Themed 'Sort-of' Group-ish Builds.

[MerlinJones]

First, we had the specific kit Group Build.
Then, to accommodate those who had no interest in that particular kit, we got Themed Group Builds.

Then, we had the Blitzbau, involving a Build over one specific 24 hour stretch.
This proved troublesome for some, so the 24 hours split and the Blitzbau's were spread over a week.
Still, some where unable to participate, so we got the Mojo Build.

All good stuff.

Some Group Builds generate lots of interest and enthusiasm. I note that the current Rhubarb GB appears to be one of these.
Some Group Builds don't and I feel the Vietnam GB is one of these.

Such is life and it got me thinking. The Vietnam 'theme', seems interesting enough, but, as was often the case with longer-running GB's, people drift in, sometime after the start date, may or may not post progress and then disappear.
Some participants keep up the encouragement and post in the threads of other participants. Some clearly don't give a monkeys eyeball about other builds in the 'group' Build.

Again, c'est la vie.

Then we have the 'I've Started, So I'll Ruddy Well Finish' concept, which is almost like a never-ending Group Build, with the theme of Unfinished Works.
Perhaps there's room for more of these themed builds, that do not follow the Group process. Some people have no interest in the Group concept, but may have interest in the theme.
Some may be unable to start, or finish, within the Group Build time limits and have no interest in using a Group Build to get their modelling juices flowing.

Some themes may well be suitable for the more traditional Group Build than others. Some may lend themselves to a sort-of Group-ish Build.
For aviation modellers, examples of the latter may be;
Trainers
Hacks and Ancillary Aircraft.
Aircraft flown by a particular squadron.
Aircraft flown by a particular pilot.
Ploughshares to Swords
Swords to Ploughshares.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Bruce

[bluesteel]

I don't understand what ploughshare or sword means with respect to aircraft.

I assume a ploughshare is a civilian plane and a sword a military one, so swords to ploughshares would be civilianised military and ploughshares to swords, impressed civilian as military.

[bluesteel]

I'd also add aircraft by specific designers.

Sometimes designers stayed with one company all their lives and you have a historical spread from biplanes to jets (ie. Roy Chadwick at Avro). Others company hopped adding design flourishes to many companies and types (ie. WEW Petter, Westland Lysander/Whirlwind, EE Canberra/Lightning and then Folland Gnat). So there would be a common theme, but a diverse choice of subject - plus some research to find out who was involved in designing what.

[Saxon]

You could have Galleries by category. People build individually and if they choose submit their pics in the right gallery. To me that is as close to a non group, none time restricted "group build" you are going to get.

Maybe I am on a different wavelength to what you intended but that is what I got from what you said, different ways of doing GBs?

[MerlinJones]

Julian's on the ball again.

Swords into ploughshares is fairly common, (although, I accept, not common enough), parlance for military hardware being converted into civilian purpose. For example, Lancasters becoming Lancastrians. Less common, are examples of civilian aircraft tooling up for military purpose and the phrase was turned around to accommodate these. The Lockheed Vega to Hudson, for example, or Electra to Orion, Comet to Nimrod, could be examples of this.

Particular designers would be a good one. Sydney Camm and Ed Heinemann, for example, are both quite prolific.

Regards,
Bruce

Regards,
Bruce

[MerlinJones]

You could have Galleries by category. People build individually and if they choose submit their pics in the right gallery. To me that is as close to a non group, none time restricted "group build" you are going to get.

Maybe I am on a different wavelength to what you intended but that is what I got from what you said, different ways of doing GBs?

I suppose I was considering options of different sort of themed build, as opposed to a 'Group' build, as my proposal abandons the idea of Group and seems to fit with some so-called Group Builds of old.
To start creating even more galleries, themed or otherwise, is unnecessary and we'd end up having single models appearing in several galleries.

Regards,
Bruce

[JohnRatzenberger]

What you describe is still a GB -- although maybe it is group with a little "g". Regardless, by definition if more than one person is involved, it is a "group". There is nothing that prohibits including these long-run gB's in GB's, we just have to define the parameters and let 'em get started. I don't see any difference between an unending "gb" that people wander in and out of and a normal GB that people wander in and out of. I don't see any difference from a broadly/narrowly themed "gb" and a broadly/narrowly themed GB.

I see no reason to start doing these separately. If we start stacking them up under Modelling, as the "Started-Finish" one, then the Modelling section will just get lengthy and unfocused. If we don't put them under GB's, which is where I think they should go, they at least ought to be under a separate section.

[Karaya]

What about a stash build? Pick the oldest, tattiest, crapiest kit from your stash and give it a crack. I am sure everyone has a kit on their stash that they avoid making eye contact with or try to hide behind other kits. Maybe its time we all confronted our demons, pulled that kit out and finally finished it.

[jssel]

There is a bezillion ideas out there for group builds. Even though I am a little behind in a couple of GB's right now, things just happen to get in the way sometimes. And I am ahead on my A:B for the first time ever. Plus for party bonus: I am liking my work. So............

John has a good handle on setting up polls for GB's. He is setting a high bar and like the direction it is going.

Sven's idea of a stash build sounds interesting. I have an old Heller 1/50-1/48 scale Alize' that I bought at my first model show in 1982. It looks to be a handful.

[MerlinJones]

Ideas for Group Builds are ten a penny.

Actual participation is...erm....'inconsistent', even when there's an initial rush of enthusiasm from, seeminngly, all quarters.

My thoughts were to try and create something for those incapable of any commitment towards a GB.

Regards,
Bruce

[mattbacon]

Errr... let’s be clear. There are only two sorts of Blitzbau: 24 hours straight, or two sessions totalling 24 hours maximum within a 48 hour total end to end time, to accommodate those who want to sleep, walk the dog, or see their kids over the weekend. (This latter is what is known as the wuss’s option). A build that stretches out to several sessions over a week does not qualify as a blitz! Moderators and participants please take note!

bestest,
M.
(Herr Uberblitzfuhrer to you...)

[beany]

Errr... let’s be clear. There are only two sorts of Blitzbau: 24 hours straight, or two sessions totalling 24 hours maximum within a 48 hour total end to end time, to accommodate those who want to sleep, walk the dog, or see their kids over the weekend. (This latter is what is known as the wuss’s option). A build that stretches out to several sessions over a week does not qualify as a blitz! Moderators and participants please take note!

bestest,
M.
(Herr Uberblitzfuhrer to you...)

You beat me to it with that comment Matt, although I had something a bit stronger than "wuss's" in mind

Cheers
Al.

[MerlinJones]

Jessy Pastries

[Falcon]

I don't understand what ploughshare or sword means with respect to aircraft.

Military aircraft converted for civilian use.

[Viking]

Ideas for Group Builds are ten a penny.

Actual participation is...erm....'inconsistent', even when there's an initial rush of enthusiasm from, seeminngly, all quarters.

My thoughts were to try and create something for those incapable of any commitment towards a GB.

Regards,
Bruce

now i'm curious why are we navel gazing to such an extent ? in my opinion, the site is informal and relaxed. group builds come and go; i join in with some, ignore others, comment on some, appreciate any comments on my builds then go on my merry way. why do we need to "encourage" participents ? does it really matter if a build starts with 6 people and ends with 1 if all 6 enjoy what they do ? why does a gb need to have a significant number of people to be a success; why are we even worrying about success ? what are we trying to succeed in ?

sorry Bruce, not picking on you, your post just trigged a response