[WWI] Weathering

Crawford Neil Neil.Crawford at volvo.com
Thu Aug 12 04:08:02 EDT 2004

Michael wrote:
>But I don't see people writing 
>critiques of Mr. Hustad's models for lack of realism.

I think it's because we don't dare, I've seen a few of his 
where I think he's gone too far. But usually they are great,
and I just have too much respect for him to critisize.
Which as Bob very rightly points out, I shouldn't have
done to this other poor guy with the Albatross. The reason 
I did, was to have a dig at the modelling style rather than his 
particular model, it was just that it was such a good example
that I couldn't resist. 

It makes me think of Luft '46, say that aircraft development 
had stagnated, maybe this Albatross would have been correct
for the russian front in '46. So why is this OK , when it 
wouldn't be if painted purple paisley? And again whats wrong
with it, it is after all theoretically possible, if unlikely.
I get very confused. 

What it boils down to is the balance between 3-dimensional 
painting and realism. I think we've had this debate previously
within IPMS with the figure painters, and the hot-rod builders.
I look at the figure class at competitions and find that my
favorites are always unplaced, to me the winners look unrealistic
with their oil paint grimy faces, but the judges obviously
think differently. The same applies to cars with paints so thick 
(and smooth) that all detail disappears, I just don't get it.
We're heading in the same direction with aircraft, maybe we
will have to do the same as the figure builders and split up.
How about a new society, IRAMS (International Realistic Aircraft Modellers Society)?!
/Neil C. 

More information about the WWI mailing list