Advertisement
    Home        Articles        Reviews        Gallery        Contests        Forums     Search Login
Forums
 Introduction
 Posting guidelines
 Forum key
New Messages
Forum List
 News Forums
   GeneralNov 19 
   IndustryNov 17 
   Shows & ClubsNov 18 
 Site Forums
   ArticlesMay 16
   Build LogsNov 19
   ReviewsNov 15
   GalleryNov 19
   ContestsNov 10
 Modelling Forums
   KitsNov 19 
   ConstructionNov 19 
   PaintingNov 18 
   FiguresNov 18 
   DioramasNov 11 
   1-48th ScaleNov 18 
   Small ScaleNov 1 
 Research Forums
   WW2Nov 19 
   Post WW2Nov 19 
   Pre WW2Sep 6 
 Classifieds Ads
   Buy & SellNov 18 
   CommercialNov 19 
 

Forums - News / General

For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby.
Topics  3037
Messages  22933
 Subject:  Re: No, that would be...List thread.  
  
 Date:  Mar 31, 2005
 From:  gene fong 
I agree with Matthew, OOTB should mean only using the parts that came sealed with the model kit. If one substitutes or adds parts from an aftermarket source (meaning at some time you went to the trouble of purchasing these) then it is no longer OOTB.
Also, if one were to scratchbuild a whole part so that the kit supplied part was no longer needed or scratchbuilds an add-on part then that is also no longer OOTB.

I know to get maximum satisfaction of a finished project may require fixing or modifying the model to correct factory defects, correct dimensional/technical inaccuracies, correct structural/fitment problems.
I think this is where one may make an exception otherwise we'll all have models with ejector pin marks, canopies with gaps, drooping wings, sink holes in the plastic, warped tail fins, etc.
 
Thread Listing 
  Out of the box models - Matthew Malogorski - Mar 31, 2005
. . . Re: Out of the box models - Paul A. Owen - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . Re: Out of the box models - Matthew W. Malogorski - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . Re: Out of the box models - Paul A. Owen - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . No, that would be... - Ken Hartlen - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: No, that would be... - Matthew W. Malogorski - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: No, that would be... - gene fong - Mar 31, 2005
. . . Well. . . - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . Re: Well. . . - gene fong - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . Re: Well. . . - Paul A. Owen - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Well. . . - gene fong - Mar 31, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Well. . . - Steve Campbell - Apr 14, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Well. . . - Doug Chaltry - Apr 15, 2005
    Home        Articles        Reviews        Gallery        Contests        Forums     Contact Track-Link