Most Popular Type Of Model

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Paul. Having just seen and commented on yer foamboard hovercraft, it would seem that it would be a prime candidate for a CD model. Indeed, you could almost print the plan, paste it on to foamboard and cut it out straight away. All flat panels, a bit of easy shaping for the duct..?

Colin..something the matter with your proof reader??

Ashley

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Ashley,

Don't talk to me about proof reading, still struggling with the Special issue. Forum posts are just an afterthought!

Colin

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Ashley,

Don't talk to me about proof reading, still struggling with the Special issue. Forum posts are just an afterthought!

Colin

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Ashley,

Don't talk to me about proof reading, still struggling with the Special issue. Forum posts are just an afterthought!

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Ashley

The hovercraft would make an ideal subject for CD based plans but the design is to close to Mark Porters original for me to publish, the purpose behind the hovercraft was to test the building with foamboard theory.

Ian / Colin

4ft models have move scope for detail, have a better 'presence' on the water and Historically completed 4ft boats command a higher resale value than 3ft but I take your points about build ability.

Perhaps I should include templates for both sizes.

Paul

Colin re proof reading….perhaps you should opt for better educated contributors and then you wouldn't need to proof raed.

 

 

Edited By Paul T on 11/05/2013 07:38:40

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Ashley

The hovercraft would make an ideal subject for CD based plans but the design is to close to Mark Porters original for me to publish, the purpose behind the hovercraft was to test the building with foamboard theory.

Ian / Colin

4ft models have move scope for detail, have a better 'presence' on the water and Historically completed 4ft boats command a higher resale value than 3ft but I take your points about build ability.

Perhaps I should include templates for both sizes.

Paul

Colin re proof reading….perhaps you should opt for better educated contributors and then you wouldn't need to proof raed.

 

 

Edited By Paul T on 11/05/2013 07:38:40

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Ashley

The hovercraft would make an ideal subject for CD based plans but the design is to close to Mark Porters original for me to publish, the purpose behind the hovercraft was to test the building with foamboard theory.

Ian / Colin

4ft models have move scope for detail, have a better 'presence' on the water and Historically completed 4ft boats command a higher resale value than 3ft but I take your points about build ability.

Perhaps I should include templates for both sizes.

Paul

Colin re proof reading….perhaps you should opt for better educated contributors and then you wouldn't need to proof raed.

 

 

Edited By Paul T on 11/05/2013 07:38:40

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Well Paul, there are five errors in your last post…. Spot the mistake time?

With regard to boat sizes, a 4 ft cabin cruiser will have a beam of around 14 inches and that will simply be too big for many people to find room to construct, transport and store it easily. Wives don't usually take kindly to something like a Sea Queen as the lounge centrepiece. By all means offer a 4 ft option but make the 3 ft one the main marketing focus I would suggest.

As far as proof reading is concerned, it's not really a case of getting better educated contributors. You do sometimes get the situation where someone has submitted wonderful material but lacks the writing skills to get it down properly on paper and the content has to be extensively reworked, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Most proof reading is concerned with more mundane matters. Sentences which go on too long and have to be chopped in half with a full stop. Instances where the author has made assumptions about what the reader will already know which are not necessarily the case and which need a bit of extra explanation added. Adjectives which are repeated too often when alternative words will make the article read better. Too much use of 'also' and 'and' where the writer has had an afterthought and just stuck it on the end of a sentence like an unwanted appendage.

And then there are the cases where a wrong but similar word is used: principle/principal; affect/effect; complimentary/complementary; phased/fazed etc.

Most difficult of all to pick up are the minor spelling and grammatical errors: 'it's' instead of 'its'; 'to' instead of 'too'; missing apostrophes; inappropriate capitalisation and the like. The issue here is that when you re read something you have written your brain sees what you expect to be there rather than what is actually in front of you and this is a real problem. I try to get over it by printing out what is on the computer screen and reading that instead or getting my wife to check for common errors although she can't be expected to pick up the technical stuff. When reading other people's contributions, most of these errors jump out at me first time around but if I miss any then I'm not so likely to see them next time I check because I am already familiar with the subject matter.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Colin

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Well Paul, there are five errors in your last post…. Spot the mistake time?

With regard to boat sizes, a 4 ft cabin cruiser will have a beam of around 14 inches and that will simply be too big for many people to find room to construct, transport and store it easily. Wives don't usually take kindly to something like a Sea Queen as the lounge centrepiece. By all means offer a 4 ft option but make the 3 ft one the main marketing focus I would suggest.

As far as proof reading is concerned, it's not really a case of getting better educated contributors. You do sometimes get the situation where someone has submitted wonderful material but lacks the writing skills to get it down properly on paper and the content has to be extensively reworked, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Most proof reading is concerned with more mundane matters. Sentences which go on too long and have to be chopped in half with a full stop. Instances where the author has made assumptions about what the reader will already know which are not necessarily the case and which need a bit of extra explanation added. Adjectives which are repeated too often when alternative words will make the article read better. Too much use of 'also' and 'and' where the writer has had an afterthought and just stuck it on the end of a sentence like an unwanted appendage.

And then there are the cases where a wrong but similar word is used: principle/principal; affect/effect; complimentary/complementary; phased/fazed etc.

Most difficult of all to pick up are the minor spelling and grammatical errors: 'it's' instead of 'its'; 'to' instead of 'too'; missing apostrophes; inappropriate capitalisation and the like. The issue here is that when you re read something you have written your brain sees what you expect to be there rather than what is actually in front of you and this is a real problem. I try to get over it by printing out what is on the computer screen and reading that instead or getting my wife to check for common errors although she can't be expected to pick up the technical stuff. When reading other people's contributions, most of these errors jump out at me first time around but if I miss any then I'm not so likely to see them next time I check because I am already familiar with the subject matter.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Colin

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Oh dear. I wonder what my mark out of ten was……….

DM

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Oh dear. I wonder what my mark out of ten was……….

DM

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Are you familiar with the concept of negative numbers Dave?

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Are you familiar with the concept of negative numbers Dave?

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Gosh, I only mea t it as sa joke, and here we are geting catsagated by the forom modererator!

BUT printing our is a good way of spotting the wrong stuff. When I do the odd article, and IF I were to be doing any more.. I write loads and then shrink it down a bit to almost article size and then spend probably the entire build correcting it. I have usually written the article before I even start to build, I am so keen.

Oddly enough I find that writing down how you are going to do it, before you do it, focuses the mind quite well, even before picking up the oak log and chisel.

Ashley

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Gosh, I only mea t it as sa joke, and here we are geting catsagated by the forom modererator!

BUT printing our is a good way of spotting the wrong stuff. When I do the odd article, and IF I were to be doing any more.. I write loads and then shrink it down a bit to almost article size and then spend probably the entire build correcting it. I have usually written the article before I even start to build, I am so keen.

Oddly enough I find that writing down how you are going to do it, before you do it, focuses the mind quite well, even before picking up the oak log and chisel.

Ashley

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Ashley, I wasn't castigating anyone, quite the opposite. Mistakes are inevitable and I thought I'd comment on the sort of things that occur. Despite the most rigorous scrutiny, stuff still gets through. I carefully look at contributions, particularly my own, several times before sending them off to the designer. Then when the initial proofs come back for checking I do it all again so that everything will be perfect. And then when the magazine finally hits my doormat I open it up only to see an obvious boo boo which has survived the whole process. That's life I suppose.

All contributors to this year's Special have in fact done very well and I think their efforts will be very much appreciated by the readership.

Everyone has a different way of approaching writing articles. Generally, I just mull it over in my mind, often subconciously, until I sense I'm ready to sit down at the keyboard. Then I usually write the whole thing off the top of my head, so to speak, and usually find that it only needs a bit of tidying up afterwards. It's the photos that seem to take up all the time, selecting and captioning them.

Kit reviews are easy as you basically just describe the process as you go along. With other items you need to think about your approach as there are often several different alternatives. For example, following my recent visit to the RN Submarine Museum for this year's Special I had to decide whether I would take a historical approach or simply describe the place and its exhibits in the order you would typically see them as a visitor. I chose the latter.

Colin

Edited By Colin Bishop, Website Editor on 11/05/2013 14:19:35

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Ashley, I wasn't castigating anyone, quite the opposite. Mistakes are inevitable and I thought I'd comment on the sort of things that occur. Despite the most rigorous scrutiny, stuff still gets through. I carefully look at contributions, particularly my own, several times before sending them off to the designer. Then when the initial proofs come back for checking I do it all again so that everything will be perfect. And then when the magazine finally hits my doormat I open it up only to see an obvious boo boo which has survived the whole process. That's life I suppose.

All contributors to this year's Special have in fact done very well and I think their efforts will be very much appreciated by the readership.

Everyone has a different way of approaching writing articles. Generally, I just mull it over in my mind, often subconciously, until I sense I'm ready to sit down at the keyboard. Then I usually write the whole thing off the top of my head, so to speak, and usually find that it only needs a bit of tidying up afterwards. It's the photos that seem to take up all the time, selecting and captioning them.

Kit reviews are easy as you basically just describe the process as you go along. With other items you need to think about your approach as there are often several different alternatives. For example, following my recent visit to the RN Submarine Museum for this year's Special I had to decide whether I would take a historical approach or simply describe the place and its exhibits in the order you would typically see them as a visitor. I chose the latter.

Colin

Edited By Colin Bishop, Website Editor on 11/05/2013 14:19:35

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Dear All

I bow to popular opinion and will make 3ft the primary size of my next design set.

Paul

ps Colin there are seven errors…..find the mistake time

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Dear All

I bow to popular opinion and will make 3ft the primary size of my next design set.

Paul

ps Colin there are seven errors…..find the mistake time

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Colin. Was absolutely not considering that you were castigating anyone. We all know the failings of the literary standards as displayed by Pauls everyones posts.

Went to the sub museum last year, followed by the Firepower museum. Very interesting. How they managed in some of the early examples of submarine I shall never know. The firepower mus has an interesting very large HMS Victory model in the entrance, populated by loads of crew men and marines, A great model.. will find the pictures I took..

Ashley

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

I wonder if fear of embarrassment over literary standards is the reason why so few people post on this forum.

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

I wonder if fear of embarrassment over literary standards is the reason why so few people post on this forum.

Having tried to read some of the dreadful efforts on other forums I'm actually glad if that is a reason – although I very much doubt it. I get the feeling that some folk are really rather proud of not being able to write proper English.

Colin
Are you trying to soften me up for the cheque?

DM

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Cheque? I thought I was paying you in 2nd class stamps…..

Colin

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Pay??? what is this.. I am unfamiliar with the concept..

Ashley

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

That's fine Ashley, just don't worry about it….

Colin

[Author]

Posts