Revell Ferrari 458 Italia (view inside the box)

[drunken monkey]

how a kit looks when built is down to how good the guy building it is.

[auw12]

Thanks for the nice review! I believe they'll look equally good when built up, but I really couldn't say no to the superb interior of revell's, so much better than the fujimi one.

[indy_231]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

how a kit looks when built is down to how good the guy building it is.

This is wrong.


When comparing kits you cannot come up with a rubbish comment like that.


You have to treat the variable (guy building both kits) as equal and talk about building both kits box stock.




It's like we all know a BMW M3 is faster than a Ford Fiesta, we don't say, "oh it depends on who is driving" because you treat both subjects with equal conditions so there is no advantage or disadvantage.

[Macio4ever]

You may find official info in Tamiya's book (Master Modeler) that thay tweak dimensions to make models look more proportional and real - like. I think that it is a good approach.
IMHO It doesn't really matter how the best rendition of real car can be achieved. We use weathering techniques to simulate shadows or dirt, Tamiya changes dimensions to give better look.

[klutz_100]

Originally Posted by Macio4ever

It doesn't really matter how the best rendition of real car can be achieved. We use weathering techniques to simulate shadows or dirt, Tamiya changes dimensions to give better look.

x 1000%

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by indy_231

This is wrong.

To a point.
If you give a good modeller any modern kit from Revell or Tamiya or Fujimi or Aoshima, he/she will make it look good. Give the same kit to a guy who might not be so good and there will be differences in the results. So I suppose, without meaning it to offend, Tamiya kits are better for guys who aren't yet that good at kit building and that Revell takes a little more skill to make look good.

And in that respect, you are right. Tamiya has long been persuing the perfection of a kit that anyone can pick up and build easily no matter the skill level. To that end they have been looking at how they can reduce parts counts and mould as much as they can in single pieces. You can say that is better kit engineering but personally, it doesn't suit me.
I really liked the 350Z but never bought a kit because the chassis/suspension bothered me. Same with the S2000. There just wasn't enough for me to build and for me, that makes them not very good kits. In the case of the Ferrari kits. Yes the Fujimi 599 has sharper body lines and better treated body opening/vents etc but it doesn't have an engine which makes it a worse kit for me.

Originally Posted by indy_231

It's like we all know a BMW M3 is faster than a Ford Fiesta, we don't say, "oh it depends on who is driving" because you treat both subjects with equal conditions so there is no advantage or disadvantage.

The real car analogy doesn't quite work here as I could just as easily say the Fiesta is still the better car because it is has better fuel consumption because yes, M3 is faster but faster doesn't equal better. On the other hand, in that respect, it works because once again, the better car is determined by the person driving it and their purpose.

So again yes, a Japanese kit tends to look better because they produce better looking, sharper bodies. Too bad Fujimi still make strange flat toy like chassis (Fujimi 550/575/Superamerica vs Revell Superamerica). Too bad they don't have any sort of engine for me to play (or waste time if you prefer) with. Too bad Tamiya insists lately on moulding as much onto their chassis as possible. Do we need to talk about the interior of the Revell 458 vs the Fujimi one? For me, some of these things make them bad kits because I have a thing for having as much of the real car as possible. Of course, most of the things that make a kit not worth buying in my books you can't see when it's built so I suppose what does it matter if the body looks good?
What I don't get is this, if the Japanese kits tend to look better when built, why do you say you would choose the Revell kit over the Fujimi Kit? If all that matters is the finished item looking good, doesn't that mean only the body matters? Obviously, you as a kit builder wants more than a good looking body in a kit so does a good looking body = better kit?

So the ever present philosophical question remains; what makes a kit good?
Having lots of stupid detail parts like the old Enthusiast kits but is then too fragile, too fiddly and too unforgiving?
Having a good body but shit detailing like most Fujimi and some Tamiya kits and their all in one chassis?
Having reasonable parts like Revell but bad engineering, at times nasty plastic and too softly registered body lines and detailing?
Dimensionally correct but looking odd when built or dimensionally incorrect but looking right when built?

Originally Posted by Macio4ever

We use weathering techniques to simulate shadows or dirt, Tamiya changes dimensions to give better look.

Of course.
I'm just trying to correct the other guy who says that Revell are inaccurate (not true) and that Tamiya are more accurate (not true).
In the bizzare world of scale car modelling, accuracy is not always needed or even wanted for a model to look good.
Other than car bodies we can look at photo etched brake discs as an example. Most people leave them unpainted and only go as far as scuffing them up which isn't always accurate but will sometimes look better. On cars with carbon ceramic discs, un-painted pe brakes would be 100% wrong but still some people prefer the look of them like that.

[Khier]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

To a point.
If you give a good modeller any modern kit from Revell or Tamiya or Fujimi or Aoshima, he/she will make it look good. Give the same kit to a guy who might not be so good and there will be differences in the results. So I suppose, without meaning it to offend, Tamiya kits are better for guys who aren't yet that good at kit building and that Revell takes a little more skill to make look good

I decided to stop with this thread because this duscussion is becoming pointless. However the arguments made me turn back.

I do not know how bad engineering may be intimdating to 'good' builders. I would understand it if the more effort goes in more details, not in tweaking silly parts ti remain in place. Tamiya made enough detailed kits, and with engines also. Fujimi made probably the most detailed 1/24 kits ever made.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

......To that end they have been looking at how they can reduce parts counts and mould as much as they can in single pieces. You can say that is better kit engineering but personally, it doesn't suit me.
I really liked the 350Z but.....

but the moulded in A arms and the twisted flat plate chassis are not simlifications...... Probably the two-part wheels is detailed modeling that Tamiya simplified to make it easy for beginners....

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

The real car analogy doesn't quite work here as I could just as easily say the Fiesta is still the better car because it is has better fuel consumption. On the other hand, in that respect, it works because once again, the better car is determined by the person driving it and their purpose.

No.... it was meant to show you tried to mix apples with eggs. You cannot compare differnt kits built by different persons, rather different kits built by the same builders.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

.......What I don't get is this, if the Japanese kits tend to look better when built, why do you say you would choose the Revell kit over the Fujimi Kit? If all that matters is the finished item looking good, doesn't that mean only the body matters? Obviously, you as a kit builder wants more than a good looking body in a kit so does a good looking body = better kit?

b ecause i have seen neither kits in real. According to the internet feedback and wip's, Revell kit seems to be the best one. I am concerned about the usual ´drawbacks and was wondering if they have the same silly selender look. I hope I made it , finally, clear to all Revell freaks here.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

So the ever present philosophical question remains; what makes a kit good?
Having lots of stupid detail parts like the old Enthusiast kits but is then too fragile, too fiddly and too unforgiving?
Having a good body but shit detailing like most Fujimi and some Tamiya kits and their all in one chassis?
Having reasonable parts like Revell but bad engineering, at times nasty plastic and too softly registered body lines and detailing?
Dimensionally correct but looking odd when built or dimensionally incorrect but looking right when built?

well, that is a matter of taste.... after all model building is a compromise....

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Of course.
I'm just trying to correct the other guy who says that Revell are inaccurate (not true) and that Tamiya are more accurate (not true).

correction (for the 74th time ), regardless of dimensional accuracy they have inferior quality (fit, engineering.... etc...) and they look worse after when finished.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

In the bizzare world of scale car modelling, accuracy is not always needed or even wanted for a model to look good.

we finally agree at one point....

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by Khier

correction (for the 74th time ), regardless of dimensional accuracy

That's not what you said.

This is what you said.

Originally Posted by Khier

Revell's worst drawbacks are the silly plate chassis with strange wheel wells, two part wheels and wrong body proportions. Their fewrraris have been always too narrow in comparikson with Tamiya cars (see the Modena and Enzo).

That was what I wanted to correct.


oh, I fixed your quoting by the way.

[indy_231]

Drunken Monkey are you actually drunk because you still don't understand my point.

When comparing two kits you have to assume the builder is of equal talent so a comment such as "a kit is only as good as the builder is rubbish" the fact is if you had the same person building a Tamiya box stock and a Revell box stock on display the Tamiya would look better.

[drunken monkey]

...and you still don't seem to get what I am saying.

Where did I actually say that the Tamiya kit didn't look better?
I've just been trying to question what makes a better kit.

Does looking better i.e having a better looking body make the kit better?
Doesn't the inclusion/or lack of an engine make a difference?
Doesn't moulded together suspension vs seperate suspension make a difference?
The other guy mentioned accuracy but some here have already pointed out that in scale modelling a little inaccuracy is sometimes needed.
So how about instead of trying to win your little argument that doesn't actually exist, you talk about what you look for in a model kit and have a healthy discussion instead about what makes a good model kit?
Is it just about how the body looks for you?

[rallymaster]

Strange discussion here in which every one is trying to explain he has the best way to go through, but to different locations for each one !!

"- I swear I have the right way... to the blue one...!!
- No, no, your false, I have the right way... to the red one !!
- hey guys, are you mad, I have THE right way... to the green one !!"
????!!

Is it so important who makes "best kits" ?? and first, what is "best kits" for each of us ?? accuracy ?? perfect conception ??
as if you could consider a truth is universal for everyone and everything...
this is a no end discussion (but really interesting though as long as it stays full of respect and courtesy).

What I personaly think is that expectations are different from one to another builder, some prefer the most accuracy possible, some other the easiest and "best made" kit in terms of conception, fitment, plastic quality quality/price rate... etc.
Tamiya probably (I really say "probably", dont shoot me please ) offers the best made kit, with the best fit, the cleanest parts etc etc, but not inevitably the highest accuracy (??) as in the same time Revell offers a worse plastic quality, fitment issues etc etc but probably (?? according to some opinions here) a better accuracy.
And so what ? that doesn't mean either Tamiya or Revell models will be inevitably better or worse. That depends on each one expectations and skills, without meaning either that skills and builders are all that matters. Their expectation do are !
It's hard to compare things because some of them do mean something (an M3 is faster than a Fiesta, who could say contrary ?) for some people and exact same things would mean something else for other people (M3 is faster but Fiesta is "better" because I consider than the best car is the lighter one... etc etc)
Moreover don't forget the price, how many times does an M3 costs a Fiesta ??

Don't want to make two cents philosophy but things aren't only what one consider them having to significate. Signification can be different for each of us.
So yes, Tamiya is probably (still saying probably ) a better kit on some points but also is probably worse on some other points...
Who can judge except the one knowing what points count the most for himself ??

Strange discussion, really... but really interesting...

Guys, don't think, build !!


PS: do someone has pills for my headache now ??

[hirofkd]

This is a part of the ongoing war between impressionists and realists.

[Macio4ever]

Originally Posted by hirofkd

This is a part of the ongoing war between impressionists and realists.

That was good! I am with you

[ales]

Kris, can you please post a picture of the decal sheet?

Thanks

[Khier]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

That's not what you said.

WRONG....

I have been saying they look worse when you put them in front of the real thing so they have WRONG BODY PROPORTIONS. Overall dimensions may be correct but the PROPORTIONS may still wrong. For example, the overall width might be exact but the fenders or roof curvatures might not be. The overall hight can be correct but the whole body is thinner (with a different ground clearance).

In these cases a model with wrong scale might look better.

Originally Posted by rallymaster

Strange discussion here in which every one is trying to explain he has the best way to go through, but to ...........

The problem is some guys here missed the point and went on to start a Revell vs Tamiya debate.

It all started with my comment on the Revell 458, which is superior to Fujimi in many ways. I wondered if Revell finally got the body shape correct because past experience showed (at least with their Ferraris) they look always strange when compared with real cars. In this regard the Japanese kits are mostly better. For me, this wrong look does not justify the price and better detailing of Revell.

For some unknown reason several colleagues started to argue that Revell, as far as the overall dimensions are concerned, is usually more accurate. My point has been this does not necessarily makes a kit looks better when built, nothing more, nothing less. Now I do not understand how the discussion went to be philosophical and turned to be what makes a kit good. Well, such discussion is pointless because there are as many answers to this question as there are kit builders. Model building is an individual thing and what someone sees important probably does not count at all to another one, and it is fine this way.

Now enough is enough with this debate.