Complexity could be ruining our hobby - why model aircraft need to be simpler!

[@beckersmodels]

Wow, over 100 comments in less than 12 hours - this hit a nerve! Cant respond to you all but I will try to keep the conversation going. Cheers, Chris PS. Oh to those of you who are saying I should take up knitting, or just do Lego, or are heavily implying that I lack the skills to complete a complex kit and therefore am a lesser modeller than you, there's the door, you're not welcome at my channel.

[@IanLanc]

I've just started to make the first Airfix 1/72nd Wellington Bomber....From 1956, so simple and crap it's adorable and full of nostalgia.

[@BobMuir100]

Block ‘em Chris they talk shit! Bob England

[@shanewaterman4125]

@@beckersmodels ignore them! @hpiguysworkshop gets the same kind of comments because he uses rattle cans and Sharpie pens to paint and detail his vehicle kits - but he gets stunning results! So, who's correct? It's just another string to this immature 'if I disagree with you, I must hate you' culture prevalent today. Ignore it. The more it gets fed, the longer it'll take to bigger off!

[@IanLanc]

@@lexkroese8468 That question aimed at beckersmodels or me ? just curious 🧐

[@beckersmodels]

@@IanLanc dont care who it was posed too - he's out. I've built complex kits and have done extensive scratchbuilding (e.g the complete interior of an Argentinian AML-90) - this is not a "your skills arent good enough" issue, but clearly there's folks out there trying to measure dicks.

[@lllordllloyd]

Meh, it serves a market. But Tamiya prove that making good kits that are BUILDABLE is always a commercial winner.

[@socaljarhead7670]

Their current kits are outrageously priced.

[@theblytonian3906]

@@socaljarhead7670 Not really. Tamiya do segmented price points commensurate with to the age/tooling/detail level/inclusions of their kits. Most are no dearer than most other premiere mainstream manufacturers, and in many cases cheaper. e.g. Dragon (armour). Concur a select few of their newest aircraft kits can make the eyes pop with sticker shock. e.g. 1/48 F-35 & P-38 or 1/32 F4U-1. However I'm surmising you might be in the UK as I've noted Brits consistently whining about Tamiya pricing. Single line import distro greed problem? It evens out though, as you have a huge price and availability advantage over there when it comes to Eduard and other kits which come out of Europe. ICM, Zvezda, Revell AG, Airfix.

[@flick_shot_5625]

@@socaljarhead7670 I got their P-38, and oh my god its worth every cent. They go together like a dream. In this case you definetly play for the quality.

[@Ilkleyscot]

@@socaljarhead7670I used to build models far to expensive it’s killing the hobby used them for my paintings and enjoyed both

[@IanLanc]

@@Ilkleyscot Back in the 70's & 80's it was a ''pocket money'' hobby, some small kits only costing 39p, Airfix are still knocking out the exact same kit but it's now £7 - humbrol tinlets of paint was just 12p but are now £2.90p, I remember my brother buying the big airfix 1/24th Stuka it was just £3.50p at the time, now it's £97! Seeing how much they charge is astounding knowing this hobby was just aimed at kids back then, now it's aimed at the adult so bang on adult prices.

[@1965GJS13]

For us in-flight modellers, I beg and plead to the kit manufacturers - give us a pilot in the kit!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!

[@beckersmodels]

Hear hear! Its not that hard to do at a good price point either - the Hasegawa figures are perfectly fine in all scales, yet somehow they are the same price as others? I don't believe the nonsense around "it makes kits more expensive"...

[@beckersmodels]

@@RichardsModellingAdventures I dont build museum replicas, I display as in flight in the real world. And if you've been to the best aircraft museum in the world - at Omaka - ALL of the aircraft in that museum have 1:1 scale crew....

[@RichardsModellingAdventures]

@@beckersmodels The Stuff at Duxford sure aren't replicase. Flown in and hung up, but I guess if you want real world in flight you're gonna need a pilot.

[@martinoude-vrielink7956]

Fully agree. Pilots must be included. Makes a model much more dynamic. I select kits on pilots included

[@rogueplastic]

Agreed, pilots are a must have.

[@danielhurley7047]

I agree with you 100%. I like my airplane models that look like airplanes, not gutted fish. I deplore the lack of crew figures with most new kits.

[@IanLanc]

Defo' I can't understand why most kits have no figures these days, the old Tamiya 1/48th Lancaster with the crew inside is ace.

[@andrewtucker7437]

You raise some very valid points. I'm an older modeller (58) and people may laugh, but I would also like less complexity. I've worked in computers most of my life, so my eyes have suffered. Recently I wanted to build the British navy Phantom in 1/72, but 300 pieces? Including antenna etc? I have to admit I now lack the manual dexterity to apply antenna or decals that may be no bigger than one millimeter. Finally, having a family, I lack sufficient time to assemble a kit of this complexity. And OMG, for a crew figure and stand! Would love for airfix to make a British phantom in 1/48!

[@JohnDora9-95.]

Hello! Agree in total: at age 62 same issues… Opti-Lens on- hands shaking a bit etc. I’m just about to finish the Tamiya 1:48 KI-61 working on/off as conditions allow- 3-months on my bench. All painted on large markings- hair spray chipping and weathering et Al. I wouldn’t DREAM of taking on a 1:72 scale. That said- IF we older “dudes” want a new modern kit- 300 pieces for a 1:72 is nuts! Or a 1:48. 1:32 maybe: but time and SPACE for display lead so many of us into the 1:48/1:72 area… Good Luck and Cheers-

[@tankertom3243]

I am not far ahead of you at 61 and well remember the days of Aurora, Hawk, Lindberg, MPC and others. Ten parts maybe, great to get kids involved and cheap so it did not matter when they turned into toys. Although it is a good thing they got away from the raised lines for the decals and molded in pilots!

[@brianpentecostaldeplorable9841]

All good points. Hopefully, the market will shift towards the less complicated and cheaper kits that will sell better. I like lots of people on this reply list am about 60. Back in the day my big brother and I put together a lot of models. We always loved good details, but to leave out a figure was unheard of !

[@tankertom3243]

@@brianpentecostaldeplorable9841 Yeah, even if it was one of the molded in figures, it had to be there.

[@distractedgeek]

100% Agree with you! I'm 59, I got back into modelling and I was astounded at the level of detail in many kits today. I love WWII aircraft, but I prefer to display in flight mode. So I don't need nor want to build an engine that will be completely enclosed in a cowl, nor do I want to spend a great deal of time on a uber detailed cockpit that will be displayed in closed canopy. I became so frustrated that I started looking for the old 1/48 scale classic Monogram kits. I okay with sanding the exterior, adding panel lines if necessary. It has also steered me towards 3D printing. models as well. It's the same with WWII armor. I don't need to build the interior if the hatches are to be closed. Different strokes I suppose.

[@blank557]

Purists will faint,but when building any kit, if the parts are never going to be seen, I leave them out. As long as the external model is painted well, and looks good, no one is going to see or know if I left out the driver seat in a Tiger tank if the hatch is closed.

[@beckersmodels]

I actually have a large box full of landing gear parts plus interior parts Ive collected from building nearly 150 aircraft models in the last 10 years - great greeblies for scifi projects!

[@josephseare3979]

I do the same

[@ruskiwaffle1991]

I don't think I've ever built a model with a proper cockpit, often I just quit and stick on the canopy.

[@Roy-gi5ul]

It seems to me that what you say also applies to my own hobby of railway modelling, and it is taking complexity to extremes and pricing stuff out of the reach of younger or less wealthy adults. Makes no sense to me!

[@davidmccann9811]

I'm the same. I recently watched a fellow modeller spend hours beautifully detailing and painting every detail of a Shackleton interior, even using a ton of etch and figures. And then he closed it up so you couldn't see any of his work. All power to modellers that take the "I know it's there" view, but I'm not one of them.

[@markusparkus68]

I think it all depends on our individual comfort zones and preferences...just stick with what works for you, and do it your way. The bottom line is enjoy the hobby! 😊

[@tankertom3243]

No the easy cheap intro kits with 10-15 parts are long gone. They were cheap, easy and it did not matter if they turned into a toy for an eight year old.

[@boblobla1611]

I've built a couple of the newer kits like the Mini Art P47, and Magic Factory A4M. I still think the old Tamiya P47 is superior in buildabilty and value. I was an A4 mechanic and can't recall ever seeing one with all of the panels opened. Also when parked the flaps may be down and speed brakes slightly opened. As for the rivets, unless you were laying on the wing you are not going to see then. We certainly never used the wing as a putting green. I think what some manufacturers re missing is that alot of us have limited building time and don't want to spend six months finishing every kit.

[@Scarebus_Driver]

Throw in the completely inaccurate Livekit A-4 nose area where correctly scaled seats wont fit and older kits are in many ways superior.

[@niarlatotepbasset]

Personally, I love complexity. There are still simple and good model kits on the market, but such abundance in complex model kits was never before and I am welcoming it with smile and open arms. There are lot of people, like me, that waited for decades for that to happen. It's not like simple kits will somehow disappear overnight 🙄.

[@tankertom3243]

Yes, the days of ten piece simple cheap kits are long gone. There was a time when the Monogram P-40 Flying Tiger in 1/48 was a complicated kit. It is a shame to because a lot of young kids will never have the chance to get started and the model companies are osing a lot of customers. I run a model club for beginners and we use the AMT/ERTL P-40F and it is not complicated for an experienced modeler, but for a beginner it is intimidating without help. Since many parents are not involved they are at a loss also, so it is just forgotten.

[@flick_shot_5625]

@@tankertom3243 Honestly in terms of younf modelers i feel like they gravitate towards warhammer, gundam and star wars kits more anyway.

[@corsair371]

That is nice but comes with high increase in price 😢

[@corsair371]

Complexity = Expensive $$$$$$$$$😢

[@javiergope8797]

Well, I agree. Eduard releases weekend edición of its models which are what you promote, basic interior with very fine exterior. Thanks for your proposal

[@richardhiggins6471]

I agree with you 100%. I'm a teacher and I run an after school modelmaking club. Hardly any of the new kits available these days are suitable for beginners. They want simplicity (like the kits of my youth) along with parts that are cleanly moulded and fit together well (like the Tamiya/Hasegawa of my youth). And yes, wheels up and pilots please, so that they can be hung from the bedroom ceiling - and the ceiling of my classroom!

[@JL-mv8rc]

Take a look at the Revell catalog. They are producing the MPC and Monogram kits from the 80s along with their own. Many have Pilot figures. Airfix still produces their older kits branded classic. Italieri has a lot of easy-to-build models as well. So does Tamia.

[@wkelly3053]

You hit the nail on the head. Many of us older modelers complain that the youth is not interested in our hobby, but complexity and price hardly encourage the kids' involvement. Kudos to you for your after-school club, and who better than a teacher👍? I have a saying that the appeal of a model is more in the artistry than the added parts.

[@jetmec]

Model kits are going the same way as model railways, some people want high detail and others just want to build the model and display it. I totally agree there needs to be two options, basic and detailed

[@IanLanc]

100% agree models are not like they used to be, Because of the internet it's become a competitive war with who can make: The best looking - Make the most complicated kit - The most PE or Resin parts used in a kit.....People spend hundreds on airbrushes just so they can be like the 'Kings Of Model Builders' and spend a few thousand on paints/washes etc......I still brush paint my stuff, they say it's an art to airbrush model parts......Brush painting is a dying art now, ditch the airbrush and get learning how to hand brush.

[@theblytonian3906]

Not gettiing into the brush vs airbrush debate, but that notwithstanding, you are acccurate in your keeping up with the Jones' & oneupsmanship observations. Sadly pathetic aspect of the human condition.

[@IanLanc]

@@theblytonian3906 I see this pre-shading & post-shading on many many models these days to the point it's getting out of hand as everyone copies, same with chipping, mass chipping is fine for a Jap aircraft because of the very salty climate but not on a British wartime bomber, on jet aircraft you see the dark areas between the panels because jet aircraft has very intricate/expensive/delicate workings throughout so water ingress is bad, to stop water ingress the panels had thick oil wiped in the joints, in a hope to stop water ingress, that's why you see the dark edges on such jet aircraft..... But it's totally wrong to do this same effect on prop powered aircraft, everything in mainly mechanical with very little electronics, other that wingtip lights etc etc...... I had to laugh at one model maker who had chipped the hell out of a wellington Bomber, it never chipped on the fuselage wings because they are doped canvass covering.....Know and get to know the subject well and don't copy.

[@johnhammond6423]

Yep, my airbrush went into the loft and I developed brushing skills No blooming airbrush to take apart and clean every time!

[@IanLanc]

@@johnhammond6423 Mine is in a corner of the room with 2 inch of dust on it, so much pissin about, makes me chuckle when someone gets pre-shading and spraying the cockpit of a 1/72nd Spitfire, even airbrushing the rest of the fuselage, just so it's pleasing to everyone else eyes....Fuck that for a game of soldiers and get the paint brush out....What ever that means!! 🤡

[@StormTrooper-bf6xb]

@@IanLanc small internal cockpit and partly hidden areas is fine to brush paint. It isn’t worth the time and effort to airbrush small components . The main external structure of a model does require airbrushing for better finish as this is what’s going to be looked at. The average person can spot a poor paint job so overall effect is important but they won’t worry much about a red firing button that’s been missed out of the cockpit detail. Make the best finish possible on the external surface and not be obsessive about very minor details.

[@pandaphil]

There are plenty of Revell, Tamiya and older Airfix kits for people who want "simple" kits.

[@larrycoldwater1964]

As an side - generally, over complexity is a feature of our society these days. It seems designers, planners and organisers think it clever to make simple things more complex rather than working to simplify the complex ❤

[@larrycoldwater1964]

Unnecessary complexity is a feature of our neoliberal society. It makes us think that some is better than it actually is. It’s a con like thinking Louis Vuitton products are better quality than the stuff we buy at K-Mart.

[@Arno_L]

​@@larrycoldwater1964 honnestly, they are better but not really necessary

[@alainvandenbosch2685]

I LOVE complex kits... in fact the building part is my favorite part. I know at the end I could have the same level of detail with a Tamiya kit... but they are just too simple to build to make me happy. It is a matter of preference and there are plenty of very basic quality kits on the market to choose from.

[@madhatterstudios966]

Mate, you've raised some good points and yeah, I share them to an extent. However, It all depends on what you want and expect from a kit at the end of the day. You have to remember for years, builders have been complaining about the lack of details, part counts etc and manufacturers have responded in kind by making these highly complex kits in an attempt to satisfy those builders. In some part, I also think they're trying to compete against the AM detail makers, having more complex kits in order to save the builder some money. As you say, Academy make nice and simple kits to satisfy those of us who just want a reasonable representation of the subject at hand. There are heaps of people who want an autopsy style display and high parts count really matter to them. Those kits like the Airfix Sea King etc are aimed at them - not us. Still, it is a good point and IMO, I'd rather makers engineer their kits better to be able to have it wheels up than having everything on display.

[@Poopster4U]

I got into this about 2 years ago and love the complexity, and will pay more for higher quality kits.

[@patrickrobinson-mh5jw]

Agree

[@Horaczkocom]

And intelligent engendering. No like Edward over ingenering.

[@MrJ027]

I agree. There is always lego and diecast

[@Donleecartoons]

Complexity does not always equal quality.

[@TomasFunes-rt8rd]

@@Donleecartoons Hell yeah !! I started building a Polish made A-40 flying tank last night, and the complexity of maddeningly fiddly little 1/76th scale pieces - even including a full interior, completely invisible of course!! - was jawdropping enough, but the actual part fit was abysmal, and only manageable by setting up plasticine to allow the road wheels and struts to dry without facing in 8 different angles or falling off....

[@larrycoldwater1964]

Tamiya are still the best. Complexity and detail are just right. Arma & Eduard are a bit OTT - academy and hasegawa are good too.

[@willthorson4543]

Tamiya and complexity? Lol

[@larrycoldwater1964]

@@willthorson4543 yeah Tamiya are great. Not everyone is an expert some of us like a well a detailed build that quick and easy resulting in a great looking model. Hobbies should be fun and enjoyable not be overwhelmingly complicated. There’s enough of that shit at work and with the family. Unless of course there is no work or family and you need something overwhelmingly complicated to fill a void.

[@theblytonian3906]

Depends upon the scale. 1/32 aircraft, Hasegawa win hands down for the balance of complexity, accuracy, detail and price. Tamiya sit in between Zoukei-Mura and Hasegawa, but are getting right up there in price. Whilst their parts design engineering Tamiya's remains a standard of excellence, their more recent 1/48 offerings are getting ever more unnecessarily complex, with price points to match.

[@theblytonian3906]

@@willthorson4543 Exactly this kind of trite elitest nonsense ruining the hobby. Whilst their vintage stuff from the 1970s & '80s might not be "complex", they still sell exceptionally well reflecting a market which rejects insane price points and unnecessary capandering to autistic pedants. Latest Tamiya in both 1/48 and 1/32 is becoming ever more unnecessarily complex reflected in their price points.

[@joeshmoe9978]

​@larrycoldwater1964 well said 🏅

[@chrisbisho9785]

100% agree . I've been saying the same thing since Monogram started putting in all that interior detail in its 1/48 bomber kits . 80% of which dissappears as soon as the 2 fuselage halves are joined .

[@shanewaterman4125]

@@chrisbisho9785 I've never seen the sense in including detail that can never be seen once the model is finished! To me that suggests the manufacturer isn't paying as much attention to getting the things that can be seen correct, and there's one word which sums that up - Rivets!!

[@bobgasm1471]

as someone who built aircraft at full scale....the only way you should be able to see a flush mounted rivet is because it's a different color, when it's painted they are difficult to see unless you're very close to it. I believe the tolerance was +/- 0.002.

[@flick_shot_5625]

its litteraly artistic freedom, get a kit like that and it will look terrible in scale. besides, helicopters like the Lynx and Seaking have raised rivet instead of countersunk rivets in alot of places and those are very much visisble.

[@BlackAndBluez]

Great video mate. I agree completely. This is what makes the Tamiya kits from the 90’s and 2000’s close to perfect in my opinion. Excellent quality, reasonable price and basic but sufficient detail out of the box, but they leave you with enough mojo and pocket money to go nuts with detailing should you want to.

[@paulhargreaves1497]

....and Kotare today.

[@theblytonian3906]

Concur 100%. Tamiya 1/48 aircraft kits from the mid-1990s through mid-2000s got the balance right.

[@jmcc2275]

The Tamiya mosquito I’ve just finished building was indeed close to perfect.

[@jmcc2275]

@@paulhargreaves1497reasonable price?

[@paulhargreaves1497]

@@jmcc2275 Well, OK a bit higher...but no bloody engine like the Tamiya one. A royal pain to get the cowls to fit closed.

[@Jimmythefish577]

I’ve just got back into the hobby after a 35 year break, I’ve bought a bunch of kits in various scenes, from 1/24, 1/32, 1/48 and 1/72 from Airfix, Revell, Hasegawa and ICM, I’ve been taken aback by the level of detail in the 1/48 scale kits, way more complex than I’ll ever need. I remember back in the day if you wanted something cheap and cheerful you went with Airfix, if you wanted something fancy you went with Tamiya or Hasegawa. I definitely think there needs to be a balance between the two ‘styles’. There’s nothing wrong with detailed interiors, if that’s what interests you, but there should be a less detailed, more affordable option of the same kit for those who aren’t interested in details as small as the pilots lunch sandwiches being shown.

[@satindersingh3985]

Absolutely TRUE...The bitter truth is that these manufacturers are in a" wrestling lock" competition...trying to outdo the other with greater complexity and in result...put a bigger price tag on it....meaning more profit. Check the quality of the styrene/plastic, clear parts, PE,some with rubber tires...it's horrible...parts joined too close to the sprues, lots of clean-up needed, decals thin as wafers,majority have wing root alignment problems, mislabelled parts, pre drilled holes in the wings are out of sync with the pylon tabs....list goes on and on. I compared the 1969 Aurora model C 119 G packet with the 2002 Roden AN 12 BK Cub...Oh...what a difference in quality and price... A zillion thanks for bringing up this issue...

[@shumyinghon]

tamiya got the concept pretty much right decades ago..thats why they are still sought after. pity they don't seem to focus on expanding their plastic kit range

[@kevelliott]

I got into the hobby as a child in the 60s. I was obsessed enough to buy and devour the monthly Airfix Magazine. The models were very simple, but the essence of advanced modelling in those days was conversions. I remember a couple of projects that I read - converting the Lanc to a York (fuselage carved from a length of block balsa) and an operating retractable undercarriage for a Stirling! I also learned about making canopies or tank turrets from acetate or sheet plastic. The point is modellers were encouraged to add their own complexity.

[@brucethemodelnoob]

What I’m hearing is that there is enough variety out there to satisfy both modellers who want simplicity and those who want complexity. The Airfix Sea King falls into the latter category, which sounds like the source of your frustration. I’ll defend some kits that seem complex- like Eduard’s Wildcat - the multi-part cowl fits so perfectly that it literally made me smile as I was slotting the pieces in place. The seemingly-complex landing gear falls together if you take it slowly and have patience. I guess my point is I’m less worried about complexity than I am about engineering and fit. A simple kit that you have to fight to assemble and waste time and effort on filling, shims, sanding, more filling, etc. does more to turn off novice aircraft builders (which I am) than a kit with a lot of parts that goes together as advertised due to excellent engineering and moulding.

[@timothyschmidt2576]

I've been saying the same as you for years, and been modeling for 50 years plus!! I love the hobby, but it's just getting ridiculous with all the emphasis on detail, detail, detail and complexity.

[@JL-mv8rc]

I am a rivet counting detail fanatic and appreciate the new parts behemoths to a point. I opened up a Sherman Firefly kit and found sprue upon sprue of parts to make individual six part track shoes. That is just too much. once it goes together it looks no better than a one-piece moulded shoe. But they are movable! Sherman tracks do not sag so there is no point in them being movable unless you want to model a dead shoe. This is going too far even to me.

[@seanmalloy7249]

The Zoukei-Mura kit of the Ho229 is another good example of detail for detail's sake. When you're assembling the Jumo 004 engines for the aircraft, you take the central turbine shaft, thread the compressor discs onto the shaft, and then each half of the compressor casing has the corresponding halves of the stator discs that interleave with the compressor discs, and when you sandwich the compressor casing closed, you can only see the front stator disc and maybe part of the first compressor rotor; the rest is invisible inside the engine casing. Similarly, all of the piping and other hardware added to the outside of the engine disappears inside the aircraft when you close up the fuselage. Now, admittedly, the outer wing sections can be removed (like the original), allowing the engines to be partly visible in the central framework. and Z-M details how to section specific parts of the sprue runners to create a stand to mount an engine out of the aircraft, but all of the work put into detailing the engines is work only you will be able to appreciate once the kit is built, because little if any of it is visible once assembled.

[@thomasfischer6597]

Modeling to me is all about variety. I like all these new opportunities like 3D printed parts, being able to pose panels open to show interior, seperate flight control surfaces etc. After all it's just a matter of personal taste and preferences. I do aircraft, armor ,SciFi and civilian stuff. I build my aircraft in all possible szenarios. On ground, airhorne, crashed, drowned or under maintenance. Sometimes I love to go overboard on detailing, while on the next model I might keep it simple oob. Having worked in both civil and military aviation all my life I saw a lot of different states an aircraft can be in. So I can say if an aircraft is parked or under maintenance it's surely not a car 😅 I do agree that kits have reached a price range and parts count peak. There is no reason to make something multi part when it can be done in one part. Clever engineering is the key as GWH, Tamiya and Eduard kits show. But unfortunately clever engineering is rare and drives the prices even more...

[@marcblank3036]

No problem. Each to their own. I can't afford these high end kits but enjoy the work of others and keep it simple on my side

[@MartinSparks-ef9gr]

I have budget constraints too so , i build simple kits and add simple improvements to build them to the better stardards of the more complete from the box builds , or builds with more aftermarket. I'm buying less aftermarket tbh .

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

I haven't built a scale model in years, but I remember very well how rudimentary the "cockpit" used to be back in the late 70s/early 80s (a cross-bar for the pilot to sit on), and now I see that even the 1:72 single-seat prop fighters are getting detailed cockpits that I would need a magnifying loupe to put together. I've considered getting back into the hobby a couple of times, but the expense is just crazy - and that's before you splash out for paints, brushes (or an airbrush kit), glue, etc.

[@flick_shot_5625]

honestly, in this entire year i have spent 50 euros on modelling, and 40 of that was a book. The expense to start is not that much either, you can definetly build it up over time. ive been modelling again for like 7 years now, and ive spent quite a bit, but if I put a number on it per month its less than 50 euros

[@cfranko1860]

Not for me, I love the complexity (as long as the instructions are good) it makes the build more enjoyable and longer which I feel gives better value.

[@nickbrough8335]

I mostly agree with you on this. We want accuracy (but for the scale) and fidelity with good fit. Where an interior ought to be visible (the open door on the Sea King for example), it should be there at a reasonable level of accuracy. I like the miniart approach with the recent P-47D kits, which have a cheaper basic kit and a super detailed version. I dont want to spend £ amd effort to build engines you cant see, but i am very happy that there are kits where panels can be opened for those that want it as well. Its the same with photo-etch. I dont want it, so if you include it then make sure all parts are in plastic as well.

[@Trevor_Austin]

I believe Kotare have the correct approach. High precision, low parts count. My wish is that the manufacturers work with aftermarket companies for the add-ones. Then everyone gets a good suck of the pineapple. Manufacturers can build great models. Modellers can then choose to have out-of-the-box or go full tilt and buy everything. This spreads the risk and reduces costs.

[@jimzeller3747]

I was told by a number of people that kids don’t build plastic models anymore. We used to build a plastic model in a day and the play with it. It’s now a hobby for 60-year-olds.

[@zwerne42]

With super-glue and fingerprint marks :p

[@lilbickleymane]

Kids definitely still do, everytime I'm at a hobby shop there's kids getting kits. But for the majority, It's just not worth it for a price point/hard to buy kits for children in this time of the world. A basic kit, cement, tools and paint runs up to $50-$100 easily. Once it's built that's it, you either leave it there for life or smash it. You can grab lego for the same price which can be built into anything you want or buy a diecast vehicle of the kit for $10.

[@kitbuster]

I like your point regarding access to the latest tooling by releasing basic kits alongside the more advanced kits but with the benefit of the excellent external detail

[@howmit6361]

I like the idea of two levels: entry and advanced. The advanced model having a minimal number of configurations and modules that you can purchase to fill out whatever you're going for (e.g., full cockpit, ground mx configuration, etc.).

[@JohnRichards-o9t]

I couldn't agree more...thank you! (I had never heard the term 'autopsy model' before, and I love it). I make models, and I am a hobbyist photographer. Modern models are harder to build than those that were around 20-30 years ago, whereas modern cameras make it easier to take fabulous photos.

[@sadblokeproductions]

Absolutely spot on. Had exactly the same conversations at work today whilst two friends and I were talking about our fun challenge of building an Airfix 1:72 scale Mk1 Spitfire and how needlessly complex the cockpit was especially when you won’t see it. We all agreed a simple kit as they used to be would have been better for all of us and what we wanted. Why design and engineer a kit that has absolutely everything in it when you will see less than 10% of it. Model railways are going the same way. Why a fully detailed under frame on rolling stock when you are never going to get that close to see it? As you say it is becoming a “Look at what we can do” situation and the prices are eye watering. No longer pocket money prices more a case of mini investment type prices. Good on you! Be nice if manufacturers actually too notice and stock of such views.

[@ModelAirplaneMaker]

Good points, Chris. While I don’t have an issue with having more choice and options for kit complexity, it is rare for open panel kits to have perfectly fitting panels if you want them closed. Sure, that’s what modeling is all about but when you are asking for premium pricing then you ought to be delivering a premium kit.

[@beckersmodels]

Thanks for the comment - yes having the panels actually getting to fit is a pain - I've mostly had trouble with Trumpeter and Airfix in this regard...

[@AndreasGlad-rq7vx]

YES!! Absolutely! Tamiyas 1:48 P-51 is actually a perfect match of complexity and buildability. Trumpeter is the opposite.

[@pawpawstew]

Aside from the wheel well foible, it's a nice kit for sure!

[@donivanpotter2762]

I love more detail and complexity. Don't care for the expense but I love detail and learning how things work.

[@Andreas_tanu]

Depends tbh, I would pay around 60+ dollars for a premium kit with great detail and fitting (rivets, panel, etc) but not 120+ for gun detail, full engine knowing most of em will eventually be covered. I just bought Bandai's star wars series (X, Y wing, and Falcon) absolutely amazing detail without feeling overcomplex.

[@dekrev]

As an airplane mechanic for 30 years - I’m loving it More accurate details - it’s awesome

[@mdanumurthi]

I am actually starting to go back to simpler kits, be that armor or aircraft models, i.e. tamiya classic kits from the 80's, 90's. I had a melt down a few months ago, going through the more recently issues of "super detailed" kits.

[@guidor.4161]

I've even gone back a step further with building a few ancient kits, but they are even more hassle than over-detailed new kits, because you either have to scratch all details or carve them out of the roughly shaped lumps of plastic included in the kit...

[@JL-mv8rc]

I agree. They can look intimidating. Just do them in sub-assemblies. Think of it as a model made of models.

[@GeoffArnold1]

Reminds me of your "Boxart Paradox" video from 8 years ago. I always build my model aircraft in flight, wheels up, and I agree with most of your concerns. If a manufacturer is going to load up the sprues with a couple of hundred parts, there is no reason not to include a pilot figure and closed doors for undercarriage and bomb bays. If Tamiya and Academy can do it, so can Airfix and Eduard. The incremental cost is negligible. I'd prefer a display stand, but I usually build my own. With modern CAD systems, a simplified kit can still be as dimensionally accurate as the "advanced" version. Sadly, some manufacturers forget this. Case in point: the Airfix F-35B (the 1/72 kit, not the QuickBuild), which is embarrassingly bad.

[@jmcc2275]

Some Airfix kits do have closed doors for the undercarriage.

[@byronwong5615]

I understand his point, but I also do believe that if someone would like to do the hyper complex version, it's great to have that option. Ideally, I love to see what Bandai has done with their gunpla kits - Have a basic version line and have other lines of increasing complexity of the same subject. And price points to match. It's a great way to draw in beginners and allow for modellers to continue to challenge themselves as their skill improve

[@nicmorton280]

You make a really good point, I've just recently completed a 1970s tool kit of a North Sea Trawler, pretty simple and I loved making it.

[@mikewarman315]

I agree with everything you said and I have been building models for over 40 years. I really gotten into the old kits from the 70's and 80's. Low parts count and in the end I don't spend 4 months on it or lose interest all together as with these high part kits. In the end if I'm building Hasegawa 1/72 F-105 (with about 50 parts) when all is said and done it looks like an F-105. The best part about these kits are they do not break the bank.

[@LonePiper9599]

100% Agree. Why include the entire interior that’ll never be seen? I do appreciate a well detailed cockpit though.

[@Daronor01]

You can always skip the interior if you don't want to have it. Ofc you're paying for those parts so I see your point

[@dougeby3996]

The older 1/32 Hasegawa kits are my favorites. Good clean starting point for a simple build if you like, or add as much detail as you wish with aftermarket sets. I applaud the Kotare approach, yes it’s expensive with a complex cockpit, but that’s where it stopped. No engine needed for God’s sake! Great video and a worthy topic.

[@way2sh0rt07grad]

I love the new details in kits now, but id love for them to focus on finally fixing fuselage assembly. Zoukei Mura goes off of panel lines, i just wish there was more of that instead of paying more for parts.

[@richarddouglas688]

Fine Molds is also going down that path. Their A6M5 kits due for a December release follow panel lines. Looking forward to those kits. Their F-4 Phantoms also follow a similar parts breakdown.

[@way2sh0rt07grad]

@@richarddouglas688 You'd think with all the tooling technology it would become the standard. I think it would bring Revells reputation up a few notches.

[@JohnMckeown-dl2cl]

I agree totally. Some of the kits I have bought recently have an astronomical parts count and include "full interiors" that nobody will ever see. It just adds complexity and difficulty to the build and many times takes the joy out of the build. One exception is if you are going to build a diorama of the model showing it being serviced/rearmed/refueled on the ground. I built the Tamiya Bf-190G-4 with this in mind and wanted to be able to show the open engine cowling. Scale armor has taken the same route with full interiors that will never be seen through the very small hatches. And don't even get me started on some the ridiculously tiny and fiddly photo etch that comes in many kits.

[@skipschauer5535]

The nerd in me loves this detail....

[@6346n]

It cuts both ways. Some of these new kits are soo good I have to have them. Many of the older Tamiyas and Haegawas are entirely what I want. It depends on the airplane type and how I anticipate displaying it. It is really fortunate that we have so many choices. Lots of good stuff out there!

[@JM-wx8ik]

I agree. Great video. I’ve been working on the new tooling 1/72 airfix phantom and I think it’s trying to be more clever and complex than it need to be with various parts having to interconnect together. Works better in theory than in practice. It’s too complicated and pricey for a new modeller, and too cumbersome and a little basic for an experienced modeller. I like having options with builds sometimes, but it also means more work to make it look good in its basic configuration.

[@michaellemaire5380]

I think it really depends what you are trying to get out of the Hobby. There are many like myself who like a high parts count, complexity and detail. Others like a more middle of the road approach and then there are those who want to model like they did when they were kids, simply putting a kit with a low parts count together, slapping some paint on it and some decals and calling it done. whichever way you prefer to build, there are models out there for all to enjoy their hobby they way they want to enjoy it. New complex models are not ruining the hobby, the demand is there. It's up to those individuals with a different modeling philosophy or a lower skill set to know what they are buying.

[@flick_shot_5625]

I could not have said this any better, the video is acting like there is nothing left to do and the hobby is ruined for them because they dont get what they want, wich isnt even factually true, and if you really want an in flight model, buy a figure and close the panels using some basic modelling skills. Thats what people tell me to do when I want something thats not in the box, just build it yourself.

[@markgordon2260]

I for one like detailed interiors, however with the close tolerances in moulding nowadays you have to be careful in keeping paint off mating surfaces, and they are not for beginners. However I also like simplicity as well as a break from more complex models. I just put together Tamiya's 1/48 Spitfire Vb - simple, but it has a nicely detailed cockpit, and builds into a lovely kit. This is in contrast to their more recent complicated Me109 which gets very mixed reviews.

[@girthbloodstool339]

I'm with you here. I've always liked building my aircraft wheels up, an I have finally run out of pilots from my spares box.

[@martinlarkin8066]

I'm an armour modeller. Mostly 1/35. What really puts me off a kit is the rediculous individual link tracks. Sometimes with 4 or 5 parts per link. That can add up to hundreds of parts. Link and length tracks look just as good when finished.

[@tonyparker4211]

I wholeheartedly agree. I recently purchased a bunch of Airfix 1/72 aircraft kits from their “new” tooling range and I can say now, the details look great, but it is beyond pointless. Same goes for the Italeri 1/72 Short Sterling kit. So much pointless detail that will never get seen. Modellers wonder why prices for a kit is so high, well there is your answer. Unnecessary internal detail driving tooling costs through the roof and we are expected to pay through the nose. Academy have that nice middle ground where the kits are not over engineered, look great and a nice price. I like your idea of two versions of a kit, detailed and not so detailed.

[@kentbarnes1955]

Well...at 2 days out from dropping this video...my comment is probably lost is "complexity". I think you make a VERY valid point, and I'm glad I watched all the way to the end because my recommendation would be the "two paths" one. One path focuses on "basic build" kits (nothing fancy, just good solid engineering at a price point that might allow "newbies" to give the hobby a try and make a decent end product they would proudly display), and "advanced kits" (with all the bells, whistles, interiors, gun bays, etc., etc.,). Full disclosure: I'm one of those nutters who can NOT resist adding aftermarket to a kit (yep...I even added aftermarket to a Zoukei-Mura kit I have)...so...I''m probably the guy who saves my money (or should do) and buys the "advanced kit". But...we have one member of our local modeling group who builds nothing but 1/72 basic kits that cost

[@paulhastings3439]

I have noticed that some of my newer Airfix builds (eg; Blenheim MK IV) have ended up in the bin, after fit issues with internal details, whereas older simpler kits have ended up in my display cabinets. The more internal details, the more of a potential problem, risking ending up in the bin, which makes me less willing to take on the more detailed builds. I do think that newer, more detailed kits look great, but the failure rate is higher. With limited spare time, simpler kits always get completed.

[@beckersmodels]

Yep I'm very wary of latest Airfix kits with a lot of internal detail or doubling up of engineering options. Yes, they are fixable, yes they provide a challenge for some who love fixing the kit, but I dont want that - I'm trying to build a kit to enjoy the process! The Sabre was a hassle, I'm hoping the Walrus I have half done with its full interior will be less of a challenge when buttoning up!

[@TimsScaleModelling]

This is where ICM wins. I’ve built two of their 32 scale Gladiators and they’re brilliant, basic builds, low part count, they look great. About to start the 32 scale Falco and that should be similar. I totally agree with you mate

[@beckersmodels]

Yep I got the ICM Falco recently and its definitely a great intermediate kit. I'm thinking about the Gladiator too - in fact a lot of the newer ICM stuff is really interesting me these days...

[@Frank-nh9fe]

The same trend happened in cycling, to the point where an entry level bike now costs $700+. Ideally something at all levels, the simple (inexpensive) kit, maybe mid-complexity, and real complex for the advanced modeler.

[@beckersmodels]

That's what I was trying to say - I've seen this happen in other fields too, more complexity at first driven to "satisfy the customer" but really its making everything more expensive.

[@asdf9890]

Yep, been a mountain biker all my adult life. First bike cost me $350 mid 90s. Now it’s hard to find a decent hard tail under 1k! I’ve spent more on shifter/derailleur upgrades than my first bike cost.

[@victorsantiago9925]

Is good to have plenty of options. I love old Models kit for its simplicity, even most of them are toy like. But certainly I'm becoming fan of models with interior parts, It Is incredibly to show what Is inside. Nice to have that variety of choices, jus enjoy what you like 👌

[@c123bthunderpig]

Gday and a big AMEN, Chris, perfect video, I can add no words except I totally agree. I can add a conformation - I reentered the hobby going on two years now and it was like Rip Van Winkle coming back in. Cost of kits, materials etc. I have been buying the new kits but at a lower rate than before. Ironically my stash is at the point you reference circa 1990's. Plus while vintage kits on eBay can be expensive, most are reasonable prices and a good source. You've developed a fantastic way of displaying in flight modes. Other wise, without stands the only way to show them in flight is to wire them up to the ceiling, and that kind of sucks and defeats the purpose of a nice build. One of the only reasons I bought an ICM last August was because I got a hefty gift certificate from one of my sons. I also think the on line hobby shops are feeling the pinch of your opinion too, I buy from Sprue Brothers and Andy's Hooby on line, for the last several months they have been having 20 to 25% off specific brands weekend sales to move over stocked inventory on high dollar kits. Which I love but keep breaking my piggy banks to grab a lot at a decent price. In fact I've frozen my budget foe 2024, unless I encounter these darn weekend sales - then resistance is futile :-) You're one of my go to model builders as I'm trying to get my skill set back, I always learn something every video, bit this one really adds to the mental and financial aspects of the hobby. Bless Penny for leaving what I call " memory contamination " - all of our cats are gone now but I have old models with the occasional hair In the paint scheme - Cheers Bob

[@beckersmodels]

Missed your comment Bob, sorry for late reply - too many comments on this one to keep track of!

[@c123bthunderpig]

@@beckersmodels no problem, you definitely turned up the volume on this subject.

[@pastorrich7436]

These are good, if not important, conversations to have in the hobby. I used to talk about these topics with my old buddy from Accurate-Miniatures back in the day, and he tried turning some of those conversations into products. I agree with you and think you're onto something. Now, go build something. Cheers!

[@speckgens]

100% agreed. I like my builds (aircraft mostly) as smooth as possible. Rarely I leave a panel open (speed brakes included) unless it definitely adds something extra to the finished model.

[@guidor.4161]

I got the ZM 1:32 Horten 229, but I'm not using any of that full interior detail 😞. Gear up and hanging from the ceiling it will be...

[@antoniomartinez-ij9qd]

yeahh I think unless you are willing to participte on a contest... it´s a MUST to build the detailed interior

[@shealey9763]

You very much have a valid point. I came back to the hobby during COVID after not so much as thinking about modelling for many years. As I think some others have said my initial reaction was "Wow, used to dream of things like this when I was a kid/younger". Having built newer kits there has been more than one occasion when I've wrestled with part of the process and after succeeding (eventually) thought, did it really have to be designed that way? Was it really necessary to break that assembly down like that? I think there are quite a few examples where complexity is unnecessarily built in just for the sake of it, having absolutely no effect on the finished article at least that I can see. Yes, the nerd in me thinks 'Lovely' but I'm afraid the older and much less nimble fingered and much more short-sighted me thinks 'Hell no'.

[@foxstrangler]

It's almost unheard of for me to buy a modern kit. So many parts you won't see. I buy the older stuff, that is often more accurate if less of a challenge to build. I've been modelling for 65 years, and I don't have the lifespan for a stash full of kits with parts running into several hundred. And rivets and panel lines. Real aircraft often don't have them - I help restore 1:1 scale as well. Make it accurate, and keep the part count down. I can build 10 old kits for the time it takes to build 1 new issue. Classic example of overkill Bartini-Beriev VVA 14 in 1/72 scale by Modelsvit 2 x ejector seats with 27 parts to each seat. Madness. Lucky I have 2 replacement resin seats.

[@jmcc2275]

I have a stash of…0 kits. Buy…build ,repeat….lol.

[@panostsadaris7932]

A VERY ACCURATE video !!!. As an 35 years employee in a plastic model kit importer in Greece, I have to say that this question surfaced about 25 years ago. To build a decent plastic model kit had already became an act of forced labour !!! Ok, I accept that a lot of fellow modellers prefer a detailed kit . I think that different (basic and more detailed kits) must be offered from the model producing companies. This is the only solution, if it is financially viable. And YES, I need the pilot and crew because I feel that they give the value to their flying machines.

[@m.carney822]

I think you nailed it. Sometimes more (parts count), doesn’t always equal better. Good food for thought. I hope the manufacturer’s are listening

[@MisterHampshire]

I raised this in a modelling group I belong to, voicing the same sort of concerns, three or four years ago. I was berated and advised to buy Lego kits instead, which I took objection to. But I'm of the same opinion of Becker. First, I am for accuracy and fit, overriding that is fit. I can live with erroneous rivets and panel lines, so long as they're not wholly imaginary. What I don't want is interminable interior detail that's never going to be seen. The Sea King being a case in point. Lovely kit, I enjoyed building it, no question. There's a full interior with floor detail, but once the fuselage halves are closed - main cabin door open or not - virtually nothing is going to be seen. So why bother with that research and development, adding to the cost, when the kit is missing decent detail of the port side entry steps? Or, in being able to fold the main rotors - beautiful touch - yet missing the 'socks' that hold the blade tips? (I can live with the omission of the cabling, someone building the Sea King is going to be a more experienced modeller and can add their own). It seems the trend is for a higher part count to make any one kit look better quality and/or value but I think that's a false selling point, although I would make the distinction of separate parts being available to make it easier for the modeller to - say - paint that and other bits to avoid over-complex masking. But the trend to merely make higher part counts is counter-productive. Beginners will get bored if not frustrated. There's plenty of after-market for those with the experience and love that extra detailing so I return to my first sentence. Accuracy and fit, avoid the unnecessary high part count, particularly where it's never going to be seen again. Concentrate on and make good what's going to be seen.

[@stevenicholson8312]

I agree with you on this, I have just returned to the hobby after a hiatus of 30 plus years now I'm retired. I have purchased a couple of more complex kits but mainly the simple cheaper kits. I do it for relaxation and peace of mind. The simpler kits are cheaper and are easier to finish which gives me a sense of achievement when they're completed. I'm sure I'll tackle the complex kits one day but I'm sticking with the simple for now. Not in it for the kudos or show medals just pleasure. Each to their own style for their enjoyment I say.

[@TheFunkhouser]

SO true about how detailed they are. Actually Ive been putting of building my 1/24 scale Fw190. The parts and detail is beyond me and its almost making me think Im just not interested! No stand, no pilot ... heaps and heaps of work inside only for it to be all covered up. Madness!

[@xs10tl60]

To me, it's really just a matter of personal choice. For some folks, these new kits with huge parts counts, super-detailed interiors etc are a godsend. It might take several months to get them to the finish line, but for a certain type of modeler, that's OK. For others (myself included) it's just too much-unless it's on a subject I'm REALLY in love with, and WANT to do such a detailed kit of. While I admire the extreme detail & complexity, and I really appreciate the time & effort it takes to make that work, I am the kind of modeler who is perfectly happy with the simpler, and detailed enough kits to get them built and get to the painting, marking, and finishing, which is my favorite part. IMHO there is no reason to feel obligated to get the 'latest and greatest'. My stash is loaded with older, easier to build kits that I actually might get completed!

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

I agree with the video. I am 70 and have been building models since I was a pre-teen in the 1960s. I, like many of us, have bought a kit only to put it on a shelf with the idea that it was much more work or complicated than intially thought. For example - I have a poor condition 1/72 Airfix C-47 I build in the late 1960s. A nice kit and looks good. I recently got ahold of the New Tool Airfix 1/72 C-47 and have not started it. Not only is it a lot more complicated, the gouged out panel lines will require tedious filling. The original C-47/DC3 had visible rivets which are missing on the new kit.

[@VC_27]

As a modeller who assembled his first kit (a Frog Spitfire Mk V) in 1975 - I empathise completely. Some kits look so daunting and complex (Zvezda Su-30SM for example) that I just admire the contents of if the box and then stash them away for another day and time. In my case, time is running out rather rapidly.

[@phayzyre1052]

Complexity is not a problem for me. Of course, some modelers like complexity, and super detailing their kits, and my motto is to each their own. However, my big gripe with modeling is prices! Economy aside here in years it’s like model manufacturers think they can slap any price on any kind of kit and people will throw their money at whatever it is. Compounding this problem is you have model manufacturers who do not listen to their customers and that’s one of the reasons why I have been looking at resin printers here recently, and making my own parts as well as kits. Aside from that I’m getting to the point of where if I pay north of $50 US for a model kit, the fit had better be spot on with only minimal filling and sanding. If I have to spend hours upon hours filling sanding (wash rinse repeat) over and over and over again it takes the enjoyment out of this hobby. Also accuracy needs to be improved because too many times I’ve purchased a model over $100 and have accuracy problems then have to spend Lord knows how much more just to get those corrected and that’s another thing that irks me. That’s why I always read the reviews before I pull my wallet out. A few discrepancies and hiccups I can handle, but if it has countless problems, forget it, back on the shelf it goes and back on the shelf it can stay!

[@uberduberdave]

Being a former USAF crew chief we certainly did park aircraft like cars. But, also liked see closed up generally, because open panels meant that you had to something broken it could fly...

[@samuelweaver9308]

You’re right to point to the early 90s Tamiya kits. They were the gold standard for a long time and for good reason. I might also add that a lot of Accurate Miniature’s stuff falls in the same category. The new approach is exemplified well by Eduard. They made a new D model Mustang to compete with Tamiya and loaded it with PE, etc., but ironically, the basic molded parts are more accurate. For example, to affix photoetch they will have you grind off raised detail that is more true to the original. This is why I like to get the weekend editions, which lose a lot of that unnecessary PE for PE’s sake.

[@tezza2213]

I'm with you on less parts, complexity and price. Alot of kits are coming with too a higher part count. I build some Dragon armour kits and instead of having 1 part, they had 3 parts. It was just unnecessary and made making the models just labourious. Parts that could have been moulded on, also become separate parts. Maybe one reason is that they think the more parts they have, the more "detailed" it is and therefore a better product. Like you said, it pushes the price up and out of reach.

[@keithnoneya]

As a former model builder, I prefer the newer models and the details. The reason is you don't have to include the interior, you can just paint the windows blue and call it a day. As for the detail, why would any model builder want less detail. Details are part of the reason we build them. As for the rivets yeah I guess I can understand they are out of scale, however as a former member of HC-85 the Golden Gators base at NAS San Diego I remember those rivets when I washed the helicopters, and even if they are larger on the model, they bring back good memories. It was a great review of the kit. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya

[@andrewwoods4281]

I'm currently building the Airfix 1/24 Hawker Typhoon and I've hit a wall! The engine is so complicated and has so many parts that I've decided to continue with all panels closed. I agree with your views... Over complicated puts me off. Other thing is, with all the alternative parts included, what a waste of plastic in these days of recycling concerns. Cheaper prices would be good too👍 When I started 45 years ago we scratch built any interior details we wanted to add which also made them more unique

[@tombrunila2695]

Late 60's early 70's I built many 1:32 scale Revell and Hasegawa kits. They were all nice to build maybe just maybe on the simpler side. I also built the Hasegawa 1:32 F6F Hellcat and F-86 Sabre. They were great kits and were about as complex as a kit should be. I also built several of the Airfix 1:24 kits. I liked them. And of course a lot of 1:72 scale and 1:48 scale from different makers. I fully agree that kits today are far too complex. And it is in fact difficult to build many kits in flight, something I like to do. The landing gear covers can be difficult to make fit.

[@Ebergerud]

You can always go for the Tamiya WWII aircraft kits produced in the 90s and early 2000s. Good kits, low part count, certainly accurate enough. Personally I find their dirt cheap Zero from the 1970s to be a wonderful kit - very well shaped - and perfect for a beginner.

[@ET-bm5ku]

With you 100%. I dislike paying for parts that I either won't use (opened panels/tech bays), will not see (interiors) or do not want to use (landing gear). Keep it simple, well engineered, and affordable. And ya, toss in a pilot.

[@classicalvintagecollector]

My favorite type of aircraft kits as a kid were the ones that had wheels that turned, ailerons that went up and down, props turned, the landing gear was retractable and had some interior detail that could be seen. The 1/72 Airfix B-25 comes to mind. That was my all-time favorite kit because it was "posable." I collect Star Wars action figures and Hasbro has also gone down the "make it more complex" rabbit hole. Not my kind of thing and the figures are too expensive now.

[@johnparker1696]

If you look at the average Seaking it is festooned on rivits just like the Airfix kit if you don't believe me take a look at one!!!

[@hawkexo]

I think more parts (the Arma mustang landing gear for example) offers flexibility for painting methods. Glue it all together then paint, or you have the option to paint the sidewalls before assembly. I loke optionality like that. But yeah, i prefer the maintenance hatches closed, and like you in most cases the gear up and in flight. Agree with the calls for pilot figures, especially seated in thr cockpits would be very nice.

[@MrRoyalfalconer]

Agree most heartily, seeing what appears to be a trend of pushing higher parts count that are not visible nor necessary just to justify a ridiculous price while not providing basic options like wheels up or crew( a real bug bear of mine) My suggestions: 1.foundation kits.. Manufacturer sells base kit for a reasonable price but offers small “hop up” add on kits (similar to the now very expensive 3D resin aftermarket kits, eg- resin cockpit for my new OV 10D+ Bronco that was $59 more expensive than the kit itself) for more advanced builders specifically for dissection dioramas that way newer modellers are still included. 2. Wheels up options ALWAYS (for goodness sake’s people it’s an aircraft not a car) 3. Crew.. In flight or wheels down I believe a kit without crew looks lifeless. 4. More scale options for each available kit (it can’t be that hard, rescaling a 3D print file is a piece of piss, I can do it and I’m hopeless) That’s about it for now, rant over thanks mate for another great vid keep up the good work Davey NoNo out👍🇦🇺

[@InSidious1805]

I sort of resonate with your sentiment. I’m building the HB TA152 c1 and fighting the anxiety to produce open panels. Then there’s the added research time trying to figure out what goes inside based on obscure or missing blueprints. It’s almost like a tick. However I can’t deny that the added detail is nice so I’m fighting myself haha

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

Excellent points. My beef is panel lines. Commendably thin on new kits, 0.5mm or so. But on a 1/48 subject, that's a 24mm gap. An aircraft with a gap like that between panels would never be cleared to fly! As long as there are old mouldings available, and some of the excellent after market parts, affordable due to the savings made, that'll do me.

[@stuartsteel1]

Every new release should have a pilot and an in-flight option. I'd rather have a pilot over a load of ordinance that doesn't get used and makes the kit more expensive.

[@jamieduff1981]

No thanks, and anyone who thinks that adding extra parts the vast majority don't care about just to appease a few childish feet-stampers doesn't add cost isn't worth listening to.

[@marialippincott3169]

I like how Eduard has different kits from weekend to profipack, one for simple building and another for the over the top crazy builds.

[@garyboyd3255]

Spot on. The new kits tend to be tedious. The slide mold cause them to change the styrene formulation so they don't glue well for me in my hot garage. Don't fit as well either. The 1/32 Tamiya Mustang was a slog. Just reboxed the 1/32 Devastator. Done for now with the tedium.

[@danielbrandao3166]

That’s because you haven’t seen the 1/48 su-33 from minibase… 670 parts 😅 it took me a year to finish …

[@JohnPittaway]

I can easily relate to your ponderings on this subject, I've done similar over the years. When I build, I aim to display either "in flight", or "in service". This means that the build could end up at either end of the spectrum of your topic. If it's an in flight display, the only interior detail I'll need is a pilots' head. No U/c, no prop blades. On the other hand, in an in service display, I want all the hatches & covers open & interior detail bordering on O.C.D. is just fine by me! Especially engine bays! The only solutions I could come up with were either 2 separate kits, a good economical option with bigger kits, I thought, given how many less parts would be in, say, a 1/24 Mossie or Stuka displayed in flight. The other thought that came to me was if the manufacturer could mark on the instructions which parts would not be required or seen when built for in flight display. The miniscule size of many detail parts became a real issue for me when I built the 1/24 Mossie. Many of the bar work & pipe parts for the U/C, bomb bay & engine bays were crumbs in the sprue bags and the ones that survived were so fine I couldn't get them off the sprue without breaking them. I better stop before I get carried away! May your builds fall together!