Switch Theme:

GW Financials - page 30 latest  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Yodhrin wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, I disagree.

Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).

But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.

The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.

This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.


I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually saying the kits are mediocre, it was a continuation of the facetious commentary on robustness - they can't stand up to immersion in lava, therefore garbo.

Look I like GW kits, but yeah I don't see "you can throw them atta wall and probably only have to glue back on a sponson" as being a special selling point. Then again I don't even let other people touch my models unless I've known them for years and can be sure they're not clumsy, inconsiderate oafs, so the idea that dropping models is something so commonplace it requires special consideration is completely alien: "robust enough for tabletop" for me has always meant it can stand up to regular handling and occasionally being balanced on terrain at a wierd angle, not that it has to be tough enough to stand up to the kind of punishment you'd see in a ludicrous informerical where they drive cars over things and hit them with sledgehammers or whatever

Most scale model kits in the types of pricerange that would be appealing to a wargamer easily pass that test, and as folk have said you can simply leave off a few fragile details and have a model that is both suitable for gaming(unless you're the sort of person who used to use Dreadnought-inna-sock as a blackjack or the like) and more detailed than GW kits.

You won't find many who object to the idea that GW kits, by and large, achieve what they set out to achieve which as you say is to provide a "balance" between complexity/detail and simplicity/ease of assembly aimed at the beginner-to-intermediate modeller, but that wasn't the contention some folk were making, they were claiming that GW's plastic kits are objectively, technologically the best, and that's simply farcical. They've made great strides since switching to CAD in terms of parts breakdown(though a lot of stuff does suffer from looking a bit, for want of a better term, "plastic" - but that's an inveitable consequence of using software that lets you "polish" a project free of any imperfection at every stage), but as other have mentioned they don't even seem to be using slide-core tooled molds yet, and it's demonstrably true that there are more detailed kits available.


I'm fairly sure nobody made the argument of technical superiority, or intended to, because that makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, poseable kits require more thought, but does that matter if you don't want pose-ability?
Just like nobody cares if you can get way more detailed kits of something that is of no interest. Let's take a turd for example... would you consider a plastic model of a turd with 1 micron detail resolution a "better" or "best" plastic model? Of course not.

What that means is that it remains entirely subjective what consists of the "best" plastic miniatures out there.

For me, GW offers the best plastic miniatures out there because:
- Their range is huge
- Average quality is pretty good
- The more recent models are truly awesome
- General aesthetics are quite pleasing


That entirely disqualifies any other competitor, because they all have smaller ranges, and while a few may have similar or better detail levels, their general aesthetics suck balls.


Thus....
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

morgoth wrote:

Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.


I've been pretty impressed at the level of detail and how well the Malifaux minis fit together avoiding seam lines (with the occasional issue with tiny parts - Yan Lo has a separate beard, Burt Jebson has a separate jaw).

The GW stuff goes together well now they've moved away from resin/metal, but a lot of it just has a huge amount of detail for the sake of it. It's objectively no better a product that any of the mainstream manufacturers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote:

That entirely disqualifies any other competitor, because they all have smaller ranges, and while a few may have similar or better detail levels, their general aesthetics suck balls.


Well, yeah, I you want to set the criteria such that nothing gets a look in, then GW is clearly the best. No-one else has such a complete single sourced range of heroic sized grimdark space soldiers. But most people are happy to mix and match, using alternatives that fit in, aesthetics they like and so on.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/09 12:03:52


 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






There's also kit flexibility.

The Wraithlord, Wraithknight and that Tau support suit? They're all easy to build in their 'pre-set' poses. But the design of the kit is such that you're by no means tied to the same pose.

Simply clip off the post on the relevant joint, and you've got 'ball and socket' to play with.

Is it Gundam '30,000,000 points of articulation'? Nope. But it is a 'crack at having best of both worlds'.

And this is why I say it's all entirely subjective.

Historically speaking, GW have been the innovators in the hobby wargame model realm. They were the first to do Drastik Plastik. They came up with the slottabase over a cast base. And they've not really stopped since.

Personally, I think their design zenith came with the easily interchangeable kits - stuff like all Empire models being cross compatible etc. I think the modern kits look better, but I still hanker after the multipart era that was.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





This is a really fething silly conversation, comparing apples to oranges. Don't compare GW kits to Gundam or Tamiya. Compare them to their direct competitors and equivalents: Mantic Games, Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast, Fireforge Games, Spartan Games etc.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




But why? The original claim was GW is a better manufacturere of miniatures than everybody else. And that has to include historicals.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This is a really fething silly conversation, comparing apples to oranges. Don't compare GW kits to Gundam or Tamiya. Compare them to their direct competitors and equivalents: Mantic Games, Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast, Fireforge Games, Spartan Games etc.


Indeed.

I loved the Gundam animes but I probably won't ever buy one of the toys tbh, although they seem to be awesome from hearsay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote:
morgoth wrote:

That entirely disqualifies any other competitor, because they all have smaller ranges, and while a few may have similar or better detail levels, their general aesthetics suck balls.


Well, yeah, I you want to set the criteria such that nothing gets a look in, then GW is clearly the best. No-one else has such a complete single sourced range of heroic sized grimdark space soldiers. But most people are happy to mix and match, using alternatives that fit in, aesthetics they like and so on.


Very true.

But my criteria are very basic too:

- Wide range, because I like to collect more than Dreamforge could provide
- Aesthetics, because I hate ugly things, like Dreamforge and a large part of the GW range - good news, it's wide enough so I don't have to collect the ugly ones.
- Mainstream enough to get a game now and then (yes, that comes into the value of a plastic miniature).
- Models that go together easily and leave minimal seams to green stuff (vast improvement over the years).


This is not "I love GW" by any means, it's just that out there, there is noone with a comprehensive range of plastic miniatures that is wide enough to incorporate design elements I appreciate (I like Infinity japanese anime guys too, but they're metal).
Also, the range has come to be consistent, mostly through brainwashing, but that's still a good thing.
GW manages the coherency of their range (in a weird way I know), but that's a million times better than mix-and-matching Dreamforge with GW or going true-Gundam Tau.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/09 12:26:09


 
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

But you're not restricted to a single supplier, and the game and miniatures aren't absolutely linked. Plus, what's wrong with metal?

Nothing stops you using Dreamforge minis in a 40K game (as long as you're not in a GW store).

Aesthetics is purely subjective - there's no answer there.

GW kits are nice. But I don't think most of it's competitors kits are any worse. I've built kits recently from North Star, Warlord, Battlefront (15mm plastics are a pain in the rear), Wyrd and none of them have been any worse than GW kits.

I've got and built a few Gundams (my current hobby) and the production methods put GW to shame - slide moulds, pre-moulded multi-part pieces, multicoloured sprues. I wouldn't use them to game with unless I set all of the joints, but there's nothing stopping me.

For a kit to build for the sake of building, I'd choose Bandai over GW every day. For the price of, say, a Knight, you can get some pretty serious Gundam kits. Most of my Gundams cost less than a single GW clampack figure.

I mean, take this as an example. Tiny bit more expensive than a Knight, but is 38cm tall (double a knight) and comes with LED lighting whilst being fully posable.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/09 13:23:13


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.


OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.

Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.


When the demand is "can you throw it on the floor, eh?? Can you?" then some serious justification is afoot


So you've NEVER, EVER seen a model fall from the tabletop to the floor? Never? Really?

Sorry, but I've seen this happen several times. Some models survived, others, not so much. I have 1/35 Tamiya scale models, and they would NOT do well. I have 1/35 Dragon models of even higher quality (individual track links!) - that would be a disaster if it fell off a tabletop.

   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

That's not the point. If you're going to buy your models based solely on their ability to survive being knocked off a table, buy kiddy toys or lego (which would be fully repairable.)

If it were truly a priority for all but a tiny few wargamers, resin and metal would be totally non-viable as a comemercial material, as nobody would buy them because they are so ill equipped to deal with impact damage without bending and snapping, shattering or exploding into pieces.

I mean, sure, perhaps it's somewhere on the list of priorities, but down the end of the list with "I like the smell when I open a new box" or "the shade of grey of the plastic is particularly pleasing to me" rather than any significant factor informing the buying decision.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Major




London

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.


OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.

Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.


When the demand is "can you throw it on the floor, eh?? Can you?" then some serious justification is afoot


So you've NEVER, EVER seen a model fall from the tabletop to the floor? Never? Really?


Show me where I said that.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
[Jǫtunn]






.

RULE #2 - STAY ON TOPIC...

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Yodhrin wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, I disagree.

Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).

But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.

The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.

This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.


I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually saying the kits are mediocre, it was a continuation of the facetious commentary on robustness - they can't stand up to immersion in lava, therefore garbo.

Look I like GW kits, but yeah I don't see "you can throw them atta wall and probably only have to glue back on a sponson" as being a special selling point.

It is for me. Between moving several places and therefore knowing crazy people in bad neighborhoods, durability is a huge selling point for me. My current Ghost Ark that I had since 5th (and didn't perish in that fire) survived a 4 foot drop from my dresser in an earthquake. I don't know if that is a norm, but it happened for me...

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I only want to say that I don't understand this "They made it with CAD so they look monre toy-ish". Infinity also does his models with digital sculpting and they look realistic.
Isn't the tool. Is how you uses it.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Maybe GW minatures are suffering from the same problem as their rules?
Trying to be everything to everyone, and not being as good at any one thing, as the competition.

A high quality resin kit for display has lots of detail and dynamic posing.The artistry of the sculpt is paramount, and durability and value for money requirements are lower.(Collectors only usually want one of a particular sculpt, and usually put it in a display case after painting.)

Wargaming minatures are the other end of the spectrum.Where durability and value for money is of higher priority to gamers.
As the minatures are needed in higher numbers for a game, and they have to stand being (mis)handled much more.

As GW want their minatures to be 'display quality for their collectors, and durable enough for gaming.They end up with a compromise.(Too expensive for gamers, and not quite as 'fine' as collectors might want.)

However, if the GW rules were of a similar quality to the GW minatures I would not have much to complain about.

   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Stonecold Gimster






GW financials...?
Nah... Just one of those threads where Morgoth (et al) tell us there's nothing as good as a GW miniature unless it is actually a GW miniature.

As to the financials... GW will make a killing this year in all the 8th edition sales. I for one have spent more money with them this year than the last 5. As for the miniatures? Well... if any other company was bringing out such monopose stuff, we'd have the GW fans tell us the models were sooooo 90s.

My Painting Blog: http://gimgamgoo.com/
Currently most played: Kill Team, Kings of War, Silent Death, Beyond the Gates of Antares, Dracula's America, Bolt Action (inc K47), DzC and X-Wing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Gimgamgoo wrote:
GW financials...?
Nah... Just one of those threads where Morgoth (et al) tell us there's nothing as good as a GW miniature unless it is actually a GW miniature.

As to the financials... GW will make a killing this year in all the 8th edition sales. I for one have spent more money with them this year than the last 5. As for the miniatures? Well... if any other company was bringing out such monopose stuff, we'd have the GW fans tell us the models were sooooo 90s.

I hate the monpose HQ's and stuff. Always built my own because I hate bling anyway.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in au
Three Color Minimum




In the casting shack.

I wish we got more multi part HQ kits such as the chaos terminator lord kit.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

"Yar har fiddle-dee-dee, being a pirate is alright with me!
I'll do what I want 'cause a pirate is free, I am a pirate!" 
   
Made in au
Norn Queen






The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.

It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.

It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 -Loki- wrote:
The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.

It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.

It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.


I've seen many big models fall, several times, and none of them ever got hurt that badly, even on a tiled floor.

A tervigon broke his nose, a WraithKnight lost one of his wraithbone antennas, things like that.

I think your Land Raider may not have been glued properly tbh.
A good plastic cement bond will never break, you are more likely to break the pieces than the bond.
That said, if you used any kind of GW plastic cement, or didn't exactly use the cement as it's supposed to (it happens to me too), you can have a weak-ish bond that will break just like superglue bonds.
   
Made in au
Norn Queen






Blame the victim? You can tell it's Dakka.

I know what I'm doing when I build models. I know what happened to that Land Raider.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/10 09:00:55


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 -Loki- wrote:
Blame the victim? You can tell it's Dakka.

I know what I'm doing when I build models. I know what happened to that Land Raider.


And I'm telling you that you cannot possibly break a proper plastic cement bond with such minimal force.
When it's done right, you will need plyers to separate the two plastic bits, and it will almost never break at the bond.

As I said, I also get it wrong sometimes. So don't take it personally, plastic cement bonds are tricky and easy to get half-right.
   
Made in au
Norn Queen






That's fine, but I too can admit when I get something wrong. I didn't get it wrong.
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

For all the people claiming that GW kids are weirdly proportioned and poorly detailed so they'll handle abuse as gaming pieces; how does that fit with models like this:



That thing ain't even going to survive a transport case.

I've dropped and broken plenty of GW stuff, and drop and broken plenty of non-GW stuff, and there's been minimal difference, with the exception of things like spears and rifles on real 28mm scaled stuff - those things are seriously thin. So now I base them on magnets and the spears don't have to touch anything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/10 13:10:00


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




I feel the more recent and more detailed GW kits are quite a bit more fragile than the old ones - I guess you can't really have detail and toughness together.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 -Loki- wrote:
The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.

It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.

It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.


I know you've been getting into this, but the Land Raider was designed improperly - the internal bulkhead is about 1 mm off, so it creates a gap, a seam between the body and the track in most builds. GW official builds included. In your case, I suspect you "forced" it square, like compressing a spring, with a LOT of rubber bands. When it dropped, the internal "spring" released, and that's what tweaked your LR.

After my first LR, I stopped building them with that internal bulkhead, and they all built square and solid. Just sayin'

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




So the model is flawed in itself? What an amazing miniature!
   
Made in gb
Major




London

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 -Loki- wrote:
The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.

It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.

It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.


I know you've been getting into this, but the Land Raider was designed improperly - the internal bulkhead is about 1 mm off, so it creates a gap, a seam between the body and the track in most builds. GW official builds included. In your case, I suspect you "forced" it square, like compressing a spring, with a LOT of rubber bands. When it dropped, the internal "spring" released, and that's what tweaked your LR.

After my first LR, I stopped building them with that internal bulkhead, and they all built square and solid. Just sayin'


So what your saying is that it's not the best design?
   
Made in au
Three Color Minimum




In the casting shack.

I'm glad GW is reaping the benefits for the good work they're starting to do.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

"Yar har fiddle-dee-dee, being a pirate is alright with me!
I'll do what I want 'cause a pirate is free, I am a pirate!" 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

RoninXiC wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 -Loki- wrote:
The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.

It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.

It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.


I know you've been getting into this, but the Land Raider was designed improperly - the internal bulkhead is about 1 mm off, so it creates a gap, a seam between the body and the track in most builds. GW official builds included. In your case, I suspect you "forced" it square, like compressing a spring, with a LOT of rubber bands. When it dropped, the internal "spring" released, and that's what tweaked your LR.

After my first LR, I stopped building them with that internal bulkhead, and they all built square and solid. Just sayin'


So the model is flawed in itself? What an amazing miniature!


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So what your saying is that it's not the best design?


The Land Raider mk. II model design was subtly flawed. It could be worked around, but would have been a pain to do so.

Since then, GW have moved to CAD designs which are far more precise.

   
Made in gb
Major




London

Haha, now there's a politicians answer. It's a flawed design then.
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: