Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ultravanillasmurf

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 72
Work In Progress / Re: New Scenic Range - More Fence Info 171126
« on: December 11, 2017, 05:53:27 PM »
A couple of fences from a museum in the Czech republic.

Showcase & Gallery / Re: UVS models
« on: December 11, 2017, 06:46:13 AM »
Just started work on my M4A3E8.

Going for a late model with HVSS.

General Discussions / Re: Q4/17 New Releases - Is now 4 weeks away! 171209
« on: December 09, 2017, 10:38:46 PM »
Great news , really looking forward to the Shermans  .

Me too.

Work In Progress / Re: New Scenic Range - More Fence Info 171126
« on: December 08, 2017, 04:48:59 PM »
My issues with Rubicon's log fence are (1) it's too open, so it doesn't look like it would provide cover or block movement, (2) it's rather basic, so it's not visually very interesting, and (3) the texture on the base looks a bit crude.  It just isn't up the the standard of their vehicle kits.
I agree with Pinky's comments, plus the construction of the model panels would make it difficult to simulate the construction of their example. The horizontals have a substantial overlap, shown in the middle of the model, but how would you  join the panels?

You should have two basic panels, one with high horizontals (three bars?), the other with low ones (two bars?). The left hand end of a panel has vertical posts (three or four) with the right hand end having just the horizontal poles. You then assemble the fences high panel, low panel, rinse and repeat.

Work In Progress / Re: New Scenic Range - More Fence Info 171126
« on: December 08, 2017, 04:11:28 PM »
This is a log fence in a Russian museum, possibly the Taltsy museum near Irkutsk.

I might have some more photographs somewhere.

General Discussions / Re: Moulds in the Making... 171207
« on: December 07, 2017, 04:53:03 PM »
Excellent. I was trying to work out what it was, the aerial confused me as I thought it was the turret walls.

@Tracks: was that the How it's Made programme section on Renedra's figure manufacturing? That would seem a bit quaint to Our Gracious Hosts as they have been using traditional 3D pantograph techniques (usually requiring a 3 up master model) to mill the moulds. Especially quaint when they have used a 3D print as part of the process (but not so if the sculpting is done in the traditional manner).

General Discussions / Re: BM13 Katyusha dimensions?
« on: December 07, 2017, 01:10:51 AM »
Okay, assembled.

Length 127
Height 60
Width 42

Without Katyusha (but with mudguards etc)
Length 110
Height 37
Width 42

Katyusha only
Length 100
Height 40
Width 40

All in millimetres.

General Discussions / Re: BM13 Katyusha dimensions?
« on: December 06, 2017, 05:08:29 PM »
These might help.

Otherwise I will post measurements tonight (unless someone else has one to hand).

Work In Progress / Re: Codename: Sherman 2016 - 75mm Turret Sprue 171205
« on: December 05, 2017, 11:04:40 PM »
Thanks for letting us know and for allowing the build of both turrets.

Is F08 the hatch for the Firefly?

I only entered the hobby in 1984 and (as you might guess) live in the UK, so they are brands I had never heard of.

Interesting timeline here:

"20mm" has an interesting history, which is mentioned in passing in the above link. There is a reference to HO (also known as 3.5mm to the foot) as the US figures.

Due to (traditionally) United Kingdom railways having a smaller loading gauge than Continental railways it was not possible to get the mechanism into the 1/87 scale body shells (this version is occasionally disputed, though it is also repeated for N Gauge). The choice was made to use the scale of 4mm to the foot (or 1/76 scale), also known as OO gauge (which is 16.5mm gauge but 4mm to the foot scale - so narrow gauge of four foot one and half inches).

That means that the UK small figures (Airfix branded their figures as HO/OO but were 1/76) were bigger than true HO at 1/87.

A man 20mm tall is about five foot eight inches in HO, but only five foot in OO.

Of course the additional confusion of 1/72 scale (which I guess is the equivalent of US O Gauge scale of 1/48 due to US modellers not wanting to mix measurement systems) which requires a figure between 24 to 25mm to the top of the head.

Model railway wise the next scale is S Gauge at 1/64 scale which traditionally in the UK is thought to be 25mm scale.

I remember the Twilight 2000 figures being tiny compared to the Platoon 20 figures because the former were 1/87.

Work In Progress / Re: Codename: Sherman 2016 - Decals for the M4 171129
« on: December 03, 2017, 02:57:42 AM »
The Sherman III sheet has the 33rd Armoured Brigade Diablo and the First Northamptonshire Yeomanry tactical sign (up to August 1944). With some judicious application of mud (or a steady hand and some white paint) it will also get you the two RAC regiments.

So I will have to buy as many Sherman IIIs as Sherman Is. Cunning marketing ^__^.

Maybe they’ll release them in blister packs like the German ones?
They are supplying both sheets in the M4 box!

Most excellent!



I remember figure heights as always being ground to eyes because you could not see the top of the head, especially if said figure was wearing a shako.

I have a large collection of GZG 25mm figures.

Work In Progress / Re: New Scenic Range - More Fence Info 171126
« on: December 02, 2017, 10:19:29 PM »
I wonder if Rubicon are using the fences as an exercise, both to see if there is a market and for new staff.

As they have noted, the main bottle neck is the mould production. This is far simpler than the slide mould required for the track.

The Pak 40 is listed for quarter 4 (okay that will probably overrun) but would be unaffected by any design work they are doing now.

Certainly going to be popular, if previous posts are to be believed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 72