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.

We get it, 3D modelling allows for all kinds of crazy details and cool ideas.

But it is not a tangible representation of what one can expect out of the product. I've seen countless Kickstarters showing off flashy 3D models that they want to release, but rarely see a physical model with it.

3D models are still(at least in my mind) concept art, and getting people to buy into your project or product based on concept art is an uphill battle. I don't even like buying military models where the box only shows artwork and not the actual model itself.

We aren't buying your 3D artwork, we're buying a physical model. Please, for the love of this hobby, start showing us what we are actually buying. If you sell on Shapeways or using any 3D printing service, show us ACTUAL examples of the work and not what it's "supposed" to look like.

The only time in today's industry where 3D models are an acceptable reference of what the product will actually be is with plastic injection, and we all know that's rare among smaller companies.

/rant

This is something I can get behind. I hate seeing 3D models on packaging and not actual models for instance. I want to see plastic, or preferably a painted model. Plain gray 3D models always look off to me...Could be the artificial shadows they have to use to show the detail on the model. I don't know, I just know I don't like it.

It depends on the company, those who have experience in the field know the limitation of the production process make 3d files that are close to the final products, it is those new small companies that make those highly detailed 3d files only to have them tone down before the production.

I'm fine with the 3D renders I see from Corvus Belli.

 Aerethan wrote:
We get it, 3D modelling allows for all kinds of crazy details and cool ideas.

But it is not a tangible representation of what one can expect out of the product. I've seen countless Kickstarters showing off flashy 3D models that they want to release, but rarely see a physical model with it.

3D models are still(at least in my mind) concept art, and getting people to buy into your project or product based on concept art is an uphill battle. I don't even like buying military models where the box only shows artwork and not the actual model itself.

We aren't buying your 3D artwork, we're buying a physical model. Please, for the love of this hobby, start showing us what we are actually buying. If you sell on Shapeways or using any 3D printing service, show us ACTUAL examples of the work and not what it's "supposed" to look like.

The only time in today's industry where 3D models are an acceptable reference of what the product will actually be is with plastic injection, and we all know that's rare among smaller companies.

/rant

What exactly do you think they're doing a Kickstarter for?-A 3D printed model is expensive; to get a 3D print of a model in a quality that reflects the product you're practically asking them to have the master sculpt of the model. The quality of 3D print can cost thousands of dollars and is exactly why these people are doing a kickstarter. For example Iron Wind Miniature did a kickstarter to produce a set of about 20 models each about 28mm tall that they had done digitally. There quote to get the models 3D printed was $25,000. That's around $1100 per model and simply put not everyone who wants to produce a model can afford that. If those companies can independently fund a master-quality 3D print they really don't need people to participate in a kickstarter and are probably doing it more for hype and publicity than genuine sincere need to seek fan funding. Yes there are manufacturing costs, but that's a lot more scalable and they could just as easily do pre-orders.

As part of a company doing a Kickstarter for metal molds to make plastic miniatures right now (Heavy Gear plug!) I can tell you that a good quality print for a multi-part 3D model costs $1K-2K depending on the design up to 3-4K for something large like a Strider/Dreadnought.

This also does not include the time it take for a master model maker to clean the printed master and re-sculpt detail that will always break off. Those 3D prints are never clean enough to go straight into resin. That there is another 4-10 hours of work that you need to pay someone competent for.

In my capacity as a private citizen I say good on the 3D artists for publishing their work and asking for help making it real.

If you really want to get a good idea of any problems there may be ask for the render with the analysis of undercuts. Most 3D programs can calculate where the angles and tolerances are enough and where, usually indicated in a contrasting color, the sculptor will have to adjust or cheat their design.

A good/experienced sculptor/company will know this. A new company might need to be prodded. Usually it's a fiddly detail that anyone regularly producing 3D prints will know as just a part of the job and is usually not interesting to the rest of us.

Cheers!
Dave

 aka_mythos wrote:
What exactly do you think they're doing a Kickstarter for?-A 3D printed model is expensive; to get a 3D print of a model in a quality that reflects the product you're practically asking them to have the master sculpt of the model. The quality of 3D print can cost thousands of dollars and is exactly why these people are doing a kickstarter. For example Iron Wind Miniature did a kickstarter to produce a set of about 20 models each about 28mm tall that they had done digitally. There quote to get the models 3D printed was $25,000. That's around $1100 per model and simply put not everyone who wants to produce a model can afford that. If those companies can independently fund a master-quality 3D print they really don't need people to participate in a kickstarter and are probably doing it more for hype and publicity than genuine sincere need to seek fan funding. Yes there are manufacturing costs, but that's a lot more scalable and they could just as easily do pre-orders.

Yeah, I don't see a problem with Kickstarters using concept art where they haven't had the opportunity to have casts or prints done yet. That's part of the point of Kickstarter... For some reason though, people expect gaming-related projects on Kickstarter to be showing finished product before they even start, which in many cases just isn't practical, and kind of defies the point of doing a kickstarter in the first place.


It's companies that continue to use that concept art to sell the miniatures once they are actually in production that bug me. I want to see what I'm buying.

On the other hand, Wyrd puts 3D renders on their boxes, and from what I've read it's because they found they really couldn't win. People complained about painted miniatures (waiting for the painted figures slowed down production of the packaging, and people would complain about good paint jobs creating details), and complained about plain miniatures ("Where's the studio paint job?"), and they complain about the 3D renders, too.

I see the point, but I think demanding physical prints from companies on kickstarter is somewhat missing the point of kickstarter. I'm quite keen on launching a game of my own in the far off future (or near future if my plan to win the lottery pans out), and the costs to get 3D prints are too high for me to pay for with the capital I'd have at the start. I'd assume the same is true for most companies on KS.

On retail packaging for a product, yea, sure, I can see that.

I'll grant Kickstarters immunity since they are there trying to get the funding.

Shapeways is perhaps a better example, as they MAKE the actual models, but you just know it isn't going to look anywhere near as crisp as the rendering.

 solkan wrote:
On the other hand, Wyrd puts 3D renders on their boxes, and from what I've read it's because they found they really couldn't win. People complained about painted miniatures (waiting for the painted figures slowed down production of the packaging, and people would complain about good paint jobs creating details), and complained about plain miniatures ("Where's the studio paint job?"), and they complain about the 3D renders, too.

The people who complain about painted minis being shown on the box would be a distinct minority.

Whether painted or not, though, showing the actual miniature is almost always going to be preferable (to the customer) to only showing a render or concept artwork.

I've learned the hard way that 3D renders are not in any way, shape or form representative of the final casts, and so refuse to buy models based on them. I'll wait for fan pictures of the models if need be. The difference in quality is simply too much.

The other thing 3d miniatures designers need to know is that details on smaller models need to be larger for them to be more easily visible. It has to do with how our eyes process the contrast from light and shadow on small surfaces. If you're doing a 30mm miniatures and a fold in a coat would normally be 0.1mm, instead, make it deeper than it's real scale depth would be if you scaled down a person.

If you need to see examples of details that are deep enough without needed to go too far in terms of proportion definitely check out Infinity renders.

That's just a sculpting issue. Physical sculptors also have the same problem.

Early infinity models had these fiddly little slivers of metal that were supposed to parts for the miniatures.

It's all based on the skill of the sculptor and the people running it.

Absolutely. I just see a lot of renders where people are all proud, but you know when they get their master for the first time, some of the detail is going to be just not there.

Perhaps my advice could be summarized as "just because it looks good as 10" tall render on your monitor, doesn't mean it'll look good and a inch and a quarter tall miniature, so think about why that might be in terms of light on smaller objects, depth of detail, contrast, etc."

Sort of a natural addendum to the point in the OP.

 Vertrucio wrote:
That's just a sculpting issue. Physical sculptors also have the same problem.

Early infinity models had these fiddly little slivers of metal that were supposed to parts for the miniatures.

It's all based on the skill of the sculptor and the people running it.

That you would accidentally cut off thinking they were flash.

Techniques will mature over time, and a lot of the kickstarters are done by inexperienced people.

You can actually do a pretty good preview of a sculpt by tweaking the camera settings on your 3D package and bringing the camera back out. It also helps to get the lighting setup properly when doing preview renders, something few amateurs know how to do.

Again, 3D sculpting is not the problem, asking people not to use it is silly since it offers many benefits over physical sculpts.

The problem is sculptors with little experience making miniatures, or sculptors with little experience at all, making common mistakes that amateur sculptors always make.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Techniques will mature over time, and a lot of the kickstarters are done by inexperienced people.

You can actually do a pretty good preview of a sculpt by tweaking the camera settings on your 3D package and bringing the camera back out. It also helps to get the lighting setup properly when doing preview renders, something few amateurs know how to do.

Again, 3D sculpting is not the problem, asking people not to use it is silly since it offers many benefits over physical sculpts.

The problem is sculptors with little experience making miniatures, or sculptors with little experience at all, making common mistakes that amateur sculptors always make.

The OP wasn't complaining about the sculpts themselves but about how misleading 3d renders tend to be. It has nothing to do with camera work.

 insaniak wrote:

 solkan wrote:
On the other hand, Wyrd puts 3D renders on their boxes, and from what I've read it's because they found they really couldn't win. People complained about painted miniatures (waiting for the painted figures slowed down production of the packaging, and people would complain about good paint jobs creating details), and complained about plain miniatures ("Where's the studio paint job?"), and they complain about the 3D renders, too.

The people who complain about painted minis being shown on the box would be a distinct minority.

Whether painted or not, though, showing the actual miniature is almost always going to be preferable (to the customer) to only showing a render or concept artwork.

I don't think it matters, so long as the picture is representative of what you receive, that is what is most important. Raging Heroes and Zombicide had mostly drawings for their kickstarters, yet they did a fantastic job of getting the sculpts to look like the artwork. I've bought stuff from Statuesque based on 3D sculpts, which far exceeded my expectations in metal (barely even a mold line).

Painting can cut both ways. If done well it can really enhance the model, but I have also seen pro-painted stuff that looked goofy. Arcadia Quest was a good example of that. The miniatures are well painted in a 'technical' sense, but the style was all wrong, way too realistic and shaded, it looked awful on anime figures. I prefer the warpaint versions on some sculpts. Based purely on those painted figures, I probably would have given the Kickstarter a miss. It was only the unpainted sculpts which made me feel that they weren't being done justice. I would have liked to have been able to see some more detailed 3D renders.

The Chibi Adventurers from Impact seemed to get the worst of all worlds. The sculpts didn't look like the artwork, the casts didn't look like the sculpts, and the paint jobs didn't do anything to flatter the nasty trollcasts. The only good one I saw was Cthulhu.

And then there is the matter of the Reaper Bones Kaladrax....

Where there was a... minor... error as to the scale of the model.... (The model was supposed to be a good deal smaller than the finished product. I ended up getting a model that is two feet long, nose to tail, for $10....)

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And then there is the matter of the Reaper Bones Kaladrax....

Where there was a... minor... error as to the scale of the model.... (The model was supposed to be a good deal smaller than the finished product. I ended up getting a model that is two feet long, nose to tail, for $10....)

The Auld Grump

Yeah, that was a great mistake!(for backers at least )

I don't tend to find scale to be too much of an issue from render to model though.

 Smacks wrote:
I don't think it matters, so long as the picture is representative of what you receive, that is what is most important.

But that's the point: A render or concept art is not representative of what you will receive. It's just a starting point in the manufacturing process.

Again, that's fine for a kickstarter. It's not fine for product packaging, or as the sole representation of the miniature on the company webstore.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I don't think it matters, so long as the picture is representative of what you receive, that is what is most important.

But that's the point: A render or concept art is not representative of what you will receive. It's just a starting point in the manufacturing process.

Again, that's fine for a kickstarter. It's not fine for product packaging, or as the sole representation of the miniature on the company webstore.

This was the main point I was getting at.

 solkan wrote:
On the other hand, Wyrd puts 3D renders on their boxes, and from what I've read it's because they found they really couldn't win. People complained about painted miniatures (waiting for the painted figures slowed down production of the packaging, and people would complain about good paint jobs creating details), and complained about plain miniatures ("Where's the studio paint job?"), and they complain about the 3D renders, too.

Yeah, they probably got complaints all around, but they took the cheap way out - no models, no paint. A win for them and I guess the 2 guys that actually prefer renders only. I frankly don't trust Wyrd much anymore until I see an unboxing. Their model details are faint with nonexistent faces and the scale is all over the place.

Renders look great blown up, but digital artists need to stop sculpting for a monitor and start sculpting for the damn table. That means exaggerating facial features to show up at something other than 50x actual size. You know, mouths that are visible beyond a slit, eyes that aren't microscopic pinpricks, etc. Similarly, stop making super thin wires and points of base contact that aren't likely to survive much transport. My stupid hanging tree came with 3 of the 4 ropes snapped on the sprue, that's how delicate it is.

Spartan games has pictures of painted models on the packaging and in the book, but has renders in the unit entries and on the site (along with the painted models here and there).

The renders are exactly the same as the model so far and in the book it allows you too see what you get when they are unpainted.

I think its a nice balance really.

I don't think it's even fine for a kickstarter, at least not by the end. If more kickstarters had product to show by the end of the funding period, there would be a lot fewer threads on here complaining about how swindled they were by some guy on kickstarter.

Most Kickstarters don't have the resources to begin production before funding.

Henshini wrote:
I don't think it's even fine for a kickstarter, at least not by the end. If more kickstarters had product to show by the end of the funding period, there would be a lot fewer threads on here complaining about how swindled they were by some guy on kickstarter.

The whole point of a kickstarter is for the company to get the funds to produce their product. So expecting them to have product before they are funded is a little unrealistic.

Kickstarters shouldn't be "free" for the creator either.

I'm not saying they should have all the 3d prints done, but a single render, a single print, and then a bunch more renders will show
a) dedication and investment
b) how close renders are to the end product
c) that the company realizes there's often a difference between render/concept art and end product.

I won't refuse to back concept-only kickstarters, but those with at least some kind of effort beyond concept art get much more investigation for my (limited) money.

You do realize most creators have already invested much in the game just by the renders, 3D sculptors are not free, neither is art ectr ectr, production of a render is expensive and they have already invested on other sides of production.

If they have on top of 3D sculpts art and design work the money to produce the actual 3D sculpts the move to make the game by themselves is a small step, as is evident to most "preorder" kickstarters who most probably do not need the money to produce the product, but the kickstarter allows them to judge interest and maybe upgrade some components that would not be upgraded without a strong backers support.