I just got the new RFM 1/35 M1A2 SEP V2 Abrams with the low profile CROWS and Trophy. I noted that RFM now has additional 3D printed versions of the tracks, in addition to the workable styrene tracks in the kit. I’ve actually been quite happy with the kit tracks on prior RFM kits. I am curious if anyone has been able to compare the kit tracks to the 3D printed tracks and what your thoughts are. Supposedly, the 3D printed tracks have crisper detail, and perhaps more detail. Of course, RFM wants to sell more stuff, but has anyone done a comparison ‘in the flesh’ and whether you think the ‘upgrade’ is worthwhile. Thanks!
Personal choice on if worth it to upgrade. Some people want the crisper detail and sometimes extra detail, some don’t like all the parts and complexity with plastic parts to assemble and prefer the ease of 3D printed track. Not every project has the same requirements. I start with the end goal and work backwards, that will flesh out the key decision points on if it’s worth it. Maybe a tank seating on the tank ramp that’s been through the wash rack is worth the extra detail vs a tank in the field covered in dust and mud where any detail is not visible is not worth it. I get the fomo of knowing about the detail and a new product out. I think “workable” is a marketing gimmick for US tanks and is pointless as they are designed not to have slack where the workable feature would be helpful imo.
As has already been mentioned personal choice. I usually swap out the kit rubber band tracks and use individual links, currently I like Quick wheel, M113 tracks primarily as they do a damaged set which look good but also I like Friulmodel sets as they lend weight to the kit and look good. I have a set of Friulmodel Centurion tracks for an Aust. Centurion and compared these to the styrene set that came with Amusing’s STRV 104 and used the kit set as they looked fine to me and was a click together track. I am personally finding the the individual link sets contained in kit (while sometimes fiddly to put together, I have a 1/16 M5A1 Early and this requires 5 parts per link but that’s the hobby) quite acceptable and only buy a replacement if the replacement improves the look. The M113s in following photos are a couple of my recent builds and the first has Quick Wheel 3d printed tracks and the second (if memory is correct) has R Model metal links, to me both look good.
Personally, I prefer the plastic tracks over the 3D resin-printed tracks - even though I have 3D printed many tracks. Plastic tracks are usually easier to work with - easier to glue, assemble, and less fragile. I have found most of the 3D printed tracks available on the market are over-engineered and contain too many parts even though the details are better.
I agree that too many of the 3D track sets are over-engineered. This particularly applies to “smaller” tracks like PzKpfw I/II, Type 95, T-26, etc. Sorry, trying to pin these tracks using 3D printed pins is impossible and there really is no reason for it and they should just be clip together. And for larger tracks, clip one side and a shorter pin in the other. Either way, there is no sacrifice in detail. I’ve seen a few companies do similar things (like Quick Tracks, Fat Frog, ROCHM) but not enough.
For the oldies amongst us, Anvil Miniatures was doing clip together resin tracks 20 years ago with detail just as good as any at the time (Model Kasten, Fruil), so why do we need to re-learn this when 3D printing is so much easier to work with then resin-casting? I think it’s a bit of an easy way out for manufacturers - clip together requires a bit more testing and exactness to make them tight enough to stay together, but not too tight that you can’t put them together or they break. Using pins is simpler from a design and printing standpoint but not from an assembly standpoint.
Depends on, some of the 3D printed track designs are snap fit, I also rework the designs if needed to be easier to assemble with click. Plastic tracks can be over engineered too and many have ejector pin marks. I prefer the 3D printed ones.
Jon, I agree with you that 3D printed tracks should be clippable, snap together construction. I bought a set of Chino Type 89 track, and the pins were so small I could not pick them up with modern precision ground needle tip tweezers. The only way to grab one was with a wax picking pencil, and that did not allow for the exactness and pressure to insert the pin. The tracks were useless. $45 down the tubes.
However, I do like 3D snap together track, as is produced by DN Studios for example. Easy and quick. 3 parts per link. Styrene tracks have just gotten super silly in their parts count. I think the record is the Magic Factory M10 Booker, with 9 parts per link! Totally unnecessary. C’mon kit makers and 3Dprinters, get it right! Indy links with 3 or less parts per link.
I prefer rubber band tracks or link and length. Indy tracks you have to put together from 8 parts… No thank you that dog wont hunt. When I got the M10 booker that kit made me go on to ebay and by a set of 3D printed replacements. Indy link has kept me from buying a lot of tank kits I always search to see if the kit has one piece or link and length replacements in the after market or for sale from one of the kit part sellers on ebay.
@rockybravo I am your opposite. I order high quality indy link tracks for almost every model. Rubber band tracks always have a mold parting seam on the edges which is impossible to remove. So far, all of the included indy link tracks have also gone into the box - the end connectors are usually lacking detail. I have tried a number of 3D printed tracks and so far, have been unimpressed - they require cleanup / drilling out holes, and are so brittle that installation is problematic. My preferred tracks are MasterClub. they are expensive and made in Russia, but they are, in my opinion, the best available. They are sturdy with resin pads and metal connectors and require virtually no cleanup. I assemble them on sea-days while on cruises. They require just a sanding stick and tweezers for tools, are compact, and when finished get rolled up and go back into the box for the trip home.
My only experience with 3D printed tracks so far was from QuickTracks & the experience was…not great. I picked up a set of their Hetzer tracks, & had a lot of tracks shatter when trying to clip them together. The resin didn’t have enough flex to do it, & when I looked up methods to assemble, they didn’t help much in keeping the shattered track ratio down. I might try another (larger) set, like Panther tracks. But right now I’m cold on the idea.
I love styrene tracks, particularly the RFM Pz. III/IV tracks. Well done, not crazy expensive (though the price has gone up). I still get some sets of AFV Club Sherman tracks, when I need to, though I’m not opposed to rubber band tracks (as long as those tracks are appropriate for the model I’m building). Not a fan of link & length tracks, or individual gluable tracks (like what Dragon does). Either workable or rubber bands. I’m not keen on the things in between. Never go quite right for me.
My only experience with those was for a Panther, and those were OK, though a pin broke on some of them when trying to snap the links together. Far better than RFM’s plastic tracks that I tried first, I know that much.
As this is the only set of 3D-printed tracks I’ve used, I can’t really say anything useful about my preferences on these versus plastic ones. However, on the whole I much prefer workable track over either single-link or link-and-length tracks that need to be glued together, let alone soft plastic tracks. Sure, they’re a lot more work to put together but this is easily compensated for by how much easier everything is to paint. That said, in my experience not all workable tracks are created equal, with some being much more difficult to build than others. For example, I tried building one set of Bronco Sherman tracks, and never again
When I build a model, I don’t want it to be extremely complicated. Sure, I like the detail, but in all honesty. I don’t have the hands of a surgeon. These days, my hands aren’t as steady and I have a touch of arthritis. For simplicity, I prefer the one piece rubber band tracks. If I have to build “workable tracks” I glue them. I don’t need them to work and I hate the space you get between the track blocks, which at 1/35th scale wouldn’t be seen.
Like many of you who bought Magic Factory’s M10 Booker, I purchased the resin tracks, as the kit tracks were too much of a PIA to assemble. And yes, I broke a few. At least the M10 has track skirts so I didn’t bother to build the upper track run!
The worst track I tried to assemble involved an old LVT model I have. I believe the kit was made by Nitto (?) and I built it over 20 years ago. It came with rubber band tracks that disintegrated over time. I purchased the only replacement tracks available for LVT series vehicles (I won’t say the manufacturer as I don’t have anything nice to say about that particular product). The track parts weren’t resin. They were some soft form of styrene and refused to go together as described by the directions. There were hundreds of tiny parts which tended to deform when I was trying to assemble them. What I could manage tended to fall apart or break. Gluing them during construction was out of the question because they had to follow the numerous compound curves of the track run. So I gave up. That was money down the drain and a model, I can’t display.
I haven’t built any RFM Sherman VVSS tracks, but do own two sets and can see they go together the same way as the MiniArt Sherman tracks. I have no problems building those, so I suspect none with the RFM ones, either. Bronco tracks are much worse
