Hugo Pereira
A Fixture
Hello Miss Melanie
I ask you apologies for this miss understanding…. My apologies for any inconvenience…
Thank you so much.
With best regards
Hugo
German Medieval Knight
- Thread starter Hugo Pereira
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Hello Miss Melanie
I ask you apologies for this miss understanding…. My apologies for any inconvenience…
Thank you so much.
With best regards
Hugo
Hugo Pereira
A Fixture
Hello my FRIEND
I didn’t saw you… you visit Teldford? It was a very intensive show because the Lancaster Tail Gunner. Many people doing reserves and want understand how we did it… We had 3 interviews with magazines because they took a lot photos and they will do a article of 3D print and the Lancaster. I’m sorry if I didn’t saw you… My apologies…
Thank you so much.
Big hug
Hugo
that is very nice that you have planned something for D-Day,im absolute looking forward for that
thanks a lot friend
and im not worried,I know there is gonna be something for D-Day,I know you buddythank you
Mario
TERRYSOMME1916
A Fixture
Hugo excellent, I will take the 120mm full figure version if they are still available, tried to order on website but it couldn't calculate he shipping to Northern Ireland, UK, you sent me the Viking and other knight last month.
TERRY
TERRY
mortier
A Fixture
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,782
I had the same problem with the calculate shipping
fogie
A Fixture
Everyone has their own view of course, but I find it odd that some should
question the level of texture these pieces carry. I find those textures totally
miraculous - leather, open weave or tightly stitched padded textiles, tarnished
iron, chainmail - are all absolutely astonishing, and will be thrilling to paint.
They're the key element of RP's figures......bravo Hugo !
Mike
question the level of texture these pieces carry. I find those textures totally
miraculous - leather, open weave or tightly stitched padded textiles, tarnished
iron, chainmail - are all absolutely astonishing, and will be thrilling to paint.
They're the key element of RP's figures......bravo Hugo !
Mike
Steve Brodie
PlanetFigure Supporter
Hi Hugo
Very impressive release here , full of textures and details , so much to paint
Hope to see the new releases up close when possible
Best wishes to you and Nuno
Nap
Very impressive release here , full of textures and details , so much to paint
Hope to see the new releases up close when possible
Best wishes to you and Nuno
Nap
Hugo Pereira
A Fixture
VerSacrum
PlanetFigure Supporter
Just unpacked this figure for the second time and I have to agree with Melanie's criticism here. While RP models are nice these textures are somewhat overdone and they start coming off as gimmicky and not historically accurate. The breastplate and great helm here look more corroded than museum pieces of the time, which is funny because they don't exist on Pogosyan's original sculpt (the man knows what he's doing, even if you choose not to credit him for some reason) and seem to have been added during production.
Last edited:
Oda
A Fixture
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 5,492
Oleg's the man alright.He is very well versed in the arms and armour of the Middle ages indeed.
Oda.
VerSacrum
PlanetFigure Supporter
Which is why I don't think it's a good approach to historical modelling to take perfectly fine, thoroughly researched models by historical experts who work from references (in this case Pogosyan and the Churburg cuirass), slap some fancy textures on there because apparently that really impresses some people whether they make sense or not, and then release it without crediting the original artwork.
The completely ridiculous woodgrain and leather jacket you added to Oleg's viking is another good example.
Last edited:
kevininpdx
A Fixture
I have to agree. Too much for me. I only have one RP model in the GA. It doesn’t suffer from over the top texture like a lot of their more recent releases. That being said the crazy textures and patterns is their style. I’m sure their serious fans like it.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 5,867
This has turned into an interesting discussion. It reminds me a bit of how some guys on the aircraft side of the hobby disagree on whether or not the panel lines are too deep on certain kits. I guess it all boils down to personal preferences and opinions, some preferring slightly "exaggerated" textures while others like things to be a bit more subtle and understated.
Personally I don't mind things being a bit more prominent, as it can help highlight things in scale that would otherwise be lost. And I see nothing wrong with the texture on that Viking's shield. I would imagine that in 9th-11th century Scandinavia, wooden shields would probably have been roughly hewn, with the ability withstand an axe or sword blow likely deemed much more important then a nice, perfectly smooth finish. Which probably would in any case have been unattainable with the woodworking tools available at the time.
But who's right and who's wrong here? I'd say everybody and nobody. Modelling is a constant push & pull between realism and interpretation. Between accuracy and aesthetics. Between strict "historical accuracy" (as the prevailing received wisdom understands it) and "f**k it, that's close enough for rock & roll". Or between something that might not be "historically accurate" but actually looks pretty damn good and is actually a lot more visually interesting. And people will always disagree about this stuff. Because in the end most of it is just a huge great ball of subjectivity.
I'd argue that it's also presumptuous to start out from an assumption that accuracy & realism are every modeller's absolute end goal every time he/she picks up a brush. Or indeed every sculptor's absolute end goal when they detail a new piece. Because everything's on a spectrum. Strict "accuracy" can be boring anyway, and a finish that leans more towards the artistic than the realistic can be more visually appealing.
Case in point: Soldiers of all eras out on campaign in the field probably did (and do) get a lot more dirty, dusty & muddy than how we paint their scale miniature counterparts. But if we were aiming for strict 100% "realism" & "accuracy", all we'd end up with in scale would be everything in various shades of greys and browns with much of the detail & attractive/interesting uniform features etc. obscured. And so to a greater or lesser degree "accuracy" & "realism" get sacrificed in favour of visual interest and appeal.
So basically, when most modellers talk about "realism", what they really mean is that they (maybe even subconsciously) pick certain attractive elements that happen in reality and apply them, while at the same discarding other aspects of reality that they don't like and/or that would reduce the model's visual appeal.
Years ago I used to get hung up on the whole "accuracy" thing. But not any more. I've come to believe that the beauty of this hobby is that aside from the basics relating to anatomy, nothing is mandatory and there really are no rules in terms of style, because the figures we paint are not reality itself but artistic interpretations of reality. These days I care far more about the quality of execution than "accuracy". I do like models that skew towards realism, but I'll also happily look at and appreciate an "unrealistic" style if it's done well.
Anyway I've rambled on for longer than I intended, but hopefully it makes sense!
- Steve
Personally I don't mind things being a bit more prominent, as it can help highlight things in scale that would otherwise be lost. And I see nothing wrong with the texture on that Viking's shield. I would imagine that in 9th-11th century Scandinavia, wooden shields would probably have been roughly hewn, with the ability withstand an axe or sword blow likely deemed much more important then a nice, perfectly smooth finish. Which probably would in any case have been unattainable with the woodworking tools available at the time.
But who's right and who's wrong here? I'd say everybody and nobody. Modelling is a constant push & pull between realism and interpretation. Between accuracy and aesthetics. Between strict "historical accuracy" (as the prevailing received wisdom understands it) and "f**k it, that's close enough for rock & roll". Or between something that might not be "historically accurate" but actually looks pretty damn good and is actually a lot more visually interesting. And people will always disagree about this stuff. Because in the end most of it is just a huge great ball of subjectivity.
I'd argue that it's also presumptuous to start out from an assumption that accuracy & realism are every modeller's absolute end goal every time he/she picks up a brush. Or indeed every sculptor's absolute end goal when they detail a new piece. Because everything's on a spectrum. Strict "accuracy" can be boring anyway, and a finish that leans more towards the artistic than the realistic can be more visually appealing.
Case in point: Soldiers of all eras out on campaign in the field probably did (and do) get a lot more dirty, dusty & muddy than how we paint their scale miniature counterparts. But if we were aiming for strict 100% "realism" & "accuracy", all we'd end up with in scale would be everything in various shades of greys and browns with much of the detail & attractive/interesting uniform features etc. obscured. And so to a greater or lesser degree "accuracy" & "realism" get sacrificed in favour of visual interest and appeal.
So basically, when most modellers talk about "realism", what they really mean is that they (maybe even subconsciously) pick certain attractive elements that happen in reality and apply them, while at the same discarding other aspects of reality that they don't like and/or that would reduce the model's visual appeal.
Years ago I used to get hung up on the whole "accuracy" thing. But not any more. I've come to believe that the beauty of this hobby is that aside from the basics relating to anatomy, nothing is mandatory and there really are no rules in terms of style, because the figures we paint are not reality itself but artistic interpretations of reality. These days I care far more about the quality of execution than "accuracy". I do like models that skew towards realism, but I'll also happily look at and appreciate an "unrealistic" style if it's done well.
Anyway I've rambled on for longer than I intended, but hopefully it makes sense!
- Steve
Last edited:
