The same car modeled by different companies will have a slightly different shape. This has always annoyed me as my goal is to find total fidelity to the original shape in a model. Exoto Motorbox's Porsche 910 is advertised on their website as having been "recreated from over 4,000 3D reference points, accurate within .006". This type of prototyping process would seem to be ideal as you will end up with total fidelity.Otherwise you get what could be called an artistic interpretation of the car at best or an inaccurate shape at worst. To be honest, I would much rather have a slightly better shape than something even slightly less so with opening parts and lots of mechanical detail .
Through the years I collected a few Porsche 917K coupes in different scales. I've always loved the way the windshield perspex sits in relation to the cars front fenders on the real car. This is rendered slightly differently on the assorted models from a variety of different companies. Autoarts 1/18 version,as nice as it is,doesn't look right to me in this way.Either the perspex is too high or the fenders are too low to my eyes.Other models of the car have slightly squarer proportions or different sweeps to the cars tail. I've never been completely satisfied with the shape of the models of this car I own. Admittedly,I don't have anywhere near what has been produced and available through the years.
Should all model cars be created totally from 3D reference points of the original full size car?Why is this not the standard?Would all the different models from the different companies be essentially the same if this were the case taking away the art of prototyping it?Have you ever seen a slightly less accurate version of a car as a model that actually turned out looking better than the real car?Would you rather have a perfect shape or something less than perfect with lots of precision parts and details?If anyone has opinions on this,Id like to hear them.
Auto art or auto cloned?
Re: Auto art or auto cloned?
I was under the assumption that this is/was the standard. If not it will be, technology is becoming a lot more accessible.Should all model cars be created totally from 3D reference points of the original full size car?Why is this not the standard?
CMC is famous for some "artistic renditions". One that comes to mind is the wheels their McLaren SLR
Re: Auto art or auto cloned?
I think a lot of the issues with "realism", with respect to both scale and detail, deals with access the model manufacturer had to a true donor, as well as compromises required by the diecasting process itself.
Those of us who have been collecting for a considerable period of time (I bought my first 1/18 scale diecast model in the early 90's) have come to expect disappointment.
My collection goes from first generation Nascar (Ertl/American Muscle and Revell) to Exoto to some of the more recent resins. I won't accept a model that is grossly misrepresented, but will accept the artistic license required to, at least, delivery a model with a livery that is consistent with my focus and direction.
Those of us who have been collecting for a considerable period of time (I bought my first 1/18 scale diecast model in the early 90's) have come to expect disappointment.
My collection goes from first generation Nascar (Ertl/American Muscle and Revell) to Exoto to some of the more recent resins. I won't accept a model that is grossly misrepresented, but will accept the artistic license required to, at least, delivery a model with a livery that is consistent with my focus and direction.