# Finscale Modeler has reviewed the Polar Lights enterprise NX-01



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi, Finescale Modeler just reviewed the Big NX-01 from Polar Lights in their October issue.I noted he did not add the complex aztec scheme and just painted some random panels.John Plazek the modeler who built it said he was hoping someone would make custom decals for the aztec pattern.For my first Polar Lights NX-01,I will do the same,simple job!No Aztec headache,Thanks,Guy Schlicter


----------



## soloboy5 (Jun 18, 2003)

I didnt really like the review, one of the largest sci fi models ever mass produced, and it barely got a full page. And even though I understand it can be tough, it didnt even get a mediocre aztec pattern. This is not meant to put the guy down and I hardly think I could do a better job, but its sad that sci-fi modeling has come to this, also I think that was the only science fiction model ion the entire issue, I mean c'mon we dont all build tanks and planes do we?


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

soloboy5 said:


> ...also I think that was the only science fiction model ion the entire issue, I mean c'mon we dont all build tanks and planes do we?


According to Finescale, we do.  

Two words: Modeler's Resource.


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*Three words...*

Cult TVman Forums. Modelers Resource is "ok", and I have a subscription this year, but even as a newbie I recognise that I won't be renewing it for a second year. I get better info from back issues of Amazing Figure Modeler (to which I also have a sub, but I'm not super impressed with this years offerings).

Basically I would suggest that anyone building non figure models go read all the articles in Cult TV mans website, including but not limited to the articles by David Merrimen. Then just start building, however slow or fast suits you. The only suggestion I as a newbie (or, re-newbie) would offer is, give up thinking that if you go slow enough you'll do a perfect job. The key seems to be to just make kits, make mistakes, learn from them, and repeat.

Bookmark CultTV mans main site, and check it weekly for new articles about building various kits. Then copy the procedures described. It helps, at least it helps me.


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

_FineScale Modeler_ is a resource for techniques, tips, tricks and ideas (and information on other genres if you work in them as well, as some of us do). I consider their sci-fi content, when it appears, to be gravy.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ziz said:


> According to Finescale, we do.


 Nonsense. FineScale covers cars as well.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

[JP, don't forget ships.]

This debate comes up with amazing regularity but I have to agree with Scott about reading FSM for the tips and techniques stuff. There was a telling letter from a reader in the current issue that criticized FSM for carrying too many articles on building kits using after-market parts. The writer pointed out that these were just articles about building a variation of an OOB kit and not articles about technique. And even if the writer builds those conversion parts from sheet styrene and chicken wire, there are only so many times this can be interesting!

And let's not get started on why there are no sci-fi modeling articles in FSM. I'm just not sure if it's because regular FSM readers are just not interested in hearing about the off-beat techniques we use or that we (sci-fi modelers) just don't know how to write about them.

Jim


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

I'll posit a theory: If more sci-fi modelers documented their builds with detailed notes and photos, then turned the notes and photos into an article and submitted it to FSM, I bet there's a good chance the magazine would run it. FSM can only publish what gets submitted (although I doubt it publishes _everything_ that gets submitted) and I recall one conversation I had several years ago with FSM's editor in which he decried the lack of submissions from sci-fi modelers.

That said, one must remember that when it comes to modeling, our world is ruled by guys who spend their lives sweating the markings of Me-109s or the tread variations on M-4 Shermans, and the sci-fi (and even Real Space) side of the hobby will never be similarly catered to by a general-interest publication like FSM.

What has alarmed me in the past few months about FSM, though, is that it seems like they've become an advertising mouthpiece for Trumpeter, that Chinese outfit that has produced some (according to FSM's reviews) really great 1/32nd-scale models. It seems like every other issue has some giant, glowing review of whatever kit Trumpeter has just released. And I don't mean the regular "Workbench Review" pieces, but BIG articles. I first noticed the trend a few issues ago, and it has continued.

As far as the NX-01 goes, I'm sure the reviewer was building it on some sort of deadline for the magazine and did whatever he needed to do to get it done. I'm wondering through -- what would be the harm of painting the model a shade or two of gray (ala the TOS _Enterprise_), replacing the "NX" in the codes with "NCC" and telling everyone it represents the ship after its shakedown cruise is over and a paint job was applied?


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

heyday said:


> I'll posit a theory: If more sci-fi modelers documented their builds with detailed notes and photos, then turned the notes and photos into an article and submitted it to FSM, I bet there's a good chance the magazine would run it.


I consider myself a pretty good writer and I've had stuff turned down by FSM. I really think that the problem is not a shortage of sci-fi submissions but a shortage of well-written, well documented and relevant sci-fi submissions -a well written review of how you built a PL Enterprise isn't enough. You need something concise, well photographed and with a special technique or approach.

If someone put together the story of how the Starship Modeler group built their Jeffries Station project, I'm sure FSM would find space for it.

Jim


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

I perhaps should amend my previous post to say that if sci-fi (or Real Space) modelers documented their builds -- and employed unique or new techniques in the construction, painting or decaling -- then I would bet FSM would be interested. Most of us have the basics down to some degree, but someone is always coming up with a new way of doing something and a good technique is a good technique whether it be used to build a P-51 or an NX-01.

I'd be interested to know, though, if FSM has some annual "quota" for what percentage of the articles in a year have to be aircraft, or armor, or cars, or sci-fi or real space.

Having gotten into card modeling over the past year, I realize it's a part of the hobby that has been virtually ignored by FSM. I seem to recall one article on the subject years and years ago, but that's it. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

For an article I think good photos area big part of it. I know I have problems documenting my builds with photos that can be published. A digital camera is great for a web article but not good enough for publishing.

As for the NX-01 article all I can think of is that the builder had a deadline and there was no way he could have masked and painted the aztec pattern in time.

Personally I enjoy FSM. I like the variety and yes Iwould like more Sci-Fi articles.


Alex
Styrofoam Guy


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Styrofoam_Guy said:


> For an article I think good photos area big part of it. I know I have problems documenting my builds with photos that can be published. A digital camera is great for a web article but not good enough for publishing.


 Well, a HIGH res digital is. 3 to 6 megapixel. Sure a cheap one won't do it, but even the pros use digital for publication now.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

I had a article in FSm, and wrote pages of stuff and took rolls of film, and they cut it down quite a bit, and waited four years to run it.
I got a snobby feel from them, as if SF is kids stuff and WW2 is adult. They've never been in WW2 any more than we have been in space.


----------



## lecook (Feb 24, 2000)

Kalmbach has market cornered as far as publishing hobby magazines in the US.

And FSM is their signature mag. Which makes me wonder why, why is it still in saddle-stapled format with less than 100 pages per issue?

Couldn't they make a square-bound format with 150 to 300 pages? Even with pages as thin as those in computer shopper magazine, wouldn't the majority be happier with a larger page count per issue?

From everything we've been led to believe, the reason sci-fi articles don't make it into an issue, is that there is "just" so many pages, and deciding between a sci-fi article and a more mainstream subject is no contest. But what if you doubled the page count? or tripled it?

And doesn't FSM have a large backlog of unpublished articles? Between here and SM and rec.models.scale, and several tank related forums I've read a number of accounts where people have submitted more than one article to FSM, have been payed, and the article has still not appeared in the magazine sometimes as long as 7 years later.


----------



## Paul H (Apr 6, 2003)

It's just the law of numbers here. Anyone care to guess how many tank/aircraft/car modelers there are per scifi modeler? I have no idea, but the number must be huge if my local hobbyshops are any indication.

But, then consider this.... ever try one of the hundreds of websites and forums dedicated to aircraft (let alone cars and tanks)? You can't find anything. The topic is TOO BIG. Yet we have this nice little community here on this nice little bulletin board where you can find the answer to any question you can think of. And there are pictures too! Plus there is Steve's site for lots of ideas and samples. That's good enough for me.

I'd much rather have our community be as small as it is. That said, I sometimes worry that someday we might all have to scratchbuild because there won't be any production level kits anywhere. And I often feel bad because the newest ships we see in movies and television series can't be bought in kit form. But overall I enjoy the commaradery of the smaller group.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Paul H said:


> I'd much rather have our community be as small as it is. That said, I sometimes worry that someday we might all have to scratchbuild because there won't be any production level kits anywhere....


 Well, if RC2 has anything to say about it, you're probably right!


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

I think when it comes to publishing a magazine and considering an article on a sci-fi (or real space) subject, one also has to take into account the "geekazoid" factor. I don't know what others' experience has been, but most IPMS shows I've gone to relegate space/sci-fi stuff to the "other room," kind of like that scene in "Animal House" where the dorks get herded into their own room at the fraternity house pledge party. FSM just reflects what's going on at IPMS in many ways. You could be a world-class modeler, but if you're doing sci-fi, you'll never be taken as seriously as somebody who builds B-17s or Tiger tanks. They're modeling "history," we are told, and sci-fi modelers are just playing with make-believe stuff.

They even stick Real Space and sci-fi in the same categories at those things, so that shows you how little the mainstream IPMS folks (and, by extension, publications like FSM) respect what we do. What does a space shuttle have in common with a Gundam? Nothing. Yet at the last contest I entered, my space shuttle wound up in the same category (and losing to) a couple of Gundams. The Gundams were well-built and nicely finished, but c'mon -- There's no way anyone can tell me a space shuttle model should be in the same category as a Gundam. That'd be like sticking armor in the WWI aircraft category. If you tried to do that at a contest, folks would howl. But when they do it to real space and sci-fi modelers, it is considered perfectly acceptable.

FSM just reflects that mindset. I've met plenty of folks who model "real" subjects whose sanity I've questioned, and I've met plenty of sci-fi modelers who were normal as the day is long. But no matter how good their skills, by virtue of the fact they build sci-fi stuff, they'll have a hard time overcoming the "geekazoid" factor.

OK. I'll relinquish the soap box now....


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Sso how do they treat the 'Real Space' builders? Do they lump them in with 'history' or 'space geeks'?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I think its pretty darn silly that a "tank" model builder would view a sci-fi model builder as a geek. As far as people who don't build models are concerned, you are likely a geek if you build ANY kind of model. Period!

However, a few months back, the Wife and I had been out for a weekend brunch and stopped by a local model show. As a sci-fi and figure modeler, I am pleased to report that the guys building the tanks, planes, battleships, cars and trucks were the ABSO-LUTE GEEKIEST looking bunch I've seen in years.

And to heck with FineScale Modeler - watch for my article on fashionable sci-fi modeling in next month's GQ! 

Ha!!:jest: 

Huzz


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

From my experience -- and other modelers in other parts of the country may have had different (and better?) experiences -- "real space" modelers are lumped in with the "geekazoids." If you spend your hours trying to find the "accurate" color of the cockpit walls of a Fw-190, or what plumbing runs throguh the main landing gear well of an F-16, then you probably have no idea what the proper color is for a space shuttle main engine, and one SSME looks the same as all the others. I've literally heard contest judges spend minutes discussing whether the instrumentation on an F-4's cockpit sidewall panel was accurate or not, but then breeze through the real space models in about 15 seconds.

Maybe I'm generalizing here, but like I said, this has been my experience.


----------



## david merriman (Jun 6, 2002)

Arronax said:


> [JP, don't forget ships.]
> 
> ... And let's not get started on why there are no sci-fi modeling articles in FSM. I'm just not sure if it's because regular FSM readers are just not interested in hearing about the off-beat techniques we use or that we (sci-fi modelers) just don't know how to write about them.
> 
> Jim


Jim,

Beware the absolute statement, it'll bite you the majority of the time.

David D Merriman lll


----------



## Mike Warshaw (Feb 23, 1999)

Just because I worked in magazines doesn't make me some kind of expert, but it does give me an opinion. Let's see if it's at all useful.

This discussion reminds of the numerous complaints or pleas on the board to Polar Lights to pursue some obscure subjects of interest to the poster. Or the demands that PL do what we want because we're the fan base and they'd better listen. Or the strident characterization of RC2 as the evil empire if they don't continue the line the way we want them to. It's less than venting. It's spitting in the wind. 

This is business and these businesses are not monolithic giants hell-bent on doing evil (well, the jury's out on RC2). Kalmbach is maybe a couple of dozen people, even smaller than PL's 50 at its height. From a lot of those folks' point of view, FineScale Modeler is a job first and a magazine second and a hobby resource third, I suspect. Still, everyone wants to be proud of the job they do.

If they thought it would be more profitable to put out a glossy monthly on garage kits, for example, they would, and they'd do it differently from Terry Webb, who does it out of something like love. It's an unbelievable amount of work to put out a magazine month in and month out. Unless you've done it, you probably have no idea -- and you also may not have any idea how frustrating it is to get criticized for not doing what you can't do anyway because there are only so many advertisers to pay for the edit pages and so many hours in the day.

I'm dead certain the reason this isn't a perfect-bound, 300-page magazine is because the ad dollars aren't there, especially during the current recession in magazine advertising.

Of course articles get cut down. They have to be to present a variety of material every month in a limited amount of space. It's an art to preserve the essence of a piece when you can't fit nearly all of the detail one of us would put in an article. Thank God for Cult's site and the people like Kyu and even that provocateur Merriman, who take the time and trouble to document their projects for the few of us who share these very narrow interests of ours.

And John P, you big goober. You know it's not the digital technology. It's the quality of the photos -- not just artfulness, but how well a group of pics illustrate the process or technique for readers. Silly boy.

FSM editors may occasionally get the chance to try something out of passion if it fits the corporate mission -- the reissue of the Spaceships of Fact and Fiction a few years ago is one example -- but it's clearly a niche magazine struggling to attract advertising and reach a wide audience. It amazes me that the reviewers are consistently able to get across both praise and criticism for the products of advertisers when advertisers keep them employed. It speaks well for them.

I had a conversation with an editor once who told me Kalmbach is not a warm and fuzzy place. Some of us have had a conversation or two with PL employees who said the same thing about their workplace. There's always a conflict between reality and fantasy when we deal with the people in these places. Personally, I wish PL would reissue the Man from U.N.C.L.E. kits and maybe expand the diorama to include Mr. Waverly. Still, no matter how hard I clap for Tinkerbell, I don't think they owe it to me.

I enjoyed the FSM NX-01 review and found it impressive that the reviewer, in a few short paragraphs, drew a useful portrait of the kit, even citing the relative softness of detail, a critique common to a number of PL kits -- which can suffer by comparison with companies like Trumpeter, which now produce multi-media kits with razor-sharp detail. 

In the end, an honest critique from a skilled reviewer with a general interest in modeling is going to draw new people to our segment of the hobby. A thousand times more than my post or even this board, it alerts manufacturers that it pays to pay attention to quality.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Mike Warshaw said:


> And John P, you big goober. You know it's not the digital technology. It's the quality of the photos -- not just artfulness, but how well a group of pics illustrate the process or technique for readers. Silly boy.


 Hey, just because I HAVE a big goober, doesn't mean I AM one. Somebody get me a tissue... *HONK!* There. All gone.

No, I know, I was responding to the assertion that someone couldn't take quality pictures of _any _kind with "just a digital camera." Nothing more. Though you're gonna need something more than a camera-cellphone or webcam to get decent resolution, which is important in a publication.

I put together our company bimonthly newsmagazine. If we have a "real" photo submitted for an article, I scan it at 300dpi or so. 600 if I only need a small section of it, or if it's a large group shot. Our printshop's Canon 5100 prints at 400. The Nikon digital we use for pics for the mag shoots a _3,000-pixel-wide_ image at over 5 megapixels. It just kills us when some dope submits a 320x240 72dpi picture embedded in a word document and then complains about how bad it looks in the Journal.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

heyday said:


> If you spend your hours trying to find the "accurate" color of the cockpit walls of an Fw-190,


 RLM 66 Black-gray. Suitable substitutes are European Dark Gray, or the lighter Gunship Gray for scale effect. 



> ...or what plumbing runs throguh the main landing gear well of an F-16,


 This plumbing?



> then you probably have no idea what the proper color is for a space shuttle main engine,


Looks like Testors' Burnt Metal metalizer with some gunmetal in the low detail


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

John P said:


> Well, a HIGH res digital is. 3 to 6 megapixel. Sure a cheap one won't do it, but even the pros use digital for publication now.


Yes you are right. I did get to meet the editor of FSM and he had this honkin digital camera. The thing probably cost more than a mid size car. 

For the average modeller an average digital camera will not do. Until they make a digital camera that cost only $500 and can take publication qualty photos I do not consider it main stream yet.

Now as for Sci-Fi getting the short end of the stick yes I see it all the time. I also build cars and at the local IPMS chapter people will ignore my models because it is a car. Never mind the Sci-Fi stuff I bring. 

Some of the more open minded guys will appreciate what I have done.

Most of them don't say anything and most don't dare because a lot of them don't build at all.  






Alex
Styrofoam Guy


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

but digital cameras still have LOUSY DEPTH. Gimme my Nikon F with the pinhole modification on that 28mm portrait lens and a BUNCH of light, and I'll show you a detailed photo WITH DEPTH. I never liked the color from a digital camera, so I have to import it to PhotoShop and tamper.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I have a Canon EOS 630 SLR with every possible exposure mode known to man and a smoking 4 or 5 frames per second built in motor drive. (Apparently you can buy good used ones cheap right now.) I also have a good selection of lenses and a Vivitar TTL flash with a guide number adequate to light up Grand Central Station (at the time I bought it, Canon flashes didn't hold a candle (  ) to Vivitar). The picture quality, if you know how to use it, makes a digital pale by comparison. The old standard portrait trick of using a 70-210 mm zoom lens zoomed to 210 mm and a wide aperture to focus on and highlight the subject with an "artistically" blurred background is easy to master with an SLR but its not easy to replicate with a digital.

Despite that, my wife constantly complained that it was too much of a pain to drag around. So, last month I bought her a 4.1 megapixel Sony with a 3X Optical zoom (don't use your digital zoom feature as you can crop your pictures better in a good photo editing program). So, this weekend, we attended my aunt and uncle's 40th anniversary party. And the wife forgot to bring the camera!

Moral of the story: keep your SLR, buy a scanner for $50 bucks, save hundreds.

Huzz


----------



## Mike Warshaw (Feb 23, 1999)

I'm so glad that in that whole rant, I was able to make a really important point: That there are all kinds of digital cameras out there. 

Sorry, Steve.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

And that putting out a magazine is a lot of work! And that there are all sorts of practical considerations that go into writing, editing and selecting an article for publication. Got that too!

I know its not Fine Scale magazine, but I did pop over to the Canadian IPMS home page. What popped up? A tank! But wait, it scrolled away to be replaced by - a WWII airplane! And that scrolled away to be replaced by - some kind of troop carrier - and then - another tank!

It was really quite hilarious.

Huzz


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Here's a question.... is there validity or need for a magazine like FSM today?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Sure there is, for the folks who enjoy the topics presented in that mag.

I scan it for the stuff I am interested in and since I don't generally see sci-fi related topics, I haven't bought it in a while. Although a few years back they did run nice articles on the Lunar Models resin Proteus and building a scratch-built miniaturizer base for it; and on accurizing the old AMT TOS Galileo Shuttle model. I bought it both times. But darned if now I can't find them anywhere in the house!

Huzz


----------



## Mike Warshaw (Feb 23, 1999)

Huzz, today you are my hero. Thanks for listening.

I've saved back issues with articles on kitbashing a 1/16 1966 Batmobile; Mike Stutelberg's original conversion of a Monogram '59 Caddy into the design that became the Johnny Lightning '50s Batmobile; how to accurize an AMT/Ertl E-A; how to light the Defiant; how to light the Klingon BoP; not to mention a boatload of articles on sanding, airbrushing, oil paints, glues, plastics, pastels, and on and on. I still read it. So in my life, there's a use.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

All the magazines are hurting because of the Internet, but they are still plenty of non-computer users out there. When they die off the printed word may be doomed. In a few decades everyone may be using only computers, and the forests can stay as is.

Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models was all our type of stuff. It was presented in a first class manner, with great pics and articles.
It closed down several years ago. We didn't support it. maybe it was too pricey or perhaps we're getting older. If that mag was around when I was young I would have bought every one sight unseen. As it was I just browsed it and bought a few.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Ya know, it's a shame that many of us limit ourselves only to magazines and articles that feature sci-fi modeling. Many of the articles have substantive techniques that can be applied to any model of any genre. 

An article on techniques for paneling and weathering aircraft with worn and chipped paint could just as well be easily applied by the reader to a Fine Molds or Captain Cardboard X-Wing. A diorama depicting a scene from the Battle of the Bulge could be used as inspiration for an Imperial Walker assault on the Hoth Rebel Base power generator. Another artlicle on adding wingtip navigation lights and strobes to model aircraft could provide the basic electronics circuit design for adaption to Federation starships from all eras.

I have an annual model/hobby/DVD budget of about $5k. A good percentage of that goes towards periodicals on plastic models (FineScale Modeler, Modeler's Resource, Military Modeler, Scale Aircraft Modeler, Scale Ship Modeler, etc.). There are also many I get on woodworking, machining, etc. All of these are useful and contain excellent articles and information that can be applied to any model kit, as well as scratchbuilding (which if you haven't tried it, you should) using any number of different materials and techniques.

In addition to having tools such as X-Acto knives, paint brushes, and a Dremel - a scroll saw, drill press, table saw, lathe and router would be fine additions for model work.

Don't limit yourself. Any knowledge is good and can be applied to more than just one area.

My two cents.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Trek Ace said:


> Ya know, it's a shame that many of us limit ourselves only to magazines and articles that feature sci-fi modeling. Many of the articles have substantive techniques that can be applied to any model of any genre.


If I had unlimited time and budget, I would subscribe to them all.. everything from AFM to Fine Scale to Model Railroader. There was a time when I bought all the SF movie mags too. But reality is we live in a time of information overload. Not only do we have at least three genre magazines, but we have a plethora of online information and at least 5 books on the subject matter. 

Remember the days when we would get excited about one article every few months in FSM? 

Sad thing is, I don't even have time to even read everything that is posted over at Starship Modeler. And thats my first stop everyday.

So the relevence is just as described above... FSM is worth thumbing through on the newstand, and picking up if you find something useful. The relevance also exists for that dwindling number of people that don't have or want access to the internet. 

But the flip side of that is that us internet model geeks are missing out on a wider world of modeling, and we just might miss out on something. Don't let the online world be the sole source of your modeling wisdom. Find a middle ground where you have a number of resources at your disposal, both online and off.

Steve


----------



## lecook (Feb 24, 2000)

Mike Warshaw said:


> I'm dead certain the reason this isn't a perfect-bound, 300-page magazine is because the ad dollars aren't there, especially during the current recession in magazine advertising.


 Is it really referred to as perfect-bound? Geez.

Upping the "per unit" price from $4.95 to something like $7.95 or $8.95 and using cheaper paper for interior pages wouldn't be enough to compensate for lack of additional ad dollars?

They're already spending money on articles they never seem to get around to publishing, turning those unpublished articles into potential published profit isn't enough of an incentive?



Mike Warshaw said:


> If they thought it would be more profitable to put out a glossy monthly on garage kits, for example, they would, and they'd do it differently from Terry Webb, who does it out of something like love...


 That reminds me, I've always wanted to ask this of someone that is has served in the magazine trenches. Why in the name of all that's holy, do smaller speciality magazines print on thicker glossier pages? Referencing issues of Modelers Resource, Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models International (now out of business), Military Miniatures in Review, Model Car, it seems that every smaller run speciality hobby magazine that I've read uses thicker, higher gloss interior pages and always have lower page counts than more mainstream mags. Aren't those high gloss heavier weight pages more expensive than the thin stock of a mag like FSM? From a costs point of view, it just seems insane and self-defeating to me. it calls to mind the image of an unsupervised art director thumbing, with bliss, through the pages of the mag, while all around him the magazine publisher's go slowly out of business.



CultTVman said:


> Here's a question.... is there validity or need for a magazine like FSM today?


 The problem with that is the effective portability of printed magazines.

Have tried, rather dumbly, to read David Weber's "Mutineers Moon" on my computer's CRT monitor. Probably the worst eye pain I've endured since corrective surgery.

It's still much cheaper and more flexible to have a magazine in a car/bus/train/plane or at the beach or even in the WC than to have a laptop with wireless internet connection. And there's qualities to a professional, highly competent and compensated editorial staff, that the internet hasn't made obsolete just yet.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, I miss the depth of field I used to get with my Minolta. 25 ASA film, Fully closed aperture and lotsa light, on ap-preferred auto, set the timer and step away. Sharp as a tack.

Still, I never got perfect pics, and I had to wait a few days and spend a few bucks to find it out.

I have an Argus digital FIVE megapixel that only cost $200. Any pic you've seen me post for the last few months is from that camera. Even if the color is off a tad (and it was with real film too sometimes), I bring it into PhotoPaint, hit "auto equalize" and "sharpen," and it's fine. No wait, no cost.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

david merriman said:


> Jim,
> 
> Beware the absolute statement, it'll bite you the majority of the time.
> 
> David D Merriman lll


David, I was, of course, referring to your run-of-the-mill, day-to-day modelers and not to the true professionals who are published regularly.



Steve CultTVMan Iverson said:


> Here's a question.... is there validity or need for a magazine like FSM today?


Of course, but only for true fine scale modelers and given the inaccuracies of sci-fi models and discrepancies in reference materials, that probably excludes us. It's no coincidence that we often refer to FSM as Finescale Military.



Mike Warshaw said:


> If they thought it would be more profitable to put out a glossy monthly on garage kits, for example, they would, and they'd do it differently from Terry Webb, who does it out of something like love. It's an unbelievable amount of work to put out a magazine month in and month out. Unless you've done it, you probably have no idea -- and you also may not have any idea how frustrating it is to get criticized for not doing what you can't do anyway because there are only so many advertisers to pay for the edit pages and so many hours in the day.


Although I have some personal frustrations with the content of Modelers Resource (too much on upcoming movies, not enough vehicle stuff, long turn around making the magazine less current, etc.), I know that Fred DeRuvo has a lot of passion for his magazine. Indirectly and directly, he's given me a lot of encouragement in writing for MR (my second article in scheduled for the next issue). Fred spends a lot of time and effort putting MR together for modelers like us and if you are not a subscriber, you should be. 

Jim


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

*A Digital Aside*

John - last night I tried to install the USB driver for my Sony DSC-P73 on my PC at home. Wouldn't work at all. I tried to manually install the hardware and driver using the Windows utility for that and still the PC could not "see" the pics on the camera.

Quite disappointing. I have one more trick to try before I throw the camera back at Sony. I am using a non-Sony 256Mb card. I suspect that Sony has something in its own cards such that its drivers only recognize a Sony memory card. Sony wouldn't do that would they? Nah (Betamax)!! So tonight I'm going to stick the Sony 16MB card in the camera, take a couple of pics and try again. If it does not work, I'll bring the camera back and grumble at the Sony guy. If it does work, I'm *really* going to grumble at the Sony guy!

Huzz


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Huzz...try it the other way. Pick up one of those stand-alone external card readers for $20 or so. the computer sees it as just another drive letter. They don't (shouldn't) care what brand the card is, so long as it's the right size and shape slot.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Ziz - do you mean these little doo-hickeys:

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?catid=11438&logon=&langid=EN&dept=14&WLBS=fsweb22

Huzz


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yup. That's what I use at home, that's what we use for the camera at work. I can even bring mine to work and use the flash card as a file transfer "drive."


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

The cost of printing, the cost of paper, and the cost of postage has soared over the last 15-20 years. And as previously stated, with the economy, the ad sales don't pull in the revenue that they used to. Producing a magazine is hard work. Paying for it all is even harder. That's why big circ zines print on thin paper even if it's ad to editorial ratio is high. Thin paper is cheaper to buy and it's cheaper to ship and if you're circ is in the millions, that adds up. I don't know what the average circ of FSM or AFM or MR is, but I bet it's less than the press waste for a single weekly issue of Newsweek or The New Yorker, or TV guide.


----------

