When is your DIY plane "perfect enough"?

[petitbilbo]

Hi!
I'm (or rather have been) an IT project manager by trade and in project management, we have this principle that you should learn to finish your project when it is "perfect enough".

Perfect enough means that the thing you created has all the bells and whistles it needs to have and that it does work as it should. Full stop!
Going any further will get you in trouble in at least one of your boundaries (Within Time/Within Cost/At the desired performance & technology level/While utilizing the assigned resources effectively and efficiently/Accepted by the customer), etc.

Here are a few of the more common casualties of chasing perfection:

• Diminishing Returns – The effort required to polish something beyond discernible improvement is rarely worth it. Will your users even notice, or more importantly appreciate these efforts?
• The 80/20 Rule – The final 20% of any project usually takes 80% of the effort. Moreover sometimes the last 20% can be so unreasonably difficult that all previous effort needs to be scrapped. This is how good ideas get scrapped.
• Lost Time – Excess time spent honing tiny details could be spent working on future phases, while users can invest themselves much earlier.
• Lost Feedback – Delaying releases also delays some of the most vitally important insights and feedback from users. Critical bugs are one thing, but maybe that awesome feature you thought people would love sucks? How will you know?
• Flawed Design – Software designed with perfection in mind is idealistic in nature and often plagued by inflexible architecture and poor integration. In these cases, design trumps compatibility and you end up with a system that doesn’t play nice with anything else.
• Cost – It’s just plain more expensive to work on something for 10 years than it is for 5 years.
• Opportunity Cost – What new features and suggestions could have been implemented in the time it took to polish every dark recess of the code base? How much market share has been lost while your competitors capitalized on your inactivity? How much money has been forfeited from a lack of new features or major releases?
• Technology Decay – Technology is inexorable and cruel, leaving behind antiquated versions of legacy software in favour of anything faster, cheaper, better or newer. Suddenly your state of the art system is a stinky pile of legacy garbage that nobody wants to touch.
• Paradoxical Refining – Obsessive second-guessing can lead to valid or otherwise satisfactory features being changed repeatedly, sometimes for the worse. Ever agonize over something (like a blog entry) until you had thoroughly mangled an otherwise acceptable success?

In the above list, replace "users" by "players", years by days, client by yourselves, etc. and you can apply a big part of the above list to the building and painting of planes...

Pardon this lengthy and somewhat technical introduction, but I'd like to know at what stage you think that your planes are "perfect enough":

[Rabbit 3]

As a modeler I find that there is a point which I get to when I think its "good enough".
I`m always rather aware though of the shortcomings or shortcuts I took when the model is being viewed by other people.
So I think, yes that list of yours can fairly readily applied to kit building and modeling generally.

[Zoe Brain]

Hi!
I'm (or rather have been) an IT project manager by trade and in project management, we have this principle that you should learn to finish your project when it is "perfect enough".

I've just finished teaching COMP8100 - Requirements Elicitation and Analysis - a postgrad course at the Australian National University.

I'm preparing next year's slides. May I quote you?

[Linz]

I'm happy if my planes look the part.
I figure there where an awful lot of planes that were never photographed and mine is one of them.
I try to keep basic colours and insignia etc
Linz

[grumpybear]

I'm happy if my planes look the part.
I figure there where an awful lot of planes that were never photographed and mine is one of them.
I try to keep basic colours and insignia etc
Linz

Ditto, they do not need to be 110% correct as they are gameing pieces. Unless you want them to be

[Carl_Brisgamer]

If it looks good at arm's length then it's good enough to be on the gaming table.

Having said that there is no denying the satisfaction generated by the 'Ohhhs' and 'Ahhhs' that accompany deployment of well painted miniatures.

[petitbilbo]

I've just finished teaching COMP8100 - Requirements Elicitation and Analysis - a postgrad course at the Australian National University.

I'm preparing next year's slides. May I quote you?

Of course you can!
(and it's certainly not mine as I learned it at the European Commission's Research Directorate)

[petitbilbo]

...
I`m always rather aware though of the shortcomings or shortcuts I took when the model is being viewed by other people.
...

Whow! Don't I know THAT feeling!

[batesyboy]

My next one will be perfect.....and so on...

[steel_ratt]

Funny that this was posted just as I finished a set of Camels. I tolerate a lot of imperfections in my scratch builds in the interests of not spending too much time and money on them. And I don't go as far as painting serial numbers and 'lift here' marks. It works the same way for historical accuracy. I don't have stacks of reference material. I'll use what information I can easily find and take a rough guess at the rest. They are, after all, playing pieces. As long as they look the part from a few feet away they are good enough for me.

[macka321]

I paint them to a historical standard but every now and then you have to let your artistic side shine through and do what feels and looks good.

[Old Navy]

Part of the fun, for me, is to research historical paint jobs and pick one that grabs my interest.
I'll do my best to match colors and markings from my collection of paints and decals which is fairly extensive. Buying paints and decal sheets is sort of a weakness of mine.
I will personalize the scheme within reasonable limits. Things like changing the individual aircraft's ID number or letter and the like.
Afterall, I'm creating a game-piece...not a submission to a museum or a model airplane contest.

[Zoe Brain]

Part of the fun, for me, is to research historical paint jobs and pick one that grabs my interest.
I'll do my best to match colors and markings from my collection of paints and decals which is fairly extensive.

As has been mentioned before - colours are informed guesses. There are few original samples of paintwork, and with weathering in use, the colours on two originally identical aircraft will change over time so they look different from each other, and each with a different appearance in June than they did in January.

Mostly we have B&W photos anyway.

Most aircraft didn't get photographed.

Many sources are contradictory, and some aircraft got overpainted several times, or with different fabric. For example, a Gotha V made by Roland was delivered painted in blue-grey and chocolate-brown, but some ended up with lozenged wings. All AEG.IVks had dark day/night lozenges wings, but some had completely painted fuselages, others partly lozenged, the underside was light lozenge, but the underside of the non-fabric areas is anyone's guess, no pictures show it clearly, and it might have varied between aircraft. Crosses of various styles exist too.

I usually aim for a colour scheme that was probably pretty close to one that actually existed but wasn't photographed. It comes close to one that was.
Sometimes, I do go after a particular plane, based on original photos rather than profiles and others' interpretations of those photos.

[Polluxx66]

I use the normal test. Let the wife look for imperfections.

[petitbilbo]

I use the normal test. Let the wife look for imperfections.

"Hard but fair" or just "harsh"?

[Rat of Vengence]

I like historical basis (want to represent most if not all the AFC aircraft ) but it is a gmaing piece too. That said, I am with Carl, it is good for the soul when others appreciate the hard work put into detailing a miniature.

Dave

[Dark Horse]

I also follow the "Rule of Diminishing Returns" , then my OCD kicks that rule out of the window. Then again maybe its not OCD, I might just be overly fastidious. When I am not being overly fastidious I follow the "Rule of Diminishing Returns"...

[petitbilbo]

I like historical basis (want to represent most if not all the AFC aircraft ) but it is a gmaing piece too. That said, I am with Carl, it is good for the soul when others appreciate the hard work put into detailing a miniature.

Dave

I hear you!

But, just as an afterthought: when I post a "How to" on this site, I get some praises of my work. But somehow, I'd rather have people pointing out my shortcomings than to read the common "well done" message.
What I mean is that my planes are far from perfect and I'd like to know why and how to make my next batch better.
Praise is fine and we can all use some in our lives, but constructive criticism seems even better to me. Be it only for the following reason: even more praise later!

[Doug]

Whilst trying to paint my model to the best of my ability (which is rather poor compared with a lot of the splended model on this form)I use the 16inch rule, if it looks good from 16inches away on the games table then the model is passable and ok for gameing. How ever I still prefer the WoG minatures over mine.

[Grey Knight]

If I'm doing a specific plane, then I'll do that paint scheme,otherwise I paint them in our own schemes,Travis has blue on it,Ethan green and mine purple.

[somaliavet]

I'll choose a historical scheme, then finish it to the best of my old eyes ability. At 1/144 scale, serial numbers rapidly become 'optional'. Multiple aircraft of the same scheme get "conjectural historical" markings. (Although one of these days I may do a plane in my own colors just for fun.)

[Zoe Brain]

(Although one of these days I may do a plane in my own colors just for fun.)

I have some "Harlequin" decals just for a not completely impossible Italian aircraft. I might use those on one of the dud N17s I've salvaged.

[Mveeder]

I don't think any of my minatures are ever done. I'm sick. Last year at Historicon I was hosting a 28mm Rev War Game. I noticed that a few figures were missing the regt. number on thier back pack, so I ran to the dealer hall bought a paintbrush and off white paint and painted the numbers on 15min before game time.

I find myself allways fixing adding and modifying figures even when I'm the only one that notices. I need a hobby.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

It would be good enough if I could ever be satisfied with it. Something I have had to come to terms with is that you invariably have to settle for less than perfect in the end.
Rob.

[flash]

I try and find a historical scheme to copy or take from for most of my kites so they have the correct look for the period even if not absolutely accurate.

[Al Bundy]

Well, if I may join the discussion, I have to admit that I follow different strategies with different games. I am building or actually painting 1/700 WWII planes for playing a rather detailed ruleset called scramble. With these figures I am unfortunately by far too perfectionist, at least with regards to what is said above.
I have piles of Osprey books and others and try to find correct numbers, aircraft markings and pilot names for each individual plane. A special torture are the cockpit struts, which I paint as correctly as possible for each type of plane (again, this is for 1/700 planes, about 1-2 cm long). My perfectionism unfortunately reduces my annual production output to about 8-10 planes now (but this is more due to my little daughter than anything else actually), but in my best years I couldnt finish more than 20-30 planes either.

However, with regardes to wings of war, with the really great looking, ready made planes, I can feel much more relaxed and don´t mind the missing rigging, etc. But, in case I am bored some day I will take one or two models and really finish them with all possible bells, and decorations I am able to add.

And with regards to historical correctness, this is an absolute must for me. This is all the more difficult to achieve for WWI planes as there were so many different personal markings.

anybody suffering from the same perfectionist illness (which acutally borders to ocd)?

[Niclas]

Sort of a combo of what Batesboy an Kyte said.

Also, I too often fall into the trap of thinking that I'm able to add far more detail than I'll ever be capable of - So I'm almost alway disappointed with the end result. Mostly, the planning stage is quite rewarding though.

/Niclas

[Boney10]

I try and paint all my planes as accurately as possible.
Initially I only painted what was available as cards.
Now with Max & Guntruck to name but two, I have the facility to make up complete flights and Jastas.
But in the end it is the history and will try and be as accurate as possible. But still not too sure about adding some details, serial numbers etc as you can't really see them when playing.

[Dark Horse]

Well, if I may join the discussion, I have to admit that I follow different strategies with different games. I am building or actually painting 1/700 WWII planes for playing a rather detailed ruleset called scramble. With these figures I am unfortunately by far too perfectionist, at least with regards to what is said above.
I have piles of Osprey books and others and try to find correct numbers, aircraft markings and pilot names for each individual plane. A special torture are the cockpit struts, which I paint as correctly as possible for each type of plane (again, this is for 1/700 planes, about 1-2 cm long). My perfectionism unfortunately reduces my annual production output to about 8-10 planes now (but this is more due to my little daughter than anything else actually), but in my best years I couldnt finish more than 20-30 planes either.

However, with regardes to wings of war, with the really great looking, ready made planes, I can feel much more relaxed and don´t mind the missing rigging, etc. But, in case I am bored some day I will take one or two models and really finish them with all possible bells, and decorations I am able to add.

And with regards to historical correctness, this is an absolute must for me. This is all the more difficult to achieve for WWI planes as there were so many different personal markings.

anybody suffering from the same perfectionist illness (which acutally borders to ocd)?

see my note above...welcome to the club...

[Thomatchef]

I'm almost never happy with the result but have learned to be satisfied with something close to perfect (in my eyes). As I alway see small details that need correction, correcting them isn't always good as it tends to make something else look worse. At some point I just have to say to myself that the result is good enough. A good test for me is to take a picture of the model. If it looks good on the pictures its easier for me to be satisfied.

I will always see the imperfections though. After a while I tend to notice them less but I still know what and where those imperfections are.

I'm not going for 100% historically accurate. I'm a WWII player and adding details in 1/200 I find a lot more difficult. I do look at accurate paintings and markings but I tend to divert a bit for ease of painting or just because I prefer it otherwise.

[petitbilbo]

It's a nice bell curve we have here!

[CappyTom]

From talking to other modelers I have found that the smaller the model the less detail you need as your imagination fills in the blanks.

Thomas

[Hunter]

I paint to a basic historical standard then add my own color preferences to allow differentiation from other mini's.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I hear you!

But, just as an afterthought: when I post a "How to" on this site, I get some praises of my work. But somehow, I'd rather have people pointing out my shortcomings than to read the common "well done" message.
What I mean is that my planes are far from perfect and I'd like to know why and how to make my next batch better.
Praise is fine and we can all use some in our lives, but constructive criticism seems even better to me. Be it only for the following reason: even more praise later!

Good point Bilbo, constructive criticism and 'how to' advice is extremely useful. I have taken many pointers from this forum and incorporated them into my painting.

I can understand why some people don't offer such advice, it can be difficult in this medium to communicate such information without being perceived as overly critical.

Still, we are lucky to have this forum and the support it provides the hobby is beyond measure.

Cheers,

Carl.

[bsmith13]

I haven't done any models for WG yet, but I have done a lot of plastic-model building. It seems like it's never "good enough", though it can be "finished". I always see the imperfections that annoy me, while others have commented that they can't see anything wrong with what I've done. Weird.

[Old Navy]

I haven't done any models for WG yet, but I have done a lot of plastic-model building. It seems like it's never "good enough", though it can be "finished". I always see the imperfections that annoy me, while others have commented that they can't see anything wrong with what I've done. Weird.

Our toughest critic is ourselves. Nothing weird about that.

Jim

[Doug]

I will add this comment to the poll. I do not pay with anyone who has unpainted miniatures (what ever period I game) to me this shows a lack of commitment to the hobby. I do not care if they are painted badly several of my friends cannot paint at all, but at least they have made an effort which is good enough for me, and nor I do not consider a coat of primer counts as a painted miniature. Call me what you will, but that is the way I am

[Old Navy]

I will add this comment to the poll. I do not pay with anyone who has unpainted miniatures (what ever period I game) to me this shows a lack of commitment to the hobby. I do not care if they are painted badly several of my friends cannot paint at all, but at least they have made an effort which is good enough for me, and nor I do not consider a coat of primer counts as a painted miniature. Call me what you will, but that is the way I am

I second that!

[petitbilbo]

As I just lost one of the players in my campaign due to "lack of commitment to the hobby" and as this could ultimately become the cause of the whole campaigns demise, I'd be inclined to say that I prefer them painted, but if it means unpainted or not playing at all, my choice is made.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I am with you on that one Doug. It was a standing rule in our Club. Based and painted or they did not appear on the table. It is incredible how this can focus the mind on getting that last Regiment painted before a demonstration game somewhere.
Rob.

[csadn]

I have no place I can paint minis without them being accessible by Cats (for whom paint and glue are decidedly NO ES BUENO). 'Tis a pity as yet no one makes a "wrap job" for minis....

[Dark Horse]

I will add this comment to the poll. I do not pay with anyone who has unpainted miniatures (what ever period I game) to me this shows a lack of commitment to the hobby. I do not care if they are painted badly several of my friends cannot paint at all, but at least they have made an effort which is good enough for me, and nor I do not consider a coat of primer counts as a painted miniature. Call me what you will, but that is the way I am

Call you what I will? I call you fair & reasonable - I won't have games with unpainted miniatures either. I still have minis that are upward of 20 years old, still unpainted, never on the table...

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Call you what I will? I call you fair & reasonable - I won't have games with unpainted miniatures either. I still have minis that are upward of 20 years old, still unpainted, never on the table...

I think we all probably have some of those ghost Battalions Nigel. I have nearly a whole white Lancastrian Army.
Rob.

[Niclas]

When I get as far as having put a base coat on, I'm almost 100% at finishing up - it's assembly (or perhaps rather prep in general) that's the main hurdle for me. I have a box full of assorted Perry Napoleonics, that I have no idea when I'll be getting back to (even though I bought them fairly recently) - They're great looking figures and Waterloo armies were my first modeling love - But right now, WWI minis are just too much fun!

/Niclas

[FarEast]

Hmmm, as for my vote well I think you know my thoughts.

I strive for perfection in each one I build trying out new and old techniques I've used at 1/32 scale. Last set was custom made decals based on current lozenge colours and now my latest is preshading at 1/144 scale and weathering using oils. But I think I'm a little odd in the head

IMG_20141228_174343.jpg

[Zoe Brain]

You must remember - most aircraft in WWI were never photographed or even described.

Interpretation of colours in orthochrome photos is also informed guesswork, with multiple interpretations possible.

So while it can be fun identifying serial numbers, poring over photos, diaries, paint chips and faded fabric swatches to get the "best guess" of what a particular aircraft looked like at the time... there's room for some creativity regarding undocumented or poorly documented planes too. For those, you aim for "plausibility" rather than "authenticity". Often the more drab and nondescript the better, as a shocking pink polkadot over white scheme would likely have attracted attention by photographers or opponents.

1iJZh.jpg


Of course, sometimes there's photographic evidence in support. Ernst Mantel's Sopwith Camel SC35 for example....

IXLBi.jpg

[FarEast]

You could say that applies even more so to heated dabates over the performance of engines

[Zoe Brain]

OK, go to town.

[jbmacek]

I went with "I paint my planes as I like it, historical accuracy isn't important," though I tend to lean a little towards the accurate.

[Dowters]

I put a weblink on here some time ago for a website that gives enough detail for planes 'to look right' and then just add different codes on each plane so I can use more than one in a scrap!