|
Post by jlwii2000 on Sept 24, 2016 16:15:10 GMT -8
To answer your question, no I wouldn't accept the model with a DOA B unit, I would ask for a repair or replacement. I would fix a step ladder though, even at the $725 price point because things happen. But out of my unit, the one my cousin bought and the one a friend bought (all three museum quality locomotives), I haven't heard of anything wrong. I am sure with 5 tons of product there may be an absolute abomination of a museum quality locomotive out there and others with issues but that's just the law of averages and but overall what's delivered seems solid. Yes I agree. That's why I like to watch your videos. I like to see what I'm getting before I buy. And in all honesty the brass ones aren't practical to run around my carpet layout. One thing I did noticed the top end speed seemed slow on the one I had on the layout at the store. Is that adjustable? Thanks, speeds should be adjustable but I did notice on the Rivet Counter review which was recorded by another YouTuber and I that the top speed was nearly correct or the real thing which supposedly topped out at 65mph. We did have a few power interruptions over insul frogs as well but that was the rivet counter one.
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Sept 24, 2016 16:21:46 GMT -8
Yes I agree. That's why I like to watch your videos. I like to see what I'm getting before I buy. And in all honesty the brass ones aren't practical to run around my carpet layout. One thing I did noticed the top end speed seemed slow on the one I had on the layout at the store. Is that adjustable? Thanks, speeds should be adjustable but I did notice on the Rivet Counter review which was recorded by another YouTuber and I that the top speed was nearly correct or the real thing which supposedly topped out at 65mph. We did have a few power interruptions over insul frogs as well but that was the rivet counter one. There are really A LOT of neat features with this model we noticed that the top speed of the model was limited until you started up the turbine. Once you did that the speed increased. I really can't think of a model I ever wanted more than this. I just have to wait a little while longer that or just go raid my IRA. LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by cf7 on Sept 24, 2016 16:29:30 GMT -8
Yes, this should be an angle different than the 90s at the other corners, but this is a complex area and to get the needed draft angles for the shell, this may have been one of those compromises chosen to deal with this in practical terms. Some prototype pics makes this more obvious. If your world has to be perfect, Wow! You sure proved me wrong! Seriously, thanks for confirming my opinion about the corners of the windshields not being correct. Lol A "Museum Quality", $700+ loco, should not have such an obvious error. I can't believe the folks getting all defensive about others pointing out errors. I guess not all opinions count.
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Sept 24, 2016 17:01:21 GMT -8
What I find hysterical about those that seem to take comfort in finding minor faults in a new product is that is why they are in the hobby. Not to be pleased and enjoy the hobby, but to give them a reason to express some assumed expertise and of course, profound disappointment. That's what makes them happy. You wait and see, the ScaleTrains SD40-2 when it comes out it will not be perfect and oh don't you know we will hear about it no matter how great it is.
You just have to chuckle at those folks.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 24, 2016 17:15:29 GMT -8
Wow! You sure proved me wrong! Seriously, thanks for confirming my opinion about the corners of the windshields not being correct. Lol A "Museum Quality", $700+ loco, should not have such an obvious error. I can't believe the folks getting all defensive about others pointing out errors. SNIP You haven't looked too closely at museum models, have you? Awesome, yeah, perfect?...well, IIRC, "perfection" isn't part of that definition. Umm, is it an "error" or the sort of compromise that is necessary because of the way the thing is made? The fact that negative language seems to be more necessary than facts to your point rather tends to blunt its impact. These sorts of things are always a problem with cab units, if you understand even the basics of how the mold has to work. The fact that they did as well as they did is rather more notable than the fact that it's not perfect. Congrats, though, on locating Waldo. You get an extra juice box. Most folks will never let it bother them, even if they noticed. Is Scale Trains required to recall these, ship them back to China for rework and then return them to the consumers, most of whom would rather just run the darn things -- to make a handful of folks with a sharp eye and sharper tongue happy? I dunno, but I would just say if I walked in their shoes, it would be "Hey we'll try harder next time - we thought that looked good in the big scheme of things -- and you'd be shocked at the cost to improve it." Maybe the next run will feature an improved windshield with a revised etching? I dunno, unless there seems to be more than a handful of folks bent out of shape by it, sometimes you just have to understand you can't please everybody and some folks you can't please at all. Misery loves company, but you don't have to join it.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Sept 24, 2016 18:08:41 GMT -8
At over 5 tons of sold product, there must be a lot of people pleased out there. Here, James, I have to add the caveat, all 5 tons were sold sight unseen and with unwavering faith in a rather intense PR campaign, very well done and admirably low key, for a product that hundreds of people have been clamoring for for years in an affordable format. Shane et al took a tremendous and extremely ambitious risk for a first time out and have executed it quite well. They sure as heck HOPE that a lot of people are pleased, and I think that on the whole they should be. I have the rivet counter model and I am quite pleased with it. Surely no 150 car trains will ever get pulled by it on my line but I will have fun with it.
|
|
|
Post by dharris on Sept 24, 2016 18:22:35 GMT -8
Looking on youtube there are two other videos reviewing the turbine. Always amazing to see people complaining about microscopic differences from scale to 1/87th tooling.
While searching I came across this video under scale and turbine. These guys know how to have fun! And nobody there points out tiny differences in scale between the real thing and these. Model Railroading needs more fun.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Sept 24, 2016 18:27:49 GMT -8
What I find hysterical about those that seem to take comfort in finding minor faults in a new product is that is why they are in the hobby. In fact I would say that IS their hobby.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 24, 2016 18:32:36 GMT -8
Most of the people I know and see pointing out issues aren't perfectionists, they just want to know what is right and wrong. This often leads to better models, either from the manufacturer or through modeling. I've never understood why some people are so threatened of knowledge or discussion of imperfections in commercial models. If you're happy with the model, what does it hurt? If you want to state things in "right" and "wrong" terms, it doesn't leave much in between to not be a perfectionist. Some folks may see it that way And if the only comment made is it's "wrong" because it's too much trouble to acknowledge the hard work and effort that went into a model, well that's your privilege. It's just not constructive criticism. And if the point was commenting is supposed to improve things, then one would think it would be made in the form of "You did pretty good here, but to be outstanding that curve needs fixed..." Sounds a lot better that saying it looks like crap and is far more likely to be taken seriously? And what is the solution? I held out that possibility, but it's also the sort of thing that 99 out of 100 will likely never notice, even if someone on the internet makes it a point to make a stink about it. Does Scale Trains spend that money fixing problems most will never see as an issue or do they spend it making more trains that are pretty darn good products? I don't see any personal threat in poorly thought out criticism other than it acting to discourage people from building new models. Given most seem to want to do no more than take things out of the box, careful what ground you plow here. Do you want a critique to encourage mfg's to do better -- or just throw in the towel? I can't do anything about that other than to note that people who seem most motivated to want better -- at least that's the excuse they make when many practice the "hand grenade" sort of criticism we see far too often -- are sort of shooting themselves in the foot here if they can't be troubled to throw in an encouraging word along with noting where things fall short in their eyes. Carried far enough, a bunch of folks are going to have to learn how to build stuff. I suspect sales numbers refute the tiny tsunami of criticism over the issues I've heard and seen so far, which is a good thing, because that means more turbines. Oh please. Nobody said it looks like crap. They've pointed out a very few legitimate errors in an otherwise great product. Anybody who equates that with condemnation of the model is reading way too much onto it. This is a commercial product, not a charity. Pointing out discrepancies and errors IS constructive criticism in most cases, even if it isn't sugar coated. I don't understand why you would want to base the decision to purchase on anything other than the most complete knowledge you can get. There must be some offense to these comments, otherwise there wouldn't be such a strong reaction. The "hand-granade" attacks are really few and far between, and I doubt they truly influence a manufacturer. They may not like it, but they're not going to quit because somebody criticized their product.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 24, 2016 18:36:36 GMT -8
Ya know, there are manufacturing limitations when scaling down certain things in model form. Even the best manufacturers make little compromises all the time to work around tooling/casting/manufacturing limitations inherent to making miniature models, little things they don't necessarily tell you about or publicize, but are par for the course dealing with model making. Perhaps due to shell thickness or other production/manufacturing issues with the tooling in that area of the shell (releasing the castings from the mould, how the tooling bits go together around the front nose/windshield/roof, minimum thickness requirements in order for that area to cast properly to cut down on waste and rework), they may have not been able to tool as generous a radius to the front cab windows. And the glazing etchings would have been manufactured to reflect the changes necessary to the shell. Well stated and given that this is a known source of trouble with moldings because of the nature of what we model, most likely the source of the issue. And I don't doubt there were meeting where a lot of work went into trying to get it looking as good as possible I think part of the issue is that the model windshield is cut from flat material and not molded, which would be considerably more expensive. The real windshield has a slight curve to it in two different directions, so slight that the economics of molding it likely didn't make sense. It would likely have not solved the issue with mold parting that is the culprit but might have disguised the needed compromise better. Hard to say, as we're talking thousandths of an inch in a 3D relationship that is tiny to begin with. That's entirely likely, and understandable if true. That doesn't make it less inaccurate. It's a compromise a purchaser has to accept or not. Most (including me) accept it. But it's better for it to be an informed decision.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 24, 2016 19:03:17 GMT -8
Wow! You sure proved me wrong! Seriously, thanks for confirming my opinion about the corners of the windshields not being correct. Lol A "Museum Quality", $700+ loco, should not have such an obvious error. I can't believe the folks getting all defensive about others pointing out errors. SNIP You haven't looked too closely at museum models, have you? Awesome, yeah, perfect?...well, IIRC, "perfection" isn't part of that definition. Umm, is it an "error" or the sort of compromise that is necessary because of the way the thing is made? The fact that negative language seems to be more necessary than facts to your point rather tends to blunt its impact. These sorts of things are always a problem with cab units, if you understand even the basics of how the mold has to work. The fact that they did as well as they did is rather more notable than the fact that it's not perfect. Congrats, though, on locating Waldo. You get an extra juice box. Most folks will never let it bother them, even if they noticed. Is Scale Trains required to recall these, ship them back to China for rework and then return them to the consumers, most of whom would rather just run the darn things -- to make a handful of folks with a sharp eye and sharper tongue happy? I dunno, but I would just say if I walked in their shoes, it would be "Hey we'll try harder next time - we thought that looked good in the big scheme of things -- and you'd be shocked at the cost to improve it." Maybe the next run will feature an improved windshield with a revised etching? I dunno, unless there seems to be more than a handful of folks bent out of shape by it, sometimes you just have to understand you can't please everybody and some folks you can't please at all. Misery loves company, but you don't have to join it. Again, you're reading way too much into these comments. Nobody has asked for a recall, or anything close to it. A few things have been pointed out that can be better, in a later run, with modeling, etc. I'll ask again, why do you have a problem with factual information about a commercial product being shared?
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 24, 2016 22:48:25 GMT -8
Oh please. Nobody said it looks like crap. They've pointed out a very few legitimate errors in an otherwise great product. Anybody who equates that with condemnation of the model is reading way too much onto it.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 24, 2016 23:34:36 GMT -8
I'll ask again, why do you have a problem with factual information about a commercial product being shared? I wonder why some folks feel the only info worth sharing is that which throws a negative light on things that are far, far from being the mess that such comments often paint them as? It's like some folks are working on their grouchiness quota for the day? And all the griping in the world may not change something that's the way it is because of physical constraints that are commonly known. I really doubt that any mfg is going to start casting the front windshield area of shells in multipiece parts to solve this problem, because then you introduce new gaps that would be wholly unnatural and really would upset people. Of course, if you're some smart tool and die guy, maybe you've got a neat solution that no one else has come up with? Otherwise, the constraints are something we're stuck with, the only question is how close you can get to making them seem to go away, which I think Scale Trains actually did a pretty good, not perfect, job on. If you want to present constructive criticism, it's criticism that helps to define and understand the problem. My earlier comments might be an example, although there are other ways to do that. Standing up and yelling "There's a boo-boo!" isn't all that constructive...especially when others have a significantly different idea about the severity of the issue, ranging from "What?" to "So what?" You're going to have to make a lot of people care and dissing the model they just dropped some stiff cash on and are otherwise pretty darned pleased with might draw a rather different reaction than the buy in you want to seek if you really think this needs correction.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Sept 25, 2016 2:19:22 GMT -8
I guess not all opinions count. That's been true throughout history. Model railroading isn't special. As Terry Pratchett pointed out, A screaming vampire is always the centre of attention. In this Internet Era it is always more effective to scream than to listen.
|
|
|
Post by milgentrains on Sept 25, 2016 4:30:54 GMT -8
What I find hysterical about those that seem to take comfort in finding minor faults in a new product is that is why they are in the hobby. Not to be pleased and enjoy the hobby, but to give them a reason to express some assumed expertise and of course, profound disappointment. That's what makes them happy. You wait and see, the ScaleTrains SD40-2 when it comes out it will not be perfect and oh don't you know we will hear about it no matter how great it is. You just have to chuckle at those folks. I was thinking the same thing while reading this thread.
|
|
|
Post by cf7 on Sept 25, 2016 4:36:10 GMT -8
Congrats, though, on locating Waldo. You get an extra juice box. YAY! Oh, goody... So, I guess every model that has ever been made has been perfect in your opinion? I kind of wonder though, especially since you feel a need to chime in on dang near every thread under the sun. How can someone have so many thoughts and opinions on everything, but not respect the same from others? I pointed out one flaw that I said that bothered me, and you seem to think I crossed over some imaginary line.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 25, 2016 5:13:40 GMT -8
I'll ask again, why do you have a problem with factual information about a commercial product being shared? I wonder why some folks feel the only info worth sharing is that which throws a negative light on things that are far, far from being the mess that such comments often paint them as? It's like some folks are working on their grouchiness quota for the day? And all the griping in the world may not change something that's the way it is because of physical constraints that are commonly known. I really doubt that any mfg is going to start casting the front windshield area of shells in multipiece parts to solve this problem, because then you introduce new gaps that would be wholly unnatural and really would upset people. Of course, if you're some smart tool and die guy, maybe you've got a neat solution that no one else has come up with? Otherwise, the constraints are something we're stuck with, the only question is how close you can get to making them seem to go away, which I think Scale Trains actually did a pretty good, not perfect, job on. If you want to present constructive criticism, it's criticism that helps to define and understand the problem. My earlier comments might be an example, although there are other ways to do that. Standing up and yelling "There's a boo-boo!" isn't all that constructive...especially when others have a significantly different idea about the severity of the issue, ranging from "What?" to "So what?" You're going to have to make a lot of people care and dissing the model they just dropped some stiff cash on and are otherwise pretty darned pleased with might draw a rather different reaction than the buy in you want to seek if you really think this needs correction. He didn't say the model is crap, he said it bugs the crap out of him, which is a valid personal opinion, and not condemnation of the whole model. Just because the tone isn't gushing with praise doesn't make it rude. Point to ONE comment on this thread that claims the whole model is a mess. There isn't one. They point out a few, select issues. Nobody expects a recall (another made up claim), or a refund, but it might help someone who, for whatever reason, can't live with that issue. I find it interesting that you acknowledge that the model isn't perfect, but get hung up on others discussing the ways it's not. This isn't somebody presenting their personal model, it's commercial. To use your analogy, it's not walking into the bar and commenting on someone's appearance, it's the director at a casting call, or photographer at a model shoot. As to why someone would only post the negatives, not everyone feels the need to write a thesis in every post, and not everything needs to be repeated. There is plenty of (well deserved) praise for the model that isn't negated by pointing out a few errors. At the end of this nobody is claiming the positive features don't exist or shouldn't be mentioned. Yet some want to try to hide the negatives.
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Sept 25, 2016 6:33:34 GMT -8
IMHO "constructive criticism" is nothing more then a mask to hide behind while bashing a product, photo or another's model. Some use "constructive criticism" like its a contest to see who can out do each other in knowledge.
Ever wonder what would happen if the manufacturers threw their hands up in discuss and said "enough of this happy crap" and return to generic models? Be cheaper to produce and they could lower the price and still make a profit.
Why would they do that?
The reason is simple because all of their hard work, research, then investing thousands to produce the model and wham! out comes the negative Billies hiding behind "constructive criticism" and finds fault with minute detail that may be impossible to tool.
Guys, That Big Blow is the gorgeous.
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Sept 25, 2016 7:17:48 GMT -8
Despite the popping out DB grills, this is a terrific loco for the price, especially considering it's ST's first loco attempt ! I thought they were asking for trouble, doing this machine first up. OTOH, they've done quite the job. Perfect? No ! Great? Absolutely ! I got all the numbers I ordered, and have no regrets. Will get two machines out of the next batch in Nov. With the success of this model, it will be interesting to see if any of the big Copy-Cats like MTH or Bachmann try to duplicate this fine machine. I'm betting somebody will ! Now excuse me while I go finish putting the Kadee 118s on my Dirty Thirty Toooobine !
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Sept 25, 2016 7:25:28 GMT -8
Scale Trains has made a labor of love and done a thorough job of producing the best model they could; is it perfect? Probably no model is perfect. Could it be improved, probably.
Modelers often do point out flaws in models which could be improved and IMO, it's not a bad thing such as some in this topic are alleging. That process has generally led to an improvement in future releases. This is a normal process which has been going on for may years and I don't really see any bashing going on here, but rather some overly sensitive posts which, if anything, seem to have the effect of escalating tensions and as David Bowie put it in one of his songs, "putting out fire with gasoline".
The guys at Scale Trains have been in this business for quite some time and I believe were full aware of what they were getting into and what kind of customer they were serving. They aren't the weak or downtrodden who need to be defended nor is their new Big Blow disappointment, but rather is finely detailed model. I expect like most model companies they are going to listen to the feedback of their customers and be diligent to improve upon the excellence that they have already achieved. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 25, 2016 7:26:07 GMT -8
IMHO "constructive criticism" is nothing more then a mask to hide behind while bashing a product, photo or another's model. Some use "constructive criticism" like its a contest to see who can out do each other in knowledge. Ever wonder what would happen if the manufacturers threw their hands up in discuss and said "enough of this happy crap" and return to generic models? Be cheaper to produce and they could lower the price and still make a profit. Why would they do that? The reason is simple because all of their hard work, research, then investing thousands to produce the model and wham! out comes the negative Billies hiding behind "constructive criticism" and finds fault with minute detail that may be impossible to tool. Guys, That Big Blow is the gorgeous. Criticism has been around since the hobby started, and the current batch of models is a direct result of that. No manufacturer has gone back to generic models because they had their feelings hurt. History has shown that they take comments and use them to make future models better, when it makes sense to do so. It is a gorgeous model. NOBODY has said it's not. It just has a few errors, like any product.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 25, 2016 7:27:56 GMT -8
Scale Trains has made a labor of love and done a thorough job of producing the best model they could; is it perfect? Probably no model is perfect. Could it be improved, probably. Modelers often do point out flaws in models which could be improved and IMO, that process has generally let to an improvement in future releases. This is a normal process which has been going on for may years and I don't really see any bashing going on here, but rather some overly sensitive posts which, if anything, seem to have the effect of escalating tensions and as David Bowie put it in one of his songs, "putting out fire with gasoline". The guys at Scale Trains have been in this business for quite some time and I believe were full aware of what they were getting into and what kind of customer they were serving. They aren't the weak or downtrodden who need to be defended nor is their new Big Blow disappointment, but rather is finely detailed model. I expect like most model companies they are going to listen to the feedback of their customers and be diligent to improve upon the excellence that they have already achieved. Cheers. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 25, 2016 7:31:31 GMT -8
Congrats, though, on locating Waldo. You get an extra juice box. YAY! Oh, goody... So, I guess every model that has ever been made has been perfect in your opinion? SNIP No, quite the opposite. NO model has ever been perfect. Period. Deal with it. We live in an imperfect world, despite the best efforts that most people make everyday when doing their jobs, like building model trains. To harp on the minor flaws amid silence on the significant efforts of someone to get things as close to perfect as they can make them is to lack the sort of perspective that helps folks get through everyday life. In this case, it's a lot like your high school principal can think of nothing else to say to the crowd as you walk across the stage to get your diploma except, "Nice zit, Mr. Smith." Except it's not quite a zit, maybe that tiny birthmark that everyone sees but has the good grace to either not notice or shrug off. So what's up with the principal? Don't know, except that noting that blemish was the most important thing he could think to say to sum up the last four years now that you're graduating. Wow. Now, if he'd joked around about how your years long efforts had paid off and, heck, even that acne is going away, it still might be painful, but at least you know he liked you and hoped you the best even if he was rather socially clumsy. Beats acting like a jerk if he felt he MUST say something about your less than perfect face.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 25, 2016 7:50:19 GMT -8
SNIP As to why someone would only post the negatives, not everyone feels the need to write a thesis in every post, and not everything needs to be repeated. There is plenty of (well deserved) praise for the model that isn't negated by pointing out a few errors. At the end of this nobody is claiming the positive features don't exist or shouldn't be mentioned. Yet some want to try to hide the negatives. Do I not want to hear negative comments? Hardly. I made some myself. If you'll check back a page or two, I laid out in detail what the issue was. That's hardly an effort to hide a discussion about where things MIGHT be improved. Even more so, if people do find the issue problematic, respectful engagement with the issue is far, far more likely to result in it being taken seriously to the extent that it might be resolved in the future as much as it can be. It does make me curious how the folks who practice 100% negative interactions get along in 1:1 life...maybe we are the only people who listen to them anymore and I should be more kind to the socially inept? And why stand up for a more thoughtful discussion? Look at how this one started off, an echo chamber of anti-"gushing" comments against James's review. I thought some perspective was important, so offered mine. Just mentioning that the issue might not be the Model Armageddon some painted it to be drew the ire from Negativeland, but also seems to have provided the cover for others to express less than wholesale condemnation. Is that balance? No one writes for balance, they write their opinions. I think the demand for this product also represents their opinions and it's good to hear that. I had hoped that trying to steer things more toward why there's an issue, how important it might be, and whether something can or should be done about would produce a better discussion. That's partially successful, but I think I've made my point on the tone of the discussion and intend to focus on model and not that which people can't seem to help themselves from doing in some cases. I do thank cf7 for pointing the issue out, whatever my reservations about the manner in which it was done. It's not as amazing as the rest of the model, but also not the showstopper a few believe. Saying that shouldn't be interpreted as wanting to avoid a healthy discussion, as it clearly is not. I've made my effort to address the facts and now intend to focus on that. It would be good if others join those who also have spoken up thoughtfully in discussing both the positives and negatives about the turbine.
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Sept 25, 2016 8:40:48 GMT -8
SNIP As to why someone would only post the negatives, not everyone feels the need to write a thesis in every post, and not everything needs to be repeated. There is plenty of (well deserved) praise for the model that isn't negated by pointing out a few errors. At the end of this nobody is claiming the positive features don't exist or shouldn't be mentioned. Yet some want to try to hide the negatives. Do I not want to hear negative comments? Hardly. I made some myself. If you'll check back a page or two, I laid out in detail what the issue was. That's hardly an effort to hide a discussion about where things MIGHT be improved. Even more so, if people do find the issue problematic, respectful engagement with the issue is far, far more likely to result in it being taken seriously to the extent that it might be resolved in the future as much as it can be. It does make me curious how the folks who practice 100% negative interactions get along in 1:1 life...maybe we are the only people who listen to them anymore and I should be more kind to the socially inept? And why stand up for a more thoughtful discussion? Look at how this one started off, an echo chamber of anti-"gushing" comments against James's review. I thought some perspective was important, so offered mine. Just mentioning that the issue might not be the Model Armageddon some painted it to be drew the ire from Negativeland, but also seems to have provided the cover for others to express less than wholesale condemnation. Is that balance? No one writes for balance, they write their opinions. I think the demand for this product also represents their opinions and it's good to hear that. I had hoped that trying to steer things more toward why there's an issue, how important it might be, and whether something can or should be done about would produce a better discussion. That's partially successful, but I think I've made my point on the tone of the discussion and intend to focus on model and not that which people can't seem to help themselves from doing in some cases. I do thank cf7 for pointing the issue out, whatever my reservations about the manner in which it was done. It's not as amazing as the rest of the model, but also not the showstopper a few believe. Saying that shouldn't be interpreted as wanting to avoid a healthy discussion, as it clearly is not. I've made my effort to address the facts and now intend to focus on that. It would be good if others join those who also have spoken up thoughtfully in discussing both the positives and negatives about the turbine. Here here...my argument isn't that negativity shouldn't be allowed. It's just that it should be considered along with the good aspects of the model. I have already had over a dozen people contact me about things I missed in the review (many have said the same thing, crooked grille or a paint speck missing). So I am a little disappointed I missed something but it's easy for people to see better than I am with a big screen TV on full HD or a large laptop screen. The camera acts like a magnifying glass when it's that close and clear. I don't see the level of criticism in any scale other than HO so I guess it's a by product of HO being the most accurate widespread scale produced. Was I personally excited about the model? Yes I was! I was set on picking up a brass turbine for a few months prior to the announcement and I was only saved by the non availability of a brass one or I would have had one heavily depreciated OMI paperweight right now. I think I can do better at finding/mentioning negatives with the laundry list of positives I find on models just like others can do better at focusing on positives while also mentioning negatives. But overall, even with the criticism and emails pointing out little flaws I find this product to be a miracle in a box. This is a new manufacturer's first locomotive executed with more complexity, detail and features than the long standing industry has ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by valenciajim on Sept 25, 2016 9:21:33 GMT -8
"I think I can do better at finding/mentioning negatives with the laundry list of positives I find on models just like others can do better at focusing on positives while also mentioning negatives. But overall, even with the criticism and emails pointing out little flaws I find this product to be a miracle in a box. This is a new manufacturer's first locomotive executed with more complexity, detail and features than the long standing industry has ever seen."
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Sept 25, 2016 10:49:44 GMT -8
IMHO "constructive criticism" is nothing more then a mask to hide behind while bashing a product, photo or another's model. Some use "constructive criticism" like its a contest to see who can out do each other in knowledge. Ever wonder what would happen if the manufacturers threw their hands up in discuss and said "enough of this happy crap" and return to generic models? Be cheaper to produce and they could lower the price and still make a profit. Why would they do that? The reason is simple because all of their hard work, research, then investing thousands to produce the model and wham! out comes the negative Billies hiding behind "constructive criticism" and finds fault with minute detail that may be impossible to tool. Guys, That Big Blow is the gorgeous. Criticism has been around since the hobby started, and the current batch of models is a direct result of that. No manufacturer has gone back to generic models because they had their feelings hurt. History has shown that they take comments and use them to make future models better, when it makes sense to do so. It is a gorgeous model. NOBODY has said it's not. It just has a few errors, like any product. Some times the nit picking involves tiny details that may be impossible to tool and keep it in scale. Why would a manufacturer revert back? Simple.. To get rid of the headaches and to end their stress in order to calm their ulcers. I'll tell you square. When I want to know about the model Jame's reviews is where I go and to find any major flaws I come here. Then I will judge the model on my personal modeling acceptance and should the bad outweigh the good based on the information gathered then its a no sale item.. I been around some of these guys for years on the old Atlas and I trust their knowledge and judgment. As a example a model has major flaws this I want to know. I could careless if the bolts is 1/2" instead of being the correct 3/4" or some such item I can't see anyway since its not a glaring issue.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 25, 2016 10:51:51 GMT -8
This is more a prototype question, but does anyone know the purposes of the "cheeks" on either side of cab/nose below the windshield line? Extra legroom for the crew? A bump-out so vision to the rear is better? Or (most likely I think) a clearance issue on tight curves to stay within the loading gauge?
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 25, 2016 11:03:29 GMT -8
Some people read way too much into a post. I'm still not seeing the negativity that some see.
James posted a positive review (which I agree it deserves). A following post that points out a single missed error is not focusing on the negative. We already knew that it was an amazing model, there was no need to repeat it. That just makes it more confusing, harder to read, and wastes everyone's time. If someone had truly focused on the negative, or thought the model was crap, they would have said so.
|
|
|
Post by bridge2nowhere on Sept 25, 2016 11:08:37 GMT -8
Criticism has been around since the hobby started, and the current batch of models is a direct result of that. No manufacturer has gone back to generic models because they had their feelings hurt. History has shown that they take comments and use them to make future models better, when it makes sense to do so. It is a gorgeous model. NOBODY has said it's not. It just has a few errors, like any product. Some times the nit picking involves tiny details that may be impossible to tool and keep it in scale. Why would a manufacturer revert back? Simple.. To get rid of the headaches and to end their stress in order to calm their ulcers. I'll tell you square. When I want to know about the model Jame's reviews is where I go and to find any major flaws I come here. Then I will judge the model on my personal modeling acceptance and should the bad outweigh the good based on the information gathered then its a no sale item.. I been around some of these guys for years on the old Atlas and I trust their knowledge and judgment. As a example a model has major flaws this I want to know. I could careless if the bolts is 1/2" instead of being the correct 3/4" or some such item I can't see anyway since its not a glaring issue. Larry, again, when has a manufacturert ever reverted? It hasn't happened yet, and won't now. Manufacturers are smart enough to deal with valid criticism. I'm glad you make your own decisions, but how can you do that with incomplete information? The issues being discussed are a bit more obvious than 1/4", but even so, if you don't care, why does it bother you to know it? The minor flaws to you may be major to someone else, and vis versa.
|
|