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.

You can make guns, that's what.



I added some wash to bring out the details, as they don't photograph well. I still have to prime and paint the things.

You can also make pieces that GW doesn't make, such as this Hydra Flak Turret.



The turret is a little smaller than I'd like, at only 2" wide, but it beats paying through the nose for a FW model.

I modeled the guns using a CAD software, and uploaded the files to Shapeways.com. The only bad thing about it is the $25 minimum order, but as you can see, you get quality pieces for your efforts. The stacks of meltas were $2.20 each, and the Plasmas were $2.43 each. The turret ran me $17.73.

Anyone else done any 3D printing for their armies?

I would be careful going down that path. At least with the guns. They're not really recasts, but dangerously close on infringing on IP there.

I wouldn't be too worried about IP.... They're obviously GW oriented but if they're your own design they're your own design. That being said, I'd maybe skip the imperial eagle for something a bit more generic, though.

The thing I'd be hesitant about is about resolution and detailing, which there seems to be little of. The precision just doesn't seem to be there to recreate all the small scale details. Don't take this as me knocking your design, it's just a limitation of the tech.

GW is able to get the detail they get because they use injection molding in high precision metal molds, rather than 3D printing.

It'll get there some day though.

Who cares about IP if you're just doing it for yourself. Just don't sell it to people and you'll be fine. I think they came out great.

I've been wanting to try something like that for the game I'm developing, to make scenery kits for old west style buildings.. but I don't really have the 3D skills, and I dunno if it'll be cost effective, I'd wanna make a profit but not have to sell stuff at FW (or even GW) prices.

Looks good, but I'm not really familiar with this kind of thing..Are they plastic? How do the feel compared to actual pieces of GW stuff?

I'm not here to weigh in on the morality of this issue, whether or not this is justifiable or not. I just logged in to say that I feel like for the amount of work put into this project, they don't look that great. Plain and simple. We pay a premium for these models because the detail is ridiculously sharp. I don't mind spending 22 bucks on 5 guys if they are the coolest models around. Recently, gw design has impressed me and if you want to have models that have blocks for plasma guns then go right ahead. It just detracts from the amazing space marine or cadian holding it.

as a worker in the modeling industry ive used this ALOT. and you can create some of the most stunning detail imaginable, albeit the printers we use are quite high end (running around 300,000 dollars) but we have produced works for films and concept model at amazing levels of detail. They look exactly like their cg counterparts. when modelling next time, might i suggest using a 3d app such as cinema 4d, instead and Zbrush to touch up.

or the free versions
blender and milkshape

Looks like a good way to get custom army insignia like chapter markings though and it would be great for making building sized aquillas, mechanicum cogs and so forth. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of those of us such as myself that have never heard of this process (at least being available in such a way).

Samus_aran115 wrote:Looks good, but I'm not really familiar with this kind of thing..Are they plastic? How do the feel compared to actual pieces of GW stuff?

The Hydra is a type of sandstone resin that's really brittle, but fairly cheap to make. The guns are the material "White detail" which is a plastic that feel slightly softer than GW plastic, but shows much better detail than the sandstone.

No, the detail isn't as high as a GW model, but that's also due to the simplicity of my designs. The initial designs were a proof of concept to see what kind of detail I can get from the process, as I've not ordered anything from Shapeways before. The Hydra, as seen, is too small, and I have to adjust the size in my CAD. The guns turned out perfectly sized, and I can go from there by adding further detail. I will probably use something like blender rather than a CAD program for the next batch.

I I don't know that I'd try printing actual troops, as the resolution isn't as great as you'd need for that, and model sized figures run about $5 for printing. It is good for things like guns and bitz. I'd be willing to bet if you wanted to design, say, a female IG body, it would probably look great until you got the face.

Is it perfect? No. But if you've got the talent to create great things in 3D, then it's completely worth doing. I'm happy with my pieces, and I plan to order more once I upgrade my designs. It's not hard to do, and it beats paying 8 bucks for 5 plasma guns.

I'm impressed that you can send away and get the models printed and sent back.

As for the IP question, if you sculpt your own original, and don't copy the GW design too closely, there is no infringement.

So I'm getting ready to send out more models to be printed.

Here are the revamped designs:



The OGRYN (Offensive Ground ReadY automatoN). Basically a Counts-as Ogryn unit.



New Vehicle Lascannons!



Better Meltas!





Better Plasmas! Compare old to new.

Have you thought about having a few of the orignals 3D scanned to use those as a base for more detail?

Mohoc wrote:Have you thought about having a few of the orignals 3D scanned to use those as a base for more detail?

3D scanners that provide the level of detail necessary are fantastically expensive, and would be infringing on GW IP. These designs are mine from the ground up, though they follow the typical pattern of what they're supposed to be.

If you are concerend about infringing their IP you may want to remove the double headed eagle whish is a registered trademark.

I direct you to the link in my sig... I go big, or not at all

I have yet to have it printed, but I will damnit... With God as my witness, I will!!

Necros wrote:Who cares about IP if you're just doing it for yourself. Just don't sell it to people and you'll be fine. I think they came out great.

I've been wanting to try something like that for the game I'm developing, to make scenery kits for old west style buildings.. but I don't really have the 3D skills, and I dunno if it'll be cost effective, I'd wanna make a profit but not have to sell stuff at FW (or even GW) prices.

Reproduction is still protected even if it's for personal use. The rule of thumb is this; Is it reasonable that you would use the originals at the same time as the repoduced version? If so, then you are violating IP. If you make an mp3 of a song from your own CD, it's highly unlikely or reasonable that you'd listen to both your CD and reproduced mp3 at the same time, so that's fine. It's reasonable to assume that by making reproductions of GW models then you are not having to buy additional models because you are using them all at the same time, so there's a problem.

Giving it away or selling it is always a no no.

Oh god do we have to make this an IP discussion? Why do we care? We're hobbyists not GW's lawyer team. The guy isn't selling them he's doing it for his own purposes. It's onloy a form of scratchbuilding, he may as well be casting he own scuplted guns. Yes I'm sure we all know as pointed out by the anally retentive that it's technically violating IP, but in real world terms it doesn't matter it's small scale and for personal use.

chaos0xomega wrote:I direct you to the link in my sig... I go big, or not at all

I have yet to have it printed, but I will damnit... With God as my witness, I will!!

Make it hollow to cut down on costs.

Dude, you need to add some chamfering and fillets around the "meltas" because the blocks just look slowed.

I remain unimpressed with the guns. They're too blocky, and not in a good way. You could make good looking blocky guns, but it looks like they're just regular GW weapons made two dimensional. The hydra is rather nice though. I might actually need to get some of those done myself. Are you releasing your plans for these for the public, or should I just reinstall Blender and make my own? (and overcome the awful learning curve... again)

whatwhat wrote:If you are concerend about infringing their IP you may want to remove the double headed eagle whish is a registered trademark.

Aquila™ Roman Army 753 BC – AD 476


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_%28Roman%29

Lonecoon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I direct you to the link in my sig... I go big, or not at all

I have yet to have it printed, but I will damnit... With God as my witness, I will!!

Make it hollow to cut down on costs.

Already ahead of you.

Anyway, the chamfering that others are suggesting might be a good idea, but I dont know if its unnecessary (I'm sure you're realized that CAD screenshots sort of seem to exaggerate certain features of a design, making things appear larger than they really are).

Kozaan wrote:

whatwhat wrote:If you are concerend about infringing their IP you may want to remove the double headed eagle whish is a registered trademark.

Aquila™ Roman Army 753 BC – AD 476


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_%28Roman%29

Erm thanks.

This has what to do with the double headed eagle logo being a trademark of GW?

I think this is more like what he was after:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle

The double eagle is not a GW trademark/copyright, the stylized double eagle w/ one blindfolded head however, is. The eagle used in the work here kind of straddles the line, but as far as I know, its perfectl legal, but I'm not an IP lawyer, and neither are you.

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is more like what he was after:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle

The double eagle is not a GW trademark/copyright, the stylized double eagle w/ one blindfolded head however, is. The eagle used in the work here kind of straddles the line, but as far as I know, its perfectl legal, but I'm not an IP lawyer, and neither are you.

GW have the trademark over the double headed eagle on wargaming miniatures, that's a fact.

If I used the Mcdonalds logo for my burger bar I couldn't get away with showing the court the wikipedia page for the letter M when Mcdonalds brought me to court over it.

by the by I would point out I did say: "IF you are concerned about ifringing their IP". I'm not telling him he shouldn't do it. Me I wouldn't care.

daedalus wrote:I remain unimpressed with the guns. They're too blocky, and not in a good way. You could make good looking blocky guns, but it looks like they're just regular GW weapons made two dimensional. The hydra is rather nice though. I might actually need to get some of those done myself. Are you releasing your plans for these for the public, or should I just reinstall Blender and make my own? (and overcome the awful learning curve... again)

The plans are available for download via the Shapeways website. Keep ion mind, some of the designs keep updating, especially as I improve with my CAD programs.

whatwhat wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is more like what he was after:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle

The double eagle is not a GW trademark/copyright, the stylized double eagle w/ one blindfolded head however, is. The eagle used in the work here kind of straddles the line, but as far as I know, its perfectl legal, but I'm not an IP lawyer, and neither are you.

GW have the trademark over the double headed eagle on wargaming miniatures, that's a fact.

If I used the Mcdonalds logo for my burger bar I couldn't get away with showing the court the wikipedia page for the letter M when Mcdonalds brought me to court over it.

by the by I would point out I did say: "IF you are concerned about ifringing their IP". I'm not telling him he shouldn't do it. Me I wouldn't care.

...YOU ARE NOT AN IP LAWYER.

I'm not going to debate the finer points of IP law with you.

Need IG shotguns!!!

I don't understand why this forum is full of so many people that are concerned about GW and their IP. Seriously, I don't get it.
Someone posts something cool like this and gets sidelong glances about IP infringement and everything. This is the only hobby where I've ever seen this happen.
I build and work on a lot of motorcycles and "IP infringement" happens all the time. I take a blank fender and cut and shape it until it's almost an exact replica of a Harley or Honda fender for 1/5 the price and show it off on forums and people are congratualting me and asking me how to do it.
I know some guys that actually cast offical Harley parts with some mods and sell them as customs.
As far as GW parts, I've recasted some for myself, have given some parts to friends and so forth. Am i infringing on IP? Probably. Is anyone going to do anything about it? Definitely not.

Daggermaw, I'm right there with you on all counts (except I'm not involved with motorcycles), but totally agreed. I can understand someone saying something about it if they work for GW in a legal capacity, or hell if they happen to be an IP lawyer and are offering unsolicited advice (which probably wouldn't happen because there are potential legal ramifications to that in itself), but we're hobbyists working away at our hobby. You can scream bloody murder about it all day long, but its not going to stop anyone from doing it.

In fact, I'm partially convinced its a jealousy type thing: "Damn, I wish I had thought of that, thats really cool... well you know what, it infringes GW's IP and is therefore illegal and uncool so nyah!" I myself have been guilty of that in the past...