Anyone notice...

[Mountain]

That some modern models look more "Plasticky" than in the past and I don't know why?

[centenary]

That some modern models look more "Plasticky" than in the past and I don't know why?

Honestly, no. I think it's the other way round, older models look more plasticky than current day ones.

[Bigmet]

That some modern models look more "Plasticky" than in the past and I don't know why?

That's too broad a question enable a truly relevant response; though I 'broadly' support 'centenary's ' post as regarding RTR OO, that the current product considered overall is much superior in this respect as compared to the Triang, Triang-Hornby and Lima output that was in production before the move to China.

If you would identify the current productions that are "Plasticky" as compared to some identified past products that didn't look "Plasticky", then we can make better informed replies specific to what you perceive.

[Mountain]

I saw a lovely new model in the flesh demonstrated on a layout at an exhibition. Now the way the daylight shined on the matt paint did not make the model look quite right. Plasticky isn't exactly the right word but when one sees something that doesn't look quite right makes one think "Plastic", and if the same paint was used over metal parts, it would reflect differently. I hope that makes sense?

What I am getting at is certain shades and colours are admittedly hard to make models look right if a matt finish is used. It isn't easy I admit.

Metal does look like metal as it has a certain something that it is hard to disguise.

I have noticed that the more detailed the model is, the more one notices other things.
What I mean by this is that ones mind is less likely to "Fill the gaps" using ones auto-imagination, so things like non-prototypical couplings or the wrong gauge become noticable, when with coarse scale earlier models one could get away with things more.

[aleopardstail]

I saw a lovely new model in the flesh demonstrated on a layout at an exhibition. Now the way the daylight shined on the matt paint did not make the model look quite right. Plasticky isn't exactly the right word but when one sees something that doesn't look quite right makes one think "Plastic", and if the same paint was used over metal parts, it would reflect differently. I hope that makes sense?

What I am getting at is certain shades and colours are admittedly hard to make models look right if a matt finish is used. It isn't easy I admit.

Metal does look like metal as it has a certain something that it is hard to disguise.

I have noticed that the more detailed the model is, the more one notices other things.
What I mean by this is that ones mind is less likely to "Fill the gaps" using ones auto-imagination, so things like non-prototypical couplings or the wrong gauge become noticable, when with coarse scale earlier models one could get away with things more.

I see it a lot in gaming models, you get the very weird situations because light doesn't scale. a lot of models have that toy like quality because even the smoothest satin finish lacks depth.

what some of these models need is a level of shading applying to the paint scheme, so the recesses are a shade darker and perhaps some of the sharp edges a shade lighter - its subtle but when done right it adds depth.

say on a diesel, you have various vents, a very slightly darker outline adds depth that is there in the real thing but not in model form - oh the scale recess is there but light doesn't react to it the same

then metallic paint generally doesn't look like metal, it always looks way too course because of the flecks in the paint instead of a smooth finish

a matt finish can help with some colours, but not others and not on a surface that would have been slightly glossy

also this is where "we have the colour matched exactly" falls flat. look at a car up close, now go and stand back so the same car is about the size to your eyes than a OO scale car is.. the colour looks different, N gauge gets hit even worse, you really want everything slightly desaturated and lighter to look like its more in the distance which can really sell the illusion

[Mountain]

I saw a lovely new model in the flesh demonstrated on a layout at an exhibition. Now the way the daylight shined on the matt paint did not make the model look quite right. Plasticky isn't exactly the right word but when one sees something that doesn't look quite right makes one think "Plastic", and if the same paint was used over metal parts, it would reflect differently. I hope that makes sense?

What I am getting at is certain shades and colours are admittedly hard to make models look right if a matt finish is used. It isn't easy I admit.

Metal does look like metal as it has a certain something that it is hard to disguise.

I have noticed that the more detailed the model is, the more one notices other things.
What I mean by this is that ones mind is less likely to "Fill the gaps" using ones auto-imagination, so things like non-prototypical couplings or the wrong gauge become noticable, when with coarse scale earlier models one could get away with things more.

I see it a lot in gaming models, you get the very weird situations because light doesn't scale. a lot of models have that toy like quality because even the smoothest satin finish lacks depth.

what some of these models need is a level of shading applying to the paint scheme, so the recesses are a shade darker and perhaps some of the sharp edges a shade lighter - its subtle but when done right it adds depth.

say on a diesel, you have various vents, a very slightly darker outline adds depth that is there in the real thing but not in model form - oh the scale recess is there but light doesn't react to it the same

then metallic paint generally doesn't look like metal, it always looks way too course because of the flecks in the paint instead of a smooth finish

a matt finish can help with some colours, but not others and not on a surface that would have been slightly glossy

also this is where "we have the colour matched exactly" falls flat. look at a car up close, now go and stand back so the same car is about the size to your eyes than a OO scale car is.. the colour looks different, N gauge gets hit even worse, you really want everything slightly desaturated and lighter to look like its more in the distance which can really sell the illusion

That is interesting.

Sometimes one can look at something and it just does not look right, but one does not know why.

[Bigmet]

...I have noticed that the more detailed the model is, the more one notices other things...

Now, in my opinion it is beyond doubt that the better the accuracy of a model (dimensional conformance, overall body form, complete detail fit, paint job) the more noticeable that small errors, omissions, and 'foreign bodies' such as model couplers, become. Many years past Iain Rice identified this as a modelling mantra: strive for consistency, so that nothing announces 'this is a model'.

Not always easy to achieve, and I think this is an aspect where 'different strokes for different folks' applies..

My own particular 'hot button' on tender locos is scale spacing between loco and tender, with representation of the fall plate or cab floor extension present, leaving no gap; such that the crew would be able to safely access the tender front. RTR OO product has been 'variable' in its treatment of this aspect, and often enough inconsistent within a single brand's range. Recognising that the frequently excessive spacing, and daft ideas such as the current 'fashion item' of an unnecessary camming linkage, are driven by the set track minimum radius, and present fevered competition in feature count, there's no alternative but to accept that DIY is the only way. As a result of doing this on RTR OO over these last 25 years and 10 months (from the 1999 release of the Bachmann WD 2-8-0) I might immodestly claim to be expert in getting this done: and the effect on appearance of an otherwise basically accurate model is to very significantly 'ice the cake' in my eyes. But it clearly doesn't matter to many owners, otherwise the brands would have got this right years ago: not only is it not rocket science, it's more like horse and cart science...

[Mountain]

Ahh. The massive gap! Also with coupled rolling stock of various types. I found it odd that while they made attempts to close the gap with coaches, many wagons were actually getting further apart since the NEM days came in, and not just a little further apart, but in some cases, a lot!
It is why I strongly believe that the tension lock coupling is not really that great. Now I am one who believes in 1st radius running as a compromize because not everyone has the space... I also am in favour of slightly shortening longer coaches because it is the overall look as trains pass one is trying to capture. Put it this way. The older Hornby Mk3 coaches which I almost daily saw on HST's that passed where I lived twice a day (Morning and evening, so in the summer months we would visually see them. In winter we would see the lit up coaches as they passed). Now for me, the visual aspect missing was the guards compartment in the coach which came after Hornby had tooled their models. Do you know that I NEVER even knew or noticed the HST coaches that Hornby made were too short until once, many years later I bought a secondhand Lima version (And Lima may have got the length right, but looks wize, Hornby nailed it! I realize Jouef also made Mk3's but the darkened windows they had in the adverts convinced me they didn't look right so I never did buy any).
It did come as a shock to find that Hornby Mk3's were too short. (Re-tooled modern Hornby versions are the right length). Now for around 20 years beyond finding out I kept to the shorter coaches when I was well into 00 gauge B.R. blue era modelling because they looked right and a full set of coaches inbetween two power cars (One was a dummy, and I preferred Limas power cars but Hornby coaches, as Lima got the rear power car windows right for the ones I used to see. Hornby captured the colours better. Hornby were spot on with the colours!) looked good on my layout. If I tried scale length coaches, the HST just looked too long and didn't fit my layout. Scale length was at least a whole Hornby coach length longer, if not more!
Now many modellers (Including myself) tended to avoid Triang coaches, but a modeller on this site used them to model his ficticious railway company, and he repainted them in a slightly lighter blue, and they look absolutely fantastic! He also blackened the window depth so one does not notice the thick plastic at all.. One doesn't even realize they are too short. It all blends in so well! I have since seen a rake of repainted (Into BR blue/grey) Triang shortie Mk1's for sale at Elaines Trains and they looked great!
But like you mentioned... Consistency! If all ones Mk1's are the shorter type and the coaches are carefully repainted, they will look supurb! But if one then adds scale length Mk1's into the mix, it will all look out of kilter. My point is that if one repaints rakes of these Triang Mk1's and re-wheels them (There are easy ways to re-wheel them), one can achieve excellent results in a smaller space. Why I am now a fan of shorter coaches!

But take rakes of wagons or vans. When one watched these pass in real life, one counted them as they passed. Now scale a real length 40 wagon train down into model form and the model form version will be a LOT longer than the scaled down version due to all those coupling gaps between the buffers. One is looking at at least a wagons length extra every ten to twelve wagons.
I didn't even realize how much extra length tension lock couplings gave until I turned to narrow gauge and started making my own couplings and rolling stock. It is actually a massive difference in length to the overall train. Yes, my little waggons and carriages (Doesn't the word "Carriage" sound better than "Coaches" when it comes to narrow gauge? ) are by nature the sorter types seen on narrow gauge railways, so the distance between coupled vehicles will by nature be more noticable, but there is really a big difference between coupled trains if one chooses a closer type of coupling. Five 4 wheel coaches which are about the same length of the short Hornby 4 wheel coaches, will fit in a smaller siding space WITH THE LOCO than three 00 gauge standard length Mk 1 coaches, so I can run a typical 5 coach train in the larger scale in less track space as a Lima 3 car class 117 DMU, and some of this is due to closing the gap inbetween the coaches. Yet, they will still turn on 2ft wide layouts. (I do have one or two recent purchases from another modeller which might, or might not be adaptable to turn those tight curves. We shall see!)

[Bigmet]

Ahh. The massive gap! Also with coupled rolling stock of various types....many wagons were actually getting further apart since the NEM days came in, and not just a little further apart, but in some cases, a lot! ...

Here again, for my interest it's 'apply some DIY' time, and much depends on 'which brand's product?' and 'which time period is modelled?'.

Just regarding freight stock for the late BR steam period, Bachmann's launch of their Blue Riband range was a game changer for me, especially the coupler pocket and their miniature tension lock, more compact than Hornby's version. Now, I don't have a space problem, and still use the 24" minimum radius for OO rule, that went with Peco's Streamline track range, (and only go that small for goods yards worked by small six coupled shunters and the lovely 0-6-0's of pre-group design) and it's 36" ruling radius on the running lines.

For loose coupled goods the Bachmann miniature tension lock coupler is ideal for these track radii. I take the pocket and snip it, and trim down the coupler tail to match - all by eye - so that the 'bumper bar' face is in the same plane as the buffers. Now the wagons buffer up when pushed, but cannot buffer lock, and pull apart 2mm, scale for 6", between buffer heads: perfect for representing the primitive loose coupled operation of the olden days. After a few years running freight trains like this, all of the Bachmann buffer heads had a nicely polished patch.

...while they made attempts to close the gap with coaches...

Bachmann and Hornby between them got off to a good start with loco hauled BR mk1, Pullman Cars and pregroup carriage designs using the kinematic coupling system; but I am still waiting for any brand to get with the action and deliver a modern standard IC225 model. Travelled on these frequently, far and away my favourite of BR's express service trains, so comfortable, and way better than the current Ambiguous Pazuma or anything else currently operating n the UK. Come on guys, you have spent a fortune making Blue Pullmans, Advanced Passenger Failure, Pondaleanos, EMU's and high speed screaming DMU - try the quality... (I have the historic earlier GNR/LNER trains, and the 'last coal train' covered for my survey of past ECML operation, but no 'final and finest' BR express passenger achievement.

[Mountain]

I actually found the early 1980's Hornby Mk2's to have gap reducing qualities and they still went round sharp curves with ease, and this is without the close coupling designs we have today.

[aleopardstail]

I fun the occasional railroad/triang Greasley "almost teak". it amazes me how closely they couple compared to others of a similar age

there are all sorts of compromises here and there, I mean only a few of us have actually manage to take suitable hostages, shrink them and force them to drive the trains on the promise of eventual freedom for example

[Phred]

aleopardstail wrote:
I mean only a few of us have actually manage to take suitable hostages, shrink them and force them to drive the trains on the promise of eventual freedom for example

Grandchildren are useful for that.
'No more screen time until you learn to play with a proper toy!'

[aleopardstail]

aleopardstail wrote:
I mean only a few of us have actually manage to take suitable hostages, shrink them and force them to drive the trains on the promise of eventual freedom for example

Grandchildren are useful for that.
'No more screen time until you learn to play with a proper toy!'

ahh grandkids..

my eldest and her partner came up bringing their then youngest with them.. think he was about 7, her other half was worried he would get bored... eldest laughed and said "not in that house"

he loved it, this was pre-trains working but the slot cars he loved, and aced very quickly, and loved the electronics stuff. think the main thing he loved was a lack of a "no touch" rule and it was "feel free but be careful"

his face when he was making LEDs light up

[Phred]

aleopardstail wrote:
"feel free but be careful"

Agreed. It's worked well for us to date, although the priceless (to us) antiques were placed out of reach during the 'grab anything' baby stage.

And in the end, if something does get broken by accident, it's just 'things'.