins how well this was done is historically variable.

Computer design usually starts from a 3-d model of the subject and the software unfolds the surfaces. This has the advantage of reducing the errors of hand drawing and means that parts of the model should fit together correctly. It doesn't mean that computer designed models won't have errors - there are other problems which can be created by the printing processes - but the errors should be much reduced. The other advantage is that the line width on part outlines is reduced - hopefully this means the parts can be cut out more accurately.

Regards,

Charlie

[medved]

Thanks for the clarification Charlie. Should've guessed it would be market expediency that impinged on the model designs, & in that light it does make more sense to have a computer do the work.
I dread to think how many sheets of prototypes there must've been over the years. I guess some designers must be compulsive modelers to keep up with this type of development pressure.