Fixing inaccurate schemes on "template" models

[Pseudotheist]

So, I'm curious what the general consensus is on correcting inaccurate color schemes or insigna when doing partial repaints from an Ares base paint scheme (or repaints intended to be flown paired with Ares originals). Here's some xamples of changes I have, or haven't, made, and one conundrum I'm still considering:

• I repainted all of the white surfaces to black on the Kest 4 Siemens-Schuckert (and mottled the skull insignia), to match my repaints.
• I updated the tail paint and detials on Rahn's Fokker Dr.1 to match my Jasta 19 repaints.
• I relocated the roundels further to the edge of my DH.2 squadron (which I had to fully repaint, and had no Ares planes in the squadron).
• I did not add roundels underneath the upper wing on any (o.k., just 1) of my Nieuport 17 repaints, nor the orignal matching scheme.
• I did not relocate the upper wing roundels on my Baracchini repaint of the Scaroni Hanriot.

Now I'm doing another Hanriot repaint (which is how I realized the roundels are off on the Ares Italian Hanriots), and I'm not sure whether to put the upper wing roundels in the proper spot, or match them to the other planes. I might be able to reposition the roundels on the Scaroni and Baracchini repaint, but the color would probably be off with new decals, and the Fucini roundels are pretty mcuh unfixable anyway. Oddly, even though the tail, roundel, and underwing colors won't match, and the fueslage roundel is in a different position anyway, I kind of feel that having the top wing roundels spaced differently will make the planes look "off" if flown together...

[grumpybear]

I probably have some inaccuracies in my repaints as well. I try to close as possible . I also use the 2ft. rule , if it looks good on the table it's close enough . These are after all game pieces

[Dom S]

I usually fix it (eg. Jasta 19 tails) but if it's a lot of work for something that I don't notice "casually" then sod it....

In the case of wing markings, I tend to do underwing markings, but frankly my planes are never inverted on the table, so no foul to leave them off. Upper wing roundels I tend to copy the Ares positioning unless it's so wrong that it annoys me.... In the case of your Hanriot, I'd definitely just match it to your existing ones - if they haven't bothered you up to now, doing this one "right" will....

[Pseudotheist]

if they haven't bothered you up to now, doing this one "right" will....

But I didn't know before!
I think the most irksome part is that the Belgian Coppens Hanriot is inexplicably placed correctly...

[gully_raker]

I dont get too fixated about small errors but I did add the white wing stripes to the Werner Voss Alb D.III & the red edging to the Greentail one.

[Zoe Brain]

Just remember - go by original photos, and positioning and size of markings varied between aircraft, even in the same flight. There's photo evidence of that.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I normally leave one original as is, but repaint all other models eventually.
Rob.

[Flying Helmut]

I repaint glaring errors now and then, in between complete repaints.

My usual targets are the leading and trailing edges to the wings, where the decal is too small to wrap around and the original colour of the mini is displayed.
The worst offenders are the Schafer Fokker DVII, with its "screaming!" red wing edges, and the French Nieuports, with the top wing decal being so undersized that the underwing colour extends around the edges and onto the upper surface of the wing

Also, "borked" national insignia decals get replaced (off-centre roundels, or crooked crosses etc.)

[Hedeby]

Alas - all my ARES miniatures are as god (or factory QC) intended, dodgy roundels, incorrectly spaced wings, insufficient machine guns on allied aircraft etc etc.
I have never had the courage to bring model and paintbrush together in an aesthetic harmony...

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Chris they never last that long for anyone to notice, as you keep crashing them into carriers mate!

Alas - all my ARES miniatures are as god (or factory QC) intended, dodgy roundels, incorrectly spaced wings, insufficient machine guns on allied aircraft etc etc.
I have never had the courage to bring model and paintbrush together in an aesthetic harmony...

[Mau Fox]

Now I'm doing another Hanriot repaint (which is how I realized the roundels are off on the Ares Italian Hanriots), and I'm not sure whether to put the upper wing roundels in the proper spot, or match them to the other planes. I might be able to reposition the roundels on the Scaroni and Baracchini repaint, but the color would probably be off with new decals, and the Fucini roundels are pretty mcuh unfixable anyway. Oddly, even though the tail, roundel, and underwing colors won't match, and the fueslage roundel is in a different position anyway, I kind of feel that having the top wing roundels spaced differently will make the planes look "off" if flown together...

Ciao Todd,

which Hanriot are you planning to repaint?
I might help you with some pics and hints

Mau

[Tonx]

Tend to view the Ares Games as game pieces as opposed to being 100% accurate scale models. Having said that though I have now carried out three repaints primarily over re-identification or re-numbering of duplicate miniatures ...

[Pseudotheist]

which Hanriot are you planning to repaint?

That would be telling.

But maybe you can guess with this hint (or give me an idea for the next plane after this one):

What do these three have in common (aside from misplaced roundels)?

[Пилот]

Problem with wargaming historical accuracy would be this: if one would like to historically recreate all model in the game, he would have to have much more models to realistically represent all possible historical events. That's why I'm not over-bothered with strict historical accuracy, and I tend to keep my models appear at least historically plausible, if not accurate.

[Teaticket]

I have touched up a few bits on some ARES planes but not always for historical accuracy.

[Dom S]

The worst offenders are the Schafer Fokker DVII, with its "screaming!" red wing edges,

Absolutely. Figuring out the Vallejo colours to paint those out was time very well spent for me....

and the French Nieuports, with the top wing decal being so undersized that the underwing colour extends around the edges and onto the upper surface of the wing

Just checking, but do you mean like this, cos if so...?

[Boney10]

Even though the models are, as has been pointed out by many, game pieces, I do like them to be as accurate as possible.
Slight touch ups I can live with, some inaccuracies can also be overlooked, the Albatross struts I can live with, same with the Hanriot struts, don't like it but can live with. I think most are aware of my distaste of the Sopwith Tripecrap model which
I detest with a passion, mainly because it was the one model I was really looking forward to.
So for me yes I try to make all my models as accurate as I can, model wise and paint scheme wise

[Diamondback]

So far the only one that's been so glaring for me to schedule it for rework is A Bit O' Lace, which basically needs a major overhaul as her colors are those of a different squadron (should be Insignia White cowls rather than Insignia Yellow) within the 447th BG, and not even right for that--the wing chevrons need to be Insignia Blue rather than black, and the two bands should be a Willow or Grass Green rather than OD-ish.

The wreck-repair and cannibalized-parts stuff is minor, but the major issues with unit-standard markings need fixing--and I'm gonna recommend they switch to a simpler, less-room-for-mistakes-to-creep-in scheme like 1st Air Division's entire-division red wingtips/fin/stab if they ever do another run.