Some things have improved. It's not an F but an F+.
One of the most obvious signs, to me, is the size of the guns on either side of the super-structure. Another is the lack of 'tabs' on the main engines.You are not the only one saying that. Please forgive me but I haven't examined the different versions closely (yet). Could you please tell me which features confirm your assessment? I'm really curious to know...
Based on the front view of the Revell model and this image and taking the ship´s width as reference, the model´s bridge is roughly 109 % of the width it should be (at least when compared to the ESB model). In the picture in the link the bridge is about the same width as the top terrace of the superstructures, which the kit obviously doesn´t match. Could the superstructures be too low as well? Unfortunately I don´t have a good picture from the side to calculate the ratio of the ship´s length to the superstructure´s length.The superstructure/bridge proportions look off to me, still it is a far better kit than Ertl's...
I have a bold idea. You should get two of them to have spare parts to close the gaps on the lower hull and double the height of the side walls. A closer inspection of the actual kit parts should reveal if that's possible.Based on the front view of the Revell model and this image and taking the ship´s width as reference, the model´s bridge is roughly 109 % of the width it should be (at least when compared to the ESB model). In the picture in the link the bridge is about the same width as the top terrace of the superstructures, which the kit obviously doesn´t match. ... And the side trench looks quite narrow...
Trouble is that Revell decided their customers are not us.I won't support a company who does not listen to its customers. No Revell Star Wars kit for me anymore.
Why should he?... There are cheaper toys with better features. I really hope that they'd read again what a model company whould produce.Trouble is that Revell decided their customers are not us.
Ironic thing is that my son is apparently in the demographic they are now focusing on and he does not like their kits either.
You're actually not arguing different sides of the equation here though. He's saying that there's no reason that Revell can't strive for both accuracy AND play-ability, but that they use the 'Build and Play' label to excuse pure laziness in their design work simply to justify not spending the cash a decent representation of the subject would involve. "Play" and "basic accuracy" don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, by offering not terribly good looking kits at exorbitant prices, Revell I suspect does more harm than good in terms of encouraging a new generation to get into the hobby - who wants to spend hard-saved allowance on kits that will ultimately be disappointing?I think Hunk of Junk is wrong. While I too want more accurate kits available to us, especially an ISD, but Revell's choice to make kits for kids is actually a good thing for our hobby. It cannot be denied that the average age of modeler's is rapidly increasing. Our hobby must attract a new generation to remain viable. Granted we all want better kits, but companies need to target the video game kids to remain solvent for the future. It may suck, but we need to stop criticizing companies for trying to expand their market base and bring a new generation of modelers into the hobby. What is good for their business now is actually very good for us in the long-term. If Revell wants to be the "entry level" kit company, that's fine with me as most of their kids aren't really that great anyway. Rant over, come on Bandai!
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk