More Finecast Shenanigins

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.

**shasolenzabi**

Still does not answer why they are all sending so many flawed models past the QA even to fill quotas this is damaging their reputation, and pissing off the folks that they want to buy the models. I have also gotten warped models from FW, that is the easiest to fix with a dip in a bowl of hot water from the microwave.

The extreme delicate nature of the models is another concern past t he QA issues, Table battle models which can be knocked off a "building" or the table itself should be able to survive such a fall as the plastics do, not snap as if they were made of fired clay.

The thinking is that they are not using the exact same techniques, nor are they doing a decent QA. And all for the high cost they are charging for Finecast is why folks are upset,,,,especially a year down the road from the initial launch of the product.

**GreyHamster**

MiLkiT wrote:
inquisitorlewis wrote:Yeah all the packs I have gotten for the 25th marine all look like bloody hell. All my other defective pieces were replaced, but for some reason they did not replace the pack.

Not even going to bother calling them again. Luckily I have plenty of plastic SM packs around the house.

On a side note, I have a few old minis that have a crazy torso split. I know they're not GW, maybe old RP.

Lol yep I thought as much. I wonder if anyone got a decent backpack. I’m still amazed by the many levels of fail on this one mini, it’s like a rich tapestry. Layer after layer of rich creamy fail mmmmmm

My backpack was just fine. The entire thing was fine aside from a bent nozzle on the plasma pistol and small bubbles on the shoulder eagle and one of the ankles.

**winterdyne**

Just remember that just because we know *why* faults are occurring does not make it acceptable. My post is educated conjecture based on experience. GW have yet to even admit there is an issue with quality. I've heard stories that suggest that it's not a good idea to talk about things like that if you value your job in GW, and others that suggest that returns / required replacements figures are obfuscated internally through poor processing. God alone knows what's actually going on with regards to the situation as far as GW is concerned. We certainly don't.

**coyotius**

winterdyne wrote:Right, let's clear a few things up.

Citadel Finecast is produced using a resin that can produce good results. Forgeworld use EXACTLY the same resin and general technique (they developed it) on some of their newer models and re-releases.

I can't speak to the resin but I'm 99.99% sure that the techniques are not the same. FW uses gravity casting with pressure, finecast is spun. Now, that .01% is because the last FW pieces I bought were the Tau XV-9s so its been a little while and maybe things being produced today are spun. I don't have any inside info but there are tell-tale signs on the pieces that give it away. FW sprues often have huge resin reservoir blocks...the resin is poured into the blocks and they then pressure and pray (although they may do a light vacuum pull to assist). On finecast the clues are signs of cutter work usually only performed in spin casting. These include details that have "sail-like" pieces of flash not associated with mold parting and thin "blade-like stringers". The sails are made with an x-acto knife and the stingers are make with a small, sharpened metal tube...both act as air traps during compression.

**H.B.M.C.**

GW is using a plastic resin mix. FW do not use the same stuff.

Nor do they use the same techniques.

**poda_t**

H.B.M.C. wrote:GW is using a plastic resin mix. FW do not use the same stuff.

Nor do they use the same techniques.

aparantly, they use the same staff though
badum-tsh

and hey, what's so bad about the models coming conveniently pre-battledamaged!
they all bear the marks in different places, you are guaranteed to have a unique model!
badum-tsh

**winterdyne**

I don't post something as fact unless I'm pretty sure of it.
Here:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/03/news-forgeworldfinecast-repacks.html

And the particular quote I think you should refer to:

"(...)To address your points, however, we'd like to point out that Forge World do not sell Finecast products; Finecast is a Citadel brand, not a specific type of resin, and so we are not operating some sort of scam as you imply in your e-mail, nor are we misrepresenting our products. As we are perhaps the largest single manufacturer of resin models in the world, it should be unsurprising that the Citadel decision to begin using similar materials a certain amount of consultancy with ourselves.

"Forge World use a huge range of different types of resin and just as wide a range of casting methods depending on the kit in question. You'll note that the resin used for a Titan is very different for that used to produce solid resin scenery, or a smaller resin infantry model, or indeed the new range of hollow resin scenery that we're starting to release. What you describe as 'Finecast resin' is simply a different mix, one that we've used for some time for smaller and more detailed models where appropriate.

"The centrifugal casting process used to produce the Citadel Finecast range is again something that Forge World began looking at some time ago; you rightly point out that the traditional drop-casting method is extremely time- and labour-intensive, the spin-casting method is just as involved but the quality checking is rather more critical. This has obviously not been performed as stringently as it should have been, but as the Citadel and Forge World production teams are separate we're obviously unable to comment upon, or influence, the policies in place regarding Finecast."

Ead Brown, Customer Service Manager, Forge World, March 7, 2012

And:
https://www.facebook.com/ForgeWorldUK/posts/272850259460957?notif_t=share_comment

**MiLkiT**

GreyHamster wrote:
MiLkiT wrote:
inquisitorlewis wrote:Yeah all the packs I have gotten for the 25th marine all look like bloody hell. All my other defective pieces were replaced, but for some reason they did not replace the pack.

Not even going to bother calling them again. Luckily I have plenty of plastic SM packs around the house.

On a side note, I have a few old minis that have a crazy torso split. I know they're not GW, maybe old RP.

Lol yep I thought as much. I wonder if anyone got a decent backpack. I’m still amazed by the many levels of fail on this one mini, it’s like a rich tapestry. Layer after layer of rich creamy fail mmmmmm

My backpack was just fine. The entire thing was fine aside from a bent nozzle on the plasma pistol and small bubbles on the shoulder eagle and one of the ankles.

Interesting.. You used the word, fine, then listed four other problems. That certainly sounds like Finecast.

I only have three questions:
-Is the inside of the powerfist fully formed?
-Have you inspected the model off of the sprue?
-Can you provide pictures so the rest of us can see what a mostly Finecasted model looks like?

**coyotius**

I did notice on my replacement marine that they had corrected the mold as there were "sails" and "stringers" in places that the original had bubbles or missing details.

What they need to do is put a mold serial number as well as a position number on their sprues. That way when they pull their first few runs they can isolate bad positions on the mold and recut as necessary before they start production runs. Simple fix.

@winterdyne...that's actually bad news that FW has gone to spin casting, we can now expect their products to be just a bad. However, based on previous purchases I would still stand by my earlier statements but a little modified: "FW USED to gravity cast".

**winterdyne**

No, I don't think it's bad news; for some parts / designs it's a perfectly acceptable method. It just has to be done right, which is hard if you don't have the time to take your time to do it right.

**coyotius**

No argument there, but given the track record so far...

**shasolenzabi**

based upon the BoLS article, it appears that Citadel and Forgeworld, (Both the same companies or owned by the same folks) (Their books have both logos)

It appears to me that they are homogenizing as I have never had FW products packaged that way, nor on such a sprue system like FC which those pics showed the weapons as.

**winterdyne**

Forgeworld (as it is now) always was, and remains, a division of Games Workshop. For a while, Forgeworld was used as a brand by Armorcast in the US for their range of GW-licensed designs, before production rights were revoked and transferred to the Forgeworld division of GW in the UK.

**shasolenzabi**

winterdyne wrote:Forgeworld (as it is now) always was, and remains, a division of Games Workshop. For a while, Forgeworld was used as a brand by Armorcast in the US for their range of GW-licensed designs, before production rights were revoked and transferred to the Forgeworld division of GW in the UK.

And now it seems that they are making FW in charge of their Finecast to work the kinks out?

**winterdyne**

No, from what I read, it seems that FW developed the technique, got it working pretty well at the scale they work at.

GW then wanted a cheap alternative to metal spin casting, and adapted the FW developed technique to an inappropriate scale, where the (required) QA steps simply can't happen.

FW certainly don't seem to be in charge of ironing out any kinks (or indeed anything as far as GW are concerned), if anything I'd suppose they're saying similar things - 'slow down', 'do it right', 'look what that bloody monkey's doing now', 'oh for feth's sake', etc. Whether they're listened to or not is an entirely different kettle of fish.

**puma713**

inquisitorlewis wrote:
Ouze wrote:
inquisitorlewis wrote:This is very excellent advice. If you really dislike finecast enough to call it failcost then you do so much more by calling it by the actual name. Make sure this dakka thread is one of the first things to appear on a Google search.

If this threads helps people stop using amusing names instead of Finecast, this will be a pretty awesome thread. While the various permutations of fail, crap, and cost were initially amusing in my opinion they quickly descended into banality; much like Micro$oft it reflects more poorly on the wielder than the target.

I totally agree with you. IMO finecast alone has garnered a bad enough name. The nicknames stopped being witty about 40 pages ago.

This is not at all a defense of finecast or GW in general. The nicknames are just totally used up. I find myself skipping most posts that just consist of "failcrap grumble, grumble.

Maybe people aren't saying it to be witty? Maybe they need their entire person - every molecule of themselves - to hate this particular release. Even their grammar.

**Ouze**

puma713 wrote:Maybe people aren't saying it to be witty? Maybe they need their entire person - every molecule of themselves - to hate this particular release. Even their grammar.

Well, they can do so more effectively by making sure this thread is the number one result on a google search for Finecast, as someone smarter than me stated.

**J.Black**

puma713 wrote:Maybe people aren't saying it to be witty?

Well, why are they doing it then?

Maybe they need their entire person - every molecule of themselves - to hate this particular release. Even their grammar.

Again why? they are resin models why the need to invent new memes to castigate a company? Do children really have this much time on their hands?

**shasolenzabi**

winterdyne wrote:No, from what I read, it seems that FW developed the technique, got it working pretty well at the scale they work at.

GW then wanted a cheap alternative to metal spin casting, and adapted the FW developed technique to an inappropriate scale, where the (required) QA steps simply can't happen.

FW certainly don't seem to be in charge of ironing out any kinks (or indeed anything as far as GW are concerned), if anything I'd suppose they're saying similar things - 'slow down', 'do it right', 'look what that bloody monkey's doing now', 'oh for feth's sake', etc. Whether they're listened to or not is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Either way, the results have been pretty much a lot of sub-par products.

**puma713**

Ouze wrote:
puma713 wrote:Maybe people aren't saying it to be witty? Maybe they need their entire person - every molecule of themselves - to hate this particular release. Even their grammar.

Well, they can do so more effectively by making sure this thread is the number one result on a google search for Finecast, as someone smarter than me stated.

If they Google search themselves for a focus group, sure. I'm sure they are, instead of focusing on their Facebook page that has tons of positive messages. Not only that, but if you look up "Failcast", you'll find that the front page has more negative remarks about Finecast than looking up "Finecast". If you think that a 40+ page on a forum using "Finecast" is going to overtake GW's own homepage, you're kidding yourself.

J.Black wrote:
puma713 wrote:Maybe people aren't saying it to be witty?

Well, why are they doing it then?

For any reason that people use memes. Because they heard it and they initially thought it was funny, because they really do think the product is crap/fail, etc. I'm sure you don't really need me to enumerate the reasons.

J.Black wrote:
Maybe they need their entire person - every molecule of themselves - to hate this particular release. Even their grammar.

Again why? they are resin models why the need to invent new memes to castigate a company? Do children really have this much time on their hands?

For the same reason that you're trying to be witty right now, by calling those people 'children'. Using one word defines them as children versus adults? Hyperbole much? One could say the same thing about people who are complaining about the complaining. You're letting one word in someone's entire point get your feathers ruffled. That's just as childish as using the word in the first place.

**winterdyne**

I dunno. If you google 'Citadel Finecast' my review is at the bottom of the first page. If you google 'Citadel Finecast Review' my review is number 4. It's not a nice review.

**J.Black**

puma713 wrote: every molecule of themselves

And you accuse me of hyperbole?

Just read the first few pages of the thread.... Someone was trying to get a 'perfect' cast of a single model. Did he resort to name-calling? No. He was just posting his experience. This is/was a worthy and valid enterprise.

Then we just got into a big-bad GW bashing hole that we couldn't get out of :(

I love the minis that GW produces. I think they have the best and most varied range of minis on the market. I won't buy finecast as I think they have to do a hell of a lot better in their QC department, but i see no need to try and develop incredibly low-IQ slurs on their latest product. I am not 14 after all.

**hotsauceman1**

winterdyne wrote:Right, let's clear a few things up.

Citadel Finecast is produced using a resin that can produce good results. Forgeworld use EXACTLY the same resin and general technique (they developed it) on some of their newer models and re-releases.

But; Forgeworld do not have the same production quotas as the GW factory floor. This enables them to:

1) Take more time in the mix and pour stage to minimise bubbles in the resin.
2) Give the resin the appropriate time to cure in the mould to reduces warping due to being pulled too early (post-pull curing is what leads to the hard-to-fix 'remembered' warps).
3) Perform more stringent QA checks (ie actually look at the damn parts).

These 3 differences together for most models will produce a perfectly satisfactory product.

Forgeworld also rely on more rigid resins for models that demand it. Finecast is too thermally responsive and pliable for large spans or top heavy designs. Mangler Squigs, Azhag's banner, Gandalfs rearing Shadowfax. ALL of these designs are unsuitable for the material used in Finecast, but would be far less trouble in a more traditional PU resin.

This is not to say there wouldn't be issues with sagging on some things, for example Mangler Squigs would almost certainly need some heavy reinforcement in any resin.

The issues I see are IMO, almost certainly down to pressure on the production department, rather than issues with the technique or material itself (sagging as above notwithstanding).

I don't see this changing any time soon. To relax the production quota to the point where the issues can be managed is likely to take the cost per unit far in excess of where the price of metal was forcing it. Note that GW's distribution model and Forgeworld's are worlds apart - a different order of magnitude as far as scale is concerned, with a corresponding difference in overheads.

\
So if we want the same thing then what? MAke finecast an on order basis?

**coyotius**

I will say that after reading the quotes winterdyne posted my opinion of FW went up quite a bit and I'm less concerned about them going to spin casting. Winterdyne, couldn't you just have posted all that in the beginning...would have saved a lot of typing.

**LunaHound**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
winterdyne wrote:Right, let's clear a few things up.

Citadel Finecast is produced using a resin that can produce good results. Forgeworld use EXACTLY the same resin and general technique (they developed it) on some of their newer models and re-releases.

But; Forgeworld do not have the same production quotas as the GW factory floor. This enables them to:

1) Take more time in the mix and pour stage to minimise bubbles in the resin.
2) Give the resin the appropriate time to cure in the mould to reduces warping due to being pulled too early (post-pull curing is what leads to the hard-to-fix 'remembered' warps).
3) Perform more stringent QA checks (ie actually look at the damn parts).

These 3 differences together for most models will produce a perfectly satisfactory product.

Forgeworld also rely on more rigid resins for models that demand it. Finecast is too thermally responsive and pliable for large spans or top heavy designs. Mangler Squigs, Azhag's banner, Gandalfs rearing Shadowfax. ALL of these designs are unsuitable for the material used in Finecast, but would be far less trouble in a more traditional PU resin.

This is not to say there wouldn't be issues with sagging on some things, for example Mangler Squigs would almost certainly need some heavy reinforcement in any resin.

The issues I see are IMO, almost certainly down to pressure on the production department, rather than issues with the technique or material itself (sagging as above notwithstanding).

I don't see this changing any time soon. To relax the production quota to the point where the issues can be managed is likely to take the cost per unit far in excess of where the price of metal was forcing it. Note that GW's distribution model and Forgeworld's are worlds apart - a different order of magnitude as far as scale is concerned, with a corresponding difference in overheads.
\
So if we want the same thing then what? MAke finecast an on order basis?

Me as a customer dont really care about excuses to why finecast is such a failure. I only care that because it is a failure, I dont like it.
And frankly I dont feel like I need to put up with it or support it.

They can always choose to go back to using metal if they have so much issues with over producing lowering the quality.

**H.B.M.C.**

There's nothing inherently wrong with resin, just the methods they use to create Finecost. They should be using metal for the thin-fiddly bits, and for Ltd. Ed. miniatures.

**Ouze**

puma713 wrote:If they Google search themselves for a focus group, sure. I'm sure they are, instead of focusing on their Facebook page that has tons of positive messages. Not only that, but if you look up "Failcast", you'll find that the front page has more negative remarks about Finecast than looking up "Finecast". If you think that a 40+ page on a forum using "Finecast" is going to overtake GW's own homepage, you're kidding yourself.

Hey listen, do what makes you feel good. It's all the same to me. I'm just saying, among other things, when someone refers to Finecast as failcast or what have you, I (and I suspect others) tend to kind of gloss over the rest of their post because at this point it's a fundamentally unserious thing to say and it cheapens the rest of your opinion. Some of the people I consider friends (good friends!) on Dakka say it, and I think it waters down the power of their communication which as a friend makes me wish to warn them away from it. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you avoid using those terms because they have been overplayed. But again, do what you like, and who knows, maybe that's just my perspective and I'm wrong. Opinions, everyone's got one.

Also, that thing about "hating it with every molecule of themselves"? C'mon, get some perspective. It's a retail product, walk away if it affects you that much. Go get a PS3 or watch baseball or go fishing or something. I dislike Finecast too, but more in the way I dislike onions - I don't buy them and don't eat them, but I certainly don't hate them.

**LunaHound**

Ouze wrote:I don't buy them and don't eat them, but I certainly don't hate them.

What if, I love how the model looks, I love how the model's rule works in my army list.
But the only issue is the failcrap is giving so much problems when if its metal it wouldn't present the same issue?

You cant deny the inconvenience is there?

**SagesStone**

Which is why it'll be good if they finally figure it out and get at least the same quality they had with the metal.

**Ouze**

I don't deny it one bit. I agree wholeheartedly that it does such, and I hope nothing I said was a defense of Finecast. I think it's been an utter fiasco, and I'm unhappily anticipating Necron Wave 2 and what unpleasant Finecast surprises surely lurk. I wish they'd go back to metal, or alternately, actually inspect the misshapen crap they appear to be good with shipping.

That being said, "hate" is kind of a strong word. If I actually hated something a company did, I think I'd be inclined to just walk away from them. If I hated them with "every molecule of my being" I'd imagine I'd at the very least stop handing them my money to subsidize their shenanigans.

What if, I love how the model looks, I love how the model's rule works in my army list.

I'd do the same thing I do when I go to the Mcdonalds near my job, which has taken order-bungling to an art form. I'd open the bag while I was still in the drivethrough, and if the order was wrong I'd make them fix it on the spot. If they couldn't fix it, I'd ask for my money back. If eventually I got so annoyed with their poor service that it outweighed however much I like eating Bacon-Stuffed McLardburgers or whatever food I'm way too fat to be eating anyway, I'd go someplace else.

Or, in this situation, I might get Chinese instead, because they rarely screw the order up and cost way less. But now I'm being a jerk.