Model assembly instructions: Preferences?

[Anonymous]

I'm creating assembly instructions for some scale model wood structure kits.I've done some that are isometric drawings with notes & arrows & step by step instructions. I've done others that are just photos of the assembly process and some commentary. These are laser cut wood houses & small buildings and though some skill & care is required, it is not a complex operation.

For the most part, the assembly order is pretty forgiving and it's often a matter of preference to the modeler. Such as: assemble the basic structure, then apply trim to doors & windows or completely detail the wall panels before combining them into a structure. It just doesn't matter in most cases and whichever the modeler prefers is the right way. Since there is really no right way instruct someone to do many of the steps, I tend to suggest a few methods and let the modeler decide.

I'm wondering if the general preference is for a step-by-step set of instructions with diagrams and arrows & numbered parts with the tab "A" into slot "A" kind of detail or a set of photos of sub-assemblies with the assumption that the photo & a few directions and suggestions would suffice?

I haven't had any complaints yet but purchasers seem to have been more cratsman kit oriented to begin with. I wonder if I'm I assuming too much skill & intuitiveness on the part of the modeler?

Of course the real purpose of this post is that I'm tired of writing instruction sheets.

Wayne

[Fergmiester]

This maybe a personal preference thing where some of us like photos, while others like the step by step. Some people percieve things differently then others, it's a right vs. left brain thing.

I find both helpful. If you were to print one set of instructions on one side and the other type of instruction on the other. you would satisfy a lot more people.

As I'm getting into these type of kits more and more, it's getting easier.

Long winded written Instructions do not work for me. Pictures, diagrams (3D), and bullet descriptions are by far the easiest method for me.

Regards
Fergie

[Anonymous]

I agree with Fergie regarding the pictures and diagrams. Also with this type, you don't have to make printed instructions in 450 languages!

[selector]

Agree with the last posting. BUT...quality control is paramount when it comes to either form of instruction. In my limited (but recently substantial by comparison) experience, instructions that contain errors can confound and bring things to a grinding halt. Also, the instructions must be comprehensive to the extent that all required steps are described, or, at least alluded to. Nothing worse than missed steps that require 'interpolation', right or wrong though it may be.

[simon1966]

Photos are fine, but the quality of the reproduction of the photos needs to be good. I have recently worked some kits with B and W photos that were poorly photocopied and were essentially useless.

[IRONROOSTER]

Well the reason I buy a kit is because all the parts are gathered together and there is a set of instructions with drawings. The better the drawings the fewer instruction details I need. My experience with pictures is that they are not a substitute for drawings usually because they don't show enough detail.
Enjoy
Paul

[tatans]

Isometric "blow ups"(exploded views) were a favourite for field hands assembling gas and oil compressor stations in Southern Alberta, we included basic dimensions but very little, if any, written assembly instructions. A new "boss" (brother-in-law) arrived on the scene and reverted back to mostly written instructions, costs skyrocketed, mistakes rose 50%, 1 month jobs took 3 months, field hands quit, as did most of us draftsmen, he is still floundering around in the oil patchmaking obscene wages, and you wonder why gasoline is $2.00 a gallon ((87 cents a litre).

[Anonymous]

This thread brings up one my pet peeves: Bad kit instructions. I find this a lot in all types of kits. Lots of times I have had to pull out all the tricks to make stuff work because of poorly written, incomplete instructions.

Lest I seem like an unthankful complainer, I have to say that putting together anything for sale like a kit (I publish music) is a lot of work and it is easy to make mistakes. I think all of us applaud the efforts of all the small kit makers out there. You guys certainly aren’t rolling in the cash (at least from selling kits) and we all benefit from your labor of love. Having said that, most directions I see could be better.

I second the comments about accuracy and completeness of the plans. Have several people (not just your expert modeler friends) build the kit with provided instructions before the kit is released!!! It is my belief that the kit maker should have some one else write the instructions so that the writer will not mentally fill in any missing steps and not write them out. Many kits go un-built for years. It could be a long time before the maker gets feedback on the directions from actual users. By then it will be too late to make changes as the kit may not even be in production. I think good drawings trump photos...but it is nice to have both.

BTW: the plans for FSM kits are so good that people seek them out and they have become collectible. I guess it got to be so bad with people asking for plans to old kits that Sellios won’t send out replacement copies without proof of purchase..

[jwr_1986]

I have to agree with the concept of quality Isometric drawings. If the assemby is relatively simple drawings can convey the message quickly with little chance of an interpretation error. Plus with drawings you eliminate the old step A)... Step B)Before step A do this...

Jesse

[trolleyboy]

I prefer to "see" how the part fits so pictures a few arrow's and some breif instructions(read point form) are usually the best. Rob

[Anonymous]

I second Trainnut1250's comments re having other people try assembling the kit with the instructions before offering it to the public. I've had some great kits with really poor instructions over the years, and this can be really frustrating, especially when new to the hobby.

One of the worst instructions I've had the displeasure to work with was for a Rio Grande Models HO scale rail steam shovel. The kit was one of their earlier ones and the parts themselves were great. The plan was an exploded diagram, but the parts were just sitting in space with no indication where they attached to each other.

To add to the confusion, the instruction referred to many of the parts by their protoype names, without a listing of what was what - "attach the clevis to the fulcrum" or something like that. Since I was new to the hobby, I thought it was my lack of knowledge that was the problem. A few parts that I glued together the way I assumed they went together later had to be removed as they interfered with later parts.

I later read a review of the kit in a magazine, and they too complained about the poor instuctions, so I wasn't my lackof knowledge at fault. Their later kits got better.

I can still recall my first Campbell kit assembly. It was kind of intimidating, that large sheet with all of the text, photos and plans. But slogging through it one step at a time made things seem easier. Later kits were even easier.

I like structure kits with isometric drawings, but since I have a background in drafting, this may not be useful for everyone. Some modelers with no experience in reading plans may be at a disadvantage when using any kit plans.

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

I like instructions with clearly worded text and a reasonable number of diagrams, particularly for those steps that are very simple to do but tricky to explain (every kit has at least one). The ones that are mildly irritating are the ones where they assume you want to completely build the model first and then paint it - my approach is to build in sub-assemblies (which will be painted in different colours), then do the final assembly.

[simon1966]

Wayne, I looked at your web site, any plans to make any of these kits avaialble in HO scale?

[Anonymous]

No firm plans yet, Simon, but then, I don't know what i'm going to make for breakfast yet. I model in N Scale myself & this project grew out a combination of my freelance CAD work and having to make what I need for my own layout. It's a "cottage industry" & I'm moving slow, learning more as I go and trying to have some fun with it along the way.

Actually, I've been writing kits instructions for for 15 years, but instructions for 1:1 kits, houses & other structures built in modular home factories. In that setting, nearly every part was detailed or dimensioned, but except in unusual designs, the order & method of assembly was not since the assembly-line system provided for that knowledge. Here, it's very much the reverse. The parts get detailed in the CAD drawing for use by the laser cutter, but it can't be assumed every modeler will know how to put it together without some degree of guidance.

There is a certain degree of competancy & skill that has to be assumed though, from knowing which is the business end of a hobby knife to more subtle modeling skills. The hard part is knowing where to stop relying on those assumed skills and start instructing. "Tab A into Slot A" may be overkill for most but "...using fine sandpaper, miter the ridge ends of the roof hips only enough that they join squarely while maintaining a 9/12 pitch" may leave some desiring more direction.

That's actually a good example of my main problem in writing these; when I ask the modeler to modify a part by beveling an edge, sometimes to an odd angle. My CAD program could give the exact angle & the dimension across the face to 8 decimal places and the instructions would look complete, but it would be meaningless to anyone without scientific instruments on their workbenches. I wonder if it's enough when I say "sand slowly, removing just a little of the bottom edge at a time, keep the edge straight and keep test fitting until the parts join cleanly."

I appreciate all the comments so far and, as much as I don't want to, I'll be spending more time on the instructions sheets, providing both photos & iso drawings and only as much written text as is necessary. (I tend to be long-winded at times.)

Thanks again for these and any other comments.

Wayne