[2019] Update Musashi's 3D model?

Hello.
First of all, Yamato's model was very old, one of the first in game, and since the time she was made we become better and building models, and found better sources for Yamato-class. So it was remade according to new standards.
On the other hand, Musashi's model is relatively new and is okay now, there are ships that need attention one more.
Also, while Yamato and Musashi belong to the same class, they are different ships, and there are differences between them, so we can't just copy-paste Yamato to Musashi. It would be wrong to do so, and we strive to make 3D models as historically accurate as they can be.

Also, off the top of my head, Irian has wrong superstructure, Isokaze has some problems with torps, Mutsuki has different guns with same name that behave differently. We are aware of those and sorry that mistakes were made, and various models are being updated.
Also, int the case of Edinburgh (and other Research tree ships that had sisters), ships can be an amalgamation of all ships in the class - because some times lead ships of the class didn't get refits we want to put in the game, sometimes we have better references for other ships in class, sometimes lead ship didn't achieve needed speed, while her sisters did.

Those ships weren't completed, so we had to make refits to make them comparable to similar ships that got them, for example QE, New Mexico, Fusou had vastly superior AA, and if we're in the realm of possibilities - it's very possible - a lot of BB got serious rebuilds when Naval Treaties were in effect - for example, Kongou, Nagato, Giulio Cesare.
USN had battleships reconstructed after Pearl Harbour. On the other hand, it's quite unrealistic to suppose that if a ship was to be completed, for example, in 1918, is would've stayed that way for several decades.
World of Warships threads into the realm of possibilities and alternative history, and allows players to experience ships that were to be built, ships that answer to a question "what ship this nation would've built to compete with something comparable to Yamato". And yes, some of the refits are needed due to the game's progression system and are necessary to maintain balance between ships.
As @Lord_Slayer said, alt-historical refits are based on refits of other similar ships of the same era, or shipbuilding school itself. And when we go into alt-history, now we have an entire team of engineers who make sure those ships are viable, and could-ve been built, we reconstruct or create blueprints with enough level of attention for them to be at least of the level of preliminary design, sometimes deeper, with ship stability, stress, internal and external ballistics, visuals.
For example, P.E.F refit is based on german ships of the 30ies. (Since germans didn't get to keep any WW1 battships)
Izmail and Sinop rebuilds are based on Gangut reconstruction.
Georgia - is one of the design proposals that lead to the Iowa class, armed with 18-inch cannons. Has her Superstructure and AA based on US ships from mid 40ies, mainly Iowa herself.
Amagi is based on Knogou, Nagato and other IJN ships reconstructions. (You can see the differences between Mutsu and Nagato)
Yes, WoWS isn't a simulator, and for some ships are less based on real history than others, but we always strive to keep ships in game as realsistic as possible for them to fit into the game.

Afaik, Over the lifetime game had 4 Yamato-class models:
1) Yamato
2) Shinano (as CV)
3) Musashi
4) New Yamato
And each one was produced mostly separately. Apart from the obvious cases - like no one needs to to model 25 mm AA gun every time.

Correct me if I'm wrong - instead of really possible and sometimes planned refits and alt-history you want us to simply leave anything based on reality back and change stats for ships freely, in a pure fantasy way, just because the visual models may look more historical that way?

And the whole point of the topic was that Musashi does look different.
Even when new Yamato was released - there was a whole thing with torpedo bulges and citadel, since they were different from what players were used to, since, unlike Musashi, new standards of what citadel is and what isn't were applied, same thing with how camos are applied to ship, and maybe others. What I do know - that there should be a lot of small geometry differences between different models, so Yamato's right now should be more accurate one, and that is why armor schemes do differ. And if you consider that every surface was checked - it isn't a simple copypaste.
But yes, the differences from Musashi would be most easily seen in armor cheme, apart from the obvious stuff like different superstructures.

Giulio Cesare and Kongou's, for example, were bade longer when refit.
Cesare went from 21 to 27.
But what I'd like to say - historical configurations do have chance to appear as Premiums, since when making premiums we feel that they can deviate from regular lines much more, because only people intrested in them would play them. On the other hand, when USN and IJN battleships had WW1 configurations, there were a lot of complaints about those hulls being too weak and a pain to play, so they were removed from those ships for this, among other reasons.

And it works both ways: Arizona and West Virginia has weak AA compared to New Mexico, and California, on the other hand, has much stronger AA, even compared with Colorado, but has smaller guns. And yes, I know that those three ships are different classes, but they do represnt one configuration with 12 14" guns.

Normandie-class wasn't complete, so that why it was possible - some ships could've been atlered why still in the yard.

Please don't bring political discussion here. But IRl if Izmail was completed- she would have Soviet Navy flag.

I'd probably like to see Izmail in her planned-to-build form more than any, but I have to acknowledge that this would be a very unbalanced ship - with much thinner belt, but a great bow and stern armor.

Nikolai and Ishizuchi are precisely the reason why such ships aren't well suited for the game - if they are balanced when there are decent CVs in the match, they become quite OP when there aren't. And if they are okay when there aren't CV's, when CV appear - those ships have to suffer.

I checked with consultants, and, adding a section midship is actually the easiest way for ship elongation, since hull form in the middle is quite full (the most prominent example is subs) and similar to its neighbors, while if you elongate ships at the ends - you have to create new stern and bow - how it has happened with Cesare.
We've legthened the hull and added bulges as was originally proposed by french - see French Battlships 1922-1956, pages 14-15.

Gneisenau also had section added in bow.

I only remember two stories about warship constructions getting buoyancy really wrong - this Spanish submarine and Vasa. And yes, it's easier with civilian ships, since they do generally have more standardized conctruction approach.
Our team of engeneers do calculate all that stuff, though.
Well, discussing which version of the Normandie would be more plausible is a thing on itself - if tensions were high, they would've been completed anyway, in original or refit form, and in other cases it would be better to build more modern warships. Except cases with Naval Treaties or loss of shipyards, Then it can get weird.

It's just one of the ways, prefrable in this case, since Triple Expansion Steam Engines weren't cutting there.
We've installed machinery similar ti Dunkerque.

You probably haven't heard of it because refits IRL were mostly being done for completed, not incomplete/stayed-in-the-yard-till-obsolescense ships.

And for some nations 21 knot was all they needed.