Kernow Adams O2

[woodenhead]

And yet another thread descends into a discussion about the merits of criticising models and the varying standards modellers will accept rather than discussing the model at hand.

 

We have one member who manages to ignite this argument over and over.

[Ian J.]

 

As for perfection, it often feels that some expect that for a little over a hundred quid.

 

^ This

 

I think it's possible to see both sides of the argument when it comes to accuracy, and it comes down to price. If you're paying £500 or more for a locomotive I'd certainly hope it would be pretty darn accurate, but these days if you're paying £100 don't expect absolute perfection. It would be nice to have it if it's available, but just don't expect it.

 

Reasonable accuracy, in my book, means a general shape that is as correct as it can be to the prototype taking manufacturing restrictions into account, with details close to prototype. Bearing in mind the shear abundance of variations in just about every locomotive ever built, getting every release of a model 100% right is highly unlikely. A rivet or two slightly out of place or a 0.1mm dimensional error is really too much to be complaining about, but a smokebox or significant cab window 'face' error is something that arguably needs to be right as it can affect the 'feel' of the model a lot.

 

For what it's worth, the O2 looks to be shaping up to be a decent model, and if I can find the cash, I'll be getting a couple without complaint.

[Ian Hargrave]

Craig...If you take the tiresome step of trawling back through the innumerable posts on RMWeb you it might just dawn on you that there is more than a little justification in objecting to the content and tone of one particular individual who has,shall we say. 'History' in this area.

Actually,just read Andy Y's response to him and one other and you perhaps might understand that people welcome constructive comment but become irritated when it becomes obsessively self indulgent.

 

And 'bellyache'? That is an inappropriate response. We celebrate good models,surely.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Ian Hargrave

[Ryde-on-time]

Craig...If you take the tiresome step of trawling back through the innumerable posts on RMWeb you it might just dawn on you that there is more than a little justification in objecting to the content and tone of one particular individual who has,shall we say. 'History' in this area.

Actually,just read Andy Y's response to him and one other and you perhaps might understand that people welcome constructive comment but become irritated when it becomes obsessively self indulgent.

 

And 'bellyache'? That is an inappropriate response. We celebrate good models,surely.

Can only agree

 

It's also the timing of the criticism when (As Andy has pointed out more than once) production has been given the go ahead, it can hardly then be described as constructive or useful

 

Having recently started a model of Ryde the rtr model of the O2 is a real bonus. One reason I like supporting Kernow is that they risk their own money developing models such as this

[Rob F]

I am happy to refresh your memory in that you were questioning why certain posts (in a topic 13 months ago) had been removed and you were advised this was for legal consideration. You seemed to disagree that any should have been deleted but that isn't your call to make. We have already covered the ground about what constitutes fair criticism so it wasn't really necessary to bring it up again within this topic. I ended our last conversation with the thought that I had no wish to be dragged into your semantics but once you've made an accusation in public which would suit some people and agendas that it's only fair to correct that misrepresentation.

I think you will find if read the PM correspondence that I absolutely did NOT question the your right to remove posts. What I did do was question your criticism of my use of the Agree/Disagree buttons under the context of why provide them if don't want people to use them. I have no desire to reopen this tiresome debate, but to paraphrase your last post, it is only fair to correct a misrepresentation.

 

ROB

[Horsetan]

.....As for perfection, it often feels that some expect that for a little over a hundred quid.

 

Some still expect it for under fifty quid.... *rolls eyes*

[G-BOAF]

...... Laser scanning of prototypes should mean we get pretty close to accuracy - as far as affordable manufacturing techniques allow, of course.

Not quite correct - the laser scans still need to be interpreted by a human to create the CADs. I know I keep carping on about it, but look at the initial Western Cads, where the roof fans were on the body centre line. Someone in China had 'corrected' the laser scan (incorrectly!). Just because a model is based on a laser scan does not guarantee anything! We are in danger of placing too much emphasis on laser scanning = spot on.

[Andy Y]

I think you will find if read the PM correspondence that I absolutely did NOT question the your right to remove posts. 

 

No; you used the disagree button on posts I made explaining why posts had been removed.

 

I then PMd a further explanation to you directly giving further information; you then turned that it into further arguments.

[Vistisen]

And yet another thread descends into a discussion about the merits of criticising models and the varying standards modellers will accept rather than discussing the model at hand.

 

We have one member who manages to ignite this argument over and over.

As someone else has said, If you don't like whats on the T.V.. there's an OFF button. I'd rather use the mute button . That is to say rather than not reading RMweb ( which is the 'OFF' option) I'd like to see a 'hide users' feature so that users who continually annoy me can be blocked alone with any replies quoting their posts. I DON'T go in for censorship. they have as much right to their point of view as I do. But that does not mean I have to read their posts. A simple bar at the top of each persons screen telling each logged in user how many people have blocked them, might even cause them to think about how they communicate. Andy is that an option?

[woodenhead]

Course it might get interesting if you did block someone and only seeing one side of an thread getting all confused because you forgot you blocked the person they are commenting with.

[Ian J.]

As someone else has said, If you don't like whats on the T.V.. there's an OFF button. I'd rather use the mute button . That is to say rather than not reading RMweb ( which is the 'OFF' option) I'd like to see a 'hide users' feature so that users who continually annoy me can be blocked alone with any replies quoting their posts. I DON'T go in for censorship. they have as much right to their point of view as I do. But that does not mean I have to read their posts. A simple bar at the top of each persons screen telling each logged in user how many people have blocked them, might even cause them to think about how they communicate. Andy is that an option?

 

Blocking an individual's posts is of course already possible, but blocking quotes from them in other people's replies is probably not possible without a change in the way the data for posts is held.

[Vistisen]

Blocking an individual's posts is of course already possible, but blocking quotes from them in other people's replies is probably not possible without a change in the way the data for posts is held.

How does one do that?

[Horsetan]

How does one do that?

 

Click on your user name at the top right-hand corner of the screen. This gives you a drop-down list of options, one of which is "Manage Ignore Prefs.". Click on that, and you'll then be able to type in the IDs of every single Forum member that you don't want to hear from.......

 

Could be a long list. 

[Vistisen]

Click on your user name at the top right-hand corner of the screen. This gives you a drop-down list of options, one of which is "Manage Ignore Prefs.". Click on that, and you'll then be able to type in the IDs of every single Forum member that you don't want to hear from.......

 

Could be a long list. 

Thank you, a long list, but there are a few low hanging fruits, Ignoring them will keep the blood pressure down

[Oldddudders]

Not quite correct - the laser scans still need to be interpreted by a human to create the CADs. I know I keep carping on about it, but look at the initial Western Cads, where the roof fans were on the body centre line. Someone in China had 'corrected' the laser scan (incorrectly!). Just because a model is based on a laser scan does not guarantee anything! We are in danger of placing too much emphasis on laser scanning = spot on.

You were vociferous about the chimney on the 0298 being "wrong". I have no idea whether you were right, but I, and a lot of other people, bought them and were/are delighted. Perhaps you did too. All those O2 EP samples that have been promoted by Kernow/DJM look just great to me. A much better modeller - and RMwebber - than me has famously said that "If it looks like a Black 5, then it's probably a Black 5" and the O2 is squarely in that category for me. I'd like Kernow to give it the green light. You and others would prefer to delay it because you perceive imperfections. That's where we differ.

[NHY 581]

This thread has truly degenerated.

 

This is about the anticipated Kernow O2.

 

Can I ask we keep posts to this topic and cease the other stuff which has no relevance whatsoever. Please take it elsewhere and allow those of us who are looking forward to the release of this model to do so without those posts which are somewhat off topic.

 

This has turned quite a pleasant thread into something at times quite unpleasant.

 

Rob

[Ian Hargrave]

Delaying production of this or any other model is not within our remit,whatever views we might hold. I was fortunate to see Dave's samples at the O2 last month and will be pleased to be Kernow client once again.I sympathise with Rob's view and I appreciate a reasoned critical appraisal moderated in the knowledge that it is a commercially mass produced model and must of necessity have some limitations. This is not the arena of absurd demands and expectations but of reasoned ,self -controlled debate.

[woodenhead]

I just wish Kernow would do some of these in N, the Well tank would be nice too.

[Craigw]

Craig...If you take the tiresome step of trawling back through the innumerable posts on RMWeb you it might just dawn on you that there is more than a little justification in objecting to the content and tone of one particular individual who has,shall we say. 'History' in this area.

Actually,just read Andy Y's response to him and one other and you perhaps might understand that people welcome constructive comment but become irritated when it becomes obsessively self indulgent.

 

And 'bellyache'? That is an inappropriate response. We celebrate good models,surely.

Ian,

 

I am sure it is tirelessly self indulgent and a lll those other things. Plus more. But why is it that people who are critical of the accuracy of a model the ones who seem to get singled out?

 

There are any number of posts on here and other threads from people saying they will by 5 when it is released,  lamenting the fact that they really wanted something else or complaining about the cost. 

 

Yet that sort of inane line is considered acceptable.

 

I don't subscribe to the "if it looks like a ...it is a ..." either. My Triang 3F tank that I got for my 5th Birthday in 1969 looked like one, but I am rather glad that things have moved on.

 

If I can take the time to scroll past the posts that I find boring, I don't see why others cannot make the same effort. If a group of people want to discuss the cab dimensions let them. If you don't want to then don't.

 

Craig W

[Ian Hargrave]

Ian,

 

I am sure it is tirelessly self indulgent and a lll those other things. Plus more. But why is it that people who are critical of the accuracy of a model the ones who seem to get singled out?

 

There are any number of posts on here and other threads from people saying they will by 5 when it is released,  lamenting the fact that they really wanted something else or complaining about the cost. 

 

Yet that sort of inane line is considered acceptable.

 

I don't subscribe to the "if it looks like a ...it is a ..." either. My Triang 3F tank that I got for my 5th Birthday in 1969 looked like one, but I am rather glad that things have moved on.

 

If I can take the time to scroll past the posts that I find boring, I don't see why others cannot make the same effort. If a group of people want to discuss the cab dimensions let them. If you don't want to then don't.

 

Craig W

Sorry,Craig,I don't think you really understand the whole picture here. The individual concerned,on a number of occasions actively seeks the limelight and sets himself up to be the victim of some witch hunt,simply because he oversteps what most members regard as acceptable.The 'singling out' becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy and thus a self-inflicted wound.We all of us should moderate what we post..Andy only intervenes when he has to. Remember that.

[woodenhead]

Craig, it's not just about this thread but several others than went in the same direction driven by one person.

 

And he's probably very happy to see all the bickering, I think he actually gets pleasure out of it.

Edited October 8, 2014 by woodenhead

[stewartingram]

I just wish Kernow would do some of these in N, the Well tank would be nice too.

I just wish Kernow would move to East Anglia, and change their allegiance to the GER & M&GN....

 

Stewart

[Craigw]

Craig, it's not just about this thread but several others than went in the same direction driven by one person.

 

And he's probably very happy to see all the bickering, I think he actually gets pleasure out of it.

 

I am sure you are quite correct on that, just as i am equally sure there are a few that seem to want to set themselves up as some sort of moral majority and howel down dissenting opinions.

 

Provided a discourse remains civil, there should not need to be moderation. That usually comes in when people from one side or the other resort to name calling and abuse.

 

Craig W

[woodenhead]

You're right and it is allowed, the person we are all referring too was welcomed at first (right to the highest level in the forum) and his insights were thoughtful and well constructed but sadly that was then and this is now as they say.

[G-BOAF]

You were vociferous about the chimney on the 0298 being "wrong". I have no idea whether you were right, but I, and a lot of other people, bought them and were/are delighted. Perhaps you did too. All those O2 EP samples that have been promoted by Kernow/DJM look just great to me. A much better modeller - and RMwebber - than me has famously said that "If it looks like a Black 5, then it's probably a Black 5" and the O2 is squarely in that category for me. I'd like Kernow to give it the green light. You and others would prefer to delay it because you perceive imperfections. That's where we differ.

I don't disagree with you about it being a good model Olddudders. Read what I wrote in post#250 in this thread.

Yes I have got two BWTs and they are magnificent. The chimney, to my eyes at least, does look a little odd and is the biggest let-down of the models. It is my long term ambition to replace with a suitable white metal or resin alternative, one day. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret the purchases, but I am left wondering why the chimney is as it is!

 

I feel this argument is going round in circles.

 

In sum, if I can speak for the majority on here. we all want these models to be as good as they can be for the price they are.

 

Where the disagreement appears to be is on the definition of 'as can be'. I go by the philosophy that if so much has been got spot on, why let a few things that are not spot-on slip through? If there is a technical reason, for example tooling limitation, or wheel clearance issue OK, but I can’t see that is applicable in this case. We can always strive for improvements, and it is only through striving that such improvements are delivered... The 1980s Hornby Black 5 looked like a Black 5, but not as much like a black 5 as the 2002 version!

 

I really don't feel like I'm adding any more to the debate, and I repeat my call above for evidence in the form of centimetres and millimetres (or inches if you prefer)...!

 

I am mindful of (IIRC it was AndyY saying) something on the BWT thread about images being significantly larger than the real model, and of highlighted discrepancies being all but invisible at 4mm/ft scale. The very fact this argument is being had is testament to the overall quality of these models.

Edited October 8, 2014 by G-BOAF