IPMS Rules: Out of the Box
Nick Kiriokos
I was reading the rules last night in my son's journal (still haven't
gotten mine!!), and the rules for OOTB don't mention re-scribing panel
lines on a kit with raised lines. Is this considered "major surgery"?
You're not cutting and re-posistioning control surfaces, canopies etc,
and you're not adding anything not already there. I've got the Monogram
Skyraider (yes I'll get at least a half-dozen Tamiya's) and it's not
that big of a deal to rescribe this kit. What do you guys think?
Nick
ModelerAl
In article <352A26...@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov>, Nick Kiriokos
<nick_k...@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes:
It's just my opinion of course, but the way the rules are written
shouldn't disallow rescribed models from OOTB competition. Then again, I'm
just another member, not a honcho... ;)
Al Superczynski, MFE
IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
Check out my want and disposal lists at "Al's Place":
http://users.aol.com/modeleral
"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
and the critics will flame you every time."
BucholtzC
IIRC, the rule of thumb in OOB is that you can remove plastic, but you can't
add it. So-o-o-o... re-scribing a model would be okay, but taking a model with
recessed panel lines and replacing them all with raised lines made of stretched
sprue would not be okay. :)
--Chris Bucholtz
Ralph Forehand
Hi, Nick:
Ralph Forehand, IPMS/USA Internet Coordinator/WebMaster, sent
me your rms. post regarding re-scribing panel lines and what that might
mean to an OOB entry.
First, let me say that I am a proponent of recessed panel lines all
the way; lots and lots of the airplane kits in my stash of
things-to-build-someday, however, have raised ones. I have re-scribed a
few kits but basically I just don't have the patience to do that to them
all so will in all probability just live with the raised detail.
It should go without saying that if you build a kit with raised
detail, some is going to get sanded away during the seam-filling process.
There's nothing wrong with replacing that detail, either using stretched
sprue to re-create the raised detail, or scribing lines and living with the
mix of raised and recessed lines. As a judge, I wouldn't count off for
anyone's having done either to a contest model.
The rules don't exactly specify whether or not one can sand all the
raised detail off and re-scribe a kit in its entirety and still keep it as
an OOB entry. I doubt that we'd disqualify such an entry.
The problem comes, however, in the SPIRIT of the OOB concept.
Originally, the idea behind this was to give the average modeler, the
novice modeler, the occasional modeler, the senior modeler (or whatever
other moniker you might assign to someone who just prefers making
models
for the fun of it rather than being one of the masters or competition
modelers) a shot at winning a trophy in an IPMS contest. As I've said many
times in my Journal column, I wish the accomplished modelers would go
for
the gold in the unlimited categories and leave the OOB ones to those folks
described above. It usually doesn't happen that way, though.
Aimed at the "average" modeler, that's why we have the rules for
the OOB categories that we do. What we try to ask ourselves in looking at
what someone can do to an OOB model is something along the lines of, "Is
what this person's done within the scope of the average modeler's
capabilities?" This is where the conundrum of re-scribing an entire
model
comes along. Personally, having re-scribed a few models myself and
finding
the chore tedious and frustrating, my vote would be that no, the average
bear wouldn't do that to a model. Mind you, there's nothing against it per
se, but I feel that the modeler who takes the time and patience (let alone
having the intestinal fortitude) to do so really belongs in the categories
competing against the heavyweight modelers in the class, not the guy new
to
the Society who's entering an OOB model for the first time. I wouldn't
disqualify anybody, but I sure would like to encourage them to compete
"up"
rather than "down".
We're victims of our own success in lots of ways, Nick. Some of
today's kits are SO good right out of the box that---well, what else are
ya' gonna do to 'em? Some of the Tamiya and Hasegawa and Accurate
Miniatures stuff is just exquisite enough to build with nothing else done
to it that lots of us just don't.
So, addressing your specific model, go ahead and re-scribe it if
that's your desire. And enter it where you wish, either OOB or not. But
as I've said, if you've got that kind of modeling moxie, I'd sure encourage
you to go up against the big dudes in the contest.
And by the way, GREAT choice of subject matter. I flew the A-1
during my former life in the Navy---just a super machine.
Good modeling, Walt Fink
Chairman, IPMS/USA Rules Committee
jsh...@ptialaska.net
<snip>
> It's just my opinion of course, but the way the rules are written
> shouldn't disallow rescribed models from OOTB competition. Then again, I'm
> just another member, not a honcho... ;)
> Al Superczynski, MFE
> IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
>
> Check out my want and disposal lists at "Al's Place":
> http://users.aol.com/modeleral
>
> "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
> and the critics will flame you every time."
>
The IPMS rules for out of the box competition are a joke. I'm not sure if they
do or do not allow this particular point but they should not. They have
started allowing a lot of stuff in the category that are not in the spirit of
out-of-the-box. The breakdown seems to be one of relative work not whether or
not it came in the box.
I take a relatively hard-line approach to the category and feel the only
things you should be able to do to the model is what is mentioned in the
instruction sheet. If the sheet says that the model would look better if you
sanded off all of the raised panel lines and replased them with engraved lines
then you should be allowed. Otherwise outside of whats listed in the
instructions you should only be allowed to repair damaged details. That means
replacing panel lines removed in cleaning seams it does not include
re-scribing the model, thining down overly thick landing gear doors, replacing
poorly shaped antennas and guns, adding antennas or rigging, not even adding
seat belts. All of that stuff falls under the heading of "extra detail" and
should be in the general categories NOT out of the box.
Jeff
IPMS something or other
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
GCLOWER
Hi,Ho Walt
I read with great interest your post on OOB rules. We here at IPMS/RV started
hosting a contest 2 years ago called the Virginia Shoot-out. The concept is a
limited number of catagories ie. 2 aircraft, 2 auto, 2 military, 1 figure, 1
waterborne, 1 sci-fi. The models are selected by IPMS/RV and are strickly built
OOB according to IPMS/USA rules. This concept does have a small turn-out, but
has grown considerably. An example from last year from the aircraft class 1/48
catagory. The model selected was the Tamiya F4U 1-2 Birdcage Corsair. Out of 10
entries not one of them was the same. It was pretty slick seeing all those
Corsairs lined up on the table and all had diffrent paint and decal schemes
and they were all built OOB. It was great!. This year we have expanded the
catagories soem. Being a small club and trying to make ends meet, we have found
that this formula works.
Regards
Greg Clower #33893
President IPMS/Roanoke Valley
jmcl...@gbtech.net
In article <6ggd8k$g8k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jsh...@ptialaska.net wrote:
> I take a relatively hard-line approach to the category and feel the only
> things you should be able to do to the model is what is mentioned in the
> instruction sheet. If the sheet says that the model would look better if you
> sanded off all of the raised panel lines and replased them with engraved lines
> then you should be allowed. Otherwise outside of whats listed in the
> instructions you should only be allowed to repair damaged details. That means
> replacing panel lines removed in cleaning seams it does not include
> re-scribing the model, thining down overly thick landing gear doors, replacing
> poorly shaped antennas and guns, adding antennas or rigging, not even adding
> seat belts. All of that stuff falls under the heading of "extra detail" and
> should be in the general categories NOT out of the box.
>
> Jeff
Aren't you being selectively strict here? How many instruction sheets
mention removing seams by filling or sanding? If you are going to take an
all or nothing attitude, then go all the way. I don't understand the point of
OOB, anyway. Is it designed to let less capable modelers take home trophies
too? Is that a good thing?
Jim
MHowell
When OOB was introduced, it meant just that. Built from the box using the
provided parts, and nothing more.
The intent (IMHO) was to have competition based on building what was
presented by the manufacturer without adding scratchbuilt detail (in that
era), major alterations, or extra parts. The first changes I recall
allowed tape seat belts and other than kit decals. The original rules did
not allow "major surgery" on the kit. That included dropping flaps, cutting
canopies, etc. One of the posts here suggested rescribing would be
allowable. This to my way of thinking is "major surgery". I also think the
intent was that this be a "craftsmanship" category. To show your
construction skills without adding all the extras we have come to associate
with scratchbuilding. If you begin to alter this category with "add-ons"
you will be creating something else. Soon you will have categories for OOB
with exceptions: a. rescribed panels, b. added aftermarket products, c.
scratchbuilt parts, d. major modifications to kit components. etc. etc.
OOB should remain as a craftsman category in my opinion- no modifications.
Fred Hall once declined to enter a model as OOB when he replaced a pitot
tube with a needle. At one time, kit instructions were required to
authenticate OOB. This was to cover a "suggested" modification. You were
also allowed to put on an antenna wire if shown in the instructions or on
the box art. This leads to discussions on could I rescribe (or drop flaps)
if suggested in the instructions. IMHO
the answer would be no- if it requires "major surgery" to the basic kit.
If the kit instructions said- Our cockpit is poor- use KMC or TD as a
replacement- it would not be OOB. Just my 2 cents worth (Turning on
sprinklers and donning flame suit).
jmcl...@gbtech.net wrote in message <6gile5$5hb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6ggd8k$g8k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jsh...@ptialaska.net wrote:
>
>> I take a relatively hard-line approach to the category and feel the only
>> things you should be able to do to the model is what is mentioned in the
>> instruction sheet
F. X. Kranick, Jr.
jmcl...@gbtech.net wrote:
> (snip) I don't understand the point of
> OOB, anyway. Is it designed to let less capable modelers take home trophies
> too? Is that a good thing?
>
> Jim
I've seen some OOB models that'd blow away many resin/vac/PE
conversions so the thought of OOB modelers being 'less capable' is plain
wrong. It's not for the beginner, less capable or otherwise 'novice',
though there's no reason why they couldn't enter in OOB. If anything,
I'd say OOB modelers are more bent on details, accuracy and
craftsmanship as their models will be competing with conversions and the
like.
If a new AM Dauntless/Avenger were built OOB by a competant modeler
there's a very good chance that model will place at a given event, even
among heavily modified competitors. For that matter, choose any model
and stay true to the category and you might surprise yourself with how a
kit can be turned into a very good model with the parts in the box
alone.
It goes back to 'basics first' where there are a whole lot more
chances to create errors while adding all the resin, PE and vac parts
while the OOB modeler lessens his or her chances by choosing not to use
aftermarket items. Basically, the kit speaks for itself.
I'm sorta in Jeff's camp on this - I think there are quite a few items
in the IPMS/USA OOB category that can be eliminated or curbed. Perhaps
not to the degree you observe but I think it should be curtailed a bit.
--
Frank
IPMS 20352
"I'm a real boy!"
- Pinocchio
*****************************
Frank Kranick
CAD Drafter/CAFM Administrator
University of Scranton
Scranton, PA
kran...@lion.uofs.edu
(717) 941-6267 - voice
(717) 941-6220 - facsimile
jsh...@ptialaska.net
<snip>
>
> Aren't you being selectively strict here? How many instruction sheets
> mention removing seams by filling or sanding? If you are going to take an
of
> OOB, anyway. Is it designed to let less capable modelers take home trophies
> too? Is that a good thing?
>
> Jim
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
poorly. I should have said the only extra detail you should be allowed to add
is what's called out in the instructions. Yes, re-scribing the entire model is
under the category of extra-detail. Filling seams comes under the heading of
basic construction technique.
The purpose of the category is not to give "less capable" modelers a shot at a
trophy. Few would argue that past winners of the category are "less capable".
The purpose is to give all of those modelers out there who don't have the time
or desire to hyper-detail their models a chance to compete. The problem is
that the IPMS does not have some sort of 'Masters' category where all of the
'big guns' can shoot it out while leaving the 'little guys' a chance to enjoy
their hobby.
To answer another thread--I do think competition is good for the hobby.
Getting back to this topic, I think the Out of the Box category is a good idea
but not with it's presently vague rules.
Jeff
IPMS something or other
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
jmcl...@gbtech.net
> I'd say OOB modelers are more bent on details, accuracy and
> craftsmanship as their models will be competing with conversions and the
> like.
No, they won't be competing against those things -- they aren't allowed in
OOB.
> It goes back to 'basics first' where there are a whole lot more
> chances to create errors while adding all the resin, PE and vac parts
> while the OOB modeler lessens his or her chances by choosing not to use
> aftermarket items. Basically, the kit speaks for itself.
Award the OOB trophy to the AM Avenger and retire the category.
> I'm sorta in Jeff's camp on this - I think there are quite a few items
> in the IPMS/USA OOB category that can be eliminated or curbed. Perhaps
> not to the degree you observe but I think it should be curtailed a bit.
Sorry, I still don't get it. Who enters OOB and why? Don't mean to
disparage OOBers. Just wondering.
Maybe my problem is with the concept of OOB. I can't remember the last time
I didn't add or change something in a kit. It's unavoidable even with the
best kits. My goal is to produce an accurate representation of a prototype.
The idea of limiting myself to what is in a kit box or to what a rule book
says is just strange. But then I don't enter or build for contests.
SVanaken
>Jim said<
>Sorry, I still don't get it. Who enters OOB and why? Don't mean to<BR>
>disparage OOBers. Just wondering.<BR>
><BR>
>Maybe my problem is with the concept of OOB. I can't remember the last
>I didn't add or change something in a kit. It's unavoidable even with
>best kits. My goal is to produce an accurate representation of a prototype.
>The idea of limiting myself to what is in a kit box or to what a rule
>says is just strange. But then I don't enter or build for contests.
Jim,
I'd say that in reality, the majority of the world's modellers build thier kits
mostly OOB. I have been building proficiently for several decades and most of
the kits I build are basically OOB with only a decal change. Sure, for some
kits I add a few other aftermarket bits, but for many of us, models are just a
canvas for for a paint or camoflage scheme so we can't get too upset about
minor inaccuracies.
Back when I was entering contests, OOB was the category I chose. It did not
limit me to one type of model and on occasion, the kit was chosen for a higher
award than that for which it was entered. Adding more parts and doing more work
does not always make for a better built model (gee, maybe that should be
written down). I never built especially for contests; just took what I thought
was competetive from the display shelves and entered it.
If 100% accuracy is required, then the model should be scratchbuilt using the
same materials as the prototype and not styrene/resin/wood. All aspects of
modelling assume that one is willing to 'suspend reality' in order to produce a
representation of a Tiger tank or '32 Ford or Phantom jet. As with everything
in life, there are the two extremes and most of us fall somewhere in the
middle. OOB is that middle; neither completely faithful representation nor
semi-distinguishable blob.
One of the really nice things about modelling is that there is room for all
types of builders; from the snap-kitters to the scratch-builders. All are
welcome additions to the hobby.
Just my opinion,
Cheers,
__________________________________________________________________________
Scott Van Aken IPMS Canada 5729
The Aviation Nut Webzine
http://members.aol.com/svanaken
Fly by Nite Productions
Joe Hegedus
jmcl...@gbtech.net wrote:
>
> > I'd say OOB modelers are more bent on details, accuracy and
> > craftsmanship as their models will be competing with conversions and the
> > like.
>
> No, they won't be competing against those things -- they aren't allowed in
> OOB.
>
OOB was a block on the registration sheet you checked if you wanted to
be considered for OOB. The OOB models competed in the same category
right alongside the modified/detailed/whatevered models. The only
contest I've been to that had a separate OOB category was the IPMS/USA
Region 2 convention last year, the one in Philadelphia. I didn't
compete there, and don't recall how the concept of separate OOB
categories went over. Personally, I like to have them all in one
category. And, I've seen several OOB entries win in these shows, also,
over the modified/detailed/whatever models. Concentrate on getting the
basics right, and the rest can come later.
> > It goes back to 'basics first' where there are a whole lot more
> > chances to create errors while adding all the resin, PE and vac parts
> > while the OOB modeler lessens his or her chances by choosing not to use
> > aftermarket items. Basically, the kit speaks for itself.
>
Correct.
> Award the OOB trophy to the AM Avenger and retire the category.
>
I don't understand this statement.
> Sorry, I still don't get it. Who enters OOB and why? Don't mean to
> disparage OOBers. Just wondering.
>
I've entered OOB on occasion. I do most of my building that way,
because I am more interested in the paint and markings on my airplanes
than in having every switch in the cockpit or every hydraulic line in
the wheel well that isn't going to be seen anyway. I still use
aftermarket parts on some kits, and do quite a bit of converting, but if
the base kit is good and is the version I want, I usually don't go for
the add-ons like resin cockpits. I mostly (not exclusively) close my
canopies, so any extra detail is hard to see anyway, so what's the
point?
> Maybe my problem is with the concept of OOB. I can't remember the last time
> I didn't add or change something in a kit. It's unavoidable even with the
> best kits. My goal is to produce an accurate representation of a prototype.
That's your perogative. Build'em the way you want.
Joe
Joe Hegedus
SVanaken wrote:
> Jim,
> I'd say that in reality, the majority of the world's modellers build thier kits
> mostly OOB. I have been building proficiently for several decades and most of
> the kits I build are basically OOB with only a decal change. Sure, for some
> kits I add a few other aftermarket bits, but for many of us, models are just a
> canvas for for a paint or camoflage scheme so we can't get too upset about
> minor inaccuracies.
>
Well said.
> Back when I was entering contests, OOB was the category I chose. It did not
> limit me to one type of model and on occasion, the kit was chosen for a higher
> award than that for which it was entered. Adding more parts and doing more work
> does not always make for a better built model (gee, maybe that should be
> written down). I never built especially for contests; just took what I thought
> was competetive from the display shelves and entered it.
>
Sounds like a pretty healthy attitude there. I do much the same thing,
although I sometimes have been known to make an effort to have a
particular kit done for a particular contest. Sometimes I make the
deadline, sometimes I don't.
> If 100% accuracy is required, then the model should be scratchbuilt using the
> same materials as the prototype and not styrene/resin/wood.
And the model should be made in 1:1 scale. Otherwise something must be
compromised.
All aspects of
> modelling assume that one is willing to 'suspend reality' in order to produce a
> representation of a Tiger tank or '32 Ford or Phantom jet. As with everything
> in life, there are the two extremes and most of us fall somewhere in the
> middle. OOB is that middle; neither completely faithful representation nor
> semi-distinguishable blob.
>
> One of the really nice things about modelling is that there is room for all
> types of builders; from the snap-kitters to the scratch-builders. All are
> welcome additions to the hobby.
Well said.
Joe
Dave Williams
jmcl...@gbtech.net wrote:
>
> > I'd say OOB modelers are more bent on details, accuracy and
> > craftsmanship as their models will be competing with conversions and the
> > like.
>
> No, they won't be competing against those things -- they aren't allowed in
> OOB.
>
Depends on the contest. Some have seperate OOTB categories where OOTB
models just compete against each others. Others, like the IPMS Nats,
have an OOTB award in each category so a model could win an OOTB award
as well as an award for the category. Also, based in IPMS rules,
conversions appear to be allowed as long as they are in one box.
Witness last years OOTB winner in 1/32 scale jets: a 1/32 Hasegawa
OA-4M. This is essentially a TA-4J kit with conversion parts to make a
OA-4M. You have to cut off the nose and part of the tail and graft the
new pieces on. The kit also contains a lot of photoetch and white metal
parts. But it's all in the box, so it qualifies. Put some photoetch
seat belts on an AM Avenger, and you can forget about OOTB because they
didn't come as part of the kit.
Dave
ModelerAl
In article <199804092003...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, svan...@aol.com
(SVanaken) writes:
>One of the really nice things about modelling is that there is room for all
>types of builders; from the snap-kitters to the scratch-builders. All are
>welcome additions to the hobby.
Well said, Scotty.
NapaNet
"F. X. Kranick, Jr." <kran...@uofs.edu> wrote:
> If a new AM Dauntless/Avenger were built OOB by a competant modeler
>there's a very good chance that model will place at a given event, even
>among heavily modified competitors. For that matter, choose any model
>and stay true to the category and you might surprise yourself with how a
>kit can be turned into a very good model with the parts in the box
>alone.
Saw one of my beloved "role models" indeed do just that with an AM
Avenger at a Nor-Cal competition. Took a first or second as I
recall...
Denis Arbeau
Napa, CA
IPMS 36821
"Devoted follower of my beloved role models, John 'Lightning'
Clements and Bob 'Hustler' Moore..."
DAN RUTMAN
I am disturbed by the comment "less capable modellers are in OOB".
I enter this catagory alot and am successful, if I had the money
resources I could compete at any level with due practice and time.
I do not have the cash flow to spend $50 a kit plus $100 or more for
references, $50 plus for resin and or photoetch, $1000 to purchase a
lathe, milling machine, etc to win a $5 wood plaque.
I already have a room full (20+) of award plaques from OOB and other
aircraft catagories. Contest awards are based on assembly of kits and
finishing skills, not how deep your bank account is.
I do not mean to step on anyones toes, If I had the cash to burn I would
deck out a kit too.
Sundelin
>No, I'm not being selectively strict on this, I just worded that
>section poorly. I should have said the only extra detail you should be
>allowed to add is what's called out in the instructions. Yes, re-scribing the
>entire model is under the category of extra-detail. Filling seams comes under
>the heading of basic construction technique.
Where do you then draw the (panel) line between restoring panel lines (lost in
sanding) and rescribing ? Oops - the surface was so rough overall, I needed to
sand down the complete model...
Personally, I would think rescribing is OK - You should not be able to gain any
points of doing so but have a lot to lose (such as whatever's left of your mind
:-)...
//Sten
Don_S...@transarc.com
While the motivation for OOB is a good one, the hobby has changed such
as to make it very hard to justify its existence.
I read someone's comment about it being OK to use PE, white-metal parts,
etc, as long as they were in the box, and that it was OK to do arbitrary
amounts of "plastic surgery" as long as it was on the kit directions.
No matter how you try to justify this, it seems absurd - how are the
two cases different? Given ever better and more costly kits, OOB has
failed to make it less expensive to compete.
Go back about a year in your IPMS journals and you'll find an issue
with a Mercedes racing car on the cover that was built "OOB". While
the modeler used only kit parts, he carefully researched the actual
car and spent something like 100 hours on detail painting (e.g. he
carefully painted shaded "3D-looking" spark plug wires). So much for
OOB reducing the time needed to compete.
The problem with OOB is the same that plagues any sort of "formula
competition" - the competitor with more time and money is at an
advantage regardless of what the rules are.
The basic IPMS judging criteria already encourage the modeler to build
OOB - so what does having OOB - at least in its current incarnation -
buy for us?
If OOB really is meant to recognize basic building skills, do what
others have suggested and replace it with a conest where everyone
builds the exact same kit (OK - one per subject). Announce next years
kit at this years Nats - then everyone has the same amount of time to
build it. This seems to be about as good as you can get to leveling
the playing field - but the guys with the most time and money will
still have the advantage.
Don Schmitz
Art Murray
I'm building the Aeromaster MiG 17 with all the KMC, Squadron, et al parts
included in the kit. Since they are all "in the box" does this go in the OOB
category or some other?
Art
OXMORON1
Art asked:
>I'm building the Aeromaster MiG 17 with all the KMC, Squadron, et al parts
>included in the kit. Since they are all "in the box" does this go in the OOB
>category or some other?
Sorry but you enter into the new category OOBs or "Out of the Boxes". This just
doesn't meet the OOB rules IIRC :-)
Oxmoron1
Kent Eckhart, Jr.
At the Ogden Utah yearly event, they have a separate category for OOB. If a
kit includes photoetch, it has to be entered in a category they call
"Moderate Detail". Like Dan says here, not every one can afford the Hi Tech
kits and after market accessories. The Gathering in Ogden gets bigger every
year so obviously there are modelers out there who appreciate this kind of
consideration.
Kent
KMartin512
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: IPMS Rules: Out of the Box
>From: "Kent Eckhart, Jr." <k...@micron.net>
>Date: Sat, Apr 11, 1998 15:19 EDT
>Message-id: <352FC23F...@micron.net>
>
>At the Ogden Utah yearly event, they have a separate category for OOB. If a
>kit includes photoetch, it has to be entered in a category they call
>"Moderate Detail". Like Dan says here, not every one can afford the Hi Tech
>kits and after market accessories. The Gathering in Ogden gets bigger every
>year so obviously there are modelers out there who appreciate this kind of
>consideration.
>Kent
>
Here is where we have problems. The rules stated above at that particular
contest is the kind of distortion that causes headaches for contest
participants. It should be black and white, all the time. If it's in the box
then it's OOB. I would take great offence if after completing a Classic
Airframes Mig 3 straight from the box I was told I couldn't enter it as out of
box because it is built using photo etch and resin parts. But these parts come
with the kit. Because a manufacturer engineers a kit to need these parts for
completion, photo and resin parts should not disqualify a kit from an OOB
category.
If on the other hand it's a matter of some modelers not being able to afford
"high tech" kits, then maybe there needs to be a category for kits $10 and
under. You just can't make everybody happy and equal.
Please also understand that I firmly believe OOB is for first timers, and less
confident modelers. Anyone else is chicken to put their work in standard
categories. Which by the way, they stand as good if not better chance of taking
some iron home with them. Just my two and a half cents worth.
Kevin Martin
LrdAzrael
There is a funny twist to this ranting about people who spend hundreds of
dollars on detail parts for contest models.
It sounds a lot like some of the ranting from people who did spend hundreds of
dollars on models for the last National contest and got beat by an Out of the
Box entry.
Take the time to dig out some old journals and check the number of categories
where an OOB was in the top 3.
Go figure.
Dave
IPMS 13690
Dave Williams
Art Murray wrote:
>
> I'm building the Aeromaster MiG 17 with all the KMC, Squadron, et al parts
> included in the kit. Since they are all "in the box" does this go in the OOB
> category or some other?
>
Based on what I saw at last year's Nats, I'd say yes at least at the
IPMS National contest. But smaller/local contests may have different
rules, such as "no high-tech" models. The contest flyers usually have a
definition for OOTB in them.
Dave
Art Murray
OXMORON1 wrote:
> Art asked:
>
> >I'm building the Aeromaster MiG 17 with all the KMC, Squadron, et al parts
> >included in the kit. Since they are all "in the box" does this go in the OOB
> >category or some other?
>
> Sorry but you enter into the new category OOBs or "Out of the Boxes". This just
> doesn't meet the OOB rules IIRC :-)
>
> Oxmoron1
Could that now be OOMB - "Out of Many Boxes?" :-)
Art
Todd Enlund
At the local show last year, I entered a model in a regualr
category, despite the fact that I had built it with no modifications.
After the judging was completed, I discover that my OOTB model was
moved into the OOTB class. I guess that from now on I need to lie on
the entry sheet and list some modifications that I really didn't do?
In most cases I am more than willing to leave the OOTB category for
less experienced modelers, but the judges made it impossible.
I have always felt that the OOTB models should be put in the
same categories as modified models, just as at the Nats. Then, have a
separate category for novice modelers. How do we define novice
modelers? Perhaps it would just be enough to announce the award as
such... if Joe Expert Modeler wants a trophy bad enough to compete in
the novice class, and have his name announced as a novice, then I
really must pity him...
Todd Enlund
"Bandits at 3 O'clock"
"Roger. What should I do 'till then?"
KMartin512
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: IPMS Rules: Out of the Box
>Date: Sun, Apr 12, 1998 12:37 EDT
>Message-id: <3530ebc4....@news.earthlink.net>
There was absolutely no reason for the judges to move that kit. It is the
modelers choice to put his model in the category he chooses. Regardless if it's
OOB or a regular, "no holds barred" category. As long as it's not a jet in a
prop category. Maybe yours was better then the judge or his buddy's, and the
judge wanted to help out by eliminating some of the compitition. This is just
another example of idiotic behavier by judges in a contest.
Happy modeling
kevin Martin
BucholtzC
Dave wrote,
"Take the time to dig out some old journals and check the number of categories
where an OOB was in the top 3."
Already did so for another thread... last year, in the 88 categories where OOB
could be applied (excluding conversions, scratchbuilt, dioramas, etc.), 53
percent of the categories had an OOB entry in the top three, with 13 OOB
entries taking firsts.
So there.
--Chris Bucholtz
Francis
I agree with this line of though, that if you are going to have an OOTB
category, then everyone should build the same kit and be judged on that
only. The problem with the category itself is that it becomes too easy
to win trophies. More experienced modellers use this category to make a
"name" for themselves. OOTB should be exclusively aimed at the novice,
and if the quality of the model is such that it deserves to be moved in
the real mens league, then judges should move it. Better still, it
should be eliminated. Just my opinion.
OXMORON1
Francis wrote as a follow up to Don Schmitz's comment:
>The problem with the category itself is that it becomes too easy
>to win trophies. More experienced modellers use this category to make a
>"name" for themselves. OOTB should be exclusively aimed at the novice,
>and if the quality of the model is such that it deserves to be moved in
>the real mens league, then judges should move it. Better still, it
>should be eliminated. Just my opinion.
>
>
Real Men's League, my rear...There was a post on this topic earlier where the
number of OOTB entries (last IPMS-USA Nationals) which placed in the "Real
Men's League" was given. It was a hefty percentage of the categories.
Skill and technique will win out, even with OOTB entries.
Granted OOTB has lost some appeal to many modelers because of the aftermarket
items now available. OOTB still has a place and still creates interest. What
does it hurt to keep it going if it does not detract from the "Happening" and
adds more models to look at while visiting the model room.
Just My Opinion
Oxmoron1
Mike Sheumaker
Joe Hegedus wrote:
>
> jmcl...@gbtech.net wrote:
> >
>
> > Sorry, I still don't get it. Who enters OOB and why? Don't mean to
> > disparage OOBers. Just wondering.
> >
1. Me.
2. I don't like to spend more on 'detail' sets than I do on a kit.
3. I like to build models (emphasis on the 's'), not one a year.
4. Got third in an IPMS show with an OOB NASCAR race car.
5. Still working on the 'Basics First' thing.
6. Don't like to argue about the color of relief tubes, and other such
nonsense.
7. Have a life other than modeling.
8. It's fun.
9. There are some damn nice kits out there, don't need anything else.
(it just kills me when Tamiya or AM comes out with a new kit, the
first thing
folks want to know is when KMC or whoever is coming out with an
'update' set.)
10. I just like OOB. So there :-)
Even the IPMS must realize that some people just don't have the time,
skills, means,
or desire to enter some whiz-bang model with more $$$ in resin than in
plastic, ergo,
OOB. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a well-detailed non-OOB model
as much
as the next guy. Maybe someday I'll do a super-detailed model that has
over $100
worth of stuff in it, but for now, gimme OOB any day.
>
> > Maybe my problem is with the concept of OOB. I can't remember the last time
> > I didn't add or change something in a kit. It's unavoidable even with the
> > best kits. My goal is to produce an accurate representation of a prototype.
I can remember the last time I *didn't* add anything to a kit. Yesterday
:-)
Unavoidable??? Don't think so. Just build the damn thing and take it
to work
instead of to a contest where somebody's going to rip it apart.
Appreciate it
for what it is, a model.
My OOB philosophy is this: If it came in the box, you can do anything
you want to
it. Sand, fill, reshape, stretch sprue, paint, weather, whatever. As
long as you
don't add anything that didn't come in the box like resin, photoetch,
scratch built
parts, and decals.
>
> That's your perogative. Build'em the way you want.
>
> Joe
Well said... I don't mean to disparage anybody, that's just my HO.
--
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike Sheumaker Millikin University
Network Manager 1184 W. Main St.
Decatur, Il. 62522
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?!?! Hell no!"
John Belushi in "Animal House"
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Joe Hegedus
Just for the record, the only part of the quote below that I wrote was
the " That's your perogative. Build'em the way you want".
The rest of my reply was snipped and the post I replied to was
attributed to me.
Joe
Francis
Dont want to start a thread here, but on too many occasions, models are
judged only on the overall "effect" of the kit. That is to say that an
OOTB model will win in a given category over another simply because it
looks good. Even if the other models have had extensive detailing. This
sort of attitude sends out the message to modellers that building a kit
without correcting its faults is the way to go. Why spend hours
detailing and correcting when all you have to do to win is to drill out
the guns and make sure your paint job looks dandy? Modelling, to me, is
much more than that. I enjoy detailing and correcting my kits and I feel
I do a fairly good job at that. What pisses me off, is loosing to some
one that decided he was going to build OOTB and wins over everybody
because he made no "mistakes"! How on earth can you make mistakes if you
dont do anything? Models should be judged for overall appearence and
scope of effort otherwise why have modelling competitions at all? OOTB
is fine if everyone competes on the same grounds and not an old Airfix
or Frog kit up against a recent hi-tech kit. If everyone builds the same
kit then the OOTB category has a purpose since you compete on pure skill
and workmanship. Not on who has the biggest wallet. Again just my
opinion. Thank you.
Francis
P.S. Im sorry if I got you upset by saying "real men's league". It was
not intended to offend.
BucholtzC
Francis wrote,
"... on too many occasions, models are judged only on the overall "effect" of
the kit. That is to say that an OOTB model will win in a given category over
another simply because it looks good."
Actually, when OOB entries are mixed with non-OOB (NOOB?) entries, the OOB
entries win when they have fewer mistakes. Obviously, building a modern,
well-engineered kit out of the box presents fewer opportunities to make
mistakes than an all-out detail job; then again, if you're good enough to pull
off an all-out detail job, you ought to be good enough to avoid glue spots,
misalignments, unfilled seams, fogged canopies and the other pitfalls that put
models out of award contention.
That being said... If an OOB entry and a detailed entry are equally flawed or
flawless, then that detail work comes into consideration and the detailed kit
wins. Saying that the kit that wins does so "only because it looks good"
suggests that the judges are only looking at the finishes of the models and
picking their favorites. Judging would be a speedy process if that were the
case.
Personlly, I have yet to find a kit I'd be satisfied building out of the box,
and I appreciate the efforts of folks who go the extra mile. At the same time,
I expect that the details I add will be judged on basics, just like the rest of
my model. I can handle that!
--Chris Bucholtz
Bruce Burden
Francis (Arie...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
:
: judged only on the overall "effect" of the kit. That is to say that an
: OOTB model will win in a given category over another simply because it
:
So, in effect, what you are saying is that, *ALL* things
being equal in basic construction, an OOTB model will beat out
a highly detailed model?!?
:
: sort of attitude sends out the message to modellers that building a kit
: without correcting its faults is the way to go. Why spend hours
: detailing and correcting when all you have to do to win is to drill out
: the guns and make sure your paint job looks dandy? Modelling, to me, is
This is all well and good, but, tell me, how do you correct
the faults of the Classic Airframes MiG-3 kit? Please, I really
want to know. Yes, it is a loaded question, but it is also an
honest one.
:
: dont do anything? Models should be judged for overall appearence and
: scope of effort otherwise why have modelling competitions at all? OOTB
Hmmmm. Scope of effort. I guess that means that, automatically,
ANY scratchbuilt model wins over all of the ones that came out
from a manufacturer, right? And, lets see, I guess any remaining
trophies go to the vac-formed entries, and, if anything else is
left, they go to the resin kits. Okay, seems fair to me. After all,
these are more difficult to assemble than injection molded plastic,
right? Oh, and then to add injury to insult, no modern kit will
win squat, because the older kits require more work. Filling
ejector pin holes, if nothing else. :-)
:
: is fine if everyone competes on the same grounds and not an old Airfix
: or Frog kit up against a recent hi-tech kit. If everyone builds the same
: kit then the OOTB category has a purpose since you compete on pure skill
: and workmanship. Not on who has the biggest wallet. Again just my
: opinion. Thank you.
You know, I see this assertion a lot, and I don't buy it.
My evidence is the Hobbycraft "Elite" Cutlass kit. Lets see, you
have PE instrutment panel, and consoles. Well, the consoles
have divits where there should be switches, the instrutment panel
doesn't have a decal provided to fill the holes in the panel,
and the white metal LG is, frankly, a disaster. Especially after it
has banged into other things, and is now bent. This is an
"improvement" over the basic, all pastic kit? Sorry, I don't think
so. But, hey, I did pay more. It *should* have been better, right?
And, how about the Gunze Sangyo "Hi-Tech" kits from the mid/late
80's? Sure, the Pz IV kit topped $300.00. But, is it *really* better
than the Tamiya Pz IV kit for about 1/10 that? Dragon didn't think
so when they took over the Gunze molds. Out went the PE. Out went
the white metal. Out went the Model Kasten tracks. Now you get a
nice big box-o-plastic.
Exceptions, rather than the rule? Perhaps. But that old blanket
assertion that "Hi-Tech" kits are automatically is just as flawed.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
Francis
Sir, you have misunderstood my posting. Allow me to clarify, please.
First of all: Generally speaking, when an experienced modeller (meaning
someone fully capable of doing an outstanding job at detailling and
finishing) enters the OOTB category, he's out to win his plaque. He
knows that the category offers to him the least challenge at modelling
and all he has to do is push to the limit the rules. He can drill out
the guns, concentrate on detail painting and add tape seat belts along
with all the others permitted changes. Voila! hes got a winner! Why?
Because those that are less experienced and want to participate
(ussually the novice or younger modellers) still have not fully mastered
the art. Those on the other hand that have progressed past a certain
level and know how to detail are penalized because they may have done a
minor and insignificant mistake or maybe their work is not to the liking
of the judges. When you spend between 100 to say 500 hours on the same
subject, you are bound to make mistakes. Granted, this is no excuse, but
at least recognize the work! Unless of course the man did a terrible job
like leave gaps, glue marks etc.
Second. I have not yet seen the MiG-3, but if its anything like their
other kits, Im sure it a bad one to correct. However, being made of
plastic, it can be corrected. Their Fiat CR 42 had wings that were too
narrow in cord, I have fixed it using the review in SAMI. If the
fuselage is too short on the MiG, it can be stretched! If there is an
outline problem, it can be fixed. That is the marvelous media in wich we
work. Everything can be fixed provided the modeller has the skill and
willingness to do it.
Third. Scratchbuilt models have their own category and this is more
severe when it comes to judging, as it has to be done right. Same goes
for Vacs, they too have their independant category. As to what kit the
modeller chooses to enter in the regular categories is strictly up to
him. Older kits will not automatically win because they did what you
said, again it depends on the work involved to make kit. If you take for
instance, the Fujimi F1/T2 kit wich is quite old and add some extra
detail (minor stuff) it can be head on with an Airfix Buccaneer. So no,
the new kits do not get penalized because they suffer from good moulding
or accurate detail. Workmanship come above all.
Fourth. High grade or High tech kits usually mean high price and not
always high quality. The example you bring forth is a very good one. In
my posting I mentioned that if you are going to have an OOTB category
then every should build the same kit. Example, for 1/48 scale prop
driven, single engine aircraft, the kit used will be the AM SBD-1/3/5.
Now everyone wishing to enter this category will build the AM kit.
Therefore, everyone is on equal grounds. Everyone has the same kits and
the best build, wins! Simple as that.
I hope this clears any misunderstanding.
Cheers!
CASTLE
Francis wrote:
>
> BucholtzC wrote:
> >
> > Francis writes,
> >
> > "When you spend between 100 to say 500 hours on the same subject, you are bound
> > to make mistakes. Granted, this is no excuse, but at least recognize the
> >
> > But then later says...
> >
> > "Workmanship come(s) above all."
> >
> > These seem to be contradictory positions. Again, my feeling is that, if you're
> > going to spend 500 hours on a model, you can spare five minutes to fix a glue
> > mark or 30 minutes to fix a hairline seam, ESPECIALLY if you introduced them
> > yourself in the course of detailing.
> >
> > --Chris Bucholtz
>
> I love this guy! He's not going to let me off easy! Look, my point is
> quite simple, I dont expect you to agree with me but at least try to
> understand my point. I respect your opinion but if you are like, not
> minding spending x number of hours over a kit, even if stretched over
> several years, then Im sure you can see what Im trying to get at. Take
> as an example a kit you've been working over for the past 3 months. It's
> all finished and proudly displayed next to your other finished kits.
> Darn thing looks great, best kit built to date, right? Of course it is,
> you've slaved long hours over it. A few weeks later, you go back and
> look at it and find a hairline gap in the lower fuselage, or a slight
> overspray, maybe a mark on the canopy. What happened? The answer is
> quite simple, your conscious mind was tired and your eyes missed it!
> That simple. Some modellers dont mind those mistakes and simply leave
> them on. Later they pay dearly at the local competition. Others like me
> try to fix them before the next competition. These minor mistakes during
> construction in no way affect workmanship because that was the best you
> could do at the time. Therefore your workmanship was at a peak at the
> time. Now as another example, last year I finished my Tamiya KI-46 Dinah
> with a complete detailed interior and detailed wheel wells and extensive
> paint chipping. It took second place in its category next to a
> beautifully painted PBY. Heck, that was the best I could do at the time.
> Later I spotted some minor faults, mainly in the way I simulated the
> paint chipping. Well, I've decided to fix it and add some other minor
> details that I missed. I probably will not win anything next time
> around, but so what. It's probably going to turn some heads anyways and
> that all that matters. So in conclusion, this is what I meant by
> workmanship in the first place. Unless you find something else, I
> beleive I've made my point.
>
> Cheers!
> Francis
We all have this problem. Ernie Gee's IPMS National, Regional, and TamiyaCon Award
Winning 1/32nd scale Tamiya F-4 was almost done when he asked me to look for mistakes on
it. I looked that thing over real good and found a minor seam he never caught. He fixed
it and went on to win the above. He probably would have won these things with out the
critique, but it didn't hurt.
We all get overloaded with our pride and joys and sometimes spend too much time on the
detailing, weathering, and the above and beyond basics stuff with them. A "Modeling
Editor" is a good idea if you are going to enter the thing in competition.
You don't have to be an expert to be the pre-judge (Hell, Ernie is one of the best
modelers I've seen and much better than I am), you just have an eye for the basics (most
do).
I know what you are saying though, as long as we are improving....no problem!!!
Dennis
BucholtzC
Francis
BucholtzC wrote:
> These seem to be contradictory positions. Again, my feeling is that, if you're
> going to spend 500 hours on a model, you can spare five minutes to fix a glue
> mark or 30 minutes to fix a hairline seam, ESPECIALLY if you introduced them
> yourself in the course of detailing.
>
> --Chris Bucholtz
I love t
Francis
BucholtzC wrote:
>
> Francis writes,
>
> "When you spend between 100 to say 500 hours on the same subject, you are bound
> to make mistakes. Granted, this is no excuse, but at least recognize the
> work!."
>
> But then later says...
>
> "Workmanship come(s) above all."
>
I love this guy! He's not going to let me off easy! Look, my point is
Bruce Burden
Francis (Arie...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Sir, you have misunderstood my posting. Allow me to clarify, please.
:
No, actually I understood your post. I was simply taking it
to the other side, to show the absurd. :-)
:
: with all the others permitted changes. Voila! hes got a winner! Why?
: Because those that are less experienced and want to participate
: (ussually the novice or younger modellers) still have not fully mastered
: the art.
You have hit a problem - trophy hounds. While I don't
disagree with what you are saying, I see no way that you are
going to control this. At least that is practical.
:
: level and know how to detail are penalized because they may have done a
: minor and insignificant mistake or maybe their work is not to the liking
: of the judges.
"minor and insignificant", yet below, as Chris points out,
you say "Workmanship come above all." This is pretty much what
IPMS/USA promotes - workmanship above the doo-dads.
Also, you say "not to the liking of the judges". Well, okay.
This happens. It is unfortunate. Perhaps if more people were to
get off their soapbox and judge, you could weed out the bad judges.
Not to mention the satisfaction you get making a judge find a
concrete reason to elimiate a model from contention other than
"I don't like it". But, I dgress. See below for my oft stated
complaint about "judging on accuracy".
:
: Second. I have not yet seen the MiG-3, but if its anything like their
: other kits, Im sure it a bad one to correct. However, being made of
:
My point on the MiG-3 is that none are known to have survived
the war. So, where does that leave you? There is simply no proto-
type to compare any model to. If you decide to judge on "work
invested", well, for all anybody knows, what you have is a Fantasy
model that has a striking resembelance to a MiG-3 in 1/48 scale.
That is fair to the oft documented fill-in-the-blank-model-subject-
that-has-been-the-subject-of-uncountable-books-and-models-over-the-
years? (And lets not even get into models based on CGI's).
Not to mention that you are back to the _other_ problem with
humans, and judges - everybody loves to prove they are an expert.
And, an "experts" opinion without the evidence to prove it is simply
an opinion. Case in point. Respected armor researcher and modeller
Steve Zaloga has done numerous drawings of JS-2 tanks showing an
extremely scalloped cupola. He "saw one of these several years ago".
Yet he has no evidence of such a cupola. Yet, because he is "The
Soviet Armor Expert", companies have gone out and created replacement
cupolas based on his plans. With all due respect to Mr. Zaloga, no
evidence equates to "it doesn't exist" in my book.
So, my point. "Judges don't like it" is back. In spades. Mr
Expert-On-These-Models-Because-He-Has-Been-Building-(researching)-
One-For-Decades-But-Hasn't-Completed-One-Yet decides that your
carefully researched widget simply didn't exist on the upteenth
model sturmfleiger, and so you are eliminated from competition.
After all, *EVERYBODY* knows the widget in question was installed
only on upteenth + 3 model sturmfleigers only built between the
182nd and the 215th day of the year.) This is an improvement?
:
: him. Older kits will not automatically win because they did what you
: said, again it depends on the work involved to make kit. If you take for
: instance, the Fujimi F1/T2 kit wich is quite old and add some extra
: detail (minor stuff) it can be head on with an Airfix Buccaneer. So no,
: the new kits do not get penalized because they suffer from good moulding
: or accurate detail. Workmanship come above all.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <<<<<<<<<-------------+
: |
Precicely. :-) So, where does that leave your position that |
models should be judged on "effort expended"? Again, if we go |
back to the question: |
|
"Two models are being considered for 1st. One is OOTB. The |
other has a slew of aftermarket and scratchbuilt parts |
added to it. IF THE CRAFTSMANSHIP IS EQUAL, who wins?" |
|
Easy. The one with the most work. Unfortunately, I have seen |
few instances of "all things being equal". IPMS/USA attempts |
to promote craftsmanship (workmanship) above doo-dads. Like |
you said: >>>-------------------------------------------------------+
:
: Therefore, everyone is on equal grounds. Everyone has the same kits and
: the best build, wins! Simple as that.
:
I believe there is little doubt that "Out Of The Box" is a
mess. And, frankly, your suggestion has a lot of merit. The
only drawback I see is that you are limiting the potential of
OOTB. What I think I would prefer to see is to totally eliminate
the whole OOTB mess. Replace the thing with a "Novice" category.
Hey, if a trophy hound stoops so low as to enter a "Novice"
category, well, what more needs to be said? The hound is obviously
a loser, and everybody will know it. The "Novice" category only
requires that the modeller not have placed in a show at the same or
greater level before. Scouts honor is the only verification needed.
And, it would seem to equalize the playing field, regardless of
deep (or not) pocketbooks, kit selected, etc., while allowing any
modeller to model their interest within the category (aircraft,
cars, tanks, Sci-Fi, etc.) And, it would be easy to police, unless
the hound creates nom-de-plumes, as long as the hosting club
keep their results sheets from previous contests.
mcd...@facstaff.wm.edu
In article <35353B...@sympatico.ca>,
(snip)
Francis -
I am one of those modellers who is perfectly capable of detailing. But often
I choose to build OOB and not even push the boundaries of the rules. Why?
1) because I often don't have time and I'd like to get something done for
once! 2) Nothing cleans the modelling palatte after a detailed model like a
quick build 3) I personally get more enjoyment out of finishes and
interesting markings and all of the assembly work is a means to an end. I
build all of my models to my own standard, detailed or not. I take them to
contests. But my decision to build out of the box is a choice made entirely
by other factors, not by a quest for an award.
To each his own....
Chris
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Don_S...@transarc.com
In the battle between OOB vs. modified/detailed models, the proponents always
state the extreme cases - well done OOB model vs. poorly done modified model,
or vice versa. The real problem with IPMS style judging shows up
in the much more common gray area in between.
Consider that these are clearly the two best models on the table, both
built by roughly equally skilled modelers:
- A reasonably well done OOB model. There are no glaringly obvious
problems with the model - nothing you notice from an arms length viewing.
When the judges get in close with thei pocket Maglites, they find a
ghost of a seam showing in some hidden spot and a part that is slightly
out of alignment. It probably took the modeler 50 hours to build this
model.
- A reasonably well done, modestly modified and detailed model. The
modeler may have done some minor surgery to model a different variant than
the kit - say adding or removing vents/scoops/windows. The modeler may
have added a few aftermarket parts - say a PE set - and may have
scratchbuilt some detail parts. When the judges get in close, they
find some a small line of glue that oozed out from under a part and
the ghost of an internal glue joint that caused the styrene to sag.
It probably took the modeler 150 hours to build this model.
When a judge looks at these models, spotting all of the flaws and
reading the modeler's notes so that they know how much work went into
each one, the following can happen depending on the judge's
interpretation of the judging criteria and personal bias:
- Decide the OOB model's flaws are less serious than the modified model's,
and so rank the OOB model 1st.
- Decide the OOB model's flaws are less serious than the modified model's,
but think "the guy that built this OOB model isn't a real modeler, he's
just a "kit assembler"" - and so rank the modified model 1st.
- Decide the modified model's flaws are less serious than the OOB model,
and so rank the modified model 1st.
- Decide the modified model's flaws are less serious than the OOB model's,
but think "the guy that built this modifed model spent lots of money
on aftermarket parts and couldn't even glue them on cleanly - he's
just a "checkbook modeler"" - and so rank the OOB model 1st.
- Consider the 2 models of essentially equal build quality, and so rank
the modified model 1st due to the extra effort.
I believe this is where the current IPMS judging system falls down,
and is the source of most hard feelings about judging between the two
camps. It seems possible to spell out what should happen in a
situation like this so that there would be a consistent - if arbitrary
- outcome, but instead both camps mumble catch phrases like
"basics first" and "best overall quality" that say nothing about how to
resolve such a decision.
Don Schmitz
Joe Hegedus
mcd...@facstaff.wm.edu wrote:
>
> In article <35353B...@sympatico.ca>,
> Arie...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> > Sir, you have misunderstood my posting.
>
> (snip)
>
> Francis -
>
> I am one of those modellers who is perfectly capable of detailing. But often
> I choose to build OOB and not even push the boundaries of the rules. Why?
> 1) because I often don't have time and I'd like to get something done for
> once! 2) Nothing cleans the modelling palatte after a detailed model like a
> quick build 3) I personally get more enjoyment out of finishes and
> interesting markings and all of the assembly work is a means to an end. I
> build all of my models to my own standard, detailed or not. I take them to
> contests. But my decision to build out of the box is a choice made entirely
> by other factors, not by a quest for an award.
>
> To each his own....
>
> Chris
That attitude very neatly sums up my feelings on building OOB vs.
detailing. Thanks for saying it so eloquently.
Joe
Francis
mcd...@facstaff.wm.edu wrote:
>
> In article <35353B...@sympatico.ca>,
> Arie...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> > Sir, you have misunderstood my posting.
>
> (snip)
>
> Francis -
>
> I am one of those modellers who is perfectly capable of detailing. But often
> I choose to build OOB and not even push the boundaries of the rules. Why?
> 1) because I often don't have time and I'd like to get something done for
> once! 2) Nothing cleans the modelling palatte after a detailed model like a
> quick build 3) I personally get more enjoyment out of finishes and
> interesting markings and all of the assembly work is a means to an end. I
> build all of my models to my own standard, detailed or not. I take them to
> contests. But my decision to build out of the box is a choice made entirely
> by other factors, not by a quest for an award.
>
> To each his own....
>
> Chris
> >
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Great! I encourage you to build OOTB for the reasons you mentioned. This
I can really respect.
Francis
Francis
> I believe there is little doubt that "Out Of The Box" is a
> mess. And, frankly, your suggestion has a lot of merit. The
> only drawback I see is that you are limiting the potential of
> OOTB. What I think I would prefer to see is to totally eliminate
> the whole OOTB mess. Replace the thing with a "Novice" category.
> Hey, if a trophy hound stoops so low as to enter a "Novice"
> category, well, what more needs to be said? The hound is obviously
> a loser, and everybody will know it. The "Novice" category only
> requires that the modeller not have placed in a show at the same or
> greater level before. Scouts honor is the only verification needed.
> And, it would seem to equalize the playing field, regardless of
> deep (or not) pocketbooks, kit selected, etc., while allowing any
> modeller to model their interest within the category (aircraft,
> cars, tanks, Sci-Fi, etc.) And, it would be easy to police, unless
> the hound creates nom-de-plumes, as long as the hosting club
> keep their results sheets from previous contests.
>
> Bruce
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
> - Thuganlitha
> The Power and the Prophet
> Robert Don Hughes
I like your thoughts on this issue. They make alot of sense. For years I
had really no opinion on the OOTB category until I began to see those
hounds fight for the gold. Eversince, I have been strongly opposed to
this category as defined by IPMS rules. Like the previous posting above,
some people have perfectly ligitimate reasons for building OOTB and hold
no grudges when they win. But like you said, its unavoidable that some
will abuse the rules and categories despite the boundaries you set up.
Thank you for clarifying your earlier posting.
Cheers!
Francis
Charles Metz
Bruce Burden wrote:
> What I think I would prefer to see is to totally eliminate
> the whole OOTB mess. Replace the thing with a "Novice" category.
--snip--
> And, it would be easy to police, unless
> the hound creates nom-de-plumes
--snip--
Those would be 'nom-de-Xactos," wouldn't they? ;-)
Charles Metz
Bruce Burden
Don_S...@transarc.com wrote:
: - Decide the OOB model's flaws are less serious than the modified model's,
: but think "the guy that built this OOB model isn't a real modeler, he's
:
: on aftermarket parts and couldn't even glue them on cleanly - he's
: just a "checkbook modeler"" - and so rank the OOB model 1st.
:
It is unfortunate, but being human means having prejudices.
Again, this is where it is the responsibility of the judging
TEAM to not accept "I don't like it" as a valid reason for
eliminating a model.
:
: I believe this is where the current IPMS judging system falls down,
: It seems possible to spell out what should happen in a
: situation like this so that there would be a consistent - if arbitrary
:
In many ways, Don, I agree with what you are saying. I also
wonder how well it would work. Would we see the rise of "contest
lawyers", just like complex (or not!) games have "rules laywers"?
Unless we have "open season" on them, I think that is worse than
what we have now.
:
: - outcome, but instead both camps mumble catch phrases like
: "basics first" and "best overall quality" that say nothing about how to
: resolve such a decision.
:
Hey, what are you trying to do here, bring some reasonableness
into this thread? :-)
What these threads point out, I believe, is that IPMS/USA
(and local shows!) need to do more to educate contest visitors
(whether contestants or no) what the main criteria being used
for the judging are. It will never solve the problem of the
contestant who just knows the only models worthy of awards are
his, but it might end some of the problems.
I am really interested to see what happens after this years
IPMS/USA Nationals. Will the amount of complaining about the
judging be less than in past years? If it is, that would seem
to be a clear signal that at least a step in the right direction
was made.
Michael Stucker
In article <352D95...@earthlink.net>, danr...@earthlink.net says...
>I am disturbed by the comment "less capable modellers are in OOB".
>
>I enter this catagory alot and am successful, if I had the money
>resources I could compete at any level with due practice and time.
>I do not have the cash flow to spend $50 a kit plus $100 or more for
>references, $50 plus for resin and or photoetch, $1000 to purchase a
>lathe, milling machine, etc to win a $5 wood plaque.
>I already have a room full (20+) of award plaques from OOB and other
>aircraft catagories. Contest awards are based on assembly of kits and
>finishing skills, not how deep your bank account is.
>I do not mean to step on anyones toes, If I had the cash to burn I would
>deck out a kit too.
I'll add to this that I build most of my models as OOB or close to OOB because
I don't always enjoy detailing stuff that no one is going to see. I build
cars and display them at home with the hood closed, so a detailed engine is
invisible. I'm building a car model not an engine model.
--
Michael Stucker | Anadrill Schlumberger, Sugar Land, Texas
stucker$@sugar-land.spc.slb.com | Definately not Anadrill's opinion.
Remove "$" from email address | Copyright Michael J. Stucker 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
See my articles on the old Can-Am racing series (both 1:1 & scale models)
at http://web-hou.iapc.net/~smh/ -- choose "Article Library".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Don_S...@transarc.com
>Bruce Burden replying to my original ranting:
>Don_S...@transarc.com wrote:
>: - Decide the OOB model's flaws are less serious than the modified model's,
>: but think "the guy that built this OOB model isn't a real modeler, he's
>:
>: on aftermarket parts and couldn't even glue them on cleanly - he's
>: just a "checkbook modeler"" - and so rank the OOB model 1st.
>:
> It is unfortunate, but being human means having prejudices.
> Again, this is where it is the responsibility of the judging
> TEAM to not accept "I don't like it" as a valid reason for
> eliminating a model.
I apologize for sounding overly critical here - in general I think IPMS
style judging works well and that the huge majority of judges try very hard
to be fair. The point I wanted to make is that when judging two models
of very similar quality the IPMS judging criteria are pretty vague about
how to choose a winner. Its quite likely that one set of judges will
decide one way based on some perfectly reasonable criteria, while another
set of judges will choose the other way based on the a different but
equally reasonable criteria.
But, since the entrants generally don't know how the judges reached a
decision, they can look at the results and decide that the judges were
biased or capricious. Even worse, they might ask the judges how they
decided and get a different explanation than they got from a judge at
another contest.
>:
>: I believe this is where the current IPMS judging system falls down,
>: It seems possible to spell out what should happen in a
>: situation like this so that there would be a consistent - if arbitrary
>:
> In many ways, Don, I agree with what you are saying. I also
> wonder how well it would work. Would we see the rise of "contest
> lawyers", just like complex (or not!) games have "rules laywers"?
> Unless we have "open season" on them, I think that is worse than
> what we have now.
I'll agree that making the evaluation too explicit - e.g. using an
AMPS-like point system - could backfire. What bothers me is that the
IPMS system encourages judges to evaluate purely on build flaws. I
say it encourages it because it is much easier to count build flaws
than to make a more subjective decision as to which model is more
realistic or demonstrates more skill/effort given the near total lack
of guidelines for how to do this. The result is that judges stick to
counting flaws and ignore much of the effort that went into a model,
and so cause the entrants to doubt the fairness of the judging.
One thought would be to set an "expected quality level" - models that
met or exceeded that quality level would be considered of :comparable
build quality" and require the judges to evaluate further. Of course
you would need some guidelines for this or the outcomes would be just
as random.
> What these threads point out, I believe, is that IPMS/USA
> (and local shows!) need to do more to educate contest visitors
> (whether contestants or no) what the main criteria being used
> for the judging are. It will never solve the problem of the
> contestant who just knows the only models worthy of awards are
> his, but it might end some of the problems.
> I am really interested to see what happens after this years
> IPMS/USA Nationals. Will the amount of complaining about the
> judging be less than in past years? If it is, that would seem
> to be a clear signal that at least a step in the right direction
> was made.
Agreed - despite all of the explanation and debates over judging criteria
in the magazines, at club meetings, etc - a lot of the modelers I
talk to at contests have a very warped idea of what should be judged.
This seems doubly important to do at local contests where many of the
entrants may have no exposure to IPMS or even to local clubs. I think
it would be great to describe the experiences you have at the Nats in
a Journal article.
Don
Bruce Burden
Don_S...@transarc.com wrote:
: biased or capricious. Even worse, they might ask the judges how they
: decided and get a different explanation than they got from a judge at
: another contest.
:
Agreed. This is a problem with a lack of uniformity in
applying "the IPMS" rules, especially with the samples you
originally cited.
:
: say it encourages it because it is much easier to count build flaws
:
Well, it may be easier, but not necessarily less controversial! :-)
:
: than to make a more subjective decision as to which model is more
: ^^^^^^^^^^
cringe :-)
:
: realistic or demonstrates more skill/effort given the near total lack
: of guidelines for how to do this. The result is that judges stick to
: counting flaws and ignore much of the effort that went into a model,
: and so cause the entrants to doubt the fairness of the judging.
:
I agree. And, I am not sure how to resolve these two perfectly
valid methodologies. And, as you pointed out, the problem isn't
with the well executed models, it is with the models that fall
well into the gray area of well-done-but-missed-a-few-things-on-
the-additions, and well-done-but-little-risk-taken.
:
: One thought would be to set an "expected quality level" - models that
:
I wonder what the response would be to a "hotshot" category -
enter your superdetailed project here, and see how you stand type
thing. Right off the bat, I expect the "accuracizers" to cry foul,
since all of their work to make the model as accurate as possible
wouldn't (can't) be considered. (Hey, PROVE that paint chipping
is accurate!)
:
: This seems doubly important to do at local contests where many of the
: entrants may have no exposure to IPMS or even to local clubs. I think
:
Indeed. I have reached this point myself, and it seems to
help.
:
: it would be great to describe the experiences you have at the Nats in
: a Journal article.
:
Ummm, I am not sure what you would have me write about. I
will be there as a judge, but (unless some miracle happens),
without an entry. Plus, I am already pretty familiar with what
the IPMS contest criteria are (well, perhaps as well as anybody
can! :-) ).