# 78 galactica release kit



## yorkd (Mar 14, 2010)

Is the 78 model coming out in November or December? I keep hearing so so dates from cult tv man and monsters in motion also from two local hobby shops. thanks from anybody that may know.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Delivery dates are not dependent on when the kit is boxed up and leaves the factory in China, it is dependent on how fast it is loaded on a cargo ship in China, how eventful and fast the trip across the Pacific is, how fast it sits in port before Customs Inspectors sign off on the cargo and allows it into the country and then transport to distributors.

If there is a confusing release date, it is due mostly to these factors that are out of Moebius' hands as well as the dealer you are buying from.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

Moebius posted on their Facebook page that the release date will be sometime in February 2014 (or later).
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.658141907559449.1073741831.152580141448964&type=1
Click on _view more comments_, just below the images.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

A couple of months ago it was January, now it's February. What's next, May or June??? I wish they would make up their minds.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

I would rather they take their time and get it right instead of just releasing something now that is "good enough". Even if it takes until July or August it won't matter to me, I have plenty of plastic to cut, glue and paint until then.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

So would I, but back when they announced these kits Moebius also said they would be out by fall of this year and so far the only one has been the viper, while the Galactica keeps being pushed back more and more. Guess even Moebius makes mistakes, after all the company is made up of people and people do make mistakes.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

So? Its not really a mistake. Its an estimation. You have to estimate when production reaches certain milestones. Test shot done X, final approval in month Y, start kit production in Z, etc. 

It could be worse the 1/35 Chariot and Space Pod have been coming soon for about 4 years and supposedly Monarch was waiting for someone to draw instructions for Gorgo for the last 4 years too.

its out when its out.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

It's probably not even the fault of Moebius.
Their Tumbler (Batmobile) was over a year late to market because of the involvement of the "suits" at Warner Bros. At least that's the impression given from the various related posts around the interwebs.
It's entirely possible that some "suit" at Universal (who isn't even a model builder) has input on the Galactica kit that has caused some delay. Perhaps it's the input on the "correct" box art, or nit picking the wording in the licensing in the instructions that's caused a delay, who knows.

There is no telling how many people get a say in what is eventually produced, how many meetings have to happen, how high up the Universal marketing ladder the kit and it's box art have to go before it gets the FINAL thumbs up for production.
I'm sure it's a giant pain in the a$$ for people who just want to make cool models. I'm just glad to finally get the models, not matter how long it takes to get them.


----------



## yorkd (Mar 14, 2010)

I don't mind if it comes out a few months late.I know moebius will do a great job on this kit.I have been buying their kits ever since the Seaview came out.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Then I would like to issue a challenge to the big wigs at Moebius to register here and explain why the delay in releasing the Galactica in February instead of say late fall/early winter.
If they have the guts that is which I don't think they do.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

After all the crap they put up with from rude and nasty posters back when I'd be amazed if anyone from Moebius EVER came back on this forum.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Dave and Frank have posted a few times since, but it's rare. 



irishtrek said:


> Then I would like to issue a challenge to the big wigs at Moebius to register here and explain why the delay in releasing the Galactica in February instead of say late fall/early winter.
> If they have the guts that is which I don't think they do.


Calm down, Francis. 

I have a challenge for _you_ - design, produce and sell a kit for mass market sales and do so thru China where you run in to language and ideology issues, as well as time differences and having to wait for test shots to be mailed back for your approval. Deal with potential factory issues - such as shortage of materials, manufacturing machinery issues, weather in the region the factory resides, etc... - the shipping of completed kits, and possible problems like worker/government strikes that keep people from being able to release/ship things in a relatively timely manner. 

Tell me how long it takes, how many hurtles you have to overcome - and remember all of this when you have people coming at you as tho you've caused the world to stop turning and everything to fly off.  

There really _are_ bigger issues in the world to worry about than when some plastic kit is released and why it's being delayed. Yes, I get that you want the kit - I want it too, and I want it now! - but I'm not going to post about it at an online forum where I'm going to present myself as being a middle-school child who's petulant because the latest edition of [*Insert Latest Hot Game Name Here*] has been delayed for some reason. It'll be here eventually. I was pretty hot to get the Moebius Pegasus kit and it wasn't released on the original date, but all was still right in my 'Verse and I eventually got it - and now own six of them.

So, try being a bit more calm and show a bit of restraint. Unless you've got a monetary stake in when this kit is released - and I can't think of anyone who does outside of Moebius and a few companies that like to charge people for kits that they don't have on-hand just yet - , then why are you getting so perturbed? 

Honestly, man, that's my perception of you - and I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

Good things come to those who wait.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

This kind of mentality reminds me of the people that buy something from you on ebay and then message you 9 times a day for the 3 days it take for the package to get there... It's not here yet.. it's not here yet... it's not here yet. 

There are so many factors involved NOT under anyone's direct control. For example, I used to get kits at my shop from one local importer/distributor. They had been waiting for weeks to get a Revell Germany shipment that was coming into Miami. There was an issue with customs, who relased the stuff without some sort of paperwork or inspection etc so in the end the shipment was impounted at the distributor's warehouse for a good 3 months. They had it "in stock" but could not ship it out untill whatever issues there were had been resolved.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I remember the old days when I would go to the hobby shop in the spring and look at the catalogs. There would be a picture of a model under a cloth cover with a "coming soon" sign next to it and the name of the model. That was it, nothing more, period. We would have to wait...

Then came the internet...

It would be a lot easier if the model companies did not post a month when they expect a model kit to be released. But, they want to keep us informed as best they can. I get that. People just have to realize that these are just estimates and best guesses. Has a model ever been released when a company said it would?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> A couple of months ago it was January, now it's February. What's next, May or June??? I wish they would make up their minds.


What the heck is wrong with you? :freak:
They make estimates based on a zillion factors, most of which are out of their control. Factors change, the estimate changes. This is the way it's been for DECADES. "Making up their mind" has NOTHING to do with it. Be glad you're not waiting or the Monarch Moon Suit kit that was announced 10 years ago.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Here, this should make people happy! 

http://www.therpf.com/f11/modifying-re-fitting-new-moebius-tos-galactica-yes-i-dare-200682/


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

I've got no problem with how long it takes for Moebius to release a kit. The real issue (IMHO) I have with some Moebius kits is with all of the reference photos that is readily available on the internet, they still manage to have obvious errors in their kits. The fella that received the kit in the link above, while liking the kit overall, mentions that it contains several errors. 

The recent release of the Viper Mk1 kit, while better then the old Monogram kit, has multiple errors, many of which would be extremely hard to correct without major surgery/scratch-building. It fact, it has some errors that the Monogram kit had correct! If your curious as to what I mean, go to ByYourCommand.net, and compare the photos of the filming miniature to the Viper kit released by Moebius to see what I'm on about.

Again, if the release of a kit is "late" by a month or so, it's no big deal. Minor inaccuracies that are easily fixed or can be ignored are not a big thing, all kits have them. But, major inaccuracies that are hard to fix are an issue, and shouldn't be on a new-mold kit released in the past year, especially with the reference material available today.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> as being a middle-school child
> 
> Honestly, man, that's my perception of you - and I'm sure I'm not the only one.


That comment is out of line in my opinion, wether it be humble or not.
For this kit to be delayed a month or 2 I can understand. I'm curious as to how many times now has it been delayed from the original announced release date???


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Has any model kit had a "release date," i.e. a specific DAY that it's supposed to be available? I think that would be impossible when you're working with overseas companies and shipping things on boats. I'm sure there's a general target that they shoot for.
I don't know how people can get up in arms over a company like Moebius that releases several kits every year and then insist that Monarch be cut all sorts of slack because they're so special. The fact is these companies release kits when they're ABLE to, period. I have a test shot of the '78 Galactica which means it should be very close to production if not in the middle of it. And it's a fantastic kit, everything I wanted the Monogram kit to be. But it's also a mass-produced model kit that's affordable, not a $200-plus garage kit.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

djnick66 said:


> This kind of mentality reminds me of the people that buy something from you on ebay and then message you 9 times a day for the 3 days it take for the package to get there... It's not here yet.. it's not here yet... it's not here yet.
> 
> .


One of the reasons I dislike selling on-line. A few tears ago I sold a model on e-bay, the auction ended around midnight. Between midnight and 6 am when I woke up and checked e-mail there had been 8 e-mails from the buyer wanting to know when it would be shipped, he included his name and address in each e-mail. I sent him an e-mail later that day with the tracking number. Almost immediately he sent a rather rudely worded e-mail back proclaiming I had sent the package to the wrong address, one that he had not lived at in over two years, yet it was the same address included in all of his e-mails. It took 10 days for the package to be returned to me and by then I had to refund the guy's money because he refused to wait any longer to get the model.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

BWolfe said:


> One of the reasons I dislike selling on-line. A few tears ago I sold a model on e-bay, the auction ended around midnight. Between midnight and 6 am when I woke up and checked e-mail there had been 8 e-mails from the buyer wanting to know when it would be shipped, he included his name and address in each e-mail. I sent him an e-mail later that day with the tracking number. Almost immediately he sent a rather rudely worded e-mail back proclaiming I had sent the package to the wrong address, one that he had not lived at in over two years, yet it was the same address included in all of his e-mails. It took 10 days for the package to be returned to me and by then I had to refund the guy's money because he refused to wait any longer to get the model.


I can relate. Been selling many of my kits this past year on ebay, thankfully, I never had your problem with impatient buyers. On the other hand, in almost every other auction I do (I sell about 10-20 kits at a time), I always get someone that refuses to pay (buyers remorse). I currently have 2 individuals that haven't paid and will not answer my emails. I end up reporting these people to ebay and have the transactions canceled, but it can take a couple of weeks to do so, a couple of weeks I could have used to re list these kits to make $$$.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> That comment is out of line in my opinion, wether it be humble or not.
> For this kit to be delayed a month or 2 I can understand. I'm curious as to how many times now has it been delayed from the original announced release date???


Why does it upset you so much?
What does it matter to the fate of the world if the model comes out later than their first estimate?
Do you think Moebius is doing this to be mean to you, personally?
Do you think Moebius is intentionally trying to piss off their customers?
Do you think Moebius in an inept company? If so, what in their past performance has made you believe this?
Don't you have any other models to build while you wait?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> Why does it upset you so much?
> What does it matter to the fate of the world if the model comes out later than their first estimate?
> Do you think Moebius is doing this to be mean to you, personally?
> Do you think Moebius is intentionally trying to piss off their customers?
> ...


Are we not allowed to make a negative comment about Moebius??? Is that a major no, no??? 
It seems to me that people here started attacking me when I made a negative comment about Moebius delaying this kit once again.
And before any one goes and repeats any thing some one has already stated about the possible reasons for the delay I DO understand. But what I don't understand is why people feel the need to continuely attack me for such comments.
Maybe I'm being a bit narrow minded, but then I'm not the only one it seems like.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

You know, I almost never get into these arguments, but it's gotten to the point where I really need to speak up.


irishtrek said:


> ... It seems to me that people here started attacking me when I made a negative comment about Moebius delaying this kit once again...


I think, perhaps, you might want to reread your original post that started this dustup. As Griff said, it reads likes something a middle-schooler would say. (I have added the bold face so you completely understand which line is being referred to.)


irishtrek said:


> Then I would like to issue a challenge to the big wigs at Moebius to register here and explain why the delay in releasing the Galactica in February instead of say late fall/early winter.
> *If they have the guts that is which I don't think they do.*


Seriously, have YOU heard anyone (other than yourself of course) over the age of 12 talk like that?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> Seriously, have YOU heard anyone (other than yourself of course) over the age of 12 talk like that?


Actually yes I have.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

The kit will come out when the kit is ready to be sent to hobby shops.

Should we go ahead and lock this since the OP's question has been answered here, in other threads, and on the Moebius Facebook page?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

robiwon said:


> The kit will come out when the kit is ready to be sent to hobby shops.
> 
> Should we go ahead and lock this since the OP's question has been answered here, in other threads, and on the Moebius Facebook page?


Probably the smartest post since the first one or two of this thread. (And I include my own. Stupid to have let myself get sucked into this BS.)


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Paulbo said:


> Probably the smartest post since the first one or two of this thread. (And I include my own. Stupid to have let myself get sucked into this BS.)


So true, I have plenty of un-built kits as well as some scratch-build/kitbash ideas to keep me occupied until something new comes along.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Agreed, lock this thread.
And to the folks who've posted on this thread I want to apologize for offending any one.
By the way isn't Paulbo a moderator??? If so why don't he do the locking???


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

irishtrek said:


> Agreed, lock this thread.
> And to the folks who've posted on this thread I want to apologize for offending any one.
> By the way isn't Paulbo a moderator??? If so why don't he do the locking???


Everyone can have an off day, I am glad that level heads prevailed. It would be sad to lose more posters due to temper flares, too much greatly missed talent was lost back in the late spring.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Paul is a Sponsor here at HobbyTalk, but not a Moderator. He's never been a Mod, tho Henry / *g_xii* is. 

You don't have to say all extra peachy, super-nice things about Moebius and their kits, now. I think I've made it clear that we don't all have to agree, nor should we have to feel like we need to tiptoe around a sleeping bull when we have observations about Moebius kits. Stick to facts and don't let your emotions rule and nobody would likely have said a thing. 

I also don't recall seeing where anyone made a direct attack, called you a name, nor insulted you, tho I did compare your comments to that of a school age child. That's a lot different than attacking you - and there certainly isn't a pattern of people "continuely" (sic) attacking anyone in this thread, just taking some comments to-task.

That's all I was trying to point out originally.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

spock62 said:


> I've got no problem with how long it takes for Moebius to release a kit. The real issue (IMHO) I have with some Moebius kits is with all of the reference photos that is readily available on the internet, they still manage to have obvious errors in their kits. The fella that received the kit in the link above, while liking the kit overall, mentions that it contains several errors.
> 
> The recent release of the Viper Mk1 kit, while better then the old Monogram kit, has multiple errors, many of which would be extremely hard to correct without major surgery/scratch-building. It fact, it has some errors that the Monogram kit had correct! If your curious as to what I mean, go to ByYourCommand.net, and compare the photos of the filming miniature to the Viper kit released by Moebius to see what I'm on about.
> 
> Again, if the release of a kit is "late" by a month or so, it's no big deal. Minor inaccuracies that are easily fixed or can be ignored are not a big thing, all kits have them. But, major inaccuracies that are hard to fix are an issue, and shouldn't be on a new-mold kit released in the past year, especially with the reference material available today.


If you take a close look at the Moebius kit, it is an amalgam of the filming miniatures and the full-size mock-up. The best of both worlds.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

seaQuest said:


> If you take a close look at the Moebius kit, it is an amalgam of the filming miniatures and the full-size mock-up. The best of both worlds.


I agree with the first sentence here, but unfortunately the kit incorporates some of the same mistakes the Monogram/Revell Viper kit had while adding some of its own so I can't really get on board with the second. It's not a terrible kit (it could have been a lot worse), but there are those who believe that Revell's last effort was closer to "right" and its problems are easier to fix. How that happened, I have no idea.

Regarding Galactica - it's supposed to be based on the Timeslip Galactica, which I happen to have in my stash. It would be difficult to do worse than Monogram's effort here, but if it is close to Timeslip's version (allowing for limitations in injection molding processes and technology) it will be a very nice kit. Being hollow, it will also be lightable - something that would require a lot of work to achieve in the Timeslip version. 

The Raider should also be pretty good based as it is on a Salzo studio scale kit that has gotten very good press.

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think it is nice to have Moebius provide estimates as to when a kit may be released- helps pacing the finances to make sure I can set funds aside for it. These are estimates though, and as the progress continues they get revised to reflect adjustments in it's progression. The Chinese do not really understand what they are producing and getting things on track takes time. I have a good friend who builds masters and deals with overseas production- something like a repeating hull detail kept being altered at the factory because they did not know those squares represented lifeboat hatches- they treated them as decorative and kept changing the size and spacing of them to make them 'look better'.
Any release dates early in the game I consider just ballpark, as the kit evolves they will always shift backwards due to the delays in getting things right. After the final is approved it is up to many factors totally beyond control until it arrives on the shelves.
The problem is that anything announced seems to be considered a promise and any delays become personal. Sure I would love to have it now, but I am in the process of moving to a new home and seeing how many unbuilt kits I have in the stash that I also wanted to have right away has been a bit of a wake up call.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> If you take a close look at the Moebius kit, it is an amalgam of the filming miniatures and the full-size mock-up. The best of both worlds.


Your probably right, the kit is a combination of both the miniature and the full-size, but I don't agree with the "best of both worlds" part. That approach means the kit doesn't match either the miniature or the full size, it's just an artistic interpretation of the Viper. What happened to the idea of making an accurate replica of the original? 

Moebius should have chosen either the miniature or the full size to base their kit on, not combine the two. Moebius made it harder on themselves, and gave us an inaccurate kit, by combining details of the two. Besides, many of the details that are wrong on the Moebius kit, were right on the Monogram kit, details which were the same on both the miniature and the full-size. 

I do like the kit, warts and all, but it is disappointing that they got so many of the details wrong. Just to name a few, (would post pictures but HobbyTalk doesn't allow me to for some reason): 
1) The main landing gear doors are too short and should run the length between the rear of the engine plumbing to the beginning of the engine exhausts.
2) The engine exhausts are too short, are tapered as opposed to straight, missing details on their sides, and inner rings are too thick.
3) Detail between the engine exhausts are inset too deep.
4) Small vents at rear of upper/lower engine parts are too long and should be closer to edge of part, just before engine exhausts. Panel line closest to vents should also move with vents.
5) Details between upper engine parts are wrong. The large, angled vent area should cover entire area from back of engine plumbing detail to start of engine exhaust. Smaller "U" shaped vent detail should be length of engine exhausts and set in-between exhausts.
6) Canopy is wrong if doing the miniature version.
7) Recessed details behind laser cannons is incorrect.
8) Cockpit is wrong with missing side panels/instrumentation on either side of main instrument panel and along upper edges of cockpit sides.
9) Cockpit seat incorrect if doing full-size version.

I could go on, but you get the point. The areas I mentioned are easy to see in the many photos (of the miniature/full-size) available on line. It took me about an hour to find, download and compare the photos to the model. Why can't the guys at Moebius do the same, before cutting molds? It can't be a cost issue, it would take just as much money to do it right as it does to do it wrong.

Moebius had an opportunity to make a definitive kit of the Viper. Instead, they gave us a good kit, but a kit that, in some ways, is not much better the the old Monogram kit from about 35 years ago. I'm sure they'll sell a boat-load of these regardless since the only other choice is the old Revell/Monogram kit that sells for $50 plus on ebay and the fact that they have no competition from other companies making the same product, since only Moebius has the license.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I almost regret this before I post it, but........a large number of the people why buy and build models do it as a hobby and for fun. They are not freeze framing the DVD to see what old model parts were glued to some plastic to make a filming miniature 35 or 50 years ago, they are looking at basic shapes and silhouettes. For them, an affordable kit is the bottom line, close is good enough when it comes to the look of the finished product.

The only way to really get the display piece each individual wants, is to either customize it yourself, as I do on most of my builds, or make it from scratch under your own control as to the look of the final product, which I often do myself as well.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Trust me, no one wants an accurate representation of a filming miniature as a model kit. Can you imagine the howls and screams we would get because the whole thing was wonky? Filming miniatures, in general, are not super clean/perfect built/stunning examples of a fictitious aircraft. They are out of round, not symmetrical, badly painted, etc. If you want a model of a real Viper filming miniature it's going to look like crap up close. Those will not sell to the mass market. Any kit of a filming miniature is going to be cleaned up, made square, and idealized to some extent before it hits a store shelf.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I was not aware of so many things being wrong with the Moebius viper as mentioned by Spock62. In fact the only item I was aware of was the rivets on the canopy and since we all know Moebius is not going to go back and make corrections to the molds then think of it this way,
Different manufactures for the canopies and for the instruments in the cockpits different versions like an F-15-A versus an F-15-L model.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The Moebius Galactica is not based as much on the Timeslip version as you'd think. There are details that are easier to do in resin and details that are easier to do in styrene, and the kit reflects that. It is VERY detailed. In fact I was looking at one part thinking 'Hmm, they could have done more here,' then realized when building that this was in the "trench" on the sides of the engine block--where it's virtually impossible to see ANY detail after it's built, and yet they did recreate the basic details of the tank hulls in there fairly well.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN:

I agree that many people who build kits are just concerned that the basic shapes and overall look is correct. Nothing wrong with that. But, I also feel that many modelers are concerned that the details are correct also, i.e. they want an accurate kit. You don't have to "freeze frame" a DVD to see how the original props/miniatures looked, there's plenty of photos on the internet. With the reference material available today, there's really no excuse for a manufacturer to make a kit with so many inaccuracies. As for changing it to suit your needs, the Viper would require major surgery/scratch-building to make it more like the originals. I personally have no desire to do so, nor should you have considering it's a new-mold kit.

Robiwon:
I get what your saying. The original miniatures weren't perfect by any means. Of course a kit manufacturer is going to clean up the design a bit. What I'm referring to are areas of the kit which are shown incorrectly based on the original prop/miniature. Areas that the 35 year old Monogram kit happened to get right.

irishtrek:
Yes, you can look at it that way, that the Moebius kit is a different version of the Viper that what was seen on the show. But, it shouldn't be that way. If they did their homework and just copied the details as seen in various available photos, the kit would have been closer to what was on the screen. And they should have stuck to one version, full-sized prop or miniature, not a mix. Besides, I want to make the Viper that was on the show (full-sized or miniature), not a Moebius employee's artistic take on it.

Sorry, but I've never understood why you wouldn't want the most accurate kit possible. In other genres, if a manufacturer produced a kit with the kind of mistakes in the Viper kit, they'd be grilled over by various model mag's, model websites and the customers themselves. Remember, most of the errors are not minor issues, they would take serious surgery/scratch-building to correct.

I used to work as a drafter, until being laid off in 2009. When an engineer/designer handed you a sketch, they expected the finished drawing to reflect accurately that sketch. Drafters that took short cuts or produced sloppy executing drawings, leaving off details/getting details wrong, where quickly shown the exit door, and not because of the economy. So, to me, I just don't understand why some of you are so nonchalant about these errors.

To me, Moebius kits are hit or miss (as most companies are). Some are very good or just have minor issues, others make you wonder if anyone there is doing any type of quality control during the design phase. Unless their customers demand better, I don't see this changing.

Sorry for the long posts, I really have no intention of hijacking this thread, which is about the Galactica kit (which I think Moebius did a great job on considering they had to translate a 6' long prop down to a 18" long model kit).


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I agree that glaring errors in this day and age can be avoided. If a major detail on the filming miniature is square and the kit company makes that detail round, yeah, that's a problem. 

But here's a question. How are they designing the model? Are they going by info provided to them? Are they allowed to dig for themselves? Can they only go by what is handed to them? These things may dictate what winds up in the box. Just because they are making a new Viper kit may not mean that they can pour a ton of time and research into every detail. Their time, limitations, and budget may decide what is "good enough". I mean, they could have been handed 10 photos by the license holder and told, "Here, you can turn these images into a model, dig no further".


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

I think Moebius tries to incorporate the best of the filming mini, and the full size set, if applicable. I noticed that the full size set piece of the Mark VII had some different angles and details on it than the Moebius model I built. I had the opportunity to see the 1:1 set piece at the Seattle scifi museum in 2011, and took some up-close pics. 

I asked the question directly to Frank, and he said they try to "get the best of both worlds" on those pieces. He also mentioned the LiS Chariot in the same context.

I encourage anyone who has questions about this or that to email or Facebook message questions directly. I'm not shy, (but always respectful) when I have a unique question.

BTW,
I am kinda on fire to do my first "fiber optic" lighting of the 78 G, after seeing Randy's VooDoo FX build!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

RSN said:


> I almost regret this before I post it, but........a large number of the people why buy and build models do it as a hobby and for fun. They are not *freeze framing* the DVD to see what old model parts were glued to some plastic to make a filming miniature 35 or 50 years ago, they are looking at basic shapes and silhouettes. For them, an affordable kit is the bottom line, close is good enough when it comes to the look of the finished product.
> 
> The only way to really get the display piece each individual wants, is to either customize it yourself, as I do on most of my builds, or make it from scratch under your own control as to the look of the final product, which I often do myself as well.


I have to say, I DO freeze frame certain builds projects to get my own painting/details right! And it helps me "fudge" a little too. I'm always happy to get to avoid seam-filling, when the "real thing" has a big fat seam in the same spot! HA!--

:wave::tongue:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

robiwon said:


> I agree that glaring errors in this day and age can be avoided. If a major detail on the filming miniature is square and the kit company makes that detail round, yeah, that's a problem.
> 
> But here's a question. How are they designing the model? Are they going by info provided to them? Are they allowed to dig for themselves? Can they only go by what is handed to them? These things may dictate what winds up in the box. Just because they are making a new Viper kit may not mean that they can pour a ton of time and research into every detail. Their time, limitations, and budget may decide what is "good enough". I mean, they could have been handed 10 photos by the license holder and told, "Here, you can turn these images into a model, dig no further".


In some instances, (IE: the old Aurora B-9) the model "looks" more accurate to me. And when I see an accurate version, I say, "that can't be right! It's been sitting on my shelf for 20 years."

It's a bizarre feeling. 

:freak::thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> I have to say, I DO freeze frame certain builds projects to get my own painting/details right! And it helps me "fudge" a little too. I'm always happy to get to avoid seam-filling, when the "real thing" has a big fat seam in the same spot! HA!--
> 
> :wave::tongue:


I am right there with you. Sometimes I put myself through more than I should to get something to look right to my eye. :thumbsup:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

kdaracal said:


> I think Moebius tries to incorporate the best of the filming mini, and the full size set, if applicable.
> 
> I asked the question directly to Frank, and he said they try to "get the best of both worlds" on those pieces. He also mentioned the LiS Chariot in the same context.


At times, I think this approach makes sense. For instance, it looks like they chose to use the full-size set when doing the fuselage and canopy, which IMO, looks better then the miniature version. But, when both the full-size and miniature have the same details in common, you would expect to see that recreated in the kit, like the details between the engines/engine exhausts.

Still it does build up into a nice kit. I've got the sub-assemblies almost finished with just some minor puttying to do. Then it's to the paint shop!


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

robiwon said:


> But here's a question. How are they designing the model? Are they going by info provided to them? Are they allowed to dig for themselves? Can they only go by what is handed to them? These things may dictate what winds up in the box. Just because they are making a new Viper kit may not mean that they can pour a ton of time and research into every detail. Their time, limitations, and budget may decide what is "good enough". I mean, they could have been handed 10 photos by the license holder and told, "Here, you can turn these images into a model, dig no further".


This is a good point in many instances, but they would have had to have received some very poor reference to miss the taper in the manifold area right behind the intakes, the depth of the aft engine bulkhead (a well known Monogram/Revell originated issue), the location of the panel lines and the tank-exhaust greeblie on the engine housing just forward of the exhausts and the inset detail on the fuselage. Some of the other problems are subtler but these ones jump right out at you. All they had to do was get their Viper a little better than the last Revell release.

If it's just a question of time and research, then the excuse doesn't hold up - most of the available information on this ship is posted in multiple public forums and galleries. There are parts-maps and kit lists for most of the greeblies on these and many other ships out there.

Then consider, they were allowed to start with a Salzo Raider to create theirs - why not start with his Viper too? They didn't start from nothing on Galactica either - why the problems with one of the most recognizable SF fighters in film and tv history?

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

spock62 said:


> At times, I think this approach makes sense. For instance, it looks like they chose to use the full-size set when doing the fuselage and canopy, which IMO, looks better then the miniature version. But, when both the full-size and miniature have the same details in common, you would expect to see that recreated in the kit, like the details between the engines/engine exhausts.
> 
> Still it does build up into a nice kit. I've got the sub-assemblies almost finished with just some minor puttying to do. Then it's to the paint shop!


Although I DO wish the canopy was a little more....accurate to the full set piece, but I need to put a plug in for Lou at AztekDummy for his mask set. I would never attempt painting that bad boy without those vinyl masks. And the orange vinyl strips go perfectly onto the inside canopy frame. No painting required there. The center axle housing makes for the perfect 9 volt battery compartment, too.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

ViperRecon said:


> This is a good point in many instances, but they would have had to have received some very poor reference to miss the taper in the manifold area right behind the intakes, the depth of the aft engine bulkhead (a well known Monogram/Revell originated issue), the location of the panel lines and the tank-exhaust greeblie on the engine housing just forward of the exhausts and the inset detail on the fuselage. Some of the other problems are subtler but these ones jump right out at you. All they had to do was get their Viper a little better than the last Revell release.
> 
> If it's just a question of time and research, then the excuse doesn't hold up - most of the available information on this ship is posted in multiple public forums and galleries. There are parts-maps and kit lists for most of the greeblies on these and many other ships out there.
> 
> ...


What he wrote!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

kdaracal said:


> Although I DO wish the canopy was a little more....accurate to the full set piece, but I need to put a plug in for Lou at AztekDummy for his mask set. I would never attempt painting that bad boy without those vinyl masks. And the orange vinyl strips go perfectly onto the inside canopy frame. No painting required there. The center axle housing makes for the perfect 9 volt battery compartment, too.


Aztek Dummy makes a vinyl mask set for the Moebius kit? Do you know where this can be purchased?


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

RSN said:


> I almost regret this before I post it, but........a large number of the people why buy and build models do it as a hobby and for fun. They are not freeze framing the DVD to see what old model parts were glued to some plastic to make a filming miniature 35 or 50 years ago, they are looking at basic shapes and silhouettes. For them, an affordable kit is the bottom line, close is good enough when it comes to the look of the finished product...


This makes no sense. The casual builders as I call them aren't very particular, but some builders are. If the kit were made to please the picky builders, the casual folks would be just as happy with it, assuming they even notice the difference. 

You can't please everyone. But you can choose to please a few, or a lot.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Time and money, time and money.

Were talking about a business. They, as all *companies*, want to make money. While some *employees* may be more passionate about a kit subject they don't have unlimited time and money to spend researching every little nuance of a filming miniature. There's a reason studio scale builds take forever, cost thousands of dollars to build, and require an immense amount of time researching a subject. As much as *employees* of any *company* want to make the best kit possible, to think any *company* would invest that much in a $40 model I think is asking a bit much.

I think the best documented case of this is the 1701 Club newsletter. For those who got them there was, yes, a ton of research put into the TOS Enterprise. But look at how many times it got pushed back. Look how many problems they had with the factory in China messing stuff up. Look how many times parts had to be redesigned, look how expensive that kit was, and finally look at the threads dedicated to correcting mistakes. All the while the filming miniature itself was in plain view of the public. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect every $40 model to go thru this type of rigorous design phase. If it did, it would be a $100 or more model kit.

No, in this case, close was good enough. And I'll say it again, those who say why didn't we get a perfect accurate replica of the filming miniature? A perfect replica would look like crap with all the issues the filming miniature has. What people really want is a modified, cleaned up, squared up, *idealized* replica. I for one would not want to build an all wonky shaped kit to put on my shelf. So, to say you want a model accurate to the filming miniature, well is just not accurate.....

O.K. I'm done now.....:thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robn1 said:


> This makes no sense. The casual builders as I call them aren't very particular, but some builders are. If the kit were made to please the picky builders, the casual folks would be just as happy with it, assuming they even notice the difference.
> 
> You can't please everyone. But you can choose to please a few, or a lot.


Actually, what I said made perfect business sense, as *robiwon* pointed out and you did as well in your closing line: _"You can't please everyone. But you can choose to please a few, or a lot."_ Moebius chose the smart business choice of "A lot".

The "picky" modeler ultimately will never be pleased 100%, where the average kit builder will be happy with any kit that looks like the subject matter. It is cost prohibitive to dump so much money into research and development as well as test shot after test shot and dozens of mold corrections, resulting in a model that may be "perfect" to a few but be too expensive for most to want to purchase. 

Remember, we are not talking about a Corvette or B-29, which have had tens of thousands built in the real world, we are talking about a fantasy vehicle that in the case of the Viper was represented by matte paintings, miniatures, a full size mock up, canopy mock up section and even a painted wooden cutout. :thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

RSN said:


> even a painted wooden cutout.


Well, I'm sure glad they went after the filming "model" miniature instead of this. I would hate to open the box and find a flat piece of wood I had to paint! LOL!!!!!!! :tongue::tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robiwon said:


> Well, I'm sure glad they went after the filming "model" miniature instead of this. I would hate to open the box and find a flat piece of wood I had to paint! LOL!!!!!!! :tongue::tongue:


Word!!! I bet if we got that though, the plywood would not be scaled down to the proper thickness and it would have a birch veneer on it to cut cost, rather than the oak veneer Universal used to make the one on the show. 

I certainly hope everyone has a sense of humor today and I wish all a very Blessed Thanksgiving!!!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN/robiwon:

Did you actually read my posts? How about ViperRecon's post? It's like you ignore what people write because your so set on your opinion, which you repeat over and over. Since I've already explained, as best I can, my opinion regarding the kit, I'll leave it at that. But I will say this, with the attitudes you hold, that your OK with these kits having obvious, easily avoidable errors, Moebius will continue to produce kits that are only 70%-80% accurate. With customers like you, there's no need for them to do better then that.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

There might be a bit of irony here, in the midst of all this complaining about how a 3rd (or at least second and a half) iteration of a kit might actually have at least as many inaccuracies as decades older versions. And that is that on another forum in another universe, someone with exactly the same criticisms, someone who really Really knows the subject, wrote that he had spent thousands of hours researching and preparing the most accurate blueprints of the subject there could ever be, but don't think about asking for them, because... he had spent too much time creating them?... Possibly because sharing them would let them loose into our new world and they would become pirated and public, etc. Valid enough... I guess. But on the other hand, what good is having information unless you share it? 

I love these people who have the original Star Trek or Lost in Space or 2001 blueprints and who on one hand say, I have this and know everything there is to know and you're wrong and who on the other hand will never, for whatever reason (usually I think dreams of somehow profiting mightily for their retirements), ever let anyone see what they have. Or even cite a reference to back up what they're talking about. 

The same kind of person who also says, "Try Google", instead of providing even the most basic of links. 

There IS an irony here. Someone who's spent 1000s of hours researching and drawing 
an esoteric subject, hiding their results, but knowing the subject so well that when a kit comes out that is inaccurate, they can rightly criticize every error, big and small. But if their 1000s of hours of research was out there... maybe the kit manufacturer could have used some of it to make a better product. 

Look at Gary Kerr and the Jupiter 2 and the Trek kits. He put his stuff out there. Model companies seek him out. There are still compromises in the finished products, reality dictates that. But at least the compromises were arrived at intelligently and can be defended. 

This is like voting. If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain. No matter how crappy the candidates were. 

Researching Galactica is not as easy as searching Google images. Over the last year, I've spent countless hours searching the 'net for images of the Vipers, especially the cockpits. I have been everywhere I could find. And it wasn't until last week that an unrelated search into RI or the RPF led me to a thread which led me to another thread which had a link to By Your Command, which was a goldmine. And a site that I had never encountered before. Maybe that was just my poor searching skills, or just bad luck. 

"Try Searching Google". Eighteen letters. "Try By Your Command". Sixteen letters. It would actually be easier to send someone to a specific useful site than to blow them off with generalities.

I'm sorry. A lot of complaining about the quality of the products we get IS legitimate, and worthy of a good discussion somewhere, and maybe someone will start a thread on that in a more general forum. But a lot of the complaining about the quality of the products we're getting may be partly the responsibility of the people who are complaining. 

As a relatively small community of people with shared interests and aspirations, maybe we have a responsibility to ourselves that we aren't taking quite as seriously as we could. Right now Gary Kerr seems to be our one fine example of someone really giving to the community. But there's no reason he should be our only one. (And before some cynic says, "Yeah, he probably Is making a profit in his retirement", 1a) I sure hope so, and 1b) maybe that will provide an incentive to others, and 2) from my few correspondences with Gary, there's not a doubt in my mind that he'd do this for free, too. It's truly his love of the subjects that drives him.)


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

When the day comes that the first perfect model replica kit, of any subject be it plane/train/auto/ship/spaceship, comes out I will say I am wrong in that model companies "are not driven by profit and have unlimited time and resources" to produce said perfect model.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

starseeker said:


> There might be a bit of irony here, in the midst of all this complaining about how a 3rd (or at least second and a half) iteration of a kit might actually have at least as many inaccuracies as decades older versions. And that is that on another forum in another universe, someone with exactly the same criticisms, someone who really Really knows the subject, wrote that he had spent thousands of hours researching and preparing the most accurate blueprints of the subject there could ever be, but don't think about asking for them, because... he had spent too much time creating them?... Possibly because sharing them would let them loose into our new world and they would become pirated and public, etc. Valid enough... I guess. But on the other hand, what good is having information unless you share it?
> 
> I love these people who have the original Star Trek or Lost in Space or 2001 blueprints and who on one hand say, I have this and know everything there is to know and you're wrong and who on the other hand will never, for whatever reason (usually I think dreams of somehow profiting mightily for their retirements), ever let anyone see what they have. Or even cite a reference to back up what they're talking about.
> 
> ...


Not sure if your referring to my criticisms of the kit, but, if you are, your way off. I have never said I was an expert who spent "1000s" of hours researching the Viper. I'm just did a search for photos of the original props, initially for painting reference, and noticed that the kit was different from the props. I even listed the site that has the photos. I can't post photos, as I mentioned, because HobbyTalk won't let me, so any one that's interested has to take a few minutes and look up the photos themselves. Your right in one way, it is partially the responsibility of some people for getting kits that have errors such as in the Moebius kit...those who continue to give Moebius a pass when they produce kits with easily avoided errors.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

robiwon said:


> I agree that glaring errors in this day and age can be avoided. If a major detail on the filming miniature is square and the kit company makes that detail round, yeah, that's a problem.


I agree on the point of easily avoidable errors, like I posted earlier. But, just because there is a lot of reference out there for a subject, and we still get a model with errors, there has to be a reason behind it.

You can't just point a finger at Moebius. You would have to point fingers at *every* plastic kit maker out there. Why does the front end of the 85 Camaro snapper look off? Why did the MPC Mustang SVO not have the right shocks in the rear? Why is the fuselage of Trumpeter's A-10 so bad? There's plenty of reference out there for these and just about every other modeling subject. But, every model has some issue regardless of how much reference is out there. Pick up any issue of Fine Scale Modeler and look at the review section. Every kit reviewed has pros and cons. 

Why? Is it because every manufacturer just does not care about the modeler, or could there be other reasons?


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

robiwon said:


> I agree on the point of easily avoidable errors, like I posted earlier. But, just because there is a lot of reference out there for a subject, and we still get a model with errors, there has to be a reason behind it.
> 
> You can't just point a finger at Moebius. You would have to point fingers at *every* plastic kit maker out there. Why does the front end of the 85 Camaro snapper look off? Why did the MPC Mustang SVO not have the right shocks in the rear? Why is the fuselage of Trumpeter's A-10 so bad? There's plenty of reference out there for these and just about every other modeling subject. But, every model has some issue regardless of how much reference is out there. Pick up any issue of Fine Scale Modeler and look at the review section. Every kit reviewed has pros and cons.
> 
> Why? Is it because every manufacturer just does not care about the modeler, or could there be other reasons?


Moebius is being mentioned because they produced the Viper kit. I even mentioned in one post that all companies screw up. Why does the Viper kit have errors (or kits from other companies for that matter)? Could be any number of reasons, unless the manufacturer tells us why, we can only guess. Regarding the Moebius kit, I just hope they take criticism of this kit in the right way, and make more of an effort to minimize errors in future releases.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

spock62 said:


> Not sure if your referring to my criticisms of the kit, but, if you are


No, I'm not referring to anyone here, at least that I know of. Another forum, in a galaxy far, far away. But I believe my general comments are valid, about people who do put 1000s of hours into research that they keep secret and then do blast companies like Moebius or PL or R2 when they make errors. Rivet counters, like me, only (I hope) in a bad sense of the word, and generally unhelpful as well. What's the point of counting rivets or amassing bookmarks if we're going to take everything to the grave with us? Or share after the fact?

That the Moebius Viper is a step forward from the Mongram kit, and a step back from it, can't be denied, and is bewildering. But given my frustrations with researching BSG, and some of the unhelpful help I've received), from a manufacturer's pov it's also distressingly understandable. Yet from our pov it should have been so avoidable.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alright... Here's the part where I feel inclined to remind everyone to take a deep breath, step away from the 'puter for a little while, then repeat after me "Its' only a model. It's only a model." 

Ultimately, let's be respectful of the opinions of others. We don't have to agree, yet there's no need to make insinuations of "I'm right, you're wrong 'cause you're just not smart enough to get it!" sort of statements. 

Also, keep in mind, as has been mentioned, that Moebius has been bringing us kits of subjects either never done before or never done with the level of accuracy we've seen before. Are there some errors in what they're produced? Certainly! But as *robiwon* said, show me a mast produced kit that's 100% perfect of pretty much any subject. You can't because there almost always one or two issues which are often compromises on keeping the kit at a reasonable cost. That's just the nature of the beast. We're getting kits that are almost literally light years ahead of what's come before. I'm not saying "be happy with it and suck it up!", so much as "be thankful it's not more of the same we got 30 years ago." 

Most SciFi kits are generally being produced as a compromise between those of us who are Uber Anal Modelers and the casual modeler who actually _builds_ the models they buy and isn't _nearly_ as concerned with it being 100% accurate. I mean, seriously, I see a lot of folks who post here and generally complain about kits, yet I don't see them showing off their work. 

If you don't like it and it bugs you that much, don't buy it! That sends a message to the various companies, almost as much as complaining about it on one of a hundred modeling forums on DaInfernalWebz. Best thing to do if you really want to send a message is to write a polite email or letter to the company in question, detailing that you're unhappy with the kit and why. Don't over exaggerate, don't get _overly_ emotional, stick to the facts. Tell them how you're passionate, but don't get so passionate" that you become insulting. I _guarantee you_ that they'll delete the email or trash your letter if you let your emotions get the better of you and you start insulting them. 

So, there you go, my opinion as a fellow modeler and builder of it, as much as it's worth - just like everyone else's opinions here. 

*And my warning as Mod - be nice and respectful of others opinions.* Please don't let this devolve into finger pointing, name calling and flames. 

Don't make me turn this thread around!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

No temper here, just good strong conversation with others who show the same kind of passion for modeling. We just have different views and there is nothing wrong with that. I think spock62 and I can agree to disagree. I take no offense to what he, or others, have posted and I hope he feels the same toward me.

We won't know why they or any other company do what they do unless they tell us.

But hey, how about that TOS Galactica? Going to be a sweet kit!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I have a relevant question on the subject of this thread. I was toying with the idea of doing fiber optics on this kit if I get it. I am wondering the best way to trim the fibers flush to the hull after painting. I know on the filming miniature they cut them and heated the ends and flattened them so they would not go back into the hull, but at the scale of the Moebius kit, this seems like it would not net the desired result. 

Any ideas from fellow builders?


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

The best way (imho) is to run your fibers so they stick out from the hull maybe a quarter inch and glue them. Paint and weather your model. Using fingernail clippers or small scissors clip the end as flush as possible. That's what I do.

I will eventually get the Moebius kit, but that's my plan for Mike's 3 footer as well.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I would think extreme rivet counters would also be the sort of modeler that spends endless hours trying to superdetail and accurize any kit they build and that it would be something of a disappointment to them to build a kit that's 100% accurate down to the most infinitesimal detail and would therefore require absolutely no creative input from them. I mean a monkey could do that, right? 
My guess is Moebius wanted to incorporate some details (probably from the full-size mockup) that weren't accounted for in the miniature(s)--duplicating the Monogram kit would not make much sense. I also know for a fact that tooling costs affect the final product at some point. Yes, if cost (both to the manufacturer and the consumer) is no object, you could probably make something accurate down to the atomic level, but there are also factors of license approval that can come into play. Whenever people say, "Oh, if only Fine Molds got the license!" I always think about the litany of complaints about the Millennium Falcon mandibles. I don't think you could argue that we're not living in the greatest age of sci-fi models that has ever been, and I guess that just raises expectations to sky-high levels. What bugs me is when people level accusations that the manufacturers make mistakes because they don't care. I don't think any of these people are in this for the money. It's a marginal business that has gotten much tougher as tooling costs have gone up, yet if anything we're getting MORE good kits now. So if some of them don't withstand microscopic scrutiny, I'm willing to look at the big picture. My garage is full of models I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robiwon said:


> The best way (imho) is to run your fibers so they stick out from the hull maybe a quarter inch and glue them. Paint and weather your model. Using fingernail clippers or small scissors clip the end as flush as possible. That's what I do.
> 
> I will eventually get the Moebius kit, but that's my plan for Mike's 3 footer as well.


Thanks, I appreciate the advice. :thumbsup:


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

RSN said:


> Actually, what I said made perfect business sense, as *robiwon* pointed out and you did as well in your closing line: _"You can't please everyone. But you can choose to please a few, or a lot."_ Moebius chose the smart business choice of "A lot"...


You've missed my point. By a few I meant the casual builders, by a lot I meant all builders. If a company makes a top quality kit everyone is happy, not just the casual folks. I expected so much more from the Viper kit, based on Moebius' past efforts.

The new Galactica looks great, Moebius seems to have done a fine job on it. I'll get the new Viper too, but only to use parts to dress up my Revel.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> I mean, seriously, I see a lot of folks who post here and generally complain about kits, yet I don't see them showing off their work.


I'd love to post, but for some reason I can't. I had posted a bunch of photos of the part trees from the Moebius Tumbler in the photo album awhile ago (don't know how to delete these photos either), now I can't post a single photo. When I try to upload, the upload window goes blank and nothing happens! Would you know how to fix this or direct me to where I can find the answer?



robiwon said:


> I think spock62 and I can agree to disagree. I take no offense to what he, or others, have posted and I hope he feels the same toward me.
> 
> We won't know why they or any other company do what they do unless they tell us.
> 
> But hey, how about that TOS Galactica? Going to be a sweet kit!!


Yeah, I may be "passionate" (hate to use that term regarding plastic parts) about these kits, but I'm not offended, just trying to make sure people understand were I'm coming from.

And yes, the TOS Galactica looks like a really nice kit as does the Cylon Raider.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

spock62 said:


> I'd love to post, but for some reason I can't. I had posted a bunch of photos of the part trees from the Moebius Tumbler in the photo album awhile ago (don't know how to delete these photos either), now I can't post a single photo. When I try to upload, the upload window goes blank and nothing happens! Would you know how to fix this or direct me to where I can find the answer?


You should be able to go in and delete what you want. I'll have to go back and look at my album and see how I've deleted them. There should be an option for each individual pic, as I recall, tho. 

Best thing to do, tho, would be to use an off-site hosting/storage website, such as PhotoBucket or Flickr or others. I used PhotoBucket and mostly just post the links to the pics. You can do that by just posting a link or a thumbnail sized link or a full-sized link (that usually gets re-sized to-fit). I like PhotoBucket over others I've tried as it's fairly easy to use. 



> Yeah, I may be "passionate" (hate to use that term regarding plastic parts) about these kits, but I'm not offended, just trying to make sure people understand were I'm coming from.


Don't think of it as being passionate about plastic, but about the subject that's brought to "life" in plastic. 


> And yes, the TOS Galactica looks like a really nice kit as does the Cylon Raider.


Agreed! "Warts" and all! :thumbsup:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> You should be able to go in and delete what you want. I'll have to go back and look at my album and see how I've deleted them. There should be an option for each individual pic, as I recall, tho.
> 
> Best thing to do, tho, would be to use an off-site hosting/storage website, such as PhotoBucket or Flickr or others. I used PhotoBucket and mostly just post the links to the pics. You can do that by just posting a link or a thumbnail sized link or a full-sized link (that usually gets re-sized to-fit). I like PhotoBucket over others I've tried as it's fairly easy to use.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the photo tips. I'll look into the PhotoBucket website when I finish my Viper kit so I can post some pic's. 

Wait, the Galactica and Raider have warts?!?! Doesn't Moebius know warts are contagious? How could they do that to us?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

jbond said:


> I would think extreme rivet counters would also be the sort of modeler that spends endless hours trying to superdetail and accurize any kit they build and that it would be something of a disappointment to them to build a kit that's 100% accurate down to the most infinitesimal detail and would therefore require absolutely no creative input from them. I mean a monkey could do that, right?


Work to date on my Monogram Viper:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/jkirkphotos/library/Galactica/Vipers?sort=6&page=1
And I'm truly enjoying doing it. It's been a blast, the research, the re-building, and especially the time traveling back into 1978. But, while I'm a scratch-builder most of the time, I'm totally in agreement with some of the voices here: once in a while, I'd love to build a kit out of box or almost oob that looks like the pictures you can find by just using Google Images.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I too would like to post pix of my builds but I don't know how to send them to photobucket and then post a link to them. But then again if I knew how to do all that it means I would have to stop going from one build to another.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

starseeker said:


> work to date on my monogram viper:
> http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/jkirkphotos/library/galactica/vipers?sort=6&page=1
> and i'm truly enjoying doing it. It's been a blast, the research, the re-building, and especially the time traveling back into 1978. But, while i'm a scratch-builder most of the time, i'm totally in agreement with some of the voices here: Once in a while, i'd love to build a kit out of box or almost oob that looks like the pictures you can find by just using google images.


Really impressive! Give you credit for tackling the job of correcting the old Monogram kit. Looking forward to seeing the finished product.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Starseeker, that Viper is going to look great when done!

Spock62, for Photobucket adding pics is easy. Make an account, it's free. I assume you have all your pics already in a pictures folder on your computer.





-If you click on the picture I posted above look for the orange square in the center that says "Upload". 
-When you click on it you will get a new screen. 
-Click on the blue box that says "choose photos and videos". 
-When you click on it will pull up the folders from your computer. One of them should be your picture folder. 
-Open your picture folder. 
-Holding the "ctrl" on your key board click on each picture you want to load into Photobucket. 
-Then hit open again and all your pics you clicked on will load into Photobucket.

To post pics here you copy and paste one of the links to the right of each picture.
-Click on a picture.
-to the right you have several options for links. you can add more options by clicking the blue "add link options" below them.
-Direct gives you just a link to your Photobucket picture.
-Image will post a full size pic in your post.
-Thumbnail will give you a small "clickable" picture to a full size image. 
-Copy and paste the link you want in your post.

Now normally, you would not want everyone to have access to your albums this way. You can change your privacy settings. I have the album set up like this to show you. I'll leave it like this for a few hours.

I know this is severely off topic, but hey, this thread has gone all different directions today already! LoL!!:wave:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Aztek Dummy makes a vinyl mask set for the Moebius kit? Do you know where this can be purchased?


Culttvman is my usual source, although others have it..Starship Modeler store, etc. These sites are well-established and completely trustworthy.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

robiwon: Thanks for the info. I'll look into setting up a Photobucket account when I return early next week from visiting family. Your Mk II came out great by the way.

kdaracal: I used their masks for the Mk II I built. Masks worked like a charm, worth the price in my opinion. I checked around and found masks for the Mk I at the Starship Modeler Store, but their made by another company. It includes 2 complete sets of masks: http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/shop...s-colonial-viper-canopy-masks-for-moebius.cfm

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Hey, robiwon not sure if your post with the info was just meant for Spock62.
I hope you don't mind but I copied the info down onto a piece of paper and will also give it a try this weekend, so be looking for a thread of a built and painted PL D-7 as it will be my test posting.:wave:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

robiwon said:


> ...But here's a question. How are they designing the model? Are they going by info provided to them? Are they allowed to dig for themselves? Can they only go by what is handed to them? These things may dictate what winds up in the box...


It may be an issue with the language in the license. An example of this is the Original Trilogy Star Wars kits produced by MPC/AMT. For years unconfirmed Internet rumor had it that those kits were so inaccurate because MPC/AMT were contractually obligated to design the kits based on the reference materials supplied by Lucasfilms--reference materials that weren't 100% accurate to the actual filming models--and weren't allowed to make any "improvements" to make them more accurate. I have absolutely no idea if this is true, partially true, or complete rubbish, but it would explain the various kits' inaccuracies.

There's also the "approvals" process that happens during a given kit's production. Moebius has stated on this very forum that the reason their Frankenstein kit was so inaccurate was because Universal delayed the approval process to such a degree that they eventually had to choose one of three options: Pay more licensing fees to Universal to extend the license (to allow Moebius the time to refine the sculpt), cancel the kit and lose the time and money they'd already invested in it, or release the kit as-is even though they weren't happy with it. Obviously they chose the third option, and suffered the slings and arrows of outraged modelers who were disappointed with the kit. I readily admit I have zero knowledge about, or experience with, the process of designing a model kit, so I don't know if a company like Moebius is allowed to further refine a portion of a particular kit once that portion has been approved by the licensee, or if it must be released as-is at that point (time and budgetary concerns allowing, that is).

I'm not saying either of these are the actual reasons for any inaccuracies in any of Moebius' kits, but in my opinion they are plausible explanations.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

I hope for the public release of the kit they'll do something about this:


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Do you understand how tiny that detail is?


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> Hey, robiwon not sure if your post with the info was just meant for Spock62.
> I hope you don't mind but I copied the info down onto a piece of paper and will also give it a try this weekend, so be looking for a thread of a built and painted PL D-7 as it will be my test posting.:wave:


The post was directed at spock62, yes, but the info is for anyone. There's nothing in my PB that is secret. I'll leave it as is for anyone to examine. Would it be better if I separated it as a tutorial thread?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

robiwon said:


> The post was directed at spock62, yes, but the info is for anyone. There's nothing in my PB that is secret. I'll leave it as is for anyone to examine. Would it be better if I separated it as a tutorial thread?


Maybe you should ask Griffworks seeing as how he is a moderator.
But I think we need something like that on here for any one who doesn't know how to post pics and links.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> Do you understand how tiny that detail is?


With respect, that's a rather disingenuous line used by Moebius previously. Especially considering some of the other tiny, finely done detail on this and their other kits. The one detail part just below the name plate is supposed to exactly the same as the one above it, yet they're both different. That same detail part is at three points in the starboard flight pod and two areas on the underside "neck" area. 

Also, it's only a "limitation of the molding process", as has also been stated before, for the angle - they could have had it molded on a sprue as an individual drop-in part, just like a lot of the other sprue parts we'll see. This is one if those areas where they copied directly from the Timeslip Creations kit, tho w/o going the same "tube" route (the part above the nameplate) that I believe was there in the TC kit I removed and replaced it in my TC kit long ago. 

I'm not sure if it was done that way as a cost-saving measure or because it was "overlooked" or something else entirely. Along with the bridge piece, it's something that _sort of_ disappoints me. I'm not angry, nor do I obsess over it. It's something I only mention given past statements of the same observation.

Thankfully, tho, they appear to be the _only_ things that I'll have to correct! The rest of the kit looks great, nor will these things stop me from buying multiples of this kit! It shouldn't take but a couple of minutes w/an Xacto and fine-grit sand paper to remove the detail and install the resin replacement parts.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I'm anxious to see how the Moebius kit compares detail wise to the Salzo 3+ footer. 

Both kits, bottom line will be Frakin awesome!!!

Oh, I put this tutorial up in the Science Fiction section.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=406815

Oh and here is the part above, as seen on the actual filming miniature. Picture from MM&M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

irishtrek said:


> Maybe you should ask Griffworks seeing as how he is a moderator.
> But I think we need something like that on here for any one who doesn't know how to post pics and links.


I've got part of that already covered in the Quick Tutorial on Posting Pics/Links thread in the SciFi Modeling forum. I don't go into details about using PhotoBucket, tho, as I've felt it was already extremely user-friendly for the main reason most of us use it - to host our pics. They even have a tutorial. 

My only suggestion would be to make sure you use a photo management program to properly crop and size your images. That way everyone doesn't have to side-scroll thru an image that's best fit to a large-screen TV versus a standard computer screen, only to see a small image of the model itself. Just crop it in tight and a simple resize that takes maybe one minute of your time. 

Robert - feel free to add your PhotoBucket Primer to the above "Quick Tutorial" thread. That'll make a great addition to help other inexperienced folks, I think.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

robiwon said:


> I'm anxious to see how the Moebius kit compares detail wise to the Salzo 3+ footer.
> 
> Both kits, bottom line will be Frakin awesome!!!
> 
> ...


I merged it w/my Quick Tutorial thread and changed the thread title to reflect the PhotoBucket addition. Good stuff, thanks!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Cool Beans Griff!:thumbsup:


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Paulbo said:


> Do you understand how tiny that detail is?


I'm sorry not having made myself clearer, but I was actually looking at the typography.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

"typography"? Do you mean the font for the lettering?

If so, yeah, that's my hope, as well. If they don't correct that, it'll be an extremely glaring error that souls have corrected well in advance of the release. They've still got plenty of time to fix it, regardless. I'd think it would also be a relatively easy "fix", if that's not just "place holder" decals they're including with the test shots.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

It's on the previous page but I posted a pic of that area on the actual filming miniature. Here it is again.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Griffworks said:


> With respect, that's a rather disingenuous line used by Moebius previously. Especially considering some of the other tiny, finely done detail on this and their other kits. The one detail part just below the name plate is supposed to exactly the same as the one above it, yet they're both different. That same detail part is at three points in the starboard flight pod and two areas on the underside "neck" area.
> 
> Also, it's only a "limitation of the molding process", as has also been stated before, for the angle - they could have had it molded on a sprue as an individual drop-in part, just like a lot of the other sprue parts we'll see. This is one if those areas where they copied directly from the Timeslip Creations kit, tho w/o going the same "tube" route (the part above the nameplate) that I believe was there in the TC kit I removed and replaced it in my TC kit long ago.
> 
> ...


The other area that looks like it would need work is the turret right behind the bridge (or perhaps you are counting that as part of the bridge?). It looks about twice as big as it should be, is the wrong shape, and is missing it's base. The only really good photo I have found of it is the high res production pic of the Big G from over on Resin Illuminati.

Really looking forward to this kit!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Like I said, there are some details the Timeslip kit does better (at far greater expense) and some details the Moebius kit does better--particularly on the bottom of the ship where there are several separate "brace" details that are molded into the entire hull piece on the Timeslip model and are separate pieces on the Moebius model.
As far as the detail piece near the nameplate goes, I'm sure that was a molding issue necessary to include all of that detail in the landing bay top piece. When you say, "Why didn't they mold this as a separate piece," etc., you should also include a check made out to Moebius for thousands and thousands of dollars to cover the costs of doing that.  Frank once told me how much he had been quoted in tooling costs to add just one of the near-microscopic details on the Galactica surface and the sum was staggering. At some point Moebius has to make the decision of exactly how much detail can be put into their kit in order to keep the costs for the consumer at a reasonable level. Yes, the most obsessive modelers may be perfectly happy to pay $150-$250 for a model that includes every conceivable detail, but the majority of modelers will not pay that amount, so the kit will not make money, and Moebius will be out of business so no one will be happy.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

So, another if "those" statements is the response...? 

Said cost for "thousands and thousands of dollars" is spread out over the tens of thousands of kits they produce, Jon. You know that. While I've never produced a kit, I've been a modeler for one or two years, have talked with a lot if people and know that costs aren't cheap. I've read the posts here bad in other forums, as well as talked to two people who have worked at model production plants when such still existed in the U.S., so have an informed idea of the production side of things where tooling is concerned. That specific part could've been reproduced in the more "flat" surfaces of the molds and then the two angled surface parts added to a sprue w/o increasing the cost to "thousands and thousands" of dollars that would translate into more than a relatively small percentage increase to the modeler. 

Again, I'm not harping on it. Simply voicing an opinion and my disappointment. As I said, the few things I consider _a very minor issue_ aren't going to dissuade me from purchasing multiple copies of the kit any more than it will to the casual modeler who doesn't suffer from AMS, who will not be likely notice the same - or if they do, simply choose to ignore it.


One other - mostly - unrelated observation that just occurred to me, as well, is this... How many casual builders buy multiples of kits, versus those of us who are hardcore builders? I've now purchased a total of six if the Moebius _Pegasus_ and four of the _Galactica_ kits, and currently plan to purchase three of the upcoming TOS _Galactica_ kits. I doubt that the more "casual" modeler will buy more than one, tho. 

Thoughts on that?


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I'll be buying just one. I love Galactica, grew up on the series, and love the big girl herself. But, I have no interest in buying multiples just to add a different name to the side. I don't have the creative juices to kit bash it into different looking ships. But, the one I do buy I will devote all of my skill into building it to the best of my abilities. I'll add lights, replace the bridge if one is available, add a custom base, etc.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

robiwon said:


> It's on the previous page but I posted a pic of that area on the actual filming miniature. Here it is again.


That doesn't seem to be the original nameplate. Look here for reference:

http://www.byyourcommand.net/cylongallery/displayimage.php?album=1509&pid=21779#top_display_media

Note the different "C"s. It's also worth noting that the letterspacing is really wonky. You get the impression the makers had other things on their mind in those days...


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Why does this ship have no name?

http://www.byyourcommand.net/cylongallery/displayimage.php?album=1509&pid=21796#top_display_media

http://www.byyourcommand.net/cylongallery/displayimage.php?album=1509&pid=21798#top_display_media


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

We need someone who is good with graphics to do a line drawing of this image to map out light locations. As well as the front, top and bottom views. Any takers?

http://www.byyourcommand.net/cylongallery/displayimage.php?album=1509&pid=21823#top_display_media


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Better start with this pictures:

http://www.foundation3d.com/uploads/studio/2007/12/542-30-38692.jpg


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

electric indigo said:


> That doesn't seem to be the original nameplate.


If that's one of the 300 images of the Galactica that I too downloaded from RI, that is NOT the on-screen Galactica, apparently. After those photos were taken, the miniature was sold (again?) and it was restored at much cost and over much time to its on-screen appearance. But if you want to see photos of the restored miniature, you have to shell out $160 to buy the cd of images. And mostly those images seem to be of the innards of the miniature? No idea how many exterior shots there might be. Or how significantly the restored version differs from the unrestored or how that differed from the on-screen.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

robiwon said:


> Why does this ship have no name?


I noticed that recently on the Blu-ray of the TOS movie. They apparently shot a lot of the effects with no name-plate. I assume that allowed it to to be any of the Battlestars.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

I'll be building two. Galactica and Pegasus. I like the think Cain survived.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I'm sitting here trying to upload a couple of pix to photobucket and was wondering how long it should take???


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Depends on the size of the images - which is part of why I mentioned resizing the images - , how many you're uploading at one time and your connection speed. I regularly upload multiple pics at once, usually around 200k to 300k each image, and it takes only a few seconds, maybe as long as 20 seconds for a large upload. If the pics are in the 1meg or above size, tho, it can take quite a while - possibly several minutes.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The size of the first on is 1.93MB and the second is 2.01MB.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

... and you finally got the file(s) uploaded? 

If you'll resize those down, they'll upload faster. You might want to crop them, as well.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

so then do I down size the number of pixels or something else??? 
Got a line on a computer class just up the street a few blocks this week so I guess I'll go see about taking a computer class.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't know what imaging software you're using, but you might want to download a program called GIMP. It's one of the great pieces of freeware of all time, does pretty much everything a casual (or even advanced) user would want Photoshop to do, only without the big $. 
When you re-size your images, you'll want to look both at picture size and dots per inch size. Pretty much everything I upload to Pb is 16" in the largest dimension and about 300 dpi. If I upload something that I figure someone will want a really detailed copy of, like a decal graphic, then it might be 1200 dpi, max, but only 3 or 4" in its largest dimension. Even then, depending on image content (pretty blank vs lots of detail) at 3" and 1200 dpi, it can be a huge file. The dpi increase the image size exponentially so it's the most important, tho' it's a balancing act between the dpi and dimension to find the most pleasing combination.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Looking into GIMP, thanks.

Edit- canceled GIMP, Avast alerted me to at least two Malware alerts before I canceled the download. Oh well....


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I have GIMP running on my machine and Avast has no problem with it-
Be sure to download it directly from the main site
http://www.gimp.org/
A lot of people can host downloads and place viral packages into the downloads.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Even I don't know exactly what type of imaging software is on my laptop.
I did purchase it 2 1/2 years ago brand new and it has Windows 7, if that helps any.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

irishtrek said:


> Even I don't know exactly what type of imaging software is on my laptop.
> I did purchase it 2 1/2 years ago brand new and it has Windows 7, if that helps any.


Most windows systems have a version of Paint, it can be used to re-size and crop photos. Simply right click on the picture, a drop down window will appear, click on open with and then click on paint. The picture will open in the Paint program, you can click on re size at the top left and then either increase or decrease the percentage. If you make a mistake you can undo it. When you exit the program it will ask if you want to save the changes, that gives you the option of saving it as is or returning it to it's unaltered form.
Paint is a very basic program but I use it a lot to re-size pictures to post here


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I tend to ignore DPI and size for overall pixel width. I figure everybody will be able to view a picture that's 800 x 600 pixels without scrolling, so that's the size I usually make my pics for online viewing.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I bought a Nikon camera 2 years ago and last night I got to wondering about the pixel settings and so this morning I pulled it out and checked the pixel settings and it was set at 3968x2232. The other pixel setting is 640x480.
And after I had finished my coffee I took a pic on each setting and loaded them onto my laptop, I then opened the folder and the results yelled at me loud and clear.
There also seems to be other pixel settings on my camera. Gonna have to take a very close look at the owners manual.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I doubt 90% of camera owners need better than a 3Mp camera.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

robiwon said:


> Starseeker, that Viper is going to look great when done!
> 
> Spock62, for Photobucket adding pics is easy. Make an account, it's free. I assume you have all your pics already in a pictures folder on your computer.
> 
> ...



After changing the pixel count from just under 4000 to 500 and letting it go for several minutes each time trying and a few times to upload pix to phototbucket no luck. What the bleep am I doing wrong or missing??? I've also followed these instructions to the letter.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

You might want to try placing a couple of images on a flash drive and uploading them from a different computer- one at the library for example. There might be something glitchy in the connection or configuration of your main machine...


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

Bucwheat has a very nice and easy-to-follow tutorial on reducing image sizes for viewing on da web:
http://www.bucwheat.com/iview.htm

I have used IrfanView for adjusting image sizes for years now - it's simple and quick to use.

Robiwon, Gimp is *almost* as good as Photoshop, and it's freeware, like Firefox. It is a fairly big download - it's a big-arsed program - and using it merely to re-size a few pictures is kinda overkill. 

Alot like having a 5-axis CNC milling machine trim a piece of plastic when you could have used a pocketknife. IrfanView is more like the pocketknife.

Just be aware that there is a BIG learning curve with Gimp, and download only from the legit site:
http://www.gimp.org/


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Talked to my neighbor last night and asked him about sending pix to phototbucket and he does the drop n drag method which I tried and I now got 2 pix on photobucket. Now if I can get the rest on there.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

O.K. your half way there! Now, see if you can post a picture in a thread!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Taking a second to toot my horn here so to speak. I've managed to sign up on Photobucket and have started a new thread highlighting the differences between the Full Size Prop/Filming Miniature of the Classic BSG Viper and the new Moebius kit of the same. If anyone's interested, check it out. And thanks to everyone that steered me to Photobucket, it's so easy to use even this modeler can do it!


----------

