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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:People, resin has always been a rather difficult material. Casting defects are par for the course, and resurfacing has always been the norm for as long as I can remember.

For resin to get to category 2 (or better), you need to be prepared to spend outrageous sums of money.

Resin isn't plastic. Never has been, never will be. It's inherent in the material and the process.

I wish I could agree with you, but in my experience, resin minis I own have something akin to a 1-2 split, with larger models being usually somewhat problematic and requiring work to make them look good, whereas all my human sized figures and resin bases have always been absolutely flawless (FW titan crew and tech servitor, MAS resin bases, Scibor and MAS "servants").

I don't think that peice is that bad from what I can tell from the pictures. I can't comment on the "face" but if it is supposed to be there and is not, they need to fix that.

TBH I would prefer the missile without the face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:People, resin has always been a rather difficult material. Casting defects are par for the course, and resurfacing has always been the norm for as long as I can remember.

For resin to get to category 2 (or better), you need to be prepared to spend outrageous sums of money.

Resin isn't plastic. Never has been, never will be. It's inherent in the material and the process.

I wish I could agree with you, but in my experience, resin minis I own have something akin to a 1-2 split, with larger models being usually somewhat problematic and requiring work to make them look good, whereas all my human sized figures and resin bases have always been absolutely flawless (FW titan crew and tech servitor, MAS resin bases, Scibor and MAS "servants").

yes, but with what you're paying for FW infantry, they SHOULD be almost absolutely perfect. And possibly include an 18 year old eastern european girl that has been properly trained to assemble the models for you (and clean you house afterwards.)

@Aga: As I said, for cat 2 resin, be prepared to spend outrageous sums of money. Doesn't FW fit in that category of obscenely expensive?

Wow, when GW does something other than shown on the tin you scream like fething rage mongers, but when another company does it.. MEH, it's all good in the hood.

BrookM wrote:Wow, when GW does something other than shown on the tin you scream like fething rage mongers, but when another company does it.. MEH, it's all good in the hood.

What do you get from GW for £6? Oh yeah, a measly 3 plastic Space Marines, I sure as hell expect them to be well made.

I've got resin pieces from other manufacturers and they've been cat 2 or better.

I've also received resin stuff cat 3 or worse (FW).

The best I've had were some 'garage' mekton stuff and Old Crow from England. OC had very clean casts, a surface that took paint with minimal prep-work and required very little clean-up.

The bottom line is not "you get what you pay for." It is "You should get what you paid for." There *IS* a difference.
Regardless of the amount paid, he paid for a model that would (should) be an exact replica (sans paint) of the model (and description) shown.

The model is a miserable approximation of what it should be.


Eric

Funny, but the Green Knight model GW sells looks nothing like the Eavy Metal masterpiece that they feature.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Funny, but the Green Knight model GW sells looks nothing like the Eavy Metal masterpiece that they feature.

And the hell that is building the LOTR fellbeast and balrog (a lot of whittling and spades of filler) is hardly apparent from the lovely finish on the 'Eavy Metal examples.

@Howard, I really wish you hadn't used those examples. I bought both models (in metal) last year. Now they'll be low priority like my metal Steam Tank.

I've seen this same rocket for almost over 10 years. It sits on a wall in my local game shop.

It has never had a face formed onto it. It has ALWAYS been the same, Fat Man/ Little Boy look to it. It comes in a plastci baggie with Armorcast in the yellow tag across the top of the bag.

ADMITTEDLY, Like I already said, The description was crap.

Whoever WROTE the description obviously over embellished the description.

You bought the thing, It didn't come in a box when I saw it, maybe yours did, I don't know. The one, The exact one I saw is in a baggie down at my local shop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MagickalMemories wrote:The bottom line is not "you get what you pay for." It is "You should get what you paid for." There *IS* a difference.
Regardless of the amount paid, he paid for a model that would (should) be an exact replica (sans paint) of the model (and description) shown.

The model is a miserable approximation of what it should be.


Eric

Thats the thing, though.


THAT rocket looks Exactly Like what he posted in that picture. If you have anything from Armorcast, it looks approximatly the same with a black primer, dry brushed in metal. Just because it didn't have a face on it, doesn't mean you can't paint one.

Look at the painted pretty picture and tell me that that face is molded on there.

Look at the resin, bare one and show me again where the face is even supposed to be molded on there.


Someone who shows me a dry, undressed model, then complains that it wasn't what they bought just doesn't work in my book, especially when I have seen this model in the flesh, know exactly what it looks like, and knows for a fact that there is no face even on this thing, nor is there supposed to be.

The guy didn't even get the rocket launcher vehicle. All he got was the rocket. Glad he didn't see the picturew of that one, or he would really have something to complain about.

If you think you got cheated with that rocket, wait till I show you the picture of my ... BATTLEWAGON! (Fixed!) BUT.... This was thier "truck", back in the day. seriously.

You might have missed the rules where you piled up as many boyz on it, and if they fell off, you had to roll for the damage.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Doesn't FW fit in that category of obscenely expensive?

They sure do, but I wouldn't call their casts "category 2" no matter how high I was.

FW's quality ranges alot.

Ive had some amazing models from them (slaanesh GD for one) which have turned up my at my house perfect, no bubbles, warps or slight defects.

modified by Modquisition. Lets watch the language people.


Also, as said, GW's quality of models is amazing, most people tend to take it for granted.
About the only real complaint will be the odd missing parts now and then.
But never mis-moulds to any extent.

Ive also had some serious fethups from them, which include my squiggoth with 3 legs and a tiny stump about 2cm long lol.
Also, the chain around its chest was just a mess of bubbled resin.

I hope they sent a replacement out for that.

@Grot6: That's just the resin original ork battlewagon, not a trukk. A resin copy of the original GW plastic kit.

With many resin casts, a lot depends on when in the life of the mold it was made, as the molds do degrade with use - even with care.

Grot6: I'm not sure how the fact that you keep repeating that your store had one of these in a baggie is at all relevant. Great? I'll make sure I come and check your store before making any online purchases in future.

Scribed on detail tends to suggest that, much like the lines on model aircraft, there are recessed lines that demarcate the pattern to be painted. I actually eyed up the picture a bit before purchase and saw what I'm pretty sure was evidence of these lines.



There's white areas where light is being reflected that suggest a recessed bevelled line outlining the eye on the rocket.

Of course, the fact that I'm arguing this is ridiculous. It says right in the product description that the detail's scribed on, and careful examination supports that. I'd also suggest that the fact that you've seen one in your store that doesn't have the face isn't necessarily indicative that there isn't supposed to be one - it might actually be an affirmation of my point that Armorcast does such shoddy casting work that they've botched that particular detail on multiple copies.

As I've mentioned previously, the face isn't even the thing I'm dissapointed in most about the model, it's the absolutely disgusting job they did of casting the back end.

Indeed, the detail in the back on that picture doesn't match the model at all.

Grot 6 wrote:Thats the thing, though.


THAT rocket looks Exactly Like what he posted in that picture. If you have anything from Armorcast, it looks approximatly the same with a black primer, dry brushed in metal. Just because it didn't have a face on it, doesn't mean you can't paint one.

Look at the painted pretty picture and tell me that that face is molded on there.

Look at the resin, bare one and show me again where the face is even supposed to be molded on there.

That face is molded into the one used in the example. The fact that it isn't on the bare resin one is the problem!

Just because the copy YOUR store has is shoddy quality doesn't mean it should be acceptable to send out models that don't meet the description on the site. Heck, the fact that it's been there 10 years means that (a) the OLD Armorcast was sending out shoddy casts and (b) the NEW Armorcast is sending out casts from the same shoddy mold and relying on the incorrect information on it from when the mold was new.

Heck... If they'd just update the description on their site to reflect that the face is not part of the cast, they'd be fine from here on out.

Eric

Meh. I don't really see the relief lines / scribing inthe original that you're wound up about. Certainly, none of the teeth are there.

Okay... but do you see them mentioned in the description?
Even if you can't tell by the image, the description still says it's there.

Eric

having done a bit of casting myself when i look at the picture i can seee that the mouth is sunken in with raised teeth and the eyes are sunken into the model, all ein got was a badly cast eye-blob, the face SHOULD be there! this to be honest is just bad casting.

Thank god, Amorcast isn't our current day FW.

But even FW fails!

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Aga: As I said, for cat 2 resin, be prepared to spend outrageous sums of money. Doesn't FW fit in that category of obscenely expensive?

BS! From everything I've heard, Ultraforge has none of these problems and are pretty darn cheap compared to FW.

Perhaps I missed the mention of it but the Armorcast of today is a resurection of the Armorcast from 5 years ago.

Some may recall that the original owners decided to abandon most of their line (most terrain) and focus solely on Battletech mechs, Steam Punk and Warzone terrain (IIRC). It proved to be a short-sighted and limiting decision that forced them to close shop.

Then, a couple of years ago, a couple of gents bought most of Armorcast's molds, original web content and brought the business back to life.

Unfortunately, I think what we're seeing here is the result of casting with degraded molds. Maybe the new owners don't have the original models to generate new molds ?

It's a shame because I've wanted to order many things that have disappeared from their site for "re-tooling" that haven't re-appeared in over a year.

I hope they can pull it together because Armorcast used to make resin items that were both high quality and inexpensive.