Scale Panel Lines

[IrishAir]

A thought just occured to me concerning panel lines, in some kits (most notably new tool airfix) the panel lines could be as deep as 1mm which in 1/72 would work out as 7.2cm trenches in aircraft, the same thing goes for raised panel lines. And if you think about the panel lines are the same as on 1/24 kits but in reality they would be different sizes. Strange isn't it?

Cheers,
Paul

[PaulBradley]

It's not so much the depth as the width that is the issue - that same 1mm panel line but wide rathr than deep equals a 7.2mm wide gap in the aircraft - much more scary!

[Softscience]

Think also of how thick the average Airfix canopy would be on a real aircraft. I think in some cases you're looking at 15-20 cm of glass if they were scaled up.

[Stamford]

When I were a lad twas the rivits. And all that over were fields as far you could see.

[MerlinJones]

When I wur lad, twur easier t'gouge mould wi't trowel and mek raised lines....

Sorry.
It was easier to make raised lines than engraved.
When Tamiya started to compete in an already competitive model market, their engraved lines were a huge advance on what was then currently available.
To show these off in their new (and quite outstanding catalogues), the panel lines received dark washes and this technique was swiftly emulated, particularly amongst their home market, where cartoons were a hugely poopular media.
Today, we bear the legacy of that, with all manner of techniques, such as pre-shading, whose sole purposes is to try and emulate those early Tamiya models, as opposed to reflecting what the real deal looks like.

Interestingly, to me at least, panel lines were less of an issue with their armour, so Tamiya tended to display these, in their catalogues, using mini-dioramas.

Regards,
Bruce

[m1ks]

It's a bone of contention for article writers all the time. The main thing to remember is you're looking for scale accuracy in a scaled down styrene kit. If the scale were exactly right the panel lines would be barely visible, what do these same article writers then do to a kit like this? UYes they get the good ol scribing tool and dig trenches to replicate the kit they bitched about in the previous article so they have something to run a wash on. While i'm not a massive believer of scale colour theory I do believe in scale appearance scale accuracy of scribed panel lines would simply disappear at 48th scale and below and the deep lines allow a wash to make them more noticeable, ironically your brain fools you into believing an inaccurately scaled panel line looks more realistic than an accurately scaled one which would appear more toy like. the canopy o's simply a matter of how thin they can mould clear styrene, theres a minimum they can go there as answered by an airfix person in amw a couple of issues ago, the only way around this is moulding one from acetate

[m1ks]

The good ol rivets, just building an old bf109e which is covered with the things, now if they were scaled up! I reckon that they got the rivet tool at the factory and just couldn't help themselves cos it was new, probably riveted things that in reality never had a rivet

[MerlinJones]

Scale thickness canopies would be very fragile, unless they were vacform, which are available.

Regards,
Bruce

[AndrewR]

It's a problem of perception, and the way the brain interprets what we see on a scale model.

If you did an exact scale model, you would not be able to see easily the rather subtle panel detail on the real thing. Your brain interprets this as "This doesn't look like the real thing".

So you have to introduce a non-scale element (raised or engraved panel lines), so that you see the "expected" detail.

That's why the debate about raised or engraved panel lines is contentious, and a bit pointless

Think of it as "Theatrical makeup", it's greatly exaggerated close up, but looks okay at a distance.

Cheers

Andrew

[jssel]

I can take or leave pre-shading or post-shading. I have done it but not particularly happy with the results. After all, look at the real deal from 144, 72 or 48 ft away and tell me what you see. To me it is an interesting fad that in many cases, overdone. I don't mind Airfix panel lines. It shows they are on the right track in my mind.

Recently, I built the older Airfix Spitfire Mk V. A lovely kit and has held up well over the years. The large rivets around the cowling area had to come off I'm afraid.

In regards to clear parts, if they are very clear the thickness does not appear so bad.

[flakmonkey]

Even as a child, raised panel lines confused me. Some modellers can make models look good with raised panel lines, but I am not that modeller. My preference is for engraved lines but engraved lines that are too wide and too deep look terrible and give a model a sort of die cast look to my eye. Airfix were guilty of this on the 1/48 Canberras and a couple of their new tool 1/72 releases although it has to be said it hasn't stopped people turning out some nice models from those kits. The Sea Vixen is much more like it and although the lines are still a little deep in places the overall effect is quite pleasing. They really hit the nail on the head about 15 years ago with the 1/48 Griffon Spitfires and Lightning kits which had lovely petite panel lines. Panel line washes are something that I don't do, but I would argue there is a case for them on NMF models where they can be used to cut the reflections from the panel edges rather than to accentuate the panel lines themselves. It's a personal preference rather than a right/ wrong thing. Pre- and post-shading isn't a technique I would lump together with panel line washes, although when it's overdone nothing looks worse. Carried out in a restrained fashion, it can help to give a distressed look to the finish that can be very effective on its own or as a basis for weathering - which is another debate altogether.

[PaulBradley]

And there in lies the rub, Steve - restrained is the key word! Pre- and post-shading can be very effective if used in a restrained manner, so restrained that you cannot really tell that they've been used. The effects should be very subtle. Far too often, you see weathering that is far too pronounced and that is what gives the techniques a bad rep.

[Softscience]

Restraint is the key like you both say. That goes for shading, and panel washes. A well done, subtle wash can break up the monotony of a finish. But what do most people do? They take a white model and give it a black wash. Then the thing ends up looking like a zebra.

[AndrewR]

Restraint is the key like you both say. That goes for shading, and panel washes. A well done, subtle wash can break up the monotony of a finish. But what do most people do? They take a white model and give it a black wash. Then the thing ends up looking like a zebra.

Like this you mean? :

Why do I keep thinking of Jimmy Carter whenever I use the emoticon?

[Softscience]

hahahahaha. That does look like his big grin, eh?