I am trying to upload the instructions for a kit, and the file appears to be too big, even though it is less than the 35mb Max limitation. I tried uploading at 34.7mb size and it stops after 75%, so then I compressed it to 33.2mb, and that stops after 80%. Could you please let me know if the size limitation has been changed? And if so, what is the Maximum File size for instructions. Thank you, Viktor
17. August, 20:04
scalemates should be 35Mb.... after how much time (seconds) do you get the error? is it for example exactly 1min, 2mins?
there might be another timeout, please let me know
17. August, 20:10
Viktor Jutasi It stops after 1 minute, then 30 secs later I get booted off saying there is a problem with the connection. Is the prob at my end??
V
17. August, 22:08
scalemates I think there is a timeout somewhere of 60s. Let me dig up where it is, likely on our side
17. August, 22:08
Viktor Jutasi Have you had a chance to look at the timeout issue? I am still trying to upload and keep getting timed out.
19. August, 17:06
Anthony Hazelaar I have a similar problem here when uploading instructions. Even a small file, 672kB, doesn't come through. I however don't get any errors concerning the connection.
19. August, 17:40
Viktor Jutasi My upload speed is over 40 Mbps, but the rate at which the data is received seems to be limited, so it is taking much longer to transfer, and reaching the 1 minute limitation before completion.
19. August, 17:48
Sean Sheppard I also have this issue - I can't seem to upload any instructions
15. September, 17:27
Viktor Jutasi I have notified SM and they have a service ticket in with their service provider to correct this. It has been a few weeks now, so hopefully it will be corrected shortly. Apparently there is a 60 second time-out, so if your upload time is longer than that, it shuts the download down.
Hi, I am not sure if it an issue with my setting or one in general, but when I access the website on my MacBook through Safari it seems to go on the mobile version and seem very clunky, but when I do it through Chrome it is the normal desktop version - are you aware of any issues? Thanks, Sean
14. September, 17:20
Mike Bird It seems fine for me on Safari (13.1.2) for MacBook (Catalina), for what it's worth!
14. September, 17:40
Sean Sheppard Strange, I have the same version version of Safari and also Catalina. I have purposely changed any setting
15. September, 05:36
Sean Sheppard So I figure it out... somehow my setting for this specific website were set to zoom in
Hi, I am not sure if it an issue with my setting or one in general, but when I access the website on my MacBook through Safari it seems to go on the mobile version and seem very clunky, but when I do it through Chrome it is the normal desktop version - are you aware of any issues? Thanks, Sean
I currently get the message "Upload failed" for all my photos.
Any clue what this can be?
I already decrease the size of the photos, but that didnt help
Good morning! I recently ran into a problem concerning book reviews. The problem is I cannot add any book review, neither on a PC nor on my mobile device. Not sure what happened?!
I am more than a little frustrated. I just spent a fair amount of time updating markings only to find my work was undone. Now reading the subject box, I see that the subject for ships and sci-fi is the ship name. Doing so gives a markings list like this:
Starship Constitution-class
U.S.S Endeavor
Starfleet
• NCC-1895
U.S.S. Constellation
Starfleet
• NCC-1017
U.S.S. Constitution
Starfleet
• NCC-1700
U.S.S. Defiant
Starfleet
• NCC-1764
U.S.S. Essex
Starfleet
• NCC-1697
U.S.S. Exeter
Starfleet
• NCC-1672
U.S.S. Hood
Starfleet
• NCC-1703
U.S.S. Intrepid
Starfleet
• NCC-1831
U.S.S. Lexington
Starfleet
• NCC-1709
U.S.S. Potemkin
Starfleet
• NCC-1657
U.S.S. Republic
Starfleet
• NCC-1371
U.S.S. Yorktown
Starfleet
• NCC-1717
The way I had been doing it was putting the ship class in the subject and the ship name in the unit. (Coming from a military background I associate a ship as a unit). Doing it the way I have the markings lists like this:
Starship Constitution-class
Starfleet
• U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
• U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700
• U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764
• U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 | 2265
• U.S.S. Excalibur NCC-1664
• U.S.S. Exeter NCC-1672
• U.S.S. Farragut NCC-1647
• U.S.S. Hood NCC-1703
• U.S.S. Intrepid NCC-1631
• U.S.S. Lexington NCC-1709
• U.S.S. Potemkin NCC-1657
• U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371
• U.S.S. Yorktown NCC-1717
To me, the latter is a much more cleaner and efficient listing of the ships in the class. Am I wrong? Is there a reason the previous way is preferred? Please let me know. I don't want to waste my or anyone else's time going back and forth correcting each other's work.
Vince Jackson yes. Flt II or Flight 2 is a subclass and design change in the Arleigh Burkes. Flight 2 have different control and the ability to launch updated weapons. Flt. IIA or flight 2A have the addition of two helicopter bays that the earlier Burkes didn't have. Soon the newest DDG-51 class will have Flight 3 ships beginning with DDG-125.
17. August, 15:11
Vince Jackson From what I can tell by looking at the entry procedure, you are making the subject a primary database entry and an important sorting tool. I understand the need for this. The problem may be in my own ignorance in that I am monolinguistic. I was taught that topic and subject are the same thing. Taking a deeper look into your organization I realized you are using topic as an organizational tool of the subject and the subject as what's actually in the kit. If that is true then you really don't need to list the subject information in the markings section since it is covered by the title of the page.
In the example, the way you are suggesting to enter, you put the ship and the hull number in the subject and re-enter the hull number in the number field. This will create a redundant listing of the hull number. And as show in the example, Starfleet is repeated for each ship listed even though they all fall under the authority of Starfleet.
This problem (I believe) is the different definitions of the subject between land, sea and air. Land subjects (tanks, artillery, vehicles, etc.) and aircraft are sold by the kit manufacturers by model (F-15, B-17, M1A1, M4A3E8, etc.) while ships are sold by name primarily with options of other ships of the class. Very rarely is this not the case and is usually done with subjects of historical significance. The examples of the B-17 Memphis Belle and B-29 Enola Gay come to mind.
So as I see it, the problem lays out like this (with examples):
Land Air Sea
Topic Tank: (M1A1) Fighter (F-15) Carrier (Nimitz-class)
Subject: What the kit is
Country: For illustrative purposes I will use United States
Organization: USA/ USMC USAF/ USN/ USMC US Navy
Unit*: Co./ Bn./ Regt./ Div. Squadron/ Wing/ Group/ Air Force ??
Number: Serial No. Serial No. (USAF)/ Bureau No. (USN) Hull No. (CVN-68)
*This is where it gets wonky. Technically you can list carrier battle groups, destroyer squadron or even fleets as naval units. But I have yet to meet someone who builds a model based specifically on DESRON 23 (Little Beavers) or any other unit of that type. I'm not saying they aren't out there. But those people have researched their subject deeper than what is needed here and for the most part those units are not identifiable on the model. That is why I suggest using the ship name in the unit field because organizationally it equals an Army company or an Air Force squadron.
So for display purposes only for markings, may I suggest that the subject be used for internal purposes only. Put on the unit box a note for ships to list the ship name. I know it will require more work in the data entry process, but I am willing to do so for a more streamlined result. And I am sure my fellow modelers will feel the same way. This will only apply to ships as they are the only outlier in the organizational process.
17. August, 16:21
Vince Jackson I tried to create a table for the example and it got overwritten by the format. Sorry for the confusion.
17. August, 16:23
scalemates Suppose we follow the 'keep subject' empty rule...
Wouldn't the "name" field be more appropriate for the Name of the ship than hijacking the "Unit" field for the name, and keeping that one empty (or be able to fill it in in the rare case of a kit specifying DESRON 23 (Little Beavers) )
for me seeing "USS Enterprise" as the unit and in the unit filters feels odd (that might be a pure personal feeling)
Also, wouldn't the identifier of the unit need to include the Hull?
Unit: "USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)" vs "USS Arleigh Burke"
17. August, 18:20
Vince Jackson When assigning ships to naval units they are done by ship. A carrier battle group consists of a carrier (CVN), a cruiser (CG), then a number of destroyers for a particular destroyer squadron usually aligned with the particular battle group (DESRON) and a carrier air wing (CVW) made up of 4 squadrons (VFA) and smaller detachments of support aircraft. These are usually done to fit the desired mission using units available. This changes frequently due to training/ maintenance requirements. In the rare case of a naval squadron being assigned to a kit, it can be expanded much the same as a bomber squadron ie: 9 BS 28 BW. Putting it in the nickname field will work but it will appear as a black bar. And ships have nicknames as well, ie USS Enterprise (CV-6) is the Grey Ghost and USS Lexington (CV-16) is known as the Blue Ghost. The number field seems appropriate for the hull number.
Vince Jackson These are not set in stone. CSG-3 was just assigned to CVN-72 after her RICOH. Last year it was assigned to CVN-74 before Stennis went in for her RICOH. In 2013 VFA-151 was part of CVW-2 and was reassigned to CVW-9. Naval unit assignments are fluid unlike land (USA/ USMC) and air units (USAF). You will also note that there are 5 destroyers listed in DESRON 23 under CSG-9. But there are 6 DDGs in the squadron. One is always not deployable due to training/ maintenance needs. What is listed in Wikipedia today may not be accurate tomorrow.
20. August, 18:18
Günther Debiscop That's why I wrote "example". Also Air Force, Army and Marine units are sometimes re-assigned...
Unfortunatly there is 'as far as I know, not yet a complete list of when an unit was part of which orbat...
I got one for several USAF units, but also not for all of them and only until 2000/2010...
I am trying to upload the instructions for a kit, and the file appears to be too big, even though it is less than the 35mb Max limitation. I tried uploading at 34.7mb size and it stops after 75%, so then I compressed it to 33.2mb, and that stops after 80%. Could you please let me know if the size limitation has been changed? And if so, what is the Maximum File size for instructions. Thank you, Viktor
as the lone BSA DBD34 kit from Gunze. There were two versions of the BSA kit...the kit you list as G-617 in the link is mis-numbered...it should be part number G-620. The real part number G-617 had a yellow "Clubman" label on the front, and some small differences including the gas tank. I can't attach photos here, but I have both kits and can send photos if you would like...thank you.
15. August, 21:52
scalemates Hi MG! thank you, it is always great when missing items are reported
Howdy Tim. It appears that much of the website appears to me in German language with some areas still in English. I don't recall changing any settings on my end. Although I can muddle through I'm not going to claim to be smart enough to be able to navigate everywhere.
I did survive a week in Berlin but admittedly that was thanks mostly to very kind and understanding Berliners
I'm on macOS 10.15 and in both Safari and Chrome I see two lines going from the selected model to the original new tool, and the new tool is escaping from the top of the table.
1 | 11. August, 22:11
scalemates same here! thx will look into it. (ps: it is not CSS but a generated SVG, not that it matters )
11. August, 22:13
Mike Bird Ha, thanks for taking a look! I'll be sure to right-click and "Inspect Element" next time!
11. August, 22:15
scalemates this is fixed! it was a data issue (a new tool linked to another new tool) causing the problem.
I'm on macOS 10.15 and in both Safari and Chrome I see two lines going from the selected model to the original new tool, and the new tool is escaping from the top of the table.
1 | 11. August, 22:14
wnolder.php?lang=en
2020-08-11 22:14:32
2011-01-07 16:38:05
10000
todo
We use cookies to give you a great and free experience on our website. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
You can change your Cookie settings at any time. (Essential cookies are for: preferences, security, performance analytics and contextual advertising)
+
+
Thanks a lot Tim! 
