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.

All this. Quote for truth. This guy's right, and knows what he's talking about.

You too!? This is making me uncomfortable! I DEMAND that someone start a flamewar IMMEDIATELY!

In all seriousness, thanks for the level headed and calm discussion folks!

Re: that Atlas print:

 Enigwolf wrote:
Bear in mind again that it's 6 inches tall, which is about 4.5x the size of a 28mm miniature. So scale those lines and defects up by 5 times. And that's for a 150 microns print at full resolution. I haven't seen a 3D printer less than $500 that can print at 150 microns for that size, either.

Yes, it looks grainy as hell. But it also was printed with PLA (extrusion), which is a lot cheaper... but also a lot grainier. These are not the future; these are the present. I think we need to be concentrating to DLP printing to UV reactive resin; it's the simplest for end-users to use, it's fairly inexpensive as well (and getting cheaper); and the results are much, much finer.

So less like this:


and more like this:



Anyway. So far as software goes, someday I see Games Workshop pushing out an application that works just like character creator in many video games (let's say, Mass Effect). You download a free app to your PC (or, sigh, IOS) and then you pick a hero model; lets say a commisar. You start with a stock commissar, and can swap different heads, different hats, weapons, boots, etc. When done you upload it to your local GW store, just like sending digital prints to Walgreens to pick up. You go into the store, pick up your printout, maybe a box of Space Marines... and that's where they'll be. Eventually when they get fast enough print speeds, maybe this all happens at a kiosk in the store, and you pick it up after waiting, just like Lens Crafters.

Anyway. So far as software goes, someday I see Games Workshop pushing out an application that works just like character creator in many video games (let's say, Mass Effect). You download a free app to your PC (or, sigh, IOS) and then you pick a hero model; lets say a commisar. You start with a stock commissar, and can swap different heads, different hats, weapons, boots, etc. When done you upload it to your local GW store, just like sending digital prints to Walgreens to pick up. You go into the store, pick up your printout, maybe a box of Space Marines... and that's where they'll be. Eventually when they get fast enough print speeds, maybe this all happens at a kiosk in the store, and you pick it up after waiting, just like Lens Crafters.

I could see something like that as well. It would be awesome! I'd like to see something like an army builder integrated into the digital codexes. You could build your army on your iPAD (or eventually your Android device *fingers crossed*) right out of the codex entries and then upload an army file to the store. Would be sick.

GW would try and charge you for every model you printed on your printer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
The facebook account got deleted because of trolls ruining it., similarly the GW forum.

You don't even recall the "Spots the Space Marine" thing, do you? That's why the Facebook page was taken down, as a direct result of that needless debacle.

This is a story I would love to hear, even if in another thread or via PM.

 adamsouza wrote:
This is a story I would love to hear, even if in another thread or via PM.

In brief.

When Games Workshop's Facebook pages was flooded with complaints, rather than address them or deal with them they simply shut down their public Facebook page.

 -Loki- wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
It will take a while before the 3D scanners and printers, programming knowledge, and materials will pay themselves off. $2800 for the printer alone? A couple hundred squads should do it...

Well of course. I remember when a Sony DVD player was $700. Now everything has a DVD player built-in. There are even some printers where it's cheaper to just buy another printer than it is to replace the ink when it runs out.

The same will happen with this technology.

Of course it will in time. However, I still have yet to see a real world example of where a replicating device has killed the market it relates to.

Even digital documentation hasn't killed the print industry.

It'll definitely require GW to re-evalutate their pricing, however.

Yeah, I think we know what that means.

Have you seen how crap-ily3D printers print compared to GW models? Also, no, it will not get them out of business, because copying their models exactly is illegal, so eventually they'd get more strict on that policy. 3D printers still have ways to go before they can make decent quality models at the table top size.

The question is not if GW would fall because of massive illegal printing of their miniatures, but if a combination o their inability to adapt to new technologies (so far), the potential emergence of smaller wargaming companies that do not manufacture their models but instead sell you the right to print them and their opponents embracing the technology would be a (or the) tipping point for them.

Now lets see a raging heroes 3D print


Some 3D printers seem to have quite a nice and smooth printing it seems.

Rumours of GW demise seem to have been exaggerated, as ever.

3D printing is a revolution waiting to happen and it is impossible to tell what effects it will have to be fair.

... if a combination o their inability to adapt to new technologies (so far) ...

This again ...

Guys, GW has adopted to new technology FASTER then any other minis company out there. Who was the first minis company to look at zBrush/Solidworks/Maya? GW. The first company to take things like digital codexes seriously? GW. The first company to be able to make large fully pose-able kits loaded with detail? GW. Who is the only major company currently even capable of mass producing a model like the Coven Throne? GW.

You can rag on them all you want for odd pricing policies, bizzare marketing decisions, inept public relations, etc, etc. But if you're seriously going to sit there and act like all the other miniature companies are driving to work in their flying cars so they can sit at their Star Trek Style-esque replicator machines and crank out minis simply by naming them while GW is still somehow in the dark ages of technology ... well .... you don't know enough about anything to really have an actual, thought out opinion on this. You really don't.

owmyquach wrote:
Have you seen how crap-ily3D printers print compared to GW models? Also, no, it will not get them out of business, because copying their models exactly is illegal, so eventually they'd get more strict on that policy. 3D printers still have ways to go before they can make decent quality models at the table top size.

Fun fact, as toys GW's product is only protected for 30 years under UK law. 5 years from now 3D printers will be much better quality and much more affordable and GW trying to take someone to court over making their own Ultramarines could get very, very complicated.

Tycho wrote:

... if a combination o their inability to adapt to new technologies (so far) ...

This again ...

Guys, GW has adopted to new technology FASTER then any other minis company out there. Who was the first minis company to look at zBrush/Solidworks/Maya? GW. The first company to take things like digital codexes seriously? GW. The first company to be able to make large fully pose-able kits loaded with detail? GW. Who is the only major company currently even capable of mass producing a model like the Coven Throne? GW.

You can rag on them all you want for odd pricing policies, bizzare marketing decisions, inept public relations, etc, etc. But if you're seriously going to sit there and act like all the other miniature companies are driving to work in their flying cars so they can sit at their Star Trek Style-esque replicator machines and crank out minis simply by naming them while GW is still somehow in the dark ages of technology ... well .... you don't know enough about anything to really have an actual, thought out opinion on this. You really don't.

Lets see
GW's first "bold" attempt at 3D sculpting was a test, they produced the base for the warhammer giant, while the giant and many kits after that were done traditionally, GW's first true attempts happened the last two years with kits been digitally produced, by the point they did the warhammer giant's base many boutique one man companies already produced ranges of models at least as an experiment, from memory a company producing grey aliens in spacesuits was the first company to utilize 3D sculpting to produce models for wargaming, if we extend out of wargaming 3D sculpting was already used from bandai, other plastic model companies and of course a plethora of companies making 1/6 scale figures. GW entered the 3D arena way after wargames factory produced their first kits, in time when other companies started using or had used for a few years 3D sculpting and printing for prototyping and models casting, if nothing else wargames factory digital sprew technology seems years ahead from what GW has at the moment, it even avoids making connection points so small that glue cannot fit in automatically.

Digital publication, I don't know CB offers their entire rulebook and army lists almost a decade now, not been limited to them, digital publication is something most companies adapted to one or the other extend at least a decade before GWs attempts this year and why exactly you think GWs attempt is serious, or more serious than everybody elses?

Now as far as GW's kit go, I am from those who think choking a miniature with "details" and putting it in a default blunt pose that that things can be staked on it and look as if somebody stacked things on something instead of been part of the model, does not make a model great, yes they have the means to make bulk production, bandai has too and they make more intriguing multiposed models, but the ability to make bulk production does not make them a technology adapter.

What is worse is GW has the technology to do many things sliding mould technology was demonstrated on the baneblade and then it has not been used again, the company that sold them the technology in an interview revealed so many things GW could do with their technology and yet GW has not used most of them.

Yes, GW is not a technology adopter, they usually adopt something after virtually everybody else did and usually do so in an inadequate way, for example finecast.

GW's first "bold" attempt at 3D sculpting was a test, they produced the base for the warhammer giant, while the giant and many kits after that were done traditionally, GW's first true attempts happened the last two years with kits been digitally produced, by the point they did the warhammer giant's base many boutique one man companies already produced ranges of models at least as an experiment, from memory a company producing grey aliens in spacesuits was the first company to utilize 3D sculpting to produce models for wargaming, if we extend out of wargaming 3D sculpting was already used from bandai, other plastic model companies and of course a plethora of companies making 1/6 scale figures. GW entered the 3D arena way after wargames factory produced their first kits, in time when other companies started using or had used for a few years 3D sculpting and printing for prototyping and models casting, if nothing else wargames factory digital sprew technology seems years ahead from what GW has at the moment, it even avoids making connection points so small that glue cannot fit in automatically.

Right. So because their first digital test wasn't "ZOMG THAT'S AMAZING I MUST HAVE IT!" you're going to say they are backwards. Of COURSE the first test was simple and small. They have a crap ton of time/money/effort sunk into their manufacturing pipeline and it doesn't take much to ruin that (just ask Mongoose publishing how it worked out for them on SST and BF EVO). Also, my point was NOT that GW is "the most advanced toy/model company in the world", so bringing one man bands making garage kits and one offs that were all fairly simple isn't really the same thing, nor is Bandai an apt comparison. If we're going to go to such silly lengths to bash GW's perceived technical ineptitude then why not mention that BMW is and has been using a laser-cut process for it's sculpted masters for years now. Why isn't GW keeping up with them? I specifically said MINIS company. I made my first model on a stereolithography machine in 1999 (my first job out of college was in rapid prototyping). Does that make ME more advanced than GW? No. Because you know what I did with it? Nothing. Just like the one man boutiques you bring up. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree on Wargames factory sprues vs GW sprues.

Digital publication, I don't know CB offers their entire rulebook and army lists almost a decade now, not been limited to them, digital publication is something most companies adapted to one or the other extend at least a decade before GWs attempts this year and why exactly you think GWs attempt is serious, or more serious than everybody elses?

Because it was. CB didn't have their stuff online because of tech. They had it there because it was the only thing they could do. Do you know how long that game went before anyone in the U.S. actually saw a printed rule book? You know, a plain, simple, old school, "technologically backward" paper book? Also, what they had up was basically pdf scans. Meh. Admittedly it's been a while since I checked back with CB, but GW was the first to take advantage of things like the iPAD. Now if you want to knock them for only supporting iOS for now, that's legitimate, but really, the quality and utility of their digital codexes is top of the line right now. Auto-updates on FAQ's, pull out 360/zoom features on photos, etc, etc.

Now as far as GW's kit go, I am from those who think choking a miniature with "details" and putting it in a default blunt pose that that things can be staked on it and look as if somebody stacked things on something instead of been part of the model, does not make a model great, yes they have the means to make bulk production, bandai has too and they make more intriguing multiposed models, but the ability to make bulk production does not make them a technology adapter.

Ok, Bandai again. Yep. Totally the same thing. So even though that's a flawed comparison and demonstrates that you have a spurious understanding of this at best, I'm going to play along with you. My statement was that GWs plastics (pay attention to the italics - it will make sense later) are currently the best in the minis industry and that while other companies are close and/or might get there with a little time (there's that one Kickstarter that could catch them by tomorrow in terms of quality, but they still can't match production), GW is still leading the technological pack". So you bring in someone from outside the industry who makes products from radically different materials for dramatically different uses and demographics and use that to say GW sucks? If that's the case, then EVERY minis company now sucks and we can end this discussion.

As far as the rest of the above quote - ie "choked with details ...". You're confusing your personal artistic tastes as somehow having anything at all to do with quality manufacturing. Here's how it works - if you don't like the detail or poses, then your issue is with the design team and has nothing AT ALL to do with anything we are talking about here. No one wants a lecture on casting tolerances in thermo-set plastics so I'll save the space. Suffice it to say, that level of detail is something no one else is consistently, reliably achieving right now, and it's something that not so long ago would have been considered impossible.

What is worse is GW has the technology to do many things sliding mould technology was demonstrated on the baneblade and then it has not been used again, the company that sold them the technology in an interview revealed so many things GW could do with their technology and yet GW has not used most of them.

Because licensing on that tech is expensive. It would also have required a dramatic refit of some of their production line, AND it's not really necessary on the vast majority of their kits. In fact, they could even have done the BB without it. They made a business decision. Also, if you're going to fault them for that, then, like your point about Bandai, EVERYONE in the minis industry is weak on tech because no one else has adopted that either.

Yes, GW is not a technology adopter, they usually adopt something after virtually everybody else did and usually do so in an inadequate way, for example finecast.

You really haven't presented any solid evidence to support that supposition. Also, how on earth does finecast equate to them adopting something hi-tech AFTER everyone else. Finecast is generally considered cheap and inadequate. So you're saying GW just waited until everyone else created a market for bad resin models and jumped on the bandwagon?

Look, as far as finecast goes - outside of a somewhat brittle Skulltaker, I've had no problems. That being said I've seen MANY people who have. The brittleness of the models combined with the copious amounts of air-bubbles tells me GW deliberately picked a resin (or possibly a urethane) that would set up very very quickly. This would allow them to crank out more models at a faster rate but with the drawback that the parts are brittle and the material does not have enough time to off-gas before the reaction completes and the material hardens. So it was a business decision to do this. It had nothing to do with tech and any my point was about (remember the italics from earlier?) GW's PLASTICS. You want to bash finecast go right ahead, but at least understand that Finecast's failings have nothing to do with tech and everything to do with GW wanting to crank out a product that will cost them next to nothing to produce and not caring about it's quality issues.

Tycho wrote:

As far as the rest of the above quote - ie "choked with details ...". You're confusing your personal artistic tastes as somehow having anything at all to do with quality manufacturing. Here's how it works - if you don't like the detail or poses, then your issue is with the design team and has nothing AT ALL to do with anything we are talking about here. No one wants a lecture on casting tolerances in thermo-set plastics so I'll save the space. Suffice it to say, that level of detail is something no one else is consistently, reliably achieving right now, and it's something that not so long ago would have been considered impossible.

This. Truth. I was never that good in materials engineering, but I grasped enough of the basics to understand that cramming that amount of detail with the level of fidelity that it had was pretty amazing.

For me technology is technology, they have it, they do not use it, this shows a reluctance in using or adopting it.

Smaller industry even one man shows used 3D prototyping first, so GW is not an early adopter, they adopted it later when they were sure it has matured, when people create models and they create just a base to test it and then nothing for years, I do not see early adoption, spearheading of technology or anything I see a reluctant company been pushed to technology.

And this is in everything they do, for me I do not think they will adopt 3D printing before most other companies smaller than them do so.

And no their ipad codexes are not in my opinion anything revolutionary, or serious, decry PDF all you want they existed before are quite serious and essentially the same thing.

For me technology is technology, they have it, they do not use it, this shows a reluctance in using or adopting it.

Smaller industry even one man shows used 3D prototyping first, so GW is not an early adopter, they adopted it later when they were sure it has matured, when people create models and they create just a base to test it and then nothing for years, I do not see early adoption, spearheading of technology or anything I see a reluctant company been pushed to technology.

And this is in everything they do, for me I do not think they will adopt 3D printing before most other companies smaller than them do so.

lol So it's like I said then. According to your remarkably narrow view/understanding, not only is GW not a hi-end company, NO ONE else is either. Which means, if we follow your line of reasoning, not only will in-home 3d printers put GW out of business, they will put EVERYONE out of business.

And no their ipad codexes are not in my opinion anything revolutionary, or serious, decry PDF all you want they existed before are quite serious and essentially the same thing.

And more demonstrable lack of understanding. You really don't see the difference here? Fair enough.

3D printing is far to expensive compared the the Very fast, very easy resin cast method, model for model.

Wile the technology for 3d Printing will advance a long way in years to come. So will the basic method of Resin casting. becoming faster and cheaper.

I also have to bring up the hobby side of this. In order for 3d printing to be effective it will have to print an entire model in one piece. Separate pieces being printed on a 3d printer will raise the cost considerably, and no company will want to do this. And so it takes away the model making aspect of the hobby. Now there are plenty of people that are only in the hobby for the game, the types of people that get all there models from painting studios that convert/build and paint entire armies for them. But i will bet there are a lot more in it for the Modeling and painting aspect.

Wile it would be amazing to have a 3d printer here I could whip out a custom unit on. Or maybe some Night lords that don't look like they stole there helms off of a Brettonian knight. I still think that the Cost per model is the biggest factor in this, there is no 3d company on this earth that can produce as many models as GW does per day. or as cheaply.

And lets be honest the models GW produce are great. the plastic is always smooth, and needs little clean up. Fine cast is a totally different story, we all know that fine-cast is not great, that's why GW released liquid green stuff around the same time

I think there are a few people that are of the opinion that if GW dont take on 3D printing as there main source of manufacture then they will go out of business, in 5 years. But 3D printing wile being a "source" of manufacture is not and will not be a source of "mass" manufacture, for a very long time. And by the time it does become a source of Mass manufacture on par with Resin casting, there will be a new thread posted about "Will this Star trek replicator put GW out of Business".

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
For me technology is technology, they have it, they do not use it, this shows a reluctance in using or adopting it.

Smaller industry even one man shows used 3D prototyping first, so GW is not an early adopter, they adopted it later when they were sure it has matured, when people create models and they create just a base to test it and then nothing for years, I do not see early adoption, spearheading of technology or anything I see a reluctant company been pushed to technology.

And this is in everything they do, for me I do not think they will adopt 3D printing before most other companies smaller than them do so.

And no their ipad codexes are not in my opinion anything revolutionary, or serious, decry PDF all you want they existed before are quite serious and essentially the same thing.

I am actually very inclined to believe that some of their newer models, such as the Heldrake, were 3D printed and then casted from there. Look at the assembly instructions for it, it's clearly taken from a CAD file. No one in their right mind will use 3D printing for massed production at GW's level - economies of scale means that GW is better off doing traditional mould casting. That doesn't stop them from building models in CAD and 3D printing them as a master for the mould.

And have you even seen their digital codices yet and use them?

 Enigwolf wrote:

I am actually very inclined to believe that some of their newer models, such as the Heldrake, were 3D printed and then casted from there. Look at the assembly instructions for it, it's clearly taken from a CAD file. No one in their right mind will use 3D printing for massed production at GW's level - economies of scale means that GW is better off doing traditional mould casting. That doesn't stop them from building models in CAD and 3D printing them as a master for the mould.

I believe a lot of GW's plastic kits have been created with 3d steps for years... Not necessarily 3d printing, though. 3d models can be used to control CNC equipment to mill molds with no need to print 3d shapes (except for proofing).

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Separate pieces being printed on a 3d printer will raise the cost considerably

What kind of 3D printing are we referring to here? For the most part, this is a false statement, and is especially so for 3D printers that print both the plastic and a base material that needs to be dissolved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

I am actually very inclined to believe that some of their newer models, such as the Heldrake, were 3D printed and then casted from there. Look at the assembly instructions for it, it's clearly taken from a CAD file. No one in their right mind will use 3D printing for massed production at GW's level - economies of scale means that GW is better off doing traditional mould casting. That doesn't stop them from building models in CAD and 3D printing them as a master for the mould.

I believe a lot of GW's plastic kits have been created with 3d steps for years... Not necessarily 3d printing, though. 3d models can be used to control CNC equipment to mill molds with no need to print 3d shapes (except for proofing).

Using a 3D model to CNC mill a mould is typically used for larger projects such as automotive parts, not 28mm miniatures. The detail fidelity of the miniature works against the logic of using the process, as well as having to clean the mill lines. I doubt it.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Separate pieces being printed on a 3d printer will raise the cost considerably

What kind of 3D printing are we referring to here? For the most part, this is a false statement, and is especially so for 3D printers that print both the plastic and a base material that needs to be dissolved.

Well can you see a company wanting to print each individual piece of a model to be assembled? Heads, Torsos, Legs,Arms, Guns. When it WILL be cheaper and and higher production numbers to print a entire figure in 1 piece, especially when a 3d printer could print a model allready on a base. I don't see how my statement is False? I fail to see how printing every single separate piece of a model kit in separate runs will improve productivity and costing. Printing a Sprue of a model like what we get in are boxes from GW, is a possibility, but this wastes Materiel that is un needed when using 3d printers. and also begs the question of why bother with 3d printing at all when its faster to cast that Sprue. But maybe we miss understand each other.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Separate pieces being printed on a 3d printer will raise the cost considerably

What kind of 3D printing are we referring to here? For the most part, this is a false statement, and is especially so for 3D printers that print both the plastic and a base material that needs to be dissolved.

Well can you see a company wanting to print each individual piece of a model to be assembled? Heads, Torsos, Legs,Arms, Guns. When it WILL be cheaper and and higher production numbers to print a entire figure in 1 piece, especially when a 3d printer could print a model allready on a base. I don't see how my statement is False? I fail to see how printing every single separate piece of a model kit in separate runs will improve productivity and costing. Printing a Sprue of a model like what we get in are boxes from GW, is a possibility, but this wastes Materiel that is un needed when using 3d printers. and also begs the question of why bother with 3d printing at all when its faster to cast that Sprue. But maybe we miss understand each other.

If you're using standard extrusion, you use the same amount of material to print all the parts unassembled or together in one piece. If you're printing in a support material, it's cheaper to print every part separately. It comes down to basic understanding of how a 3D printer works. You have a 3-dimensional block of printable space that your printer can print (say 5"x5"x5"), and then it's up to you to place your parts within that space to print. The moment you tessellate a model in there, you have a lot of wasted space. If you break it down into parts, you can fit more parts into the otherwise wasted space.

Say you have a model that's 3"x5"x5", you can only print one at a time. If that model can break down into 3 pieces of 1"x5"x5", you can print 5 pieces (which is 1 and 2/3s of another model). This saves you print time in the former example, and both print time and support material to be printed in the latter example. Both utilizes the same amount of plastic, unless you're printing a hollow miniature.

But then again, we're talking about using 3D printing for mass production, which will likely not hit the market for a very long time.

From what I see, GW should have a program that allows to cut the 3D model(s) in parts and plan them on a sprew automatically detecting poor placement and preventing bad sprew channels to maximize parts per sprew.

many companies in plastic sprew production have such programs and I had found recently one of the china factories that make plastic toy soldiers advertise their own custom program that is supposedly better than the off the selves ones.

No I do not own apple products and do not intend to own one again, so no I have not had the pleasure paying for them, I have seen their reviews on YouTube, they look like interactive PDF, I have seen quite a few and one was a miniature gaming magazine, I would call it groundbreaking if it could at least create you an army list and print it, inventory your army even make a shopping list for it, then yes I could call it groundbreaking, as it stands its an interactive PDF, bells and whistles but nothing more.

My point is not if GW uses modern technology, its when and if they decide to adopt it, if ever and how well they will do, finecast is a nice example, many companies at that point had done resin plastic models, GW decided to do the same, produced the atrocity we know.

And no cramming a sprew with parts that have detail, does not showcase technology, want to talk to me about the separate fingers of the female vampires in the throne of whatever, sure that is a really good technological feat worth discussing, they still can do far more, but decide to go slowly and I cannot understand why, they could do such kits almost a decade ago.

Now as far as 3D printing goes especially for miniatures on demand as we were talking, I do believe we will first see it on everybody else and if proven popular GW will follow, not the other way around.

You do not like my reasoning, fine.

On 3D printing in general: I think it's one of the most exciting 'up and coming' technologies right now. Who knows what the future may hold? I can envision printers connected to the internet through a digital rights management system (so the model data are never stored client side) that prints a whole host of goods ordered online, be that GW figures or toys from Argos.
It also brings up certain issues - you can already print in stainless steel for example, could people simply print out the major parts to build their own firearms?


Back on topic I think this technology will force GW to change their business model in the long-term (although I suspect this may already be the case) but it certainly won't 'kill off' the business.
Although people can already recast models if they have the skill and equipment the advent of affordable high quality 3D printing will make the process incredibly easy and sanitized. Maybe GW genuine figures in the future will have to be chipped or something to ID them as genuine.

I can't wait until someone I know buys a 3D printer so I print a 3D printer for myself

 Daedricbob wrote:
It also brings up certain issues - you can already print in stainless steel for example, could people simply print out the major parts to build their own firearms?

I'm pretty sure some gun nuts have already printed a working pistol and put the plans up for free on the internet so people can use them to stop Obama taking their other guns.

Back on topic, I don't think these will change anything at GW. Not because 3D printers won't have an impact, but rather because GW seem very slow to change.
They'll throw around a lot of legal threats they may or may not be able to back up and they'll kick and scream about it back at head office but once these are affordable enough to be in every home and detailed enough to print models GW will still be operating as it is. That, combined with all the other things they seem to be doing wrong lately will kill them.

PsychoticStorm wrote:From what I see, GW should have a program that allows to cut the 3D model(s) in parts and plan them on a sprew automatically detecting poor placement and preventing bad sprew channels to maximize parts per sprew.

many companies in plastic sprew production have such programs and I had found recently one of the china factories that make plastic toy soldiers advertise their own custom program that is supposedly better than the off the selves ones.

No I do not own apple products and do not intend to own one again, so no I have not had the pleasure paying for them, I have seen their reviews on YouTube, they look like interactive PDF, I have seen quite a few and one was a miniature gaming magazine, I would call it groundbreaking if it could at least create you an army list and print it, inventory your army even make a shopping list for it, then yes I could call it groundbreaking, as it stands its an interactive PDF, bells and whistles but nothing more.

My point is not if GW uses modern technology, its when and if they decide to adopt it, if ever and how well they will do, finecast is a nice example, many companies at that point had done resin plastic models, GW decided to do the same, produced the atrocity we know.

And no cramming a sprew with parts that have detail, does not showcase technology, want to talk to me about the separate fingers of the female vampires in the throne of whatever, sure that is a really good technological feat worth discussing, they still can do far more, but decide to go slowly and I cannot understand why, they could do such kits almost a decade ago.

Now as far as 3D printing goes especially for miniatures on demand as we were talking, I do believe we will first see it on everybody else and if proven popular GW will follow, not the other way around.

You do not like my reasoning, fine.

I'm glad you don't own an Apple product. I respect you that much more now, but while I do agree that it's not game-changing or ground-breaking in terms of concept, their digital codices are better than other similar systems out there that are merely just the print edition's proof copies. They actually put some thought into integration and utilizing the capabilities of having an interactive device, although I do agree that more could have been done.

A lot of your points have previously been answered by Tycho, including Finecast. Tycho also previously mentioned the technology required to produce high-fidelity kits like the DV ones in high quality and quantity.

I don't disagree that GW is going to take some time to adopt the technology, but again you need to remember that GW is a giant compared to these other, smaller companies like PP. In fact, it's the only large, publicly-traded company for the 28mm miniatures hobby if I am not mistaken. Overhauling a manufacturing process and line will cost them tremendous amounts of money and time, therefore it is in their nature that their tech adoption time is slower because their scale is far larger.

Daedricbob wrote:
It also brings up certain issues - you can already print in stainless steel for example, could people simply print out the major parts to build their own firearms?

A guy printed a plastic firearm in the US a few months back and released the designs online to boot. He was forced to take the designs down by government authorities.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Daedricbob wrote:
It also brings up certain issues - you can already print in stainless steel for example, could people simply print out the major parts to build their own firearms?

A guy printed a plastic firearm in the US a few months back and released the designs online to boot. He was forced to take the designs down by government authorities.

That is an ongoing case and either way the design is already on the inter webs forever.

Enigwolf

For me Tycho has answered nothing, my statement is GW does not go in first but lets others go in and then if proving successful then they go in themselves.

For me GW is not on the spearhead of innovating technology, just a reserved late adopter who uses his bulk to catch on, the smaller companies are at the spearhead.

I can only assume of course, but with 3D printable models the same would happen, smaller companies will adopt it exploit it, find its ropes and finally when proven successful, GW will adapt it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Enigwolf

For me Tycho has answered nothing, my statement is GW does not go in first but lets others go in and then if proving successful then they go in themselves.

For me GW is not on the spearhead of innovating technology, just a reserved late adopter who uses his bulk to catch on, the smaller companies are at the spearhead.

I can only assume of course, but with 3D printable models the same would happen, smaller companies will adopt it exploit it, find its ropes and finally when proven successful, GW will adapt it.

And this is the nature of business and tech adoption with companies. Smaller companies are the innovators that experiment and try new things, large companies either come along and gobble them up or simply throw the resources they have to do it better. A company like Privateer Press can afford to experiment with new technologies in their production and supply chain - if something breaks or if it doesn't work it, it's not too much to change it back. A company like GW can't - a massive commitment of resources to overhaul and try a new manufacturing process that flunks will cost them millions of dollars, and probably a lot of investors when their stock price drops as a result of the reporting of it. It's not an issue of "GW sucks", but the nature of GW's size working against it.

That being said, I'm quite sure that the designers, artists, and sculptors at GW (not the businessmen in the suits up top) are well aware of this technology and probably either have been keeping an eye on it or are already experimenting with it. As a consumer, at the end of the day, all we see are the products that they provide to us, but not the processes behind them or the failed ventures that have been tried. Who knows?