INFORMATION for model airport threads

[Mudanglee]

The gear on that New Herpa airport set is way too big! plus - is it a DC-9, 111, 717 or what? Weird how the flight deck is handled by only one pilot. I think Herpa really goofed!

[uncle beat]

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

Let's not knock the LEGO. Given some serious effort and creativity, you can actually do some good stuff with it. It's all a matter of effort used, if you take the time to make a nice design, and take the time to make sure you use the right colors and elements, I don't see why it should be knocked on. Think about it like using a block of wood. Some airports we have seen are just that, an unpainted block of wood with a jetway or two attached to it. Then we have the guys that could take that block of wood and make it into a dead on diorama of a real historical terminal. So in short, it's not what you use, it's how you use it.

On the other hand, I am getting tired of the "prebuilt" airports (Geminiports/herports) and the Pre-printed-ports (template of a building, print it out, then print out the tarmac.) My opinion is that it is about as creative and filled with effort as a block with a jetway sticking out of it. The fact that I see those get an insane amount of compliments is just sad in my opinion too. Hell at some points I'm tempted to pull out my VVS USSR Visor cap put both of my herpa jetways on it, put some of my planes around it, snap photos and say that's my model of SVO-1 just as a joke (and commentary).

I don't mind seeing even somewhat simple works done by hand though. Usually then, some good advise for improvement can be given, and a good technique that will eventually evolve can start there.

This is an excellent commentary. Quality is not necessarily about the type of materials, but how they are used. One might have noticed the severe drop-off in the number of airports being submitted lately. Perhaps people are becoming afraid to share their work for fear of getting bashed. I think the best solution is to have a different category especially for custom airports, and keep the existing section for the stock Herpa and Gemini airports and the fake flight schedules, news blurbs about which airplane/airline will be flying on fake routes, websites about airports that don't exist and don't have supporting photographs,etc. This will satisfy that segment of the hobby, without cluttering the model airport section. I wish to add that despite some members' complaints about the posting of incomplete airports, I personally like seeing the step-by-step evolution of these custom projects. This is educational, entertaining, and puts into perspective the amount of time required to make a good airport.

[Mudanglee]

I'm with Uncle Beat and Lot 737-300. We should all be encouraging each other. I think very few model airports would pass FAA standards but who cares? As long as we have fun :-) PLUS - there are a lot of younger people who are trying their very best. And a lot of older people like myself - who is trying his bestest :-)

[a_loser]

Originally Posted by uncle beat

This is an excellent commentary. Quality is not necessarily about the type of materials, but how they are used. One might have noticed the severe drop-off in the number of airports being submitted lately. Perhaps people are becoming afraid to share their work for fear of getting bashed. I think the best solution is to have a different category especially for custom airports, and keep the existing section for the stock Herpa and Gemini airports and the fake flight schedules, news blurbs about which airplane/airline will be flying on fake routes, websites about airports that don't exist and don't have supporting photographs,etc. This will satisfy that segment of the hobby, without cluttering the model airport section. I wish to add that despite some members' complaints about the posting of incomplete airports, I personally like seeing the step-by-step evolution of these custom projects. This is educational, entertaining, and puts into perspective the amount of time required to make a good airport.

The inherent problem isn't so much posting "incomplete airports" as it is posting airports that *remain* incomplete. That's actually just as bad, if not worse, than not posting any pictures at all. Step-by-step tutorials are actually what we need more of, as it gives others ideas for their own airport and instills an idea of how long this process *really* takes. Our society is inundated with instant gratification; however, there's a plethora of old sayings that include "good things are worth waiting for" or "good things come to those who wait"

[ContinentalAirlinesLover]

That's a good rule. Thanks

[Antesyd]

Ok, sorry for criticizing LEGO. I was building with LEGO for 3 hours yesterday, with my daughter.

Make sure the the topics are more about tips how to make an airport instead of posting pics your airport. The only pics should be about how to make it look like this?...
We do have a GALLERY for showing of the airport... And may persons here tend to forgot about that gallery and are posting in the Model Airport forum instead. So just move the pictures.

//Antesyd

oo and you can't have "imaginary routes" on your own personal airport..

which is DUMB...its your personal airport correct?
some guys are just so petty here .

[LOT 737-300]

Originally Posted by BAvsVA

oo and you can't have "imaginary routes" on your own personal airport..

which is DUMB...its your personal airport correct?
some guys are just so petty here .

You can have "fantasy flights", but people are talking about airports that are never built, but eternally in the "planning" stages having those flights being made and every week, having a new post about new "flights" with nothing else, no pictures of the model, no pictures of anything, and entire threads about them. To be honest though, when I used to do them, I preferred to to do those in private, via PM or some kind of live chat, like an IM program or the W900 Chat when that was still around, mostly because no one wants to read people planning flights with their models on the forum itself.

[Antesyd]

Let's not knock the LEGO. Given some serious effort and creativity, you can actually do some good stuff with it. It's all a matter of effort used, if you take the time to make a nice design, and take the time to make sure you use the right colors and elements, I don't see why it should be knocked on. Think about it like using a block of wood. Some airports we have seen are just that, an unpainted block of wood with a jetway or two attached to it. Then we have the guys that could take that block of wood and make it into a dead on diorama of a real historical terminal. So in short, it's not what you use, it's how you use it.

On the other hand, I am getting tired of the "prebuilt" airports (Geminiports/herports) and the Pre-printed-ports (template of a building, print it out, then print out the tarmac.) My opinion is that it is about as creative and filled with effort as a block with a jetway sticking out of it. The fact that I see those get an insane amount of compliments is just sad in my opinion too. Hell at some points I'm tempted to pull out my VVS USSR Visor cap put both of my herpa jetways on it, put some of my planes around it, snap photos and say that's my model of SVO-1 just as a joke (and commentary).

I don't mind seeing even somewhat simple works done by hand though. Usually then, some good advise for improvement can be given, and a good technique that will eventually evolve can start there.

You are both correct and wrong. You are wrong when you say that print out is wrong, ok, if it is pixelport, but not if you designed it yourself. We are after one thing, realism(I agree Herport are not realistic except for some of the accessories). And realism is not easy, it comes out of practising. Of course an airport made out of just wooden blocks or LEGO can be good, if it is you first. LEGO is the best toy ever invented and if you are reproducing Billund airport the it can be ok, one time, but then it should be obvious that it does not produce a good enough result. I myself made a LEGO airport and used old printerpaper to print the taxi ways, when I was 12. it was fun. But because it is the improvement that we shall applaud, it is not good to use the same lame methods over and over again just because we give the guy compliments. Some of us here have made 5-6 or more airports without showing any evidences of improvement. First blocks(LEGO) , then blocks (LEGO) with some details, handmade or printed and so on. Depends on your computer skills. If you have non and think that it can produce a better result using hand brush, fine. But analyse the result and improve...
I made my whole tarmac in Photoshop, because it irritates me so much to see lines that are not straight and realistic. I will probably use a mix of paint and printouts for the buildings as I don't have a 3D printer. As a plastic modeller I know to use the materials I can find. But no one should ever know what material that really is...



//Antesyd

[LOT 737-300]

Originally Posted by Antesyd

You are both correct and wrong. You are wrong when you say that print out is wrong, ok, if it is pixelport, but not if you designed it yourself. We are after one thing, realism(I agree Herport are not realistic except for some of the accessories). And realism is not easy, it comes out of practising. Of course an airport made out of just wooden blocks or LEGO can be good, if it is you first. LEGO is the best toy ever invented and if you are reproducing Billund airport the it can be ok, one time, but then it should be obvious that it does not produce a good enough result. I myself made a LEGO airport and used old printerpaper to print the taxi ways, when I was 12. it was fun. But because it is the improvement that we shall applaud, it is not good to use the same lame methods over and over again just because we give the guy compliments. Some of us here have made 5-6 or more airports without showing any evidences of improvement. First blocks(LEGO) , then blocks (LEGO) with some details, handmade or printed and so on. Depends on your computer skills. If you have non and think that it can produce a better result using hand brush, fine. But analyse the result and improve...
I made my whole tarmac in Photoshop, because it irritates me so much to see lines that are not straight and realistic. I will probably use a mix of paint and printouts for the buildings as I don't have a 3D printer. As a plastic modeller I know to use the materials I can find. But no one should ever know what material that really is...



//Antesyd

Sorry, I should have made myself a bit more clear on this point, when I am referring to printing out stuff, I'm mostly referring to pre-made templates, such as the airgami terminals and the SAS md90 foils, and with no special modifications, just those damn tarmac foils plopped down around the building. In my opinion it just shows about as much effort and creativity as a herport/Gemport. It's actually quite insulting to think that these get more compliments than some of the fully handmade masterpieces too.

If someone goes through the trouble of custom making everything on a computer from scratch, then that is certainly a case I'd applaud them. As that certainly does show some creativity and effort.

So in summary, if I notice someone tries to make something that resembles a good effort, whether by hand or by custom, I will try to comment, and usually encourage their works and give the best constructive criticism I can. If they just post a herport/gemport/airgamislashsasmd90groundfoilport, you'll likely see me release a sigh of disappointment. I usually don't mind a bit of modification to spice up a those premade elements, but in their original form, I just see it as just overdone and repetitive.

[Antesyd]

Nice. Then we almost agree... :-)

//Antesyd

really

well my thread about my airport which has imaginary routes was closed "as no one was interested"

[lufthansa340]

Originally Posted by BAvsVA

really

well my thread about my airport which has imaginary routes was closed "as no one was interested"

It was closed because it was more about your imaginary routes than it was about a MODEL AIRPORT. The term "MODEL AIRPORT" implies that there needs to be a physical, miniature representation of an actual airport or one of your own design. This section is not for airports that only exist in one's mind.

[thornet28]

Finally, a little order in this part of the wings900 forum. I got rather tired of seeing "empty" model airport threads that state, "I will be building my model airport soon. Stay tuned for updates!" Then two weeks later, "finished painting terminal! More updates to come!"
PS: Nice Fisher Price airport, beaitfully constructed. People look to be 1:25 scale and plane looks to be about 1:300 scale.....what kind of plane do you think it is? I'm sure it uses the latest in avionics and fly-by-wire technology. Probably handles like a dream and is ultra fuel efficient. The Fisher Price Airline is top-class, I'm sure. Seating arrangement is probably first-class only and in-flight beverage services include chardonnay and martinis made to order. lol. Thanks for sharing.
And thankyou for the added discipline among the model airport forum.

[md11crj700]

I just put a link to my web site which has the pictures on it, that way the thread is not SO long.