| I do agree; making valid points about possible errors in a diecast is very important, but I want to add 2 things to this. First, people should use better tact when criticism is due. For example, say "The horizontal stabilizer is too long and needs to be a little shorter", rather than "Why these people couldn't figure out the tail assembly is beyond me. What a bunch of morons". Secondly, if there is an inaccuracy in a diecast, then reveal the source that can verify this mistake. What source allows you to make this statement? Obviously, one can make an obvious axiomatic statement if there is a lack of weathering (usually with armor) or a quality control issue. One doesn't need to 'sugar coat' a negative aspect of a diecast, but, on the other hand, one doesn't need to degrade or belittle a diecast company either. |
theodore, personally I agree you about using tact to get a point across. IMO, it's more effective. The point I was trying to make is this- if a person buys a model, and isn't satisfied with it, he has a right to make whatever comments he wants, whether tactful or not. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.
I also agree with backing up the claim with a source, or sources. I'm under the assumption that the manufacturers already use a variety of resources when conducting their research for making a model, including visits to museums/airparks with the actual aircraft. They may not have every source available, but I'm thinking they may have the majority of the same sources that most everyone else has (and will be quoting from).
As far as degrading or belittling a company, I agree that that does not need to happen (at least at the beginning of the process of bringing a defect to light, and getting it corrected). However, if a company doesn't incorporate the lessons, then maybe a little belittling is in order. Sometimes, a good ***-chewing is more effective than a mere counseling session.