Switch Theme:

GW - why so many pieces?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





Is it me or is it hard to see why GW makes some of its plastic minis the way it does. I just can’t see sometimes why they have to consist of so many tiny pieces. For instance I just painted an Orruk Shamam (still NO comments on the paint job so do please take a look https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/802091.page) and I couldn’t understand why the main body on the sprue consisted of two pieces instead of one. Even one of the hands you had to attach three of the fingers as a separate piece! But now I’ve got Treebeard and it makes even less sense. I’d expected a solid trunk, solid legs and arms and then all sorts of appendages but instead the whole thing is made up of lots and lots of tiny pieces. Even the hobbits that come with it are made of fiddly little pieces so that you need to attach a face separately to the back of a head). Is there really a reason for it? Couldn’t GW have put the minis on the spruce as less, more solid, pieces? (I actually enjoy the puzzle of putting these things together so it’s not a problem but I just don’t get it).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/01 09:09:42


 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

the advantage is that you get poses and sharp details that are impossible to do otherwise

yes it takes GW plastic into the range of display/scale models were you want to best looking plastic (and every model just once), and away from wargaming/tapletop models

but this is what GW is aiming for

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Plastic models are cast in steel moulds, and can't have undercuts on any of the pieces. So to make a model in a single piece, you wind up having to remove or stretch detail to accommodate the moulding requirements.

So depending on how complicated you want to make the model to assemble, you are limited in the sorts of shapes you can use on parts, and the pose of the model.

Previously, GW used to produce simpler plastic models that were designed specifically for plastic production in a specific number of pieces. These days, they're instead designing models to look a specific way, and then cutting them into as many as necessary for that model to be castable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/01 09:29:50


 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





Thanks for the responses. I can't say I really understand the technicalities of it but I now understand that it's to do with making the models look as good as possible (which I'm definitely in favour of) and the technical limitations imposed by the casting process on achieving the desired result. Interesting....
   
Made in de
Experienced Maneater






If you assembled plastics with at least a bit of character and in dynamic poses like the Call to Arms or Crisis Protocol minis, you suddenly release that GW actually have actually very few parts for their dynamic models and some crazy cuts, not achieved by other manufacturers.

   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





I didn't know either "Call to Arms" or "Crisis Protocol" and have just looked them both up. They look really great but I definitely wouldn't say that had more character or were more dynamic than GW. I think that's unfair. Both of these are all standing very flat on their bases, something that isn't true of so many recent GW, especially AOS stuff.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





Yeah, it's because of undercuts which aren't possible due to the metal moulds used for injection moulding.

Back in the olden days of a decade or two ago, when GW made models with less pieces, they'd often have chunks of plastic where it wasn't possible to have an undercut. The old 5th edition plastic Saurus for example, they have a tail and a loincloth, and the space between the tail and the loincloth was filled with plastic, because if they'd hollowed it out there'd be no way to pull it from the mould. Alternatively they could have split the body into two halves which the modeller has to join back together later.

So more dynamic poses, more flowing fabrics, and just generally more "overlapping" pieces of detail necessitate the model to have more pieces.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/01 10:46:07


 
   
Made in de
Experienced Maneater






Jandgalf wrote:
I didn't know either "Call to Arms" or "Crisis Protocol" and have just looked them both up. They look really great but I definitely wouldn't say that had more character or were more dynamic than GW. I think that's unfair. Both of these are all standing very flat on their bases, something that isn't true of so many recent GW, especially AOS stuff.

I didn't say that they were more dynamic. But they have also plastic kits, which have waaaaay more tiny fiddly bits to attach, and a lot more than in GW kits. If a GW kit has tiny pieces, you can be sure that it's needed to get that exact pose and if it would be achievable in less bits, they would have done it. One thing you can't deny GW is that in plastic production, they are one of the best.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/01 11:20:11


   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Hanskrampf wrote:
Jandgalf wrote:
I didn't know either "Call to Arms" or "Crisis Protocol" and have just looked them both up. They look really great but I definitely wouldn't say that had more character or were more dynamic than GW. I think that's unfair. Both of these are all standing very flat on their bases, something that isn't true of so many recent GW, especially AOS stuff.

I didn't say that they were more dynamic. But they have also plastic kits, which have waaaaay more tiny fiddly bits to attach, and a lot more than in GW kits. If a GW kit has tiny pieces, you can be sure that it's needed to get that exact pose and if it would be achievable in less bits, they would have done it. One thing you can deny GW is that in plastic production, they are one of the best.


I'd say Tamiya's have made the most impressive kits I've built, but it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to GW, as for Tamiya I've only really built aircraft models.
   
 
Forum Index » Painting & Modeling
Go to: