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.

I decided to make a new thread from the Finecast Shananigans as that is quite long already to voice some opinions on resin vs metal and why finecast became resin.

First the resin vs metal. I've seen people quote that resin allows making sharper details than metal. However there is never any proof posted ot this. Why would this be so is my question? The best quality models that I've seen in detail are made in metal. These are GHQ 1/285 scale micro armour. Detail beats FW hands down. Also about 1/10 has even flash attached, never mind any proper problems such as mold slippage.

Then finecast. I believe the real reason is to reduce the largest resale of models. Meaning from people to each other after they quit. Metal models are quite durable against wear and tear. I have many models from 80s which are still quite usable. I'm willing to bet that resin models do not have that level of survivability. They will be easier to lose over time compared to metal models. Cost or materials per model is quite small and if the requirement for work per model is higher with resin, it can't make much savings that way. But after decade it can affect resale.

Hena wrote:First the resin vs metal. I've seen people quote that resin allows making sharper details than metal. However there is never any proof posted ot this. Why would this be so is my question?

It really depends on the resin used. Viscosity and shrinkage, mostly, from my understanding.

A more 'liquid' casting material can work itself into the mould better, and so potentially provides better detail. A thicker compound won't get into all the cavities as easily, and so will often net get the detail as sharp.

Add in shrinkage, and you start to complicate things a little... however well the compound initially fills the mould, some detail can be lost as it pulls back while setting.

And then throw casting time into the mix... for both resin and metal, the time it takes to get the material into the mould affects its viscosity. Resins can (again, depending on just what you're using) have longer working time than metal, allowing for more time to get them into the mould before they start to set.


TL : DR - Resins with a longer working time, less shrinkage and/or are 'runnier' than molten metal can provide better detail than metal. Just how significant the difference is depends on the exact material being used and the object being cast.

insaniak wrote:Add in shrinkage, and you start to complicate things a little...

That's what she said.

I strongly urge evryone to stop asking for replacement models and start asking for refunds.

If you allow GW to keep your money... They win, and they'll keep selling a garbage product.

Request refunds!

Stop asking for another model, the next will not be any better than the one you already have. More often then not they let you keep the model anyway because they would need to foot the bill to have it sent back.

Like I said in my post in the Finecast thread.

I;m no economist or production guy, but I'm pretty sure that if the methods of making new models in a market-stable material drive the prices even higher than when using the unstable commodity, where's the gain?

A:If the price of your models has to go up because of the markets and how they deal with a commodity, that's not your fault- you don't control the markets.

B:If the price of your models has to go up even further than "A" because even though you are using a cheaper material, your in-house production costs drive the profit margin down, well. That's.....wait.....yup, that's entirely your fault.

insaniak wrote:

Hena wrote:First the resin vs metal. I've seen people quote that resin allows making sharper details than metal. However there is never any proof posted ot this. Why would this be so is my question?

It really depends on the resin used. Viscosity and shrinkage, mostly, from my understanding.

A more 'liquid' casting material can work itself into the mould better, and so potentially provides better detail. A thicker compound won't get into all the cavities as easily, and so will often net get the detail as sharp.

Add in shrinkage, and you start to complicate things a little... however well the compound initially fills the mould, some detail can be lost as it pulls back while setting.

I'm willing to bet that if the casting is done well, you will not be able to notice this. 1/285 scale models require very detailed work and could show perhaps easier. However bigger model would have more surface to show it. Then again since shrinkage would be uniform due to being same material, the ability to notice it is harder. Sure you could measure the size of model and find difference, but that isn't something that would matter in a model.

Not buying it at all is better than getting a refund. Giving them money at all helps to make it look like it's a successful product. Defects are likely written off the into a warranty sub-account (if not written off completely) that does not hit the Income Statement at all regardless of if it's refunded piece, returned piece, or a piece that failed QC. Money not going in the till as a result of FineCast is more impactful to the real bottom line.

insaniak wrote:

Hena wrote:First the resin vs metal. I've seen people quote that resin allows making sharper details than metal. However there is never any proof posted ot this. Why would this be so is my question?

It really depends on the resin used. Viscosity and shrinkage, mostly, from my understanding.

A more 'liquid' casting material can work itself into the mould better, and so potentially provides better detail. A thicker compound won't get into all the cavities as easily, and so will often net get the detail as sharp.

Add in shrinkage, and you start to complicate things a little... however well the compound initially fills the mould, some detail can be lost as it pulls back while setting.

And then throw casting time into the mix... for both resin and metal, the time it takes to get the material into the mould affects its viscosity. Resins can (again, depending on just what you're using) have longer working time than metal, allowing for more time to get them into the mould before they start to set.


TL : DR - Resins with a longer working time, less shrinkage and/or are 'runnier' than molten metal can provide better detail than metal. Just how significant the difference is depends on the exact material being used and the object being cast.

From what I've read it's got more to do with the specific gravity of the material being used that dictates it's ability to push air out of the way (and through whatever vents are cut into a mold) during spin-casting. The stuff finecast is made of is apparently 'bad' at forcing air through it while maintaining it's volume.

MikeMcSomething wrote:From what I've read it's got more to do with the specific gravity of the material being used that dictates it's ability to push air out of the way (and through whatever vents are cut into a mold) during spin-casting. The stuff finecast is made of is apparently 'bad' at forcing air through it while maintaining it's volume.

.
This can also be complicated further by the way the resin is mixed (which can result in greater or lesser bubbles in the mix to begin with) and different types of resins frothing more or less as they are mixed.

Which in turn is affected by the type of mould, the number of vents, spin-casting vs gravity-casting vs pressure-casting...

It's not just a simple 'resin is better' situation.

Contrary to what GW fans keep telling themselves, chinese recasters DOES NOT use FW molds to create their superior quality rip offs.

LunaHound wrote:Contrary to what GW fans keep telling themselves, chinese recasters DOES NOT use FW molds to create their superior quality rip offs.

And how is this relevant?

J.Black wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Contrary to what GW fans keep telling themselves, chinese recasters DOES NOT use FW molds to create their superior quality rip offs.

And how is this relevant?

Exposing the competence of GW and expelling the myth of " oh its so hard~ to make failcast"

or

"The reason chinese fakes are so good is because they use GW machines!"

Relevant now?

LunaHound wrote:
Relevant now?

Not really.... Did you even read the first post?

This is supposed to be a thread about different types of casting material; not about how someone can knock-off a cheaper version in a different country.

Nationality was never part of the OP.... why try to bring it into the discussion?

J.Black wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Relevant now?

Not really.... Did you even read the first post?

This is supposed to be a thread about different types of casting material; not about how someone can knock-off a cheaper version in a different country.

Nationality was never part of the OP.... why try to bring it into the discussion?

Actually I did, but since you keep asking, I'll entertain you.

OP talked about durability, details, problems, consistency.

There have been debates with "material war"
half of the debate wouldnt need to exist if people are aware the issues doesnt spawn from the materials itself,
but rather the competence of the ones using it.

hence, I present you chinese recasters.

The reason this material discussion keeps poping out with never ending result is because everyone is comparing only using GW
and GW standards, which is.... not wise at all.

LunaHound wrote:
Actually I did, but since you keep asking, I'll entertain you.

I didn't really ask anything!

OP talked about durability, details, problems, consistency.

So you did read it....

There have been debates with "material war"
half of the debate wouldnt need to exist if people are aware the issues doesnt spawn from the materials itself,
but rather the competence of the ones using it.

But that is not what this thread is about. This is about the qualities of the materials that can be used, not the competence of the people doing the work.

hence, I present you chinese recasters.

Why Chinese? Why not Russian? or Welsh? just call them re-casters... it's not like any of them go through any kind of official channels or reliable quality assessment. Nationality matters not one jot.

The reason this material discussion keeps poping out with never ending result is because everyone is comparing only using GW
and GW standards, which is.... not wise at all.

Yes, but comparing production techniques is a whole different arguement to the OP! They were asking about the properties of the different materials used in casting, and you decided to butt in with a comment about how Chinese (re)casters are more proficient!

I ask again... How was that helpful/relevant?

The move to metal was because:

-Metal prices were increasing astromically, and controlled by very few countries. Resin is cheaper for GW in the long run.
-Resin weighs less, so is less to ship.
-GW has better control over their profits by using resin.

The reason Finecast is more than metal.
-Because GW will never miss a chance to raise prices. Not throwing crap at GW here, this is straight from many ex-VP's. The price is up so high because they can put it there. Privateer and many other companies learned to do this from GW, and like the model.
-Because right now it takes a lot more work to make finecast than metal, using the same style of molds. It's a hybrid process. When they develop better resin techniques for making finecast, the cost in time and money will go down for GW. NO, they won't pass this along, don't be silly.

J. Black

The choices in the materials will all be irrelevant to us the customers.

-W/E saving the materials have will not effect how they price the product.
-You talk about quality? I present you re casters and their supposedly inferior materials yet yields superior results.
How is this not related to competence then? Its relevant because it leads to the ultimate source of the issue.

Why does country have to do with it?
Becanse Mr Yen > Mr Valard thats why.


OP asked

Hena wrote:First the resin vs metal. I've seen people quote that resin allows making sharper details than metal. However there is never any proof posted ot this. Why would this be so is my question? The best quality models that I've seen in detail are made in metal. These are GHQ 1/285 scale micro armour. Detail beats FW hands down. Also about 1/10 has even flash attached, never mind any proper problems such as mold slippage..

And You asked

J.Black wrote:Yes, but comparing production techniques is a whole different arguement to the OP! They were asking about the properties of the different materials used in casting, and you decided to butt in with a comment about how Chinese (re)casters are more proficient!

I ask again... How was that helpful/relevant?

My point is all those materials listed are more than adequate in producing the results we wanted, but the issue does not lie within the materials, but the competence in using the materials
The country or person merely is a nice proof of their competence, as if GW fans would accept something like "hurr durr GW sucks hurr hurr"
without me presenting a concrete comparison.

I agree with what Luna is saying, in that we have known recasters that offer resin GW casts that are better quality than the originals. The point is that with skill in using the medium and attention to detail we can get the quality we expect in resin or metal. The big companies have just got to decide that quality delivered is equal to the quality advertised "The best model soldiers in the world!".

I don't feel its about limiting long term resale of used product as the OP suggests I believe the change is purely a short term decision based on costs of production.

I agree with Luna in that we can get better quality merchandise from other sources....

...I just disagree with those sources in principle.

mikhaila wrote:The move to metal was because:

-Metal prices were increasing astromically, and controlled by very few countries. Resin is cheaper for GW in the long run.

I very sceptical of this argument. The amount of metal in a single model is very small. If models cost of material is 10p vs 20p it won't make much of a difference I think that costs come from design and then creation/sculpting of model, (especially with plastic) the making of the molds and casting process (paychecks of people) than the actual costs of the material to make it. I think it's an easy argument for companies to push out as they can to point it "metal costs X back then and X+Y now".

-Resin weighs less, so is less to ship.

This sounds credible.

-GW has better control over their profits by using resin.

Does this refer to first point as I don't understand this any other way.

Hena wrote:

mikhaila wrote:The move to metal was because:

-Metal prices were increasing astromically, and controlled by very few countries. Resin is cheaper for GW in the long run.

I very sceptical of this argument. The amount of metal in a single model is very small. If models cost of material is 10p vs 20p it won't make much of a difference I think that costs come from design and then creation/sculpting of model, (especially with plastic) the making of the molds and casting process (paychecks of people) than the actual costs of the material to make it. I think it's an easy argument for companies to push out as they can to point it "metal costs X back then and X+Y now".

-Resin weighs less, so is less to ship.

This sounds credible.

-GW has better control over their profits by using resin.

Does this refer to first point as I don't understand this any other way.

As the total of 10p vs 20p it doesnt make a difference to us customers

but for the company thats double the cost.

That's also much more likely to help persuade a company what to use than the benefits of the material overall.

Hena wrote:

mikhaila wrote:The move to metal was because:

-Metal prices were increasing astromically, and controlled by very few countries. Resin is cheaper for GW in the long run.

I very sceptical of this argument. The amount of metal in a single model is very small. If models cost of material is 10p vs 20p it won't make much of a difference I think that costs come from design and then creation/sculpting of model, (especially with plastic) the making of the molds and casting process (paychecks of people) than the actual costs of the material to make it. I think it's an easy argument for companies to push out as they can to point it "metal costs X back then and X+Y now"..

you under estimate the cost of metal that goes into figs, 20p will get you a Space Marine torso at current metal rates.

I'd estimate (based on our own metal costs) it will cost $1.50 for your standard Marine sized character in Metal. Around $3.5~4 if its Terminator sized. If We were doing this in Resin I'd estimate it would go down to $0.50~0.75 for the Marine, and $2~3 for the Terminator.

The cost for Art & Sculpting is rather high per figure, but it gets absorbed into planned sale of several thousand of that one figure. Resin Molds are significantly cheaper then Metal molds, but wear out quicker.. just as Metal molds are significantly cheaper then Plastic molds, but also wear out quicker.

The one thing I can say for sure is that neither Finecast nor metal have enough material in them to force the price to be what it is for GW to make any money.

Even with fabrication costs and sculpting costs AND the prices of packaging and shipping, if what goes into a metal model like, say.... Marneus Calgar, is anything more than 10-20 percent of what they sell it for right now, I would be more surprised than if I found out I was a dad at the same time.

AegisGrimm wrote:The one thing I can say for sure is that neither Finecast nor metal have enough material in them to force the price to be what it is for GW to make any money.

Even with fabrication costs and sculpting costs AND the prices of packaging and shipping, if what goes into a metal model like, say.... Marneus Calgar, is anything more than 10-20 percent of what they sell it for right now, I would be more surprised than if I found out I was a dad at the same time.

To play devils advocate, what do you think a Patagonia T-shirt costs to make vs. what they charge.

I refuse to judge on the process of the creation of the models themselves, because I personally can't get my head around how the hell you're supposed to design a mold for a complicated miniature that actually comes on and off automatically without damaging parts (even taking the use of sprues into account).

I'll take a resin model over a metal model any day.

I'll take a roughly hewn piece of wood over a Finecost model any day.

Im sure its a learning process making minis, Im willing to wager that in 12 months time they will have sorted their gak out and FC are running with 90% successful casts instead of 50-60% or whatever the hell it is now.

I'm in no hurry to purchase anything anyway, so Im happy to wait. But as I said, I dont understand why people are getting so hysterical. Big companies feth up sometimes.. Apple makes a fethed phone occasionally.. big deal. Dont buy anything till they sort it.

Regards the argument, I prefer resin to metal definitely. I find them easy to assemble, easy to paint, and far less likely to snap off. I had endless gak with my metal devestators.

Good FC models look spot on, they are just few and far between at the moment.

Antimony prices (the chief metal in GW metal models), shot up from a little over $2/lb to over $8/lb in an 24 month period in 2009-2011. It has since gone down to a little over $5/lb in the last couple months. When you're buying tons of an important material, it has a massive affect on overhead.

This has to be one of the bigger reasons for the move to a resin/plastic hybrid. Metal markets have been quite volatile in the past few years and it's only going to get worse in the next few. Although, oil is shooting up too.

Ok so the metal market is volatile fine.... Why do they need to use the crappy resin that is FineCast.... Why not continue with what everyone agress is better in the old dark grey resin... its tougher and not as brittle.... I think I have over 500 models in my time and broken one. Failcast I have had 16 and broke 6 and that was in the building process not day to day gaming abuse.....