Revell wants to produce new Models after Vote

[Michel Van]

The German Model maker Revell look for new ideas to Models
on there Homepage they installed a Voting page for several models proposal
http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/


high on List 2001 a Space Odyssey hardware
also a 1 :48 Mondbasis Alpha 1 Adler Transporter
http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/496/


the winner get produce

 

[Triton]

Is the television program still popular in Europe? It hasn't been syndicated in ages here in the United States.

 

[Jemiba]

It probably would bring back the youth to many modellers, who know it from the first transmission,
I think ! I recently read, that the model kit industry may face the same problem, as the model
railroad makers : Their customers are getting older and older and although so they are mostly
relatively wealthy, the juniors are getting scarce, as the youth today is harder to motivate to
invest time and money into such hobbies.

 

[Orionblamblam]

the model kit industry may face the same problem, as the model
railroad makers

The model train industry faces extinction in no small part due to the march of progress. For starters, trains themselves are now largely irrelevant - at least in the US - for passenger transport, having been replaced with cars and planes. And where they are still relevant, they are largely used for business travel... where most of the people on board are still groggy from waking up at o-dark thirty, or beat after a miserable day at the office. There ain't no romance there. Trains are just another box people are stuffed into, full of other smelly miserable SOB's.

Second, the internet has done serious damage directly to the industry. Back in the day, if you wanted to see the latest model train goodies you'd go to the toy store, the hobby shop or even the train store. But when the internet came along, you could buy all you needed online for substantially cheaper. And thus trains started to disappear from the brick and mortar places. And that's fine, as far as it goes... but to get interested in model trains in the first place, you have to actually *see* them in real life. I've seen model trains up close, I've seen them online. I can see the appeal of such things up close; I see no appeal to them at all online. So by making train buying easier and cheaper... the internet erased the best marketing too that model trains have.

Ooops.

Now, if only documentaries about the 1960's would fade away as well. Getting sick of denizens that most self-centered of decades constantly yapping about how awesome and important they are. Gah.

Plastic models... dunno about the future there. I suspect it'll survive, though diminished from it's glory days. When I was a kid, you could buy a decent model for one or two bucks. Today, the same would cost twenty. Now I know there's been inflation, but not *that* much. Granted, a lot of this is due to todays kits being a hell of a lot better, more detailed with more parts (often with resin and PE bits); but if you're a young kid, that's just intimidation.

Also: the biggest thing in model airplanes as always been WWII. But who the hell even *thinks* about that anymore? WWII ended nearly 70 years ago. How many kids today even know anyone who remembers WWII, much less fought in it? In the 50's and 60's, every other movie was a WWII movie. Now... one decent-sized WWII movie every couple years, maybe? And not many feature dogfighting fighters.

And it's not like we can rely on the modern American/European aerospace industry to crank out a myriad of new exciting designs for the kids to build models of.

 

[Triton]

I wonder if kids "huffing" glue had an affect on the plastic modelling industry.

 

[The Artist]

While there aren't enough kids coming into the hobby to replace all the old builders dying off, there are some young ones getting started. For them, it seems to be either the ever popular cars or the Japanese kits of the big fighting robots.

One of the reasons given for the high cost of models these days is the licensing fees. In the old days, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, and the rest looked upon model kits of their products as free advertising. Now, they look at the model building hobby as a revenue source. The North American P-51 Mustang and the McDonnell Douglas F-4, as examples, are controlled by Boeing. Any company with existing molds would still have to get a license if they wanted to do a new release of the kits of the Boeing P-51 or the Boeing F-4 Phantom II. And if you do airliners, well, American Airlines wants money for the use of their liveries in kits and in after-market decal sets. Even long gone airlines carry these costs. American controls the TWA and Ozark liveries.

On a plus side. We are seeing kits today that I had given up on seeing a long time ago. We now have plastic kits of the Space Ark from When Worlds Collide, the Luna from Destination Moon, and even Uncle Martin's spacecraft from My Favorite Martian. We will soon be seeing an all new 1/48 series of F-101s. Yep, a lot of cool stuff has come out, or will be coming to market soon.

 

[Avimimus]

The model train industry faces extinction in no small part due to the march of progress. For starters, trains themselves are now largely irrelevant - at least in the US - for passenger transport, having been replaced with cars and planes. And where they are still relevant, they are largely used for business travel... where most of the people on board are still groggy from waking up at o-dark thirty, or beat after a miserable day at the office. There ain't no romance there. Trains are just another box people are stuffed into, full of other smelly miserable SOB's.

Infrastructure costs for maintaining highways will force a return to rail in areas of low population density, and rising fuel prices will lead to a relative decline in air-transport. Even in cities they provide higher density for lower costs. Rail is rebounding even now.


But I otherwise agree - the great era of romance about railways is largely over (except for those who look back to that early era).

 

[GTX]

There is a niche for those who want to make the rail trip the actual holiday/experience. I have enjoyed a number of such trips with my wife.

 

[Sundog]

I voted for the 1/48 Cheyenne.

 

[Kiltonge]

The North American P-51 Mustang and the McDonnell Douglas F-4, as examples, are controlled by Boeing. Any company with existing molds would still have to get a license if they wanted to do a new release of the kits of the Boeing P-51 or the Boeing F-4 Phantom II.

As far as I am aware shape trademarks / industrial design protections only apply to products in the same trade category; so for example I could make a 1:1 scale F-4 out of soap and Boeing can't do anything about it so long as it's not a flying aircraft ( and I don't claim it to be a McDD or Boeing product ).

Much like I can make an iPad replica out of wood and Apple can't do anything about it so long as I don't reproduct their trademark names.

Therefore I'd be surprised if model companies would be required to pay licensing fees for replicating shapes. Product and company names would likely require licensing ( but not US military aircraft designations ).


Edit: I found the alleged Boeing licensing agreement online. Here's the relevant section:

WHEREAS Licensee desires to utilize certain of Licensor's trade
names, trademarks, drawings, technical information and expertise,
advice, images, and/or artwork upon and in connection with the
design, manufacture, sale, and distribution of Licensee's products as
hereinafter described;

So this relates to the direct licensing of intellectual property from the maufacturer in order to assist with the development of a model or other product. Measuring-up a prototype at a museum wouldn't require that but would be a lot more effort and would require the model to be sold without referencing the manufacturer's trademark names.

 

[merriman]

Recently Moebius came out with a 1/72 SKIPJACK class submarine kit. As far as I know, GD was not involved as the submarine is in the public domain and was funded by public money.

Or, am I all wet here?

David

 

[Orionblamblam]

Or, am I all wet here?

I believe you are technically correct. That is the law as I understand it. However... companies differ in how their own legal departments interpret the law. Some Big Aerospace Companies have lots of lawyers. They don't need to be able to prove that the law is on their side if they can simply use lawyers to bully far smaller firms or individuals who could not possibly hope to afford a legal defense against what can be brought to bear.

 

[Jemiba]

..When I was a kid, you could buy a decent model for one or two bucks. Today, the same would cost twenty. ...

That's it to a large extent, I think ! And honestly, we took our first model aircraft and model tanks to the
sandbox for playing, today tanks and aircraft are rather downloaded for the online games and the kids
are sitting in front of their computers and communicating via Skype .... :-\
The prices for model railroad equipment have left the pocket money level for lon anyway!

I wonder if kids "huffing" glue had an affect on the plastic modelling industry.

Na, that glue wasn't very useful for that purpose either, I think, they rather used contact glue, Pattex and the like.

 

[LowObservable]

To go a very long way back: In the first decade or so of plastic kits being popular, you started with really cheap models (three or four moldings with <30 parts). You could look into the inlet and see out of the exhaust and the cockpit comprised a seat and pilot. You graduated not to new levels of accuracy and fidelity, but through the challenge of making sure that landing gears, folding wings, gun turrets &c worked.


Then the rot set in... Well, not really, but the manufacturers pushed for more artistic realism at the expense of moving parts. Today's kits are very well done, but challenging for a beginner (and a big investment if it doesn't turn out well).


What would be interesting (hypothetically) with today's technology would be to sell cheap basic models again, but with options to upgrade them either with aftermarket parts or a 3D printer.

 

[Jemiba]

From what I've read in a German forum, there already are companies on the "aftermarket" section
offering either 3D-printed parts, instead of made from resin, or even producing them using files
sent by the customer. But as they are totally independent from the original manufacturer, they
have no influence on the price of basic kit. Some kits are sold as "beginners pack" with glue and
some paints, my son tried this just this year and was surprisingly succesful. But I don't think, that
it was the start of a longtime hobby, there's too much diversion into other things today. Moving
flaps, gears and gun turrets you have on most flight simulations, too. here are even add-ons to
create your own paint schemes. Actually, I have completely switched to "modelling" on the computer,
too, not the last, of course, because it's much easier to create small details there, than in the !/72,
1/144 or even 1/1250 scale, without the need for new glasses or a magnifier . :-\

 

[merriman]

CAD, CNC, and 3D printing is to the Craft of model building what SkyNet/NSA is to humankind.

David

 

[Jemiba]

Yes and no, to my opinion.
Look at those tools today absolutely common in a modellers workshop :small electrical drilling
machines, electrical wax puttying machines, maybe a thermo forming unit for making canopies.
And of course, without your computer, you won't get the necessary information, not to mention
getting precise drawings. That's poles apart from the "good old modelling", where a whole aircraft
was cut out from a single piece of wood !
And what's about those beloved photo-etched parts ? Modelling still is an art and arts are developing,
just go to the next art gallery and compare nowadays painting with those of the Rubens or Tizian era.

But what I'm really curious about is, what the winner in this voting will be. The 187. kit of the F-16 ?
The 372. Bf-109 ? The lists of the real novelties during the last years weren't that long. Old kits were
replacd by newer, certainly better ones, but new types were rare, at least from the bigger producers.
Will be interesting to see, if the customer wants totally new types, or just the good old Phantom with
a set of Farewell-decals !

 

[The Artist]

Airfix is producing new kits (from completely new tooling) at low end pricing these days. These kits are probably better than Hasegawa quality but they are priced much lower than Hasegawa prices. Try an E.E. Lightning Mk II in 1/72 scale, with intake trunking all the way back to the engine face, for under $20. Hasegawa's Lightning, from 40 year old tooling but with special new decal options, might go for $35 these days.

What would be interesting (hypothetically) with today's technology would be to sell cheap basic models again, but with options to upgrade them either with aftermarket parts or a 3D printer.

 

[The Artist]

If you are talking about making copies of something for your own use, you shouldn't have any worries. But, if you're wanting to sell the copies or use them in public settings, you get into a gray area.

As has been pointed out, the shapes and government designations of military aircraft are not suppose to be subject to copyright. (Some companies try to argue otherwise.) However. Airliners, general aviation aircraft, biz-jets, and technology demonstrators not built on the government's dime are subject to copyright. You can carve your own model of a Boeing 707 out of wood and you are fine. A model company cannot get around the issue by not using the Boeing name or the 707 designation because the combination of shapes defining the look of a 707 is still an intellectual property. I think that because the model companies have to deal with licensing for these kit subjects, their legal staff advises them not to fight the aircraft company's desire to have the military aircraft licensed too.

The North American P-51 Mustang and the McDonnell Douglas F-4, as examples, are controlled by Boeing. Any company with existing molds would still have to get a license if they wanted to do a new release of the kits of the Boeing P-51 or the Boeing F-4 Phantom II.

As far as I am aware shape trademarks / industrial design protections only apply to products in the same trade category; so for example I could make a 1:1 scale F-4 out of soap and Boeing can't do anything about it so long as it's not a flying aircraft ( and I don't claim it to be a McDD or Boeing product ).

Much like I can make an iPad replica out of wood and Apple can't do anything about it so long as I don't reproduct their trademark names.

Therefore I'd be surprised if model companies would be required to pay licensing fees for replicating shapes. Product and company names would likely require licensing ( but not US military aircraft designations ).


Edit: I found the alleged Boeing licensing agreement online. Here's the relevant section:

WHEREAS Licensee desires to utilize certain of Licensor's trade
names, trademarks, drawings, technical information and expertise,
advice, images, and/or artwork upon and in connection with the
design, manufacture, sale, and distribution of Licensee's products as
hereinafter described;

So this relates to the direct licensing of intellectual property from the maufacturer in order to assist with the development of a model or other product. Measuring-up a prototype at a museum wouldn't require that but would be a lot more effort and would require the model to be sold without referencing the manufacturer's trademark names.

 

[Hobbes]

CAD, CNC, and 3D printing is to the Craft of model building what SkyNet/NSA is to humankind.

I build models because I enjoy the build process. If I were doing this just for the end result, I'd be buying completed models instead. CNC and 3D printing will not change that. In fact, these tools are already increasing the number of kits on the market, and they're giving me new ways to scratchbuild models. I've done a few scratchbuilds the old way, shaping blocks of wood, plastic or Milliput. I've also created CAD drawings and had them printed on a 3D printer. In both cases, I've had fun creating the model. With the CAD drawings, I have the additional option of letting others in on the fun at a much lower cost to me than e.g. resin casting would be.

 

[merriman]

CAD, CNC, and 3D printing is to the Craft of model building what SkyNet/NSA is to humankind.

I build models because I enjoy the build process. If I were doing this just for the end result, I'd be buying completed models instead. CNC and 3D printing will not change that. In fact, these tools are already increasing the number of kits on the market, and they're giving me new ways to scratchbuild models. I've done a few scratchbuilds the old way, shaping blocks of wood, plastic or Milliput. I've also created CAD drawings and had them printed on a 3D printer. In both cases, I've had fun creating the model. With the CAD drawings, I have the additional option of letting others in on the fun at a much lower cost to me than e.g. resin casting would be.

As you sat there, watching the plastic dabs build up atop a moving table, you created that model?

No, you employed a mouse to pick things off a screen presented menue, hit the 'enter' key --assigning the task of model building to a machine. You were not a Craftsman during the exercise. You were a data entry drone.

David

 

[GTX]

As you sat there, watching the plastic dabs build up atop a moving table, you created that model?

No, you employed a mouse to pick things off a screen presented menue, hit the 'enter' key --assigning the task of model building to a machine. You were not a Craftsman during the exercise. You were a data entry drone.

David

Hey, everyone can create in their own way - there is no need for getting nasty! Some people create with plastic, others with resin, some with wood and others with pixels. The important thing is that people enjoy what they do…regardless of what others may think.

 

[merriman]

Not being nasty. I'm protecting the language.

One more thing: When you stick that plastic model kit together, please don't describe the activity as 'model building'. You assembled a kit; you are a kit-assembler.

David

 

[Sundog]

What would be interesting (hypothetically) with today's technology would be to sell cheap basic models again, but with options to upgrade them either with aftermarket parts or a 3D printer.

With regard to Revell Germany, many of their latest models are very well detailed yet relatively inexpensive at least compared to what's being put out by China, half of which is crap. Most model kits I won't even consider unless they're on sale, because today's prices are simply ridiculous. In fact, the only kits I'll pay full price for, because they are so good, are the Wing Nuts Wings kits, because there isn't anything else comparable out there. The SWS kits are amazing and I did pick up their 1/32 Ta-152H, but they are way over done for what is necessary.

 

[The Artist]

Within the model building hobby, there is a distinction between a builder and an assembler. An assembler is one who builds straight out of the box then uses the kit supplied markings. A builder is someone who uses the kit as the starting point. The builder modifies the kit to either correct inaccurate detail or converts the kit to a different mark. This could be something relatively simple like converting an RF-4B to #12200 in it's Agile Eagle configuration, or even converting to the CCV program with the canards. Or, the builder could be doing major work like slicing and splicing fuselage parts of an F-86E 40 to convert it to an F-86H. Additionally, some of those who post their work in the What-If modeling section may start with a plastic kit that has shapes close to the unbuilt design they want model then cut, slice, and reshape to achieve the model of, say, a Farley Fruitbat. Should they be called Assemblers because they work with plastic kits?

Not being nasty. I'm protecting the language.

One more thing: When you stick that plastic model kit together, please don't describe the activity as 'model building'. You assembled a kit; you are a kit-assembler.

David

 

[Orionblamblam]

No, you employed a mouse to pick things off a screen presented menue, hit the 'enter' key

Creating a detailed CAD model from scratch is rather more complicated than simply picking things off a menu. It is in many ways much like sculpting and machining parts from plastic or Bondo, just with far better control and precision.

Take this MOL, for example:


There's no way in hell I would've tackled this *without* CAD. The time needed to build all the bumps would have made it cost/time prohibitive, and the end result would be quite a bit poorer. Not a chance that they'd be uniform and even.

Or the parts from the Helicarrier kit:


Building this in CAD was incredibly complex and time consuming, and I must say required skill and some talent. Especially as it was being reverse engineered from images that were not terribly enlightening, individually. There was no menu item for "Port Forward Wing."

Building things in CAD is not a cheat compared to building them in meatspace. Any more than you're cheating if you use plastic sheet rather than pumping the oil out of the ground yourself and processing it into polystyrene, or using PVC pipe that just happens to be precisely the right diameter rather than lathing a chunk of aluminum bar stock down to size. Building things in CAD requires every bit as much skill and dedication to get the same level of results. But building them in CAD allows you to make things *better.*

 

[Richard N]

To get new blood into the model making hobby, it helps to have good publicity. I read that this really fun series by James May (of Top Gear fame) started a resurgence of interest in model making everywhere it was seen. Watch this and see if you can resist the urge to pull something off the shelf and get gluing and painting.

James May's Toy Stories-Airfix

http://www.hulu.com/watch/323935

 

[GTX]

I'm protecting the language.

One more thing: When you stick that plastic model kit together, please don't describe the activity as 'model building'. You assembled a kit; you are a kit-assembler.

I am happy to be called a model builder and will continue to call anyone who plays with kits (be that a straight out of the box build or a complete scratch build) a model builder...if only to annoy people such as you!

 

[Rickshaw]

Not being nasty. I'm protecting the language.

One more thing: When you stick that plastic model kit together, please don't describe the activity as 'model building'. You assembled a kit; you are a kit-assembler.

David

You have a strange idea of how English works. Tell me, is it a second language to you?

Generally, building plastic model kits is "model building". I wonder, how would you describe the creation of a mathematical model? Arithmetic?

 

[merriman]

Not being nasty. I'm protecting the language.

One more thing: When you stick that plastic model kit together, please don't describe the activity as 'model building'. You assembled a kit; you are a kit-assembler.

David

You have a strange idea of how English works. Tell me, is it a second language to you?

Generally, building plastic model kits is "model building". I wonder, how would you describe the creation of a mathematical model? Arithmetic?

Analogy.

David

 

[Jemiba]

In an attempt to alleviate this discussion:

Merriman, perhaps you could just explain, what the term "model building" means to you ?

I know, that people, who built models from scratch, just using raw materials like wood, metal,
paper and so on, often wrinkel their nose, when looking at plastic kits. It's a matter of taste,
I think and I would agree, that for "assembling kits" directly out of the box only quite limited
manual skills are needed. On the other hand, for making good models often as much time and
skill for cutting, sawing, sanding and so on is used, as it would have been needed for carving
them out of a single tree trunk ...

As said before, it's a matter of taste and it's sometimes helpful here to choose one's words carefully !
Just imagine an enthusiastic proponent of modern dance, who's described by an "oldfashioned" dancer as
obviously suffering from epileptic seizures ... :

 

[Hobbes]

As you sat there, watching the plastic dabs build up atop a moving table, you created that model?

No, you employed a mouse to pick things off a screen presented menue, hit the 'enter' key --assigning the task of model building to a machine. You were not a Craftsman during the exercise. You were a data entry drone.

Oh, it's even worse. I subcontracted the printing job to Shapeways. ;D
Creating a CAD drawing isn't exactly the mindless task you make it out to be. The only thing I can pick out of a menu are primitive shapes and mathematical operations on those: lines, rectangles, circles, and addition, subtraction, repetition. Combining these into a usable CAD drawing requires a great deal of craftsmanship, just like converting a block of wood into an aircraft fuselage would be. The process isn't all that different: I have to convert the shape I have in my head, into a series of operations that will combine to get me that shape in 3D. The difference is that with a block of wood I can use an iterative approach, checking along the way if I'm getting close to the shape I want. In CAD, the process is more abstract: which primitive shapes can I combine to get the complex curve I need?
They both have their advantages and drawbacks. CAD drawings often take me longer to create than scratchbuilding a part. On the other hand, CAD gives me repeatability: I can build 9 identical rocket engines if I want, plus some copies for friends who are interested in building a similar model to mine but don't have my CAD skills.

Not being nasty. I'm protecting the language.

One more thing: When you stick that plastic model kit together, please don't describe the activity as 'model building'. You assembled a kit; you are a kit-assembler.

The term 'building' is in general use for lots of activities that require mainly assembly: building a house or a car, for instance. Among modelers, no confusion exists. We differentiate using terms like kitbashing and scratchbuilding.
Even building a model straight out of the box often involves rather more than assembly. It starts with closing and hiding seams, and fettling parts to make them line up properly. Before you know it, the modeler starts adding his own embellishments: new panel lines, scratchbuilding minor parts, etc. Model building is a continuum, not an exclusive club. Please don't try to make it one.

 

[merriman]

In an attempt to alleviate this discussion:

Merriman, perhaps you could just explain, what the term "model building" means to you ?

I know, that people, who built models from scratch, just using raw materials like wood, metal,
paper and so on, often wrinkel their nose, when looking at plastic kits. It's a matter of taste,
I think and I would agree, that for "assembling kits" directly out of the box only quite limited
manual skills are needed. On the other hand, for making good models often as much time and
skill for cutting, sawing, sanding and so on is used, as it would have been needed for carving
them out of a single tree trunk ...

As said before, it's a matter of taste and it's sometimes helpful here to choose one's words carefully !
Just imagine an enthusiastic proponent of modern dance, who's described by an "oldfashioned" dancer as
obviously suffering from epileptic seizures ... :

Your third paragraph serves well. No need for me to repeat it. You did fine there.

Your analogy (employing dancing style), however, is overstating my position. I never said nor implied that non-model builders, kit-assemblers for example, were handicapped. Epilepsy is a handicap. Kit-assembly is simply under-achievement within the broad field of physical model fabrication.

Kit-assemblers are (I'm confident) not physically handicap. Indeed, many are trainable; people who -- if they have the character to embrace the challenge -- can be taught the Craft of model building.

I hope I've made my position clear. I would be delighted to teach any one willing to learn the Craft.

But, first, we must properly use the language.

David

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

Same ol' Dave, I see you've still not developed any social skills.

 

[Jemiba]

Kit-assemblers are (I'm confident) no!t physically handicap.

I didn't meant it that way, a bad chosen example from my side, sorry !

And now, I think it's time to return to the original theme about Revell offering an election
for model kits !

 

[Orionblamblam]

And now, I think it's time to return to the original theme about Revell offering an election
for model kits !

Indeed. Since this is not really a modeling forum, passionate arguments on that topic would seem out of place. Instead, we should focus our rage at each on topics like "the F-35: awesome or abomination?" or government funding priorities or Putins/Obamas latest hijinks. And as an experiment:

Jimmy Carter

In prior threads, the mere *mention* of that name causes threads to get locked. Will that happen here? Let's find ou{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

 

[Thorvic]

And now, I think it's time to return to the original theme about Revell offering an election
for model kits !

Indeed. Since this is not really a modeling forum, passionate arguments on that topic would seem out of place. Instead, we should focus our rage at each on topics like "the F-35: awesome or abomination?" or government funding priorities or Putins/Obamas latest hijinks. And as an experiment:

No we shouldn't, this is a Secret Projects forum, its been proved time and time again that the political debates and F-35 discussions are impossible to have as the views of members vary too greatly for polite debate and result in insults and tantrums like any other political forum.

 

[Thorvic]

Anyway back on topic, this is about Revell and their panic reaction to making such a hash of their model programme and fallen so far out of touch with the mainstream modelling community that they have to ask on an open system for ideas and votes.

Anyway this is actually a chance to scour the list for Project suggestions to support them or maybe make some new ones.

So try and stay on topic with the spirit of the thread or else !

 

[Orionblamblam]

Indeed. Since this is not really a modeling forum, passionate arguments on that topic would seem out of place. Instead, we should focus our rage at each on topics like "the F-35: awesome or abomination?" or government funding priorities or Putins/Obamas latest hijinks. And as an experiment:

No we shouldn't, this is a Secret Projects forum,

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

The Revell "vote" is a social networking experiment, so I wouldn't read too
much into it, and at no time have they said that the results would be driving
actual production decisions. They've definitely not said that the idea with
the most votes will be produced.
It's as meaningless as any of the 'what do you want polls' of the last three decades.