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.

Inspired by this thread.

( WARNING! RANT INCOMING! )

Okay, I'm going to make a new rule. You all are welcome to participate or not as you see fit.

I refuse to treat a CGI render of a model, especially a "painted" render as anything but vaporware that will never come out. And I refuse to purchase, pre-order, commit to purchasing, or even speculate if I will purchase, any render of a model that does not come with actual photographs of physical parts of models- even if they're nothing more than WIP shots.

The render of the Secret Weapon Rapid Assault Vehicle could make a neat model kit- if cast well enough to take advantage of the great design. It could also turn out to be complete pants if cast poorly.

I understand that in this new era of digital sculpting, the 3D model is the WIP shot. But there seems to be a growing number of companies out there that think the CGI model is sufficient advertisement for their finished product. I recently went looking for other companies' miniatures of space ships for a BFG-alternative game, and I found some companies that didn't even show a single finished model on their web page! All of their model pictures were painted CGI.

And it really comes off as an insult to me as an intelligent customer to see painted CGI models advertising finished products at all, especially when the painted CGI uses bump-mapping and texture effects to create the illusion of detail on the model that doesn't actually exist and can't be replicated in casting. It really seems to me like nothing less than a bait-and-switch scam.

I'm happy to give feedback on a CGI design, and I applaud any company who uses their CGI designs as a way to test models before actually committing resources to the physical product. Just please, don't treat them like advertising. If you do, I'm lumping you in the same category as Duke Nukem Forever until you can provide evidence that the model actually exists.

This feels a touch overboard. It's a product they're moving forward with, so why not put it out there and say 'this is coming out'. Yeah, it might be a bit off, but why not start to cultivate some excitement over what your small end company is doing? Or would you rather they went GW on us and didn't put anything out at all?

This gives them ample time to figure out what people want, what options to provide, what scales to decide on, and where to target their audience better.

Plus, in this particular case, the render was only released because of another group jumping the gun to share an awesome thing they've seen/heard about. The release of the 'official secret weapon render' came after it was revealed by BoW.

Relax.

Sometimes it's a really good thing too. I mean take the Wargames Factory Heavy Weapons Team. They came out with test renders, which caused raucous uproar and copious vomiting amongst the populace. So they redesigned it, released those pics up there, and those were supposed to be their advertisement. More complaints were filed, they said "tough luck, this is it," and then even MORE uproar commenced. So now they're redesigning them again.
Works out for everybody!

I agree that they shouldn't be a replacement for real photographs of completed production minis, but I'm glad a lot of companies do release them.

It's a bit harsh to view a wip cgi render as vaporware, I can't think of any models previewed here on dakka (and there are quite a lot) that were just abandoned and never released.
But I agree about those companies that are foolish enough to think they can sell models on cgi alone. If it's ready to sell you can put a photo of the parts up there too. I also think people making pre-orders based on cgi should realize the molds have probably not even been made when some models like that go up for pre-order.

Johira

Using renders as finished models is not ok BUT using renders as a small wip preview like any other concept art used but others is totally ok and appreciated and that was what Justin from secret weapon has been doing... You should really aim for another target because aiming at Justin is bloody unfair he's one of the best fellas you will ever encounter on this hobby... he as a store, he's a full time dad and he still finds the time to make tons of tutorials for all of us to enjoy for free.

Sure you are free to rant but at least direct the rant to something worth ranting about.


With that out of the way I don't like 3d printing, and I'm yet to see a organic form well represented with it but geometric shapes do seem to do well.

http://spartangames.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&path=62_64&product_id=232

I'll just put this here...

Zefig wrote:Sometimes it's a really good thing too. I mean take the Wargames Factory Heavy Weapons Team. They came out with test renders, which caused raucous uproar and copious vomiting amongst the populace. So they redesigned it, released those pics up there, and those were supposed to be their advertisement. More complaints were filed, they said "tough luck, this is it," and then even MORE uproar commenced. So now they're redesigning them again.
Works out for everybody!

I agree that they shouldn't be a replacement for real photographs of completed production minis, but I'm glad a lot of companies do release them.

Right, I think we're in total agreement then. Like I said, I support using CGI renders as WIP shots to help nail down what customers want from a finished miniature. It's a wonderful evolution of the industry. So I'm not complaining so much about the grey render of the Rapid Assault Vehicle, but this image from that thread.


There is detail on that image that isn't on the grey render. So which one is the accurate render of the finished product? CGI is a totally different process from physically applying paint to a real existing model. I want to see how the shape of the model affects paint on it, not a "perfect" texture skin with bump-mapping and extra details.

pixelpusher wrote:http://spartangames.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&path=62_64&product_id=232

I'll just put this here...

Yeah, this is exactly what I was complaining about. A CGI render of a finished product used to advertise it? That should be unacceptable. There are some pretty significant stages between the final 3D design and printing and casting a model- stages that can totally ruin the finished product. Now I've seen Dystopian Wars models in person and they weren't cast badly, but when I see grey CGIs in online stores the only conclusion I can come up with is, "What are you hiding from me?"

I haven't seen any in person, so when I got intersted in the game due to all the praise from D6 Generation I went to look at the models and, well, I'm not buying renders.

JOHIRA wrote:There is detail on that image that isn't on the grey render. So which one is the accurate render of the finished product? CGI is a totally different process from physically applying paint to a real existing model. I want to see how the shape of the model affects paint on it, not a "perfect" texture skin with bump-mapping and extra details.

That's because that image isn't the model render for Secret Weapon. It's a model done by a guy on deviantArt[/url] that's based on the original concept by the artist that Secret Weapon is having do the digital sculpt.

Again, that image wasn't released by Secret Weapon, but was released by Beasts of War.

I really don't get your outrage at this in the first place though. How best to get a feel for how a model might look than to skin it? Old school fighting the new and the new will win out.

If you do, I'm lumping you in the same category as Duke Nukem Forever

lol, probably a bad example since Duke Nukem Forever has been out in stores for about a month now. Steam is even having a sale and you can buy it right now for $25. (Portal 2 is also $25 and a better game, so if you have the money and didn't buy it yet now's your chance.)

Anyway, I do agree with you though, it feels like false advertising to me, or to say the very least dishonest. I think the thread you're questioning isn't really the same thing as the link pixelpusher posted, though, it's a teaser WIP shot compared to what's being used as an advertisement for the final product. I will never buy a model if the only images available are 3D renders or artwork.

I think your overal rant is correct, but you're aiming it at the wrong company right now.

Spartan Games plays the render game, as shown....ok, so in my experience, the models from Spartan tend to be pretty much on par with the render, I guess because they manufacture the miniature from the 3D CAD package....to be honest, the way they manufacture their product really shows through on the models....Design for manufacture is generally a good thing, but it also makes the models look a little lifeless......I digress

If I was aiming this rant at anyone, I would point the gun at Cypher Studios!! You think CGI is bad, how about trying to sell a miniature based on the original concept sketches!?!?!?!

I really don't get those clowns, they have the model in stock ready to deliver, but rather then use their damn Iphone to take a quick photo (that may or may not show the miniature in its best light) they attempt to sell based on a crappy sketch!

It's companies like that, that I think you should be aiming your rant at. These guys are either lazy or inept, you pick!

I think you all are spoiled Get back a couple decades and you will see how old farts went shopping by catalog, with no pics, or concept art... just plain text

I find this industry quite small and most miniature developers are just a couple guys show, as such yeah I'm willing to forgive some stinkers... I ask you guys this between a render or just text what would you guys opt? None? Well today both those options are around and you guys will be missing some really nice miniatures by getting stuck with " bad publicity" thing.

@ NAVARRO

I think it's more a case of consumer "smarts". There's nothing wrong with wanting to see what you're going to spend your hard earn cash on.

It's certainly a lesson to look back at how things were done, doesn't mean to say that current trends are an indication of "society getting lazy / impatient".

Hell, if we took that attitude Doctors would still be drilling holes in patients heads for headaches, rather than just giving them a Paracetamol.......I'm all for modern techniques.

Delephont wrote:@ NAVARRO

I think it's more a case of consumer "smarts". There's nothing wrong with wanting to see what you're going to spend your hard earn cash on.

It's certainly a lesson to look back at how things were done, doesn't mean to say that current trends are an indication of "society getting lazy / impatient".

Hell, if we took that attitude Doctors would still be drilling holes in patients heads for headaches, rather than just giving them a Paracetamol.......I'm all for modern techniques.

3D renders are as modern as it gets But I'm joking a bit here and I was also a bit on my previous post, surely it makes little sense to someone wanting to sell things to be limited to the 80's publicity hehe... Yet, and this is my main point... sometimes we have to dig further and ignore the lateral things in order to get our hands on some really cool miniatures

Edit:
And as for consumer "smarts"... who is smarter, the one that rants and dismiss a potential cool miniature for his collection based on publicity practices he does not aprove or the one that digs in independent reviews or samples online and then gets that sweet miniature on the painting table?

NAVARRO wrote: And as for consumer "smarts"... who is smarter, the one that rants and dismiss a potential cool miniature for his collection based on publicity practices he does not aprove or the one that digs in independent reviews or samples online and then gets that sweet miniature on the painting table?

I think we're talking around each other here. I'm all for the hunt, trust me......but companies could make things a little easier for their products to be purchased. In terms of who's smarter...well, that would be the company that sells loads of it's cool miniatures because it has advertised well.

Delephont wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: And as for consumer "smarts"... who is smarter, the one that rants and dismiss a potential cool miniature for his collection based on publicity practices he does not aprove or the one that digs in independent reviews or samples online and then gets that sweet miniature on the painting table?

I think we're talking around each other here. I'm all for the hunt, trust me......but companies could make things a little easier for their products to be purchased. In terms of who's smarter...well, that would be the company that sells loads of it's cool miniatures because it has advertised well.

Yes we are hehe thats the fun of chatting and true about smarter companies advertising well, the thing is most small companies don't sell loads of miniatures and barely make even with just sales, as such I understand the decision of not investing to much money on advertising for them...