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.

Just saw Albatrosses Bloodthirster in FC and it was spot on.

Excellent model, nice and light too so the wings sit on nicely and didn't require pinning or anything.

I was pretty impressed anyway.

My Commissar Yarrick came through flawless, and all the bits I needed from the Termie Librarian I purchased were flawless. There were some issues with pieces I didn't use (the staff I think was a little mangled).

The nice thing about finecast is that it let me put a GK helmet in place of the head on the Libby. I never would have even attempted that in pewter.

oni wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

coyotius wrote:Let's face it, the defects are there, that can't even be argued

And yet people here still are arguing it, or, at best, attempting to explain it away a year after release.

Amazing isn't it?

No more amazing than the fact that people still use "Failcost", "Finecost", "Failcast", etc.

Orki wrote:Can anyone here actually provide us with some high resolution, unpainted, pictures of what a 'perfect' or 'flawless' Finecast miniature looks like please?

I feel that maybe i've been hard done by, as I've gone through nearly £1000 worth of the stuff and not come across a single perfect/flawless mini yet. I've had less than half a dozen 'acceptable' ones now from that tally, but none were anywhere near perfect or flawless.

By 'acceptable' I mean that I only needed to fill in up to a dozen or so bubbles, and resculpt a few detail obscuring voids on the mini, and recarve a few areas where mould tears from prior casts have added extra material to my model.

This is still terrible compared to any other company's resin products, but in my considerable experience is the best i've seen, and after a couple of hours prep-work, the painting of said models was quite a pleasurable experience. Just like most things in life you have to work for.

Surely someone can shed some light on what the grail of Finecast is? I genuinely want to know what I should be looking out for.

I too would like to see.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen really good casts. In fact I own one (Terminator Librarian - And it only took two replacements to get... Third times a charm I guess.), but the overwhelming majority of Finecast that I've seen has been FAIL. I believe (and I'll catch major flak for saying this) that a large majority of those who defend Finecast have incredibly low quality standards or perhaps poor eyesight.

All I'm asking is to be proven wrong. So please, I implore you Fincast defenders to try and change my assumption before flaming me. Make me believe in Finecast.

Here's where my problem comes up.

I do have a perfect Finecast model. I ordered a Dark Emissary on 7/25/2011, alongside of my Necromancer.

At that point in time, I was very much in the camp of "Well, it's still in its teething stages and I'm sure I can't be the only one who has gotten a perfect casting!" so I didn't think to document it with photographs before priming and starting to paint it. I've been very upfront about my experiences with Finecast so far(Two duds in the form of Vlad von Carstein, a fairly good cast of Konrad which I tried to strip the paint from and subsequently ruined, and then the Dark Emissary who had no flaws which I cannot readily discern), so if you want the photographs of the Dark Emissary I'll provide them.

My first Finecast was exquisite, a Dark Eldar Llamia-- Lhamea-- poison lady. Beautiful detail, not miscasts. The second, a box of incubi, was tolerable. The klaives were kinda wobbly, and there were some bits that need sanding down. The third, another box of incubi, were flat awful. Flaws all over.

Though I still prefer metal, I think there's great potential for Finecast minis to be beautiful, well detailed models.

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I'm curious why there needs to be a "fair and balanced" view on Dakka. There's already a thread about Finecast. Why do we need a second, super special one about how lovely and wonderful it is? Why not post all your positive experiences in that thread?

Edit: i also find it suspect that you registered and posted this thread almost immediately. On most message boards, people would suspect you of being a paid shill of some sort for such an act.

The problem is that, without being prodded in that direction, humans typically focus on the bad. It's the reason why I remember every failure that cost me at Adepticon, but I don't really remember the amazing rolls that I had.

I think this thread is a good idea, and I've been around a tiny bit longer than yesterday. The problem lies in the fact that 12 months of constant finecast complaining isn't content. It gets boring after a while. And if I'm a shill, then they're mailing the checks to the wrong address.

OT, but interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070828110711.htm

PhantomViper wrote:

oni wrote:
I too would like to see.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen really good casts. In fact I own one (Terminator Librarian - And it only took two replacements to get... Third times a charm I guess.), but the overwhelming majority of Finecast that I've seen has been FAIL. I believe (and I'll catch major flak for saying this) that a large majority of those who defend Finecast have incredibly low quality standards or perhaps poor eyesight.

All I'm asking is to be proven wrong. So please, I implore you Fincast defenders to try and change my assumption before flaming me. Make me believe in Finecast.

How DARE you to doubt the words of all these fine gents! If they say that their failcrap miniatures are flawless, then that is because they are! You are just another hater coming in here and asking for "proof"! Everybody knows that Failcrap is a revolutionary casting method that produces the best miniatures in the universe, so say GW, so say we all!

Haters gonna hate. In this case, haters gonna hate on the wrong thread.

Nice work.

I agree. People are quick to be cynical and negative on the internet, quite aside from the negative bias memory shows. A little positivity helps balance out all the bitterness.

Squigsquasher wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

oni wrote:
I too would like to see.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen really good casts. In fact I own one (Terminator Librarian - And it only took two replacements to get... Third times a charm I guess.), but the overwhelming majority of Finecast that I've seen has been FAIL. I believe (and I'll catch major flak for saying this) that a large majority of those who defend Finecast have incredibly low quality standards or perhaps poor eyesight.

All I'm asking is to be proven wrong. So please, I implore you Fincast defenders to try and change my assumption before flaming me. Make me believe in Finecast.

How DARE you to doubt the words of all these fine gents! If they say that their failcrap miniatures are flawless, then that is because they are! You are just another hater coming in here and asking for "proof"! Everybody knows that Failcrap is a revolutionary casting method that produces the best miniatures in the universe, so say GW, so say we all!

Haters gonna hate. In this case, haters gonna hate on the wrong thread.

Nice work.

Seriously.. that fether calls me a troll.

All I have to say is that after my experience having to pin the arms onto my Flammers of Tzeentch and nearly losing it and hurling the models through a closed window, I will deal with whatever flaws Finecast throws my way before doing metal again.

I am holding off on getting any Plaguebearers until they come out in Finecast.

The only Finecase model I have gotten so far was a KFF Big Mek for Christmas. He took a bit of cleaning up to get all the extra bits off, and I had to use green stuff in a couple of places to get it "perfect" (at least for me,) but I don't really care that much. Looks good primed. Can't wait to actually paint it.

Nictolopy wrote:I am holding off on getting any Plaguebearers until they come out in plastic.

Come on man, aim for the stars! I'm really hoping we get plastic plaguebearers with the next Daemons release.

htj wrote:I agree. People are quick to be cynical and negative on the internet, quite aside from the negative bias memory shows. A little positivity helps balance out all the bitterness.

Be fair now, I'm sure the above few posts weren't specifically aimed at me, but I did say that I've had a few acceptable casts now. Although I think the word 'acceptable' is pushing the definition somewhat. The word I was looking for is 'tolerable'.

That's my little bit of positivity for you guys. Can I have some pics now please?

Large, unpainted, in focus, well lit (no, that doesn't mean overexposed), and from a few angles (particularly from the underside where all the bubbles form). Please, show me your good fortune so I may adjust my statistics accordingly, and go into my local again in an effort to seek out this level of 'flawless' and 'perfect' quality myself.

htj wrote:I agree. People are quick to be cynical and negative on the internet, quite aside from the negative bias memory shows. A little positivity helps balance out all the bitterness.

What positivity? This thread isn't an example of positivity, this thread is spin control and a semi-marketing ploy by all the white knights, pure and simple.

There isn't a single shred of positive evidence besides statements, because every single absolutely flawless example of failcrap that people get, is so absolutely marvellous and wonderful that their owners feel compelled to immediately prime it and paint it!

So since we're putting up criteria now...

From now on, whenever one wishes to claim that they "dug through the racks looking for a moderately acceptable cast" you must actually provide photographs of each model you disregarded as "poor quality".

If I can't be trusted to provide basecoated photographs of my model, then you most certainly cannot be trusted to have actually dug through the racks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

htj wrote:I agree. People are quick to be cynical and negative on the internet, quite aside from the negative bias memory shows. A little positivity helps balance out all the bitterness.

What positivity? This thread isn't an example of positivity, this thread is spin control and a semi-marketing ploy by all the white knights, pure and simple.

"Spin control"? For who?

Games Workshop doesn't give a flying feth what you think. They don't give a flying feth what I think. They don't give a flying feth what you're posting on Dakka.

The fact of the matter is a simple one. People like you, the ones who constantly feel the need to post using terms such as "failcrap"(it stopped being 'edgy' or even remotely amusing sometime last fall/winter, by the by) make it damned near impossible to get any actual discussion going on in regards to the models themselves. It is nonstop whining about "Oh X is in failcrap, PASS!" or rants about the prices.

Prices certainly are an issue, before you run off on a tangent and start in with another line of white knight accusations, and should be discussed. But a thread about the models themselves is not the place for it--and by that same logic, it is very similar to how the thread for documenting issues one has had with Finecast models is not for making ridiculous jokes.

There isn't a single shred of positive evidence besides statements, because every single absolutely flawless example of failcrap that people get, is so absolutely marvelous and wonderful that their owners feel compelled to immediately prime it and paint it!

Gee. It's almost like people want to paint the models they buy...

I don't make a habit of photographing models so that I can show the Internet what I got when they arrive. Do you?
I prep and then prime them, to start painting.

PhantomViper wrote:

htj wrote:I agree. People are quick to be cynical and negative on the internet, quite aside from the negative bias memory shows. A little positivity helps balance out all the bitterness.

What positivity? This thread isn't an example of positivity, this thread is spin control and a semi-marketing ploy by all the white knights, pure and simple.

There isn't a single shred of positive evidence besides statements, because every single absolutely flawless example of failcrap that people get, is so absolutely marvellous and wonderful that their owners feel compelled to immediately prime it and paint it!

Right. So anyone who likes Finecast is a white knight marketing shill? Or indeed, anyone who reports a positive experience?

Perhaps people are faster to post bad examples because a bad example is more emotionally responsive. Perhaps when people get a good one they don't think 'I must post this on Dakka Dakka!' but rather think 'cool, I'm going to paint this.' Yes, Finecast has a lot of trouble meeting decent QA but that doesn't mean that everything is terrible. It's nice to hear that people are having good experiences too, and that the whole thing isn't a unmitigated disaster. Going by all the 'look at this crap!' threads, one could be put off from ever risking it, but having people talk about the positive as well as the negative restores a little customer confidence in those who don't want to write off all of GW's Finecast stuff as a lost cause. And you know what? Some people still like to buy the nice miniatures GW makes.

You want to believe that all Finecast is terrible and give aggro to threads that talk about nice experiences with it? Well, in the end that's your choice. But if you find yourself thinking you're personally under attack by statements that are talking about the general nature of people on the internet, and if you find yourself so convinced that those who disagree with your worldview are members of some strange unpaid corporate-worshiping groupthink-cult that you feel the need to append your posts with patronising little facepalms... well. Then you're probably not going to get much out of the discussion at all.

I've said my piece. Take it or leave it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Orki.

Statement wasn't targetted at you, it's an observation of the nature of folks on the internet. We're all guilty of it.

And - nope. If you're not willing to take someone's word for it that their casts were fine then you're being unreasonable. The vast majority of us (maybe all of us) genuinely have no reason to lie.

Kanluwen wrote:So since we're putting up criteria now...

From now on, whenever one wishes to claim that they "dug through the racks looking for a moderately acceptable cast" you must actually provide photographs of each model you disregarded as "poor quality".

If I can't be trusted to provide basecoated photographs of my model, then you most certainly cannot be trusted to have actually dug through the racks.

That is one of the most slowed "arguments" that I've ever read! Let me see if I understood you correctly, you are stating that the people that posted pictures of bad failcrap miniatures went to the trouble of going trough the racks in their store, and then spent their hard earned cash specifically on a badly cast miniature just so they could post about it in the internet?

Is that really your "argument"?

Kanluwen wrote: But a thread about the models themselves is not the place for it--and by that same logic, it is very similar to how the thread for documenting issues one has had with Finecast models is not for making ridiculous jokes.

Completely agree, that is why I didn't post in this thread until now, but after 3 pages... where are the models? Doing my best Jerry Maguire impression: "SHOW ME THE MODELS!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

htj wrote:I agree. People are quick to be cynical and negative on the internet, quite aside from the negative bias memory shows. A little positivity helps balance out all the bitterness.

What positivity? This thread isn't an example of positivity, this thread is spin control and a semi-marketing ploy by all the white knights, pure and simple.

There isn't a single shred of positive evidence besides statements, because every single absolutely flawless example of failcrap that people get, is so absolutely marvellous and wonderful that their owners feel compelled to immediately prime it and paint it!

Right. So anyone who likes Finecast is a white knight marketing shill? Or indeed, anyone who reports a positive experience?

Perhaps people are faster to post bad examples because a bad example is more emotionally responsive. Perhaps when people get a good one they don't think 'I must post this on Dakka Dakka!' but rather think 'cool, I'm going to paint this.' Yes, Finecast has a lot of trouble meeting decent QA but that doesn't mean that everything is terrible. It's nice to hear that people are having good experiences too, and that the whole thing isn't a unmitigated disaster. Going by all the 'look at this crap!' threads, one could be put off from ever risking it, but having people talk about the positive as well as the negative restores a little customer confidence in those who don't want to write off all of GW's Finecast stuff as a lost cause. And you know what? Some people still like to buy the nice miniatures GW makes.

You want to believe that all Finecast is terrible and give aggro to threads that talk about nice experiences with it? Well, in the end that's your choice. But if you find yourself thinking you're personally under attack by statements that are talking about the general nature of people on the internet, and if you find yourself so convinced that those who disagree with your worldview are members of some strange unpaid corporate-worshiping groupthink-cult that you feel the need to append your posts with patronising little facepalms... well. Then you're probably not going to get much out of the discussion at all.

I've said my piece. Take it or leave it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Orki.

Statement wasn't targetted at you, it's an observation of the nature of folks on the internet. We're all guilty of it.

And - nope. If you're not willing to take someone's word for it that their casts were fine then you're being unreasonable. The vast majority of us (maybe all of us) genuinely have no reason to lie.

1 year has passed since the initial release, not a single picture of flawless miniature has surfaced?

Even in BoW's freaking unboxing videos you can see bubbles and miscasts in the miniatures even in GW's own promo pictures! Is it really that unreasonable to ask for actual proof of what people are claiming? Call me a hater all you like, I'm not prepared to take peoples words on all those wonderful models when I personally haven't seen a single failcrap miniature without at least a minor casting flaw.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:So since we're putting up criteria now...

From now on, whenever one wishes to claim that they "dug through the racks looking for a moderately acceptable cast" you must actually provide photographs of each model you disregarded as "poor quality".

If I can't be trusted to provide basecoated photographs of my model, then you most certainly cannot be trusted to have actually dug through the racks.

That is one of the most slowed "arguments" that I've ever read!

First of all: cut the insults. If you cannot make a reasonable attempt at discourse, kindly leave the thread and take a break. Come back when you've composed yourself and can engage in a reasonable discussion without having to resort to personal attacks.

Let me see if I understood you correctly, you are stating that the people that posted pictures of bad failcrap miniatures went to the trouble of going trough the racks in their store, and then spent their hard earned cash specifically on a badly cast miniature just so they could post about it in the internet?

Is that really your "argument"?

Second: If you are going to accuse someone (or their argument for that matter) of being mentally challenged, I highly suggest you make the effort of actually reading the post they've replied to and their reply before posting.

My "argument" is that if it's perfectly acceptable for someone to claim that they "dug all through the racks" with no evidence to support it, then why is it that I would have to provide photographs that meet the following criteria to be believed?

Large, unpainted, in focus, well lit (no, that doesn't mean overexposed), and from a few angles (particularly from the underside where all the bubbles form).

If we begin applying a set of criteria to one argument, we need a set of criteria to apply to the other. Without criteria applying in both cases, it's just stacking the deck in favor of one or the other.

Kanluwen wrote: But a thread about the models themselves is not the place for it--and by that same logic, it is very similar to how the thread for documenting issues one has had with Finecast models is not for making ridiculous jokes.

Completely agree, that is why I didn't post in this thread until now, but after 3 pages... where are the models? Doing my best Jerry Maguire impression: "SHOW ME THE MODELS!"

Your first post was what most would consider flamebaiting/trolling. With good reason, I might add.

That said, it's quite clear that even if one were to post a "perfect Finecast" someone such as yourself would claim that they had to go through obscene lengths to get it.

Well, sorry Phantom. I painted mine. You could take my word for it, or assume that I'm lying. Up to you. Don't see why I'd bother lying, but there you go.

Ooh, I have a fun idea. If I'm a white knight shill, then I'll totally switch loyalties and talk about how terrible Finecast is and how GW actually employs people for the purpose of eating babies if you pay me more than I claim GW is paying me!

htj wrote:
@Orki.

Statement wasn't targetted at you, it's an observation of the nature of folks on the internet. We're all guilty of it.

And - nope. If you're not willing to take someone's word for it that their casts were fine then you're being unreasonable. The vast majority of us (maybe all of us) genuinely have no reason to lie.

Thats cool man. I guessed that anyway, though I fear the light-hearted tone in which my comment was meant may have been misinterpreted.

I'm not accusing anyone of lying, nor am I being unreasonable. I have no reason to believe you're lying. I'm simply asking to see photo's of what it is that i've been missing out on.

Again, I've been through more Finecast than probably every poster in this thread combined and have yet to see a perfect or flawless cast. Just as I believe you have got them, you must therefore believe I have yet to see one. I've thoroughly enjoyed working on the ones that I kept as passable, but was under no delusions as to their quality when I accepted them at the point of sale, nor when I got them back to the studio and found while under proper scrutiny the additional flaws that we're not apparent upon purchasing.

I'll say it again just in case anyone thinks i'm being unreasonable. - I would simply like to see what it is i'm missing out on. While the flaws in Finecast are well documented, It really shouldn't be hard for someone to purchase a mini that is 'perfect' and 'flawless' at some point over the lifespan of this thread, and provide us unlucky buggers with some hope for the future.

Guys, please don't flame this thread with the sort of discussion that has gone on elsewhere. Help a brother out, will ya?

The bloke is an absolute ****, the amount of times he has called me a troll for merely debating a point with him about the level of incandescent rage he displays, and now he rocks up in here? It says "not a hate thread" in the title and he is in here throwing insults about and essentially trolling you.

I suggest you ignore him, as I said before, several thousand people have now said "I got a great model" If he want to forward the view that he has severe mental problems and thinks every single one of said individuals works for GW PLC let him gibber away on his lonesome.

There is no need to post a photo for the vast majority of humans, your word is ample proof enough.

Well, I could post a picture of a perfectly cast DE mini, but it's painted, so it wouldn't prove much in many people's minds. Just that I'm an at best average painter. I'm not even a fan of Finecast, I much prefer metal, but the constant ragging on it kinda grates, you know? So I'm willing to go to war on a thread like this, but I'll try not to escalate this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good call, matty. Thanks.

Did we just cross the streams?

Kanluwen wrote:
My "argument" is that if it's perfectly acceptable for someone to claim that they "dug all through the racks" with no evidence to support it, then why is it that I would have to provide photographs that meet the following criteria to be believed?

For the same reason that someone who claims to see a unicorn should provide a picture, whereas someone who claims to have seen a horse does not. Most people have seen a horse.

Honestly, I do believe that GW can produce some good finecast models. However, I'd love to compile a list of which models are generally good quality, and which models have a high rate of failure. For example, the 25th anniversary marine and the necron lord seem to have a high rate of repeated failure, even when a customer requests multiple replacements. Based on the evidence I've seen I wouldn't even bother wasting my time to try to find one of those in good condition. There must be some models that have a higher rate of success., at least according to the comments I've read. I'd like to be able to look up which models are a lost cause, and which models can be purchased with confidence.

To this end, I would like to see people provide pics of good quality models, because it would help re-establish some trust for the product. The high rate of failure on some models, which has been documented repeatedly through photos, has seriously damaged finecast's reputation. It's not unreasonable to expect GW's defenders to make the same effort to document their success.

In short, we've had a 70+ page thread with lots of pictures of horses. Here we have a thread talking about how beautiful unicorns are, but no pics.

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
My "argument" is that if it's perfectly acceptable for someone to claim that they "dug all through the racks" with no evidence to support it, then why is it that I would have to provide photographs that meet the following criteria to be believed?

For the same reason that someone who claims to see a unicorn should provide a picture, whereas someone who claims to have seen a horse does not. Most people have seen a horse.

Everyone knows you can't photograph a unicorn though! They're like vampires!

That said, here is the best I can do for giving you some proof. I am not stripping and unbasing this model for Dakka, so you'll have to make do for now.

Kanluwen wrote:

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
My "argument" is that if it's perfectly acceptable for someone to claim that they "dug all through the racks" with no evidence to support it, then why is it that I would have to provide photographs that meet the following criteria to be believed?

For the same reason that someone who claims to see a unicorn should provide a picture, whereas someone who claims to have seen a horse does not. Most people have seen a horse.

Everyone knows you can't photograph a unicorn though! They're like vampires!

That said, here is the best I can do for giving you some proof. I am not stripping and unbasing this model for Dakka, so you'll have to make do for now.

Spoiler:

Thanks Kanluwen, for taking the first step. Yeah, it's hard to see, but it's a start at least. Hopefully we can get more in the future.

( Why are pics of flying saucers and loch ness monsters always blurry and dark anyways? )

I have painted all my Finecast I'm afraid because there wasn't anything wrong with them. I can post pictures of the painted models but that wouldn't provide the 'proof' you're looking for. Quite honestly I can see entirely the point of providing photos of unpainted models with flaws but it never really struck me that anyone would want pictures of unpainted ones that were okay.

But I'll happily post a couple of pictures next time I buy a Finecast model.

I have finally purchased my first finecast models, weary of the bad wrap they get on the web:

1 box of Fire Dragons
1 box of Striking Scorpions
1st of all, the details are beautiful, and models are very striking, it seems to hold crisp edges very well. However, they all did have some bubbles/voids (which I am too lazy to fill, they look great anyways), and took a lot longer to prepare with cutting molding/flashing, etc. lots of cleanup!

However, I think I'll be a large fan of them being LIGHTER and less likely to CHIP PAINT than metal. They also glue much easier, and they do have the neat property of easily repositioning with hot water. that makes some conversions very easy.

i do think their process needs improving upon, in light of all the problems they have, but the products still nice.

Would I buy it again? .... maybe, it was a lot of work preparing the 12 models. But damn, they're pretty.

Because they exist in a dimension out of synchronization with our own, and as such the ripples they create in our own dimension cause cameras to take blurry and dark photos.

Plus, everyone knows the clearer the photo the more faked it is.

I went back and looked closely at him, and realized I missed a moldline on his horns on my clean-up though.

Okay, after that little derailing, <resume topical discussion, or terminate thread participation>.

The main problem with FC is that it was launched as the figures
to end all figures. The original release was so overdone that it had
To get a bad reception. And to be honest I see it like this. If you get a good
FC mini, then its actually very good indeed. But if you get a poor one its
Really poor. With metal the standard was uniform. So GW should
Have perfected the casting before such claims were made. Personally I love
Plastic as its so easy to convert and work with.

Some people hate FC some love it.

Me, I use whatever I think looks good. All the materials have advantages
And disadvantages. I don't think FC is that great a material for mass
Produced minis and I'm disappointed with the cost as well.
At the end of the day I think GW brought it out without perfecting it and as such
You have those with bad expierances and those with good.
Neither camp it seems will budge.