Yes Andrea, the captured seaplane can help to hold the fort very nicely until the rise of the Phoenix.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Also, does the cowling painting on the N28s look funny to anyone else? It doesn't look like the designs wrap to the front like they're supposed to. I'd ay it was probably just a limitation of the decal application (Olieslager's Camel is similar), but the Fokker D.VIII looks like it has one properly applied.
Now you mention it your right. I paint the engine cylinders and the radiators on the DVII and it makes quite a bit of difference to how the models look. With this one I think I'd repaint all thats white in near black. I now nervously await these to see what they look like close up. If we're back to slab wings after the superb quality of the reprint of Series 2 I'll be very disappointed.
Series 2 was a direct reprint from the old molds, that's why we got good wing profiles. Series 8 is completely new from design up, so I'd not be surprised with slab wings. While I don't like them when inspecting the mini up close, if I'm being honest, I never even notice them out on the table. It's one of the flaws that I can live with... much more so than others in some of the minis.
I agree… I'm living with undersized SPADs for example. However, given these are a new series and that the slab sided reprint of Series 1 was greeted with a luke warm response and sluggish sales if these models do have slab wings I'd say that's a very disappointing move from ARES and on the back of some fabulous Fokker DVIIs in the reprint of Series Two. For example, the SSD III and the Bristol Fighter have great wing profiles and are really wonderful models. I don't understand the thinking behind releasing this series with slab wings since the range becomes increasingly patchy with regards to quality - all that does in the long term is damage the brand.
I'd go from a position of buying about a dozen of these planes to possibly just one…
Oh I agree, there is no reason for slab sided wings... or blobs for pilots either. But the Series 1 reprint sold (is selling) just fine and most of us will not cut our purchases short because of the slab wings (scale issues like on the Tripe are a different matter however). I'll bring this issue back up with Ares and perhaps it will someday make it to the "need to check" column on all future releases.
That would be great if you could raise this with them – that's the positive to come out of this and why I keep going on about various issues because I care and want this game/product to be as good as it can be. For example, I have two of the three new Fokker DVIIs on my desk and they really excelled themselves raising the bar with the yellow MFJ model. (It's such a nice model that I don't care about the error they made with the markings.) To go from that high to this possible disappointment is a bit of a shame.
I can't tell from the images but it looks as if the German two seater might have well profiled wings.
Another detail worth noting is at the time Nexus was owned by Italeri--a company whose primary business is models even if sometimes not exactly known for industry-leading detail and accuracy (the opposite actually, there's a joke among modelers about "the Italeri A-10 is what you build when you DON'T want to build an A-10"), so I wonder if some of the finer detail was the parent company's influence.
We'll probably never see any existing tooling corrected (that ship sailed already), but it occurs to me that maybe we need a new sticky of a Consolidated Miniatures Gripe List, kind of a "Don't EVER do these things again!" so they know what to watch for and guard against with the corner-cutters in the factory.
And oh by the way, what happened with that Albatros D.Va strut fix that we were PROMISED but never happened? It's minor, but it's something they specifically SAID they'd do, and I'm one of those folks that believes when you specifically point something like that out you better deliver either on the promise or a good reason why not.
I suspect a lot of my official minis may join the Holtzem Pfalz D.IIIa languishing in their boxes while replaced for play by better models from other brands... if I ever 1. start actually playing and 2. build the skill to handle the annoying fiddly bits.
Last edited by Diamondback; 10-23-2014 at 09:19.
It may well be but ARES themselves have done some great work. As mentioned previously the SSD and the Brisfit are superb, which is why I'm baffled by the decision to go backwards again.
Oh good one!
Have you seen A&A aircraft? Obviously done in CAD, well one half was and then mirrored for the starboard side.
Panel grooves where they should not be, Spitfire with cockpit entry panel both sides, internal structure engraved on what would have been transparent panels, undersized cockpit canopies, the list goes on and on.
Then there are the aircraft which must have been flown by Hobbits, Humans of the correct scale would have needed a periscope to see out.
It is as if a CAD operator was given a plan of an aircraft to make but they had little idea of how the original aircraft looked.
Must have been more than one person designing them as some look alright but then some just do not look right even at first glance.
What I am trying to say is even the best CAD designer should have a feel for the subject being asked of them.
Yep, the CAD can produce better, but only if the designer knows what he/she is doing with the subject and/or has the time/money to put the extra work in.
Hell yes, I've seen some pretty awesome CAD-driven disasters!
Of course, then you get the Boeing 787 Debacle, where a design that's supposed to go together like a giant LEGO set... doesn't. LOL
The weakness of CAD/CAM, just like hand drafting, is still the human operator. Operative word was, "potential"... which there's been so much of lost and/or wasted across all three of the _oG lines.
RE A&A, original or Angels 20? I had budget for one or the other, and passed on A20 in favor of WGF/WGS, but the planes in original Ground Game were rather crude.
Last edited by Diamondback; 10-23-2014 at 11:57.
I would say both sets have their failings, I wrote pointing out some of them when the first set was released, no idea if anyone took notice.
In a way they are meant to be a bit crude (beefed up so young-uns can not break them so easily) so few external bits to break off. I think they tried to improve the construction a bit with the second set, less tail-planes at odd angles (hey skipper I can not turn to port ). I thought that the game had great potential but I got a bit fed up with the models. The spitfire was ruined in the first set with trenches where they should not have been and an under size canopy. In the second set (if the picture is anything to go by) the spitfire must belongs to an over inflated blow up pilot because that is how it looks. No doubt application of putty would make some of them quite acceptable. Some look good even with the over deep detailing just a pity that the sets are spoilt by the duff ones and buying blind you can bet you get at least one in a box.
I could not get my head around the fact that they are toys and not models. I would have liked them as unpainted cheap kits as they are only four parts or so, at least I could have had no wonky construction issues.
If a company like Revell ever brings out cheap WW1 aircraft kits in 1/144 I imagine they would fly off the shelves (pun intended). After all, their lately expanded WW2 fighters only cost Ł2.99 or less. Who remembers the racing cars in the 60's? Bubble gum, a racing circuit card and a one car kit on a sprue.
Local sweet shops just could not get enough of them.
[QUOTE=Angiolillo;318191]I just translated into Italian a couple of such games from Zvezda. They include model kits to be assembled. Of course I think that our pre-assembled and pre-painted models are more handy, attractive, sturdy.
Andrea, we saw that game at Origins two years ago. They only had a few parts of it on display and no demo games going. Since then, I've need seen anything about it (but I've not actively looked for it either).
Can anyone give a new player some idea of what we could expect in maneuver decks for the nieuport 28, and the fokker VIII?
Ni-28 will have an F Maneuver Deck. That is the same of Hanriot HD.1
It means a more-than average speed (similar to Albatros D.V or Fokker D.VII, little bit shorter than SPAD S.XIII and SE5a), one 90ş turn to each side, one ver long side-slide to each side (steep maneuver), I mean those that go by the longer side of the card (like the ones SE5 and Sopwith Snipe have)... and then the usual suspects (3 straight, 3 60ş turns, 2 normal side-slides, dive and climb)
For the Fokker VIII I don't know what manevuer card will it have... haven't check because I wont buy that plane. But I think it's the F deck too
hope that helps
[QUOTE=Angiolillo;318191]I just translated into Italian a couple of such games from Zvezda. They include model kits to be assembled. Of course I think that our pre-assembled and pre-painted models are more handy, attractive, sturdy.
I think for the scale, the planes are fine. At this scale the paint work is about all that could be criticized on IMHO and have yet to see a plane that was a really bad paint job.
As good as the planes are it is easy to forget sometimes that their main purpose is game tokens and expectations can get high.
1/144 is a perfect scale for WW1 planes – I'm glad they chose it. Some of the models are superb and I've no complaint with some details having to be made stronger than scale would allow. I don't mind the pilots – to me they look as if they are wrapped in furs and scarves.
The only real gripe I have is: the total see-saw lack of consistency that gives a very poor impression of the brand. We should be able to expect all the models to be of the same quality but they aren't, far from it. I simply do not understand how a company that can produce such epic and gorgeous models that are just lovely eg. all the Fokker DVIIs is the same company that makes some monumental cock-ups and then chooses not put them right eg. Sopwith triplane and SPAD XIII and these dreadful slab wings. Quality control over consistent design standards is non-existent.
All the Sopwith Triplanes should have been recalled and replaced with corrected versions had the customer had returned their models. The SPAD should have been totally remastered for the reprint of S1. They have got to get to grips with CAD – the SSD is gorgeous as is the Bristol so we know they can do it.
Well, if it follows the Unofficial Stats lead then as Ezekiel said F deck for the N.28 but M deck for the Fok D.VIII same as the Snipe.
Check this file Todd for an easy breakdown of the decks
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Good work Keith.
Great to know that they are listening to suggestions that can be achieved. At least those without the expense of re tooling.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Indeed, that looks much better. Pity about the wings and the paint job on the leading edges, but that just gives the likes of me an excuse to get a paintbrush out
That's a great improvement! Is there any chance of some close ups of the two german planes due for release in this series?
Pretty much. The decal is slightly forward in this example, but since they are applied by hand at the factory, a little movement in placement has to be excepted.
Thanks for that.
I don't have any at this time, but if I get some that I can release, you guys will be the fist to see them.
Thanks for sharing the pics It is going to be an interesting series...
"We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."
Good question. Quentin Roosevelt flew 14.
Okay, it's the one at the AF Museum. Thought so.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=273
#12 is Eddie Rickenbacker's plane.
#16 is 95th Aero Squadron but its nose art is incorrect. http://www.ancientdigger.com/2011/06...euport-28.html
Last edited by Naharaht; 11-04-2014 at 11:27.
#16 belongs to Major Harold Evans Hartney of 27th Aero Squadron. And it wears the screaming eagle of that Squadron.
The replica on display at the National Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, is not an original plane. It has the kicking mule of 95th Squadron. Maybe that plane belonged to 95th before going to 27th, but it's pretty doubtful that it could still have the 95th mule while already bearing Hartney's commander's stripes. Overall, I tend not to trust museums' replicas too much.
The wings don't have a proper aerofoil profile and the leading edge is flat – like the reprint of Series One. Compare say the original Camel to the reprint. This may or may not bother you. On the one hand we tend to look down on the models so does it really matter – many think not but for folks like me who are bothered it's both disappointing and frustrating.
I haven't seen any pictures from underneath; will the Nieuports which are supposed to have them be receiving the top wing underside roundels as well?
Bookmarks