Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To all acting like I've said something outragous.

I meant a mold line that has been on a hard to remove area, or on a piece of detail that has ruined it.

I've had rare cases of mold lines in GW (now over 2000 points of Tau, same with DA) but nothing remotely as bad as mantic (2 Dreadball teams)

 spaceelf wrote:


Ease of conversion is certainly a valid concern with metal. However, it used to be the case that companies would sculpt tons of different models so conversion was less necessary. (This was possible on account of the molds being cheaper than plastic molds) Then GW got lazy/greedy and started to offer only a few sculpts. I personally would much rather have a professionally sculpted figure than a conversion. I miss the days of 50+ different goblin sculpts, and 50+ different forest goblin sculpts, etc.

To wit:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is an interesting article.

Companies like Essex Miniatures and Dixons still have models in production that I recognise from the 80s and 90s.

Presumably they have preserved their original masters and make new moulds as required.

I am speaking of metal wargame figures.

Generally there are a couple of 'masters' - the sculpt which is used to produce a first generation master (often silver or similar harder-wearing metal). That first generation master is used to produce several second generation masters (sometimes silver) which are used to produce a production mould, which is used to produce the cheap production casts.

The first-generation copy is cast in that hardwearing metal because it's quite likely the original sculpt will be damaged when pulling it from the mould. It's often the sole surviving 'copy' of the model in question, so it needs to last as long as possible.

In general when looking for a material to make masters, you're after something hard-wearing with a melting point lower than the vulcanised rubber used to make it.

So the models you actually get are often third-generation copies.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
To all acting like I've said something outragous.

I meant a mold line that has been on a hard to remove area, or on a piece of detail that has ruined it.

I've had rare cases of mold lines in GW (now over 2000 points of Tau, same with DA) but nothing remotely as bad as mantic (2 Dreadball teams)

Never had problems with Infinity models with mold lines obscuring detail. Same with Shieldwolf miniatures. How you phrased your sentence makes it look like all other companies except GW have mold line problems.

DO fw and gw use the same resin?

At what point does heat start to warp a resin figure? I live in england so heat isnt a problem when they are on display in a case but what happens when I chuck them in the back of a car to take to a games day or friends house?

Personally I like the idea of doing a bit of prep work before assembling. Makes the finished product more satisfying.

With Gw being the vast conglomerate that they are. Will they ever convert the fine cast models to plastic if sales are high enough? or would it be a case of it going oop and chucking the cheap mould away? I'm a bit fethed off that fine cast is cheaper yet the models cost more from gw...not that it would stop me buying them.

Apparently white dwarf did an article about the switch to fine cast. Does anyone know what issue it was?

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
What is/was the purpose of metal figures over plastic? Does this hark back to the days where it was easier to produce metal figures that had more detail than plastics.

Witch elfes from the 80's.


Witch Elves from the 90's.


Current Witch Elves. Sooooo much detail in those hair strands that totally don't look like tentacles.


High Elves from the 90's.


Current Sisters of Avelorn. Again, so much detail in those hair. And that scale mail looks soooo detailed.



Yeah, sure, metal is definitely something that belongs to the past...

No, they don't use the same resin.

The heat needed depends on the resin and the thickness of the piece and the force exerted. This is the reason it's a good idea to replace resin banner poles and lances with brass, and to properly put a core in anything long and thin.
The material used Finecast is pliable at room temperature, with gentle, constant, pressure.
You can't really 'convert' a metal or resin model to plastic (unless it's a very simple shape). Plastic models are made in solid, 2 part moulds (mostly, sometimes 3 or 4 with sliding moulds - but those are REALLY expensive to make).

Litcheur wrote:
...

The reason that the more recent GW miniatures look 'better' than the old ones (and to allot of people they don't, the newer GW miniatures while being technically really good, are very unappealing aesthetically, they all look like Barbie dolls), is due to digital sculpting making it extremely simple to add detail to a miniature.

Compare any of those plastic GW minis to a new metal Infinity miniature or even one of the metal Confrontation miniatures (or heck, even the GW Inquisitor miniatures), and you'll quickly realise that plastic is the inferior medium.

PhantomViper wrote:

Litcheur wrote:
...

The reason that the more recent GW miniatures look 'better' than the old ones (and to allot of people they don't, the newer GW miniatures while being technically really good, are very unappealing aesthetically, they all look like Barbie dolls), is due to digital sculpting making it extremely simple to add detail to a miniature.

Compare any of those plastic GW minis to a new metal Infinity miniature or even one of the metal Confrontation miniatures (or heck, even the GW Inquisitor miniatures), and you'll quickly realise that plastic is the inferior medium.

This, so much this.

PhantomViper wrote:
The reason that the more recent GW miniatures look 'better' than the old ones (and to allot of people they don't, the newer GW miniatures while being technically really good, are very unappealing aesthetically, they all look like Barbie dolls), is due to digital sculpting making it extremely simple to add detail to a miniature.

Compare any of those plastic GW minis to a new metal Infinity miniature or even one of the metal Confrontation miniatures (or heck, even the GW Inquisitor miniatures), and you'll quickly realise that plastic is the inferior medium.

I was sarcastic. Edited that one to make things more obvious.

The overall esthetic has changed throught the years. Fine. Like it, don't like it, to each his own.

Chainmail bikinis were silly. But it was chainmail, and that says something about the detail level. When you look at the actual detail level, you realize that current plastic minis from 2013 are light-years behind any metal mini, even 30 years old ones.

Basically, GW hasn't done anything meaningful during the last twelve to fifteen years.

I'm not the biggest fan of latter-day GW, and always ready to point out their shortcomings; but when I compare the quality of old and new witch elves in those pics, the first thing that springs to mind is not the fineness of hair strands or tinyness of abstract chainmail-imitating dimples. Strewth. Yes, it'd probably be nice to have 'metal-quality' details like those on the newer minis, but when the actual metal alternatives you're holding up as 'superior' look more like witch-gibbons or witch-deep-ones, I'd have to say "I'll take some plastic barbie dolls that can't have every hair picked out of their scalp, please." (And I'd never buy the placcy witch elves in the first place!)

I came to the decision some time ago that detail, and praise of same, on a mini (that is, mere presence, quantity, or fineness of detail) is an obfuscating, diversionary thing; a superficial layer and superficial attitude that disguises any shortcomings of the design, structure and shapes of the miniature. After all, the pumbaagor is quite detailed. The FW dread saurian is quite detailed. Those vaguely ork-shaped heaps of scrap labelled 'freebooters' are quite detailed. The Doggerland ice age mammals and Mantic basilean sisters etc. etc. are quite detailed.
Again, yeah, it'd be nice to have well-sculpted, appropriate details on otherwise well-sculpted minis; but when GW actually comes out with a pretty wonderful mini like the IoB griffon (worst bit: forelegs might be a big overlarge) I'm dumbfounded to read posts by people whinging and moaning that every little barbule is not included on every little feather. (Go on, pick 'em out here. I'll wait. In the meantime, look at the lack of detail in this guy's birds. What a noob. ) Similarly, I think the hair on the plastic witch elves could have a bit more definition, but I don't think that's entirely down to the limitations of the medium, and the decision to sculpt and cast the hair in locks that are a bit larger than the locks in metal minis, is not the worst thing about them. (That'd be the sheer must-copy-roginshirozz size of the hair, and of course, the price )

I do agree that, while level of detail could contribute to how good the model looks, it's not the end-all of all things. I'd take a well-sculpted plastic model with less detail than a bad-looking metal/resin model with intricate details any day.

In my eyes those plastic witch elves are an improvement in terms of how they look. At the very least they look like women now, compared to the old sculpts in the photo which look like hermaphrodite trolls.

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
So Ive done the obligatory first page google search and no info.

What is/was the purpose of metal figures over plastic? Does this hark back to the days where it was easier to produce metal figures that had more detail than plastics.

This also brings me onto my next point. Alot of the stuff that was metal has been released as Fine cast. What is the purpose of this over say, just having it all plastic?

I am unfamiliar with how models are made. I assume the plastic models are made with moulds injected with plastic. Is resin similar, just pour resin into a mould? Is resin cheaper than plastic? Is the infrastructure to maintain the production of plastics just to expensive.

I'm only familiar with games workshop. Do other companies choose resin over plastic or vice versa?

A lot of questions I know but I'm just curious. I didnt really like the metals and I'm quite happy to work on plastic or resin.

I'm not sure if your questions regarding production have been answered thoroughly so here goes.

-Metal
Metal casting is the cheapest and most reliable process for smaller production runs. All it takes is a master model, then you make a rubber mold and cast until the mold goes bad, make another mold and continue. It is usually done with a spincaster, which is a fairly straitforward piece of machinery that most folks can learn to use.
Though the raw material of metal is more expensive, any mistakes can simply be recast so there is virtually no loss of material. Metal is also very durable and for many collectors it still has implications of being more collectible and valuable.

Metal is still a material much desired by hobbyists, collectors and others, especially those who are doing less converting and don't require dozens of models in different poses. Companies like Reaper, Corvis Belli and others still use metal as their primary casting material for these reasons and are quite successful in doing so.

-Resin
Resin is cast similarly, but rather than melting metal and pouring it into a mould, resin is usually a 2 part mixture that is mixed together and then poured into a mold. It is a bit more fragile, and as it cannot be reused any mistakes must be thrown away. With resin it may be possible to get better detail than metal, but there is the tradeoff of durability, sensitivity to heat and much less tolerant of stripping and repainting. Resin is however generally a better material for large models as the sheer expense of metal means that large models can become extremely expensive in raw materials. Also, large chunks of resin are not as prone to damage or a susceptible to heat as small friagile resin models.

Thus, resin is mostly seen in high-end "boutique" models, and short production runs. It's also very commonly used for independently produced vehicle kits.

-Plastic
Polystyrene plastic (like what GW uses) is melted and pushed into a mold, but the mold is metal. It is this creation and cutting of a metal mold that makes plastic production much more expensive. You can't just make a mold of the figure, rather the figure has to be scanned (or created digitally) and then a CNC machine has to cut the metal mold. There is a good amount of training usually required for the creation of the mold and companies either have to have such an employee on-staff or hire out the service. Both of which require a large $ outlay. After that, you still have to have a plastic injection machine (a large bit of machinery) and the knowledge to use it or that also must be hired out. There have been reports that many plastic injection molding companies that serve model companies are at capacity so it can be hard to find someone to make the models for you.

Long story short, unless you have in-house plastic production facilities (and sometimes even then) you have to sell ALOT of a given miniature to recoup production costs. However, once you recoup production costs, the meal molds will last nearly forever and the low cost of the raw materials means that further sales will produce a very good profit margin.

-PVC
There is also the Vinyl PVC figures that companies like Mantic like to call "restic" or "spincast plastic". I don't know the exact process -and I think there are actually several different methods- but I do know that it is a cheaper product to produce than polystyrene models. However, it doesn't seem to be suited to large sprues of parts, thus most of these kind of models have far fewer parts than multipart plastic kits.. It also seems to be cheaper for models that are produced in large runs. Manic for example puts many of it's biggest selling sprues in plastic, medium selling sprues in restic and charachters and things that you only need one of per army in metal.

PVC fills a niche between metal or resin and plastic. It's still very much in development as companies find new formulations and was of using the material. It also seems to be a bit of a stopgap for some companies that can't seem to source plastic production all the models they would like to.

I hope this clears up the differences in production methods and some of their advantages and drawbacks.

In short, metal and resin models are still sold by many companies who sell relatively few models compared to the "big guys", but also by the big guys. Metal and Resin are very much alive and allow many small companies, mom-n-pop's and "garage" outfits to greatly expand the number of models available to the hobbyist . On the other hand, large companies are in many circumstances moving to plastic and PVC in an effort to insulate themselves from global metal costs and to produce greater numbers of models more cheaply, and sometimes passing that savings along to the customer.

Edit: One more point.
One additional detail that isn't always mentioned is the superior unity of the scupt that can be achieved with one-part models. A plastic kit with limbs that can be repositioned, positionalble waists and heads, etc will never have the anatomic realism that can be achieved when a model is properly sculpted to reflect musculature and anatomy. The reason is that folks rarely just raise an arm, rather their back will curve a touch, they might slightly couterbalance by shifting their weight onto a foot, etc, etc. Thus, a dynamically posed single-pose model can achieve much higher level of accuracy than multipart models. Most single-pose models are cast in metal and resin and this also contributes to their continued use and popularity.

Details often come down to the sculptor's talent, and aesthetic choices. As well as the angles. If you look at the "top" or back of the hair of those '90s Witch Elves, you'll see what essentially amounts to one of reaper's "broccoli bases". On the other hand, the older ones looking like "hermaphrodites" is simply because of the sculptor's level of skill. The final wave of metal Witch Elves, sculpted by Chris Fitzpatrick - which is the best of the metal ranges - also suffer from "trannyface" to an extent, but then again - have a look at the faces of the women around you at home/work/school/etc and take note of just how many of them don't have the slender, high cheekbone, flawless complexion "model" look that we associate with female faces. A lot of female faces could well be male faces with a change of haircut and stubble. Now make those subtle changes on a head 3mm high, but without going to those "model"/"elven" ratios. Hard, eh?

As to the apparent new topic of this debate - "which is better?" - my opinion is that they all do things better than the other materials, and have strenghts and weaknesses. Even Restic, I have to admit.

Tamiya and so on issue detailed plastic kits that satisfy a lot of modellers, but often include photo etched brass parts or similar, or replacement tracks and the like, from 3rd party companies, to satisfy the highest standards of realism for the modeller.

When you want to make an army containing say 96 bowmen as well as many other figures, the amount of fine detail on the individual figure is less important.

The detail provided by plastics has improved substantially imo, with WGF churning out some really good stuff. These are some plastic characters produced by WGF and a resin character produced in-house from the WWX line .


(I need to learn how to take better photos)

I want to add, if it's not been said, that I've seen many competition and high end painters prefer metal miniatures, followed by resin, following by PVC/plastics. The more rigid the material, the less likely it will bow under a brushstroke and also be more durable for crazy aesthetic posing.

 Yonan wrote:
The detail provided by plastics has improved substantially imo, with WGF churning out some really good stuff.

And GW. Keeping with the concept of "credit where credit's due", if you put the price of some of them aside (that Nurgle Herald... good God...), GW's plastics have come a long way. I think insaniak said it already (apologies if I'm wrong), but they've been improving for a while but went into overdrive when the last edition of Space Hulk came out. I don't think anyone expected Terminators to look quite that good, and so visually unique. They've only improved since then.

 Yonan wrote:
(I need to learn how to take better photos)

Compared to the people leaking WD pics you're veritable photography virtuoso!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think insaniak said it already (apologies if I'm wrong), but they've been improving for a while but went into overdrive when the last edition of Space Hulk came out. I don't think anyone expected Terminators ]to look quite that good, and so visually unique. They've only improved since then.

I didn't say it, but I agree. The Space Hulk plastics, and more recently the Dark Vengeance plastics, and more recently again the two special characters in the Stormclaw box have shown that GW can do some pretty darn impressive things in plastic if they put their minds to it.

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
At what point does heat start to warp a resin figure? I live in england so heat isnt a problem when they are on display in a case but what happens when I chuck them in the back of a car to take to a games day or friends house?

Finecast minis have warped pretty badly in the windows of GW Glasgow, the city notorious for sustained high temperatures. Or under any sort of pressure (like a foam travel case).

It'd probably be fine in the back of your car for a few hours though, but I wouldn't leave it anywhere you wouldn't leave a dog.

 Yonan wrote:

(I need to learn how to take better photos)

Careful what you wish for - once down the path to photography forever will it drain your wallet (and if you think GW is expensive you've not seen anything yet! )

 TheKbob wrote:
I want to add, if it's not been said, that I've seen many competition and high end painters prefer metal miniatures, followed by resin, following by PVC/plastics. The more rigid the material, the less likely it will bow under a brushstroke and also be more durable for crazy aesthetic posing.

Although the heat-warping is an issue, a high end job will often involve replacing or coring things that may sag, even on harder resins.

The light weight is actually an advantage for crazy posing. For display, fragility isn't an issue (unless it's a commission job that you need to ship across the world).

The main reason Finecast is often avoided (or at least my major bugbear with it) is that it has appalling cast quality. Due to very rapid mould wear, you're really likely to get rough finishes on things that should really be baby-bum smooth. You also get a lot of bubbles in edges, which are a royal pain to fix. If you have to resculpt and resurface lots of the model, it's not fun to work on, and it's very likely not to turn out as you want it to.

And finally, most high-end modellers are experienced with enough models, modelmaking processes and manufacturers to know that the problems with Finecast are a result of the process, material, and QC. We've worked on better, we know there's better, and we don't buy the line that we're supposed to think these are fantastic. It's simply irritating. I resent having to buy the stuff for work, and I know many other high-end commission guys who feel the same.

Let me illustrate.
This is fairly high-end work, but note the rough finish on armour surfaces. Could have been fixed, but would have meant a surfacing putty over the majority of the model.


And here's some shots of the required fixes to get that finish. Really speaking I should have done more.








Which I think is a fairly graphic explanation of why the higher end painters and modellers think the stuff is crap.

The fact that GW have dropped the "Finecast" brand after only a couple of years is a clear illustration of the rotten reputation it achieved.

From what I can tell, most c omission painters refused to take on Finecast jobs pretty quickly after release. Some mentioned that it was too much hassle to cleanup/fill/ship, others felt bad that someone would spend a fortune to get a mini painted professionally for it to droop weeks later.

Although I love resin, I'm still a fan of metal. Metal also adds the collectors angle. It's much easier to collect and trade metals than other materials as they are so much easier to strip and recondition.

On metal conversion, I will say it requires real dedication to carry out. Saws, drills, pinning, filing, greenstuffing, milliputting, etc. A plastic conversion will take no time, a metal conversion will take days, but the sense of accomplishment is huge! I remember my first metal conversion. I felt like I just conquered Everest.

Converting and working with metals got much harder (literally) after the shift away from lead alloys in order to get CE toy certification. Lead alloys are softer, more malleable material - much easier to convert than today's stuff. For miniatures, I still think it's a better material.

Herzlos wrote:

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
At what point does heat start to warp a resin figure? I live in england so heat isnt a problem when they are on display in a case but what happens when I chuck them in the back of a car to take to a games day or friends house?

Finecast minis have warped pretty badly in the windows of GW Glasgow, the city notorious for sustained high temperatures. Or under any sort of pressure (like a foam travel case).

I've had regular Airfix plastic kits warp in a window - and that was in the tropical conditions of the Arctic Circle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Finecast... was just plain terrible - an inferior material with poor QA. The only redeeming virtue was not one that the public enjoyed - it was wicked cheap to produce... yet GW charged more for it.

Mantic, by comparison, doubled the number of models in a box for the same price, when they switched to restic.

That is not a fair comparison tho, since "restic" is not resin but plastic. GW kits sometimes have dramatically dropped in price too, when moved to plastic - Killa Kans perhaps the best example, their price was cut by nearly 2/3.

If you want crazy PVC pricing, look at PP.

IMO, Finecast's reputation would be better if GW had not screwed up the introduction: they hyped the material massively, then rushed it out without proper QC with tons of miscasts in the first wave - a textbook PR nightmare! Nobody in my gaming group has complained about Finecast at all. I have only few FC minis though, but mostly they are totally fine. In fact the casting quality is slightly better than in equivalent metal miniatures. One of them has an air bubble in inconsequential place. FW resin is much more troublesome in my experience.

Regarding plastic moulds, they indeed last a long time - whenever a model kit maker goes bankrupt, there is a huge rush from other companies buying off the moulds. I think Airfix still operates moulds from the 1960's.

There are still Frog moulds from the 1950s in use in eastern Europe.

Backfire wrote:
GW kits sometimes have dramatically dropped in price too, when moved to plastic - Killa Kans perhaps the best example, their price was cut by nearly 2/3.

Dire Avengers called, they'd like to speak to you. Cadians are on line two when you're done speaking to them, and Catachans are expecting a return call.

Backfire wrote:
IMO, Finecast's reputation would be better if GW had not screwed up the introduction

Ah right. If only they'd talked about it differently, we would have all accepted it? No. You can't piss on my face and tell me it's raining. A bad product is a bad product no matter how you spin it.

Backfire wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
At what point does heat start to warp a resin figure? I live in england so heat isnt a problem when they are on display in a case but what happens when I chuck them in the back of a car to take to a games day or friends house?

Finecast minis have warped pretty badly in the windows of GW Glasgow, the city notorious for sustained high temperatures. Or under any sort of pressure (like a foam travel case).

I've had regular Airfix plastic kits warp in a window - and that was in the tropical conditions of the Arctic Circle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Finecast... was just plain terrible - an inferior material with poor QA. The only redeeming virtue was not one that the public enjoyed - it was wicked cheap to produce... yet GW charged more for it.

Mantic, by comparison, doubled the number of models in a box for the same price, when they switched to restic.

That is not a fair comparison tho, since "restic" is not resin but plastic. GW kits sometimes have dramatically dropped in price too, when moved to plastic - Killa Kans perhaps the best example, their price was cut by nearly 2/3.

No, it is a fair comparison - Mantic switched to a less expensive material, and dropped the price.

GW switched to a less expensive material and raised the price.

One company passed the savings along.

The other one tried to spin it as an improvement, and increased the prices.

I was not comparing restic as resin, I was comparing restic as a less expensive material than metal.

Remember, GW bragged to stockholders that Finecast cost less....

The Auld Grump