# Sneak peek at Moebius 1/32 TOS Mark I Viper



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

She comes with landing gears and accurate engine scoops from what I can tell from these images.




























I'm definitely getting a few of these.


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Oh, thank you so much for putting these photos up.

I've always like the Mk1 design and this version looks very detailed. I hope they are including a pilot figure.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That looks great!

I'll definitely be getting several - along with the original series Raider and Galactica.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

That's just beautiful.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Glad I sold my Revell/Monogram reissues on ebay. Looks like Moebius will make those kits obsolete! Looking forward to these original BSG kits.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

Thanks for the sneak peek - it looks really good.

At the risk of sounding like a rivet-counter, the engine exhausts don't look quite right.

The miniatures used a section of the ubiquitous Hasegawa Morser wrapped around a cylinder. This exhaust looks more like the "full-sized" mockup.

Great effort otherwise - like the addition of the landing gear.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

Well,I'm sure after making such an effort to produce such a fine Viper,they will most likely include a detailed cockpit and quite possibly a pilot figure.Would be great to inclue both a pilot standing and one sitting in the cockpit.Hopefully a viper support crew as well.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Very cool! (He says flipping to his reference photo folder.) Thanks for sharing, Bruce.


----------



## Bishop37 (Mar 13, 2008)

Why is everyone calling it a Mk. 1? 

As I recall the Viper never had a designation in the series.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Looks nice. Is that a resin mock up though?


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

Great kit!! Unfortunately there are small detais that are off...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

My guess is that it's a grown prototype from 3D CAD files so they can find detail and fit problems.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Very cool! (He says flipping to his reference photo folder.) Thanks for sharing, Bruce.


I am actually looking forward to your PE set for this one. 

Mr. Wabac, I believe Moebius tooled this kit based on the actual 1.1 studio scale model as there are more reference materials available for that one compared to the miniature model.

tuco_ilbrutto, I don't think many will mind any small inaccuracies. That prototype by all accounts just blew the Revell/monogram kit off the grid. 

Bishop37, I had wondered that myself since before the reimagined series, it was just known as the Colonial Viper. But abeit with the introduction of the Mark II and VII, they had to give this one a special place, hence I believe it automatically became the Mark I. In Blood & Chrome, apparently the Mark II was actually an older version of the Viper line up as in Ep 3 & 4, there was a mention that they were using the latest Mark III


----------



## Helldogg (Aug 21, 2003)

WANT! Release date?


----------



## SJF (Dec 3, 1999)

Oh, now that's just very nice! Looking forward to this one. 

Sean


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Helldog, no announcement yet on its release date but she is slated for an early 2013 release


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

One would expect that after 30 years, a completely new Viper model should be better. I point out that the prototype has small inacuracies because we are talking about scale models; I mean, they should be in scale to its reference. The prototype on the picture, has pieces that intend to replicate other pieces from scale models used on the original studio model (ie tank grilles, tank exhausts, etc) but they are wrong. Also there are discrepancies on the scribed lines distances, etc if compared to the studio model. Don´t misunderstand me, I think the prototype is terrific and I will probably buy this model. If we build SCALE models, we shuold mind about scale and accuracy, or at least talk about them.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

I'll be getting one!!!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

tuco_ilbrutto said:


> One would expect that after 30 years, a completely new Viper model should be better. I point out that the prototype has small inaccuracies because we are talking about scale models; I mean, they should be in scale to its reference. The prototype on the picture, has pieces that intend to replicate other pieces from scale models used on the original studio model (ie tank grilles, tank exhausts, etc) but they are wrong. Also there are discrepancies on the scribed lines distances, etc if compared to the studio model. Don´t misunderstand me, I think the prototype is terrific and I will probably buy this model. If we build SCALE models, we shuold mind about scale and accuracy, or at least talk about them.


I usually find that Moebius tries to hit a good middle ground on filming mini vs. full size mock-ups, whenever they can. I wonder if this is the case here?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

We DO realize that this is a FIRST run prototype and NOT something that's come out of a mold, right? It is a PROTOTYPE to TEST the design so that it can be modified to be what Moebius wants it to ultimately be.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Guys, don't forget a lot of us went into scale modeling for a lot of reasons, be it to churn out the best accurate representation or to have fun building them. I for one don't mind if my kits are 80 - 90 % accurate cause I find the building and painting process to be the best part of scale modeling. For those planning to get theirs as accurate as possible, when you have achieved that goal, your builds will probably be the pinnacle of everyone's envy no doubt. As for the rest, make sure you get the most satisfaction out of it, after all, you did pay for them. 

Personally I have no qualms with the kits produced by Moebius. They may have some shortcomings in terms of accuracy but if you were to look at all the other manufacturers, theirs are guilty of this as well. Its a business and the end result dictates that the kit must remain affordable to the general market, hence some sacrifices had to be made. Its up to the builder how far each and everyone is willing to go.

So when this kit comes out ... lets have fun


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

> So when this kit comes out ... lets have fun


I concur!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

kdaracal said:


> I usually find that Moebius tries to hit a good middle ground on filming mini vs. full size mock-ups, whenever they can. I wonder if this is the case here?


I'd missed this when I posted. Well said.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PleasepleasePLEASE have a better more detailed cockpit than the Mk VII. PLEASE!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Looks great and will be on my "to buy" list. Now please show us a Galatica prototype!


----------



## Johnnycrash (May 28, 2002)

ryoga said:


> Mr. Wabac, I believe Moebius tooled this kit based on the actual 1.1 studio scale model as there are more reference materials available for that one compared to the miniature model.


Nope. Purely based (except engine burner cans as currently depicted) on the miniature. It shares NO other details with the 1/1 mockup.

As I stated over at SSM:
They have chosen to depict the badly built, over weathered, badly lit, only seen from a distance, and not very often seen studio miniature. You know, instead of the well built, nicely painted, better lit, seen close up and seen WAY more often 1/1 mockup. 

Such a shame.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

How do you define the "Perfect Scale Model" when dealing an item that is represented in more than one form on film? For starters, perfection is impossible. Try finding the greatest painter alive today and tell him to paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa, right down to duplicating the grooves in the paint from the hairs in the brush. Not gonna happen!

When recreating a fictional ship that was a full-size mock-up, various sized miniatures and even painted flats, which one do you decree as THE version to go by. Some say the full-size, others the 2 foot miniature and some the 4 foot miniature of any given ship. Moebius has always tried to incorporate ALL aspects of the ships they produce. If you are hung up on one particular version of a ship, you will always be disappointed! Deal with it and get on with the enjoyment of building!!


----------



## Johnnycrash (May 28, 2002)

RSN said:


> When recreating a fictional ship that was a full-size mock-up, various sized miniatures and even painted flats, which one do you decree as THE version to go by.


Well, there was only 2 sizes used: 1/1 and the studio miniature (1/24). As I stated above, they picked the lesser of the two.

It's the equivalent of making a 1/72 Millennium Falcon kit based on the very little, used only once in one scene, 3" (or whatever it was) Falcon from the back of the Star Destroyer bridge dumping of the trash scene. Tell me how good THAT Falcon would be?? :freak:

There is more and better reference available for the 1/1 mockup than the miniature. Hence my disappointment.

And I still enjoy building. But if we don't speak up, we will continue to get products we are not happy with.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Johnnycrash said:


> Nope. Purely based (except engine burner cans as currently depicted) on the miniature. It shares NO other details with the 1/1 mockup.
> 
> As I stated over at SSM:
> They have chosen to depict the badly built, over weathered, badly lit, only seen from a distance, and not very often seen studio miniature. You know, instead of the well built, nicely painted, better lit, seen close up and seen WAY more often 1/1 mockup.
> ...


Wow .. I stand corrected


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Johnnycrash said:


> Well, there was only 2 sizes used: 1/1 and the studio miniature (1/24). As I stated above, they picked the lesser of the two.
> 
> It's the equivalent of making a 1/72 Millennium Falcon kit based on the very little, used only once in one scene, 3" (or whatever it was) Falcon from the back of the Star Destroyer bridge dumping of the trash scene. Tell me how good THAT Falcon would be?? :freak:
> 
> ...


Well, as I stated, your disappointment is anothers delight. 

I am well aware that there was only one size miniature, if you read my wording I was talking in broader terms on many ships. The Falcon was one of them. Your comparison was funny, but a more realistic approach to it would be the differences between the under detailed full-size version versus the miniature in "A New Hope" and or the one built for "The Empire Strikes Back"? You could find fans of any of them and to them only a model of their favorite would be accurate and anything else would be a "disappointment"! 

Your version of the Viper is the full-size mock-up, but clearly the model will not reflect that version with its painted on panel lines and simplistic detail, rather it will be more like the more visually interesting miniature that I would dare say had far more screen time over the run of the series than the mock-up did. :thumbsup:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _I for one don't mind if my kits are 80 - 90 % accurate _


I enjoyed the old Revell repop recently, and it had some pretty bad issues. And only about 13 parts if you include the base. But it was hecka fun, as the young people say.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> I enjoyed the old Revell repop recently, and it had some pretty bad issues. And only about 13 parts if you include the base. But it was hecka fun, as the young people say.


Same here, I love mine. When I look at my finished piece, I see what I remembered on the show. It is not displayed with a photo of either the miniature or the mock-up used on the show, so there is no need for it to match either of them exactly, no one will notice otherwise! The only real change I made, other than my own cockpit and pilot, (Mine is an older re-release!) is that I slanted the wings down a bit. The miniature had a slightly more aggressive angle to them.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Something to think about for those making comments about which version of the Viper the new model is based on: Most people who see it on your shelf will simply comment how good the spaceship from BSG looks. In my experience most people don't know or care that there were different versions used in filming the show.
A couple of years ago when I was building the LIS Space Pod, I had a friend comment that it was a great looking NASA Lunar Module but he didn't know that it was orange on the front like that.
I will gladly buy and build this version of the Viper when it comes out, to me the differences between the full size and the SPFX model are not enough to worry about.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RSN said:


> Well, as I stated, your disappointment is anothers delight.
> 
> I am well aware that there was only one size miniature, if you read my wording I was talking in broader terms on many ships. The Falcon was one of them. Your comparison was funny, but a more realistic approach to it would be the differences between the under detailed full-size version versus the miniature in "A New Hope" and or the one built for "The Empire Strikes Back"? You could find fans of any of them and to them only a model of their favorite would be accurate and anything else would be a "disappointment"!
> 
> Your version of the Viper is the full-size mock-up, but clearly the model will not reflect that version with its painted on panel lines and simplistic detail, rather it will be more like the more visually interesting miniature that I would dare say had far more screen time over the run of the series than the mock-up did. :thumbsup:




Yes I hope it's not based on the full size mock up. I don't want painted on panel lines and simplistic detail. As you say the miniature was much more visually interesting.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I was going to build the Revell re-release (not the anniversary release), but after seeing this, I think that I'll just put it up for sale on eBay or something.

This looks very nice and I'll definitely be buying one!


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

I think that, as the Fine Molds X wings models are based on the original Studio Scale miniatures (they even have replacements for each version of the miniatures), Round 2 Enterprises (you can build any variation made to the original miniauture), klingon vessels and other ships are based on the Studio Scale models, this would be the same. If some model manufacturer inverts a lot of money developing a new model, why make the small details wrong? You have the original models as reference, you have the kitbashed little pieces identified, photographed and measured all over the net. I mean, we are in 2012...you have scanners, computers, 3d modeling and printing, why make the details wrong? I simply don´t understand that.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I love it, can't wait to see the final go. Especially love the GRID LINES. 

Tib


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I'm all for going to the exacting detail and perfection in accuracy that Fine Molds can create (except for the Millenium Falcon's infamous mandibles) BUT I am not for paying the kind of money that that sort of "perfection" costs. I'd much rather pay Moebius Models' fair prices for very, very good models.

Yes, "perfection" is possible, but it comes with a cost. I'd far rather get a model that's pretty darned good and use my _modeling skills_ to fill any implied "deficiencies".


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Yes, "perfection" is possible, but it comes with a cost. I'd far rather get a model that's pretty darned good and use my _modeling skills_ to fill any implied "deficiencies".


That's the fun part. Imagine if the kit was 100% accurate, everyone would just be building OOB .... nothing to learn there.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Dispite its flaws it realy looks great, and I'll be getting 1 or three for the collection. Same goes for the Cylon ride and the Galactica (been waiting for that one FOREVER!).
Frank seems to have found a happy middle of the road interpretation that, if one chose, could be juiced up to more accurately resemble the filming miniature. Think I've got the tank parts in my stash if not ALL the original greeblies to use for reference.
This one seems to have the "right" canopy as well as that cool ass landing gear so thats a big plus!:thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

And FineMolds is not making perfect models either. The Falcon's mandibles have already been mentioned and FM really screwed up on the X-Wings canopy. Nowhere near accurate! No model kit will perfectly replicate a vehicle used in the movies or on TV. Not every modeler will be happy with every kit released. If someone is expecting perfection from a model company you will never be happy.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

This announcement has encouraged me to finally drag out my Revell anniversary viper (with the cockpit) and build the sucker.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

It still amazes me how everyone is commenting on the inaccuracy of kits being made these days. If you don't like them don't buy them.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

enterprise_fan said:


> It still amazes me how everyone is commenting on the inaccuracy of kits being made these days. If you don't like them don't buy them.


Well said! :thumbsup:


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

> It still amazes me how everyone is commenting on the inaccuracy of kits being made these days. If you don't like them don't buy them.


If we don´t discuss a kit accuracy in a modelling forum, where then?
If you buy or not a kit despite it´s inaccuracies is another matter.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

I don't think anyone is whining or complaining here. I think we all appreciate that a model company is willing to take a chance and invest some money to produce a product we may be interested in.

In the past, Moebius has hit it out of the park with their products - would not expect anything different.

When someone is willing to give an advance look at a product that is still apparently in the planning stages it never hurts to offer some constructive criticism. 
What the company does with that information is up to them. My expectation is that any short comings in any kit are well known to the manufacturer, and likely have been discussed internally at great length with great passion.

But what if they missed something before they have committed to cutting the molds ?

What if they have debated the merits of a minor change but didn't think that the modeling public would either notice or care, yet when they show their product to the public it turns out that there is interest and the back room discussions within the company did have merit afterall. There is the opportunity to change things before they are set in stone.

What if someone had mentioned to Fine Molds about the mandibles before it was too late ?
How much better would the cut-away Enterprise been if knowledgable "customers" had a chance to see the mockup before the steel tooling was done ?
How many other kits would have benefitted from outsiders kicking the concept around ? 

There is rivet counting and speculation on the engineering of imaginary designs, and there is also valid commentary.
While it does get out of hand at times, I don't think Frank or anyone else would want the modeling
community to sit on their hands and say nothing.

We shouldn't be afraid to criticize a commercial venture, it is essential to the survival of the entire supply chain.
Think of the Monogram Kazon Torpedo (I know its a scary thought)
How much money did Monogram waste on producing a product the market was not interested in ?
How many hobby stores were stuck with product they couldn't sell ?
What product did Monogram not produce because they had committed resources to the Kazon ?
How many hobby stores cut their purchases of Sci-Fi related kits because they still had dust covered Kazons on their shelf ?


----------



## MightyMax (Jan 21, 2000)

Will the panel lines not be as heavy on the production kit?

Max Bryant


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

If you want direct contact with Moebius you MUST go to facebook. That is where they interact with customers, not here. You can speculate, you can complain and you can praise them here, but for the most part, it will only go unheard in this forum. It sounds like a broken record, but it is the truth and how it works now. "Rivet Counters" have made HobbyTalk irrelevant to most manufacturers and they now find other avenues to get feedback on their products.


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

Mr Wabac:
That´s the whole idea. If we are able to point out an "inaccuracy" on a pre production mock up, it is possible they may fix it. If some modeller thinks that it is not important at all if an small detail is not accurate, then it will not be important if it IS accurate. They will buy the kit anyway. I think that an accurate detail (even if small) is far better than a wrong one. And it will not make a model more expensive. The Refit Enterprise was "accurized" during pre production with input from modelers on these same forums... 



> Will the panel lines not be as heavy on the production kit


They are pretty heavy on the original models.


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

You guys crack me up.

Andy


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

RSN:

Thanks for the comments.
I'll have to pass on the Facebook thing - not my cup of tea.
If someone else wants to raise issue with them via Facebook fly at it.

While Hobby Talk might not be a two-way communication with manufacturers, it wouldn't surprise me if they do check the chatter from time-to-time, even if they may not comment.

If there is discussion here, it can still become a topic of discussion via the formal manufacturers channel(s). Keeping silent does nothing.

Every hobby does seem to have an element that is lacking in the social graces and drive people away; that is almost a given. Don't forget the "wart counters" as well 

Andy:

We'll be here all week - try the soup of the day it's excellent


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Mr. Wabac said:


> RSN:
> 
> Thanks for the comments.
> I'll have to pass on the Facebook thing - not my cup of tea.
> ...







They both posted here the other week if you look in the wishlist section. Nice to see them but I avoid Facebook like the plague. No interest in signing up on there.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Inaccuracies happen with models, even the finer manufacturers such as Fine Molds and Tamiya. That's why guys like Paulbo step up and make accurizing kits. You don't like an inaccuracy? Paulbo can help you fix that, or any other number of aftermarket companies.

But then, if you lack the mad skills to accurize it yourself, and don't want to patronize the aftermarket, well...


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

As others have posted, no model will ever be "perfect". I cant imagine how Frank and Co. manage to put out so many great kits every year and with such diversity concerning subject matter. I love all the kits Moebius has released and these new battlestar kits will be no exception. My wallet is quite thin right now due to the 1/350 big "E" so I guess its time to start saving up again for all the great kits Moebius will be releasing soon.
Way to go Mobius!:thumbsup:


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Mr. Wabac said:


> Think of the Monogram Kazon Torpedo (I know its a scary thought)
> How much money did Monogram waste on producing a product the market was not interested in ?


Monogram and their Trek line was doomed by not understanding the Voyager fan base or Trek fans in general.

They seemed happy to have a Trek license that would allow them to produce anything that appeared on Voyager yet didn't realize that the only ship that showed up weekly was Vayager.
On a suggestion they look into making full size props which would give them a way to get items that appeared on the other Trek shows they asked their modelers club which was by their own accounts made up of people who built mostly Nascar cars.

Needless to say but on a poll with mostly Nascar and only 2 non Nascar items guess what came in last.


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

Just do it.



Especially the TOS Galactica.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

swhite228 said:


> Monogram and their Trek line was doomed by not understanding the Voyager fan base or Trek fans in general.
> 
> They seemed happy to have a Trek license that would allow them to produce anything that appeared on Voyager yet didn't realize that the only ship that showed up weekly was Vayager.
> On a suggestion they look into making full size props which would give them a way to get items that appeared on the other Trek shows they asked their modelers club which was by their own accounts made up of people who built mostly Nascar cars.
> ...


Plus their license allowed them to produce, I think, _five _models from the show (This was the same for SeaQuest and Babylon 5, IIRC). So instead of waiting to see if anything interesting showed up in later seasons of Voyager, they went right ahead and cranked out 5 kits right away, having nothing to choose from except the Maquis and Kazon ships. If they'd had some patience we might have gotten a Delta Flyer, a type 9 shuttle, the Prometheus... But when Monogram saw how poorly everything but Voyager herself sold, they misread the situation and decided sci fi in general was a bad investment.

At least, that's how I remember reading it at the time.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

A Seven of Nine figure would have sold great.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

While I'd rather see a STOS shuttlecraft based entirely on the full scale mock-up, that is a rare case. Usually the miniatures have the better detailing, better proportions and overalll look to them. That is the case with the Viper, especially in terms of the proportions. The miniature was longer and better balanced looking.


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

I´ve read that the full scale mock up was thought as a "forced perspective" set. Is that true?
Also, 90% of the time, the miniatures are first and represent the "accurate" vessel.


----------



## Johnnycrash (May 28, 2002)

tuco_ilbrutto said:


> I´ve read that the full scale mock up was thought as a "forced perspective" set. Is that true?


No. There where two 1/1 mockups built. Sorta. The one was a proper 1/1 Viper. The other was just the nose and built as a forced perspective element. The intakes where pretty much a flat board with a photo pasted on it, and attached to the back of the canopy. It swiveled back when the canopy was opened. 

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/Viper/viper30.jpg



> Also, 90% of the time, the miniatures are first and represent the "accurate" vessel.


But in this case, the 1/1 was seen more often, and much more clearly. Ok! The miniature had more air time, but it was the same 5 SFX shots. I don't think that counts. There was very little, if any (other than launch sequence) re-used 1/1 footage.


----------



## swbell3 (Jun 6, 2005)

As long as they leave off the deflector grid lines on the primary hull, I'll be happy.


What? Oh sorry, thought I was on a different thread!


----------



## tuco_ilbrutto (Jan 23, 2010)

Johnny C, that´s very clarifying!
I personally love the miniatures because it´s very rough in aspect, has all the typical little tank pieces and Joe Jhonston was involved.


----------



## JAWSMODELS (Nov 29, 2012)

Well this is certainly an improvement on the previous kits & will go great with the new Raider.
The 1/1 set props were designed off the filming miniatures which were built first.
They wanted the 1/1 props to be as close to the filming miniatures as possible.


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

OK...

Some of you guys just don't get it and never will. Postings like some of those above were what drove Moebius away from here in the first place. Who wants to front hundreds of thousands of dollars, design and then have a model kit manufactured? Anyone here? I did not think so. So there have to be some concessions to detail (to make it affordable). What percentage of people that purchase this kit are actual professional model kit builders? Conversely, what percentage will be impulse purchasers with thirty bucks or so burning a hole in their pockets? The kits are made for ALL modelers, not just the few here at hobbytalk and other forums. Why all this whining?

Moebius has provided us with a lot of great kits with even more to come, and some of you have the nerve to complain about a prototype model? This kit is not even finished yet! What's the matter with you people? A true model builder will be able to modify any standard kit to their own inner vision of perfection, and won't have to spend $400 for the "perfect" kit. Plus lighting, photo-etch, decals, etc. Look what Lou did in his "Aldo the Cylon Centurion" thread. The arms can now posed in different positions, and he has repositioned the legs and the head. THAT is someone who knows how to enjoy the craft and build models at the same time.

Some of you really need to get out more. You've taken all the joy out of a few simple advanced pre-production prototype photos. 

Moebius is a business. A business needs to make a profit in order to be viable. Concessions must be made from time to time to make a low-priced profitable model kit that will actually sell.

Wait until the FINAL product is in your hands before you start spouting your opinions. If you don't like it, either live with your dissapointment or take it back for a refund. 

Moderating this forum is sometimes like dealing with children. Here's an idea -- How about we all start acting our age?

In the meantime, this thread is close, folks.

--Henry


----------

