What should we NOT still see on models these days?

[zenrat]

Indeed, pilot and crew figures are always a welcome feature in aircraft kits but i agree with Fred, if no pilot is included then at least have seat belts. And speaking of those, they could be separate parts from the seat, considering the current level of the molding technology.

Agreed, pilot and two seats would be nice - one with belts for an empty aircraft and one without for the little man (or woman) to sit in.
In fact, some women pilots would be nice.  They have been allowed to take the controls for quite a while now.
And while we are on the subject of pilots, make them with separate arms like the Hasegawa pilot sets rather than the usual crude self pleasurers.

[DogfighterZen]

The two seats would be a good idea too but i believe there are already a few kits with a clean seat and separate belts though, so i don't know what would be the kit makers' choice on that matter.
The Revell 1/72 NATO pilots set has female pilot figure too but that would also be a good trend to follow.

[martinbayer]

One seat with moulded on belts should be sufficient, since the back of a seated pilot figure could be contoured accordingly to fit over the moulded belts.

[The Wooksta!]

I completely disagree with moulded belts because the generally look cack.

[The Rat]

I completely disagree with moulded belts because the generally look cack.

And a pain to get rid of if they do look cack!

[DogfighterZen]

I completely disagree with moulded belts because the generally look cack.

Totally agree! Most of the times they just look like something came out the pilot's behind when he got off the seat...

[zenrat]

I completely disagree with moulded belts because the generally look cack.

And a pain to get rid of if they do look cack!

Which is why i suggested two seats.  One with and one without.  That way you don't have to chisel the belts off to seat a pilot or to use PE (or tape or whatever) belts.
With modern moulding technology it should be perfectly possible to produce a 1/72 seat with moulded in belts which looked acceptable.

[Dizzyfugu]

Personally, I'd love to see PE parts disappear. I have never seen the real benefit of these mostly wee parts, except that they are used to justify a bloated price tag for mediocre kits. And when you see what's possible with IP technology and simple plastic, which is also easier to integrate into a kit than metal parts, even for short run kits; take a look at the HUMA Fa 223 Drache kit - there are stunningly delicate and crisp IP parts included!

[DogfighterZen]

Personally, I'd love to see PE parts disappear. I have never seen the real benefit of these mostly wee parts, except that they are used to justify a bloated price tag for mediocre kits. And when you see what's possible with IP technology and simple plastic, which is also easier to integrate into a kit than metal parts, even for short run kits; take a look at the HUMA Fa 223 Drache kit - there are stunningly delicate and crisp IP parts included!

I'm 100% with you there, IP tech is so much better these days that it's up to the PE parts standard, except for grills and vent type of stuff, from what i've seen so far.
Besides, it would end the need for CA glue that can easily ruin the parts if not applied in very small doses...

[zenrat]

Oh I don't know.  Maybe for 1/72 aircraft, but PE has its place in other scales and subjects.

[Nick]

Ejection pin marks in visible places like on the outside of the fuselage or tops of wings.

Sprue gates on parts where no matter how carefully you cut them away there is still an obvious dent or dip. Worst places include the leading edge of wings and bottom side of canopies.

Misprinted decal sheets. Roundel centres in the wrong place etc.

[chrisonord]

Personally, I'd love to see PE parts disappear. I have never seen the real benefit of these mostly wee parts, except that they are used to justify a bloated price tag for mediocre kits. And when you see what's possible with IP technology and simple plastic, which is also easier to integrate into a kit than metal parts, even for short run kits; take a look at the HUMA Fa 223 Drache kit - there are stunningly delicate and crisp IP parts included!

Totally agree there  with 172nd scale  stuff.  I have 2 part built vehicles  that I  was looking forward to  building, only to  be stumped by the  fiddly  annoying  p.e. parts  the manufacturers  in their infinite wisdom  thought  necessary  to make  important parts from. My heart sinks whenever I see the stuff.

[Dizzyfugu]

There's only one occasion when I came across PE parts where I found them to be useful, also, because there was no IP alternative: on the Special Hobby He 100 kit, for the landing gear cover doors. The aircraft is so tiny and delicate, here I found the material to make some sense. But I almost never use optional PE parts when the kit offers them, I rather scratch alternatives from plastic. But that's personal taste. However, I could live happily without the extras, and also with lower price levels.

[Old Wombat]

I don't mind a reasonable level of PE, it has its place. I, for one, would love to see all radio aerial mounts & pitot tubes replaced with PE.

Having used some Eduard PE on several of my 1/48 builds I can say that in that scale it adds quite a bit over even good IP.

Rather appreciate thin, subtle panel lines, too (but not panel trenches).

Blatantly obvious ejection pin marks & stupidly-placed, overly-large sprue gates are a definite "should not be".

(Note: Pre-painted PE seatbelts "should not be" (sorry Eduard), they have a universal habit of the paint cracking & lifting off the PE when being moulded into position; maybe supply decals to go over them once in situ, or for the metallic bits, with the rest painted by the modeller.)

[Weaver]

Bad research.

When you can prove the manufacturer wrong with half-an-hour's Googling, you kinda resent paying £30 for the kit.

Looking at you, Trumpeter...