Ares Games
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 107

Thread: Started with Valom Fokker EIII set

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    There are way too many joints in that undercarriage for it to be easy, hopefully the paint will hide rather than emphasize the glue. Very impressed with what you are trying to do with the rigging, I wonder if brush hair might be easier to work with.
    John, looking at the model I find the under side too busy. Just doing 4 bits of rigging on each side from the cabane to the top side of each wing and only 2 from the outer side of each wing to the undercarriage would look less busy and mean only gluing 2 strands to each point. Or...just do the outer strands.

    Anyway, it’s been a humbling experience.

  2. #52

    Default

    Primed the models to see if that would make a difference - yes, it does but not for the better. I'm pretty disappointed. So, I'm considering my options:

    1) Hurling them at maximum velocity against a hard surface is still on the table.
    2) Pack them away and forget about them....move on.
    3) Charge on and paint them anyway.
    4) Fix them which could be seen as the right thing or as 'good money chasing after bad money'

    Fixing them would mean any or all of....

    4a) Re-orient the rudder. Currently the models sit on the rudder and not the tail skid. Likely this would mean removing at least on stabilizer to get at the rudder. The existing decals would need to be removed but there are 2 other sets of decals.
    4b) Re-do the undercarriage and bend the triangular frame as it should be....of course, that would mean removing at least the bottom half of the rigging.
    4c) Replace the too large bead on top of the cabane with the much smaller bead I initially rejected (it's about half the diameter).
    4d) Re-do some or all of the rigging. Some of the cables are fine (as in taut) but there are a few that are not good and some others that didn't end up taut. I can either re-do as I suggested above with only taking the two outer cables on each side to the undercarriage. Removing all the rigging and filling in the holes in the wings is an option.

    Any and all thoughts are welcome. You can't possibly say anything bad about these models that I haven't thought already...and I'm not blaming Valom.

    Oh, the last option is to just sleep on it...i.e., defer any decision.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Primed.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	75.9 KB 
ID:	265238

  3. #53

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    I suggest removing the rigging (-> imho not appropriate for a wargaming miniature in this scale) and the pearl (->to big). When the planes are put on the flight stand, the undercarriage issue can be ignored.

  4. #54

    Default

    I used a fine wire when doing my first rigging job. I found several of the wires were nice and taut but most looked to be sagging. I replaced a few and that was not an easy thing to do as I had drilled holes in the wings. So the first two planes I finally finished with wire I was not greatly satisfied with. My latest planes I used strands from a house painting brush. So much easier and better looking in my opinion.

  5. #55

    Default

    Hey Paul,

    Sorry about your disappointment - but the silver lining is that the rest of us can learn with you. For that - I thank you.
    To be honest - I wouldn't be concerned about rudder & undercarriage. Yes, you notice them, as you're disappointed,
    but they're not horrible...
    The bead & the rigging would be the only things I'd revisit. If you use stiff bristles from a brush - I'm not sure you'd
    even need a bead... Point to point gluing, without the need for something to hold it in place - what's not to love?

    Whatever decision you make - good luck & keep us in the loop. (no pun intended.)
    This includes the high velocity comment - the devil in me would love to see the results!

  6. #56

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    My latest planes I used strands from a house painting brush. So much easier and better looking in my opinion.
    I used human head hair, fixed with super glue, for my last E.III 1/72, as the diameter seemed more realistic than other methods.

    Only use natural non-colored hair for improved sturdyness and elasticity.

  7. #57

    Default

    Hats off to you fore even trying to put the rigging wires in place I definitely wouldn't have had the patience.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo7 View Post
    I suggest removing the rigging (-> imho not appropriate for a wargaming miniature in this scale) and the pearl (->to big). When the planes are put on the flight stand, the undercarriage issue can be ignored.
    A very sensible suggestion. I should be able to remove a fair bit of the glue on the undercarriage by removing the rigging.

    I went back and looked at the EIII official show case thread and found that I liked many of the ones without rigging just as well as those with rigging.

  9. #59

    Default

    Thanks to everyone for their comments. I’m going with just removing the rigging as I’ve spent enough time on these and want to move on to other projects.

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    This includes the high velocity comment - the devil in me would love to see the results!
    Given the strength of the molybdenum wire I expect it would bounce back unharmed and hit me in the eye.

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    This includes the high velocity comment - the devil in me would love to see the results!
    Less destructive than removing molybdenum wire rigging, Philip.....far less. Damnably tough stuff to remove. There's silver lining though. The decals are ruined, the undercarriage came off, the cabane struts came off (got lost but then found but no biggey either way as making one from wire would have worked)….so why not go the whole hog and remove the rudder. It was easy.

    There's a reason there's two kits in one box - one to ruin and one to ruin slowly....and 4 sets of decals....to give you hope that there's a light at the end of the tunnel (rather than an onrushing train).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	De-rig-eur.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	126.4 KB 
ID:	265281

    FYI - the photo is named 'de-rig-eur'

  12. #62

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    Hm. I've two Valom kits laying around, also. I reviewed the contents of the box and the way the wings are mounted on the fuselage disappointed me. By looking on the image above I think I will add additional pins for a more sturdy construction.

  13. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo7 View Post
    Hm. I've two Valom kits laying around, also. I reviewed the contents of the box and the way the wings are mounted on the fuselage disappointed me. By looking on the image above I think I will add additional pins for a more sturdy construction.
    Good luck with that. I'd be interested in seeing how that works out.

    By the way I like the way you used the grid on the mat for making sure wings, etc. are aligned. Tougher to do with the EIII due to the way the wings are attached to the fuselage but it's a good trick.

  14. #64

    Default

    So sorry it didn't work out to your satisfaction.

    My first Valom E.III is all but finished and I'll post pictures soon. It was not as ambitious as your two (no rigging) but, depending on how my current rigging experiments go, I may well try to rig the next one.
    This thread, and all your experiences, will be a great help in this next endeavour of mine.
    I hope you can salvage something out of all your efforts, even if it is only a pair of unrigged, repainted and re-decaled scouts. You should have something to show for all your efforts.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  15. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowDragon View Post
    FYI - the photo is named 'de-rig-eur'

    Clever...

  16. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    So sorry it didn't work out to your satisfaction.

    My first Valom E.III is all but finished and I'll post pictures soon. It was not as ambitious as your two (no rigging) but, depending on how my current rigging experiments go, I may well try to rig the next one.
    This thread, and all your experiences, will be a great help in this next endeavour of mine.
    I hope you can salvage something out of all your efforts, even if it is only a pair of unrigged, repainted and re-decaled scouts. You should have something to show for all your efforts.
    I will get two scouts out of it. The wing is back on the one plane. The wings on the other stayed on. Both cabanes are rebuilt and back on. One undercarriage is rebuilt and back on. The other undercarriage is nearly there. It would have been rebuilt but at the last stage one arm of the ‘w’, which I thought was glued back well enough, went pinging off to godknowswhere. I will replace it with wire. Worst case was scratch building the undercarriage as I did for the ufag. Possible but a last case as it would require 9 wire bits.

    I still think the molybdenum wire would work but not by threading one piece from the bottom through a wing, to the top, through the other wing and back to the bottom. My problem wires not being straight was not getting the wire bent enough at the cabane and through the wing in some cases. The wires were not sagging. Molybdenum is to stiff for that but if the wire isn’t bent to the correct angle it will try to go to the angle at which it is bent...so it will ‘bow’. An alternative would be to cut straight segments to length and glue point to point. There’s no reason that approach wouldn’t work as well as the paint brush bristle hair or human hair. The molybdenum wire is strong and it’s thin. The copper wire works by threading as it’s very flexible but it’s also fragile. So I would not write off molybdenum wire based on my failed experiment. I just used it the wrong way.

    As for redoing the rigging there’s still the problem of too many wires being glued to a point. The solution would be to not do the rigging to the undercarriage and maybe limit to upper ones to 3 per wing - the 2 outer ones and one inner one at the rear. The front inner one doesn’t really show up much. This can be done after painting, etc.

    I doubt I willrig these at this stage as I just want to get them done and out of the way as 2 ugly ducklings that never made it into being swans.

  17. #67

    Default

    Well, I salvaged (if one can use that nautical term for aircraft) something out of the attempt. Undercarriages were pretty much rebuilt. The rudder was repositioned. With all that was going on it was hard to level the aircraft with rebuilt undercarriages, re-attaching rudders, wings and horizontal stabilizers, and adding a peg for the WoG flight stand - not that the WoG flight stand will necessarily hold a plane horizontal anyway.

    So, ready to start painting the Fodder...er, Fokker E.IIIs, but if I had known I'd end up here I probably wouldn't have started this thread...

    The good news is that I got the Peter Peg pilots this week.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Salvaged.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	133.0 KB 
ID:	265363

  18. #68

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    I believe in a happy end. I personally find the two monoplanes now much more appealing without the rigging. I own an old plastic kit guide. There's a diagram how to review the needed detail level for a good looking model: take the model in one hand and get the distance to the real object in such way, that the real object seems at the same size like your model. All details that are still visible on the real object have to be realised on the model. I guess a rigging wire can be hardly seen at the needed distance.

    This rule is ignored often, nowadays ("panel lines"). Besides WGF 28mm Napoleonics (SDS) are a further love of mine. I'm a slow painter who get's lost in details. I have occasionaly experienced, that these details make the miniatures look inferior to miniatures with a more simpler paint job, when looked at from a distance. It's like in the theatre: the paint on the faces of the actors look strange when you're standing near them, but the high contrast supports the appearance when looked at from a distance.

    Just get sure, that the surface is clean before applying the new paint. If you only used acrylics until then, you could remove the old paint with Melerud plastic cleaner, or with Gunze Mr. Color Thinner (it's miraculous - the paint is gone in seconds).
    Last edited by Karo7; 03-29-2019 at 14:41.

  19. #69

    Default

    An interesting concept Florian, and one which I have never heard promulgated in my years of wargaming. However, it is one which I can concur with. I have always felt that shading and adding wear on my models seems to detract from the look of them rather than add any visible improvement on the table. When viewed close up it is the opposite.
    I now recall a story about on of our greatest artists who when observing a lady quizzing glass raised at very close range to one of his pictures was heard to remark " Madam my paintings are there to be looked at, not smelt."
    Do we two have something in common with the great man?
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  20. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo7 View Post
    I believe in a happy end. I personally find the two monoplanes now much more appealing without the rigging. I own an old plastic kit guide. There's a diagram how to review the needed detail level for a good looking model: take the model in one hand and get the distance to the real object in such way, that the real object seems at the same size like your model. All details that are still visible on the real object have to be realised on the model. I guess a rigging wire can be hardly seen at the needed distance.

    This rule is ignored often, nowadays ("panel lines"). Besides WGF 28mm Napoleonics (SDS) are a further love of mine. I'm a slow painter who get's lost in details. I have occasionaly experienced, that these details make the miniatures look inferior to miniatures with a more simpler paint job, when looked at from a distance. It's like in the theatre: the paint on the faces of the actors look strange when you're standing near them, but the high contrast supports the appearance when looked at from a distance.

    Just get sure, that the surface is clean before applying the new paint. If you only used acrylics until then, you could remove the old paint with Melerud plastic cleaner, or with Gunze Mr. Color Thinner (it's miraculous - the paint is gone in seconds).
    Thanks for your tips, Florian. They have been useful.

    While I botched the rigging, hopefully I'm on surer ground with painting as I have a bit more experience there than with rigging. I certainly agree with you with regards to detail. However, if you truly painted so that things were the same as they would be at a comparable distance most objects would fade out to various shades of grey unless they had the brightest of colours. You must chose what detail and for what effect. Yes, my mustang has some panel lines (not all) but they're there not for the purpose of detail but to provide a surface that would otherwise look flat with texture and depth - although I must admit I debated with myself at the time about adding the dark lines as I thought it was of marginal value. It works more when viewed by the naked eye than when captured by a camera due to the way a camera stores an image. I try to paint for the naked eye and not the camera because I want to play wargames with my miniatures and not so much to present online.

    Some samples....

    15/18mm Napoleonic French Guard Light Cavalry and Spanish light infantry:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	French Guard Cavalry.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	174.5 KB 
ID:	265366 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Spanish Light Infantry.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	137.1 KB 
ID:	265367

    and 5mm WWI French cavalry:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WWI French Cavalry.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	187.5 KB 
ID:	265368

    ...and, perhaps not great art but perhaps good enough to cover holes in the wall:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Oast House.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	215.4 KB 
ID:	265369

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fire Fighter.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	132.3 KB 
ID:	265370 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tahitian with pearls.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	184.5 KB 
ID:	265371

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	El Rocio.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	132.4 KB 
ID:	265372
    Last edited by ShadowDragon; 03-29-2019 at 17:10.

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowDragon View Post
    ...and, perhaps not great art but perhaps good enough to cover holes in the wall:
    Those are amazing!

  22. #72

    Default

    I gotta say that was a nice job. And thanks for posting because now I will NEVER put one of those kits together!

  23. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReducedAirFact View Post
    Those are amazing!
    Thanks, Daryl. A couple of points on the paintings. The skin on the lady was painted with my fingertips – on the same principle as applying make up. The Spanish sanctuary (in El Rocio Spain) was all done with a palette knife - except the signature. The firefighter is in acrylic and the others in oil.

    Now, to get painting those RAF balloons I just got. Anything I should use or avoid for gluing them together?

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BwanaJoe View Post
    I gotta say that was a nice job. And thanks for posting because now I will NEVER put one of those kits together!

    I certainly understand the sentiment, Joe. If I had seen my post before I wouldn’t even have bought the valom kits. Maybe the Fokker Triplanes will redeem valom????

  25. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    An interesting concept Florian, and one which I have never heard promulgated in my years of wargaming. However, it is one which I can concur with. I have always felt that shading and adding wear on my models seems to detract from the look of them rather than add any visible improvement on the table. When viewed close up it is the opposite.
    I now recall a story about on of our greatest artists who when observing a lady quizzing glass raised at very close range to one of his pictures was heard to remark " Madam my paintings are there to be looked at, not smelt."
    Do we two have something in common with the great man?
    Rob.
    I agree, Rob, these are interesting ideas you and Florian have brought up. While I might appear to disagree with you, for the most part I don't. My approach is that these things are not laws but guidelines. You can violate them, but one should do so consciously, otherwise it will appear as a mistake.

    If our miniatures/models were only to be seen at a given distance and from a given perspective, it would be easier, but we view from close to far and from a multitude of angles. But even a Seurat painting can be seen from a distance at which you can see the overall design (the aesthetic) or up close where you can see the technique (the intellectual).

    I rejected the rigging for two reasons - (1) it wasn't done well and (2) it was too busy and drew the eye in to many directions. The Peter Pig pilot on the other hand is a great addition. It adds life and a focal point which is more or less at the intersection of two elegant lines of the model - the fuselage and the wing. Looked at closely a Peter Pig pilot is grotesquely shaped but that exaggeration of the features gives it animation. One might agree or disagree with that choice by the Peter Pig designer, but images are as much (arguably more) created in the mind than 'out there'.

    There's a story about a painting in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The painting if of an old lady that they once thought was painted by Rembrandt but later the experts decided it was by one of his students. When it thought to be a Rembrandt it was the most favourite painting in museum but now it's mostly ignored. Of course, when they tell you that story you smile at the folly of people, because you would never, ever be one of those fickle people.

    When it comes to detail to add or not, if you try to add all the detail to me it will look like a mess but if you eliminate all detail to me the model becomes bland, flat and uninteresting. I think it's better to select what detail and how to simplify the chosen detail. Back to the Mustang picture I posted earlier with the dark panel lines and highlighting along some edges. The highlights I was happy to do since the allow me to see (at a wargaming distance) the object better as a 3-dimensional one. Adding the dark lines worried me as I thought they would be too busy - and up close in a photo I admit one can certainly argue that, but at a wargaming table distance they mostly disappear but to me they give the plane fuselage and wing shape. See this painting where the artist has used panel lines for just that purpose:

    https://pixels.com/featured/p-51-mus...zocchetti.html

    Could you see panel lines at a distance? That depends on several factors - lighting, angle, your own eyes, etc. A google search of "P51 Mustang photograph" shows a mixed answer to that question.

    In the end what matters if it pleases you as the modeller...unless you're going to enter the model into a competition then you want it to please the judges.

    So, thanks to you and Florian for your views. They are valued.

  26. #76

    Default

    Finally got around to taking photos of my recently-finished 'Valom' E.III

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	<acronym title=MvR Valom E (2).jpg  Views: 48  Size: 182.3 KB  ID: 265521" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	<acronym title=MvR Valom E (3).jpg  Views: 47  Size: 167.7 KB  ID: 265522" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	<acronym title=MvR Valom E (9).jpg  Views: 48  Size: 88.0 KB  ID: 265523" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	<acronym title=MvR Valom E (17).jpg  Views: 48  Size: 79.1 KB  ID: 265524" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

    I'm pleased with how it turned out, but I hope to be able to improve on the next one (already started).
    It seems to be sturdy enough for game play - particularly because of the omission/replacement of "unnecessary" pure-model details.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  27. #77

    Default

    Nice job on that E.III, Tim.

    I'm about 2/3 of the way through painting my two.

  28. #78

    Default

    Thanks Paul.

    Can't seem to stop bits of dust sticking to it, though!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  29. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    Thanks Paul.

    Can't seem to stop bits of dust sticking to it, though!
    I didn't notice until you drew my attention to those bits of dust.

  30. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowDragon View Post
    I didn't notice until you drew my attention to those bits of dust.
    They all cleaned off nicely - none are "permanent"!

    Looking back at other photos of mine, several planes were sporting a hair or two when photographed I just never noticed at the time.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  31. #81

    Default

    Great job ob that Early Bird, Tim.

  32. #82

    Default

    Here I am at journey's end - mangled undercarriages and all...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Valom Fokker EIII - 1.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	213.0 KB 
ID:	265572Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Valom Fokker EIII - 2.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	299.8 KB 
ID:	265573

  33. #83

    Default

    Look great Paul. They made it through the gauntlet and you also survived! Now to get them in a game.

  34. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    Look great Paul. They made it through the gauntlet and you also survived! Now to get them in a game.
    Thanks, Peter. I really enjoyed painting them...including thinking what features I wanted to bring out and how to do it.

    I almost have enough for the official DYM scenarios - 3 moranes, 3 EIII, Albatros Cs, shapeways balloons waiting to be painted...but need some early entente 2-seaters!
    Last edited by ShadowDragon; 04-01-2019 at 18:56.

  35. #85

  36. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stumptonian View Post
    Nice job, Paul.
    Thanks, Pete.

  37. #87

    Default

    Very nice result!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  38. #88

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    Great work! What a pity it would have been, if you would have chosen the wall exit scenario. How do you feel about the result, now?

    I've made the experience, that it's better to finish a project although some steps are going wrong. It's better to have a finished, somewhat imperfect, result, than a unfinished one.

    - Just yesterday, when I realized the white base coat of my SE5a chipped on some areas away, and you want to throw it in the bucket, I forced myself to go on and finish the project. The lowered areas are now barely visible under the paint scheme and I'm quite happy with the result.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowDragon View Post
    I almost have enough for the official DYM scenarios - 3 moranes, 3 EIII , Albatros Cs, shapeways balloons waiting to be painted...but need some early entente 2-seaters!
    So you will do another Valom E.III?

  39. #89

    Default

    Great work, Paul & Tim.
    Voilà le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  40. #90

    Default

    Well done that man. Thank you for sharing the experience with the rest of us.

  41. #91

    Default

    Thanks to everyone for your kind comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo7 View Post
    Great work! What a pity it would have been, if you would have chosen the wall exit scenario. How do you feel about the result, now?

    I've made the experience, that it's better to finish a project although some steps are going wrong. It's better to have a finished, somewhat imperfect, result, than a unfinished one.

    - Just yesterday, when I realized the white base coat of my SE5a chipped on some areas away, and you want to throw it in the bucket, I forced myself to go on and finish the project. The lowered areas are now barely visible under the paint scheme and I'm quite happy with the result.



    So you will do another Valom E.III?
    Hurling them against the wall was never a real possibility. It was just an expression of emotion and I am quite okay with having feelings but not acting upon them. Although I have to admit the de-rigging was pretty damaging which speaks to my paranoia with things sticking on once glued more than anything else. Of course, I could have scratch-built the undercarriages with all 10 pieces per unit. :shudder:

    I look forward to seeing your SE5a and how you build your EIIIs. I thought about how to use the Styrofoam to get the wings level. It's tricky as you have to make sure the fuselage is absolutely level but if that can be done one could cut a Styrofoam bit based on the the angle of the wing at join with the fuselage. I will wait for the upcoming Ares Series 4a for my SE5a. I figure it would take me that long to get around buying and building a Valom SE5a kit....yes, that long or in Ares terms "Real Soon Now".

    Will I bother with another Valom EIII? Probably not as more EIIIs aren't a priority for me, but I do have a Valom Fokker Dr.I kit. After that, I don't see anything they offer that is a priority. I will build the Dr.Is after I do my Shapeways balloons.

    A comment on the Valom EIII kit - at least half the problem in building this kit was my fault, but there are a few points where Valom could have made things easier. These include better pins for the wings and any pins at all for the horizontal stabilizers/elevators. There are actually diagrams in the instructions that help. There is a diagram the correct shape of the 'W' for the undercarriage. If you bend the brass piece to match the shape of the diagram it will work. I used it to rebuild the undercarriage. I had thought the diagram was just there to show you that you should ensure the wings were level, but it can also be used for bending the brass. There is another diagram which shows the correct positioning of the rudder. I had overlooked it and only noticed at the very end. So, some extra words in the instructions wouldn't have been amiss.

  42. #92

    Default

    Some words on my painting.

    For my miniatures I use acrylic gesso. I used to use white gesso and then applied a thin coat of burnt umber but now I use gesso tinted with burnt umber. It does not as someone claimed elsewhere hide the detail. I have used it for 6mm to 20mm figures and 1/72nd or 1/76th scale models. I have never had a problem with loss of detail. I will try gesso with shapeways and see how that goes. I use burnt umber for the priming coat as it gives the layers of paint that go over it a richness and warmth. Some people prefer a white base as that gives it helps with the brightness of the paint that goes over a white base. For miniatures people then use a shading wash. I, being OCD, don't do it that way. I use the dark brown gesso layer as it will darken the paint that goes over it into a shade version of the colour. I used to then highlight to bring back the brightness of the colours but now I do a dark brown wash before highlighting as the wash helps to fix any problems I had in doing the base colours and it deepens the shadows. I prefer a pretty good (but not cartoonish) contrast between highlights and shadows as it really helps to define objects when viewed at a wargaming distance of 2-4 feet / 0.5-1 m. However, without proper professional lighting figures done this way will not show up well with a camera. Without explaining the details the camera will make the object look more cartoonish than it appears to the human eye. In the case of the EIIIs I followed that except I did not do a wash as there's not enough detail on the models to make that worthwhile.

    All my paints are artist's acrylics. They allow me to easily vary the texture / thickness of the paint and to mix any colour I want. I do use a lot of the earth colours, white and greys. I also use the silver, gold and other metallic paints which I wouldn't use in a painting as one can get the effect of metallic without using metallic paint, but that's because one is viewing a painting from a fixed vantage point. With a model it will be viewed from a variety of directions so you can't easily achieve the effect of metallics without metallic paint. I would use artist's oil paints except for their slow drying time and the need to use chemicals (paint thinner) for clean up. In the paintings above the fireman was my first and only acrylic painting. After that I switched to oils and I love oils as I love their texture and the control one has over them plus if you make a mistake you can just wipe it off unless you wait until it dries. Acrylic paints are more translucent than oils which means a problem for light colours like white and yellow (note that I used white gesso for the rudders because of this problem - it was either that or 3 coats of white paint). For white it means I may have to do 2 coats; for yellow I do a coat of yellow ochre with yellow (tinted with white) over top that.

    Before applying any paint over the gesso I give some thought as to what effects I want to bring out in the model and how I will do that. A good example are highlander kilts. You cannot replicate exactly a kilt pattern even on a large scale model. It will look like a mess of colour at any distance. You could just paint it whatever the basic colour might be but that probably wouldn't satisfy most. So you have to reduce the number of lines and colours to give the impression of the kilt pattern. There are plenty of people who show how to do that online so I won't go any further on kilts.

    For the EIIIs there are two effects I wanted to achieve:

    If you look at paintings, photos and larger scale models what attracts me is the look of the fabric over the ribs of the structure - and for the lighter colour planes the translucency that gives the planes their elegance and appearance of lightness. So I need to somehow show that. If one were doing a painting from a fixed point of view, then what you would do is paint a light colour up to the top of a rib with a shade colour on the other side, but as I mentioned that will not look good when viewed from other angles. If you look at some photos and paintings what you will see is a lighter colour for the where there's no rib, a darker colour where there's a rib but a very fine, lightest colour on the very top edge of the rib. That's do-able for some paintings and larger scale models (see this 1/48th scale model http://www.scalespokes.com/gallery/s...-148-eduard-3/). That's just not achievable in 1/144th scale. I actually did give it a try but I wiped it off immediately. So what you see is a dark colour over the dark brown prime with a lighter colour in between the ribs (i.e., in the depressions) to give the impression of the translucent fabric.

    The 2nd effect I wanted was the look of the aluminum metal on the plane. For iron I often do silver over black but that would be wrong on this model. What I did was to paint a mixture of light grey (a neutral grey mixed with white) and silver. This gives it the look you see on the Ares models. After that I used pure silver and applied tiny polka dots over the surface which gives it the Fokker EIII look (at least as reasonable as you'll get at 1/144th scale - for the 'look' on a larger scale see here https://www.largescaleplanes.com/art...e.php?aid=2806). I sounds like a lot of work but it really isn't. It doesn't show up very well on the photo but it gives a nice effect to the naked eye.

    Those are the two main effects I wanted to bring out. There's a good discussion above about detail by Rob and Florian and basically I agree with them but as I mentioned above there may be instances where one wants to give an impression of detail. That doesn't mean replicated the detail exactly but really what your doing is bringing out a detail which can sort of be detected at a distance but not quite so. It can make a model look very nice at a wargaming distance but it may or may not show up well in photos as photos tend to be up close and without proper lighting could look garish.

    A final point on the painting technique - I used a lighter colour than the light colour on the wings, etc. to emphasize the edges of the wings and the top of the fuselage. It's just my choice, but I find it helps define the structure of the model.

    The last point is on the choice of paint schemes. I had intended to do Udet and Sachsenburg but I ruined those wing decals and the other decal sets had wing ones which weren't right for Udet and Sachsenburg and didn't match their fuselage ones. So I chose the other decal sets which are (on the Valom package) for MvR and Jacobs, but the only thing that makes them decals for those pilots are the serial numbers which can't see anyway. So I chose the two Ares models I'm missing - Immelmann and Hautzmayer. The colour mix for the Immelmann is white with yellow ochre and burnt umber while the Hautzmeyer is Hooker's Green, yellow ochre and white.

  43. #93

    Default

    Some words on my painting.

    For my miniatures I use acrylic gesso. I used to use white gesso and then applied a thin coat of burnt umber but now I use gesso tinted with burnt umber. It does not as someone claimed elsewhere hide the detail. I have used it for 6mm to 20mm figures and 1/72nd or 1/76th scale models. I have never had a problem with loss of detail. I will try gesso with shapeways and see how that goes. I use burnt umber for the priming coat as it gives the layers of paint that go over it a richness and warmth. Some people prefer a white base as that gives it helps with the brightness of the paint that goes over a white base. For miniatures people then use a shading wash. I, being OCD, don't do it that way. I use the dark brown gesso layer as it will darken the paint that goes over it into a shade version of the colour. I used to then highlight to bring back the brightness of the colours but now I do a dark brown wash before highlighting as the wash helps to fix any problems I had in doing the base colours and it deepens the shadows. I prefer a pretty good (but not cartoonish) contrast between highlights and shadows as it really helps to define objects when viewed at a wargaming distance of 2-4 feet / 0.5-1 m. However, without proper professional lighting figures done this way will not show up well with a camera. Without explaining the details the camera will make the object look more cartoonish than it appears to the human eye. In the case of the EIIIs I followed that except I did not do a wash as there's not enough detail on the models to make that worthwhile.

    All my paints are artist's acrylics. They allow me to easily vary the texture / thickness of the paint and to mix any colour I want. I do use a lot of the earth colours, white and greys. I also use the silver, gold and other metallic paints which I wouldn't use in a painting as one can get the effect of metallic without using metallic paint, but that's because one is viewing a painting from a fixed vantage point. With a model it will be viewed from a variety of directions so you can't easily achieve the effect of metallics without metallic paint. I would use artist's oil paints except for their slow drying time and the need to use chemicals (paint thinner) for clean up. In the paintings above the fireman was my first and only acrylic painting. After that I switched to oils and I love oils as I love their texture and the control one has over them plus if you make a mistake you can just wipe it off unless you wait until it dries. Acrylic paints are more translucent than oils which means a problem for light colours like white and yellow (note that I used white gesso for the rudders because of this problem - it was either that or 3 coats of white paint). For white it means I may have to do 2 coats; for yellow I do a coat of yellow ochre with yellow (tinted with white) over top that.

    Before applying any paint over the gesso I give some thought as to what effects I want to bring out in the model and how I will do that. A good example are highlander kilts. You cannot replicate exactly a kilt pattern even on a large scale model. It will look like a mess of colour at any distance. You could just paint it whatever the basic colour might be but that probably wouldn't satisfy most. So you have to reduce the number of lines and colours to give the impression of the kilt pattern. There are plenty of people who show how to do that online so I won't go any further on kilts.

    For the EIIIs there are two effects I wanted to achieve:

    If you look at paintings, photos and larger scale models what attracts me is the look of the fabric over the ribs of the structure - and for the lighter colour planes the translucency that gives the planes their elegance and appearance of lightness. So I need to somehow show that. If one were doing a painting from a fixed point of view, then what you would do is paint a light colour up to the top of a rib with a shade colour on the other side, but as I mentioned that will not look good when viewed from other angles. If you look at some photos and paintings what you will see is a lighter colour for the where there's no rib, a darker colour where there's a rib but a very fine, lightest colour on the very top edge of the rib. That's do-able for some paintings and larger scale models (see this 1/48th scale model http://www.scalespokes.com/gallery/s...-148-eduard-3/). That's just not achievable in 1/144th scale. I actually did give it a try but I wiped it off immediately. So what you see is a dark colour over the dark brown prime with a lighter colour in between the ribs (i.e., in the depressions) to give the impression of the translucent fabric.

    The 2nd effect I wanted was the look of the aluminum metal on the plane. For iron I often do silver over black but that would be wrong on this model. What I did was to paint a mixture of light grey (a neutral grey mixed with white) and silver. This gives it the look you see on the Ares models. After that I used pure silver and applied tiny polka dots over the surface which gives it the Fokker EIII look (at least as reasonable as you'll get at 1/144th scale - for the 'look' on a larger scale see here https://www.largescaleplanes.com/art...e.php?aid=2806). I sounds like a lot of work but it really isn't. It doesn't show up very well on the photo but it gives a nice effect to the naked eye.

    Those are the two main effects I wanted to bring out. There's a good discussion above about detail by Rob and Florian and basically I agree with them but as I mentioned above there may be instances where one wants to give an impression of detail. That doesn't mean replicated the detail exactly but really what your doing is bringing out a detail which can sort of be detected at a distance but not quite so. It can make a model look very nice at a wargaming distance but it may or may not show up well in photos as photos tend to be up close and without proper lighting could look garish.

    A final point on the painting technique - I used a lighter colour than the light colour on the wings, etc. to emphasize the edges of the wings and the top of the fuselage. It's just my choice, but I find it helps define the structure of the model.

    The last point is on the choice of paint schemes. I had intended to do Udet and Sachsenburg but I ruined those wing decals and the other decal sets had wing ones which weren't right for Udet and Sachsenburg and didn't match their fuselage ones. So I chose the other decal sets which are (on the Valom package) for MvR and Jacobs, but the only thing that makes them decals for those pilots are the serial numbers which can't see anyway. So I chose the two Ares models I'm missing - Immelmann and Hautzmayer. The colour mix for the Immelmann is white with yellow ochre and burnt umber while the Hautzmeyer is Hooker's Green, yellow ochre and white.

  44. #94

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    I wrote to Valom today and asked about the target group for the WWI kits. They're definitely designed for scale modellers. Václav isn't really aware of the wargaming scene. The Camel Vs. Dr.I set was the last to be released. I asked him about a more simple design to approach wargamers. I'm curious about his answer.

  45. #95

    Default

    Florian I've wondered about their target buyers as well. I'm a bit surprised that it's modellers, I would expect them to go for a bigger scale, and also 2 of the same plane in the pack seems odd.
    However I cannot imagine that these are for wargamers because they could be so much simpler to put together if they were designed differently. Look forward to hearing the answer.

    Paul thanks for this thread, I've enjoyed reading it and hopefully learned something useful along the way.
    I've done 10 Valom planes so far and not had any problem with the plastic parts but lots of problems with the brass etch bits. This is entirely down to using different glues for the different materials.

  46. #96

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Florian I've wondered about their target buyers as well. I'm a bit surprised that it's modellers, I would expect them to go for a bigger scale, and also 2 of the same plane in the pack seems odd.
    However I cannot imagine that these are for wargamers because they could be so much simpler to put together if they were designed differently. Look forward to hearing the answer.

    Paul thanks for this thread, I've enjoyed reading it and hopefully learned something useful along the way.
    I've done 10 Valom planes so far and not had any problem with the plastic parts but lots of problems with the brass etch bits. This is entirely down to using different glues for the different materials.
    I had the same thoughts, but I've red, that the 1/144 scale is popular for a few years, now. Dual packs are a kind of standard in this scale. I know some Japanese manufacturers who offering dual 1/144 kits, too.

    Unfortunately Václav answered, that he won't do any further WWI kits. Neither for scale modellers nor wargamers. He is thinking the typical wargamer has no interest in kit building, at all.

    I have a different opinion on this topic. Even the ordinary tabletop gamer has modelling experience, nowadays, as the plastic miniatures and vehicles have to be glued together. I assume especially the typical wargamer has some experience with scale modelling.
    Last edited by Karo7; 04-02-2019 at 12:20.

  47. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo7 View Post
    I wrote to Valom today and asked about the target group for the WWI kits. They're definitely designed for scale modellers. Václav isn't really aware of the wargaming scene. The Camel Vs. Dr.I set was the last to be released. I asked him about a more simple design to approach wargamers. I'm curious about his answer.
    That's interesting. There's a link above to a scale modeller who used a Valom Fokker E.III but I notice that except for the wings and fuselage the modeller didn't use most of the Valom parts. I did a google search on Valom Fokker E.III and only got that one hit, but I'm not really in a position to opine on the current state of scale modelling.

  48. #98

    Karo7's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Florian
    Location
    Baden-Württemberg
    Sorties Flown
    445
    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default

    Yes, there are only a few images of Valom scale builds online. In most scale kit reviews the authors assume, that the kits are targeted on wargamers

  49. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Paul thanks for this thread, I've enjoyed reading it and hopefully learned something useful along the way.
    I've done 10 Valom planes so far and not had any problem with the plastic parts but lots of problems with the brass etch bits. This is entirely down to using different glues for the different materials.
    Glad you found it useful. I wonder how it would have turned out if (1) I had not tried to use old plastic cement that had been kicking around for a few years and (2) had done the molybdenum wire the way it was done by the person from whom I got the idea (i.e., cut wire to lengths for each section and glue point-to-point). Anyway, I actually glad I went too far by trying to 'threat the wire' through the wing and then ripped the rigging off. I think I'm happier with the models the way they are rather than with rigging...it's just my preference and not a 'rule' for anyone else.

  50. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo7 View Post
    Yes, there are only a few images of Valom scale builds online. In most scale kit reviews the authors assume, that the kits are targeted on wargamers
    Seems like a market survey would have been useful....once someone figures out which market one wants to survey.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Fokker EIII
    By stiggo44 in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2015, 10:15
  2. 1/144 Brengun Fokker EII/EIII
    By Roger Wilco in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-03-2014, 10:26
  3. WGF Seeing RED! Fokker EIII Renegade!
    By clipper1801 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-01-2013, 19:14
  4. Reviresco Fokker EIII
    By Dark Horse in forum Metal and Resin Models
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-29-2012, 04:37
  5. SKYTREX FOKKER EIII - AND THEN THERE WERE THREE!
    By COLBATMAN in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 20:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •