Link: Copy link
Yeah, I can see why you differentiate - the same plane would have the same kind of 'usage' marks (exhaust, oil streaks) in all conditions, but would have completely different 'weathering' depending on where it was located, the specific season depicted (the north of France is muddy and wet in winter, drier and dustier in summer)... But I suspect that most people use the term 'weathering' in discussion to describe any marks that occur when a plane is in service, and hasn't either just come out of a factory or been freshly repainted & cleaned.jvenables wrote: Interesting thread discussion but at the risk of being pedantic, it seems to me that few (if any) of the photos attached by respondents are actually displays of "weathering". Maybe it's just me, but I have always considered "weathering" to be the manifestation of alterations to the original finish due to environmental factors, including fading or bleaching of paintwork; streaking from rainfall; stone chipping; abrasion by dust, sand or ice; mud splatters; etc, etc. Effects such as heavy exhaust stains, oil & fuel streaks, etc don't fall into the "weathering" category in my opinion (though I admit I'm at a loss to what term I would categorise them under). Just my two cents' worth... feel free to shoot me down in flames.
Not trying to put you on the spot, but precisely this sort of post....telling other builders in condescending/authoritative tone how they SHOULD build their models....is where the discussion always goes sideways as far as I am concerned.wally7506 wrote: Great. You showed some pictures of heavily weathered airplanes. Not all of them get this dirty. If you have A picture of a heavily weathered airplane then, to be accurate, you should build to that picture.
That being said, if you have A picture of ONE heavily weathered airplane and you build ALL of your subjects to that standard or instance then you are likely over-weathering your airplane.