# Revell Germany 1/600 ENTERPRISE in 2011



## spindrift

Just announced for Fall 2011, 1/600 scale Enterprise and Klingon Cruiser- NEW TOOLS!!!!!!!
Let the celebration begin!!
Gary:hat:


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Can you give more information. Is this the Original T.V.Series Enterprise or the Motion Picture Version and the Klingon Ship, Original T.V.Version or the Movie Version. Thanks, Guy Schlicter.


----------



## spindrift

Don't know- just a list released that says USS Enterprise....will have to wait til pics but I suspect it is TOS ships, no mention of A or Refit in description.


----------



## Magesblood

spindrift said:


> Just announced for Fall 2011, 1/600 scale Enterprise and Klingon Cruiser- NEW TOOLS!!!!!!!
> Let the celebration begin!!
> Gary:hat:


dood, wait 'till April to pull this kind of thing. 

j/k! Good to know it's not dead...yet!


----------



## spindrift

yep, while R2 can't get a new kit out and takes months and months to get a repop out....look who comes to bat in a big way! Revell Germany new tool kits are of the HIGHEST quality, too.


----------



## BrianM

...about how big are they as 1/600 kits?


----------



## Seashark

I wonder if these kits are tied to the new movie(s) rather than with TOS or it's movies. Perhaps this announcement is also linked to R2's pulling all mention of the jjprise? I guess we'll see...


----------



## Magesblood

BrianM said:


> ...about how big are they as 1/600 kits?


we won't know until we know which versions they are.


----------



## miraclefan

Is this for real?
Where did you hear this?


----------



## talondigital

BrianM said:


> ...about how big are they as 1/600 kits?


My guess is that it is the TOS Enterprise, considering the other kit is the D7 which is the Klingon Cruiser in TOS, and the fact that its the 45th year anniversary of Star Trek next year.

So that ship means it will be a hair under 19 inches (18.96 inches long according to the calculator)


----------



## StarshipClass

Link?

I'm not believing it until I see an official announcement or something on their website. Google searches of the site turned up squat so far.


----------



## ClubTepes

Too bad they aren't 1/700 scale. Looks like I'll never see any Trek stuff in this scale.


----------



## ClubTepes

Looked around for 'real' info. Couldn't find any.

If anyones got a link, please speak up.


----------



## yorkie

Here you go.
http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Hersteller_News/Revell_News_2011.html#table4


----------



## Magesblood

good to see the landspeeder is finally being released as a kit.


----------



## BrianM

...cool , a landspeeder! It's about time.


----------



## Seashark

Huh, it would seem that it _is_ the original Enterprise, cool! At 1/600 it should be a nice size, I'm in for one. Thanks for the heads-up, guys.


----------



## StarshipClass

yorkie said:


> Here you go.
> http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Hersteller_News/Revell_News_2011.html#table4


Well, that link is something at least. Still gotta see some pics and such and an announcement on their site before I fully believe.:thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

I'm really looking forward to this! I'd prefer 1:700 just because it's a more standard size, but I suppose I'll have to live with it being a bit larger


----------



## jheilman

So this will be slightly larger than the AMT Enterprise?


----------



## actias

The RG kits will get released and be big sellers and Round 2 will be in the background with "Ours is well under way...Maybe...Should be...Depends on the bean counters...Lets do another poll...At least we have a pink re-pop coming...We'll announce at Wonderfest 2020". Then they will crawl back under the nearest rock and quietly remove announcements from their website to get rid of the evidence.


----------



## idMonster

actias said:


> The RG kits will get released and be big sellers...


Possibly in Europe but not necessarily in the States. They may not be big sellers here because they may not be widely available.

Remeber, Revell of Germany may not be able to import these kits like they do their other models because Round2 probably has exclusive rights to produce and distribute Star Trek kits in the United States.

If that's the case they won't be cheap. American modelers would have to order them from Hannant's or some other European mail order hobby shop amd these days the overseas postage is murder!

When RevelloGerm first started producing their Star Wars kits they couldn't directly import them to the U.S. because Race Champions (IIRC) still had the Star Wars license in the US. We had to wait until Revell exported them to Japan whereupon certain SF specialty hobby shops purchased them for resale, as a necessity, at a significantly higher price than European or even Japanese retail. Remember the $80.00 Rebel Cruiser?

The kits weren't imported directly by Revell until that license expired.

So while these newly-tooled kits may be wonderful (a reasonable expectation, given their SW kits) there's a good chance you'll be paying top dollar for them.

Gordon


----------



## Solium

The Landspeeder is long over due. Would be great if they included a Sandpeople figure.


----------



## cozmo

Paulbo said:


> I'm really looking forward to this! I'd prefer 1:700 just because it's a more standard size, but I suppose I'll have to live with it being a bit larger


Yep, it would have been nice to have one to display with some same scale ships.


----------



## JeffG

Okay lighting kit and photoetch guys...get busy time!


----------



## falcondesigns

JeffG said:


> Okay lighting kit and photoetch guys...get busy time!


Lighting package is the same as the 18" or the 22". We'll have to have an actual model to do PE Parts.


----------



## derric1968

idMonster got it right, guys. Round 2 has the Star Trek license for North America. Revell will not be able to sell their kits here directly. It will be up to third party importers to get them into the states. That means a BIG mark-up on the price. If you thought the price of the clear Enterprise-D was steep, wait 'til you see the price on these puppies!

As for the quality of Revell's kits, it can vary wildly. Some of their kits are great, while others are toy-like. It's much too early to know where these kits will fall in that range.

Meanwhile, I look forward to the Landspeeder!


----------



## RSN

So what some are saying is, Revell Germany can't send kits of their all new tooling of the Enterprise, and Round 2 will continue to drag their feet on their project, there by blocking the sale of a kit that so many have been expecting from them, here in the States? And that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling why? Are they taking their ball and bat and going home so no one can play? These, I believe, are valid ponderings!


----------



## Paulbo

falcondesigns said:


> Lighting package is the same as the 18" or the 22". We'll have to have an actual model to do PE Parts.


Yup - I'll definitely be doing a PE set, but without an actual kit in-hand I can't work on sizing or even really knowing what will need to be done.


----------



## spindrift

The list is REAL. Direct from Germany trade announcements. I would not have posted it if I did not stand by the source, who is beyond reproach on such things.


----------



## spindrift

actias said:


> The RG kits will get released and be big sellers and Round 2 will be in the background with "Ours is well under way...Maybe...Should be...Depends on the bean counters...Lets do another poll...At least we have a pink re-pop coming...We'll announce at Wonderfest 2020". Then they will crawl back under the nearest rock and quietly remove announcements from their website to get rid of the evidence.


LOL! perfect...I completely agree......what a way to run a business...into the ground. But hey if you want the clear Enterprise or purple glow in the dark in special tin Enterprise they are there for you!:tongue:


----------



## SUNGOD

I wouldn't be surprised if R2 doesn't do the 1/350th one now. As long as the Revell one's good though I won't mind so much.


----------



## Fozzie

Wouldn't it be possible for R2 and Revell to work out a deal to offer the kit in the U.S.? (Yes) 

Now, _would_ R2 be interested in doing that? Guess it depends on if they could come up with a deal that would make it worth their while...


----------



## Magesblood

Revell may eventually release it in the US same what they did with the Venator.


----------



## Ductapeforever

People....read this carefully. There is no problem getting Revell Germany kits here in the states, they are readily available from ANY local hobby shop and MANY retailers online.
They are more expensive however, but not unreasonable. Round 2 has the Trek license here in the states, and Revell Germany in Europe. Round 2 will NOT work together with Revell Germany to release the kit in the states as they are direct competitors. Are we clear on this? Licensing forbids direct sales here in the US, but will not be a problem to get.


----------



## James Tiberius

And that is why these kits from revell are going to kick butt, they have everything to gain from R2 sitting on their butts. Yeah, the repops with the added decals are nice, but the original models are already out there and I can get better aztec decals from Acreation or templates from Aztek Dummy, and JT Graphics decals.


----------



## StarshipClass

spindrift said:


> The list is REAL. Direct from Germany trade announcements. I would not have posted it if I did not stand by the source, who is beyond reproach on such things.


And I believe most sincerely that you believe it most sincerely.:thumbsup:

Until I seen an official announcement via their email list or on their site, I'll wait to get excited, though. I just have my doubts at this point but still keeping an open mind. I wouldn't be surprised if you're correct in all details.

One thing that makes me wonder about what is going on is that it doesn't really make sense that they'd be coming out with a _TOS 1701 _when the new movie version would seem more likely to be their choice--though not mine--considering the way such companies typically make decisions.

If it is the _TOS _version, hopefully its release will not appear to R2 to kill the market for an accurate 1/350th scale version.


----------



## RSN

Well, I for one will not believe Round 2 has any REAL plans to release a 1/350 Enterprise until I see an actual announcement that the kit is in production, pictures of test shots, or better yet, a box on the shelf! So far we have had a lot of, "It is in development.", "It is in the hands of the 'Powers that Be' and the 'Bean Counters.'", "Would you like to see this kit made?", "Ignore the preorder memo, that was internal and not meant for release." These are all paraphrased, but represent the statements made by them on this subject over the last two years!


----------



## StarshipClass

RSN said:


> Well, I for one will not believe Round 2 has any REAL plans to release a 1/350 Enterprise until I see an actual announcement that the kit is in production, pictures of test shots, or better yet, a box on the shelf! So far we have had a lot of, "It is in development.", "It is in the hands of the 'Powers that Be' and the 'Bean Counters.'", "Would you like to see this kit made?", "Ignore the preorder memo, that was internal and not meant for release." These are all paraphrased, but represent the statements made by them on this subject over the last two years!


:thumbsup: RIGHT ON!


----------



## James Tiberius

I think it would be funny as hell if another company sold one round of a star trek kit, and then released a 1/350 TOS Enterprise based on requests that R2 went unanswered. Then when they are "moving into production", revell would have already made the kit.


----------



## flyingfrets

Ductapeforever said:


> Round 2 will NOT work together with Revell Germany to release the kit in the states as they are direct competitors.


I dunno...if the kits are decent, I could see it being to Round 2's advantage to work out a deal to distribute them here (presumably under the Round 2 brand). RG would've already invested the time & money to develop & produce the kits...not a lot of leg work left for Round 2 to do. Might even shut some of *us* up for awhile...


----------



## mach7

It's been done before. I believe that AMT and Aurora had such a deal with the original trek kits. Unless I'm wrong thats how we got the Spock kit here in the US.

It would benefit R2, they would get a kit without a large outlay of cash.
It would benefit RG, they would get access to the largest Trek market in the world.

I think its a win/win, so it will probably not get done.


----------



## Tomtom

It was Aurora UK that sold the Mr. Spock and the 2 other ST kits-the US was served by AMT,but again the UK kits filtered in,so no direct competition.


----------



## djnick66

Its not a huge deal that Revell AG has a license for Star Trek kits, along with Round 2's US license. Revell (US) and Round 2 DO WORK TOGETHER. Round 2 purchased one of Aurora's Batmobile molds from Revell. In past years you had Monogram with a Star Trek license while AMT also had one. Polar Light and Moebius both have Batman licenses. Its really pretty common to see. I think Revell, AMT, Italeri and Tamiya all have Jeep licenses, for example.

Not all Revell Germany kits are imported to the US, but the bulk of them are. Still, you can buy any of them mail order from places in Europe and Asia. Also, Fine Molds, Revell Germany and Revell USA all do Star Wars kits... and they are all sold everywhere.

Has Revell actually said their kits are NOT going to be sold here due to licensing issues. Revell Germany's Star Wars kits are sold here. I assume some of them are the same ones sold in Revell USA boxes as well.


----------



## derric1968

Oh boy! I thought this was all clear, but apparently not.

Monogram specifically had the Star Trek: Voyager license, while AMT/ERTL had everything else. Monogram let their Voyager license expire years ago. Today, Round 2 holds the exclusive North American Star Trek model kit license for everything, including Voyager. The new movie license had to be negotiated separately. Revell USA would be unable to re-pop the Voyager kits for the US without some sort of agreement with Round 2. They did re-pop them for Europe, and they were available in the US from various importers, but not officially from Revell USA. Hence the mark-up.

Polar Lights has a license for the '66 Batman TV show only. Moebius has the license for The Dark Knight movie and the Batman comics.

Revell, AMT, Italeri and Tamiya might all have a Jeep license, but the Jeep license may be non-exclusive, or their licenses may be for specific territories. Germany, USA, Italy and Japan, respectively, for instance. Round 2's Star Trek license is both specific to North America and exclusive (in North America).

When Revell Germany began making Star Wars models, RC2 still had the US license (inherited from AMT/ERTL, who inherited it from MPC), so they couldn't officially sell them in the US. They were available from importers at a mark-up. After RC2 let the Star Wars license expire, Revell picked it up, and now, all of Revell Germany's Star Wars models are officially available in the US from Revell USA. Fine Molds license only covers Japan. Their kits are available in the US, but again, only from importers, and again, at a mark-up. That's why their kits are so pricey.

PHEW! OK, is everybody straight with who owns what and where? Revell Germany doesn't need to state that licensing prevents them from selling their Star Trek kits in the US because that's the law. That doesn't preclude some sort of deal being made between Revell Germany and Round 2. It's possible that we may see these kits available in the US, in Polar Lights boxes, but the question is how likely is that scenario?

Now, before someone says something, let me be clear – yes, I know that Revell Germany's Trek kits will be available in the US. But not officially from Revell USA. They will be imported by third parties. Importing mean a bigger price tag. How much bigger usually depends on how much demand there is. Higher demand = bigger mark-up. So, it's not a question of availability, it's a question of price.


----------



## jbond

I'm sure these kits will be interesting, I'll very likely buy them--but I'm dead sure they'll be a field day for the rivet-counters around here. The Star Wars kits have virtually all been "box scale" and have toyed with proportions and details at will, and I would guess these new Trek kits would be prepaints like the SW line. Last of all, I can conceive of NO circumstance under which Revell Germany would do a 1/350 Enterprise. Star Wars kits almost certainly outsell Trek kits by a wide margin, but there have been very few large scale SW subjects from RG. If they had any indication they could make money with a two or three foot Star Destroyer they certainly would have produced one by now.


----------



## actias

Anything is better then the big DONUT HOLE we're getting from R2.


----------



## Magesblood

actias said:


> Anything is better then the big DONUT HOLE we're getting from R2.


I can see that was probably very clever, but I don't seem to understand it.


----------



## actias

Anybody remember this from R2's own website. Who's the Jackass now.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

I believe that those kits will come.

I *don`t* believe that those kits will really be new molds. Don`t base your opinion on the given scale of 1:600 - it is a common behaviour of Revell Germany to give a scale for an upcoming SciFi-kit, just to change this information shortly before the model will be released (or just to give NO scale then). Happens everytime with the Star Wars easykits and pocket easykits

IMHO we will see repops of the old 1:537 AMT-ones.


----------



## John P

Or the 1/635 AMT ones.


----------



## modelsj

Hopefully the 1/537!


----------



## Marco Scheloske

John P said:


> Or the 1/635 AMT ones.


Yes, or those... 

The Refit was 1:537, right? The TOS was 1:635, correct? Shame on me... :freak:


----------



## Wolvster

Silly question so hold your fire... :wave:

If shipping " single " kit's from Germany would
be the issue wouldn't it be a better
idea for a group of guys to get together and buy
a CASE of models ? 

I would think one case would
be one helluva' lot cheaper then all the individual
kit's shipped ?

Continue...


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Wolvster said:


> buy
> a CASE of models ?


Well... you can only buy cases of models here as a retailer, NOT as a normal customer.


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> Or the 1/635 AMT ones.


John, thank you for saying 1/635 instead of 1/650.
:devil:


----------



## Trek Ace

Playmates released a toy of the original ship that seemed to be based on the 1/635 AMT kit, but corrected many of the details to a more accurate representation - the bridge and sickbay module on the top saucer, in particular. 

With all of the accurate documentation that is available now, it wouldn't surprise me if the Revell kit was even more accurate than the Playmates ship, or even approach the accuracy of the little PL one.


----------



## LGFugate

I wonder who's making the master for them - Marco, would you be able to find out?

Larry


----------



## KUROK

22" cut away kit is 1/500 so this version would just be bit smaller.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

LGFugate said:


> I wonder who's making the master for them - Marco, would you be able to find out?
> 
> Larry


I`ll give it a try. But maybe there is no physical master, just CGI files.


----------



## Wolvster

There would be no _" point "_ to making
a physical pattern. Since all the tooling is
done by computers now from Solid Works or
some such similar software a physical pattern
is not needed...

Only thing I could think they would want one
for is for people to look at...


----------



## OneAM

It occurs to me that they might use the CGI files from the remastered TOS effects.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

OneAM said:


> It occurs to me that they might use the CGI files from the remastered TOS effects.


I still believe we weill just see repops of the old AMT kits.


----------



## John P

ClubTepes said:


> John, thank you for saying 1/635 instead of 1/650.
> :devil:


It was close. I had the 5 typed before I got hold of myself.


----------



## John P

OneAM said:


> It occurs to me that they might use the CGI files from the remastered TOS effects.


In what way is that useful for making a model kit made up of individual parts that need to be engineered from scratch to fit together?


----------



## Seashark

Round 2 used ILM's CG files of the JJprise to create it kit master.


----------



## derric1968

And Moebius used ILM's CG model to master their Iron Man kit. Basically, it allows them to create a more precise master, rather than having a human build/sculpt a master by hand from scratch.


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> In what way is that useful for making a model kit made up of individual parts that need to be engineered from scratch to fit together?


Are you questioning the rational of using the CG files when other research from the likes of Gary Kerr out there? or are you questioning simply the process of using a cg file as the starting point of the engineering process?

I can see it, if its the first option I suggested. Even though it is said the CG file was created using 'very accurate measurements from the 11 footer'. Who knows if there is indeed inaccuracies in there somewhere.

However if your simply questioning the concept of using the CG file in the creation of the kit, then I'd have to say that IMHO, thats probably the best way to start. 

If I'm wrong on the intent of your question, I apologize. And since I know your in the illustration field, I'm sure you use the various illustration programs and are familiar with all the different formats. So I guess this explanation is for those not familiar.

Sure a CG model used in something like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica or any other contempory sci-fi show or movie, is not broken down into parts. But ALL the detail and proportions are in that CG model. Because after all, thats what your looking at on screen. CG files are in various formats used by the CG programs like Maya, Lightwave or any of the other popular programs. However, most programs can export a version of the file (usually .obj) that I think most programs can recognize. While that file in its original form is not suited to create a tool, it can essentially be 'traced' over in the program in whatever way is needed to create the tool.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

I just talked to my contact to Revell, and I stand corrected: Those kits are NOT repops from the old AMT ones, but really complete new toolings, made from new masters (which will be build by a german modeler who`s name is secret for the public, sorry. No, it`s not me!).

I post some news as soon as there is more to tell.


----------



## John P

ClubTepes said:


> Are you questioning the rational of using the CG files when other research from the likes of Gary Kerr out there? or are you questioning simply the process of using a cg file as the starting point of the engineering process?



The latter - I'm just wondering if it creates more work to start out with a unified mesh that's not designed to be broken down, or if it's better to start from scratch. Sorry if it sounded confrontational - didn't mean it that way.


----------



## Seashark

Marco Scheloske said:


> I just talked to my contact to Revell, and I stand corrected: Those kits are NOT repops from the old AMT ones, but really complete new toolings, made from new masters (which will be build by a german modeler who`s name is secret for the public, sorry. No, it`s not me!).
> 
> I post some news as soon as there is more to tell.


Awesome, thanks for the update. I was hoping these would be new sculpts, hopefully their guy is invested in accuracy. (License depending, of course )


----------



## derric1968

John P said:


> The latter - I'm just wondering if it creates more work to start out with a unified mesh that's not designed to be broken down, or if it's better to start from scratch.


Frank from Moebius actually commented about this recently. It was a discussion regarding the BSG kits, I think. Anyway, Frank said the tooling software takes the CG model and calculates the parts breakdown, based on the most efficient method. I would imagine that a human operator could make adjustments, but it sounds to me like this part of the process is mostly automated.


----------



## ClubTepes

derric1968 said:


> Frank from Moebius actually commented about this recently. It was a discussion regarding the BSG kits, I think. Anyway, Frank said the tooling software takes the CG model and calculates the parts breakdown, based on the most efficient method. I would imagine that a human operator could make adjustments, but it sounds to me like this part of the process is mostly automated.


There's actually a little more (I'm sure more than I know). For example, the BSG CG models were created in Lightwave which uses a polygonal format. That is to say that every shape, curve, ball, etc, is made up of a bunch of 'flat' polygons. If a model were grown from that raw file, one might see the faceting of the polygons in those curves. A ball with not enough polygons would look more like a sensor dome from a star destroyer, made up with a bunch of triangles.

The tooling programs use something else (not sure if its a 'nurb' or not). So a curve is made up of more of a mathematical 'flow' for lack of a better way to explain it. This gives you the truer shape. 

What I really don't know is if one of these tooling programs can automatically convert the polygons to the other format. Or as I said, does the operator use the LW version as simply a guide.


----------



## Paulbo

And it gets worse - a lot of times an FX CG file is a surface file, not a solid model. From what I understand, it's amazingly difficult to take a surface only model and convert it to the solid model necessary to build a model kit from.


----------



## derric1968

And it gets even worse than that! As Jaime's deleted nuEnterprise blog entry said, file format is also an issue. It seems the formats most commonly used in VFX are different from those used by the software the tooling people use. So, some file format conversion(s) may be necessary.

It sounds complicated, but I'll wager that when it comes to producing a model kit based on something for which no physical model exists, it's still the better route to take in the long run. Going from CG model to finished tools ought to result in a more accurate model kit than going from human sculpted/built master to finished tools. Well, I don't know, but it sure seems like that would be the case.


----------



## Moebius

It's a lot more complicated than we get the files from the studio and we tool from that. Every studio has provided us with a different file type, and we have work to do from there. Definitely can't tool from what we're provided. A few steps in between, and there is conversion. Some of it is simple, and some of it is no where close to simple!


----------



## Paulbo

One other thing to keep in mind with on-screen CG models is that a lot of the detail isn't in the "shape" model, but in texture maps that are wallpapered on. Yes, you can get the overall physical shape of the item, but the subtleties are not there.


----------



## Lee Staton

Also, the model has to be broken into parts and those must have the insides and locator pins created. I learned this when I visited a shop in Silcon Valley back in the mid 90's that was making prototypes for Mac computers. The plastic shell would be created in a 3D computer program, then a blank of ABS plastic would be placed in a computer-driven cutter (called a 5 axis CNC router). They'd go home for the night while the machine carved away, and in the morning the front half of a monitor shell would be waiting for them. The prototype "guts" of the machine would be placed inside finished and painted one-off shells for focus groups to test.

Going from computer files to a plastic kit you can build isn't simple. There's a LOT to creating model kit tooling no matter which way you go. I admire the skill it takes to figure it all out!

Lee


----------



## chiangkaishecky

bump for R-G website update
http://www.revell.de/index.php?id=210&KGKANR=0&KGKOGP=10&KGSCHL=83&L=0


----------



## John P

Just shy of 19" long!
Fingers crossed for a nice accurate kit.


----------



## RSN

As I posted on another tread; 
Cool, just in time for the 45th anniversary of the show in September! Great planning on Revell's part!! This will be much easier to find shelf space for. That is one of the main reasons I have not begun my refit....where to put it?! At least with the 1/128 Seaview, from Moebius, it is long but narrow. That darn primary hull pushes the base over the edge of most standard shelves!


----------



## charonjr

I'm not sure where I'm going to put a 481m long model....


----------



## RSN

charonjr said:


> I'm not sure where I'm going to put a 481m long model....


Ha ha! 481m is 481 milimeters witch converts to 18.9370 inches. To me a great size!


----------



## charonjr

Just to be a pill, but if they're saying 481m (1578ft) were true, it'd be a 30" model. Once can only wish....


----------



## charonjr

But they don't say 481mm, they use one "m" which always signifies "meter".... 

Still, you're right...19" inches is nice.


----------



## RSN

charonjr said:


> But they don't say 481mm, they use one "m" which always signifies "meter"....
> 
> Still, you're right...19" inches is nice.


I knew you were kidding, but for those who might want to know, I put inches in. It is strange that it was not mm, but hey at least they announced it, typo or not! Let's just hope it is accurate!


----------



## Captain_April

I would love to see the prototypes for these kits.


----------



## James Tiberius

i'm sure we'll see them at a Euro convention, or maybe better yet, Wonderfest lol.

Then the R2 guys can see a new TOS kit everyone is excited about and see what they might be missing out on. Or we'll see a 1/600 and 1/350 on display from 2 companies, that would be fine with me.


----------



## Paulbo

Has Revel ever shown at WF? It would be great if they did come over for the show.

OTOH, if their license is just for Europe, I doubt they come.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

They haven't made an appearance yet. So far Round2 / Polar Lights has been the biggest of the mass-market styrene kit producers to show up in the last 11 years I've been there. I don't recall ERTL making an appearance.

It would be great if they decided to drop in.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Captain_April said:


> I would love to see the prototypes for these kits.


I saw it, and it is really good looking. No info about the parts breakdown yet, as the prototype was "grown" and is made from only 4 large pieces.

It is on exhibition on the "Nürnberg toy fair" which started yesterday, so pictures should be online soon.

Regarding the size of the model: Just do the math: Enterprise is 286 meters long, divided by 600 = 0,476 meters = 47,6 cm = 18,74 inches.


----------



## Helldogg

squeeel details? smooth saucer or grids? proper bridge dome...... can't wait to see it!


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Helldogg said:


> squeeel details?


Too early to speak about details, as this is the VERY first prototype. Many things may change until it reaches the production stadium.


----------



## SUNGOD

I hope the windows are separate clear pieces so it can be lit.


----------



## RSN

SUNGOD said:


> I hope the windows are separate clear pieces so it can be lit.


I just hope it get released!!


----------



## SUNGOD

RSN said:


> I just hope it get released!!



True, but it won't be much good if the detail isn't up to scratch. For instance if the windows are just decals (like on the smaller PL one) that won't be very good.


----------



## Kit

Plenty of gorgeous buildups of the 18-incher floating around. It's about the same size, and the windows on that one are decals.


----------



## RSN

SUNGOD said:


> True, but it won't be much good if the detail isn't up to scratch. For instance if the windows are just decals (like on the smaller PL one) that won't be very good.


It will depend on the scale and how far apart the windows are from each other. I was disappointed with the 1/350 arboretum windows. Even at that scale, the hull pieces between the windows was too thin to be molded with the hull, so they had to be on the clear insert. I wouldn't want them getting the windows wrong, just too accommodated clear inserts. They make drills, I can make my own! Let’s not go down the same path with this as we all did with the Round 2 boondoggle!


----------



## SUNGOD

Kit said:


> Plenty of gorgeous buildups of the 18-incher floating around. It's about the same size, and the windows on that one are decals.




Would you really prefer just decals instead of proper windows in clear plastic?


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Kit said:


> Plenty of gorgeous buildups of the 18-incher floating around. It's about the same size, and the windows on that one are decals.


On the prototype (and the one of the D7) the windows are completely open, so I guess there will be clear inserts for them (what would also explain the parts count Revell is giving on their website).


----------



## Kit

SUNGOD said:


> Would you really prefer just decals instead of proper windows in clear plastic?


Not the point. I'd like working warp engines, too, but that might be unrealistic. All I was saying was decals are workable in that scale. I've lit an 18-incher, and opening the windows was not much trouble.

It doesn't matter, anyway; Marco says the windows are open. 

And my larger point is, I can sit around and talk about what I would want or what I demand or what percentage of ochre has to be added to Tamiya Gull Grey to replicate the shade they used in the first three episodes of Season Two, but if I can't agree with the hyper-board-friendly Round 2 what "soon" means when it comes to their promised announcements, I doubt my insistence on what's acceptable will affect the ultra-secretive Revell on a product that's well along the production process.


----------



## SUNGOD

Marco Scheloske said:


> On the prototype (and the one of the D7) the windows are completely open, so I guess there will be clear inserts for them (what would also explain the parts count Revell is giving on their website).




It sounds as if they're doing the windows on clear plastic strips then, which is good. Great to see that on the D7 too.


----------



## SUNGOD

The older AMT Cut-Away Enterprise is 1/650th so I'd be surprised if PL do it in 1/350 now, as this new Revell one will be a fair size too.


----------



## USS Atlantis

No, the old AMT/Ertl cut-away is 1/500 - the AMT 18" (re-released by Round 2) is the 1/650 model


----------



## Kit

SUNGOD said:


> The older AMT Cut-Away Enterprise is 1/650th so I'd be surprised if PL do it in 1/350 now, as this new Revell one will be a fair size too.


That makes sense.


----------



## James Tiberius

Yeah, with the announcement of Revell making a nicely scaled enterprise that is "supposedly" more accurate and has more parts(does not necissarilly mean accurate) I can see them having doubts about making one, I'm sure they will have called it quits on a big one.


----------



## John P

USS Atlantis said:


> No, the old AMT/Ertl cut-away is 1/500 - the AMT 18" (re-released by Round 2) is the 1/650 model


Actually it's around 1/635.


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> Actually it's around 1/635.


The funny thing about these people who call the 18 incher 1/650 even when they acknowledge that they know that it is 1/635 and claim the 'rounding up' story (like a '2X4' piece of lumber isn't really 2" x 4") don't round up the 1/537 refit to 1/550.

I mean, come on, '37' obviously is closer to '50' than '35'.

Based on that logic, people should round up the scale of the refit.

No plastic Star Trek kit is 1/650.

I think I'm still going to call the 18 incher 1/635 like it is, and start calling the refit 1/550.


----------



## James Tiberius

I thought the 18" incher was 1/650

then I remembered that it was a fictional ship and that scale was all relative.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

It's true scale is "it'll look freakin' great on my shelf"


----------



## SUNGOD

USS Atlantis said:


> No, the old AMT/Ertl cut-away is 1/500 - the AMT 18" (re-released by Round 2) is the 1/650 model




It says 1/650 on the box??????


----------



## Trek Ace

That doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## SUNGOD

Trek Ace said:


> That doesn't mean it's right.




Maybe not but how do you measure the scale on an Enterprise model?


----------



## John P

James Tiberius said:


> I thought the 18" incher was 1/650
> 
> then I remembered that it was a fictional ship and that scale was all relative.


Not when a definitive size figure has been put forward for the fictional ship.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Wait a minute ... is Dragon gettin' in on the action with a probably not so accurate cutaway?
http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2011/Arndt/slides/Nuernberg2011_AT_46.html
"Project Cutaway:Marvels of Mankind" is apparently an exclusively Dragon imprint 
http://www.dragon-models.com/2011HKToyFair/Project_Cutaway/cutaway.htm


----------



## James Tiberius

Frak this is AWESOME! I love that R2 thought that a TOS Enterprise was a gamble and now that they waited 2 other companies are cashing in on collector wants.


----------



## RSN

James Tiberius said:


> Frak this is AWESOME! I love that R2 thought that a TOS Enterprise was a gamble and now that they waited 2 other companies are cashing in on collector wants.


"You snooze, you lose!"


----------



## Trekkriffic

Marco S. posted this pic of the protypes over on SSM for those interested: 









Based on these pics, it appears the Enterprise is indeed being popped from new molds. The curvature of the brdge and B-C decks does it for me. There is also a visible taper to the nacelles.


----------



## Paulbo

It also looks like they've got the "grooves" in the side of the secondary hull. I hope that the grills on the upper surface of the Kingon's secondary hull are separate parts so that they can be left off if one wants to do the on-screen model rather than the "Roddenberry" display piece.


----------



## spindrift

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These are going to great- worth waiting for!
HELLO R2...you seeing this?


----------



## Warped9

If Revell Germany are doing these then just maybe they could spring for a nice TOS Romulan BoP as well as FINALLY a nice _Galileo_ shuttlecraft. Hell I'll give them my drawings if they want 'em.


----------



## jheilman

I know these are only the prototypes, but I'd love to see some close-ups. Looks very promising so far.


----------



## jheilman

I noticed that they are also displaying a TOS phaser and communicator. Not sure if these are future kits or simply items to flesh out the display. Also saw a Star Wars landspeeder. Cool.

More pics!


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Trekkriffic said:


> Marco S. posted this pic of the protypes over on SSM


Not only at SSM, I didn`t forget my fellows on this board here... I started a complete new thread with this picture here http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=318414 ... :wave:


----------



## Marco Scheloske

jheilman said:


> I noticed that they are also displaying a TOS phaser and communicator.


Hm? Where did you see those???


----------



## Shaw

Marco Scheloske said:


> Hm? Where did you see those???


They were in photos of another Trek display (of collectibles, including what looks like a MR Enterprise) separate from the Revell offerings.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Shaw said:


> They were in photos of another Trek display (of collectibles, including what looks like a MR Enterprise) separate from the Revell offerings.


 Might Revell be doing an Enterprise A I hope?. Its pictured on their Catalog Cover.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Shaw said:


> They were in photos of another Trek display (of collectibles, including what looks like a MR Enterprise) separate from the Revell offerings.


Those are only "eyecatchers", several Trek merchandise items to make the visitors stop to look. This has nothing to do with their new Trek line of kits.


----------



## Maritain

Wow there’s some very impressive kits there, the Black Pearl is fantastic! The new TOS Ent kit looks great too.


----------



## Solium

Is that C3PO piloting the landspeeder? Guess they couldn't afford Mark Hamill's face. :tongue: All the same the landspeeder is long over due. :thumbsup:


----------



## moonbus01

I wonder how much they plan on selling the Black Pearl for? I imagine $$$$.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Marco Scheloske said:


> Not only at SSM, I didn`t forget my fellows on this board here... I started a complete new thread with this picture here http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=318414 ... :wave:


Woops! Sorry Marco. Didn't mean to steal your thunder.


----------



## maucutt

*That's not the only Enterprise suprise in the works!*

This is from the Nuernberg toy hobby fair expo. No information other than it will be part of a "highly detailed kit with a partial interior" WOW. Two aircraft examples are shown. http://www.euromodelnews.net/


Mike
www.mikesmodels.mysite.com


----------



## SUNGOD

What's with the Enterprise A on the Revell stand I wonder? 

The cutaway model could be from Aoshima as they do those cutaway models (I think anyway).


----------



## chiangkaishecky

SUNGOD said:


> The cutaway model could be from Aoshima as they do those cutaway models (I think anyway).


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3667749&postcount=115


----------



## Paulbo

Marco Scheloske said:


> Those are only "eyecatchers", several Trek merchandise items to make the visitors stop to look. This has nothing to do with their new Trek line of kits.


Well, drat!


----------



## jheilman

Marco Scheloske said:


> Those are only "eyecatchers", several Trek merchandise items to make the visitors stop to look. This has nothing to do with their new Trek line of kits.


Couldn't tell from the pics if it was part of the Revell offering or not. I'm happy to get an accurate TOS E. But I think it's too early to discuss the accuracy. Need better pix.


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> If Revell Germany are doing these then just maybe they could spring for a nice TOS Romulan BoP as well as FINALLY a nice _Galileo_ shuttlecraft. Hell I'll give them my drawings if they want 'em.


I pray that the "powers that be" will listen to you.:thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61

Solium said:


> Is that C3PO piloting the landspeeder?


No, young Padawan, the X-34 Landspeeder is a right-hand drive vehicle. :dude:


----------



## James Tiberius

Sometimes when I watched ANH it actually looked as if 3P0 was driving the thing.

I do hope we get further Trek models from Revell, competition is nice for companies.


----------



## Trek Ace

James Tiberius said:


> I do hope we get further Trek models from Revell, competition is nice for companies.


It's even better for customers!


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Found by talon at SSM


----------



## RSN

The Enterprise seems to have a few hits and a few misses for me. Overall, I am looking forward to it!


----------



## Vindi

James Tiberius said:


> Sometimes when I watched ANH it actually looked as if 3P0 was driving the thing.
> 
> I do hope we get further Trek models from Revell, competition is nice for companies.


In the book it was C3PO piloting the landspeeder when they went searching for R2D2.


----------



## Vindi

Zombie_61 said:


> No, young Padawan, the X-34 Landspeeder is a right-hand drive vehicle. :dude:


Ah...no it wasn't a right hand drive vehicle. When Luke, Obi Wan and the droids enter Mos Esley, Obi Wan is in the right hand seat while Luke was driving it from the left seat.

So yes, in the scene that is shown, C3PO IS driving the 'speeder


----------



## Opus Penguin

jheilman said:


> I noticed that they are also displaying a TOS phaser and communicator. Not sure if these are future kits or simply items to flesh out the display. Also saw a Star Wars landspeeder. Cool.
> 
> More pics!


Yeah and they displayed the communicator upside down :tongue:

Are these model kits? If so are they doing a Exploration Set from Star Trek? I would be interested in a more accurate kit of these.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Opus Penguin said:


> Are these model kits? If so are they doing a Exploration Set from Star Trek? I would be interested in a more accurate kit of these.


You really should read ALL the posts, would help to avoid the need of double ones. I quote myself now, posted above: 

_Those are only "eyecatchers", several Trek merchandise items to make the visitors stop to look. This has nothing to do with their new Trek line of kits._

_:wave:_


----------



## Solium

Vindi said:


> Ah...no it wasn't a right hand drive vehicle. When Luke, Obi Wan and the droids enter Mos Esley, Obi Wan is in the right hand seat while Luke was driving it from the left seat.
> 
> So yes, in the scene that is shown, C3PO IS driving the 'speeder


Well now I am totally confused. I thought C3PO was always the passenger and Luke always drove.....


----------



## jbond

The phaser and communicator are Master Replicas versions. There's also a little Kirk and Spock (or McCoy?)--figure kits? 

The Enterprise and D7 look good--a hint of "droop" on both but otherwise they seem to have captured the proportions and details. Remember the RG Star Wars kits haven't all been extraordinarily authentic so I'm actually surprised that these seem pretty close. I wonder if they will be prepainted and marked too.


----------



## robtrek

Thanks for the closer pics. The Enterprise seems to have more pluses than minuses. You can see the taper of the naclles now. Much clearer. Overall, I look forward to getting one!!

I do hope they fix the exagerate droop for the Klingon "neck". In the pic, the D-7 main hull is basically level and the neck sroop is substantial. I hope this is corrected or I'm sticking to the AMT kit, especially considering she is quite dead on and any issues are easily corrected(if you even care).


----------



## Zombie_61

Vindi said:


> Ah...no it wasn't a right hand drive vehicle. When Luke, Obi Wan and the droids enter Mos Esley, Obi Wan is in the right hand seat while Luke was driving it from the left seat.
> 
> So yes, in the scene that is shown, C3PO IS driving the 'speeder


At the risk of derailing this thread further...









Publicity photo of Mark Hamill in the Landspeeder









The caption says it all. Note the steering wheel on the right.









Luke, Obi-Wan, and the droids entering Mos Eisley. Obi-Wan in the left seat, Luke in the right holding the steering wheel.

My apologies to Spindrift for this sidebar in his thread.

Back to the topic, in the photo posted above by Chiangkaishecky the Enterprise looks great IMO. It may or may not be 100% accurate, but it's good enough for me. The boom/neck on the D7 seems to be drooping though; hopefully they'll correct this on the production kits.


----------



## razorwyre1

am i seeing etched panel lines on the secondary hull of the enterprise?

and time for everybody to start chanting the mantra "clear parts, clear parts, clear parts" (well i can hope, cant i?)


----------



## Trek Ace

With the stated parts count, I would imagine that there will be a good number of clear parts included in the kit. My anticipation for this kit is only superseded by the pending release of the PL 1/350 version. These, along with yet another Klingon D7 offering makes this a landmark year for _Star Trek_ models. I will be getting a good number of each.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Trek Ace said:


> With the stated parts count, I would imagine that there will be a good number of clear parts included in the kit. My anticipation for this kit is only superseded by the pending release of the PL 1/350 version. These, along with yet another Klingon D7 offering makes this a landmark year for _Star Trek_ models. I will be getting a good number of each.


same here. Revell is a fine company and produces some of the best kits on the market.


----------



## mach7

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Revell's kit helping the PL Enterprise's chances.

I think we should be prepared for "due to the economy and market saturation, we will not be producing any new TOS kits. Enjoy the re-pops!"

R2 has to realize that these kits will make it into the US and dilute the sales of a bigger, more expensive kit.


----------



## RSN

This ought to make things interesting. 3P0 driving the speeder!


----------



## Dave P

Just to stray a little further off topic, the Empire of Dreams documentary has a scene showing a closeup of the speeder with 3PO driving. It was cut because the rear projection was so lousy, but the effects footage was left in. It's been a while since I watched it, but this must be from when they were looking for R2.


----------



## falcondesigns

mach7 said:


> Hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Revell's kit helping the PL Enterprise's chances.
> 
> I think we should be prepared for "due to the economy and market saturation, we will not be producing any new TOS kits. Enjoy the re-pops!"
> 
> R2 has to realize that these kits will make it into the US and dilute the sales of a bigger, more expensive kit.


One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## Solium

RSN said:


> This ought to make things interesting. 3P0 driving the speeder!


I'm thinking some landspeeder footage was "flopped".


----------



## Kit

falcondesigns said:


> One has nothing to do with the other.


I completely disagree. I think it's likely we'll see a statement like that. 

At the most, the Revell release is market saturation that could hurt sales not only of a future 1/350 release, but the 18-incher as well, even though it will be available only online in the US. At the least, it provides an excuse for the company to say why it's not producing the kit, so they doesn't have to reveal that were not willing to make that investment.


----------



## RSN

Solium said:


> I'm thinking some landspeeder footage was "flopped".


Nope! as has ben addressed, deleted footage, due to poor rear screen, shows 3P0 was driving when they went to look for R2.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4x057_r2-search-star-wars-deleted-scenes_shortfilms


----------



## RSN

falcondesigns said:


> One has nothing to do with the other.


If they were dragging their feet over pulling the trigger on a 1/350th kit, due to the economy or whatever, how will the the availability of the same product, all be it smaller, in ANY way make them say "Now is the time to take the finacial risk!"? I am looking forward to a new Enterprise kit, and my money will go to whoever actually puts one out!


----------



## James Tiberius

It will show that customers are willing to spend money on decent models other than Round 2, and if that R2 wants to continue to make money in the US they need to be competitive and make an even better product.

I have been vocal in the past about my feelings towards R2. I can see it two ways: they try like mad to make quality products to retain the trek license and retain customers, or they take the easy way out and only do re-pops with slight mods, which by the way they are running out of repop's available. They are going to have to make some new prodcut and if they charge $140 for a 1/350 Enterprise then I'll buy it in addition to the Revell offerings.

Hell if I were round 2 I would do the 1/350, end all of the commotion once and for all, then make lots of different trek models, none of which have to be the enterprise anymore. You could have all sorts of Fed, Romulan, Klingon etc. models. and they don't have to be large scale anymore.

I garuntee that there wouldn't be near as much clamoring for a 1/350 Reliant. Some, sure but not the outcry that there has been for a TOS one. They are walking a tight rope right now and there immediate decisions will make them sink or swim. I think that is why they have been so quiet lately.


----------



## Solium

RSN said:


> Nope! as has ben addressed, deleted footage, due to poor rear screen, shows 3P0 was driving when they went to look for R2.
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4x057_r2-search-star-wars-deleted-scenes_shortfilms


Thats really cool. Never seen footage like that before. Guess I had it wrong for 35 years. :freak:


----------



## RSN

Solium said:


> Thats really cool. Never seen footage like that before. Guess I had it wrong for 35 years. :freak:


That is the great thing about these forums, learning from each other! I have heard there will be a lot of deleted scenes in the Bluray release later this year, this may be in it. They need to put someting in there if they want me to buy yet another set of the movies!


----------



## Kit

On the question of new product from Round 2, how long has it been a company? Coupla years? And how many new-tool science fiction kits released? One? Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their willingness to roar forward in bold new directions.


----------



## Solium

RSN said:


> That is the great thing about these forums, learning from each other!


I totally agree. The wealth of knowledge spread about is amazing.


----------



## Zombie_61

Dave P said:


> It's been a while since I watched it, but this must be from when they were looking for R2.


Yes, it is. Further evidence that C-3PO was driving is part of Luke's dialogue while they're searching for R2: "Lookit, there's a droid on the scanner. Dead ahead. Might be our little R2 unit, hit the accelerator."


----------



## ClubTepes

chiangkaishecky said:


> Wait a minute ... is Dragon gettin' in on the action with a probably not so accurate cutaway?
> http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2011/Arndt/slides/Nuernberg2011_AT_46.html
> "Project Cutaway:Marvels of Mankind" is apparently an exclusively Dragon imprint
> http://www.dragon-models.com/2011HKToyFair/Project_Cutaway/cutaway.htm


Man, I LOVE that 1/350 Roman Colosseum.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

ClubTepes said:


> Man, I LOVE that 1/350 Roman Colosseum.


Yes, I too! If this is a hint about the quality the TOS Enterprise from that series will be than I better start to safe some money...


----------



## Vindi

Zombie_61 said:


> At the risk of derailing this thread further...


:freak: DOH!!!! You right!!! As many times as I have seen ANH you would think I would remember it :freak:


----------



## Tiberious

I WANT that Colosseum SO bad, anyone we know going to carry it?

Tib


----------



## Zombie_61

Vindi said:


> :freak: DOH!!!! You right!!! As many times as I have seen ANH you would think I would remember it :freak:


No big deal, happens to me all the time. I could have seen a movie ten times, then see something on the eleventh viewing that I hadn't noticed before. But I've seen _Star Wars_ more than any other movie (with the possible exception of _Jaws_)--_well_ over 100 times. I wouldn't say I know everything about the film, but I know what I know.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

nother Klingon pic


----------



## chiangkaishecky

and Prise


----------



## Landru

Yeah, won't be buying these kits...inaccurate as hell..


----------



## James Tiberius

what are you talking about? Its more accurate than the 1/350 one that doesnt exist.


----------



## USS Atlantis

I think he's just being Anti

It also looks a lot more accurate than the AMT-650

I may just have to get a couple of these


----------



## Warped9

chiangkaishecky said:


> Found by talon at SSM


A couple of things strike me about these. First the _Enterprise's_ colour looks off to me as if it's too light. Of course, that may be due in part to the lighting it's under. On that note the Klingon ship was painted differently onscreen wasn't it? It wasn't medium to dark grey.

The underside of the saucer looks off to me, but maybe it's how we're seeing it. And having all the windows blacked out makes it look more like a toy, but that hasn't anything to do with accuracy of detail. Same with painting the nacelle intercoolers, reactors, aft flux chillers and end caps in silver grey as opposed to being the same colour as the rest of the hull.

I'm really intrigued by these as this is the scale I would have liked PL to have done rather than 1/1000.


----------



## Capt. Krik

Also, as Marco noted in post #93, these are the first prototypes for their respective kits. There will no doubt be changes in the final model that will be used to produce the molds. Having said all that, these first prototypes look very nice. My only complaint about the Enterprise mock up is the bridge doesn't quite look the correct shape. A minor bug at best and one I presume will be corrected in the final model.


----------



## Warped9

Capt. Krik said:


> Also, as Marco noted in post #93, these are the first prototypes for their respective kits. There will no doubt be changes in the final model that will be used to produce the molds. Having said all that, these first prototypes look very nice. My only complaint about the Enterprise mock up is the bridge doesn't quite look the correct shape. A minor bug at best and one I presume will be corrected in the final model.


You're right. And I'm sure that for whatever inaccuracies make it through production someone out there will begin crafting aftermarket accurate parts.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Warped9 said:


> And having all the windows blacked out


The windwos aren't painted black, they are holes in the hull. The prototypes are not lit, so the windows (which have no clear inserts in the prototype) simply look black.


----------



## Kit

Oh, I think these kits each have one unforgiveable error -- a total inaccuracy. As far as I know, neither ship ever appeared in the original series with those huge structures underneath, the ones that reach from the bottom of the ships to the shelf. What could Revell be thinking? 

Other than that, they look great.


----------



## JeffG

Kit said:


> Oh, I think these kits each have one unforgiveable error -- a total inaccuracy. As far as I know, neither ship ever appeared in the original series with those huge structures underneath, the ones that reach from the bottom of the ships to the shelf. What could Revell be thinking?
> 
> Other than that, they look great.


They just forgot to paint them bluescreen blue!


----------



## Warped9

Marco Scheloske said:


> The windwos aren't painted black, they are holes in the hull. The prototypes are not lit, so the windows (which have no clear inserts in the prototype) simply look black.


Oops! My bad.


----------



## Shaw

Warped9 said:


> A couple of things strike me about these. First the _Enterprise's_ colour looks off to me as if it's too light. Of course, that may be due in part to the lighting it's under. On that note the Klingon ship was painted differently onscreen wasn't it? It wasn't medium to dark grey.


Wait... isn't this a model kit?

The person who assembled and painted the prototypes might not really have much experience with how the TOS miniatures looked. So as long as we aren't having to fork out three times the cost of the kit for accurate parts and spending a ton of time deconstructing the kit parts before building the model, I'd think most of us could get things like the color to our own liking.

But as far as these images... even the stands are warped, so I'm not expecting perfection from them (though the lower saucer on the Enterprise is a little troubling).


----------



## Trek Ace

The shapes may not be perfect (yet), but the potential looks very promising. 

I'm not concerned at all about the paint color. I also noticed that the top saucer name and registry number were too far forward - the number actually laying on the flat area of the saucer instead of the slope. But, again, since this is a model kit, we can put the decals on with the correct placement.

As for the photos, I was really hoping that somebody would get in there and shoot some angles of the models that were more than just profiles. A set of low-angle and high-angle shots of the Enterprise would be nice. Higher-resolution pics would be even better to pick out the details.


----------



## Landru

USS Atlantis said:


> I think he's just being Anti
> 
> It also looks a lot more accurate than the AMT-650
> 
> I may just have to get a couple of these



I'm not being anti, I'm just saying that they're very inaccurate. With all the plans available these days, they should not be so wrong. The D7 just looks terrible, the Enterprise kit looks far better, but still wrong. With some decent AM parts it could be a nice model.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Landru said:


> The D7 just looks terrible, the Enterprise kit looks far better, but still wrong. With some decent AM parts it could be a nice model.


You DID read that those are very, veeeeery first prototypes?


----------



## Landru

Marco Scheloske said:


> You DID read that those are very, veeeeery first prototypes?


Yes. But we don't know what will or will not be changed just yet. 

It would be great if they did make all the necessary changes, because I'd love to have a Enterprise kit in that scale. But for right NOW, they both look awful.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Landru said:


> But for right NOW, they both look awful.


I agree regarding the D7, but not the Enterprise, which looks really good to me even now in this early stage.


----------



## Shaw

I don't know... I think there is something to be said for models that are _in the ballpark_ rather than spot on accurate.

I, personally, have a hard time getting excited about a thread or gallery of someone's build of the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise, but when I see someone is attempting either the 18" or 22" models, I really look forward to seeing what it was that they considered important in building their models.

Making inaccurate models more accurate is an art form... and I love seeing talented artist at work.

So yeah... I sort of hope that these models aren't boringly perfect.


----------



## razorwyre1

hows about we actually let these things get into production and released before we start nagging on the accuracy. 
as to the thing about the windows actually being holes in the hull, hurray! (especially if clear inserts are included..)


----------



## robtrek

razorwyre1 said:


> hows about we actually let these things get into production and released before we start nagging on the accuracy.
> as to the thing about the windows actually being holes in the hull, hurray! (especially if clear inserts are included..)


Here, here! I look forward to the release. (Also, never thrilled with the 1/1000 kits.)


----------



## StarshipClass

razorwyre1 said:


> hows about we actually let these things get into production and released before we start nagging on the accuracy.
> as to the thing about the windows actually being holes in the hull, hurray! (especially if clear inserts are included..)


Only sounds fair to me as well! :thumbsup:


----------



## Landru

Marco Scheloske said:


> ... but not the Enterprise, which looks really good to me even now in this early stage.


Must..not..look..at..awful.....neck....must...buy.it..and fix...it


----------



## James Tiberius

Every perfect kit has something wrong with it. 

Moebius, Pegasus, R2, AMT, the list goes on and on. Comes with the hobby guys. Want something perfect and still need some mods, go get a Master Replica.

The only accurate one is the one in a little air and space museum


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Landru said:


> Must..not..look..at..awful.....neck....


What's wrong with the neck?


----------



## Zombie_61

razorwyre1 said:


> hows about we actually let these things get into production and released before we start nagging on the accuracy.


But...that's what we _*do*_ here.


----------



## Capt. Krik

Marco Scheloske said:


> What's wrong with the neck?


Oh Heck! I was gonna say that. While the mock ups may not be perfect to the filming miniatures they do look pretty darn close. The final mock up on which the molds will be based will probably be pretty close if not exact to the studio models. I say we wait until September and see what Revell comes up with for the actual kit.


----------



## john_trek

you know what I hate about these things? The paint jobs are not studio accurate! I mean, honestly! How can we have faith in the final versions if every last nuance has not been replicated to the last detail. 

I am a modern modeler. I accept no errors. I demand perfection. No seam lines should be visible after assembly, and I should not need to sand or putty.The plastic on each part should either be molded in the correct color, or pre-painted. A DVD assembly guide should be provided. Detail that cannot be pre-painted should be provided by a 12 sheet set of decals. All different paint jobs from every appearance of the ship... from first pilot up to and including the Smitsonian refurbishment should be available. 

Finally, a company representative should come to my home and put the thing together according to whatevr whim suits me.

Yes. I am a modern modeler. I expect nothing but perfection. Which is why I also buy over three thousand dollars a year of aftermarket add ons, but never buy supplies like putty, sheet plastic, paint or other old fasioned hobby tools. 

I find that I can save a lot of money that way.... because I do not actually build anything... just buy stuff.

:tongue:


----------



## HabuHunter32

john_trek said:


> you know what I hate about these things? The paint jobs are not studio accurate! I mean, honestly! How can we have faith in the final versions if every last nuance has not been replicated to the last detail.
> 
> I am a modern modeler. I accept no errors. I demand perfection. No seam lines should be visible after assembly, and I should not need to sand or putty.The plastic on each part should either be molded in the correct color, or pre-painted. A DVD assembly guide should be provided. Detail that cannot be pre-painted should be provided by a 12 sheet set of decals. All different paint jobs from every appearance of the ship... from first pilot up to and including the Smitsonian refurbishment should be available.
> 
> Finally, a company representative should come to my home and put the thing together according to whatevr whim suits me.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I am a modern modeler. I expect nothing but perfection. Which is why I also buy over three thousand dollars a year of aftermarket add ons, but never buy supplies like putty, sheet plastic, paint or other old fasioned hobby tools.
> 
> I find that I can save a lot of money that way.... because I do not actually build anything... just buy stuff.
> 
> :tongue:


Lol!!!! I'm an old fashioned modeler. Old and slow that is! I think that there is a fairly high percentage of Hobbytalkers who buy much more than they build myself included! I'm not as bad as I used to be though. For the last several years I have a new outlook. If I'm not going to build it within a few weeks time I don't buy it! I sold off about 75% of my stash but that still leaves me with more than 200 kits of all types. 

Iv'e never been a rivit counter though, if it looks like the subject i'm generaly happy. I do insist on filling and sanding and proper paint though.....


----------



## Capt. Krik

john_trek said:


> you know what I hate about these things? The paint jobs are not studio accurate! I mean, honestly! How can we have faith in the final versions if every last nuance has not been replicated to the last detail.
> 
> I am a modern modeler. I accept no errors. I demand perfection. No seam lines should be visible after assembly, and I should not need to sand or putty.The plastic on each part should either be molded in the correct color, or pre-painted. A DVD assembly guide should be provided. Detail that cannot be pre-painted should be provided by a 12 sheet set of decals. All different paint jobs from every appearance of the ship... from first pilot up to and including the Smitsonian refurbishment should be available.
> 
> Finally, a company representative should come to my home and put the thing together according to whatevr whim suits me.
> 
> Yes. I am a modern modeler. I expect nothing but perfection. Which is why I also buy over three thousand dollars a year of aftermarket add ons, but never buy supplies like putty, sheet plastic, paint or other old fasioned hobby tools.
> 
> I find that I can save a lot of money that way.... because I do not actually build anything... just buy stuff.
> 
> :tongue:


OH GAWD! NOW that's humor! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever

john_trek said:


> you know what I hate about these things? The paint jobs are not studio accurate! I mean, honestly! How can we have faith in the final versions if every last nuance has not been replicated to the last detail.
> 
> I am a modern modeler. I accept no errors. I demand perfection. No seam lines should be visible after assembly, and I should not need to sand or putty.The plastic on each part should either be molded in the correct color, or pre-painted. A DVD assembly guide should be provided. Detail that cannot be pre-painted should be provided by a 12 sheet set of decals. All different paint jobs from every appearance of the ship... from first pilot up to and including the Smitsonian refurbishment should be available.
> 
> Finally, a company representative should come to my home and put the thing together according to whatevr whim suits me.
> 
> Yes. I am a modern modeler. I expect nothing but perfection. Which is why I also buy over three thousand dollars a year of aftermarket add ons, but never buy supplies like putty, sheet plastic, paint or other old fasioned hobby tools.
> 
> I find that I can save a lot of money that way.... because I do not actually build anything... just buy stuff.
> 
> :tongue:


Truly funny!
I describe this type of hobbyist as a collector,not a modeler. They have no skill to build for themselves, and tend to bitch the loudest when something doesn't go their way. Truely the lowest form of hobby parasite.


----------



## James Tiberius

It is _truly_ funny. Some of my most enjoyable kits to build have been the cutaway enterprise and the revellogram galactica. So much time and effort goes into them they are truly unique to each builder.


----------



## JGG1701

James Tiberius said:


> It is _truly_ funny. Some of my most enjoyable kits to build have been the cutaway enterprise and the revellogram galactica. So much time and effort goes into them they are truly unique to each builder.


Amen to that!
-Jim


----------



## Trek Ace

I would imagine that the kit will be released as the series version only. Thus, there will no doubt be a number of aftermarket accessories such as decals, resin and vacuform parts to provide options for modeling other ships in the class, as well as the pilot versions, and even conversions for the Franz Joseph and Jackill designs.

I recently printed out some plans at 1/600 scale, and it is impressive to see the size difference between this offering and the AMT kit. You wouldn't think that there would be much of a difference between 1/600 and 1/635, but it is substantial.

I'm not really concerned if the kit is 100% accurate or not, because I know that it really can't be. Just the compromises from injection molding pretty much rules that out. But, it will no doubt be close enough for most modelers to take it through that several percent difference (or not).

I'm really looking forward to the Klingon ship as well. My other favorite design from the original show. It's gratifying to see that after 45 years, that these designs are still seen as prime contenders in the international marketplace. I look forward to these kits nearly as much as I do the 1/350 PL release of the original ship.


----------



## john_trek

Trek Ace said:


> I'm really looking forward to the Klingon ship as well. My other favorite design from the original show. It's gratifying to see that after 45 years, that these designs are still seen as prime contenders in the international marketplace. I look forward to these kits nearly as much as I do the 1/350 PL release of the original ship.


 I agree that it says a lot about the classic nature of these designs that they are still viable products 45 years later, although I think it also says just as much about the age demographic of the scale modeling community. Whenever I am browsing at the LHS the average age of the customers has got to be at least 50.


----------



## spock62

john_trek said:


> I agree that it says a lot about the classic nature of these designs that they are still viable products 45 years later, although I think it also says just as much about the age demographic of the scale modeling community. Whenever I am browsing at the LHS the average age of the customers has got to be at least 50.


Same here, average age seems to be mid/late 40's and over. Plus a lot of them say the same thing, "I can't believe how much these kits cost now!".


----------



## Trek Ace

john_trek said:


> Whenever I am browsing at the LHS the average age of the customers has got to be at least 50.


I see a lot of youngsters around that age at the LHS, too.


----------



## PixelMagic

I'm in my mid-20s.  Working on my first TOS Enterprise model not even though I wasn't born when the original show was on the air.


----------



## Trek Ace

That's great. I like to see new generations of modelers embracing the classics.

I hope that there will be more detailed photos of the kits in the near future. It will be interesting to see if they leave the grid lines on the engineering hull of the _Enterprise_ or not. I didn't notice any lines on the saucer or the engine pods.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

RG website updated
http://www.revell.de/index.php?id=210&KGKANR=0&KGKOGP=10&KGSCHL=83&L=0
*edit*


----------



## CLBrown

chiangkaishecky said:


> RG website updated
> http://www.revell.de/index.php?id=210&KGKANR=0&KGKOGP=10&KGSCHL=83&L=0


Interesting...

Maybe it's just the angle, but some of the shapes there look slightly "off" to me... hard to pin it down, but it didn't look right. Hopefully, it's just bad lighting.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Looks perfectly fine to me.


----------



## CLBrown

Okay, on further reflection, I see a clear "shadow line" on the top of the primary hull... meaning that there's a distinct transition between the flat surface around the outer top hull and the "bumped up" region incorporating decks 4 & 5. Yes, there's a fillet radius there, but there should be no evident transition at all.

Also, it seems that the aft end of the "B/C deck superstructure" teardrop is a bit more rounded than it ought to be... the real model comes to a point, albeit a "rounded off point."

And it seems that the bridge is slightly large in comparison to the B/C deck "teardrop," and evidently to the primary hull as a whole.

Now, this is all derived from a cursory visual inspection of a low-res, blurry image... so I can't say that any of what I've just said is really how the kit will look. But, these are my impressions from that one image.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

CLBrown said:


> so I can't say that any of what I've just said is really how the kit will look. But, these are my impressions from that one image.


The image is still showing the 3D printed prototype. NOT the actual kit.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Revell has again changed the illustrations (pix?) on their site
check out the grid


----------



## Prologic9

Well... don't have to worry about picking that up anymore. 

There's also some paneling on the Battlecruiser, I wonder if that's paint/decals/molded?


----------



## Warped9

chiangkaishecky said:


> Revell has again changed the illustrations (pix?) on their site
> check out the grid


The gridlines on that scale of model are *WAY* too evident, assuming the illustration is meant to represent the final kit. I'm sure R2 can and likely will do much better. If those images do represent the actual kits then I certainly won't be interested.


----------



## Edge

I could say something but due to the moratorium, it would probably get me banned.


----------



## Solium

I am speechless. I am without speech. 
Ok, seriously, lets hope that's some kinda Photoshop trickery going on there.


----------



## Captain April

Looks like putty sales will be picking up...


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Oh my!

Well... I think it will take seeing the actual model kit before I will make any sort of judgement. If the illustration does show engraving, those lines are way out of scale. Is that art or a picture?


----------



## Tiberious

The Enterprise looks to me like art.....the art of someone who spent too much time studying the Smithsonian paint job.....
The Klingon ship appears to be the kit.....probably, in my opinion.

It is....unfortunate.

Tib


----------



## Trekkriffic

Grdilines don't bother me much. I can just fill them in. What matters most to me is the dimensions being accurate to the studio model.


----------



## Ductapeforever

So much for Revell DE being the Sainted Trek Manufacturer !


----------



## iriseye

> I could say something but due to the moratorium, it would probably get me banned.


Ditto.


----------



## ccbor

Tiberious said:


> The Enterprise looks to me like art.....the art of someone who spent too much time studying the Smithsonian paint job.....
> The Klingon ship appears to be the kit.....probably, in my opinion.
> 
> It is....unfortunate.
> 
> Tib



My thoughts exactly. I don't like the Smithsonian and from what I see here it is a scaled down replica of it. 

Bor


----------



## starlord

Wel I see the klingon is the older D7, not the Star Trek Next Gen. Klingon update war ship which I seen today in a STNG show on scifi channel.


----------



## Landru

The shapes of the Enterprise look waaaaay off. Nope, not getting this one, terrible looking lines too. As for the D7, I'll just stick with the AMT release.


----------



## Warped9

Landru said:


> The shapes of the Enterprise look waaaaay off. Nope, not getting this one, terrible looking lines too. As for the D7, I'll just stick with the AMT release.


Ditto.


----------



## dreadnaught726

Don't criticize Round 2 for not having their 1/350 TOS Enterprise out sooner. This is a major undertaking for them and they want to be sure it is as accurate as possible. Additionally, they want to be sure that it is a quality product, well engineered and will make all the fans/modelers happy. If Revell of Germany wants to rush their Enterprise out, so be it but it will in no way be the same quallity of thr Round 2 version. I really don't care if it takes R2 another year to finalize their Enterprise as long as the end result is an accurate high quality product.


----------



## Richard Baker

We really do not know how long R-G has been working on this kit- 'Rushing it out" may not be involved. Current photos has a lens distortion- it will be a while before we can tell if the hull shapes and proportions are accurate, but if they are using the Smithsonian model for the grid line refernece they might be using it also for the hull measurements.
I am not going to judge quite yet, but I am so happy other companies are offering some new Trek ships.


----------



## Captain April

One peek at the reactions to the apparent *unidentified-due-to-moderator-orders* lines on the hull shows why R2 is taking their sweet time to make sure this thing is done right.

I can wait. I have to, since I can't afford the sucker yet.


----------



## LGFugate

Lines or not, the deciding factor on Revell-DG's Trek kits will be price for me. the only reason I'm getting the R2 1/350th TOS-E is because a friend is buying one for each of us. Otherwise, it's just plain too expensive.

I'd love to be able to encourage Revell in their Trek effort, but as I said, my support comes from my wallet, and that's a limited resource.

Larry


----------



## jbond

The Klingon ship definitely seems to have K'Tinga-style aztecing in that image--which will horrify purists no doubt but it actually turns the kit into quite an interesting model of the early Phase II version of the K'Tinga. I'd definitely be interested in having that.

It does make me smile to think of the people who were raving about how Revell was going to kick R2's butt with this--don't start waving your flag until you have the model in your hands. I don't know why that idea even got started since none of their Star Wars models have demonstrated any kind of feverish devotion to accuracy. I see these as another interpretation and I'll probably still be interested in having them for curiosity value alone.


----------



## oggy4u

The Klingon ship appears to be the Greg Jien version from DS9's "trials and Tribulations". That ship was called the G'roth. I see what appears to be inserts representing the warp drive lighting effect. That would very cool if you could light up the engines. For purists there is still the newly revised Round 2 Klingon D7 which represents the original model. I will definitely buy the Revell ship maybe even two.


----------



## Prologic9

Richard Baker said:


> We really do not know how long R-G has been working on this kit- 'Rushing it out" may not be involved. Current photos has a lens distortion- it will be a while before we can tell if the hull shapes and proportions are accurate, but if they are using the Smithsonian model for the grid line refernece they might be using it also for the hull measurements.
> I am not going to judge quite yet, but I am so happy other companies are offering some new Trek ships.


This has been mentioned twice in this thread now and it bothers the hell out of me, rofl. :freak:

The Smithsonian model... IS the Enterprise. Yes it's been given a bad paintjob, but it's still the original filming model and the primary reference for any Enterprise replica. You can't get more accurate than that.


----------



## SUNGOD

I'm all for engraved panel lines as I hate them being represented by decals but I hope they look finer on the finished production Enterprise model than that. 

There's definitely potential for some nice models there though.


----------



## SUNGOD

oggy4u said:


> The Klingon ship appears to be the Greg Jien version from DS9's "trials and Tribulations". That ship was called the G'roth. I see what appears to be inserts representing the warp drive lighting effect. That would very cool if you could light up the engines. For purists there is still the newly revised Round 2 Klingon D7 which represents the original model. I will definitely buy the Revell ship maybe even two.



Could be. And not forgetting the high definition versions that were done in cgi for the original series.


----------



## Seashark

If these are final protos all I can say is -- I'm skipping the E and _might_ pickup the D-7.


----------



## Captain April

Prologic9 said:


> This has been mentioned twice in this thread now and it bothers the hell out of me, rofl. :freak:
> 
> The Smithsonian model... IS the Enterprise. Yes it's been given a bad paintjob, but it's still the original filming model and the primary reference for any Enterprise replica. You can't get more accurate than that.


No, the Smithsonian model _*WAS*_ the Enterprise, before the botched "restoration". Now it's just an overdetailed imitation.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Seashark said:


> If these are final protos


No, they aren't.


----------



## Paulbo

One thing that's cool about today's digital prototyping of model kits (and pretty much everything else for that matter) is the ability to try something (like way oversized grooves), grow a prototype, and then say "OK, that didn't work. Let's go back to the previous version".


----------



## Trek Ace

I'll be getting at least a couple of each kit. Regardless of the existence of any panel lines or such, I want them for completeness. Heavy panel lines, while obnoxious, can be dealt with by use of putty and some sanding. A "clean" model would be preferable, but I can certainly live with what's released.


----------



## Richard Baker

Prologic9 said:


> This has been mentioned twice in this thread now and it bothers the hell out of me, rofl. :freak:
> 
> The Smithsonian model... IS the Enterprise. Yes it's been given a bad paintjob, but it's still the original filming model and the primary reference for any Enterprise replica. You can't get more accurate than that.


My point was that if they were basing the 'hull linear detailing' on the Smithsonian model then the complaints about the hull proportins should bee moot since they most likely based the hull geometry on the same model.
We ALL know that is is the original model used in the series- the filming model all is based on. I too do not like the restoration, but that has nothing to do with the ship as a replica reference- they are not going to sell prepainted versions based on the restoration. 
The photos posted of the new kits are too small and the camera angle/lens probably distorted the view, so proclaiming the plyons and secondary hull do not look right should hold off until much better shots are made available. We just do not know enough yet to judge the new kits on accuracy.


----------



## flyingfrets

Slight diversion here...anybody know if the Voyager is a repop or a new sculpt?


----------



## chiangkaishecky

flyingfrets said:


> Slight diversion here...anybody know if the Voyager is a repop or a new sculpt?


The only new tools are the E and Klingon ... those Voyager kits have been on the website for at least a year since they were repopped


----------



## SUNGOD

It looks like the G'roth *was *used in the remastered Star Trek....


http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tmp_3.php


so it might be a good move by Revell to base their kit on them instead of the original D7 which hardly had any surface detail. And of course PL's reissuing their D7 too.


----------



## Zombie_61

SUNGOD said:


> ...so it might be a good move by Revell to base their kit on them instead of the original D7 which hardly had any surface detail.


Does the D7 _need_ more surface detail? I can't recall ever watching _Star Trek_ and thinking, "Y'know, that ship would look so much better with a bunch of junk glued to the hull for no reason..."

I suppose it's really a matter of taste and preference, but I always liked the sleek, "not-busy" designs in the original series (before the remastering, that is). If Revell Germany is going to market this as the D7 from the original series they should focus on making it faithful to that design; otherwise they should state it's the lesser-known Gr'oth variant.


----------



## Warped9

Hated what they did to the D7 in "Trials and Tribblations" and in TOS-R. Took an inspired design and made it look like just another pile of clunky grey hardware.


----------



## Jiver

I'm not a purist(I want my hobby to be fun), but I agree the panel lines are to prominent, alltough I think they can easely correct this these days.I defininitly know they can do better, I'm building one of their recent 1/32 scale WWII bombers and they are exellent.So we'll wait for the release date to judge.


----------



## Tiberious

To me putting 'glowey panels' on everything doesn't make a ship look more advanced or realistic. I remember when Star Wars came out and thinking....man they couldn't even put the guts of the ships on the inside of the hull/armor. Doesn't seem smart to me. Even so, I don't think the newer version of the D7 is necessarily ugly, it's just not necessary.

Tib


----------



## jaws62666

Jiver said:


> I'm not a purist(I want my hobby to be fun), but I agree the panel lines are to prominent, alltough I think they can easely correct this these days.I defininitly know they can do better, I'm building one of their recent 1/32 scale WWII bombers and they are exellent.So we'll wait for the release date to judge.


I am working on the 1/32 AR196 Arado, and it is an awesome kit


----------



## RSN

Tiberious said:


> To me putting 'glowey panels' on everything doesn't make a ship look more advanced or realistic. I remember when Star Wars came out and thinking....man they couldn't even put the guts of the ships on the inside of the hull/armor. Doesn't seem smart to me. Even so, I don't think the newer version of the D7 is necessarily ugly, it's just not necessary.
> 
> Tib


There was a method to the madness in "Star Wars". If you look at the design style, for the most part the Empire ships, the small ones anyway, are sleek on the outside and new. The Rebels have to make do with outdated designs that are under constant repair, so to save time, engine cowlings are left off for ease of repair. As for the Star Destroyers and all the details exposed on the outside....take a look at Navy Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, there is a lot of detail above the sleek keel.


----------



## flyingfrets

chiangkaishecky said:


> The only new tools are the E and Klingon ... those Voyager kits have been on the website for at least a year since they were repopped


That's what I figured, but thanks for the clarification.


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> Does the D7 _need_ more surface detail? I can't recall ever watching _Star Trek_ and thinking, "Y'know, that ship would look so much better with a bunch of junk glued to the hull for no reason..."
> 
> I suppose it's really a matter of taste and preference, but I always liked the sleek, "not-busy" designs in the original series (before the remastering, that is). If Revell Germany is going to market this as the D7 from the original series they should focus on making it faithful to that design; otherwise they should state it's the lesser-known Gr'oth variant.




I liked the "not busy" designs in the original series too....but then I saw the K'Tinga in TMP and it was love at first sight. 
I can understand people wanting the original D7 but surely the Klingon ship in the remastered series *is* now the D7 as it's just replacing the old special effects, so Revell isn't being inaccurate?


----------



## Trek Ace

SUNGOD said:


> I can understand people wanting the original D7 but surely the Klingon ship in the remastered series *is* now the D7 as it's just replacing the old special effects, so Revell isn't being inaccurate?


If you like videogame-quality visuals. The remastered D7 was rather poorly executed in cgi. Not in the least bit convincing. In no way is it worthy of being a replacement of the original, physical model.


----------



## Warped9

^^ :thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Trek Ace said:


> If you like videogame-quality visuals. The remastered D7 was rather poorly executed in cgi. Not in the least bit convincing. In no way is it worthy of being a replacement of the original, physical model.




There's always room for improvement but let's face it.....the original visual effects do look a bit long in the tooth now. I still watch the non revamped episodes but they definitely look a bit too toy like in places.

I've found the remastered episodes I've seen so far are very good and blend in well with the original as it was filmed. Don't find them very videogame like.


----------



## RSN

SUNGOD said:


> There's always room for improvement but let's face it.....the original visual effects do look a bit long in the tooth now. I still watch the non revamped episodes but they definitely look a bit too toy like in places.
> 
> I've found the remastered episodes I've seen so far are very good and blend in well with the original as it was filmed. Don't find them very videogame like.


I liked what they did, updating the "Doomsday Machine" battle, that looks better than the original, but "Space Seed", to me, was the best effect work they did on the show, and needed no real improvement.


----------



## scifiguy67

Trek Ace said:


> If you like videogame-quality visuals. The remastered D7 was rather poorly executed in cgi. Not in the least bit convincing. In no way is it worthy of being a replacement of the original, physical model.


agreed!


----------



## Zombie_61

With regards to the CGI effects in the remastered version of the series, BEBruns made a comment in the _Rise of the Planet of the Apes_ thread (in the "Movie and TV" forum) regarding the "reality" of the CGI used in that movie that I think applies here: "It looks fake in a way I'm not used to."

Many of us grew up watching sci-fi tv shows and movies that used models for the effects shots so, even though we knew they were fake, we accepted them as the standard and our minds made that "leap of faith" into believability (unless, of course, the effects were _really_ bad). With CGI becoming more prevalent, we just have to "learn" to do the same thing with CG effects.

Back to the topic, I'm in the "wait and see" camp regarding these kits. Prototype photos don't often represent the actual production items accurately, so I'd prefer to reserve judgement until I see the actual kits. Truth be told, I probably won't be buying them regardless because I'm content with my Polar Lights kits.


----------



## ClubTepes

I'd rather have Trek kits in 1/700 scale.

Its the only scale where someone could model every Enterprise from CV-6 through the 'E'.


----------



## KUROK

The remastered D7 sucked....bad.
The windows were too big making it look like a tiny ship...


----------



## scifiguy67

KUROK said:


> The remastered D7 sucked....bad.
> The windows were too big making it look like a tiny ship...


agreed! the whole ship is wrong! why they could not get it right?


----------



## Zombie_61

SUNGOD said:


> I can understand people wanting the original D7 but surely the Klingon ship in the remastered series *is* now the D7 as it's just replacing the old special effects, so Revell isn't being inaccurate?


I suppose that argument _could_ be made. The argument could also be made that the so-called "JJprise" from the 2009 movie is now _the_ Enterprise, but a lot of hardcore TOS fans would vehemently disagree. Another argument could be made that the remastered version of the D7 is simply a more advanced version of that class (like the difference between a '63 VW Beetle and a '67 VW Beetle--essentially the same until you look closer) that bridges the gap between the TOS D7 and the K'tinga class first seen in _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_; not _the_ D7, but a variation.

Or...fill in the blank. Regardless of what is or isn't canon, every Star Trek fan who cares about such things is going to create their own explanations for the differences. Ultimately, it's all rather unimportant because Revell is going to release the products they want to release, and people will either buy them and build/modify them as they see fit, or they won't.


----------



## John P

The remastered show's rushed and cartoony CGI effects are in no way canon over what we've been seeing for 40 years.


----------



## RSN

John P said:


> The remastered show's rushed and cartoony CGI effects are in no way canon over what we've been seeing for 40 years.


Soooooooo, the Enterprise's engine disappearing due to poorly rushed bluescreen work 40 years ago is "canon"? So the engine really was partly invisible.......ah, got it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> The remastered show's rushed and cartoony CGI effects are in no way canon over what we've been seeing for 40 years.


Man, you're screaming into the wind. Even so I agree with you.


----------



## apls

I love the remastered Star Trek on blu ray, I have all three seasons. Tomorrow is Yesterday, is far superior than the original, and it works very well with the old footage. The Enterprise showing the rubber band effect as it goes around the sun is incredible. I watched the original issues for over 40 years, now I can only watch the remasters.


----------



## Warped9

I've watched some of the episodes with new f/x. Some of the new mattes are nice, but I'm mostly underwhelmed by the rest. My biggest gripe is that it looks too contemporary and quite jarring alongside the remaining live-action footage. It doesn't look like anything that could have been done in the '60s even with feature film resources, which is the look they should have gone for.


----------



## kdaracal

Hope we get some "real" pictures soon.


----------



## SUNGOD

Warped9 said:


> I've watched some of the episodes with new f/x. Some of the new mattes are nice, but I'm mostly underwhelmed by the rest. My biggest gripe is that it looks too contemporary and quite jarring alongside the remaining live-action footage. It doesn't look like anything that could have been done in the '60s even with feature film resources, which is the look they should have gone for.




Thankfully. If it looked like anything done in the 60s we'd have had thick black lines around the spaceships, lack of any real movement and just generally not very special effects.

I don't think the new effects look jarring at all with the live action. Blends in very well. In fact I wish they'd redone things like the dog with a horn stuck on his nose too.


----------



## SUNGOD

RSN said:


> Soooooooo, the Enterprise's engine disappearing due to poorly rushed bluescreen work 40 years ago is "canon"? So the engine really was partly invisible.......ah, got it! :thumbsup:




Sob............special effects were so much better in the 60s. I wish we could go back to the days of bluescreen, see through ships and thick black lines where everything looked so real....unlike this computer generated lark.


----------



## Zombie_61

There's no question the effects in the original series had some flaws. But the cartoon version...sorry, the _remastered_ version...isn't perfect either. It's all a matter of preference. :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## John P

RSN said:


> Soooooooo, the Enterprise's engine disappearing due to poorly rushed bluescreen work 40 years ago is "canon"? So the engine really was partly invisible.......ah, got it! :thumbsup:


Yup! Subspace field distortion! :lol:


----------



## John P

SUNGOD said:


> Sob............special effects were so much better in the 60s. I wish we could go back to the days of bluescreen, see through ships and thick black lines where everything looked so real....unlike this computer generated lark.


WAAAH! Computer effects are so much better than real models! I like shiny surfaces and bump mapping and lens flares and unnatural movement and flat cartoony lighting!

:tongue:


----------



## JGG1701

Found this, for what its worth.............................
http://www.wonderlandmodels.com/products/revell-1600-star-trek-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701/
-Jim


----------



## RSN

John P said:


> Yup! Subspace field distortion! :lol:


Well played!! Advantge......John P!! :thumbsup:


----------



## jbond

I fall squarely in the middle--I prefer to watch the new versions only because I've seen the originals hundreds of times and I find the new effects entertaining. Many of them are excellent but there are always at least a few cartoony-looking shots in any given episode. There are shots where the ship looks quite real (or at least close to a well-shot miniature) and others where it looks like a videogame-quality computer render. There's only one episode where I just will not watch the new version--"Elaan of Troyius." The original features one of the series' most exciting space battles--but for the remastered version, they never produced a Klingon ship that was designed to be seen close up, and the look and choreography of the Klingon shots in the episode is embarrassingly bad and destroys the flow of action in the episode. The original effects (which are far more simple but some of the better-executed shots in the original series) still work much better than the new ones. But for the most part I enjoy the new effects--"Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is a great example of the opposite situation: it changes the random, almost meaningless (and technically very flawed) shots of the original episode into an actual sequence that works.


----------



## Solium

I liked many of the new CGI shots. There was an underneath pan shot that was really impressive. It gave the ship a great sense of scale. The effects in Space Seed are wonderful. General fly by pan shots were well done. I thought the style of the effects worked for the most part. Not to realistic not to computer game looking. Granted some shots did look to cartoony in how they added texture or lighting to the CGI model.

I did not like the remastered Doomsday Machine. No surprise there. Having a massive starship, basically an aircraft carrier in space "swoop" and "dive bomb" like a one man piloted fighter was ridiculous. But Star Trek has been doing that ever since Star Wars came to be. I much prefer Space Battleship Yamato where large vessels shoot from a great distance apart.


----------



## Richard Baker

I like the Remastered Hangar Bay scenes the best. When Decker steals the shuttle and it lifts, wobbles a bit then exits it looks like a man on the edge piloting it.
The shot of the wrecked Constellation with a rock bouncing and shattering off it's hull was also a scene stealer.
I do not care for every remastered show, but they have done some good enhancements.


----------



## SUNGOD

I haven't seen all the remastered episodes and I'm not saying the new effects are perfect.......but to say they look cartoony is nonsense (a lot of people who don't like cg use that put down and conveniently forget that the effects they replace often look very ropey). There is some bad computer effects out there but most of the new effects in Star Trek are an improvement from what I've seen, even if there's still room for a bit more improvement.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> WAAAH! Computer effects are so much better than real models! I like shiny surfaces and bump mapping and lens flares and unnatural movement and flat cartoony lighting!
> 
> :tongue:



Don't get me wrong I wish they'd use more models in film and tv but they'd still have to be incorporated into the picture with computer graphics now. The new effects still look better than 99% of the toy like shots in the original series though.


----------



## JGG1701

Toy like! 
Did he just say "toy like"? 
How dare he! 
-Jim


----------



## RSN

I wouldn't consider them "Toy like". The Enterprise always appeared to have great mass. Granted, the first season matte's suffered greatly from "Drop-Out" as I stated earlier. The exceptions being episode specific shots in "Space Seed" and the only thing I liked about "The Alternative Factor", the shot of the Enterprise firing her phasers from the rear. But the second and third season stock shots were much crisper and clearer. Some, episodes only required "Fly-by" shots and for me did not need to be redone, other episode needed really strong visuals that could not be done on a 1960's budget, so they needed a bit of beefing up.


----------



## Captain April

JGG1701 said:


> Found this, for what its worth.............................
> http://www.wonderlandmodels.com/products/revell-1600-star-trek-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701/
> -Jim


Hmm...do they take PayPal?


----------



## Fozzie

If the remastered episode showed a ship that was previously unseen, or only seen as a blob of light, then I consider that the canon version of the ship. For instance, the _Antares _in "Charlie X". We'd never seen it before, so why not accept the new version of that as canon? Works for me.


----------



## Warped9

SUNGOD said:


> Thankfully. If it looked like anything done in the 60s we'd have had thick black lines around the spaceships, lack of any real movement and just generally not very special effects.
> 
> I don't think the new effects look jarring at all with the live action. Blends in very well. In fact I wish they'd redone things like the dog with a horn stuck on his nose too.


B.S. Look at the effects of_ 2001: A Space Odyssey_ and you see gorgeous state-of-the art '60s era f/x that has nothing to apologize for.


----------



## charonjr

Just registered and checked it out. No PayPal. It's almost £25, plus International Shipping is another £15. £40 = $66 (roughly) in today's exchange rate.


----------



## charonjr

Have to remember, though, that 2001 didn't use bluescreen. They had immense models shot in extremely bright light to get very deep depth of field. Effects were done in-camera, IIRC. 

A cheaper approach of in-camera effects was done in Space:1999. Same people.


----------



## Warped9

charonjr said:


> Have to remember, though, that 2001 didn't use bluescreen. They had immense models shot in extremely bright light to get very deep depth of field. Effects were done in-camera, IIRC.
> 
> A cheaper approach of in-camera effects was done in Space:1999. Same people.


The point is we are seeing state-of-the art f/x in _2001_ and it looks better than the cgi of TOS-R. A little tweaking in terms of lighting perhaps and it would look a lot better alongside the remaining live-action footage of TOS.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

actually, a lot of 2001 was done with pictures of models.


----------



## Nova Designs

Warped9 said:


> The point is we are seeing state-of-the art f/x in _2001_ and it looks better than the cgi of TOS-R. A little tweaking in terms of lighting perhaps and it would look a lot better alongside the remaining live-action footage of TOS.



You need to always take into account, budget, time and type of work being done. With a lot of money, good creative leadership and BIG image and lots of time you can do WAY better work than otherwise. The Remastered stuff was a small team working on a very small budget and a very condensed schedule. Its simply apples and oranges to compare it with 2001. That movie is unique in every way.


----------



## charonjr

Yes, that makes sense. Lou, yes I recall the use of pictures. Wasn't there a flyby of the Discovery? Of course, now my whole memory is called into question and it just gives me good reason to watch 2001 all over again


----------



## charonjr

Too be honest I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of TOS-R. I have the 1st in HD-DVD. While some of the work is excellent, much of what I saw done to the Enterprise was very reminiscent of Ed Miarecki's interpretation of the paint job on the hero model. Paneling too overdone, beacons hardly lit, the dome lights flashing simultaneously and not in any random fashion. Raised panels on the saucer to explain the impression of grid lines.

I have heard that the 2nd and 3rd seasons showed vast improvements on how the Enterprise was portrayed.


----------



## Warped9

Nova Designs said:


> You need to always take into account, budget, time and type of work being done. With a lot of money, good creative leadership and BIG image and lots of time you can do WAY better work than otherwise. The Remastered stuff was a small team working on a very small budget and a very condensed schedule. Its simply apples and oranges to compare it with 2001. That movie is unique in every way.


Understood and fair enough. But my real issue with TOS-R is it looks _soo_ contemporary and thus jarring alongside the rest of the live-action footage. It doesn't look like anything that could or would have been done during the '60s.


----------



## KUROK

Warped9 said:


> Understood and fair enough. But my real issue with TOS-R is it looks _soo_ contemporary and thus jarring alongside the rest of the live-action footage. It doesn't look like anything that could or would have been done during the '60s.


The more you watch it, the less jarring. With the exception of the cheesy D7, I'm really getting into it. Clarity of the blu ray edition is eye watering...


----------



## SUNGOD

Warped9 said:


> B.S. Look at the effects of_ 2001: A Space Odyssey_ and you see gorgeous state-of-the art '60s era f/x that has nothing to apologize for.




I knew someone would bring up 2001 and yes the effects in that still look great today............but can you think of another 60s film with effects that really stand up today without visible black lines and see through ships?


----------



## SUNGOD

Warped9 said:


> Understood and fair enough. But my real issue with TOS-R is it looks _soo_ contemporary and thus jarring alongside the rest of the live-action footage. It doesn't look like anything that could or would have been done during the '60s.





Apart from 2001 which is an exception and doesn't look 60s..........thank god the remastered effects don't look like they were made in the 60s.


----------



## scifiguy67

KUROK said:


> The more you watch it, the less jarring. With the exception of the cheesy D7, I'm really getting into it. Clarity of the blu ray edition is eye watering...


yep! the best i ever seen star trek!.....& that D-7 is a wreck!


----------



## Warped9

^^ People keep saying that and I'm still not convinced. I know what I'm seeing and it just doesn't work for me.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

I think we are our own biggest stumbling block when it comes to objectively evaluating the remastered Trek.

We know whats new and different so therefore it's going to be jarring. I maintain that if you showed the redone eps to someone who had never seen them originally, you'd get a very different opinion


----------



## John P

SUNGOD said:


> I knew someone would bring up 2001 and yes the effects in that still look great today............but can you think of another 60s film with effects that really stand up today without visible black lines and see through ships?


Heck, I can think of _80s _films that didn't look as good!

IIRC, the CBS Digital team said they were going to recreate the original images and camera moves, and not do anything visually that couldn't have been accomplished with a model and a camera on a track in 1966. The idea was to NOT have the effects footage look jarringly different than what it was replacing, just higher def and clearer.

They went beyond that initial promise and went a little crazy at times. I don't mind the few pretty flybys they did, but much of their effects just waved a flag that said "Look! It's CGI! Ain't it cool?!"


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> Heck, I can think of _80s _films that didn't look as good!
> 
> IIRC, the CBS Digital team said they were going to recreate the original images and camera moves, and not do anything visually that couldn't have been accomplished with a model and a camera on a track in 1966. The idea was to NOT have the effects footage look jarringly different than what it was replacing, just higher def and clearer.
> 
> They went beyond that initial promise and went a little crazy at times. I don't mind the few pretty flybys they did, but much of their effects just waved a flag that said "Look! It's CGI! Ain't it cool?!"


Well said. I also didn't care for how they often lighted things.


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> Heck, I can think of _80s _films that didn't look as good!
> 
> IIRC, the CBS Digital team said they were going to recreate the original images and camera moves, and not do anything visually that couldn't have been accomplished with a model and a camera on a track in 1966. The idea was to NOT have the effects footage look jarringly different than what it was replacing, just higher def and clearer.
> 
> They went beyond that initial promise and went a little crazy at times. I don't mind the few pretty flybys they did, but much of their effects just waved a flag that said "Look! It's CGI! Ain't it cool?!"


Yes! You're exactly right! Not that I'm all that opposed to adding some ships and other things, it just seems that the effects are not presented in the same style as the live action.

I'm not opposed to remastering the old episodes and, in fact, if possible some day, would love to see "The Naked Time" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" strung together as a movie or two-parter as originally intended. I'd also like to see an extended version of "The Ultimate Computer."

However, the CGI still comes off looking not quite right--"cartoonish" is probably the best word to describe the slight effect. Perhaps akin to the "valley of the uncanny" it seems that the ship looks exactly like the model except for the lighting or whatever problem it is and it's just enough to throw the whole effect off. I still enjoy the hi-def versions but there's something not quite right about the effects.


----------



## Warped9

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ...but there's something not quite right about the effects.


And this is the essence of what bugs me. All manner of reasons and vague descriptions have been offered up, but they're all saying essentially the same things: something is wrong and it looks off somehow.

I know on other forums there are those who say the new f/x are better simply because they're technically more polished, and many of those same individuals tend to dismiss any criticisms. Sometimes I feel like my words fail me as I look for the words to clarify why it just looks wrong to me. 

Maybe it's partly because it some ways it looks too perfect? But mostly to my eyes it just looks too contemporary. At the most basic level the TOS-R _Enterprise_ doesn't look like a physical object with mass to it---as nicely rendered as it might be it still looks rather flat in a way I can't explain.

I also greatly object to changing things for the sake of change. The new Tholian ships were really out of place and I saw no need whatsoever to replace the Eymorg ship design in "Spock's Brain." Changes like that were done for arbitrary reasons rather than finding a way to polish the original design for HD.


----------



## flyingfrets

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I think we are our own biggest stumbling block when it comes to objectively evaluating the remastered Trek.
> 
> We know whats new and different so therefore it's going to be jarring. I maintain that if you showed the redone eps to someone who had never seen them originally, you'd get a very different opinion


I think you're onto something there. I hadn't seen TOS in more years than I'd care to count, and having watched the Remastered eps a year or two ago, I wasn't distracted by the newer effects at all.

As for knowing what's been changed, I offer this comparison...George Martin refused for many years to tell where he'd spliced the 2 versions of The Beatles "Strawberry Fields." I found it in 1991, and have never heard the song the same way since. It's very distracting when you know it's coming and it definitely diminished the magic somewhat. Perhaps the same applies here...


----------



## jbond

I agree replacing the Tholian ships was one of the low points for the remastered effects--simple or not, those ships were iconic, and they also showed off TOS's great use of color (BTW if you watch remastered episodes like "The Tholian Web" and "The Immunity Syndrome" on netflix, the effects shots snap out to 16x9). On the other hand I'm going to be completely inconsistent and say I like replacing the ship in "Spock's Brain." That was a badly shot, primitive-looking miniature and looked like a rocketship stolen from a cheap fifties film, not like anything in Trek's design aesthetic. At least the new ship adds some visual interest to a lousy episode.


----------



## Captain April

I'm pretty sure the change in the Tholian ships was dictated by having to line up with "In A Mirror, Darkly..." since these are supposedly the same Tholians.


----------



## Warped9

Captain April said:


> I'm pretty sure the change in the Tholian ships was dictated by having to line up with "In A Mirror, Darkly..." since these are supposedly the same Tholians.


Probably. And I'll never forgive them for it. There is also the fact that the Tholians seen in ENT's episode were of a mirror universe and thus they shouldn't necessarily have the same ships, particularly if they're a century apart. But then ENT was a crewed up series anyway so no surprise.


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> I also greatly object to changing things for the sake of change. The new Tholian ships were really out of place and I saw no need whatsoever to replace the Eymorg ship design in "Spock's Brain." Changes like that were done for arbitrary reasons rather than finding a way to polish the original design for HD.


I agree completely.:thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I agree completely.:thumbsup:


I do as well. As far as the remastered trek goes, I think one of the hardest things to get right is the way light plays across the surface of an actual model. CGI can get it almost too perfect IMO. It would look more realistic to me if there was just a little graininess. Just my opinion.


----------



## SUNGOD

I can see the point some of you are making about the lighting and I also think the new effects should have the same angle's and design work of the original. I also agree that when they do replacement effects they can sometimes get a little carried away and alter the design of ships and the colour of planets etc....but I'd still rather watch it with the cgi now as I find combined with the remastering it flows together so much better. 

In fact I'm surprised how well it blends with the live action.


----------



## charonjr

One of the reasons the cgi ship looks different, more "flat", is that the 11 footer was shot with a "one inch" lens, which is very close to how the human eye sees a scene. Getting close to that model gave it a sense of mass because of the way lines converged into the distance with this lens. They kept close and made sure the shots were slow.

The new cgi in the Remastered DVDs, uses the same visual approach that TNG did: keep the ship at a distance and use a wide angle lens. The distortion introduced into the perceived convergence makes the ship look flatter at a distance. If it comes close, then the difference between the foreground and background elements of the ship become too exaggerated compared to what a normal lens would show. 

Think of the difference between your car mirrors, the flat ones show a more accurate, but limited view, than do the wide angle ones, where everything appears distant and small until it's on top of you and is readily distorted.

If I had my druthers, I'd have used the same lens types as those used on the original ship. Shoot it in a similar fashion to get the same massive effect.

As far as the Remastered Enterprise design, there are problems with it that I saw in the 1st season. Re-iterating: the warp dome lighting effects were not duplicated properly; the navigation lights were treated as lenses that focused the light upwards, so they do not appeared lighted from the sides. The nav lights in TOS were always bright and easily seen even in distant shots of the ship. 

The use of paneling causes a curious issue: we judge the size of things based on familiar elements, windows, doors, etc. Unless you are in the Navy or the shipping building business, where you have seen how big those welded panels are, you won't have a referent to compare the size of these panels to. The perception of the panels appears to make the ship smaller than it actually is, since we see so few of them and they are made big. I think this may be due to our subconsciously seeing them as a kind of door. TMP got away with it because we saw airlocks and spacesuited people that gave us a reference point while in drydock.

I've heard that TOS-R went with lighting the ship with one sun, rather than the many suns look that it took to get the 11 footer exposed properly on film. Unfortunately, as the TOS Enterprise has no self-referential lighting system to make it visible to us (as was done in TMP/TNG, etc.), we see a dark ship approaching in black space and fly by without any of the impact that TOS had. In such shots, the ship isn't seen at a distance and even closer is almost to dark to make out. It may be realistic, but it lacks dramatic impact. Also it is kept at a distance even in some of the close passes, again adding to the difficulty of seeing it.

Boy, I didn't mean to go on so long. But this is what I am aware of.


----------



## SUNGOD

I like the way they've done the panel lines on the Enterprise. Noticeable but not too strong so it looks more like the original model. Liked the way they did the D7 too.


----------



## Just Plain Al

SUNGOD said:


> I like the way they've done the panel lines on the Enterprise. Noticeable but not too strong so it looks more like the original model. Liked the way they did the D7 too.


 
*BLASPHEMER!!!*

I keed, I keed!!

I'll wait until the actual models are out for sale before I make a decision one way or another, trying to form opinion from a small, oddly angled, on-line picture is ludicrous IMHO


----------



## Trekkriffic

Just Plain Al said:


> I'll wait until the actual models are out for sale before I make a decision one way or another, trying to form opinion from a small, oddly angled, on-line picture is ludicrous.





I totally agree! I'll let somebody else buy it and review it before spending my cash!


----------



## StarshipClass

charonjr said:


> One of the reasons the cgi ship looks different, more "flat", is that the 11 footer was shot with a "one inch" lens, which is very close to how the human eye sees a scene. Getting close to that model gave it a sense of mass because of the way lines converged into the distance with this lens. They kept close and made sure the shots were slow.
> 
> The new cgi in the Remastered DVDs, uses the same visual approach that TNG did: keep the ship at a distance and use a wide angle lens. The distortion introduced into the perceived convergence makes the ship look flatter at a distance. If it comes close, then the difference between the foreground and background elements of the ship become too exaggerated compared to what a normal lens would show.
> 
> Think of the difference between your car mirrors, the flat ones show a more accurate, but limited view, than do the wide angle ones, where everything appears distant and small until it's on top of you and is readily distorted . . .


THANKS for the explanation!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

That makes perfect sense and seems to be coming from an expert on the matter.:wave:


----------



## Tiberious

Startrek.com article on the new/old Revell Star Trek kits

http://www.startrek.com/article/developing-revellundefineds-new-star-trek-model-kits

Enjoy!

Tib


----------



## Seashark

Tiberious said:


> Startrek.com article on the new/old Revell Star Trek kits
> 
> http://www.startrek.com/article/developing-revellundefineds-new-star-trek-model-kits
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> Tib


Thanks for the link, Tib! 

Looking at it, the D-7 appears to have the panel lines raised (or etched, I can't tell). As for the E, upon reflection I might pick one up; if for no other reason than the novelty of it.


----------



## Solium

Sounds like they are making their "Enterprise" based on all the incarnations of the ship from TOS, refurbished model and CGI renderings. As Spock would say, "Fascinating!"


----------



## KUROK

They didn't taper that piece right behind the deflector.
Same mistake made on the Art Asylum version....


----------



## Warped9

Ah, there was no "Klingon bird of prey" in TOS. Not even the Romulan ship was called that, but there was only reference of it being painted as a bird of prey.


----------



## SUNGOD

I can't see the D7 very well but the panel lines on the Enterprise look a lot finer than the previous photo.


----------



## Warped9

The */@#! gridlines are way too obvious and out of scale and the forward section of the secondary hull is wrong. The lower part of the saucer doesn't seem right either. As for the D7 the apparent detailing on the hull means it's the TOS-R or DS9 TaT version which isn't the real D7 in my book.

For what it will cost to get them here in Canada I'll stick with R2's 1/350 TOS _E_ and the AMT reissue of the D7.


----------



## Mark Dorais

The dome over the bridge seems too small from the test photo.


----------



## Captain April

Well, it'll be easier to fix that the old AMT 18"er...


----------



## Husker Adama

If you don't like a model, why go on and on about it, just don't buy it. A real modeler would just fill in a gap, or learn to fix a kit. 

I'm betting half of the people that complain about the angle of the teardrop bridge, or the rings of the deflector dish don't even build any models.

Lets see a picture of an Enterprise you built.


----------



## Landru

Husker Adama said:


> If you don't like a model, why go on and on about it, just don't buy it. A real modeler would just fill in a gap, or learn to fix a kit.
> 
> I'm betting half of the people that complain about the angle of the teardrop bridge, or the rings of the deflector dish don't even build any models.
> 
> Lets see a picture of an Enterprise you built.


I have all the complaints you noted about these new kits, please have a look through my build folders....I build frequently.

I finished this the other day for instance,

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/Scotty701/IMG_3527.jpg

Build folders.
http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/Scotty701/


I think your statement doesn't hold water, not wanting to sound rude or anything, but there you go.


----------



## SUNGOD

Warped9 said:


> The */@#! gridlines are way too obvious and out of scale and the forward section of the secondary hull is wrong. The lower part of the saucer doesn't seem right either. As for the D7 the apparent detailing on the hull means it's the TOS-R or DS9 TaT version which isn't the real D7 in my book.
> 
> For what it will cost to get them here in Canada I'll stick with R2's 1/350 TOS _E_ and the AMT reissue of the D7.




99% of panel lines in models are overscale. Even on larger scale aircraft. You're never going to get them totally in scale either. I think those on the Enterprise look pretty good and much better than the photo we saw the other day.


----------



## starlord

is the klingon from the fist shows or from ST:TNG where the klgon one was a bigger ship.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Article and pix at the official site
http://www.startrek.com/article/developing-revellundefineds-new-star-trek-model-kits
ooops!
what he said!


Tiberious said:


> Startrek.com article on the new/old Revell Star Trek kits
> 
> http://www.startrek.com/article/developing-revellundefineds-new-star-trek-model-kits


----------



## John P

starlord said:


> is the klingon from the fist shows or from ST:TNG where the klgon one was a bigger ship.


First show.


----------



## Captain April

Fist shows are completely different.


----------



## John P

Boxing!


----------



## SUNGOD

One thing though....I hope Revell isn't just doing the grid engraving on the top and leaving the rest bare. I'd like to see the engraved lines done where appropriate on the rest of the model too. Same with the Klingon ship.


----------



## SUNGOD

Just Plain Al said:


> *BLASPHEMER!!!*
> 
> I keed, I keed!!
> 
> I'll wait until the actual models are out for sale before I make a decision one way or another, trying to form opinion from a small, oddly angled, on-line picture is ludicrous IMHO



Wonder when we'll see some clearer pics?


----------



## SUNGOD

Landru said:


> I have all the complaints you noted about these new kits, please have a look through my build folders....I build frequently.
> 
> I finished this the other day for instance,
> 
> http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/Scotty701/IMG_3527.jpg
> 
> Build folders.
> http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/Scotty701/
> 
> 
> I think your statement doesn't hold water, not wanting to sound rude or anything, but there you go.




Not sure what you're saying Landru?


----------



## Landru

Sungod, I was replying to this fellows message.



Husker Adama said:


> If you don't like a model, why go on and on about it, just don't buy it. A real modeler would just fill in a gap, or learn to fix a kit.
> 
> I'm betting half of the people that complain about the angle of the teardrop bridge, or the rings of the deflector dish don't even build any models.
> 
> *Lets see a picture of an Enterprise you built*.


----------



## SUNGOD

Landru said:


> Sungod, I was replying to this fellows message.




I know but I wanted to know what you meant by saying his statement "didn't hold water" in relation I presume to 1 or 2 people complaining about these Revell kits and what you think of the kits?


----------



## Landru

SUNGOD said:


> I know but I wanted to know what you meant by saying his statement "didn't hold water" in relation I presume to 1 or 2 people complaining about these Revell kits and what you think of the kits?


Ah, I see. There have been plenty of people on this thread who have complained about the inaccuracies of these new kits (myself included). He said that the people who complain about these inaccuracies "probably don't even build models", which implies that I and others are simply 'armchair bashing' the new kits for the sake of it. 
I was just trying to prove that he is wrong to assume that.

Hope that clears it up.


----------



## Captain April

The only reason I'm not building ships like Utopia Planitia on crack is that my current circumstances make it frustrating at best, and with no way to display them, there's no point in doing more than examining the new acquisitions, maybe test fitting the pieces, and putting them back in the box to await the day that I get my life back.

I do have pics of previous builds, though, going back more than a few decades, if proof is needed.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

This Revell kit looks okay for what it is, but as has been pointed out upthread, those who don't want gridlines on a big-E model won't likely be getting one. But at least now we get to see what a big-E with gridlines does in fact look like.

The question here is that we know that Round 2 is going for fine "Tamiya-like" lines... we don't know if Revell was doing likewise. If they were/are, I'm not impressed as to how it looks with them.

The Klingon ship looks decent enough, but then again, I was never into the D-7 enough to really examine it, so IDK, lol. It'll be interesting to see if they (Revell) also put out a Romulan BOP as well, since I see they also have the VOY and a couple other VOY ships. 

I'd still like to see a plastic model of the Nebula-Class that's in scale with the AMT 1701-D or bigger.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

SUNGOD said:


> Wonder when we'll see some clearer pics?


Here you go. Enterprise: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110831_enterprise/enterprise_600_revell.html

D7: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110901_klingonen/klingonen_600_revell.htmlhttp://www.dpmv.de/


----------



## Warped9

Marco Scheloske said:


> Here you go. Enterprise: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110831_enterprise/enterprise_600_revell.html


Those gridlines are way too pronounced for my taste at that scale.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Warped9 said:


> Those gridlines are way too pronounced for my taste at that scale.


I agree. The prototype without those lines looked way better.


----------



## Trek Ace

I can certainly deal with the grid lines, but it is a shame to have to. It certainly looks like they based the location and depth of the grids on the Smithsonian "restoration". There are also lines on the engine pods and engineering hull, again appearing to be taken from the Miarecki work.

The bottom saucer appears to have the same bad contour as the AMT kit. The sickbay module does not appear to be the correct shape, but much better than the AMT version.

The Klingon ship looks to be heavily influenced by the DS9 "Tribbles" model. I actually don't mind this, since it will be nice to have a kit of that version with the lighting option. If you want a model accurate to the original series version, then get the AMT kit.

Even with all of the apparent corrections needed on the _Enterprise _(if the test shot pictured is what the release will be), I'm still really looking forward to both kits.


----------



## charonjr

Trek Ace, excuse me, but what are you referring to as the "sickbay module"? I've never heard of such a reference before.


----------



## Helldogg

Well that's a bummer. I was hoping for no gridlines. I wonder why everyone is obsessed with putting lousy gridlines one the enterprise?

I spent so many years scraping the off the amt, I was hoping that would be over.... bummer.

Hope round 2 decides against them.


----------



## ViperRecon

Thanks Marco! Yeah, the gridlines are kindof a bummer but not unmanageable. I notice there was no shot of the secondary hull there, that's interesting. I don't remember seeing it mentioned specifically - I wonder just how close in size this will be with the ERTL version, claims of scale notwithstanding. There may be some interesting mix-and-match possibilities...

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Marco Scheloske

ViperRecon said:


> Thanks Marco! Yeah, the gridlines are kindof a bummer but not unmanageable. I notice there was no shot of the secondary hull there, that's interesting. I don't remember seeing it mentioned specifically - I wonder just how close in size this will be with the ERTL version, claims of scale notwithstanding. There may be some interesting mix-and-match possibilities...
> 
> Mark in Okinawa


It is larger than the old AMT one (I saw pictures with a side-by-side comparison), the saucer for example is approx. 1.5 cm larger in diameter than the AMT one.


----------



## Zombie_61

BolianAdmiral said:


> I'd still like to see a plastic model of the Nebula-Class that's in scale with the AMT 1701-D or bigger.


Same here, though I'd prefer it in the same scale as the AMT kit. I never really cared for the design of the Galaxy Class (i.e., the NCC-1701-D); I've simply come to accept it. But I do like the Nebula Class design, even though the two are somewhat similar. I know there is (or was) a resin kit available to convert the AMT NCC-1701-D into a Nebula Class starship, but it's price tag was quite a bit more than I'd be willing to pay simply to have a Nebula Class ship in my collection.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Yeah, I have the resin conversion, along with an unbuilt AMT 1701-D... I'm just waiting for when I have the sheer time it will take to build it up right.


----------



## robiwon

Well at least filling gridlines should be easier than sanding them off. Even a nice coat of primer should fill them in somewhat. I couldn't imagine sanding them all off if they were raised!


----------



## chiangkaishecky

chiangkaishecky said:


> Revell has again changed the illustrations (pix?) on their site
> check out the grid


Given the test shots I guess these WERE PIX


----------



## jbond

No one's going to make an injection-molded model of the Nebula class, unless R2 decides to launch a series of very small scale "Academy line" models. They didn't do the Akira for this very reason--you can't sell designs like this to the mass public and make money. A casual model builder has no idea what the Nebula is--it either has to be a ship named Enterprise or a high profile "villain" ship like the Reliant that can be identified with a character.

The German Enterprise model looks problematic--the shuttle bay door/beacon and the antenna and front of the engineering hull look pretty off (I don't really care about the panel lines). I'll probably still get one for curiosity's sake though. The Klingon ship does look every interesting though, very much like the early version of the K'Tinga before it was detailed for The Motion Picture--note the forward-facing row of windows on the "tower" bridge module. I'm not sure that was on Greg Jein's "Tribble-ations" model but it was definitely on the early K'Tinga along with very subtle "feather" paint/panel detailing. Since there's already a very accurate version of the D-7 I'm perfectly happy to have the German Klingon ship as a transitional model between the D-7 and the K'Tinga.


----------



## SJF

Marco Scheloske said:


> Here you go. Enterprise: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110831_enterprise/enterprise_600_revell.html
> 
> D7: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110901_klingonen/klingonen_600_revell.html


Thanks for the pictures, I'm looking forward to getting these. 

Sean


----------



## charonjr

Me too!


----------



## Prologic9

Outside of the engravings the Enterprise just doesn't look great, the detail seems too far off for a kit of its supposed size.


----------



## scifiguy67

it looks better than the AMT one! i can work with it.


----------



## SUNGOD

Marco Scheloske said:


> Here you go. Enterprise: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110831_enterprise/enterprise_600_revell.html
> 
> D7: http://www.dpmv.de/ipunkt/110901_klingonen/klingonen_600_revell.htmlhttp://www.dpmv.de/





Thanks for posting those Marco. Can't comment on the supposed inaccuracies but I like the way Revell 'appears' to be making most of the lights and windows as clear parts on the Enterprise. I'm glad Revell's taken the route of an engraved grid pattern and a few panel lines instead of a bare surface. 

They could be a bit finer but looking at those photo's they still appear acceptable, and the Klingon ship looks nice too with it's clear windows and possibly a few lights.....though as I thought they look as if they have the aztec type engravings on the back but the detail looks a bit sparse elsewhere in places (mind you I'm not dead sure what Revell have based it on). 

Both look like nice kits though.


----------



## SUNGOD

Helldogg said:


> Well that's a bummer. I was hoping for no gridlines. I wonder why everyone is obsessed with putting lousy gridlines one the enterprise?
> 
> I spent so many years scraping the off the amt, I was hoping that would be over.... bummer.
> 
> Hope round 2 decides against them.




As far as I know they weren't on the pilot versions but gridlines *were* on the later Enterprise weren't they?


----------



## SUNGOD

Landru said:


> Ah, I see. There have been plenty of people on this thread who have complained about the inaccuracies of these new kits (myself included). He said that the people who complain about these inaccuracies "probably don't even build models", which implies that I and others are simply 'armchair bashing' the new kits for the sake of it.
> I was just trying to prove that he is wrong to assume that.
> 
> Hope that clears it up.




Ok, but what I was curious about was that you said the lines on this new Revell Enterprise were terrible........yet the grid patterns and main lines on your Enterprise A are like trenches?


----------



## Maritain

Wow I like those improvements to the Ent. Compared to the the old AMT 18 I think it it looks great. Even the grid lines. I think its better to have them than not if some think they are too pronounced they can also be sanded down I would imagine to tone them down. Having them will be easier for painting the subtle wheathering effects. I am sure I'll pick up a couple. Thanks for posting the pics Marko.


----------



## Landru

SUNGOD said:


> Ok, but what I was curious about was that you said the lines on this new Revell Enterprise were terrible........yet the grid patterns and main lines on your Enterprise A are like trenches?


Well for my Challenger build, I used the new R2 Refit Enterprise kit; the lines on that kit are accurate to the filming model (although still a little on the large side). 
But stated simply, those lines are _supposed_ to be there, they aren't for the original Enterprise. They're different subject matters entirely, simple as that.


----------



## SUNGOD

Landru said:


> Well for my Challenger build, I used the new R2 Refit Enterprise kit; the lines on that kit are accurate to the filming model (although still a little on the large side).
> But stated simply, those lines are _supposed_ to be there, they aren't for the original Enterprise. They're different subject matters entirely, simple as that.




I'm no expert on the original Enterprise but as far as I can see they *were *there on the Enterprise which came after the pilot version. Very faint yes but there (please anyone correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## jbond

I believe they are there, drawn in pencil--but you'll get no shortage of experts who'll tell you the opposite. I've forgotten now whether the Marecki restoration did anything to the TOP of the saucer--I know for quite a while, that was kept unchanged, in the original condition of the shooting miniature, and there must be a number of photographs of the unrestored top of the saucer (there was a good photo survey done in the late 70s in the old Star Trek Poster Magazine for example).


----------



## Landru

They weren't there for the two pilots, but were drawn on lightly with a pencil for the beginning of the series. Gene wanted them on, but Matt Jeffries apparently didn't think they should be there, so they were drawn on lightly so they could both satisfy Gene and not appear on the TV. Which is what happened; it's only with the advent on newer technologies that we can see them now. 

But for a model, even a 1/350 scale one, we shouldn't really be able to see them at that scale, but as always that's up to the builder.


----------



## Captain April

Other than repairs to the decals, the upper surface of the saucer has remained untouched from the time the model arrived at the Smithsonian. The rest of the model has been manhandled like a twenty dollar hooker, but the upper saucer remains untouched.

You'd think the faintness of the gridlines would've been a major hint to Ed Miraecki for how to do the rest of the model, but he apparently didn't get that memo.


----------



## SUNGOD

Anyway, whether the model had a grid pattern in the original series might be a moot point as it looks like Revell's modelled these after the high definition remastered series.

Like this Diamond Select version........


http://www.urban-collector.com/star-trek-uss-enterprise-ncc1701-hd-ship-may091374.html


----------



## SJF

I look at the lines in the ship this way: it's just another interpetation of the classic design. I look forward to adding this version to my collection. 

Sean


----------



## spindrift

I am very letdown on this model- had high hopes, the end result...is well ,let's just say I'll pass.


----------



## Captain April

If I happen upon one for a reasonable price, I'll consider it.


----------



## jbond

Like I said before, I don't know why anyone thought the company that produced the "Millennium FATcon" was suddenly going to produce museum quality Star Trek kits. These are still interesting enough interpretations to me, especially the Klingon ship.


----------



## spindrift

jbond said:


> Like I said before, I don't know why anyone thought the company that produced the "Millennium FATcon" was suddenly going to produce museum quality Star Trek kits. These are still interesting enough interpretations to me, especially the Klingon ship.


R/G produces some beautiful highly accurate WWII planes and ships of late. They are excellent well researched kits. Guess on Star Trek they dropped the ball as I had thought the same effort in research and accuracy would apply.


----------



## jbond

I think different standards apply when it's a sci-fi subject and this has pretty much always been the case. Yes, things have improved a lot over the years but I think in most cases with science fiction you're dealing with fewer research resources (as opposed to something like a WWII aircraft where the subject has been done countless times and there are reams of research options), resources that are contradictory (when there may be more than one miniature or prop version of a vehicle, or disagreements by people about details and figures), AND (maybe most importantly), the funds and time to do the research are limited because companies know going in that they are not going to sell an unlimited number of these kits. Their investment has to be in line with what they think they're going to make. We're lucky we do have companies doing excellent research and coming out with some fantastic kits--but you just can't expect that in every case, particularly with a company that's shown that it's more comfortable making snap kits for kids as far as sci-fi subjects are concerned.


----------



## hell_fighter_8

They could make a model kit molded right from the studio model and you guys would still find something to complain about. No wonder they are doing mostly re-pops.


----------



## Zombie_61

jbond said:


> Like I said before, I don't know why anyone thought the company that produced the "Millennium FATcon" was suddenly going to produce museum quality Star Trek kits.


That was due to a licensing issue. Like AMT in the 70s and 80s, Revell was contractually obligated to base their Millennium Falcon kit on the reference material provided by Lucasfilm and were not allowed to make any alterations or improvements. Not surprisingly, they were sent essentially the same reference material as AMT worked from, which is why Revell's original trilogy Star Wars kits share many of the same inaccuracies. 

With that in mind, Revell may have encountered similar licensing issues with Paramount.


----------



## Ductapeforever

...and so ends the honeymoon !


----------



## StarshipClass

I like both these kits so far due to their similarities to the Greg Jein "Trials and Tribbleations" versions of those ships. I think they're worth having for that reason alone if the price isn't too high.


----------



## Hunch

Because they will be imports I'm guessing they WILL be pricey. Might grab the D7 as it does resemble the t&t episode of DS9. The more I look at the "E", the more I see wrong with it. I'm not getting any younger and just dont have the time to make dozens or hundreds of of mods just to arrive at something I can live with. Guess I'll be saving my bondo for the big E !


----------



## SUNGOD

I wonder if those new photo's are still slightly distorted making the grid lines look slightly bigger than they are? If you look at the grid lines on the white test shot (close up shot of the top of the saucer) on the Star Trek site they 'appear' to look a bit finer.


----------



## behell

Curtain up for the all new 1701 Enterprise from Revell !

pic's of the test-shots can bee seen at www.dpmv.de.

As well for the all new D7 Klingon battlecruiser.

Bye,
Bernd


----------



## Warped9

behell said:


> Curtain up for the all new 1701 Enterprise from Revell !
> 
> pic's of the test-shots can bee seen at www.dpmv.de.
> 
> As well for the all new D7 Klingon battlecruiser.
> 
> Bye,
> Bernd


And for those of us who don't read German???


----------



## BolianAdmiral

behell said:


> Curtain up for the all new 1701 Enterprise from Revell !
> 
> pic's of the test-shots can bee seen at www.dpmv.de.
> 
> As well for the all new D7 Klingon battlecruiser.
> 
> Bye,
> Bernd


I don't see the Enterprise there... and I saw only one pic at the very bottom of a thread of the Klingon ship... the other stuff was all aircraft stuff.


----------



## SUNGOD

Those are the photo's Marco posted.


----------



## Zombie_61

Warped9 said:


> And for those of us who don't read German???


What, "klingonischen Schlachtkreuzers D7" and "Enterprise NCC-1701" need translation? 

But seriously, SUNGOD is right--they're the exact same photos Marco posted links to in post #347, so you're not missing anything.


----------



## StarshipClass

behell said:


> Curtain up for the all new 1701 Enterprise from Revell !
> 
> pic's of the test-shots can bee seen at www.dpmv.de.
> 
> As well for the all new D7 Klingon battlecruiser.
> 
> Bye,
> Bernd


Vielen Dank! Du arbeit für Revell?


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> And for those of us who don't read German???


Es ist kein Problem für mich!

(Google Transate is your friend  )


----------



## Solium

Well they sure are interesting "alternate" designs. I do like all the clear parts. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever

Four years of German in high school, two in college, two in military linguistics school.....No Problem.


----------



## StarshipClass

Ductapeforever said:


> Four years of German in high school, two in college, two in military linguistics school.....No Problem.


You've got me beat!


----------



## John P

I learned my German from Hogan's Heroes.


----------



## Just Plain Al

When it comes to German [Shultz voice] I know nuzing! [/Shultz voice]


----------



## Warped9

_Verry eenteresting..._


----------



## Marco Scheloske

I got a final testshot yesterday, and I can tell a bit more about this kit now.

It has some interesting features and will be a grail for garage kit add-on producers. First there is a clear bridge dome. Cool, but there is no bridge to go underneath it - this would be a nice addition.

The gridlines are not so bad as they look in the pictures. They are not very deep, just a bid wide for my taste, but I guess once the ship is painted they will look much more subtle.

The bussard collectors are made from two clear pieces, one outer dome and a fanblade insert. With a few transparent colors a nice effect can be achieved... and I can almost see clear red fanblade inserts from the one or other supplier...

There is no shuttle bay interior, but the instructions are saying that you have to add a 90g weight just in front of the hangar door to keep the model in balance. So if you add a shuttle bay by yourself you have to find a solution for that.

The secondary hull is stabilized with two big "spacers" so that i will keep shape. Those also add strength to it regarding the nacelle strut mount, which is a large "v"-shaped piece.

There are a LOT of clear parts for windows and navigation lights. Only problem is that they have to be mounted before the model can be painted, so you will have to mask all of them. :drunk: 
But they are cool if you want to add lights to the model.

The stand is indeed mirrored. Revell is not able to change this (too less time until the model will be released), so... a resin stand anyone?

Decals are provided for USS Constitution, USS Enterprise and USS Potemkin.

So far for my first look at the kit. I can't tell anything about the parts fit yet, I didn't have time to testfit.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

The gridlines on the nacelles don't look TOO bad, but then, there are only three on the nacelles... in terms of the gridlines on the rest of the ship... no thanks... they look way too deep for me. If this is a hint of what the Round 2 gridlines will be, I'll pass on both kits.

The clear parts are nice... I'm sure folks who like to light their models will appreciate that aspect, and because of that, I don't think many folks will care about the stand... they'll likely make their own custom stand that they can run wiring through for the lights and such.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

BolianAdmiral said:


> they look way too deep for me.
> 
> 
> they'll likely make their own custom stand that they can run wiring through for the lights and such.


The gridlines are not deep, just a bit wide. In fact they are VERY subtle regarding their depth.

The stand would be perfect for wiring, as it is really a large one - much too large for my taste, as it covers nearly half the bottom of the secondary hull.


----------



## John P

BolianAdmiral said:


> If this is a hint of what the Round 2 gridlines will be...


Why in the world _would _it be? Neither company has anything to do with the other.


----------



## Landru

John P said:


> Why in the world _would _it be? Neither company has anything to do with the other.


Murphy's Law? :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach

While none of us has yet to see anything, Marco HAS THE KIT IN HIS HANDS. Don't forget, everyone was concerned about that grid.. and Marco is essentially saying "Wow. Not too bad". This is encouraging to me.

And Revell of Germany is in NO WAY associated with Round 2 in any way, shape or form!! Round 2 has already stated their intentions. They don't HAVE to tell us anything and release it in any way they want. I for one am grateful to Marco for being able to share at least some info with us... and to Round 2 for keeping us in the loop. They don't deserve the constant trashing.


----------



## charonjr

I'm looking forward to both Enterprise and D7. At 1/600, Enterprise will be 19 inches long. There may be things to correct and garage kit makers will likely fill the void. But I think the kits will turn out nice.


----------



## StarshipClass

WarpCore Breach said:


> They don't deserve the constant trashing.


And really, as I'm sure you agree, no one does. :thumbsup:

I think we'll manage to keep our assessments fair and remember to mention the good with the things we don't like as much.


----------



## Captain April

Just out of curiosity, how does the size of the bridge compare with the bridge on the old AMT 18" version?


----------



## djnick66

As for any engraved grid lines... Mr. Surfacer or Tamiya Liquid Surfacer will take care of that stuff with minimal effort.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

WarpCore Breach said:


> While none of us has yet to see anything, Marco HAS THE KIT IN HIS HANDS. Don't forget, everyone was concerned about that grid.. and Marco is essentially saying "Wow. Not too bad". This is encouraging to me.
> 
> And Revell of Germany is in NO WAY associated with Round 2 in any way, shape or form!! Round 2 has already stated their intentions. They don't HAVE to tell us anything and release it in any way they want. I for one am grateful to Marco for being able to share at least some info with us... and to Round 2 for keeping us in the loop. They don't deserve the constant trashing.


That's true... he does have the kit in his hands. But we also have seen photos of said kit... photos which make the gridlines look pretty obvious.

I mean, it doesn't really apply to me, since I don't live in Germany, so IDK if I'd even be able to get this kit if I wanted it, but the fact that he's saying they look so fine and subtle, yet they are anything but in the photos isn't that encouraging to me for what "fine and subtle" will actually end up being on our kit.

But to each their own.


----------



## razorwyre1

based on marco's review (and the photos) i will be bellying up to the bar for one of each.


----------



## LGFugate

I honestly don't understand the vehemence regarding these silly lines. If you like them, fine. If you don't like them, but feel capable of fixing them to your liking, fine. If you hate them with a passion born of the firey pits of Hell, then don't buy them. (Your money would be better spent on a psychiatrist to find out why you have this bitter hatred of something that doesn't make a bit of difference in the real world.) I think we can all respect your opinion, one way or another, but the constant griping passed annoying a ways back. Your opinion, expressed in a modelling forum, is not going to sway either Revell Germany or Round 2 from doing what they feel is right.

As for the photos. we do not know for sure that they are of production kits. Only Mario has one of those, and only he can tell us about them. Why not wait until these kits surface in the US (and they will, judging by the large number of Revell Germany kits available online and at HobbyLobby...) before blasting out an opinion?

Larry


----------



## Warped9

LGFugate said:


> I honestly don't understand the vehemence regarding these silly lines. If you like them, fine. If you don't like them, but feel capable of fixing them to your liking, fine. If you hate them with a passion born of the firey pits of Hell, then don't buy them... Your opinion, expressed in a modelling forum, is not going to sway either Revell Germany or Round 2 from doing what they feel is right.
> 
> ...Why not wait until these kits surface in the US (and they will, judging by the large number of Revell Germany kits available online and at HobbyLobby...) before blasting out an opinion?
> 
> Larry


Well said. We can't change any of these things and they are easily fixed if it's something you don't like. 

For years the old AMT kit was all there was and folks got a lot of fun out of building them. Today we can get the TOS _E_ in a number of scales and forms that should suit most people. Of course no one can be as critical as a devoted fan. :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> Today we can get the TOS _E_ in a number of scales and forms that should suit most people. Of course no one can be as critical as a devoted fan. :lol:


I'm feeling quite spoiled, myself!:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Any chance of some more photo's Marco? And the Klingon ship too?


----------



## Captain April

I ask again, what's the size of the bridge dome compared to the old AMT 18"er?


----------



## BolianAdmiral

LGFugate said:


> Your opinion, expressed in a modelling forum, is not going to sway either Revell Germany or Round 2 from doing what they feel is right.


Absolutely true. But my opinion WILL tell Revell or Round 2 whether or not they will get any of my money.


----------



## Paulbo

Captain April said:


> I ask again, what's the size of the bridge dome compared to the old AMT 18"er?


Assuming that the old AMT kit was accurate (and I know it isn't - I'm just saying for the sake of argument), then the Revell bridge should be about 8% larger.

Marko - got a pair of calipers handy to supply the measurement?


----------



## jheilman

BolianAdmiral said:


> Absolutely true. But my opinion WILL tell Revell or Round 2 whether or not they will get any of my money.


Which is how it's supposed to work. Vote with your wallet if you like. 

But yes, fans to get up in arms about something they hold dear. And they fixate on the minutiae at the expense of the whole sometimes. Look at superhero films. 

Spiderman has mechanical webshooters!!!! The film will fail.
Superman's not wearing red shorts!!!! The film will fail.

And on and on. There's an eagerness to label something as a failure because a bolt's out of place before said product has even entered the market. 

I will probably pass on this kit simply because I'll build the R2 and I simply don't have enough hours in the year to devote to the hobby. But, if I was considering it, I'd wait to see better pics and a review by someone else here. And, it may be a disappointment, who knows...yet?


----------



## Warped9

If the R2 1/350 kit were not happening I'd probably have more interest in the Revell Germany kit. But as it presently stands I think it's safe to say the R2 kit will have it all over the RG kit, not only in terms of scale but more importantly in terms of accuracy and detail. Yes, the R2 is more expensive, but in my view in this case I think it's the better value simply because it's far more likely to be a better representation of the starship we all love so much.


----------



## Captain April

I'm thinking along the lines of the theory that the 18" AMT represents a slightly earlier class of starship than the Constitution, with it's slightly chunkier contours and other anomalous details, all clearly on display with the USS Constellation NCC-1017. If the bridge modules are the same size, that'll be the clincher. 

If nothing else, it'll make for a nifty side-by-side display...


----------



## Seashark

I would normally have little interest in a kit of the original E with engraved grid lines; in this case however, I'll simply build it into the remastered version.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

BolianAdmiral said:


> but the fact that he's saying they look so fine and subtle, yet they are anything but in the photos isn't that encouraging to me for what "fine and subtle" will actually end up being on our kit.


I didn't say that they are fine and subtle.

I said that they are no way that deep as they look at those earlier testshot pictures, but that they are to wide for my taste. Their depth is approx. 0.15 to 0.2 mm, so that is really not much, and if RoG would have made them equally thin they would be perfect. Well, they didn't, but because of their small depth I'm pretty sure they will look much more subtle once paint comes into the game.

Regarding pictures: I don't have my camera here at the moment, but will take new ones as soon as possible.

Regarding the bridge dome size: I'll measure it this evening.


----------



## StarshipClass

Captain April said:


> I'm thinking along the lines of the theory that the 18" AMT represents a slightly earlier class of starship than the Constitution, with it's slightly chunkier contours and other anomalous details, all clearly on display with the USS Constellation NCC-1017. If the bridge modules are the same size, that'll be the clincher.
> 
> If nothing else, it'll make for a nifty side-by-side display...


I concur! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

On a 1/600 or so scale you shouldn't see the things at all. On a 1/350 scale they should be quite subtle.


----------



## behell

Additionally to Marco's previous posts and first impressions I attach a first batch of details of the 1701-kit. See here ... Today the final decals arrived and I can confim the three options. A scan will follow later.

Compatitive pic's of the Revell & AMT kit will also follow soon.

I just started with the D7 kit. The fit of the first parts is very good. There are many clear parts which needed to be masked.

Bye,
Bernd


----------



## SUNGOD

behell said:


> Additionally to Marco's previous posts and first impressions I attach a first batch of details of the 1701-kit. See here ... Today the final decals arrived and I can confim the three options. A scan will follow later.
> 
> Compatitive pic's of the Revell & AMT kit will also follow soon.
> 
> I just started with the D7 kit. The fit of the first parts is very good. There are many clear parts which needed to be masked.
> 
> Bye,
> Bernd




Thanks for those behell. Now we can see it clearer.....panel lines are slightly wider than I would have liked but don't know about anyone else......still looks like a really nice kit to me.:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Any pics of the Klingon ship too behell?


----------



## Trekkriffic

I'll bet after a few coats of primer and paint those panel lines will be much less noticeable. From the pics behell posted it appears some of the round windows are missing which is easily fixed with a drill bit. And perhaps when these go into production the round windows will be included.


----------



## Warped9

behell said:


> Additionally to Marco's previous posts and first impressions I attach a first batch of details of the 1701-kit. See here ... Today the final decals arrived and I can confim the three options. A scan will follow later.
> 
> Compatitive pic's of the Revell & AMT kit will also follow soon.
> 
> I just started with the D7 kit. The fit of the first parts is very good. There are many clear parts which needed to be masked.
> 
> Bye,
> Bernd


From those pics those lines are way too pronounced for my liking.


----------



## John P

Warped9 said:


> From those pics those lines are way too pronounced for my liking.


Yeah, me too. Won't stop me from buying one, though!


----------



## Landru

John P said:


> Yeah, me too. Won't stop me from buying one, though!


No! We are Star Trek fans, and this necessitates that we boycott anything that deviates in the slightest from cannon!! 

Star Trek, R.I.P 1964-65

ha. ha. ha.


----------



## John P

Landru said:


> No! We are Star Trek fans, and this necessitates that we boycott anything that deviates in the slightest from cannon!!
> 
> Star Trek, R.I.P 1964-65
> 
> ha. ha. ha.


Don't make me talk you into self-destructing again!


----------



## jheilman

Those pics allow a clearer evaluation. The grid lines are too strong for me, but more of a concern are the windows. I love that they will be clear, but they are way too tall. Compare one of the posted pics that I flipped with pics taken during the restoration of the original.










Yes, some are missing and some are positioned incorrectly, but see how much taller the kit windows are? Again, I'm sure it's more accurate than the AMT ever was. You could always install the windows, make them flush with the hull, mask them off at the correct height and paint. 

But, as I said, I'm saving my time and $$ for the big kit, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. Just observing.


----------



## Trekkriffic

I noticed that too about the windows. Wouldn't take much to glue a little strip styrene into the window openings to make them narrower top to bottom though.


----------



## jbond

You guys have a lot more free time than I do!


----------



## SUNGOD

jheilman said:


> Those pics allow a clearer evaluation. The grid lines are too strong for me, but more of a concern are the windows. I love that they will be clear, but they are way too tall. Compare one of the posted pics that I flipped with pics taken during the restoration of the original.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some are missing and some are positioned incorrectly, but see how much taller the kit windows are? Again, I'm sure it's more accurate than the AMT ever was. You could always install the windows, make them flush with the hull, mask them off at the correct height and paint.
> 
> But, as I said, I'm saving my time and $$ for the big kit, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. Just observing.





I don't know how many filming models there were but no kit is ever totally accurate and there'll always be little nitpicks here and there. 

I'm just glad they're in clear (unlike some Enterprise models) and they look from the photos to be nicely moulded. Look at the windows on the cutaway Enterprise for instance.........they're all over the shop, poorly moulded and not even in clear plastic.


----------



## jheilman

jbond said:


> You guys have a lot more free time than I do!


Thanks for telling us we care too much. Accuracy doesn't matter, right? This is a modeling board. This is one of the most iconic ships in history. We all want accurate kits of this ship. So little things like the shapes of the hull, window placements and size ARE actually worthy of discussion. I mean, if accuracy doesn't matter, then anything goes right? 

I'm waiting for the R2 kit and I'll bet it will be the last word on an accurate TOS E kit. I want a kit that represents what I fell in love with as a kid. That ship transported me to so many adventures and I want to have that ship in my home. An accurate representation of that ship so when I look at it, it takes me back to when I was a kid staying up way after bedtime to watch Trek. And making my parents angry when I was caught.


----------



## JGG1701

jheilman said:


> ....when I was a kid staying up way after bedtime to watch Trek. And making my parents angry when I was caught.


Wait a minute, are we related? :freak:
-Jim


----------



## SUNGOD

jheilman said:


> Thanks for telling us we care too much. Accuracy doesn't matter, right? This is a modeling board. This is one of the most iconic ships in history. We all want accurate kits of this ship. So little things like the shapes of the hull, window placements and size ARE actually worthy of discussion. I mean, if accuracy doesn't matter, then anything goes right?
> 
> I'm waiting for the R2 kit and I'll bet it will be the last word on an accurate TOS E kit. I want a kit that represents what I fell in love with as a kid. That ship transported me to so many adventures and I want to have that ship in my home. An accurate representation of that ship so when I look at it, it takes me back to when I was a kid staying up way after bedtime to watch Trek. And making my parents angry when I was caught.




Of course accuracy matters and there's nothing wrong with discussing it but I think people take accuracy too far sometimes. You can have an accurate in shape and detail model but then have other annoying things wrong with it...like blobby, misshapen details or lack of transparancies for lights and windows etc. 

Maybe the grid patterns engravings are a bit wide and maybe the windows aren't exact.............but it looks like the Enterprise to me and it also looks crisply moulded.


----------



## JGG1701

Hoping "nacelle droop" isn't an issue with this model. But I am glad to see that there are cut outs for the windows, Man it was a P.I.T.A. doing my Cutaway. Fingers hurt thinking about it.
-Jim


----------



## Helldogg

Ugh lines on the secondary hull too....Looks like more filling and sanding then building...


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Helldogg said:


> Ugh lines on the secondary hull too....


And on the nacelles...


----------



## Helldogg

Triple ugh......


----------



## John P

SUNGOD said:


> I don't know how many filming models there were....


Basically, one.
Yes, the three-foot prototype model was used in flyby shots in The Cage, and in a few wide shots during the series (and the AMT model was hanging outside the window in _Tribbles_), but all the "important" or "hero" shots were of the 134" model.


----------



## KUROK

Contour on lower saucer has the same flat "rim" that the AMT kit has...except wider!


----------



## Marco Scheloske

*nevermind*


----------



## Solium

So the windows are a little off. Things are produced on a budget and on a tight schedules. They don't have a life time to make this a reality. We need it done yesterday is always the mentality. And the "crew" usually gets what they need to proceed late in the game and are hit with several projects at once. Sometimes the "know it all" supervisor interferes and makes bad decisions on the project. Or which is probably the case, they feel "looks like" the Enterprise is "good enough" for the market place. Its clear they are making a hybrid of the physical and CGI models. So there are going to be accuracy issues regardless.


----------



## jbond

One thing we haven't seen yet is the "V" piece that links the pylons--if done right that should help quite a bit with nacelle droop.

I'm not dissing people who want to make this perfect--just saying I don't plan on addressing the window issue. This model is what it is--it has some neat aspects, it's off in certain respects, and I'll likely build it as is without any major modifications. I've got the MR Enterprise and I'll happily buy the R2 version next year (and probably build it into one of the pilot versions).


----------



## JeffG

Another take on the Enterprise. No doubt better than the old AMT kit, probably not as good as the 1/350th version coming out. What's the problem? I'm sure it'll build fine for what it is but if you want even better, then wait for the Round 2 kit. Problem solved. More or less.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

I went from being interested in this kit, back at the first announcement, to ZZzZZzzzZZzzz.... I'm already working on an R2 re-issued AMT Enterprise, no need for this Revell kit.

These RG kits are like the Star Wars offerings, mostly soft and almost toy-like. There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, and I hope they sell okay, but I'm baffled that RG would pattern a whole new kit in damn near the same scale as the AmT models without going 110% on the accuracy (and I'm not even addressing the backwards stand, come'on, that alone should tip you off about where they value accuracy. Can't imagine they'd release a kit with NASCAR spelled backwards. No, that mold would've been re-tooled before you could finish yelling "I like crap beer and cars that don't make right turns!!!).


----------



## BlackbirdCD

What bothers me the most is RG appears to have designed these kits as if the same kids who buy their Star Wars models want Star Trek subjects. Star Trek, especially the old show, is more likely something an older model builder wants. 

I wish they'd approached it with the same sensitivity to detail and accuracy as they did with their amazing 1:72 WWII SUBMARINE models, and not assume that they're toys.


----------



## John P

Ditto!


----------



## KUROK

I'll bet they are kicking themselves for not just scaling up the 1/1000 kit which is about as accurate you can get, give or take a few small issues.


----------



## SUNGOD

Solium said:


> So the windows are a little off. Things are produced on a budget and on a tight schedules. They don't have a life time to make this a reality. We need it done yesterday is always the mentality. And the "crew" usually gets what they need to proceed late in the game and are hit with several projects at once. Sometimes the "know it all" supervisor interferes and makes bad decisions on the project. Or which is probably the case, they feel "looks like" the Enterprise is "good enough" for the market place. Its clear they are making a hybrid of the physical and CGI models. So there are going to be accuracy issues regardless.




I think that's what some people are forgetting. These kits are obviously not based totally on the original models but the cgi versions as well.


----------



## Trek Ace

The only real item of concern to me with the Enterprise kit is the HUGE lip around the underside perimeter of the saucer. That will take more than a little effort to transform into the correct contour. But, I've done it with the AMT kit, so I can do it with this one.


----------



## LGFugate

Accurate, accurate, accurate!?!?!? Accurate to what standard? The 11-footer? The 33-incher? The CGI model? The actual prop or what you saw on your TV?

When you say a model of the TOS E must be accurate, to what model or image are your referring?

Larry


----------



## Captain April

LGFugate said:


> Accurate, accurate, accurate!?!?!? Accurate to what standard? The 11-footer? The 33-incher? The CGI model? The actual prop or what you saw on your TV?


Yes.


----------



## KUROK

CGI model / 11-footer is the yardstick. Theoretically they are the same.

p.s. I'm sure I'll end up buying this kit....because I like these things!


----------



## behell

OK, fellows ... here are some more pic of the 1701.

No comments on further faults you maybe will find. This is the final test-shot and will go into production like this. So red alert for garage-kit suppliers of replacement/detail parts ... As Marco already said.


----------



## Captain April

The insignia is backwards.


----------



## behell

And here we go for the D7 ....


----------



## behell

... and the clear parts.


----------



## behell

Bingo for the backward insignia !


----------



## falcondesigns

They both look like very nice kits.People who talk too much are people who dont build enough...


----------



## Paulbo

behell said:


> Bingo for the backward insignia !


It's a special edition Mirror Universe Enterprise


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Hey Bernd/behell thanks for your pix and your site ... now I know where to go to find the latest on Revell G's new stuff http://www.dpmv.de


----------



## JGG1701

Can the insignia be fixed???:freak:
Also , do you have any clear part pics. for the Enterprise?
Thanks,
-Jim


----------



## jheilman

falcondesigns said:


> People who talk too much are people who dont build enough...


I resemble that remark. 

At the end of the day, folks will buy it, enjoy it for what it is, modify it as they can or pass. I'll be interested to see someone's build side by side with the 18" AMT.


----------



## SUNGOD

behell said:


> And here we go for the D7 ....



We have actually seen those D7 ones behell but thanks still for posting those and the other unseen Enterprise ones.


----------



## JeffG

Ahh, but the question still stands;








To grid, or not to grid?


----------



## Warped9

JeffG said:


> Ahh, but the question still stands;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To grid, or not to grid?


Nice pic, but the lines are still too obvious for my taste. If they can't get them really fine then I'd rather not have them at all. And what's with the lines on the B/C deck structure?


----------



## Paulbo

Personally I find the decals' binder showing around the "RP" in Enterprise a bit annoying. People should really take more care with their Microsol.


----------



## JeffG

Warped9 said:


> And what's with the lines on the B/C deck structure?


I guess even in the future, large surfaces still need to be made out of separate panels.


----------



## Warped9

JeffG said:


> I guess even in the future, large surfaces still need to be made out of separate panels.


Yeah, well those definitely weren't on the 11 footer even in pencil.


----------



## JeffG

Yeah, perhaps not. I might try it with a ludicrously light and thin mechanical pencil where you might have to kiss the hull to notice it. I think it's kinda up to the individual. Almost like the kit itself. i.e. is it based on the miniature, the CG version, what the physical model was supposed to represent had they had more time and money, the blueprints, or a hybrid of all?


----------



## John P

LGFugate said:


> Accurate, accurate, accurate!?!?!? Accurate to what standard? The 11-footer? The 33-incher? The CGI model? The actual prop or what you saw on your TV?
> 
> When you say a model of the TOS E must be accurate, to what model or image are your referring?
> 
> Larry


How many times must we hash this out?

Obviously the 11-footer, idealized as if it were a real ship. The 33-incher was only seen a few times, and the CGI ship has nothing to do with what we grew up seeing.


----------



## John P

KUROK said:


> I'll bet they are kicking themselves for not just scaling up the 1/1000 kit which is about as accurate you can get, give or take a few small issues.


A) I'll bet they're not kicking themselves at all.

B) It would be illegal and immoral to scale up _another company's_ model kit.

3) Once _again_, You can't "just" scale up the 1/1000 kit and have it come out looking like anything but a scaled up version of a small, soft-detailed bunch of parts with big gaps, and small-scale compromises. Go take a look at the parts in that kit and imagine them almost twice as big. Things like the two halves of the nacelle pylons with their putty-needing gap, and that nacelle dome with the tapered-and-stepped reactor blocks would look _awful_.


----------



## BARRYZ28

I don't care, Ill still buy a couple gridlines or not.


----------



## charonjr

I like this render. What Gammans did regarding detail is an interesting interpretation.


----------



## charonjr

Captain April said:


> The insignia is backwards.


It's from the Mirror Universe!


----------



## Hunch

charonjr said:


> It's from the Mirror Universe!


Paul beat you to it, but dont feel bad I was thinking the exact same thing!


----------



## Fraley1701

Trek Ace said:


> The only real item of concern to me with the Enterprise kit is the HUGE lip around the underside perimeter of the saucer. That will take more than a little effort to transform into the correct contour. But, I've done it with the AMT kit, so I can do it with this one.


I agree. The contour of the bottom primary hull is completely wrong compared to the 11 foot original. I believe the 3 foot version had a lip, but not as wide as it appears in the Revell-Germany kit. There are still some nice features on this model however; even if not completely true to the original. :thumbsup:


----------



## KUROK

John P said:


> A) I'll bet they're not kicking themselves at all.
> 
> B) It would be illegal and immoral to scale up _another company's_ model kit.
> 
> 3) Once _again_, You can't "just" scale up the 1/1000 kit and have it come out looking like anything but a scaled up version of a small, soft-detailed bunch of parts with big gaps, and small-scale compromises. Go take a look at the parts in that kit and imagine them almost twice as big. Things like the two halves of the nacelle pylons with their putty-needing gap, and that nacelle dome with the tapered-and-stepped reactor blocks would look _awful_.



I really meant to use the 1/1000 as a reference for measurements and contours, not directly copy it. Unless they pantograph it directly up (illegal and immoral as you say) no one could prove it was used as a reference. Yes, a laser 3D scanner on the original model would have been the best but obviously they chose to do it their own way.


----------



## behell

And here are the decals .... for both kits.

I have to take a pic of the 1701-clear parts. But I'm quite buissy at the moment. Maybe at the we ....

"Mirrow Universe" - great explanation !!!!


----------



## spindrift

Complete mess of a kit- windows incoorect, trenches all over, secondary hull wrong in contour, suspect primary hull shapes... Really?


----------



## RSN

Well, I hate to mention this.......but, 99% of the people who build models do not nit-pick over accuracy issues. They build them because they enjoy the hobby and want to display their work for friends and family to see. I doubt any friend or family member would care that the windows are too tall or there are gridlines that are too wide, they will just admire the work that was put into it by the builder. Remember, this is supposed to be a relaxing hobby, for some that does not seem to be the case......enjoy life! :thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Nice pic JeffG. Is that from the remastered version?


----------



## Captain April

behell said:


> And here are the decals .... for both kits.
> 
> I have to take a pic of the 1701-clear parts. But I'm quite buissy at the moment. Maybe at the we ....
> 
> "Mirrow Universe" - great explanation !!!!


Can't speak to the other ships, but the Enterprise's dedication plaque said "Starshp Class", not "Constitution Class".


----------



## drmcoy

i find it interesting that anyone would defend this model not being accurate by guessing that the reason it is inaccurate is because the model company is on deadlines and did the best they could.

the Enterprise has been around for 45 years. anyone with a computer and access to the internet can EASILY find enough source material of the original model from which to make a kit that is more accurate that this new Revell kit appears to be.

the Revell people had to pull reference material from SOMEWHERE...and with so much available, the only rational explanation I can fathom is that they DELIBERATELY chose to make it the way they did.

look, i can forgive the windows not being exactly correct -- but the wide lower lip on the bottom saucer section -- geesh. as for the gridlines, i'll leave that alone.

bottom line -- this will be a very cool kit to own and build for anyone who has an interest in the show but is not a stickler for accuracy -- and for those that only desire 100% accuracy, then this might be cool to own as a sort of curiosity. personally, i think it's rather neat to have another version of this ship available.

but for the life of me, i would LOVE to know the thinking behind why they decided to NOT make it accurate -- does it really take more time/money to make it so -- with so much reference out there?

will i get the kit? if i can find it for $30 or so...sure. will i spend any time trying to make it more accurate? nope. why? seems like waaaaaaay too much work considering the other kits out there or the Round 2 coming up.

my two cents.


----------



## Trekkriffic

I think it will fit the niche for those of us who want something larger than the 1/1000 kit, more accurated (one would assume) than the 18" kit and who don't have the room for something as large as the 1/350 kit coming out next year. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## drmcoy

i agree trekeriffic...i am concerned also about display size of the 1/350 kit forthcoming...i have the MR, so if i get the Round 2, it would simply be to build it out of box and take it to work so I could have a huge E on display in my office and not get too worried if it was accidently broken by a co-worker. 

i suppose it would have been nice to have an extremely accurate 12 or 18-inch kit of the original E that you could build out of the box WITHOUT any after market parts (that was more accurate than the AMT)...like many have suggested, an 18 inch version based on the Polar Lights 1/1000 model would have been cool.

i would love to know how many people won't buy it because of accuracy issues, how many will buy it in spite of them and how many buy it that don't know the difference one way or the other.


----------



## JGG1701

RSN said:


> Well, I hate to mention this.......but, 99% of the people who build models do not nit-pick over accuracy issues. They build them because they enjoy the hobby and want to display their work for friends and family to see. I doubt any friend or family member would care that the windows are too tall or there are gridlines that are too wide, they will just admire the work that was put into it by the builder. Remember, this is supposed to be a relaxing hobby, for some that does not seem to be the case......enjoy life! :thumbsup:


Couldn't agree with you more! :thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## razorwyre1

drmcoy said:


> but for the life of me, i would LOVE to know the thinking behind why they decided to NOT make it accurate -- does it really take more time/money to make it so -- with so much reference out there?





Zombie_61 said:


> That was due to a licensing issue. Like AMT in the 70s and 80s, Revell was contractually obligated to base their Millennium Falcon kit on the reference material provided by Lucasfilm and were not allowed to make any alterations or improvements. Not surprisingly, they were sent essentially the same reference material as AMT worked from, which is why Revell's original trilogy Star Wars kits share many of the same inaccuracies.
> 
> With that in mind, Revell may have encountered similar licensing issues with Paramount.


to illustrate what zombie was saying, i recently worked on a licensed genre item. to make this item totally accurate, i took molds from a copy of the screen used original piece to create the prototype. the final prototype was 99% accurate in shape. when submitted to the studio, they had a long list of chances that they wanted me to make, which would have made the thing totally inaccurate! (fortunately i won the day, but it was an eye opener.)

the way the approval process works is that an executive from the studio looks at the plans for or prototype of the item and gives his opinion on how it looks. now in this case that executive may not may not have had photos of the 11 foot or 3 foot originals in front of him when looking over the product, or he may have been looking at another product that he thought was the perfect representation of enterprise, or he may have just been relying on his memory. (one thing is certain, he probably wasnt as familiar with the ship as many of the member here.) in any case, he then sets down a list of changes he wants made in order to bring it in line with either what he feels the enterprise looks like, or in line with how the studio wants the public to "see" the enterprise at this time. 

now maybe this didnt happen here, and the fault lies with revell, but it might also be that the guys who prototyped revells model were forced to make changes they knew were inaccuracies because thats what they were dictated to do by the terms of the contract. we on the outside of the process will never know, but in either case this model looks the way it does because it satisfied cbs/paramount's vision of what the enterprise should look like.


----------



## Kit

razorwyre1 said:


> the way the approval process works is that an executive from the studio looks at the plans for or prototype of the item and gives his opinion on how it looks. now in this case that executive may not may not have had photos of the 11 foot or 3 foot originals in front of him when looking over the product, or he may have been looking at another product that he thought was the perfect representation of enterprise, or he may have just been relying on his memory. (one thing is certain, he probably wasnt as familiar with the ship as many of the member here.) in any case, he then sets down a list of changes he wants made in order to bring it in line with either what he feels the enterprise looks like, or in line with how the studio wants the public to "see" the enterprise at this time.
> 
> now maybe this didnt happen here, and the fault lies with revell, but it might also be that the guys who prototyped revells model were forced to make changes they knew were inaccuracies because thats what they were dictated to do by the terms of the contract.


If that's true, won't the same executive demand the same inaccurate changes on the Round 2 1/350 E?


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Kit said:


> If that's true, won't the same executive demand the same inaccurate changes on the Round 2 1/350 E?


This discussion comes up every now and then. The answer is NO, it is possible that Round2 isn't forced to do it the same way. The license is telling the producer what he is allowed to do, and what not. Short variant is "the cheaper the license the more the license giver will tell the license taker what to do".

The idea behind this is to divide items more into the "toy" section from high-priced "collectors items". Take a "cheap" license, and you are only allowed to make something that is more a toy than a replica. Take an expensive license to be allowed to make something more accurate.


----------



## Warped9

Until we see the finished R2 1/350 the best model of the TOS _E_ to date is the PL 1/1000, small as it is. As is I'll take it over the Revell Germany kit.


----------



## Richard Baker

IIRC the Revell site mentions they pulled information from a multitude of sources and blended them together for this kit- it was not based exclusively on the 11 footer and then corrupted.

I do find it interesting how many kits I built and enjoyed over the years I should be upset with now because of accuracy issues. When I watched the show I never noticed the B/C deck teardrop had a pointy end- I never saw it at that angle. When I built the first 18" kit it looked like what I saw on TV (though in color). 

On the fence regarding getting these kits- I do not care about the grid lines but the cost. Imported they are going to be pretty expensive and I might just hold off and get the R2 edition...


----------



## StarshipClass

Perhaps this model will work out to be a close rendition of the Franz Joseph version of the Constitution class starship.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Now wouldn't that be funny. Are the FJ blueprints considered canon?


----------



## Warped9

Trekkriffic said:


> Now wouldn't that be funny. Are the FJ blueprints considered canon?


No, no and...no.


----------



## RSN

Trekkriffic said:


> Now wouldn't that be funny. Are the FJ blueprints considered canon?


They ARE canon, they were used in Star Trek 3 to represent the interior and exterior of the Enterprise. "If it was seen on screen.......!" :thumbsup:


----------



## JGG1701

RSN said:


> They ARE canon, they were used in Star Trek 3 to represent the interior and exterior of the Enterprise. "If it was seen on screen.......!" :thumbsup:


Well I be damned, I did not know it was the TOS Enterprise displayed in Star Trek III. 
-Jim


----------



## Trekkriffic

RSN said:


> They ARE canon, they were used in Star Trek 3 to represent the interior and exterior of the Enterprise. "If it was seen on screen.......!" :thumbsup:


Yep. NCC-1700 just like on the blueprints.


----------



## SUNGOD

Warped9 said:


> Until we see the finished R2 1/350 the best model of the TOS _E_ to date is the PL 1/1000, small as it is. As is I'll take it over the Revell Germany kit.




Well if you like decals for windows instead of proper clear ones I suppose it is. 

It might be fairly accurate in profile but the physical detail on the PL 1/1000 kit is rubbish (and their Enterprise A).
The Revell one might not be perfect but I personally much prefer Revells approach and can handle a few slight inaccuracies as it still looks very much like the *cg* Enterprise. 

Even though the grid lines are a bit wide....at least Revell have attempted to do proper physical detail instead of the decals for windows and panel lines cop out approach.


----------



## Captain April

RSN said:


> They ARE canon, they were used in Star Trek 3 to represent the interior and exterior of the Enterprise. "If it was seen on screen.......!" :thumbsup:


That was prior to Roddenberry showing the FJ plans the way to the airdock.


----------



## mach7

RSN said:


> They ARE canon, they were used in Star Trek 3 to represent the interior and exterior of the Enterprise. "If it was seen on screen.......!" :thumbsup:


Well by that logic (and I agree with it) then the AMT Enterprise is correct. It appeared as the USS Constellation in The Doomsday Machine. 

Just saying.


----------



## RSN

mach7 said:


> Well by that logic (and I agree with it) then the AMT Enterprise is correct. It appeared as the USS Constellation in The Doomsday Machine.
> 
> Just saying.


Yuuuuuuuuup!


----------



## RSN

JGG1701 said:


> Well I be damned, I did not know it was the TOS Enterprise displayed in Star Trek III.
> -Jim


They were also used in ST:TMP when V'Ger is scanning the records of the Enterprise. The TOS deck plans can be seen flashing by!


----------



## JGG1701

RSN said:


> They were also used in ST:TMP when V'Ger is scanning the records of the Enterprise. The TOS deck plans can be seen flashing by!


Question:
Why would they show the TOS Enterprise and not the Refit?
-Jim


----------



## RSN

JGG1701 said:


> Question:
> Why would they show the TOS Enterprise and not the Refit?
> -Jim


Because they already had ALLLLL those blueprints drawn of a fictional 23 Century starship and it did not matter to them, or to me watching, that it was the TOS ship and not the refit. They just had to reproduce them in a color and BINGO!, instant Enterprise plans!


----------



## Paulbo

SUNGOD said:


> ...These kits are obviously not based totally on the original models but the cgi versions as well.


Since the CG model was base on Gary's and Petri's measurements of the 11 foot miniature the shape problems did not come from basing any portion of the design on the CG model.


----------



## JGG1701

RSN said:


> Because they already had ALLLLL those blueprints drawn of a fictional 23 Century starship and it did not matter to them, or to me watching, that it was the TOS ship and not the refit. They just had to reproduce them in a color and BINGO!, instant Enterprise plans!


That's what I thought.
But that one closeup pic that was shown on STIII was a dead giveaway........................ sorta. 
-Jim


----------



## RSN

JGG1701 said:


> That's what I thought.
> But that one closeup pic that was shown on STIII was a dead giveaway........................ sorta.
> -Jim


I spotted it right away, sitting in the theater watching, in 1984!:thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

I spotted them in the theater ... in 1979 :wave:


----------



## RSN

Paulbo said:


> I spotted them in the theater ... in 1979 :wave:


As did I, but in the context of the film, it could have been explained that the Enterprise database had not been updated with 100% of the refit information. Star Trek 3 is about 10 years after the refit, in their timeline, so I thought it odd that the computer still showed the original exterior/interior layout, rather than the refit. In reality, it was as I said, one blueprint of a fictional ship is close enough to another!

Note: In ST 3, Admiral Morrow says the Enterprise is 20 years old and is to be decommissioned. Well, the Enterprise was waaaay older than 20 years, (Though in our time, it had been about 20 years since the first pilot!), so I always assumed he was referring to the major refit she had after either "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and before the start of Kirk's 5 year mission of the series when the crew compliment went from 203 to 430!


----------



## SUNGOD

Paulbo said:


> Since the CG model was base on Gary's and Petri's measurements of the 11 foot miniature the shape problems did not come from basing any portion of the design on the CG model.



I'm all for making things as accurate as possible but I'm not as bothered as others about having everything like the shape of the windows totally exact and I haven't been so bothered about checking every curve or edge to see if they're exact too.....as it looks fairly accurate and very much like an Enterprise to me. 

I've read that the cg model was based on the Smithsonian original which has a more pronounced grid pattern than the way it looked in the original effects shots....so in that respect the cg version is slightly different and the Revell kit is more like the cg version. 

I find there's usually shape issues with most models anyway. As I said about the PL one....that might have a more accurate shape......but some of the detailing is lousy.


----------



## Commander Dan

RSN said:


> ...I thought it odd that the computer still showed the original exterior/interior layout, rather than the refit.


Not to mention that the area highlighted as Spock's quarters was in fact a scan of the brig section from the FJ Tech Manual...


----------



## RSN

Commander Dan said:


> Not to mention that the area highlighted as Spock's quarters was in fact a scan of the brig section from the FJ Tech Manual...


Spock was a baaaaaaad boy!!


----------



## Paulbo

SUNGOD said:


> ...I've read that the cg model was based on the Smithsonian original which has a more pronounced grid pattern than the way it looked in the original effects shots....so in that respect the cg version is slightly different and the Revell kit is more like the cg version...


Only the shape of the CG model was based on Gary's measurements / the original Smithsonian-owned model. All of the texture mapping and painting was done by the FX company's people.


----------



## SUNGOD

Paulbo said:


> Only the shape of the CG model was based on Gary's measurements / the original Smithsonian-owned model. All of the texture mapping and painting was done by the FX company's people.





Right but I suppose the cg artists based their mapping on references like the grid pattern on the Smithsoninan example.


----------



## Paulbo

Quite possibly.


----------



## Prologic9

The CG model doesn't look anything like the current paint job on the original model. Even if it did, I don't see how it in any way matters to an unpainted model kit. Why does it keep getting brought up? 

The CG model didn't even have 'engraved' grid lines, they used bump mapping to give the panels a layered effect.


----------



## jbond

Even if it's based on the CG model there are still some whopping inaccuracies--check out the shape of the shuttle bay door and beacon or whatever that is--the beacon's almost as large as the bay doors. I really think this is down to taking the same approach to the Trek subjects as Revell Germany took to the Star Wars subjects--painstaking accuracy was not, I think, an ultimate goal here. They've got models that look something like the Enterprise and Klingon ships. I'll buy them because of the size and out of curiosity. I'm not furious about it because I never expected these models to be museum quality. I do expect the R2 Enterprise to be an order of magnitude better. I wonder if everyone who is being so agreeable about these kits will cut the R2 Enterprise the same slack--considering the venom already expended in the grid lines threads, I doubt it, so what's the difference here? Cost? My guess is these will cost almost half what the R2 kit will by the time you buy them from overseas. I expect that any perceived inaccuracies of the R2 kit will produce villagers with pitchforks and torches--and it does seem Revell Germany set its own trap by boasting about their research and pursuit of accuracy. But on the whole most people seem perfectly happy with what they're seeing. I do anticipate another year of the R2 Enterprise project being raked over the coals, however.


----------



## drmcoy

well, at the risk of dragging this discussion on when i know that at the end of the day "it's just a model," i'll add this thought...

one reason that the accuracy issue has some validity is that older fans, like myself, have wanted a good model of this starship since we first saw it warp across our TV sets 45 years ago.

us old-timers did indeed have the AMT model, and i loved it. and it's been rereleased many times over the years. but other than the ESTES rocket of the Enterprise (which required some extensive reworking of bottom saucer to make presentable), there was little else to be found.

DINKY'S diecast was pathetic -- a shuttle that came out of the BOTTOM of the secondary hull.

and then for years, nothing...not counting garage kits and AMT upgrade parts.

decades later we got the cutaway Enterpise...but again, more of a curiosity with many aftermarket parts required to make it accurate.

then unobtanium's version (precursor to MR's)...and the horrible fiasco that followed it's poor construction and shady owner/company operation.

then polar light's 1/1000 kit -- to me, this was the first time anyone had released a kit that came anywhere close to being what i thought i saw on the TV.

then MR...pricey, but to me, accurate. i own one.

so when news came that a Revell Germany 18-inch kit was to be released before the much anticipated Round 2 1/350th version -- i imagine that most people thought, like me, we would finally get an AMT size kit that was accurate -- at least as much as the Polar Lights was.

but for reasons that still puzzle me, this appears not to be the case.

i have read the explanations about revell having hands tied by licensee having control over accuracy...and if this turns out to be true, i am DUMBFOUNDED. i still don't understand why a company would deliberately make their model less than accurate...i read the explanations, but it just makes absolutely no sense to me...and never will.

i am extremely disappointed considering i was very excited about the prospects of an affordable kit of the TOS E in this wonderful display size, and know that the chances of anyone else offering an ACCURATE styrene kit in this size are now slim to none...and to be frank, i'm likely not gonna be around another 45 years to build it if it IS ever released.

i also know the sun will still come up tomorrow and the quality of our lives will not be diminished over this issue...but i at least wanted to spell out to others why some of us are a bit put out that this new revell ship is shaping up the way it is.

t


----------



## SUNGOD

I still can't understand how anyone would prefer that PL 1/1000 abomination over the Revell kit. You essentially have a smallish Enterprise with virtually zero 3 dimensional surface detail.......just some transfers which are supposed to represent windows. Some bits of paper trying to imitate a real window.

And don't forget.........there's always the Diamond Select Enterprise which is available with a printed on grid pattern and without. So if you guys want a fairly accurate to the original Enterprise then why not look at that?

It might not be a kit but it's still a very respectable model.


----------



## Solium

drmcoy said:


> i still don't understand why a company would deliberately make their model less than accurate...i read the explanations, but it just makes absolutely no sense to me...and never will.


I think the answer is more sales potential (money) for the licenser. Make a super accurate 18 inch model and most people would be satisfied with that. It would hurt the sales (licensing potential) of a super accurate 1/300 kit. So make the smaller model less accurate and sell if for less money. People that want a super accurate kit will need to purchase the more expensive 1/300 kit.


----------



## Warped9

The Art Asylum TOS _Enterprise_ isn't too bad for what is essentially a toy and it's solidly made (mine has fallen twice and never broken---lousy stand). Unfortunately the seams are too obvious and it's really sad that the secondary hull is ovoid in cross section rather than circular---the result is that the secondary hull looks too small. I have one on display it from a distance it looks okay. The Revell Germany _E_ might be similar from a distance. But up close you see the flaws.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Saw the shots of the Revell Germany...........Can't wait for the Round 2 1/350


----------



## JGG1701

Mark Dorais said:


> Saw the shots of the Revell Germany...........Can't wait for the Round 2 1/350


That's the spirit. 
-Jim


----------



## Capt. Krik

For myself, I guess it's really going to come down to pricing. If I could pick one up for 25 to 30 dollars I will probably buy one. I have a feeling though that the price is going to be well above 30 dollars. Considering the current price of kits and the fact that this can only be obtained as an import item. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if these models run 50 to 60 dollars..maybe more. Had they been more accurate I wouldn't bulk at a 50 or 60 dollar price. Considering the amount of work it will take to make the Enterprise screen accurate anything above 30 dollars is too much in my opinion.


----------



## jbond

I love it when modelers refer to perfectly good model kits as "abominations."


----------



## SUNGOD

jbond said:


> I love it when modelers refer to perfectly good model kits as "abominations."




I think an Enterprise model that doesn't at least have moulded on windows *is* an abomination. 

You've got something that resembles the ship in outline...........but then you have bits of paper to stick on for the windows. That to me isn't proper detail. It's just paper.


----------



## Captain April

At 1/1000 scale, decals are perfectly suitable.


----------



## falcondesigns

and it's just a model.


----------



## Captain April

Shhh.


----------



## JGG1701

I like the way Scotty K did his "lines". (19th post)
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php? :thumbsup:t=328247&highlight=cutaway&page=2
-Jim


----------



## Paulbo

That link doesn't work for me. I'd be interested to see the thread ...


----------



## JGG1701

Sorry about that.
Try this:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247
-Jim


----------



## Guy Schlicter

one thing Revell could have done is offer different parts for the Taller Bridge in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before and give you the option of the larger sensor dish and the different Nacelle end caps as seen in the Pilots plus the Spikes on the Warp Drive Domes. Once again these kits will be available thru Cultman and Starship Modeler and does anyone know how much they will cost.


----------



## Paulbo

You know what ... in many ways this kit is better than the old AMT in the similar size ... and in many ways it's worse. As to whether it's better or worse on the whole, we won't know until a dozen or so people have final production kits in their hands and build them.

In the pictures posted I see parts I like better than the old AMT and parts I don't like as much. Some of the proportions seem better, some worse.

Yes, this is a waffling post, but it's waffling because we just don't have any real hands on info except some show pics and Marco's shots. It takes several people building a kit to get any tick on what it's really like.

Personally, I'm looking forward to getting a copy of this kit in my mitts, sticking it together and seeing how the heck it looks.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Guy Schlicter said:


> one thing Revell could have done is offer different parts for the Taller Bridge in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before and give you the option of the larger sensor dish and the different Nacelle end caps as seen in the Pilots plus the Spikes on the Warp Drive Domes.


Well, the kit is made for the german market, and mainly for *children*.

Only a few german modellers care for the pilot versions of the ship, and I'm pretty sure not a single one of the main target group does. So Revell didn't put money into more research and toolings, as it would definitely not increase the sales.


----------



## John P

Warped9 said:


> The Art Asylum TOS _Enterprise_ isn't too bad for what is essentially a toy and it's solidly made (mine has fallen twice and never broken---lousy stand). Unfortunately the seams are too obvious and it's really sad that the secondary hull is ovoid in cross section rather than circular---the result is that the secondary hull looks too small. I have one on display it from a distance it looks okay. The Revell Germany _E_ might be similar from a distance. But up close you see the flaws.


Had a girlfriend like that once...


----------



## John P

SUNGOD said:


> I think an Enterprise model that doesn't at least have moulded on windows *is* an abomination.
> 
> You've got something that resembles the ship in outline...........but then you have bits of paper to stick on for the windows. That to me isn't proper detail. It's just paper.


PL explained when it came out that the window arrangement differed between the pilot and production versions. It made more sense to them to provide decals for the different arrangements than to have the modeler need to fill in unused windows (the kit was aimed at mass market, not just us super-skilled modelers). Another point to make is that the windows on the filming model (and, presumably on a real starship) _are not recessed, but are flush with the surface_. At 1/1000 scale we certainly weren't going to get clear window inserts either. WAY too tiny. So they decided the best way to represent tiny flush windows was with decals.

And just to be pedantic - decals aren't paper, they're ink printed on clear film.


----------



## Buc

you know how some despise IPMS'ers? Some here have that air about um.

It's a model. Relax, folks. Not like you don't 8 million other versions of this
SAME ship!


----------



## LGFugate

Franky sez RELAX! (wish I had a appropriate Frankenstein photo to go with that!)

Larry


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Marco Scheloske said:


> Well, the kit is made for the german market, and mainly for *children*.


That is a very strange decision, to aim this model at children. Sure, many of the model-building hobbyists are "children at heart", but we're not kids. Unless there are a lot more children building models overseas, even then I doubt 1960's Star Trek is much of a draw.


----------



## Captain April

It has to do with how sci-fi in general is look upon in Europe, which is as a juvenile genre.


----------



## spindrift

Marco Scheloske said:


> Well, the kit is made for the german market, and mainly for *children*.
> 
> Only a few german modellers care for the pilot versions of the ship, and I'm pretty sure not a single one of the main target group does. So Revell didn't put money into more research and toolings, as it would definitely not increase the sales.


even a CHILD could see how bad this kit is- the trenches alone are a joke- just don't understand the motive behind it..but yes possibly only children could get this and say "Enterprise" despite it's feeble representation to the actual ship...


----------



## JGG1701

I remember buying (well asking my parents to buy for me) models when I was a wee one. 
-Jim


----------



## Solium

spindrift said:


> even a CHILD could see how bad this kit is


I purchased and built AMT's Enterprise kit numerous times when I was a kid. Never dawned on me it was inaccurate. It "looked like" the Starship Enterprise to me. I built plenty of Aurora's Dinosaur kits when I was a kid. Never dawned on me they were inaccurate. They looked liked Dinosaurs to me and that's all that mattered. Same with the Star Wars kits in 77/78. Most kids wouldn't know any better, or care about accuracy issues.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Solium said:


> I purchased and built AMT's Enterprise kit numerous times when I was a kid. Never dawned on me it was inaccurate. It "looked like" the Starship Enterprise to me. I built plenty of Aurora's Dinosaur kits when I was a kid. Never dawned on me they were inaccurate. They looked liked Dinosaurs to me and that's all that mattered. Same with the Star Wars kits in 77/78. Most kids wouldn't know any better, or care about accuracy issues.


as far as something being inaccurate. Unless its horribly bad and doesn't resemble what its supposed to. I don't nit pick every little inacurracy. I've always been that way. I don't want a studio perfect model either. I just buy and build.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Fine, market to kids so you don't leave them left behind. Then ignore the interests of the finescale modeler, the demographic most likely to purchase multiple copies of the kit? Seems like a sketchy way to gamble with the production funding to me, unless you assume the "adult modelers" are not savvy enough to notice or care about innacuracies, and will just buy anything with STAR TREK on the box. Why not put wheels on the bottom of the kit too?

It's not as if RG hasn't considered a serious hobbyist in other, non-SF markets, nor are they incapable of getting it right.


----------



## falcondesigns

If it's not up to your "high" standards,please dont buy it,I'm sure the kit will be very sucessful without you.


----------



## Warped9

It's interesting how some are comparing this kit to the old AMT. In the late '60s and '70s we were glad to get any kit at all for _Star Trek_ and we weren't that discerning. But things have changed and the stakes have gone up. Today there's no justifiable reason for a kit not to be accurate. Granted this can appeal to a lot of folks who might not be too discriminate about it, but you still can't fault someone who is interested in a truly accurate model particularly if it's at an affordable price.

Paying for an import kit that would be really accurate could be justified, but I wouldn't pay for an import if it isn't up to snuff. In that instance I'd rather pay more for a larger and certainly more accurate home grown kit,

And I will.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Yep. I'll save my pennies for the more accurate, and more expensive PL kit. I'm planning on buying a case or two.

If I don't buy the RG kits, it won't hurt their bottom line much. I'm merely one model builder. But they're fools for turning their backs on a potential customer, one who's willing to buy cases of their competitor's product over theirs. 

I feel like this is the same argument as Windows Vs. Mac.


----------



## Seashark

Funny, I was always disappointed in the AMT TOS kit. Even as a child I could tell it was wildly inaccurate; although, I did like being able to hold my _Constellation_ up to the T.V. and know I was holding something screen-accurate, guess I was a strange child.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

I was the same way, Seashark. It was a fun game to see which ships used the plastic model in the show, and to find out where the model itself was different than what I saw on TV.

When I got the Whitfield book "Making of Star Trek", I had a field day (week, years) with the BW photos of the Enterprise - comparing them to the AMT model.

The first time a model's inaccuracy bugged me was the AMT release of the Shuttlecraft. I loved the shuttlecraft on the show, and was a bit disappointed in how the shapes didn't match up. And that's a model I got when I was around 8-10 years old.


----------



## Warped9

The AMT _Galileo_ broke my heart when I first opened the box. I went ahead and built it, but I've never been able to forgive AMT for that one. I was also disappointed with the Romulan BoP kit as well as the K-7 station. It seems the Klingon Battle Cruiser was The best of the lot from AMT back then.


----------



## Zombie_61

Solium said:


> I purchased and built AMT's Enterprise kit numerous times when I was a kid. Never dawned on me it was inaccurate. It "looked like" the Starship Enterprise to me... I built plenty of Aurora's Dinosaur kits when I was a kid. Never dawned on me they were inaccurate. They looked liked Dinosaurs to me and that's all that mattered. Same with the Star Wars kits in 77/78. Most kids wouldn't know any better, or care about accuracy issues.


This is true for me as well. I bought and built quite a few of AMT's Star Trek and Star Wars kits in the 70s and never once noticed the various inaccuracies. They looked like what I saw on the tv and movie screens, and that was good enough for me. It was only after the Internet came into existence that I learned these kits weren't 100% accurate. And to be honest, unless a kit is grossly inaccurate (i.e., overall shape and/or dimensions are way off), to this day I really don't care. I don't want to take the fun out of this hobby by nit-picking every little detail to death (something I could easily do with every kit I own if I were so inclined).

That said, I understand why many modelers prefer absolute perfection in a kit. There are certain kits that I wish were more accurate myself. But things being what they are, I either buy them and fix them or I don't buy them, simple as that.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

BlackbirdCD said:


> Fine, market to kids so you don't leave them left behind. Then ignore the interests of the finescale modeler, the demographic most likely to purchase multiple copies of the kit? Seems like a sketchy way to gamble with the production funding to me,
> 
> *snip*
> 
> It's not as if RG hasn't considered a serious hobbyist in other, non-SF markets, nor are they incapable of getting it right.


You don't get the point.

RoG has only a ST-license for Europe.

Here in Europe there are only a handful of "serious" SF model builders. It is not worth the extra time and effort for more research and re-done toolings for RoG, because those 2 or 3 dozen people over here who care for accuracy won't increase their sales much. RoG is NOT aiming for the US market where a LOT more serious modelers are building SF kits.

And their way to do it works very well: The SW-line is done the same way - with children in mind - so the point when RoG says "it is good enough" will be reached very early. But the selling numbers are telling them that they are right. 

It is just simple math: Is the extra money they would need to satisfy the adult modeler too worth it? Would it increase the sales so much that the profit for them would be significantly higher? It seems that their market research says "no".

It would definitely be different if they would target the USA (and maybe Asia) too, but they don't. It is not their market, simply because of the license they got.


----------



## SteveR

There's also time pressure -- the kit has to get to market in a reasonable amount of time. As Marco wrote, at some point they have to say "good enough" and get the thing out. It's all about maximizing sales, really. If you wait too long, you might get a more accurate product, but you risk losing interest for one reason or another. And Marco has written that in Europe, accuracy doesn't necessarily increase sales enough to justify delays to market.


----------



## mach7

I think Marco is completely correct. Even here in the US there aren't that many of us. Case in point is the new Polar Lights Enterprise. According to Jamie on one of the recent blogs they have not even filled all the 1701 slots yet, even counting the multiple kit orders. 

Thats kind of sad, I would have thought they would be filled in a very short time.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

mach7 said:


> According to Jamie on one of the recent blogs they have not even filled all the 1701 slots yet, even counting the multiple kit orders.
> 
> Thats kind of sad, I would have thought they would be filled in a very short time.


It would help a bit if they would open it to non-US-modelers...


----------



## falcondesigns

mach7 said:


> I think Marco is completely correct. Even here in the US there aren't that many of us. Case in point is the new Polar Lights Enterprise. According to Jamie on one of the recent blogs they have not even filled all the 1701 slots yet, even counting the multiple kit orders.
> 
> Thats kind of sad, I would have thought they would be filled in a very short time.


Everybody beats their chest,and huffs and puffs and talk big........but when it's time to actually SUPPORT the company by buying the thing,they are nowhere to be found..........and then get angry when they dont get it! Bunch of little babys...........


----------



## Edge

Marco Scheloske said:


> It would help a bit if they would open it to non-US-modelers...


The reason it is not, is the same reason this thread exists. Paramount divided up the licensing to different regions on the globe. Because Revell Germany has the license for Europe, Round 2 isn't licensed to sell to Europe.


----------



## JeffG

Warped9 said:


> The AMT _Galileo_ broke my heart when I first opened the box. I went ahead and built it, but I've never been able to forgive AMT for that one.


Gotta agree with you there. I've had shoeboxes that more closely resembled the Galileo than that kit.


----------



## Jiver

Zombie_61 said:


> This is true for me as well. I bought and built quite a few of AMT's Star Trek and Star Wars kits in the 70s and never once noticed the various inaccuracies. They looked like what I saw on the tv and movie screens, and that was good enough for me. It was only after the Internet came into existence that I learned these kits weren't 100% accurate. And to be honest, unless a kit is grossly inaccurate (i.e., overall shape and/or dimensions are way off), to this day I really don't care. I don't want to take the fun out of this hobby by nit-picking every little detail to death (something I could easily do with every kit I own if I were so inclined).
> 
> That said, I understand why many modelers prefer absolute perfection in a kit. There are certain kits that I wish were more accurate myself. But things being what they are, I either buy them and fix them or I don't buy them, simple as that.


+1
I can live with inaccuracies, no problem, as long as they are within certain limits. The SW studio models in '77 were not exactly a fine example of purist modeling. What I DO want is quality. Back then they didn't know any better with the technical abbilities of that time. But now there's actually no more excuse. Todays standard are very high.


----------



## drmcoy

well, if the new revell kit is truly being marketed to kids, then i am even more dumbfounded.

i'm no marketing whiz, and i don't know beans about the demographic of model builders in germany, but i would be amazed if this kit is purchased by more than 100 kids under 15 years of age...and "amazed" in a good way -- i simply find it hard to believe that anyone under 30 years old would even CARE about having this ship.

i stick to my opinion that this model serves more as a curiosity to die-hard trek fans and that there is no "rational" reason they could not have made it more accurate without having to spend more money.

but hey, like many here, what do i know, eh?

if it costs under $40, i will still likely get it.

as for the few slams on Polar Lights 1/1000 Enterprise, i think it is a BEAUTIFUL version of the ship and the decals do not bother me in the least. I wish they would have had window decals for the AMT one when i was a kid.

i will also say that i think one of the coolest features of revell germany TOS E are the clear windows, as it will make it so much easier for anyone wishing to light that puppy up.

look forward to the pics of the first build ups on this one.

t


----------



## Marco Scheloske

drmcoy said:


> i'm no marketing whiz, and i don't know beans about the demographic of model builders in germany, but i would be amazed if this kit is purchased by more than 100 kids under 15 years of age...and "amazed" in a good way -- i simply find it hard to believe that anyone under 30 years old would even CARE about having this ship.


You should know that STAR TREK - the remastered version - is "on air" here since a couple of weeks for the first time ever, and so those models are just right in time.

Regarding the age of modelers: WW2-kits 90% age of 40 and more, SF-kits 90% age 15 and less...


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Marco Scheloske said:


> Regarding the age of modelers: WW2-kits 90% age of 40 and more, SF-kits 90% age 15 and less...


Maybe for STAR WARS I'd buy that number (90% age 15 and less), not STAR TREK. Agree that I'm not a German citizen, and I have nothing to go on as far as understanding model builders there.

We'll see how it goes.


----------



## drmcoy

Marco Scheloske said:


> You should know that STAR TREK - the remastered version - is "on air" here since a couple of weeks for the first time ever, and so those models are just right in time.
> 
> Regarding the age of modelers: WW2-kits 90% age of 40 and more, SF-kits 90% age 15 and less...


well, then it appears that these kits will indeed find a home on the desks/shelves of many 15 year old german kids, and revell germany does indeed understand their market.

of course, this still leaves us baby boomers here in the states a bit empty handed. 

regardless, i hope revell germany sells the hell out of these and that the kids like building them and like the series...however, as much as I love the original TREK TV series, I find it interesting that it has ANY appeal to 15 year olds today, even with the CGI SFX work -- the pacing/plot/action is what it is, and, IMHO, is a bit dated compared with the modern day movies/tv shows.

but as i said before, what do I know? maybe the remastered Trek will become a huge hit in germany and the youngsters will start throwing Trek conventions like we did back in the day.


----------



## Captain April

Maybe German kids have better attention spans and can follow a well thought out story without all the quick cuts and lens flares.


----------



## drmcoy

yeah, maybe they will.

but at the risk of taking this thread off course, there are only a handful of TOS Trek episodes that truly stand the test of time. but here's hoping that they serve to spark children's imaginations and perhaps even encourage them to explore other sci fi and, heaven forbid, even READ some sci fi books!

i'll stop here and keep all future posts to this thread strictly about the model itself.


----------



## jbond

Too late! I would argue there's more than a handful, but the point is really moot. TOS demonstrated remarkable longevity--probably more longevity than any other television series. It no longer HAS to hold up for today's audiences, and there's really no reason a 45-year-old TV show SHOULD appeal to a modern audience. TOS launched an army of additional TV shows and movies so it really doesn't have to be anything more than what it is, an exceptional television program OF ITS PERIOD.
Yet we're still seeing new TOS model kits by more than one company. That's pretty remarkable. My guess is TOS will still be giving us reason to get excited--and reason to complain--for many years to come...


----------



## Warped9

There is certainly more than a handful of good TOS episodes. Revisiting TOS Warning: there's seventy-five pages of reading there, but everyone seemed to have fun out of it.

So how did things shape up?

_*Season 1 scored 127 of 145 = 87.5% = an episode average of 4.37 of 5.*_

****** Excellent* (16 episodes = 55.1%)
*“Where No Man Has Gone Before"*
*“The Corbomite Maneuver”*
*“The Enemy Within”*
*“The Naked Time”*
*“Balance Of Terror”*
*“What Are Little Girls Made Of?”*
*“Dagger Of The Mind”*
*“The Galileo Seven”*
*“Court Martial”*
*“Shore Leave"*
*“Arena”*
*“Tomorrow Is Yesterday” *
*“A Taste Of Armageddon”*
*“Space Seed”*
*“Errand Of Mercy”*
*“The City On The Edge Of Forever”*

***** Good* (8 episodes = 27.5%)
*“The Man Trap”*
*“Charlie X”*
*“The Menagerie” (Part I)*
*“The Menagerie” (Part II)*
*“The Squire Of Gothos”*
*“This Side Of Paradise”*
*“The Devil In The Dark”*
*“Operation—Annihilate*”

**** Fair* (5 episodes = 17.2%)
*“Mudd’s Women”*
*“Miri”*
*“The Conscience Of The King”*
*“The Alternative Factor”*
*“The Return Of The Archons”*

*** Poor* (0 episodes = 0%)

** Bad* (0 episodes = 0%)


_*Season 2 scored 97 of 130 = 74.6% = an episode average of 3.73 of 5.*_

****** Excellent* (6 episodes = 23%)
*“Amok Time”*
*“The Doomsday Machine”*
*“Mirror, Mirror”*
*“Journey To Babel”*
*“Return To Tomorrow”*
*“The Ultimate Computer”*

***** Good* (10 episodes = 38.4%)
*“Metamorphosis”*
*“Who Mourns For Adonais?”*
*“The Changeling”*
*“The Deadly Years”*
*“The Trouble With Tribbles”*
*“Bread And Circuses”*
*“A Private Little War”*
*“Obsession”*
*“The Immunity Syndrome”*
*“The Omega Glory”*

**** Fair* (7 episodes = 26.9%)
*“Catspaw”*
*“Friday’s Child”*
*“Wolf In The Fold”*
*“The Gamesters Of Triskelion”*
*“By Any Other Name”*
*“Patterns Of Force”*
*“Assignment: Earth”*

*** Poor* (3 episodes = 11.5%)
*“The Apple”*
*“I, Mudd”*
*“A Piece Of The Action”*

** Bad* (0 episodes = 0%)


_*Season 3 scored 79 of 120 = 65.8% = an episode average of 3.29 of 5.*_

******* Excellent = 4 episodes = 16.6%
*“Elaan Of Troyius”*
*“The Enterprise Incident”*
*“Is There In Truth No Beauty?”*
*“The Tholian Web”*

****** Good = 8 episodes = 33.3%
*“Spectre Of The Gun”*
*“The Empath”*
*“Day Of The Dove”*
*“Plato’s Stepchildren”*
*“That Which Survives”*
*“The Cloud Minders”*
*“The Way To Eden”*
*“Requiem For Methuselah”*

***** Fair = 6 episodes = 25% 
*“The Paradise Syndrome”*
*“For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky*”
*“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”*
*“The Lights Of Zetar”*
*“The Savage Curtain”*
*“All Our Yesterdays”*

**** Poor = 3 episodes = 12.5%
*“Spock’s Brain”*
*“The Mark Of Gideon”*
*“Turnabout Intruder”*

*** Bad = 3 episodes = 12.5%
*“And The Children Shall Lead”*
*“Wink Of An Eye”*
*“Whom Gods Destroy”*


_*Breakdown by Season*_
Good to Excellent - _Season 3 slips about ten percent from Season 2. But even so half of its episodes are respectable and can stand with the better episodes of the previous two seasons._
Season 1 = 82.7% (24 episodes)
Season 2 = 61.5% (16 episodes)
Season 3 = 50% (12 episodes)

Fair - _Interestingly Season 3 stays pretty close to same as Season 2 in terms of watchable episodes._
Season 1 = 17.2% (5 episodes)
Season 2 = 26.9% (7 episodes)
Season 3 = 25% (6 episodes)

Poor to Bad - _Here is the swing. What Season 3 lost in top tier episodes it dropped to disappointing efforts._
Season 1 = 0% (0 episodes)
Season 2 = 11.5% (3 episodes)
Season 3 = 25% (6 episodes)


_*Series Breakdown:*_
Good to Excellent = 65.8% (52 episodes)
Fair = 22.7% (18 episodes)
Poor to Bad = 11.3% (9 episodes)

TOS certainly doesn't follow the "one third" results of my TNG revisit where I found about one third of the episodes Good-Excellent, one third Fair and one third Poor-Bad. For TOS I find nearly two thirds of the series to be Good-Excellent, a bit less than a quarter of it Fair and a little more than a tenth of it to be Poor-Bad.


----------



## falcondesigns

and this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


----------



## drmcoy

i'm going to stand by my word and not derail this thread discussing how TOS has withstood test of time when it comes to storytelling/plot/character development, etc. if someone wishes to start a new OT thread about this, please do so and invite me to the thread and we can discuss...it could be an interesting debate.

that said, that's all from me on that subject in this thread.

peace. out.


----------



## Warped9

falcondesigns said:


> and this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


Someone claimed there were only a handful of TOS episodes that were classics. I'm simply refuting that claim.

Now back to our regularly scheduled subject.


----------



## Paulbo

drmcoy said:


> i'm going to stand by my word and not derail this thread discussing how TOS has withstood test of time when it comes to storytelling/plot/character development, etc. if someone wishes to start a new OT thread about this, please do so and invite me to the thread and we can discuss...it could be an interesting debate.
> 
> that said, that's all from me on that subject in this thread.
> 
> peace. out.


Done: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=3899243#post3899243


----------



## spock62

I had assumed ROG's Star Trek kits would be like their Star Wars kits, aimed at kids w/snap-together, pre-painted, and some-what inaccurate parts. The fact that these kits are to be glue-together and not painted seemed to indicate a kit aimed at the adult modeler, with the same level of detail/accuracy as their military kits. Also the article on the Star Trek.com site seemed to indicate this:

"It’s important to have reliable material on hand when trying to develop good models. Our Star Trek models are no exception. Detailed views are vital so the development process started in September 2010 with the gathering of original material from the series, digitalized or original. We also collected privately made shots from a model in the Smithsonian and books from the series. The drawings in some books are a bit misleading and not always correct, so sorting it out was very important. Collector guides helped to determine exact forms and curvations."

But, you should never assume. Now that I see the parts, it's apparent that the Enterprise kit is not accurate to the original filming miniature (OFM). It also doesn't match the remastered series CGI models, which match the OFM, just with added grid/panel lines. Seems to me ROG based the kit on bad info. As other posts have mentioned, that shapes of the primary and secondary hulls are off along with other details. Too bad, they could have had a great kit here, but they missed the mark.

While I can understand that a kit geared towards kids 15 and younger, who tend not to be concerned too much with accuracy, might be engineered to have simplified, inaccurate details to cut costs, I don't feel that applies to the Enterprise kit. Would it have cost ROG anymore to make, for example, the bottom of the primary hull accurately shaped as opposed to what they did? Would it really cost more to make the windows the proper size/shape?

I do give them props for all the detail they did include, the warp engine details look good, having clear windows is a big plus and the decal sheet looks good too. As it stands, you should be able to build a good looking Enterprise from the kit, just not an accurate OFM Enterprise. Overall, the ROG kit is a mix of the good and the bad, better then the original AMT kit in many ways and worse in others.

Having said all that, being a huge Star Trek fan, I do plan on purchasing this kit, if the price is under $40.


----------



## drmcoy

what spock62 said.


----------



## KUROK

It's just a missed opportunity for RoG, same as the 22" AMT kit (except they did sell a lot of those)...


----------



## Marco Scheloske

spock62 said:


> While I can understand that a kit geared towards kids 15 and younger, who tend not to be concerned too much with accuracy, might be engineered to have simplified, inaccurate details to cut costs, I don't feel that applies to the Enterprise kit. Would it have cost ROG anymore to make, for example, the bottom of the primary hull accurately shaped as opposed to what they did? Would it really cost more to make the windows the proper size/shape?


Not if they would have got it right in the first try. But you have to know that neither the CAD files nor the molds are made bei Revell directly, they work with a chinese service for that. The chinese got several things wrong (in the first files the warp nacelles were backwards!), and each correction costs time and money. So finaly the point was reached when Revell has to say "good enough" (especially for the target group in mind), simply because another correction run would have cost time and money again - more than the fix release date and the budget would have allowed.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Marco Scheloske said:


> Not if they would have got it right in the first try. But you have to know that neither the CAD files nor the molds are made bei Revell directly, they work with a chinese service for that. The chinese got several things wrong (in the first files the warp nacelles were backwards!), and each correction costs time and money. So finaly the point was reached when Revell has to say "good enough" (especially for the target group in mind), simply because another correction run would have cost time and money again - more than the fix release date and the budget would have allowed.


This is far more believable, and makes more sense to me than "we're marketing to kids".


----------



## Marco Scheloske

BlackbirdCD said:


> This is far more believable, and makes more sense to me than "we're marketing to kids".


It is the combination of those two points. BECAUSE they are marketing to kids their budget is far more limited than it woul dbe if the model would be aimed to "serious" modelers. So the "we are forced to call it good enough"-point is reached much earlier.


----------



## Captain April

One thing to keep in mind: With the grid being a recessed feature, that means that it'd be a relatively simple matter to grind out the lines in the molds and produce a smooth-hulled model.

Sort of the opposite of what happened to the TMP refit (the sought-after "smoothie") when they added the paneling and ruined the molds permanently.


----------



## StarshipClass

Marco Scheloske said:


> Not if they would have got it right in the first try. But you have to know that neither the CAD files nor the molds are made bei Revell directly, they work with a chinese service for that. The chinese got several things wrong (in the first files the warp nacelles were backwards!), and each correction costs time and money. So finaly the point was reached when Revell has to say "good enough" (especially for the target group in mind), simply because another correction run would have cost time and money again - more than the fixed release date and the budget would have allowed.


The same thing happened with the 1/350th Refit--they had to settle for some minor inaccuracies because it got too expensive to fix them all going back and forth with the Chinese manufacturers.


----------



## SUNGOD

Captain April said:


> One thing to keep in mind: With the grid being a recessed feature, that means that it'd be a relatively simple matter to grind out the lines in the molds and produce a smooth-hulled model.
> 
> Sort of the opposite of what happened to the TMP refit (the sought-after "smoothie") when they added the paneling and ruined the molds permanently.



I can't see Revell doing that though and to be honest I hope they don't as some of us like the grid pattern....even if the lines are a bit wide. I still don't think they're that bad though and I can live with a few inaccuracies as it looks like a nice Enterprise model to me.

If people want a smooth Enterprise they can always get the cutaway version. I built one a while back and instead of using the inside detail I just glued the 2 saucer halves together. It looked great with a bit of careful sanding.


----------



## JGG1701

SUNGOD said:


> If people want a smooth Enterprise they can always get the cutaway version. I built one a while back and instead of using the inside detail I just glued the 2 saucer halves together. It looked great with a bit of careful sanding.


Me too!
-Jim


----------



## SUNGOD

JGG1701 said:


> Me too!
> -Jim


Nice job JG! Unfortunately mine's not lit up like that.


----------



## Solium

SUNGOD said:


> Nice job JG! Unfortunately mine's not lit up like that.


Wow, that's impressive!


----------



## spock62

Marco Scheloske said:


> Not if they would have got it right in the first try. But you have to know that neither the CAD files nor the molds are made bei Revell directly, they work with a chinese service for that. The chinese got several things wrong (in the first files the warp nacelles were backwards!), and each correction costs time and money. So finaly the point was reached when Revell has to say "good enough" (especially for the target group in mind), simply because another correction run would have cost time and money again - more than the fix release date and the budget would have allowed.


So, your saying because Revell allotted X amount of euros to the project, a smaller amount then normal due to it being a kit for kids, they couldn't afford to have the Chinese manufacturer correct their (the Chinese) mistakes. That brings up a couple of things to my mind. First, don't the Chinese work for them? Shouldn't they be held to accountable if they screw things up? I understand that each correction takes time, not sure about the money part (on Revell's end). Since Revell decided to make the kit glue-together and not pre-painted, it seems they did consider the fact that adult modelers would buy it, modelers who would value an accurate model. Why not spend the extra effort to make it correct? Second, an Enterprise kit, that was aimed at younger modelers (10 and up) and also appeals to adults has been on the market since 2003 and has been a success, that being the Polar Lights 1/1000 scale kit. It is snap-together and has an extra set of peel-and-stick decals for the younger folks and the accurate detailing and water-slide decals for the older folks. They were able to get their Chinese manufacturers to do it right, why not Revell? Not trying to be argumentative, just saying that's all.


----------



## falcondesigns

spock62 said:


> So, your saying because Revell allotted X amount of euros to the project, a smaller amount then normal due to it being a kit for kids, they couldn't afford to have the Chinese manufacturer correct their (the Chinese) mistakes. That brings up a couple of things to my mind. First, don't the Chinese work for them? Shouldn't they be held to accountable if they screw things up? I understand that each correction takes time, not sure about the money part (on Revell's end). Since Revell decided to make the kit glue-together and not pre-painted, it seems they did consider the fact that adult modelers would buy it, modelers who would value an accurate model. Why not spend the extra effort to make it correct? Second, an Enterprise kit, that was aimed at younger modelers (10 and up) and also appeals to adults has been on the market since 2003 and has been a success, that being the Polar Lights 1/1000 scale kit. It is snap-together and has an extra set of peel-and-stick decals for the younger folks and the accurate detailing and water-slide decals for the older folks. They were able to get their Chinese manufacturers to do it right, why not Revell? Not trying to be argumentative, just saying that's all.



Yeah,thats right........go tell Revell how to run their business.


----------



## John P

Well, they didn't listen to ME, either.


----------



## JGG1701

SUNGOD said:


> Nice job JG! Unfortunately mine's not lit up like that.





Solium said:


> Wow, that's impressive!


Thank you gents. 
-Jim


----------



## spock62

falcondesigns said:


> Yeah,thats right........go tell Revell how to run their business.


I'm not telling Revell of Germany how to run their business. If I wanted to do that, I'd email them, not just post my opinions on this forum. It just seems to me, IMHO, that they could have produced a more accurate product since I would assume they, and not the Chinese manufacturer they deal with, are in control of how the final product is done. It's just too bad they didn't allow this project the time/money it deserved, if that's the case. Just an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

As I posted before, even though it's not accurate to the original filming miniature, I think it's a good kit in it's own way and I'd still buy one, if the price is not too high.


----------



## Solium

spock62 said:


> I'm not telling Revell of Germany how to run their business. If I wanted to do that, I'd email them, not just post my opinions on this forum. It just seems to me, IMHO, that they could have produced a more accurate product since I would assume they, and not the Chinese manufacturer they deal with, are in control of how the final product is done. It's just too bad they didn't allow this project the time/money it deserved, if that's the case. Just an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> As I posted before, even though it's not accurate to the original filming miniature, I think it's a good kit in it's own way and I'd still buy one, if the price is not too high.



Just for the sake of the discussion. Your assuming they wanted to produce an accurate kit. I don't know one way or the other but the information provided seems to indicate accuracy was not a priority. 

The kit is not for the American fan base. Its primarily for kids in Germany. Time, money, and licensing all factor into what the final product will look like. 

I understand your disappointment. I would love a super accurate kit between 18 and 22 inches long. (The 1/1000 is kinda to small and the 1/350 is kinda to big.) But Revell Germany isn't the company to do it.


----------



## jaws62666

I love building sci fi, especially Star Trek. I am not into having every single minute detail included in a plastic kit. I am getting the Round 2 1/350 TOS Enterprise to satisfy the accuracy issue. As for looks, I like the look of these 2 kits, and with the lights cut out already, it will make a great display piece. Simply stated, everyone has his or her own tastes in model detail. If you dont like this kit , then dont buy it. if you do like it , as I do, then go ahead and buy it. It is really as simple as that. Why people feel the need to chop up a company because a model kit isnt 100% accurate is beyond me. Thanks to ROG for even attempting to make these kits. Keep them coming.


----------



## swhite228

spock62 said:


> It just seems to me, IMHO, that they could have produced a more accurate product since I would assume they, and not the Chinese manufacturer they deal with, are in control of how the final product is done.


Having worked for a company that has plastic injection molds and the plastic parts made in China I can say the answer to this is no!

The company uses multiple companies to make molds in China and the following seems to be the norm.

The mold makers will follow instructions till there comes a need for changes then you pay for each change.

Sometimes the mold makers will make changes to the design without warning because they don't understand the design or function , again you pay for them to make it right.

There comes a point where you have to "agree" to the final molds and a lot of times it isn't 100% what you wanted, more like around 97%, but it just wasn't worth being nickled and dimed to death to get them to get it right.

While it may seem to have been cheaper, in the long run the company owner pulled all his product molds back to the U.S. due to a number of issues, one being mold security. 

The company owner was able to buy off ebay 500 "excess" parts for a product that wasn't set to go into production for 6 months. The seller was the company that made the parts molds.
Art Asylum had a verson of this happen when their manufacturing company in China used the Phase Pistol molds to make a light controler gun for a flying saucer toy.

Most companies that farm out parts of the project will tell you the only way for the company to have total control over a project is if it's done in house.

In the grid line debate I'm going to side with those saying it was a decission from Revell to do it this way, not the mold makers as recessed lines in a mold add to the cost of the mold, AMT style gridlines are cheap.


----------



## Tiberious

I can't speak to viewers in Germany, but here in the states there are simply not that many young kids watching TOS these days. Why would a company market to that demographic? I think that they put out a fair representation of the Enterprise and expect to make their money back on it...that's it. I won't be buying one.

Tib


----------



## RSN

Tiberious said:


> I can't speak to viewers in Germany, but here in the states there are simply not that many young kids watching TOS these days. Why would a company market to that demographic? I think that they put out a fair representation of the Enterprise and expect to make their money back on it...that's it. I won't be buying one.
> 
> Tib


It is hard to compare European values against those here in America. Take "Doctor Who" in England. It is a time when the family gathers and watches as a whole. Here....not so much. On the DVD's, they show "Doctor Who at the Proms", a live concert experience at the Royal Albert Hall. Families of kids, parents and grandparents attend to see cast members and hear the past seasons soundtrack performed live. You don't see this multi-generational thing here in America with "Star Trek", conventions are mostly mid-20's to 50's men, (I know, I have been running them since 1980!).


----------



## spock62

swhite228 said:


> Having worked for a company that has plastic injection molds and the plastic parts made in China I can say the answer to this is no!
> 
> The company uses multiple companies to make molds in China and the following seems to be the norm.
> 
> The mold makers will follow instructions till there comes a need for changes then you pay for each change.
> 
> Sometimes the mold makers will make changes to the design without warning because they don't understand the design or function , again you pay for them to make it right.
> 
> There comes a point where you have to "agree" to the final molds and a lot of times it isn't 100% what you wanted, more like around 97%, but it just wasn't worth being nickled and dimed to death to get them to get it right.
> 
> While it may seem to have been cheaper, in the long run the company owner pulled all his product molds back to the U.S. due to a number of issues, one being mold security.
> 
> The company owner was able to buy off ebay 500 "excess" parts for a product that wasn't set to go into production for 6 months. The seller was the company that made the parts molds.
> Art Asylum had a verson of this happen when their manufacturing company in China used the Phase Pistol molds to make a light controler gun for a flying saucer toy.
> 
> Most companies that farm out parts of the project will tell you the only way for the company to have total control over a project is if it's done in house.
> 
> In the grid line debate I'm going to side with those saying it was a decission from Revell to do it this way, not the mold makers as recessed lines in a mold add to the cost of the mold, AMT style gridlines are cheap.


Sounds like a good argument to bring production back to the states (or Germany in this case), though I doubt that will happen due to cost.


----------



## John P

I recall a conversation long ago with the fella who designed HobbyCraft's 1/48 Arado 234 kit. He said he'd designed an insanely detailed 25-part cockpit of which he was very proud, and he knew modelers would love the detail. When the test shots came back from (I think it was made in Korea), the factory had arbitrarily combined most of those parts into a 5-piece cockpit that fit badly. And I guess HobbyCraft couldn't afford (or didn't care) to argue and have it redone.


----------



## drmcoy

jaws62666 said:


> I love building sci fi, especially Star Trek. I am not into having every single minute detail included in a plastic kit. I am getting the Round 2 1/350 TOS Enterprise to satisfy the accuracy issue. As for looks, I like the look of these 2 kits, and with the lights cut out already, it will make a great display piece. Simply stated, everyone has his or her own tastes in model detail. If you dont like this kit , then dont buy it. if you do like it , as I do, then go ahead and buy it. It is really as simple as that. Why people feel the need to chop up a company because a model kit isnt 100% accurate is beyond me. Thanks to ROG for even attempting to make these kits. Keep them coming.



Jaws, I explained the reason some people feel the need to express their disappointment over this model kit not being more accurate than it is in post #524 on page 35. Go read that post and you'll hopefully understand why.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

spock62 said:


> Sounds like a good argument to bring production back to the states (or Germany in this case), though I doubt that will happen due to cost.


It's worse than that - I talked to a LOT of US-based injection molding companies (both local and nationally). They all said "oh it's a toy, send it to China". The ones I visited in person had a lot of idle machines, and could've used the business. Amazing. I doubt half of them are even in business anymore.

On the plus side, you can get injection molding equipment relatively cheaply here in the US.


----------



## John P

But if you talk to Moebius and PL and Monarch, they'll tell you the kit would cost twice the price if they molded it in the US.


----------



## spock62

drmcoy said:


> Jaws, I explained the reason some people feel the need to express their disappointment over this model kit not being more accurate than it is in post #524 on page 35. Go read that post and you'll hopefully understand why.


What drmcoy said!

What I don't understand is why some people on this board feel the need to admonish those of us that are not totally pleased with a kit. All because someone said something to the effect of, "it's a nice kit, but there are several inaccuracies". The very same individuals that attack/put-down these people, such as myself, usually say that it's "just a model" and imply that we need to get over it and, and if we have nothing nice to say, we should keep it to ourselves. They should take their own advice.


----------



## Warped9

spock62 said:


> What drmcoy said!
> 
> What I don't understand is why some people on this board feel the need to admonish those of us that are not totally pleased with a kit. All because someone said something to the effect of, "it's a nice kit, but there are several inaccuracies". The very same individuals that attack/put-down these people, such as myself, usually say that it's "just a model" and imply that we need to get over it and, and if we have nothing nice to say, we should keep it to ourselves. They should take their own advice.


This isn't a new thing and it's not just with models. I see it in everyday life where anyone who dares to voice some genuine criticism is often not well received. The old adage of "if you haven't anything nice to say then say nothing" can be taken too far.


----------



## swhite228

John P said:


> But if you talk to Moebius and PL and Monarch, they'll tell you the kit would cost twice the price if they molded it in the US.


True in most cases.
In the case of the company owner I posted about in the long run the move saved him money.

His final straw moment should have been the Ebay moment when he found his unreleased parts for sale by the factory, or the fact the company had to ship containers of plastic pellets to the factory to make the parts to keep from getting cheaper flamable plastic used if they ran out of Delrin (which they claimed they coud not get after the contract was signed).

His final straw moment was when he called to order a run of parts and found out the company had gone under and all his molds were "owned by the government". Even though he had the contract for them state that he was the owner of the molds and design and held the patents on his parts the company had listed all molds in their factory as being owned by the company on their tax forms.

He was able to get all but 1 of his product molds back without a big fight, and walked away from the 1.

In searching for a company here to do the molding he found most American companies even with little work didn't want to take on his small orders.
He inded up using a company in Mexico for the large parts and got a small injection molding machine for the smaller stuff to run at his factory.

The change has saved his company over a half a million dollars a year.


----------



## spock62

swhite228 said:


> ...In searching for a company here to do the molding he found most American companies even with little work didn't want to take on his small orders.
> He inded up using a company in Mexico for the large parts and got a small injection molding machine for the smaller stuff to run at his factory.
> 
> The change has saved his company over a half a million dollars a year.


Sad to hear. This is happening all over this country, shipping work out to other countries because it's too expensive to do here, and it's been going on for decades. A big part of why so many people are unemployed and can't get work.


----------



## StarshipClass

swhite228 said:


> True in most cases.
> In the case of the company owner I posted about in the long run the move saved him money.
> 
> His final straw moment should have been the Ebay moment when he found his unreleased parts for sale by the factory, or the fact the company had to ship containers of plastic pellets to the factory to make the parts to keep from getting cheaper flamable plastic used if they ran out of Delrin (which they claimed they coud not get after the contract was signed).
> 
> His final straw moment was when he called to order a run of parts and found out the company had gone under and all his molds were "owned by the government". Even though he had the contract for them state that he was the owner of the molds and design and held the patents on his parts the company had listed all molds in their factory as being owned by the company on their tax forms.
> 
> He was able to get all but 1 of his product molds back without a big fight, and walked away from the 1.
> 
> In searching for a company here to do the molding he found most American companies even with little work didn't want to take on his small orders.
> He inded up using a company in Mexico for the large parts and got a small injection molding machine for the smaller stuff to run at his factory.
> 
> The change has saved his company over a half a million dollars a year.


I've heard of a large irrigation company that had to pull all of its product production back to the U.S. due to its costing too much to do business with the Chinese. It had a lot to do with flexibility on the size of the runs for certain products and cost of warehousing and shipping vs. making approximately enough for when they needed the seasonal product. Production runs in China were full on or full off and the company had to get too much product at a time and it was costing them too much to do it that way.


----------



## John P

Warped9 said:


> This isn't a new thing and it's not just with models. I see it in everyday life where anyone who dares to voice some genuine criticism is often not well received. The old adage of "if you haven't anything nice to say then say nothing" can be taken too far.


Mot unlike a certain Moebius thread that got locked 'cause the mod disagreed with a kit review?


----------



## spock62

John P said:


> Mot unlike a certain Moebius thread that got locked 'cause the mod disagreed with a kit review?


Hmmmm, that has a familiar ring to it!


----------



## KUROK

As long as there aren't any personal attacks we should all be able to voice our opinions out here. Otherwise it's not a true "forum".


----------



## James Tiberius

John P said:


> Mot unlike a certain Moebius thread that got locked 'cause the mod disagreed with a kit review?


I mentioned that in the Moebius "new mod" thread and got an angry reply and PM


----------



## ClubTepes

SUNGOD said:


> I still can't understand how anyone would prefer that PL 1/1000 abomination over the Revell kit. You essentially have a smallish Enterprise with virtually zero 3 dimensional surface detail.......just some transfers which are supposed to represent windows. Some bits of paper trying to imitate a real window.
> 
> And don't forget.........there's always the Diamond Select Enterprise which is available with a printed on grid pattern and without. So if you guys want a fairly accurate to the original Enterprise then why not look at that?
> 
> It might not be a kit but it's still a very respectable model.


While small, the 1/1000 scale kit was the most accurate to date in terms of proportions and contours. Calling it an abomination compared to the 1/1500, 1/635, and 1/500 kits it totally out of line.
None of the other kits attempted to offer all three versions of the Enterprise and part of that was the window configuration. Requiring either multiple parts (enough to almost make complete models) or the decal route.
My biggest complaint about that kit was its small scale and the goofy engineering to attach the nacelles which few people could get lined up right.

I would have preferred it to be 1/700 scale.
While slightly smaller than the 1/635 18 incher, 1/700 offered the only scale where ALL the Enterprises had a chance of being modeled in the same scale with a reasonable size for all the ships.
The 'D' and the 'E' would have come in around 36 inches (the same size as the 1/350 refit).

The added benefit is that 1/700 also offered the only scale where all the starships could have been modeled in the same scale, but one could also add the Enterprise aircraft carriers CV-6 and CVN-65 to the collection.

The Diamond select Enterprise from my recollections was pretty awful with its combination of hard and soft plastic. And if I remember correctly, the secondary hull wasn't even round. But more oval. 
I believe that both their TOS and Refit came in at 1/750.
If you liked those sizes, then you get a idea of how big 1/700 would have been.


----------



## Riö

Review by J.M Chladek:
httpwwwyoutube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=rPLpaB35wOQ


----------



## Captain April




----------



## CLBrown

ClubTepes said:


> While small, the 1/1000 scale kit was the most accurate to date in terms of proportions and contours. Calling it an abomination compared to the 1/1500, 1/635, and 1/500 kits it totally out of line.


Absolutely agreed.

The 1:1000 kit is IDEAL for a "casual build." It really, really is. It's an appropriate size to fit into a casual builder's available space, looks nice, and can (with minimal effort) be built up into a very accurate (if, necessarily, not highly detailed) finished kit.

It's a damn sight better than the 1:2500 kits out there, in terms of detail, and "buildability" in other words. I'm not trashing the 1:2500 kits, either, for the record, just saying that each size kit has its own "niche" it fits into.

The 1:350 (ish... to me, with my 1067' length, the number is actually going to be 1:394, and if you treat the ship as 1080', that number becomes 1:399... call it 1:400 just for simplicity!) kit is something else, entirely, but it's not something that very many "casual builders" will ever pick up. Heck, how many people even have a place where they can DISPLAY a 3' long kit???

The old AMT kit, warts and all, is about as big of a kit as i'm normally inclined to display... because it fits, easily, onto those "rail mounted shelves" you can buy. A model much bigger than that requires a lot more effort to find a way of displaying it.

The Revell (Deutschland) kit is, essentially, in the same scale, and thus meets that same criteria... being the biggest "practically displayable" size you can have. But it takes up a LOT of display space... and thus would be a "centerpiece" of the average display shelf. Meanwhile, the 1:1000 kit can be put into a much smaller available space, and it DOES look "good."

I understand "Sungod's" opinion... he wants a bigger, better, more detailed model of the Enterprise, which is easier to make look like a filmable minature. The 1:1000 kit doesn't meet that set of requirements.

But he's making the mistake of associating HIS PERSONAL WISHES with "whether or not it's a good model." Those are not necessarily the same thing.

I know that Sungod will be very, very happy with the upcoming 3' kit. It'll meet his requirements, as it will for most of us who are "serious, crazy-level fans" of this ship. But we're the minority in the world... and the 1:1000 kit is a lot more accessible, a lot less expensive (making it ideal for "for-fun kitbashing" purposes), and just a lot more convenient for the less skilled builder.

Polar Lights/Round 2 were not even subtle about the intention of this kit being to be "accessible to the casual modeler," were they? I mean, it's made to be able to be SNAPPED TOGETHER, and it's got STICKERS (as well as water-slide decals, which you get to choose between).

It can be built up into a fine, high-quallity version of the ship as seen on-screen, or it can be slapped together by someone who has very, very little model-building skill but thinks that having a "Star Track Enterprise" on his (or her?) shelf would be kinda cool...

That's the market... or rather, the TWO markets.. it was intended to best fill... and it does what it's intended to do. It's by no means an "abomination." It's actually pretty awesome!


----------



## CLBrown

spock62 said:


> Sounds like a good argument to bring production back to the states (or Germany in this case), though I doubt that will happen due to cost.


You know, I've been involved in these very decisions, many times, throughout my career. And I've come to recognize that it's a MYTH that there's a real "cost savings" in that sense from being overseas.

The main costs aren't all that much different. Now, when I say "main costs" I'm talking about initial engineering work, part design, TOOLING design, and running of molding machines. Oh, and resin cost, of course (by the way, all plastics are "resins," so don't misunderstand what I just said... styrene is a resin, just as the "casting" resins modelers use are... it's just a different class of resin).

The engineering work is less expensive... or is it? My experience, supervising a team of engineers in China, led me to argue, forcefully, towards hiring US-based engineers to do the same work. Yes, the engineers in China worked for less money, but the actual PRODUCTIVITY was just horrible... and it was mostly MY TIME which was wasted, day after day, checking their work, and telling them to fix this or that or the other thing... and then having them either not understand (about 50% of the time) or simply refusing to do as asked (and I couldn't fire them, because under Chinese law, no non-Chinese citizen can actually be in a position of authority over any Chinese national.)

No, while the "per hour" rates of the Chinese engineers I worked with was much, much less, the number of hours to get a job done were even more disproportionate. Out of a team of seven mechanical engineers, only one among the whole team seemed to really understand basic engineering principles (thankfully, I finally got him promoted to a leadership position there!)

As far as the cost of making tooling... it's the same. Yes, the machining costs are a bit lower... but the quality of the tools was not what I expected, and I had to have them go back and fix things, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, until I finally got a tool which was done correctly. In my experience with US-based toolmakers, in the past, it would usually be nearly right the first time, and would only require one "tweak pass" to get it perfect.

Then, there's the idea that they like to use "whatever plastic they have on-hand" to mold parts. I kept specifying a specific formulation, and I kept getting parts back which, lab analysis confirmed, were made of material utterly unrelated to what was specified. And as a result, we were having fire issues (due to the material they used lacking the flame-retardant additives which were present in the material I'd specified), appearance issues (I was specifying a pre-colored resin, while they were just tossing in a handful of plastic colorant to get a "green" color... never consistent, and never matching the company's official logo color!)

Oh, and then let's talk about shipping... which takes MONTHs. And can we talk about getting things through Chinese customs?

No, in the end, making product in the USA would actually be cheaper. But trying to convince the average "trend-following" Princeton MBA of this is where the problem comes up.

That said... companies still do business overseas, and will continue to do so inevitably, even given the full understanding of the above. There's a simple reason for this, and one which, all of the above acknolwedged, simply can't be argued against.

The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, bar none, and it's the highest by a HUGE measure. So, the more of a company's business is done in the USA, the more of that company's profits will be siphoned off into corporate taxes. Whatever is left, after that, then gets distributed to the sharesholders (you and me) who then get taxed on that same profit a second time.

The "cost of production" argument really doesn't hold. I know this, because I've done the real numbers, in real situations, over and over and over. The real reason these things are made overseas has to do with corporate taxes, nothing else.


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> You know, I've been involved in these very decisions, many times, throughout my career. And I've come to recognize that it's a MYTH that there's a real "cost savings" in that sense from being overseas.
> 
> The main costs aren't all that much different. Now, when I say "main costs" I'm talking about initial engineering work, part design, TOOLING design, and running of molding machines. Oh, and resin cost, of course (by the way, all plastics are "resins," so don't misunderstand what I just said... styrene is a resin, just as the "casting" resins modelers use are... it's just a different class of resin).
> 
> The engineering work is less expensive... or is it? My experience, supervising a team of engineers in China, led me to argue, forcefully, towards hiring US-based engineers to do the same work. Yes, the engineers in China worked for less money, but the actual PRODUCTIVITY was just horrible... and it was mostly MY TIME which was wasted, day after day, checking their work, and telling them to fix this or that or the other thing... and then having them either not understand (about 50% of the time) or simply refusing to do as asked (and I couldn't fire them, because under Chinese law, no non-Chinese citizen can actually be in a position of authority over any Chinese national.)
> 
> No, while the "per hour" rates of the Chinese engineers I worked with was much, much less, the number of hours to get a job done were even more disproportionate. Out of a team of seven mechanical engineers, only one among the whole team seemed to really understand basic engineering principles (thankfully, I finally got him promoted to a leadership position there!)
> 
> As far as the cost of making tooling... it's the same. Yes, the machining costs are a bit lower... but the quality of the tools was not what I expected, and I had to have them go back and fix things, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, until I finally got a tool which was done correctly. In my experience with US-based toolmakers, in the past, it would usually be nearly right the first time, and would only require one "tweak pass" to get it perfect.
> 
> Then, there's the idea that they like to use "whatever plastic they have on-hand" to mold parts. I kept specifying a specific formulation, and I kept getting parts back which, lab analysis confirmed, were made of material utterly unrelated to what was specified. And as a result, we were having fire issues (due to the material they used lacking the flame-retardant additives which were present in the material I'd specified), appearance issues (I was specifying a pre-colored resin, while they were just tossing in a handful of plastic colorant to get a "green" color... never consistent, and never matching the company's official logo color!)
> 
> Oh, and then let's talk about shipping... which takes MONTHs. And can we talk about getting things through Chinese customs?
> 
> No, in the end, making product in the USA would actually be cheaper. But trying to convince the average "trend-following" Princeton MBA of this is where the problem comes up.
> 
> That said... companies still do business overseas, and will continue to do so inevitably, even given the full understanding of the above. There's a simple reason for this, and one which, all of the above acknolwedged, simply can't be argued against.
> 
> The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, bar none, and it's the highest by a HUGE measure. So, the more of a company's business is done in the USA, the more of that company's profits will be siphoned off into corporate taxes. Whatever is left, after that, then gets distributed to the sharesholders (you and me) who then get taxed on that same profit a second time.
> 
> The "cost of production" argument really doesn't hold. I know this, because I've done the real numbers, in real situations, over and over and over. The real reason these things are made overseas has to do with corporate taxes, nothing else.


BINGO!!!!!!!! What I have said all along as well!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April

Hell, I just want my replacement part before the end of the year so I can finally declare mine completed.


----------

