Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tbzep
... It's just rub marks on the real thing, likely with dirt or grease ground into the paint, but the decals are perfectly straight.
|
Indeed. I've attached a photo of Javelin 8.27 underscoring the point. Cradle marks are evident, as are the effects of a lot of handling - smudges, dirt, scratches, etc.
To GH's point, going to those lengths in a quest for realism is likely beyond the pale for a sport model - why bother? Put a nice coat of paint on it, and fly it. By the time it's recovered, it will have handling marks and scratches all of its own.
Where the "markings" become more relevant is in Scale competition. The way the rules are written, the model is judged by what the Judge does, and does not, see in the supporting documentation. So on a round like the Javelin, where the cradle marks are rather pronounced (on all three stages prior to the payload section, I might add), you risk being dinged if you choose not to represent them. And yes, you can be dinged if you make what are fundamentally fuzzy markings "too crisp or perfect".
Ah yes, but what about all those smudges and weathering effects? Fair point, and a Judge, I suppose, could make an issue of that (although it would be a lot of work to produce what, in effect, would be a rather crappy looking model, and I'd say that would be a rather tough judge in our Sport).
So too are the paint colors - you're judged on how closely the colors on the model match those in the photo - in the photo I've attached, it's hard not to note the distinctive "warm" or yellowish tint to the photo. But if that's what's submitted, that's how you'll be judged. You can't just say or use "White" or "Red".
Same thing with markings - adding decals of markings that aren't supported by one's documentation is a risk. Even if you're pretty sure the marking would be there (say it's the "United States" on the backside of the round in the attached photo, which I know is there). If you don't have documentation substantiating that other side, you might not wish to add the marking to your model. Judges can be picky, cantankerous things.
The nit I like is dimensional accuracy. We're always told the measurement on the model is compared to the drawing/blueprint one includes in one's data pack. And I get that, as that's the only reference the Judge has, but if one were to look at an actual blueprint, the dimensions are for the as-manufactured/as-machined item, not the finished painted item. The paint is extra in real life.
All of which is a rather long way of saying one should work to one's goals - if your objective is a nicely painted sport model, or a sport-representation of a real life prototype, have at it. Or, perhaps the mood hits to take on the challenge of producing a more authentically finished model for Scale competition purposes, then why not? Both motives, and both challenges, are completely valid. Which, coming back to the subject of the thread, is why we will no doubt see both Sport versions and Scale versions of the Doorknob. Estes has done a good job creating the conditions for that choice.