In a time warp?

[PR19_Kit]

Back in the 60-70s the manufacturers seemed to be in competition with each other to have the maximum amount of parts in their kits, to such an extent that they posted the number on the box lids sometimes! At the time I suspect it was targeted at the younger modellers, who WERE the market in those days, on the basis that '....my model's got more parts than yours has, so there!'

Over time the market changed so now the majority of kits are sold to 'serious' modellers of an older age group I suspect, like us. 

But worryingly the 'more parts' business seems to be making a come-back, specially among the smaller manufacturers. This has been bought about by my build of the Xtrakit SRA.1 jet flying boat fighter, made by Sword I suspect, and it has a couple of areas where fewer parts would not only have made the build easier, but would have cost them LESS to manufacture!

A case in point are the beaching trolley legs, as seen here.



They have four parts each, the leg, the mounting bracket and two halves of the float, the big blocky thing half way up the leg. Now the float could well have been moulded as part of the leg, and there's already a smaller block moulded there anyway, and you have to glue the two halves of the float around the block.

Why?

It makes no sense, it's just more fiddly and it surely cost them more to cut the extra float moulds than it would to make them part of the leg.

There are other areas in the kit that are similar, but that makes the point the easiest.

[NARSES2]

I think quite often it's a way of cutting down on the number of sprues in a kit ? Also whilst having far more parts they are simpler to tool, plus these kits tend to be low pressure mouldings which would mean you end up with a lot of short shots if you had complicated mouldings.

[jcf]

"Making a comeback"?

The parts count war has been ongoing in the armour modelling world for a long time, and I'm not just talking about individual track links. Some of the kits are truly mindnumbing when it comes to parts count.

This has also become true of aircraft kits from the majority of the model manufacturers, not just the small guys. Tamiya is currently the only major player that doesn't make something multi-part unless there's no other way to produce the assembly without compromising detail. They're often criticised for their logical approach.

[Weaver]

I wonder sometimes if this is partly due to the switch to CAD/CAM. From what I've seen, it encourages an approach of making up a complex object from multiple simple ones instead of drawing the complex one all of a piece, and once you've got that collection of simple sub-components, it must be very tempting to just put them on the sprue instead of trying to figure out how many of them you can 'merge' into one whilst still keeping the end result mouldable.

[scooter]

Tamiya is currently the only major player that doesn't make something multi-part unless there's no other way to produce the assembly without compromising detail. They're often criticised for their logical approach.

Honestly, I like Tamiya's logical approach, and with it their "shake and bake" approach to kits.  It's supposed to be a hobby, not a home study course in engineering. 

[Wardukw]

Kit it's rather easy to explain why theres so many parts in kits today ...it's the never ending hunt for detail.
The more detailed a model the more parts you need to create it.
Jon mention that about armour kits..ive built quite a few with over 900pts and I don't think twice about the amount of parts ..ive still got a Bronco Archer TD  with over a thousand parts to build at some point.

Manufacturers are making kits for what the buyers want these days..details up the arse and yep its getting a bit nuts but your getting a much better model fir your coins.
Companies like Miniart and Bronco and many others started the parts count craze again a while back and it's become the norm now .
It's you just can't mould the detail ppl want in one piece and when one is molded in one part details get lost and the people complain and won't stop moaning about it .
It's the classic line mate " Some is good , more is better " 👍

[Dizzyfugu]

And there's also the hunt for cost reduction. Some modern Revell molds like the 1:72 Me 262 or the F4U are quite detailed, but they have been designed to allow multiple variants of the same kit to be boxed with the same core sprue(s) and a few extra parts, so that only a basic mold is required. As a result the model is über-complicated, to allow all those eventual add-ons to be grafted onto it, to a point that it actually ruins the kit and amkes assembly a PitA.

[Pellson]

My GOD, we're a grumpy bunch! 
While I'm as keen on a rather simplistic late 60's Hasegawa build sequence as anyone, I'm significantly more interested in having more subjects - and versions thereof - catered for than in limiting no of pieces. All those years one couldn't build a proper interceptor Viggen, or ditto Lansen for that matter.. It's sorted now, the Viggen by a simple add-on to the old but useable Heller kit if you don't want to go the lots-of-pieces-route with the new Tarangus issue, and the Lansen also by Tarangus. And these are just the examples coming to mind right now!

Yeah, yeah.. I'll crawl back under my piece of rock.. 

[Beermonster58]

OK, so who are these "serious" modellers and, how does one define "serious" anyway?
Also, who are these buyers that seemingly want ludicrously, over detailed kits with zillions of parts that serve only to make a model over complicated and much more fiddly to build.
Nobody asked me! 😂.
Thing is, it's been my hobby for 50+years. Does that make me a "serious" Modeller? I hope note because the minute I start taking it seriously, is the minute it stops being a hobby.
Maybe I'm in a minority. I don't know but, this buyer most certainly does NOT want a model with a massively high count of stupidly tiny parts,especially for the interiors.
For example, I junked most of the interiors for the Airfix Shackleton and Wellington. Lovely models but, unnecessarily complex in this reviewer's opinion! 😂

Basically, I just bin all such parts if they cannot be seen post assembly. I just don't (personally) see the point in including them and, I don't necessarily think a model is better just because it's got 5,000 parts and, costs a king's random to buy.
I'm all for simplicity on all models. I want to enjoy the experience, not get bogged down and bored with a never ending succession of tiny sub assemblies. I think the worst example is those wretched individual track links that manufacturers seem to think are "essential" in  armour kits.

Yes, they DO look very good but, I'll take the one piece vinyl tracks any day or, at least the "link and length" type that is now commonplace.
Horses for courses I guess. Maybe I'm some sort of heretic for daring to speak against what I personally regard as a very annoying trend. I get that some people like mega complicated, super expensive kits but, I'm not one of them.

I loved the approach Monogram used to take in  trying to provide as much detail as possible on individual parts thereby keeping the overall parts count modest. I wish more companies would adopt such an approach.

My choice anyway. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses otherwise and, I  guess it all boils down to choice in the end.

Maybe there is a case to be made for adopting Eduard's approach? I e, a simpler, basic, (relatively) cheap "weekend edition" for the lazy sods like me and, the "mega, super, duper" edition with additional sprues including all the bells and whistles the detail freaks would want at, a comnensurate additional cost?

I honestly don't know if it would be practical for all companies  but, it might be interesting to compare relative sales figures for each type.

[rickshaw]

Personally I don't see what the problem is.  I simply leave the excess parts off the kit.  They serve no real purpose except as spares for the spares box.

[PR19_Kit]

Kit it's rather easy to explain why theres so many parts in kits today ...it's the never ending hunt for detail.
The more detailed a model the more parts you need to create it.

Not so in the case I illustrated. The floats on the strut could have been moulded all in one piece integral with the strut without losing any of the detail. Not only that, i wouldn't have had to file the mounting block already moulded onto the strut to the extra float bits would actually fit over the outside of it.

That's the lack of forethought that I'm talking about, not the amount of detail etc.

And I'm inclined to go with Beermonster58's thoughts on loads of internal detail which is totally invisible once the model's built, the Airfix Shackleton being a classic case. There's LOADS of parts in there, that take considerable work to assemble, NONE of which can be seen afterwards! Madness. They should try selling it in two versions, one with all  the internal detail for those who think 'But I know it 's in there' and a simpler version for those who just want the airframe itself, as Eduard do.

[Beermonster58]

Personally I don't see what the problem is.  I simply leave the excess parts off the kit.  They serve no real purpose except as spares for the spares box.

😂😂Very true! Except in my case, a lot of them go to feed the bin monster!

[scooter]

I used to use some internal detail parts for structural purposes - bulkheads, floors, and cockpit tubs.  Particularly in 1/72, where I tend to blank out transparencies, the tub serves as a glue point and home for ballast.

[Wardukw]

Kit it's rather easy to explain why theres so many parts in kits today ...it's the never ending hunt for detail.
The more detailed a model the more parts you need to create it.

Not so in the case I illustrated. The floats on the strut could have been moulded all in one piece integral with the strut without losing any of the detail. Not only that, i wouldn't have had to file the mounting block already moulded onto the strut to the extra float bits would actually fit over the outside of it.

That's the lack of forethought that I'm talking about, not the amount of detail etc.

And I'm inclined to go with Beermonster58's thoughts on loads of internal detail which is totally invisible once the model's built, the Airfix Shackleton being a classic case. There's LOADS of parts in there, that take considerable work to assemble, NONE of which can be seen afterwards! Madness. They should try selling it in two versions, one with all  the internal detail for those who think 'But I know it 's in there' and a simpler version for those who just want the airframe itself, as Eduard do.

Oh there's plenty of cases of stupid amounts of detail which are pointless..tanks are perfect examples and aircraft in most cases worse.
The huge parts counts make the kits look better..more technical..basically blinging out the model with numbers which for alot of models is totally unnecessary..it also gives the makers the perfect excuse to make the kits much more expensive but they'll describe it as interesting and detailed making the nazis happy
Mate theres many areas of a model that could easily be simplified with the forethought you mentioned but its those punters who want the numbers.
Sadly I  think the days of big name brands building high end low parts numbered models are a thing of the past .
Alot of the blokes here who build 72nd scale can contest to the difference on parts numbers ..im so glad I don't build 72nd like I used to 
I've got a 72nd Revell He-177 A-5 Greif and it's Skill level 5!!  and it's got 234 parts 
Mate theres a ton of parts for this which shocked me when I got it ..hell of a model tho but damn dude 

[sandiego89]

OK, so who are these "serious" modellers and, how does one define "serious" anyway?
Also, who are these buyers that seemingly want ludicrously, over detailed kits with zillions of parts that serve only to make a model over complicated and much more fiddly to build.
Nobody asked me! 😂.
Thing is, it's been my hobby for 50+years. Does that make me a "serious" Modeller? I hope note because the minute I start taking it seriously, is the minute it stops being a hobby.
Maybe I'm in a minority. I don't know but, this buyer most certainly does NOT want a model with a massively high count of stupidly tiny parts,especially for the interiors......

Basically, I just bin all such parts if they cannot be seen post assembly. I just don't (personally) see the point in including them and, I don't necessarily think a model is better just because it's got 5,000 parts and, costs a king's random to buy.
I'm all for simplicity on all models. I want to enjoy the experience, not get bogged down and bored with a never ending succession of tiny sub assemblies.....

Amen!  I have building for 40+years, I have the money to buy expensive complicated kits, photo-etch details, resin aftermarket bits, but I choose not to.  Give me a 1970's Matchbox kit off the bargain table over a $100+ kit any day.   

I find my enthusiasm wanes after too much time with any build.- give or take 20 hours perhaps.

I was accused of being "old school" on another forum when I professed my interest in simpler modelling, but I have no issue with that.  The market does seem to be chasing the expensive, complicated kits.