Messages

631

Showcase & Gallery / Showcasing my work - models used for gaming.

« on: December 22, 2017, 06:12:20 am »

I have to work on taking better pictures of my models because it seems that the colors and details do not look as they do when you see them in person. It might be the lighting, or my camera setting, or both. I'm not sure.

Here are two examples of Rubicon kits I have finished assembling and painting. They are now ready for the gaming table. I pretty much assembled the kits right out of the box with not additional modifications or changes. They have also been assembled and painted for the purpose of gaming only, so they are painted to a basic "gaming standard", and not for competition or static display. I still hope you can enjoy them. Please feel free to comment.

632

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 7 Prime Mover 8t - TS1 Sprues 171220

« on: December 20, 2017, 04:51:28 pm »

Great addition for the 88mm Flak 36/37 kit, and overall just a nice addition to the 1/56th scale plastic kits.

633

General Discussions / Re: My very first Rubicon Models.

« on: December 19, 2017, 12:42:49 am »

I already knew this about the Pak 36 kit before getting it, but I'm still disappointed in the fact that the kit "Includes both standalone & vehicle-mounted PaK 36 AT Gun", but you can only build one standalone. Would have been much better had they given you the option to assembling two standalone AT-Guns instead of only just one.

If we were to include TWO standalone AT-guns, then we will need to include another set of gun crew, which will make the RRP higher because of the extra material cost.  Our aim is to provide one main standalone gun with crew, and the mounted version as a bonus option.

I would have been perfectly happy with just the one crew set, but I see your situation. If you had included the extra parts for making two standalone AT-Guns, then someone would have complained and said, "They give you two AT-Guns, but only one set of crew!". And we all know that will happen, so with this in mind I withdraw my disappointment statement.

The other is used for vehicle-mount only and requires part E15, so why include parts E16 & E17, which are the same, for the "Field Deploy"? You only need one of them.

E16/E17 is for full-shield AT gun (standalone/mounted), and E15 is for half-shield (mounted) only.  They look similar but different.

Okay, I see this now. Thank you for pointing this important detail (step 2a) out to me.

Rubicon Models, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. As for the Pak 36, it is a nice kit. Keep up the good work! The problem now is that now I want to order more to replace the Pak 36 miniatures cast in metal I have in my collection.

634

General Discussions / Re: My very first Rubicon Models.

« on: December 18, 2017, 07:08:00 pm »

I finally had a chance to look at my new kits, and the first thing that popped out at me was the explosion on the T-34 and SU-85 kits. Did anyone else notice that the explosion in the background are exactly the same, but only reversed? It just stood out for me even though it has nothing to do with the kit itself.

Anyway, about the kits. I like the gray plastic they are now using. Still of great quality, but now its just gray. Because I did not know this fact before I ordered the kits, I was pleasantly surprised by the "Free Bonus" you get with the T-34/85 kit. I guess they had room on the sprue or something, but it could also be a marketing ploy?

I already knew this about the Pak 36 kit before getting it, but I'm still disappointed in the fact that the kit "Includes both standalone & vehicle-mounted PaK 36 AT Gun", but you can only build one standalone. Would have been much better had they given you the option to assembling two standalone AT-Guns instead of only just one. The other is used for vehicle-mount only and requires part E15, so why include parts E16 & E17, which are the same, for the "Field Deploy"? You only need one of them.

After looking at the Pak 36 sprue, some re-arrangement and possible removal of some non-critical parts would be needed to get the needed space for the eight needed parts (E20,26,30,33,34,35,37,38) to fit for two standalone AT-Guns. Especially the wheels (E37 & E38), but I feel it could have been done more or less easily. Also, parts E14 and E15 are interestingly marked.

635

Wish Lists / Re: More WW2 AT-Guns in 1/56th scale

« on: December 18, 2017, 06:37:19 pm »

Interesting follow-ups from some people - Long Toms, Howitzers, and the sort.

From a gaming point of view, a request for more AT-Guns is much more piratical because of usefulness. At 1/56 scale (28mm), most games played are of the skirmish variety like Bolt Action, Chain of Command, Battleground WW2, Operation Squad, and so on, so equipment like the Long Tom or British 25-Pdr rarely if ever get any table-top time - unless it is an objective or something.

I would think it would be more useful if Rubicon Models started to release the more common AT-Guns first like the US 57mm gun M1 or Soviet ZiS-2/3 instead of something like the US Long Tom. Speaking for myself, I would buy multiple 57mm M1 kits, but not a Long Tom kit or 25-Pdr kit. I'm more of a gamer than a modeler, so something like the 57mm M1 would be much more appealing to me than a Long Tom or Howitzer.

Maybe after Rubicon Models has completed a series of good AT-Guns they might want to explore the idea of trying out things like Long Toms and 25-Pdrs.
 

636

Wish Lists / More WW2 AT-Guns in 1/56th scale

« on: December 17, 2017, 01:08:12 am »

The Pak 36 was just released by Rubicon, and soon the Pak 38 and Pak 40 will be available. There is even talk and a few teaser 3D drawings of the famous 88mm Flak 36/37 that may (or may not) be released.

But what about other AT-Guns from other countries? Will there be AT-Guns for American, British, French, Italian, Japanese, Soviet Union, and other military forces?

There are lot of AT-Guns that can be recommended, but some possible good choices that come to mind because of good support (lots of other miniatures available), and also they are not available in plastic are the following:

American 37mm gun M3
American 57mm gun M1
American 3-inch gun M5
British QF 2-Pdr
British QF 6-Pdr
British QF 17-Pdr
Soviet 45mm Model 1937
Soviet ZiS-2 (57mm gun)
Soviet ZiS-3 (76.2mm gun)

QF-6pdr + 57mm gun M1:
The good thing about the British QF 6-Pdr is that it can be marketed as an American or British AT-Gun because the 57mm gun M1 was a very close copy of the British QF 6-Pdr. I'm sure Rubicon can catch two fish with only one hook with this kit. By making the kit with the option to assemble either the British QF 6-Pdr and/or the American 57mm gun M1, this would make it very marketable. And maybe the extra bonus bits to make the American Paratrooper version of the 57mm gun M1. Lots of potential for this kit.

Zis-3:
The interesting thing about the ZiS-3 was that the Germans used many captured Russian 76.2mm AT-Guns until the appearance of of the German Pak 40, so this can be marketed as Soviet or German.

Soviet 45mm AT-Guns:
Some of the early Soviet AT-Guns might be easier to make into a kit than having to start from scratch because the Pak 36 was produced under license by the Soviets in 1931, but they later decided to mount a 45mm gun (45mm Model 1937 AT-Gun) in place of the 37mm. Essentially, it is a Pak 36 with a 45mm gun tube. More experienced modelers should be able to convert a Pak 36, but what about crew figures?

637

General Discussions / Re: My very first Rubicon Models.

« on: December 16, 2017, 12:16:02 am »

These just arrived today!

Here is the second batch of some of my very first Rubicon kits. I am enjoying the first batch so much that I had planned to order more. However, they are not easy to get in my area, and I have to make a special ordered (mail order), but even while the paint was still drying on the kit I was currently working on, I had put in an order for a few more. This time I included some Soviet Union vehicles. And of course some of the newly released kits.

638

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 173 Jagdpanther - 3D Prototype 170918

« on: December 10, 2017, 06:00:04 pm »

But I don't want to wait...I want a Jagdpanther now.

I'm with Jaeger on this one. "I want a Jagdpanther now."

639

General Discussions / Re: Q4/17 New Releases - Is now 4 weeks away! 171209

« on: December 10, 2017, 12:24:11 am »

Great news. I am really looking forward to the Pak 38 and Pak 40.

640

General Discussions / Re: Moulds in the Making... 171207

« on: December 08, 2017, 01:14:41 am »

How high quality steel molds are produced with such fine detail has always interested me.

@ultravanillasmurf : No, it was not a "How it's Made" episode. I want to say it was a "Modern Marvels" show, but I just can't remember anymore, and I cannot find it now. It was a pretty good documentary, but a lot of the major details were not covered. This is reasonable since it was more of a general documentary than a detailed training film, so details about how the copper electrodes are made and then used to make the part cavity was largely overlooked.
 

641

General Discussions / Re: Moulds in the Making... 171207

« on: December 07, 2017, 03:45:48 pm »

Ever since I saw this documentary on injection molding, I have been keen to learn more about how it all works including things not covered in the documentary. Such things like how the actual moulds are made, what are they made of, how the actual details of the object are cut into the moulds, how long do moulds last, and many other aspects of injection molding.

642

Work In Progress / Re: New Scenic Range - More Fence Info 171126

« on: December 06, 2017, 03:59:27 pm »

I've never seen a fence like that before (I'm a yank who has never traveled in Europe).  Is that supposed to be some sort of eastern Europe fencing?

I too have not seen a "Log Fences" like the ones shown in the pictures. I would make a guess that this log fencing will not be popular with some gamers and modellers.

If we may ask, where does the inspiration for this specific log fence come from?

643

Work In Progress / Re: Codename: Sherman 2016 - Possible M4 Variants 171206

« on: December 06, 2017, 03:51:12 pm »

M4A1
M4A1(76)W
M4A1(76)W HVSS

Because no one else offers the M4A1 in plastic, I know a couple of wargamers that are looking forward to seeing these release (me included). However, with a code of "280xx", I guess it will be sometime before we will see them on the market.

When the list is finished, you will be able to offer the die-hard wargamer a wide variety of M4 variants!

644

Work In Progress / Re: German AA/AT Guns - FlaK 36/37 initial drawing 171201

« on: December 05, 2017, 11:07:35 pm »

I have to agree with Pinky in that "The British Army figures in the photos of your plastic fences don't look 'right'."

He also mentions, "- it has more visual impact (because the eye is drawn to certain aspects of the model), it tends to look more dynamic, and the exaggerated detail paints up better."

This is something that the Perry brothers have been experimenting with. On their figures, some of the details are a little exaggerated to catch the eye and to enhance the overall look. They don't over do it like other sculptors, but its a careful balance to get a "look"..

When things get scaled down, sometimes artificial optical aids or adjustments have to be added to a figure. Take for example a professionally painted miniature soldier. The painter doesn't simply paint everything in mono-tone colors. Instead, they add artificial shading and highlights to get a more realistic look. Sometimes this applies to physical details as well. By slightly over exaggerating certain details it can enhance the visual look of a figure. Because wargame figure sculptors want to put the emphasis in their work, you see this more evident in wargame figures than in modeling figures. Modeling figures tend to more anatomically correct with non-protruding details while wargaming figures tend to have oversized proportions and over exaggerated details. IMHO, I think its a fine balance of being precise and adding some exaggeration.

645

Work In Progress / Re: German AA/AT Guns - FlaK 36/37 initial drawing 171201

« on: December 04, 2017, 09:05:51 pm »

Measuring to the eyes was the start of the scale creep.

Just like when you go to the doctor's office, they measure your height from the bottom of your feet to the top of the head. I suppose that is why back in the days figure height was measured from the bottom of the feet and to the top of the head. The latter was sometimes a best guess because the figure might have headgear, but it was a pretty good guess.

If you look at some older figures from the 70's and even 80's, you will see that they measure 15mm, 20mm, or 25mm from the bottom of the feet to the top of the head (not including headgear). For example, the old Heritage figures (Napoleonic and American Civil War ranges) were true 15mm figures, and the 15mm and 25mm that Minifigs produced were also a true height. Even all of the Scruby Miniatures that were advertised and 15mm, 20mm, or 25mm were of a true height. However, some of the older companies that are still around today like Minifigs have fallen prey to the scale creep phenomenon. Their latest 15mm figures for example measure a true height of 17mm, but they announced they would increase the height of some of their figures lines.

As for 28mm figures, some are true 28mm figures while others are not.