>>8557129>Tamiya's T-62Primitive model but at least good to assemble.
>Dragons T-72 or T-80?Zvezda repacked them, fucking garbage. Especially when they did diesel version of T-80 Dragon just made a different engine deck and added "just cut the half of tank hull and glue this one to it".
>Academy's Mig-21?Academy's Mig-23 is even worse.
Or Italeri Tu-22M.
But that's when they had good guessing skills.
Earlier models are either hilariously incorrect (google IS-3 by Aurora) or outright based on fictional and fake news about Soviet forces (Like these Mig-15/17/19) (Funny thing is, USAF had already captured and studied Mig-15s from Korea and had good intel on 17 and 19 and yet they kept feeding trash to aviation enthusiasts).
I had a hobby of googling old Jane's and magazines, look up their guesstimation of Soviet forces, then comparing it with actual info. Sometimes hilarious, sometimes obvious disinformation spread by US AND USSR intelligence.
>>8557141Come on man, Zvezda fucked up with modelling correct PAK FA exterior despite having almost exclusive amount of info on it (they had to re-make the model).
>The cockpit of the Mig-1.44 is pretty much unknown.Considering the fact that it was never complete to begin with (just like Su-47 they had never finished electronics for the cockpit) it is not surprising.
>>8557136And yes, no matter how accurate the models will be, there will ALWAYS be whiny rivet-counter full of "REEE WHEN I HAVE SERVED IN THE ARMY ON THE SAME TANK WE HAD HANDRAILS 3MM LOWER THAN ON THIS MODEL, TO THE TRASHCAN IT GOES".
IMO they just have to make it moderately plausible so it would be ok for average joe AND leave room for super-detailed ultra-correct resin-p.e. conversions for those that like it hardcore.
