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.

 Ouze wrote:
I can't find it now, and I looked for it, but I once saw a great diorama someone had made of a Mek shooting the SAG at a group of Terminators. They were greenstuff'd so that the Snotlings were tearing their way out of the Terminator armor - I believe one Terminator was stomping a Snotling.

edit: I found it!

http://www.coolminiornot.com/223000?browseid=9409397

That is an ace diorama. Definately reminds me of the SAG results table where terminators would die through asphyxiation as a snotling materialises inside his helmet and go into full evacuation mode

 TheKbob wrote:
While I know they can do better with CAD, the newer one is just too much "I made this using a computer". It's lacking that organic feeling. The motif, including the stretched snotling being pulled in, is better, but the older model has more character and charm.

Also, $37 for a clam pack plastic miniature is a rip off and then some. Ghaazghkull is $40, in comparison. Or you can get 10 space marines in plastic for $40.

If it wasn't the sculpt, it's the price that kills it.

Wait! WHAT?!!??

I know I've been away for quite a while but when did they start making models by computer rather than by hand?? Is this something everybody knew but me? How many of their models do they do this with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't find it now, and I looked for it, but I once saw a great diorama someone had made of a Mek shooting the SAG at a group of Terminators. They were greenstuff'd so that the Snotlings were tearing their way out of the Terminator armor - I believe one Terminator was stomping a Snotling.

edit: I found it!

http://www.coolminiornot.com/223000?browseid=9409397

That is an ace diorama. Definately reminds me of the SAG results table where terminators would die through asphyxiation as a snotling materialises inside his helmet and go into full evacuation mode

Note for newer players: the above is not just Flinty being colourful. The original rules had all sorts of random results as Snotlings emerged terrified through the warp tunnel. Someone should post the page from the original codex with all of them. The Painboy results were pretty hilarious, too.

At the very least, the silver lining of the new model is that it is one less thing made of finecast. I never got around to getting the original model when it was in metal, because I hadn't done anything with Orks yet, but I sure as hell wasn't going to get it later in Finecast. Of course, the cost isn't making this new one any more palatable.

I pride myself on not owning a single Finecast model.

Gah, I think both versions of it are horrible. I like the fluff behind the gun, but the models just look absolutely terrible.

The new one has better details and is technically superior. But the pose is wrong. His back is too straight, his left arm is to geometric, like he's an Egyptian wall painting and he looks like he's faking the funk, like he's just not into it, going through the motions. And that price is ridiculous.

GW's miniatures are technically superior to most things out there, but their creative team needs a little more soul. Most of the recent releases are "I should be amazed at this, but I'm not."

I think it looks just fine, it's just that the price is completely unacceptable. Should be a $25 kit, and I would absolutely buy it for my Orks. I mean come on, more than 50% more than a box of lootas, for a single model?

I would rather convert a loota, maybe with some Skaven bitz, and then have 4 other models to mess with.

It is the same damn model with a head swap and a ball swap. This just knida proves people complain about change even if it is the same thing.

OgreChubbs wrote:
It is the same damn model with a head swap and a ball swap. This just knida proves people complain about change even if it is the same thing.

Oh, and the details of the arm holding the gun up. And the grot being sucked in, they changed that. And the pose of the Big Mek. And no Mek glyphs on the pole. And a new hand-guard on the scooping hand. Got rid of the wires on the SAG's shootin bits.
Seriously, did you even LOOK at the models for more than 5 seconds? Because I could go on and on about this if you'd like.
This just kinda proves people will argue any point on the internet, even if it's wrong.

And not Finecast. I still say it's a perfectly adequate translation to a medium that is stronger than dried whipped cream. Crying about the angle of the jaw or a back posture is kind of a first-world problem. I have seen sculpts that were far worse. Hell, the Flash Gitz look like clones at first glance. They are like the bad mono-pose models that used to come with 40k boxed sets.

44$ seems a bit much

The lack of being finecast is the only reason i'd say its a better model. Crapcast is seriously the bane of this hobby, i strive to avoid buying them because of the heat issue. Yes i know its rare unless youre in 90+F temperatures for quite some time, but my FLGS doesnt have AC so....pretty possible to happen lol (well, AC worth mentioning....its usually marginally cooler than outside but still pretty hot)

I"m getting one. I sometimes run 2 SAGs in a large game, and some variation would be awesome.

The price of a Shokkgun compared to what you get in the box will once again prove to GW that they can set any price and it will be gladly paid.

The issue for me is the price. I'm normally not too bothered about GW prices, and hardly ever complain about it. I always buy from independent retailers or eBay and convert where I can, making extra models without having to buy the kit again.

Whichever way you slice it though, you shouldn't ever be paying over £20 for a single plastic model that probably doesn't even come with any alternative options.

Nope, sole point of the SAG box is its the big toy version of the Big Mek model. I would be shocked (haha shokk attack gun...shocked...nvm) if they added any modularness to it even something as simple as a bosspole/ammo runts.

well I like both of them to be honest. I really wouldn't complain if either one of those models was on my shelf.

When it comes to orks, when you play them, or play against them, both players instantly win. So really...

Ouze wrote:They went from Metal-Finecast to Plastic.

Which I suppose means that it will be trivial to change that head to one of the dozens of others you probably have lying around from your nobz box, etc.

 knas ser wrote:


Wait! WHAT?!!??

I know I've been away for quite a while but when did they start making models by computer rather than by hand?? Is this something everybody knew but me? How many of their models do they do this with?
.

No one has a specific date, but it's been years. A lot of the preview pictures of the Dwarf and Space Marines releases showed the textured patterned lines of 3D printed masters, meaning they had to be developed in a PC before being 3D printed. Almost every model company uses CAD now, so this is nothing new. I would bet the transition to 5th into 6th and the escalation of larger models was the tipping point for computer stuff.

 TheKbob wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


Wait! WHAT?!!??

I know I've been away for quite a while but when did they start making models by computer rather than by hand?? Is this something everybody knew but me? How many of their models do they do this with?
.

No one has a specific date, but it's been years. A lot of the preview pictures of the Dwarf and Space Marines releases showed the textured patterned lines of 3D printed masters, meaning they had to be developed in a PC before being 3D printed. Almost every model company uses CAD now, so this is nothing new. I would bet the transition to 5th into 6th and the escalation of larger models was the tipping point for computer stuff.

Well I have no problem with computers being used for this and I have occasionally wondered when it would happen. I just didn't realize that it actually had and some time ago. I've now lost a bit of respect for the modern miniatures. I am actually mildly familiar with 3D graphics art (I have used ZBrush) and it's not easy. But it's also less hard than sculpting something at even three times that size. Especially given that in the example in this thread the by-hand one is more detailed.

Quite frankly, if the new SAG was done on a computer then that face should be a lot better than it is. Though this explains how it became so angular.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't get it. The two models are virtually identical. One could convert from one to the other without much work.

Why is one awesome and the other suck when they look so much alike? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Got some nitpickers in the area.

 knas ser wrote:
I am actually mildly familiar with 3D graphics art (I have used ZBrush) and it's not easy. But it's also less hard than sculpting something at even three times that size.

I suspect that you would find plenty of 3d sculptors who would disagree with this assessment. Sculpting good digital models isn't really 'easier' than hand-sculpting. It's just a different process.

Especially given that in the example in this thread the by-hand one is more detailed.

That's not so much to do with the choice of sculpting medium, but rather due to the new one being made for plastic production while the old one was for metal/'Fine'cast.

if thats the quality cut we need to get plastic models and 0 crapcasts, i'll gladly take the hit in detail.

Such a minor difference....but such a massively better material lol

 Vineheart01 wrote:
if thats the quality cut we need to get plastic models and 0 crapcasts, i'll gladly take the hit in detail.

Such a minor difference....but such a massively better material lol

I'm really kinda surprised. I heard that the first bit of Finecast was a bloody nightmare, but I heard it got tons better later. Heck, I've even heard that people will get dozens of models and not even have any faults. My Finecast model is perfectly fine, with only one very minor pot-mark that took me about 3 minutes to find. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, eh?

It just seems like an unescessary update to me.
Another recent thread about an updated model:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/600439.page

That is a major difference.

This difference is... Well, it's tiny. The models are different, but it hardly feels warranted. The only major differences are... Well... I guess the motiom blur? It just feels pointless.

 ShadowMageAlpha wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
if thats the quality cut we need to get plastic models and 0 crapcasts, i'll gladly take the hit in detail.

Such a minor difference....but such a massively better material lol

I'm really kinda surprised. I heard that the first bit of Finecast was a bloody nightmare, but I heard it got tons better later. Heck, I've even heard that people will get dozens of models and not even have any faults. My Finecast model is perfectly fine, with only one very minor pot-mark that took me about 3 minutes to find. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, eh?

Its more the durability of the material to me, i have only had one semi-bad cast out of about a dozen between my orks and tau and that was just a few bubbles in easily patched areas on a painboy (bought it on ebay in a bundle of stuff so i couldnt cry miscast, plus it was an easy fix anyway as it took me 2 minutes to repair lol). Finecast does have a heat issue as well, but like i said earlier it takes awhile at 90-100F to actually take effect, and it probably wont on smaller models at that temp anyway. Just dont leave them in the car lol. Forgeworld is where the heat issue can be seen, but iirc GW and FW dont use the same formula for their finecast...since i notice a pretty good deal of difference between my Shas'o Rymir (totally mispelt that, i never use him as he is he's my buffmander countas) and my Ghazzy model's material. Friend of mine back in S Korea had a Warhound Titan, and we witnessed that thing suddenly fall over because the room was so hot during the humid, korean summer lol. Fortunately it wasnt painted yet and we were able to restore its position, and we promptly reinforced the gak out of it's legs.

GW plastic is highly resiliant, with the exception of the spiky bits Eldar, Tau, or Daemons tend to sport their models are very robust and i almost never have things break off my orks or tau (minus the tau's antennas/ear thingies, as i stopped even putting them on my FW they snap so easy). Finecast....just handling the dang things i feel like im going to twist it. I actually broke my SAG and Ghazzy model when i was painting them because i spaced for a moment how fragile that material is and handled it in a way i should have, causing something to bend or snap.

EDIT: That all being said i will say ONE thing i like about finecast over metal. It is SO much easier to modify rofl. I also have a metal ghazzy i built a better bosspole for, and just fixing the tiny bit on his back to support the crucified space marine took more effort than i would like to admit

Wow.

Those who don't see a difference in quality between these two models probably can't see any difference between the Mona Lisa and a reproduction on a cereal box. One is actually art. The other is a crude imitation of the original, done through computer generated imagery by a less accomplished artist. If it suits your needs, great. But they are quite different in style and execution.

I grow tired of those who seem to think plastic is somehow inherently inferior as a medium for producing detail or dynamic models.

What utter hogwash.

It's all in the matter of what skill and effort are put into the original design. Are you saying you've never seen detailed, dynamic models cast in plastic? And using CAD doesn't guarantee a more rigid, lifeless model unless the artist is less capable in the first place. Unfortunately, CAD is often used as a crutch to produce acceptable results with less time and artistic ability.

 insaniak wrote:

 knas ser wrote:
I am actually mildly familiar with 3D graphics art (I have used ZBrush) and it's not easy. But it's also less hard than sculpting something at even three times that size.

I suspect that you would find plenty of 3d sculptors who would disagree with this assessment. Sculpting good digital models isn't really 'easier' than hand-sculpting. It's just a different process.

I'm sure you could find plenty of digital sculptors who disagree with me saying it's easier than hand-sculpting. And why wouldn't they? But hand-sculpting is harder.

* With 3D modelling you get the ability to undo at multiple stages - you can restart part of the model without throwing away existing work and you can try things out without worrying it's your one chance or you lose all progress.
* You can work at any level of "zoom" that you please. There are actual physical limitations on how closely and accurately you can work with naked eye and physical tools. With digital modelling, these limits are suspended.
* You can re-use parts of previous models, building a library of arms, legs, bolters, helmets, whatever. And you can assemble these parts in ways that you wouldn't be able to with physical sculpting, adjusting them as needed to fit.
* You can do many useful things that simply are not physically possible such as scaling parts of a model or components up or down, adjusting them, bending parts you did long ago. As well allowing you to do things that would be tricky with a physical medium, this is - more significantly - a massive time saver and anything that gives you more time before the deadline is absolutely making your task easier.
* It facilitates collaborative working to a degree physical sculpting can never hope to match - the ability to work simultaneously, the ability to work with colleagues physically remote, the ability to adjust someone else's work, the ability to exchange ideas in actual representative form rather than just descriptive because those changes can be undone or adapted.
* The ability to articulate models allowing instant correct proportions and the creation of multiple poses from a single sculpt. Think it through - once every different pose of ork or spacemarine or guardian had to be individually done. Now you just compose a bunch of them from a single skeleton by moving legs and arms, etc.
* You can work without worrying about the time limit of your material setting if you're using two part modelling putty.


This isn't just a long list, it's a list containing game changers (esp. the first, second and sixth items).

Hypothesis: You saw someone say digital work was less hard and had an instinctive need to leap in and defend digital artists. Are you a sculptor? I have a close family member who was a sculptor. I also have a little experience with 3D graphics work (ZBrush).

Saying "it's not easier, it's just a different process" is arse. There's a reason I have a Wacom graphics tablet for my 2D art and a big A3 sketchbook I haven't taken off the shelf in a year. You need talent for digital just the same as you do for physical media. But digital is less hard. That is a fact.

You clearly haven't thought this through and obviously just wanted to leap in and defend digital artists from a perceived slight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:
Unfortunately, CAD is often used as a crutch to produce acceptable results with less time and artistic ability.

That's the dark side of digital work. One would hope that the great advantages of it would lead to much better quality work. And mostly that is the case. Sadly (from a customer perspective), it is also an enabler of bad work through lowering the barrier to entry. It really shouldn't be - you still need a lot of talent and patience to do great work. But it can be a lot more forgiving of inexperience than a ball stylus and two part modelling putty.

While there are some rough spots, what Malifaux is doing in plastic is amazing. Minus the terribly small fiddly bits that usually come with the kits, the 3D model is usually dead nuts on with the artwork and renders.

 knas ser wrote:
* With 3D modelling you get the ability to undo at multiple stages - you can restart part of the model without throwing away existing work and you can try things out without worrying it's your one chance or you lose all progress.

You can do the same with hand-sculpting, by just removing the offending piece and putting it aside while you start over.

* You can work at any level of "zoom" that you please. There are actual physical limitations on how closely and accurately you can work with naked eye and physical tools. With digital modelling, these limits are suspended.

This actually results in a common trap for less experienced sculptors - namely that they get too carried away adding infinitesimal fine detail that won't actually come out on the final cast.

There are limits to just how far you need to zoom in on the piece you're working on.

* You can re-use parts of previous models, building a library of arms, legs, bolters, helmets, whatever. And you can assemble these parts in ways that you wouldn't be able to with physical sculpting, adjusting them as needed to fit.

Many sculptors do that, and have done for decades, by sculpting generic dollies that are then cast in resin or metal and re-used or re-positioned to suit the current need.

Hasslefree had some good examples of this when they were making their power-armoured Grymm. Kev sculpted up an original suit in all of its separate components, cast it in metal, and then just assembled the pieces in different configurations by adding the connecting joints as required.

* You can do many useful things that simply are not physically possible such as scaling parts of a model or components up or down, adjusting them, bending parts you did long ago. As well allowing you to do things that would be tricky with a physical medium, this is - more significantly - a massive time saver and anything that gives you more time before the deadline is absolutely making your task easier.

I'll give you that one.

* It facilitates collaborative working to a degree physical sculpting can never hope to match - the ability to work simultaneously, the ability to work with colleagues physically remote, the ability to adjust someone else's work, the ability to exchange ideas in actual representative form rather than just descriptive because those changes can be undone or adapted.

Again, there's a certain advantage there, I suppose. Although even there, it's only really the ability to instantly transfer your work to someone else that is significantly different to what can be done with traditional sculpting.

* The ability to articulate models allowing instant correct proportions and the creation of multiple poses from a single sculpt. Think it through - once every different pose of ork or spacemarine or guardian had to be individually done. Now you just compose a bunch of them from a single skeleton by moving legs and arms, etc.

This is the same as your third point.

* You can work without worrying about the time limit of your material setting if you're using two part modelling putty.

There are plenty of sculptors out there working with putties that aren't time critical. The rest just learn to work in sections that they can complete within the working time of the putty.

Hypothesis: You saw someone say digital work was less hard and had an instinctive need to leap in and defend digital artists. Are you a sculptor? I have a close family member who was a sculptor. I also have a little experience with 3D graphics work (ZBrush).

I've dabbled with both. I found digital sculpting a much steeper learning curve, because you're not only having to learn sculpting techniques, you're also having to learn to use the software.

You clearly haven't thought this through and obviously just wanted to leap in and defend digital artists from a perceived slight.

I couldn't care less about defending hypothetical digital artists. I saw a comment I disagreed with, and so I said so. Because that's how discussion works.

At least the Shokk gun is a good way to get laughs by using it to gauge things elsewhere. Like how if the SAG costs $37US, then with the same comparison pricing an Eldar Support weapon should cost $111US, as it's made of three sprues approximately the size of the SAG sprue. See? Deal!