0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anyone else notice yet?
This is why I personally refuse to allow myself to be sucked into the %u201Cexact prototype%u201D world. My OCD tendencies would drive me crazy if I tried to do this type of modeling on a regular basis. Case in point- in looking for the error you described. I spotted what I feel is a much more noticeable difference between the prototype brackets and the modeled brackets. In fact, I spotted this difference before I finally found the difference that driving you nuts. In fact, it is the only thing that drew my eye finally to the error you were describing.Anyone else notice yet?How about now?Hint: Flat, edge, flat, edge%u2026
If you are referring to the stump on the casting for the brackets, Daniel did not want to risk shaving those off and making the etched design too delicate, i.e., he was looking for maximum support under the platforms. And the thin support sections you are referring to would have been much too delicate. As it is, there are two layers for the walkways, just to keep them from bending between the cast supports. Reasonable compromise to avoid a potentially destructive shaving step, IMHO. Also it would have been near impossible to drill all of the pin holes needed to put the support risers in accurately so as to prevent them from being at an angle from the side- especially on a curved surface, even the slightest misalignment would have been obnoxious.
Daniel, I am sorry that happened.I found the walkway to be the most confusing part of the car. Why the carmaker would intentionally design the walkway panels to be unique, (I think there were four lengths overall) and not all evenly spaced supports and panes is beyond me.Keep looking at photos, I am not sure that the condition is 100 percent that way. I thought I recall seeing some images showing the opposite, but I was going cross-eyed at that point.I must say the despite the error, that car looks damn good and it looks like you found a good way to assemble that kit using the softer nickel silver parts.How did you end up doing the extraction pipes? Were you able to use the kit stanchions?
Dan, maybe I'm reading too much into your tone, but look at it this way. You made a awesome model. F***ing awesome. Nobody else knows the car well enough to spot the error. And if they do, you have a funny story abouy how much Walthers sucks. Also I think I signed up for one of these upgrade kits way back. Did I miss the boat or are they still available?
I know how galling such minor errors can be, but honestly it took me several minutes to find the error after you described it. The work is incredible.You did a particularly nice job of matching the original paint color - care to share how you did it?
The Railwire is not your personal army.
Not trying to criticize, this is a awesome model you both should be proud of and I want one! (Or a few) But on the subject of design decisions why did you go with 4 grab irons vs the 3 on the walthers model and prototype image?I'm admittedly ignorant of all the variations of this car, so that may be the answer. Just curious...But once again let me reiterate the car did turn out ******** Awesome!
Welp... that's it. These are going in the trash. I'm done. I'm just done with all of this.I think we used a newer version of the car with 4 rungs on the sides for initial measurments:http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=46381http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2940304But the ones I'm modeling are 3 rungs:http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=185796I haven't been this frustrated with my modeling since I took a rubber mallet to a GP40-2WL project in 2003.
Welp... that's it. These are going in the trash. I'm done. I'm just done with all of this.
So when do we all get told what the error is?