New DeAgostini Star Wars collection!
- Thread starter clancampbell
- Start date
Too funny - when I explain tis hobby to friends family co-workers whatever I always use the words
"Its a stupid expensive hobby"... and then explain how a model kit from 1975 can be over a thousand dollars and you take 5 parts off it...
Yeo - stupid expensive...
Jedi Dade
"Its a stupid expensive hobby"... and then explain how a model kit from 1975 can be over a thousand dollars and you take 5 parts off it...
Yeo - stupid expensive...
Jedi Dade
Personally.. I've found that using the exact same kits that were used to be a bit of overkill. Sure you want to make the most accurate kit on the planet but next you'd have to hunt down the recipe that was used to make the glue, the paint, etc to be 100% accurate.... just not possible. I have OCD and even that is over the top for me. I also don't understand spending $1000 on a single kit that you're only gonna use 3 or 4 pieces out of. It makes it so much easier and cost effective these days just to build the exact same part and print it in 3D. Tons cheaper, same part, can be replicated over and over, and looks exactly the same! Many of the kits they used they don't make anymore... But that's just my two cents!
bwayne64
Master Member
And I thought it was just me,
Good to know I'm not crazy. Shouldn't these things be in a toy section. I mean they bolt together don't they. They may be studio scale size, but does that make them studio scale. Oh no I didn't, LOL. I mean no disrespect to those who have them and like them. Really I don't ! I just don't see them as even requiring the skills needed to build a plastic kit. No glue, no cutting, no vac forming, no nothing. So anything that is the the same size as a SS model is SS. There is not one single kit part on them. Even toy conversions use some kit parts. Again don't get mad. I'm just asking. If SS modeling is this loose, what's next. A picture of a cg model will now be SS. I think the hardest part of the Deagostini thing, is the price, and waiting for the monthly delivery to come, Maybe I'm missing something. Let the inevitable flaming begin. I'll go put on my asbestos undies.Personnally I think they should make a new forum topic called Studio Accurate. Studio Scale implies just a sizing thing, if it's the same size as the studio model it's Studio Scale... whereas Studio Accurate implies more a perfect replica... meaning it would not only be the same size but also using all the same bits and peices that the studio model did. Does that make sense? I know some of the more hardcore old timers will be chomping at the bit over this, but seeing the influx of new modelers into our hobby, it would make it alot easier to understand for future modelers.
Jaitea
Master Member
Jaitea
Master Member
Or Just change this to Studio accurate and plop everything else in General, cos thats what general means
Yep that works too:thumbsup
J
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Please let the Studio Scale be what it has been for years, it doesnt have to be changed be changed because new members want to get their toy called a studio scale model.
While I do agree that studio accurate would have been a better choice, studio scale was chosen years ago...
Just open a DeAgostini sub-section for the Falcon in the general forum and we're all good !
While I do agree that studio accurate would have been a better choice, studio scale was chosen years ago...
Just open a DeAgostini sub-section for the Falcon in the general forum and we're all good !
I've lurked on the rpf for a very, very long time (back when board registration was closed and you had to wait until they opened it again) and always felt I wasn't the type to contribute, as nearly all the original guys are way way way above my skill set. I admire them greatly and wish to be at that level someday. I only joined to contribute to the DeAg falcon, and to try and stop misinformation that still is sadly being spread by the same individuals who think they're in the know when they really aren't.
I for one wish this sub section went back to what it was originally, and move the DeAg into the general modeling section, or leave it as one thread.
Maybe the old guard can push the admin / mods to help it go back to what it used to be.
I for one wish this sub section went back to what it was originally, and move the DeAg into the general modeling section, or leave it as one thread.
Maybe the old guard can push the admin / mods to help it go back to what it used to be.
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
As a fellow subscriber to the DeAgostini Falcon, I agree with you. In fact, the closer I look at this thing the more I'm beginning to think that these threads belong in the "Collectibles" forum here.
craig g
Sr Member
Does it really matter if it's in Studio Scale or General Modelling?
Technically it's a model and it's studio scale.
To dismiss the Deagostini Falcon as a toy is to dismiss the whole hobby.
Whether you build a Salzo X wing, Rc Star Destroyer, the latest Bandai kit or spend 10 years researching and building a 5 foot Falcon. They all serve the same real world purpose, NONE! So they are all little more than toys.
Technically it's a model and it's studio scale.
To dismiss the Deagostini Falcon as a toy is to dismiss the whole hobby.
Whether you build a Salzo X wing, Rc Star Destroyer, the latest Bandai kit or spend 10 years researching and building a 5 foot Falcon. They all serve the same real world purpose, NONE! So they are all little more than toys.
It's more about volume and over satiation than it being a toy, there's hundreds of these things and each day another member pops up to show how they've done the next issue , I've got one sat here but don't feel the need to tell everyone I've just opened issue 50
If it had its own section it would make good sense as a tool for this building it
Especially people that are new to this kind of thing
You could split it I it
General build
Modifications
Painting
Then all could go to one place and ask and study
It's just sensible filing not bigetry!!
If it had its own section it would make good sense as a tool for this building it
Especially people that are new to this kind of thing
You could split it I it
General build
Modifications
Painting
Then all could go to one place and ask and study
It's just sensible filing not bigetry!!
Yes it matters - there has been a clear demarcation for years on this matter. Studio scale to me has always had an exciting element of research, breaking new ground, and ever-striving for greater accuracy - all the things that made me fall in love with the RPF when I joined as a green n00b in the late 90s. I think the DeAg fits the studio scale size, and general details (which again, I am extremely happy about as I see it as a "gateway drug" to the deep end of this hobby subset), but because it's a mass market item, there is a massive influx of near-carbon copy threads.
I do not see it as a BAD thing. I see it as a logistical thing. If DeAg has plans to make more (which they do, believe me), it's only going to get "worse".
So a child-board/sub-board in my opinion would be a clean and logical step in managing these new builds. I do not see it as insulting, but as a way to better organize the uptick in content (that just so happens to be the exact same model).
Maybe under the studio scale umbrella you have two sub boards? "Hand made" and "kit builds"? I know there's always a blurry line between the two, but it may help people more easily find the content they came here to see?
I do not see it as a BAD thing. I see it as a logistical thing. If DeAg has plans to make more (which they do, believe me), it's only going to get "worse".
So a child-board/sub-board in my opinion would be a clean and logical step in managing these new builds. I do not see it as insulting, but as a way to better organize the uptick in content (that just so happens to be the exact same model).
Maybe under the studio scale umbrella you have two sub boards? "Hand made" and "kit builds"? I know there's always a blurry line between the two, but it may help people more easily find the content they came here to see?
At the end of 2016 the studio scale forum will just be 16 pages of " has anyone got the last issue yet" and " my finished falcon" and " can't get the top and bottom to line up " and " can someone do a custom 3D print version 7 studio scale chewie as the v6 is 2mm too tall"
And " does anyone know why the mount doesn't lock, my falcon swivels each time my kids run past it"
When really what people want to read is about Morgan oil pans !!!
And " does anyone know why the mount doesn't lock, my falcon swivels each time my kids run past it"
When really what people want to read is about Morgan oil pans !!!
It's a sad state of affairs when Julien's falcon thread gets hijacked by people questioning accuracy, openly discussing the DeAg falcon or whether poorly 3D printed figures can fit into its cockpit.
This place was always what I wanted to aspire to. It's getting watered down pretty badly.
This place was always what I wanted to aspire to. It's getting watered down pretty badly.
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
First, for the newer guys, you need to understand that without the RPF Studio Scale Models Forum, there is no DeAgostini Millennium Falcon kit, and no Master Replicas model before that.
This is the place where we hashed out what we call the "32-inch Falcon". This is the place where guys like Tim Ketzer, Frank Cerney and Morten Moeslund sussed out the actual shape of this miniature, many times over. This is where they came to share kit part identifications and ask for everyone else's help finding other kit parts, and then post progress of their own builds. This is the forum where, to this very day, people are still finding new kit parts that were used on the original ESB Falcon miniature. This stuff is not a closed book!
And this is the exact place where Steve Dymszo came when he wanted to produce the MR Falcon model. He even came here after the MR model finished production, asking for even more help identifying a large number of parts that didn't make it onto the MR model, and he got a ton of help with that effort, too. Without this forum, you most certainly wouldn't have the eFX X-Wing, or any number of other "Studio Scale" collectibles in your collections, either.
So first of all, be thankful that the RPF Studio Scale Models Forum has existed for sixteen years. You're very welcome, by the way!
And for all you new guys, temporary guys, sock-puppets and trolls...you are free, as always, to bitch about us old-timers here, and whine about the way we continue to conduct studio miniatures research and replica builds that we share in the wide open here, warts and all.
Just remember that you don't have any of these great new toys without this forum existing exactly as it has.
Again, you're welcome!
This is the place where we hashed out what we call the "32-inch Falcon". This is the place where guys like Tim Ketzer, Frank Cerney and Morten Moeslund sussed out the actual shape of this miniature, many times over. This is where they came to share kit part identifications and ask for everyone else's help finding other kit parts, and then post progress of their own builds. This is the forum where, to this very day, people are still finding new kit parts that were used on the original ESB Falcon miniature. This stuff is not a closed book!
And this is the exact place where Steve Dymszo came when he wanted to produce the MR Falcon model. He even came here after the MR model finished production, asking for even more help identifying a large number of parts that didn't make it onto the MR model, and he got a ton of help with that effort, too. Without this forum, you most certainly wouldn't have the eFX X-Wing, or any number of other "Studio Scale" collectibles in your collections, either.
So first of all, be thankful that the RPF Studio Scale Models Forum has existed for sixteen years. You're very welcome, by the way!
And for all you new guys, temporary guys, sock-puppets and trolls...you are free, as always, to bitch about us old-timers here, and whine about the way we continue to conduct studio miniatures research and replica builds that we share in the wide open here, warts and all.
Just remember that you don't have any of these great new toys without this forum existing exactly as it has.
Again, you're welcome!
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no problem with anything that has been said.... and I'm not a new guy. Been around for quite awhile on here and many other forums. I was there lending a hand when Robert Brown first posted the query about the Ship of Riddles that started this whole mess. That being said, times do change. I'm not suggesting that the forum has in any way shape or form not been relevant in the hobby whatsoever... quite the contrary.... it's been instrumental in so many ways we do things and have discovered information. All I'm saying is this... perhaps its time to re-examine the term STUDIO SCALE. Back in the first world war, the term SHELL SHOCK was a widely used term... but it has changed with the times... it changed to BATTLE FATIGUE... then to OPERATIONAL EXHAUSTION... now its called POST-TRAMATIC STRESS DISORDER or PTSD... same thing, just different term that more clearly defines what it is. Even thou we've used Studio Scale to mean an exact or close to exact replica of what was built in the studio, over the years its been diluted due to the misunderstanding of the term that has been used by us old timers. The mere definition of the word SCALE itself means a set of numbers, amounts, etc., used to measure or compare the level of something. So to the newly initiated, the term itself leaves the impression that Studio Scale is just that if a prop was 10 inches and a kit was 10 inches, that kit would be the same scale as the prop. But by simply changing it to STUDIO ACCURATE it more clearly defines what it is we are doing. Just by that one little change we've now made it so that if anyone sees it, it is implied that if a kit we were working on was STUDIO ACCURATE that would mean we've been putting research into it, using the same parts and pieces they used to make the original prop. It doesn't change the hobby... it doesn't change the meaning of what we do, it just more clearly defines what it is that we do more accurately. Does this make sense at all?
Similar threads
