<div class='quotetop'>(Boba Flint @ Jun 18 2006, 10:04 PM) [snapback]1263709[/snapback]</div>
Ok I have to ask.
<div class='quotetop'>
I see a lot of "studio scale" Y-Wings here also that people seem to admire even if the builders could not get all the original kit parts that "rivet counters" manage to. I don't see their work being knocked.
[/b]
Is this a bad thing in your mind? Is there something wrong with wanting to get things to look the way you want? Is Neison a "rivet counter" because his TIE has all the correct parts? I don't understand the reasoning behind this insult. people have diffrent tastes in kits or projects they build. Because someone wants to go a little further in a project than someone else you feel you need to label them with some kind of insult?
I just don't understand this.
[/b][/quote]
I was not insulting "rivet counters".
In fact, the expression was used by Steve in an e-mail to me. Why anyone would be offended by the expression, I don't know... it is used I assume to describe modelers who are detail oriented as the many threads in this forum demonstrate and is not a derogatory term. How you could interpret what I said as an insult is reflective of perhaps your own insecurity with the phrase as being something negative?
I was not insulting Steve either.
Why is this subject still even being discussed? Can you take it to another thread and perhaps discuss the "true accuracy" of a Vader TIE Fighter somewhere else? I'm getting tired of seeing these postings here, which seem to be provoked because I called Chris's TIE "studio scale", which I believe it is because of it's size, and I am ACCURIZING IT to BE closer to the shooting model. For anyone to have so much time worrying about constantly hammering people this model is not "studio scale" to their definition because the cockpit ball is a few millimeters off or some greeblies aren't there from the kits used on the studio model to serve whatever agendas, I think they would be better served working on their own stuff or doing their own "studio scale" Vader TIE instead of bitching here about how "wrong" Chris's model is. If anyone wants to do better, than go research and make one. Like I said, I have NEVER seen this kind of discourse in other threads about "studio scale" Y-Wings that are custom built by other modelers, I don't see them being dismissed by other forum members, I see them complimented and people discussing differences and how they are making theirs as accurate as possible based on the resources and some respect shown. From the first posting discussing how people didn't like theirs or maligning it for not having certain details, I sense this all may be about something else that has nothing to do with Chris's fine work but I am not going to dignify it by going there in this forum. It's a great "base" to work off of to turn into true "studio scale" for the person who wants to take that on, as has been done in the past with other "innacurate" "studio scale" pieces in the past like the Icons TIE and X-Wing which Steve and Captain Cardboard improved upon with their offerings. I am not allowed to call mine "studio scale" when I am making changes to mine also in the same way to get it closer to the studio miniature?
Am I allowed to call it "studio SIZED"? Will that make people bug off already about it?
Chris built his prototype from SCRATCH. He worked out the engineering and how it went together on his OWN and he has made it available to modelers who would like a studio "scale" or studio "sized" replica for their collection to display next to their TIEs or X-Wings, etc. ***** give him some credit for that before continuing to be so dismissive of the work. I've been posting pictures of how I am modifying it to be closer to the shooting model as well as a display piece with other extras.
Funny thing... no one jumped down my throat for adding the detailed lit cockpit on my studio scale TIE in another threas, although the studio models do not have the details. Does that now toss that model out of the "studio scale" definition? Because it is not now studio "accurate" in the strictest sense of the word. I saw nothing but supportive comments in that thread.
I never imagined starting a thread to share my progress on this would provoke so much controversy.
Can people just let it go or are we going to continue debating who can and can't use the term "studio scale" and what the strictest defintion is? Maybe the forum staff should put up a rule as to what it means to dictate who can and can't post in this area based on that definition? Am I supposed to take this to the "general modeling forum?
