# FSM SLAPS Sci-Fi Modelers in face.



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Ever since the Fine Scale Modeler "Most-Wanted Kit" survey a few months back, I've been eagerly awaiting the results of that survey.

As pointed out in the text of this latest survey "nearly all the top models in past 'Most-wanted' polls were later produced in kit form.". Here was an oportunity for the Sci-Fi modelers wishes to be heard and the possibility that one of them might be listening.

If 1/350 TOS Enterprise had popped up at the top of that list, that alone may (may) have been enough to have that kit seriously considered by the new overseers of the ST license. Or what about some new Battlestar Galactica kits (or even repops for that matter).

But, what did FSM list under "Most-wanted" in the Sci-Fi catagory......
Nothing.
Sci-Fi or Real Space weren't even listed as catagories.
(Neither was automotive for that matter).
But, Aircraft had 5 sub catagories.
Armor had 4 sub catagories.
And ships had 2 sub catagories.

Here is what the survey said about Sci-Fi.

"There were also many requests for various "Star Trek" science-fiction space vessels, so there is still interest despite the hiatus in both the TV and Movie series."

Yet, the list gets specific- down to the year for both the USS Tennessee/California and the USS Nevada/Oklahoma.
1941 versions please.

I hope most of you will consider this as big of an insult as I do. 
Sci-fi models and modelers have a hard enough time being taken seriously, and now our kit wishes aren't even being taken seriously enough to include in a survey by those who profess to love and support the hobby.

If you are upset by this, please, take a second and contact FSM via the link below or even better, write a letter to Paul Boyer (writer of the 'Most Wanted Kit' article) and express your displeasure. Venting here, won't due much.
(Ok yes, I'm venting here, but, mainly because I want to make sure all of you guys know as well. Also, tonight, I'm writing a letter to Paul and sending copies to about 10 of the other names on the FSM staff list.)
Since I don't frequent the other sci-fi haunts that much, if you feel so inclined, please spread the word at those sites as well.

Contact FSM via.
www.finescale.com

Or 

Fine Scale Modeler
21027 Crossroads Circle,
P.O. Box 1612
Waukesha, WI 53187-1612
Attn: Paul Boyer

Personally, I'm requesting an apology and follow-up article to include the Sci-Fi, Real-Space results.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I guess Sci-Fi models aren't considered "fine" or "scale".

It's all cutting, sanding, crafting, gluing, assembling, finishing something as a representation of something else. All modelling subjects, military, automotive or fantasy are worthy of the same amount of reverence or derision, in my opinion. All modelling subjects are just as serious or just as trivial. 

Heh ... ask your wife if you don't believe me. :thumbsup: 

Time for a letter.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I know many are upset by the lack of space to list the sci-fi most wanted, but the DID mention in that paragraph about the demand for ST kits despite the show's demise.

I imagine that the complete polling results will be forwarded to the manufacturers, whether or not they were on the printed page.

Perhaps they will be kind enough to post the complete results on their website?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> "There were also many requests for various "Star Trek" science-fiction space vessels, so there is still interest despite the hiatus in both the TV and Movie series."


They are right.
"STAR TREK" has been on hiatus for 36 years now.
I still am interested in it, and still want to build the 
_CONSTITUTION_-class *U.S.S. ENTERPRISE*.

I would also like to have the _BOTANY BAY_, a _ROMULAN 
BIRD OF PREY_, and a _KLINGON_ battlecruiser.

Yes, some interest.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Matthew Usher spends his share of time over at the StarshipModeler forums, and has come to WonderFest at least a few times, once even writing an article for Finescale about it, *AND is a contributing editor AT Finescale* and HE can't get them to publish sci-fi articles, so what makes you think some random survey results are going to make them change their minds?

If you want your voice to be heard, talk to someone who will listen. There's Amazing Figure Modeler, and an offshoot of their own that just started called Amazing Vehicular Modeler. Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller (formerly Sci-Fi Fantasy Models) is starting up again, AND, in spite of temporarily stopping physical publication, Modeler's Resource will still be publishing articles to their web site until such time as they decide to start printing on real paper again.

Give up on FSM. This horse hasn't just been beaten before, it's been decapitated, trampled on, run over, smashed, ground, whipped, puree'd and kneaded into a fine paste.

Focus your efforts elsewhere.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Ziz said:


> Matthew Usher spends his share of time over at the StarshipModeler forums, and has come to WonderFest at least a few times, once even writing an article for Finescale about it, *AND is a contributing editor AT Finescale* and HE can't get them to publish sci-fi articles, so what makes you think some random survey results are going to make them change their minds?
> 
> If you want your voice to be heard, talk to someone who will listen. There's Amazing Figure Modeler, and an offshoot of their own that just started called Amazing Vehicular Modeler. Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller (formerly Sci-Fi Fantasy Models) is starting up again, AND, in spite of temporarily stopping physical publication, Modeler's Resource will still be publishing articles to their web site until such time as they decide to start printing on real paper again.
> 
> ...


Well thanks to Matthew Usher for all his efforts and I certainly enjoy all of the magazines you listed, but quite frankly, I don't think that they carry as much ligitmacy (sp?) with the manufacturers as what FSM does.
Preaching to someone like Modeler's Resource is like preaching to the choir.
Its the manufacturers who I want to listen, and they seem to listen more to FSM.

Like I said, I really enjoy all of those rags you mentioned, but even I consider those as more 'garage publications'. And don't cite print quality of these particular rags because quite frankly I think some of them are better than FSM. Its just more of a reputation game.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Maybe scifi just doesn't fit with their magazine? I mean, there are two things here, one is model construction, the other is the subject. I may be sad that scifi isn't as popular as other types of models, but it's not like we're asking for black or asian models (the people kind) to be on the cover....it's just the type of plastic kit. And even if scifi WAS still very popular, there's still no reason that FSM can't focus on other kinds because it fits their readership better. These things are always catch-22 anyways. There's no audience because it's not supported, but it's not supported because there's no audience. I imagine you wouldn't feel so bad if the magazine hadn't had a history of scifi in the past or if it's name wasn't so general, instead of like "Military Models" or something. I wonder how many people are fed up that Texas Instruments doesn't make harmonicas. 

The other idea I have is that they get a lot of annoying letters from scifi fans and this is their way of sticking it to them.  jk


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The 'serious' modelers don't appreciate the 'Dr. Spock' modelers. I wouldn't even bother getting political on this.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

FSM has always been a snobby military modeling mag, despite the occasional Sci-Fi subject. Who cares? I haven't even been interested enough in their covers to LOOK at one in 8 years.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

True. It's a real shame. Considering how the entire hobby is getting less and less popular.

You would think they would want to do all they could to keep the greatest number of people possible interested in the hobby.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, I sent them individual photos of every single Trek kitbash I did and told them to pick one or two for the readers' gallery. Three issues have gone by since with no response...


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Ziz is right that we've beaten this whole FSM to a pulp.

That said, I still keep trying to get stuff in FSM. It's not that I think that FSM should regularly feature sci-fi (although that would be nice), it's just the whole acceptance thing. I'm tired of being looked down on as a "toy builder." I just want to be accepted as a scale modeler.

Questions and suggestions:

At least one sci-fi subject in the Readers Gallery each month. You can help here. Send high quality photos of your best models.
How come FSM never reviewed the PL Refit? Was it because PL doesn't advertised any more? Well, how could they?
Send in a modeling tip that relates to sci-fi modeling but that could relate to other models.
FSM is a modeling magazine and we are modelers. We need to get them to understand that.

Long live the revolution!

Jim


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Arronax said:


> Send high quality photos of your best models.


Maybe FSM has received good Sci-Fi photos, maybe not. With a few exceptions, the photos of Sci-Fi subjects are way below par, to my eye at least. Maybe FSM had seen enough bad Sci-Fi shots that they didn't even want to look at John P's.

There are plenty of how-to-photograph articles on the web, but here's a tip to those modellers who want to show off internally-lit models: light your models like the Voyager ship. (yes, I know Voyager was CG)

Place a lamp slightly behind your model, aiming it at the top or side of your model, allowing maybe half of the model to fall into shadow. This way you'll be able to see some of the lights and enough of the ship to get an idea of its shape. If you like, prop up a white or silver card in front of the model to bounce a little light into the shadow area. 

Make sure you can see the outline of the model. In other words, don't let the shadow areas blend into a black background. We like to see the form & shape of the model.

And include a well-lit, clean shot of the model with lights off.

(my 2 cents.)


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Put a Sci-Fi discrimination law suite against them. Why not? It would get their attention, and even the model companies, would see we have been wronged.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

When you look at the articles in FSM how can you NOT YAWN??? Military stuff has been done over and over and over. How many P51D's can you do? How many battleships? how many figures with C- scenery around it can you run in the mag without boring the paint right off your models? Having worked part time in a hobby shop for 8 years I was interested enough to pick it up 4-5 times. Whats that? Once every other year? The Model RR mag Mainline Modeler has FSM beat all the way as far as diversity of subjects.

We've already discussed the crappy 'research' that model companies do before releasing a kit, so it stands to reason that FSM would be one of their sources. 

BTW - I've seen some fairly average work showcased in FSM in recent years so I dunno why you are so worried about them. it's a 'training mag' for Military modeling like Model Railroader is to the RR folks.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Y3a said:


> BTW - I've seen some fairly average work showcased in FSM in recent years so I dunno why you are so worried about them.


Which non-RR, non-RC modelling mag has the highest circulation? 

( I really don't know, just asking)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Magazines are going the way of the dinosaur. There's very little in the magazines that you can't find posted on the internet with much more interesting and descriptive text and photographs. I say, "Let them rot!"


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Until 100% of the population is on the internet, we need magazines. If it was not for Y2K, I don't think I would be here now. I was forced to go online. Now almost 6 years online, I still am finding new research, and modeling sites. 

When I go to the bookstore, and see the magazines, I look at them, and even buy them. When online, I never think to check magazine sites.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

John P said:


> Well, I sent them individual photos of every single Trek kitbash I did and told them to pick one or two for the readers' gallery. Three issues have gone by since with no response...



I did get one of my planes in the reader gallery back in '89. However it took over a year as I recall.

(but didn't you have a P-47 in there not too long ago?)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I have always loved the way the Japanese mags really cater to their audiences, they support everything, all in one magazine! Hobby Japan & Model Graphix are top-knotch mags and I've always wished that there was at least one english-lanuage counterpart. Not satisfied with showcasing the work of model builders or providing how-to info or reviewing new products or showing the latest offerings at trade shows, they also stimulate creativity by providing new ideas (in the form of art work) for kit-bashing/scratch building and they even include comics of the featured items in action. Way to go Japanese publishers!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Absolutely, I would LOVE and English translated _Hobby Japan_! Heck I buy it anyway just for the inspiring photos.

To be fair though, not many Scifi modelers have use for FSM I haven't subscribed since the 70s. Even if they "added" scifi content it wouldn't be enough to get me to subscribe because i;m just not interested enough in the rest of the content... or the bajillion ads.


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

Japan also has a much stronger modeling industry. 

Magazines have taken a 1-2 punch, production costs are up and circulation is down. Many are just breaking even. I love the internet, do 99% of my research here, but I also subscribe to 14 magazines (down from 17), my wife subscribes to at least an equal amount. The one thing I hate is reading text on computer, or at least long articles or stories I'll print out (and I recycle the paper). 

FSM's editor is not opposed to SciFi, and in fact build some himself. But as the editor he still has to look at the bottom line first. There are more airplane and tank modelers out there than all the scifi guys combined. He kinda chuckles that whenever FSM runs an article that isn't about planes or tanks he gets hate mail. He doesn't, he keeps runnign them, and rumor has it (from his mouth) that they're working on a scifi article soon and that MU may be attending Wonderfest to cover it for FSM.


Still irritated that nobody's come out with an injection molded de Havilland Sea Vixen yet...sigh.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I still like having something tangible like a magazine. You can thumb through it, read it in your car sitting still on 405 during rush-hour traffic, etc.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

These People Are Narrow Minded In My Book,...on Occasion They Will Have Some Sci-fi Pics In The Gallery But No Other Info Thats Why I Stopped Buying The Magazine A Long Time Ago
Fsm Modeler Magazine Is Gret For One Thing...............
The F-4 Phantom Versions A-z !!!!!!!!


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

P.s. ............in Other Words "they Suck !"


----------



## vanable2000 (Oct 31, 2004)

I used to get FSM everytime it came out till about 5 yrs ago.They had a pic of one of my ships(you know a battleship) in the readers gallery but the coption was insulting! Even if its a beautiful piece, they dont care. I was refered to as (a modeler in South Carolina)did a pretty good job on the Bismark. It was the Terpitz!If they are the ultimate in modeling and modeling knoledge they are lacking severly. I now prefer AFM, MR, and anything else other than FSM. Ieven won a free subscription two yrs ago at Wonderfest and said no thanks in fron of the crowd, they taken aback to say the least.If enough independent minded folks out here started a Mag and catered to everyone you would pretty much put FSM in a grave. Now I'm not saying the mag has to have everything every issue, but a good sprinkling every issue and every subject was given a free hand at least once a year, I think it would go very far. Even the promise of a good covering atleast twice a year would keep me suportive.I am a avad fan of AFM , I have the full series all the way back the the promo that went out to distributers. I am always looking forward to the next issue and eveyone I know who either subs to it or just buys it off the Mag Stand is the same way. Terry and David have a great Mag and I dont see them loosing any fans in the near future.As I said, a Mag who will have a sprinkling of everything over the year will do good in my book.

Just a thought,

Van


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

What's a *de Havilland Sea Vixen * ?


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> What's a *de Havilland Sea Vixen * ?


A wingy thingy.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

KUROK said:


> I did get one of my planes in the reader gallery back in '89. However it took over a year as I recall.
> 
> (but didn't you have a P-47 in there not too long ago?)


 I had TWO P-47s in there, a couple of issues apart. I played on their sympathies and played up the "my recently deceased father's markings" angle.

Anybody have a recently deceased relative who was on Star Trek? :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Guess I'll put in my $.02.

FSM used to be a great mag in the late '80s, early '90s. SF did get a fair bit of coverage and even defended it against the grumpy ones who didn't "get it". And the subjects covered almost literally every subject. I didn't mind that armour and aircraft still got the lion's share of articles, the point was all genres of modeling was worthy of "fine scale" treatment.

But times changed. In less than 10 years, before 1999 was out, SF and other "fringe" subjects weren't considered serious modeling. The treadheads and wingnuts won that round. I didn't even finish buying out that year.

I don't care that the techniques in armour or aircraft can be applied to SF. Why can't a technique be shown on a SF kit, one that can be used in military modeling? I don't care if there's 27 different ways to do zimmerit or how to properly do a rivet count on a P-51D or B-17 - or finding authentic Luftwaffe paints for your hyper-detailed Me-109.

As mentioned earlier, FSM does command a certain amount of "recognition factor" to the manufacturs and FSM's attitude will reflect that back to the manufacturers of what should be pursued and what shouldn't. And in a way, it also works the other way around.

I'm sorry to say that I don't subscribe to any of the dedicated mags mentioned. I find much more of my interests online now. FSM has stratified into narrow thinking- the occasional SF pic in the gallery isn't going to convince me to plunk down my $10 Cdn for any specific issue. I'll borrow it from a friend (who still might get it) or even browse it at the rack. But I won't buy it if it doesn't have any techniques that interest me. I still have my '90s issues which still provide valuable references to me in just about all of my interests.

FSM is no longer a magazine that I would buy because of how I perceive their definition of what constitutes "fine scale" - and what doesn't. It's a fine line that look at the mag now and I know many won't agree or even understand what I'm trying to get at. So be it; I've made my choices!


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

*Response from FSM*

As many of you have realized, I'm still a fence-sitter about FSM. While I moan about the lack of sci-fi stuff in FSM, I still subscribe and submit stuff.

I wrote to FSM about the lack of sci-fi material and received a pretty level response from editor, Mark Thompson.

_Hi Jim,_

_Thank you for taking the time to write a well-reasoned appeal. I must admit __that I get a lot of rants from very passionate Sci-Fi fans to which I don't __respond._


_You make some some excellent points. Let me try to explain how I see it. __Our survey did not intend to "dis" Sci-Fi fans. We compile a list of the __major releases of which we are aware and put them out there. I'm sorry to __say, there just wasn't so much to chose from this year. W__e did not review the Enterprise_ (PL refit) _because we didn't receive it from the manufacturer for review. It's been our policy for more than 23 years that we select what will we reviewed from among what is submitted from __manufacturers. It's a way of knowing that what we build is a true production __kit. We don't review test shots or other pre-production kits. No doubt Polar __Lights' ownership and management changes played a part in the failure to __send us a kit. It had nothing to do with their failure to advertise. Actually, I can't recall Polar Lights ever advertising that much with us. _


_As to Matt Usher's trip to Wonder Fest, we chose to put that work on our web site (__http://www.finescale.com/fsm/default.aspx?c=a&id=1567_- you may need to be a registered member to view it)_. I knew that would be a disappointment to many readers, but keep in mind that there are a half-dozen major national and international shows and 20 or so major regionals competing for the show pages in FSM. Frankly we did not come away from Wonder Fest with that much great work, so I had to make that call. I think you can still find Wonder Fest coverage on our Web site. _


_I understand the feeling out there about FSM, and most certainly don't want __to imply I don't care. I'd like FSM to include a wide variety of work. But __consider that in each issue I get only 7 or 8 feature opportunities. I need __to have aircraft, armor, ships at a minimum. I try to have one or two __articles from the figure modelers, the sci-fi folks and an occasional car. I __also need to have technique articles as that's been the hallmark of FSM over __the years. I need to consider skill level, whether the subject has decent __in-progress photography or must be strictly a showcase-type treatment. And __to be honest, with much of the Sci-Fi stuff, I have to consider if it's __rated PG. Finally, I need to have good work in hand representing all these __values when I consider this editorial matrix._


_Having said all that, I recognize that FSM ends up as mostly military __modeling. I do believe that there's and chicken-and-the-egg syndrome going __on. The Sci-Fi fans don't see Sci-Fi in FSM so they don't send in __publishable work; we don't have it, so we don't publish it. The readers __assume we're biased. Id love to have a few good Sci-Fi stories in the __magazine. I can't promise there will ever be a story in every issue, but I __can say the lack of coverage is not for any lack of respect for Sci-Fi __modelers' skills._

_I hope this helps you to understand our position here. _


_Cordially, _


_Mark Thompson, Editor_
_FineScale Modeler_

I think he's trying to make the point that FSM is a business and you have to please your core readers first . . . and, frankly, I can accept that. But I'll keep suscribing just to see what other modelers are capable of.

Jim


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

Arronax said:


> _Hi Jim,_
> 
> _..._
> _ Frankly we did not come away from Wonder Fest with that much great work, so I had to make that call. ..._
> ...


OUCH!

For a letter that was supposed to make us understand, this sure seemed like quite a zinger. While I appreciate that we do get lot's of great work at Wonderfest and not all of it is really show grade, I still think we would have at least a page work of publishable material each year...

I've accepted the fact that FSM has very little Sci-Fi any more. Matt Usher is a good representative from our camp, but he has a job to do as well. I still subscribed to the magazine and have either subscribed or bought the magazine for over 10 years. I plan to continue to subscribe because the magazine still inspires me. I build more than Sci-Fi, as a matter of fact my current projects are more aircraft than Sci-Fi. I know many of you are the same way, JohnP for example. Not only does the magazine inspire me but it also teaches me a few things, so for me it still pays for itself. I do want more Sci-Fi coverage in the magazine, but I want lots of things I can't have so I have to choose and I choose to stay with them, at least until I find something else that has diverse coverage, good techniques articles, kit reviews and new product coverage and is better....

Remember skills can cross lines very easily, weathering a tank or aircraft is very similar to Sci-Fi subjects, construction is also very similar. air brushing.... The list goes on, I do wish other non-Sci-Fi modelers would be as open minded, but all we have to do is look at many of the contests for answers to that question....

Keep the faith!


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

I stopped buying FSM years ago coz to me, its nothing but a printed catalogue. No matter how, they will always go for the military models. This is a magazine catered only for the military modelers, irregardless what the explain from them may be.

I do agreed with some of you that Hobby Japan kick arse. If only these fellows have an American version, it is the only mag that will do sci-fi modeling great justice. However, what we wish usually don't come around. Online is the best choice for info, its always up to date and its free! 

B


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Am I the only scifi nut that doesn't think my own personal hobby/love is the most serious and respectable thing ever! I don't think I am.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Richard Compton said:


> Am I the only scifi nut that doesn't think my own personal hobby/love is the most serious and respectable thing ever! I don't think I am.


I don't think anyone is saying that sci-fi modeling isn't the most important thing to us. I think that those of us who do read FSM accept that our interests are a part of a larger hobby.

Jim


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> What's a *de Havilland Sea Vixen * ?


It's a wicked looking twin tail fighter. Sea Vixen


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

kylwell said:


> It's a wicked looking twin tail fighter. Sea Vixen


It's reported to be from a German design that was captured. Another Luft-46.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I thik that Mark Thompson put it right. If you want to see Sci-Fi in FSM, then send in your article. I still like the magazine, and we need it.


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

Arronax said:


> As to Matt Usher's trip to Wonder Fest, we chose to put that work on our web site (http://www.finescale.com/fsm/default.aspx?c=a&id=1567- you may need to be a registered member to view it). I knew that would be a disappointment to many readers, but keep in mind that there are a half-dozen major national and international shows and 20 or so major regionals competing for the show pages in FSM. Frankly we did not come away from Wonder Fest with that much great work, so I had to make that call. I think you can still find Wonder Fest coverage on our Web site.


Just checked FSM website referenced above and this is what is says:

"In response to requests from FineScale.com forum members for more science fiction/fantasy coverage, we've put together this gallery of photos taken at recent model shows across the country. We have photos from Wonderfest 2003, Military Miniatures Society of Illinois (MMSI) 2003 show, IPMS/Butch O'Hare Chapter 2002 show, San Antonio Modelfiesta 2004, Atlanta Model Expo 2004, and the IPMS Seattle 2002 Spring Show."

WF03? C'mon! There's 21 pictures on the site for crying out loud. I know for a fact that there were at least a dozen models that should be included from WF04.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think the editor makes a valid point on pleasing his primary customers first.

I have been buying and reading the magazine since it's inception. There have been many sci-fi and ST articles over the years. Certainly more than I can count. Since I enjoy modeling in many categories, not just sci-fi, I find the magazine appealing on many levels. If I want more specific genre material, then I will buy other magazines that deal with that particular subject. To me, if it's modeling, it's all good.

Another point he makes is that the magazine is more about sharing and demonstrating techniques that can be applied to a model of any genre. If a reader submits a well-written article about a particularly interesting technique applied to the construction of a spaceship model, and that technique can cross over into any other modeling situation, then I imagine that such an article would be an excellent candidate for publication for two reasons: it demonstrates a new technique that anyone can use for their own modeling interests, and it showcases yet another sci-fi subject.

Case in point:

Take, for instance, the article about applying salt to the model surface in order to simulate worn paint. This technique could have just as easily been demonstrated on an X-Wing fighter rather than a WWII fighter model, and everyone would have gotten just as much out of it.


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

heiki said:


> It's reported to be from a German design that was captured. Another Luft-46.


Actually it was the last in a long line of dehavilland twin tailed jet fighters. Now if you look closely you'll see a window on the right hand side of the aircraft on the top. This was the observer/navigators window & hatch. Only the pilot got a nice view of the surroundings. deHavilland Vampire .


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

I build all subjects so I still enjoy FSM and get almost every issue. Yes I would like more Sci-Fi but I understand why there are so few articles.

I think an editorial at one time made a point that they can only publish what is submitted. So it appears that they are getting very few good Sci-Fi articles.

I think if an article demonstrates a technique or skill that they would publish it no matter what subject it is.

I have a web page and I use a digital camera for the images of my model builds, yet I know that this is not good enough for a magazine article. I would have to use a SLR camera if I was serious about putting together an article.


Alex
Styrofoam Guy


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Years ago I sent in an article for a scratchbuilt Bird of Prey I made. They bought it, but it was 4 years before it appeared!
When I sent in another, I said something offhand about being quicker this time and they got all snooty and sent the article back.
They think sci-fi is for kids, but most of the people who do old armor weren't in WWII. We're both pretending.


----------



## WShawn (Jan 10, 2004)

Well, I had a good experience getting my sci-fi article published with FSM, but that was 12 years ago. I sent them a proposal to do an article detailing the techniques I used to add fluorescent lighting to the Ertl Enterprise D kit. They gave me an enthusiastic reply so I submitted an article and photos and it was published (though heavily edited) four or five months later in the March, 1994 issue. They even republished the article in the 2nd volume of their Famous Spaceships of Fact and Fantasy softcover book. It remains my proudest modeling achievement.

Later that year (1994) FSM had an unscientific poll of favorite FSM coverage categories. 144 readers responded. My Enterprise D article was voted Favorite Feature Article. That response would seem to show that there is an audience for sci-fi subjects in the magazine. But maybe things have changed there.

Shawn Marshall
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

That was also when TNG and Trek was on a "high" run. TNG was just ending, with Generations on the horizon, and DS9 had just started a year or two prior. FSM was riding Trek's publicity wave.

But after 10 years of Bervis & Braghead producing mediocre Trek - at best - they're not in such a rush to associate themselves with sci-fi.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *heiki*
_It's reported to be from a German design that was captured. Another Luft-46._



kylwell said:


> Actually it was the last in a long line of dehavilland twin tailed jet fighters. Now if you look closely you'll see a window on the right hand side of the aircraft on the top. This was the observer/navigators window & hatch. Only the pilot got a nice view of the surroundings. deHavilland Vampire .


*Just like the MIG was from a captured Focke-Wulf design, the deHavilland Vampire shares a German ancestry:* http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwflitz.html


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

The Luft46 guys try to claim credit for every aircraft design for the last 70 years. Here's what that site says about the FW:

" In March 1943 Focke-Wulf in Bremen initiated a series of design studies for single-seat, jet powered fighters. Entwurf 6, also known as Projekt VI, was approved for mock-up construction in Febuary 1944."


The DeHavilland Vampire was designed to the British E6/41 specification issued in 1941. The design was frozen in 1942 and the plane FLEW in September of 1943.


More to the subject of this thread...I read an article one about selling to magazines. The first rule was to know the market. Buy the magazine and see what they are all about. I've got FSM's going back 20 years (not all of them, just a selection) and they have ALWAYS been 70% aircraft and armor with about 30% divided among ships, cars, figures and sci-fi. That's just what they do. It's not an attempt to slight anybody. The folks who publish GOLF DIGEST don't hate tennis players...they just don't cover tennis. FSM has traditionally weighted it's coverage to aircraft and armor.

I've had a couple of pictures published in the Reader Gallery. The first was a 1/48 scale Avro Arrow, The second was the 1/48 Lunar Lander. But that was few years agao and I used an SLR and Kodachrome. I'd like to know what the NEW requirements are because I'm sure that there MUST be an allowance now for digital photography. Digital is so predominant that magazines will have to make acceptance for such submissions if they don't already do so.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> The folks who publish GOLF DIGEST don't hate tennis players...they just don't cover tennis. FSM has traditionally weighted it's coverage to aircraft and armor.


Yes, but when you read GOLF DIGEST, you know it will be about golf.
FINE SCALE MODELER should be about all modeling subjects.
If they wish to cater to the armor crowd, maybe they should change 
their name to FINE MILITARY MODELING, or ARMOUR MODELING, or 
MILITARY MODELING, or some such similar sounding name.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

CaptFrank said:


> FINE SCALE MODELER should be about all modeling subjects.


Why?

Did you ever look at a copy of KITBUILDERS MAGAZINE? That's a pretty all-encompassing title. Should be about all kits, I suppose. But I have never seen a warplane, a ship or a tank in it. I'm insulted. 

What about MODELER'S RESOURCE? Talk about false advertising. It shoud be about ALL modeling subjects. All it ever had was sci-fi, horror and figures.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I don't actually know FSM's digital requirements, but when I sent in pics of my P-47s in Dad's markings (both of which got printed in the readers' gallery) I sent the full-resolution original digital file on a CD _plus _a hi-res 8.5x11 glossy printout.

I did the same when I sent pics of all my kitbashes for the gallery. 12 files on disk, 12 printouts.


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

As an original WonderFest official, I have watched the FSM coverage (or lack of it) for lots of years. I have one more theory I'd like you all to consider.

If the editor or photographer trying to represent the WF model contest doesn't understand the genre, s/he will not recognize noteworthy modeling efforts when s/he sees them.

In the years FSM has sent a photographer, the contest officials and I have usually been disappointed by which models they choose to photograph--or perhaps I should say the outstanding, gold-winning work they choose _not_ to photograph. But they're trying to hit the average Joe and I think they're concerned that they have to stick with subjects that have mass-recognition. And they especially do not understand highly stylized figure paint jobs.

If you think of the whole range of modeling possibilities, they really are a military mag that just occasionally throws in a car model or s-f model. Railroading, gaming miniatures,and other modeling genres are not represented at all. Their name sounds like an all-modeling-genres publication, but like the majority of IPMS chapters they really are a (mostly) one-topic mag.

I don't hate them for the above or ever dis them in print. We have a lot to learn from military modelers, so I just try to take it as it is--an excellent publication for military modelers.

It just means we have to embrace the publications like AFM and MR that do cover our first loves.

Lee


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

This thread's focus has been shifted. 
I see responses that tell us not to hate Fine Scale Modeler 
because their interest lies in military subjects.

This thread is not about liking or hating them for that, 
and whether or not to buy them magazine.

It is about their influence with model companies.

They held a survey, and deliberately excluded the SCI-FI 
subjects I love so much, except as some sort of footnote. 

They sabotaged any chance for new kits to be produced, because 
they said there was not enough interest to make the list.
All the votes came from their armour builders!
Military builders!

We didn't have a chance!  

How long are we going to have to wait for another decent "STAR TREK" 
kit to come along?


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

CaptFrank said:


> They held a survey, and deliberately excluded the SCI-FI
> subjects I love so much, except as some sort of footnote.
> 
> They sabotaged any chance for new kits to be produced, because
> ...


You are kidding, right?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think that should've read, "all the votes that counted."


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

Just to set the record straight: The only interest I have in military modeling is to admire good modeling techniques and to learn. I don't build military models; haven't since my early teens. I learn techniques from all types of modeling, though, so I don't feel deprived if I have to read a car or military or railroading magazine to learn how to build s-f better.

The model companies _may_ look at the FSM poll results...but really it's cold, hard sales figures that determine what gets made. As has been stated many times on Hobby Talk forums, the modeling hobby market is diminishing considerably from what it used to be. We represent a splinter of that diminished total. Speaking as a modeler since about 1964, I think we're very fortunate to have had the output of kits in our field over the past few years. I think real space modelers have much more to complain about than s-f modelers (where's the plastic Spaceship One kit??).

Anyhow, I didn't want my original remarks misinterpreted. FSM--and the model companies--go where the bigger market is. Historically, that's military and cars. Magazines like AFM and MR struggle to make ends meet because they loyally stay focused on our less-commercial audience.

I refuse to believe that FSM's omissions are in any way deliberate. I just think FSM has tunnel vision. It always has and I suspect it always will.

I think we should get over it. FSM isn't that important. Stick with the magazines that do "get it" and let your dollars do the talking.

Lee


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*from ClubTepes' original post*:


> As pointed out in the text of this latest survey "*nearly all the top models in past 'Most-wanted' polls were later produced in kit form*.". Here was an oportunity for the Sci-Fi modelers wishes to be heard and the possibility that one of them might be listening.


*Lee Stanton wrote*:


> I think we should get over it. FSM isn't that important. Stick with the magazines that do "get it" and let your dollars do the talking.


Lee,
read the first quote, which started this thread.
It's not about "sticking with magazines"!
It's about a chance for more, new kits being quashed!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

As I understand it, FSM forwards the _complete_ results of the poll to the model companies, not just what is printed in the magazine. I saw the article as more of a "best of" the poll. 

Oh, and don't forget, they _did_ mention the continued popularity and demand for _Star Trek_ models, _despite_ the collapse of the franchise. If they were really out to "slap in the face" the sci-fi modelers, it seems they would have mentioned nothing at all.

Not to be mean-spirited, but with all the whining going on, if I were the editor-in-chief of a model magazine, I'm not sure how receptive I would be to cater to a group that makes the kind of comments about the covered subject matter that have been printed in this thread. I sincerely hope that any direct communication with the magazine from our group has been cordial and courteous in expressing a sincere desire to see more sci-fi subjects covered, without the posturing and discouraging comments that I fear some individuals may have sent.

FSM is a very good magazine, and while it's fun when they publish a good sci-fi article (like the superb Jim Small resin casting story with the Seeker from _Space Academy_ ), it's information and techniques that are applied to armor, ships and aircraft can certainly be carried over into other genres. 

I really am disappointed when I see the comments like "I'll never buy another issue because they don't push sci-fi subjects". While that is your right to pick and choose the publications you purchase and read, just remember that the loss of _any_ of these modeling publications dimishes us all, and the hobby we all love.


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

Very nicely said Trek Ace. 

And CaptFrank, I know what you're saying and I read the thread from the beginning. I just don't believe that we really lost an opportunity for new kits.

There are a lot of reasons that model companies don't do s-f (high licensing costs, very short sales life span in most cases, distributor and retailer resistance, limited buyers market). Maybe FSM's poll report would have swayed some executive to risk a new s-f kit, but I'm doubtful it'll happen in this economy. Also, the model kit companies that are left have their own agendas. Some, such as RC2, see themselves as car model companies first and foremost.

I think we're in for a little break here as far as new kits are concerned. But it's just my opinion based on seeing how the economy's going. I think businesses are being extra conservative, and I bet reissues look a lot more appealing than new tooling right now.
But I respect your opinions and especially the passion for our subject matter. It's something I share, but I try to look at the long-term. As a builder for 41 years, there are times when we're on top and times when it all dries up. So far, it's always cycled around again. We'll have to wait and see!


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*In defense of FSM.....*



ClubTepes said:


> Ever since the Fine Scale But, Aircraft had 5 sub catagories.
> Armor had 4 sub catagories.
> And ships had 2 sub catagories.
> .....
> ...


We ship modelers frequently make the same complaint about FSM. The reality is airplane modelers are the largest segment of the modeling community with military in second.

That said, FSM seems to go out of their way to accomodate ship. The two categories represent the two dominating scales (1:700 and 1:350).

As far as specificity goes, ships tend to evolve over time. It's not that modeler want 4 different versions of the California but rather that the majority of people would like the California of a certain era (ie Pearl Harbor).


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

I love FSM. Here is why. It provides the most in depth coverage of the techniques used in building, modifying, filling sanding and finishing models. These techniques work just as well on building the Refit as they do on converting the Arizona to the Pennsylvania. 

And those guys do build some beautiful, seamless, perfectly painted models. Some of those armor and aircraft guys are fanatics for detail and accuracy and research their subjects extensively. Anyone would do well to study their techniques.

Absolutely, I would love to have a model magizine with the quality and detail of coverage as FSM that focused on Science Fiction/Star Trek. Until someone publishes one, I will continue to read FSM -- to learn how to build models better.

That is my humble opinion. (and I have been known to turn in my white aztec pattern for the occasional o.d. and tan camoflage pattern)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ya wanna learn about detailing, kitbashing and dioramas? Talk to an armor guy.

Ya wanna learn about scratch building complex shapes? Talk to an airplane guy.

Ya wanna learn about perfect finishes? Talk to a car guy, or a guy who builds airliner models.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

I think somebody noticed that there are unhappy Sci-Fi guys about.
http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/564173/ShowPost.aspx
See John that's all you have to do. They want us in the magazine.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, I sent them hi-res digital pics of all my kitbashes everal months ago. I think three issues have come and gone since, so if they're gonna show up in the gallery, it should be any issue now.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Actions speak louder than words.........


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

John P said:


> Ya wanna learn about detailing, kitbashing and dioramas? Talk to an armor guy.
> 
> Ya wanna learn about scratch building complex shapes? Talk to an airplane guy.
> 
> Ya wanna learn about perfect finishes? Talk to a car guy, or a guy who builds airliner models.



The model railroaders can do a fine job of detailing, kitbashing and dioramas too. Complex shapes? Like 12 foot long HO scale bridges, or 30 story buildings, or steel mills or coal mining operations?

Of course the RR guys have moving stuff on their dioramas, and electrical and lighting stuff hidden there too. See work by Jack Parker in Mainline Modeler, George Selious(bad spelling) and others.


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

John P said:


> ^As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, I sent them hi-res digital pics of all my kitbashes everal months ago. I think three issues have come and gone since, so if they're gonna show up in the gallery, it should be any issue now.


You've got to realise magazines are layed out about 3 months in advance, and sent to the printer (finalised) a month or two in advance. It prolly takes the art editor a month to shuffle through everything so give them 4-5 months. 

A friend of mine thought about starting up a magazine after the demise of MR but I managed to talk him out of it. Putting together a magazine is a pain in the keester. Never want to go through that again.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Y3a said:


> The model railroaders can do a fine job of detailing, kitbashing and dioramas too. Complex shapes? Like 12 foot long HO scale bridges, or 30 story buildings, or steel mills or coal mining operations?


 Well, by complex shapes, I was thinking more of fuselages with compound curves. Factories and stuff are "complex assemblies of parts."

But I agree, the railroaders can make some awesome dioramas!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

What techniques and skills do sci-fi modelers bring to the table?


----------



## BJ_O (May 2, 2005)

Creativity!


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> What techniques and skills do sci-fi modelers bring to the table?


A hundred and one ways to assemble the same kit into one hundred and one different starship variants?

Jim


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The ability to exactly copy the look and feel of a SPFX model when no actual prototype may exist.


----------

