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.

RE: LCM: Thank you for bringing the issue with LCM to my attention. That went quiet before i was with the company in my current capacity. He has been removed as a moderator.

RE: Contracting vs Sub-Contracting: And yes, there were companies that wanted to produce figures for us under licence but we preferred to skip the middle man.

I got the latest update from DP9 for the kickstarter and it looks like they've tweaked the models again to better resemble the metal models. I think that's probably a good thing but I don't think anyone would be surprised about that opinion given my cobra heavy southern force. Any thoughts? It seems like DP9 is more responsive to feedback than in previous years.

Personally I'd say it is a step in the right direction (and although I believe there's still room for improvement, IMHO it looks much better than the original render), but I'm as of yet unsure if it heralds a new attitude by the company or if it's only the result of a generalized bad reception of that single render.

And now my favorite gear has been butchered... le sigh. Oh well, I still have plenty of metal Tigers to go around...

The feet look especially odd. It reminds me of the original cobra render in how it was just off. The good news is that they seem to be receptive to feedback with details on what is wrong but I do wish they'd be proactive about it and maybe look themselves to see which ones are just too far off the original designs.

A point made on the Kickstarter was that the original designs need some modification to work with the plastic tooling: "The leg poses we can do in plastic are constrained by the draft needed so that the parts don't get stuck in the plastic injection molds."

It's worth remembering that any design work is a matter of compromise. Even GW has gotten it about the new plastic character models having less 'detail' than their metal and finecast predecessors, for what are presumably the same reasons.

I agree that compromise is going to be a factor with this but the King Cobra series of changes does indicate that they obviously could have been closer to the original design in the first place. Fans politely but firmly raised the concern and the company responded appropriately (which for DP9 is an improvement worth noting).

Nomeny wrote:
A point made on the Kickstarter was that the original designs need some modification to work with the plastic tooling: "The leg poses we can do in plastic are constrained by the draft needed so that the parts don't get stuck in the plastic injection molds."

It's worth remembering that any design work is a matter of compromise. Even GW has gotten it about the new plastic character models having less 'detail' than their metal and finecast predecessors, for what are presumably the same reasons.

Well, yes and no: they could as easily have halved the hips in two and added them to the legs, which would have given them a lot more poseability potential. They have chosen not to, for reasons they have not as of yet disclosed.

And the Tiger render looks off for reasons other than the legs assembly.

I take it you're speaking from your experience in using Solidworks for the design of plastic tooling?

Nomeny wrote:
I take it you're speaking from your experience in using Solidworks for the design of plastic tooling?

You can take I'm speaking from my experience of 30 years consuming plastic kits at alarming rates and from my experience working 5 years at GW. Not Solidworks, though, not very many minis companies use it. Most companies either use ZBrush or a propietary program (GW does that, for example),as Solidworks is not really a program designed to do plastic minis for sprues (that said, Solidworks Plastics is a pretty neat program).

That said, invoking the "you can't critique a work unless you do it" fallacy is not really a conversation starter, you know.

I know it's not a conversation starter. I'm just suggesting that maybe changing the models they currently have isn't as easy as you suggest that it is.

Nomeny wrote:
I know it's not a conversation starter. I'm just suggesting that maybe changing the models they currently have isn't as easy as you suggest that it is.

Well, the current legs the Pod has shown already have detail on the same planes that they would need had they added half a hip to them, except maybe the buttplate, but as they would have one piece less (the aforementioned hip), they could add the buttplate as a separate part. Also, I'm not suggesting it's easy. I'm suggesting is doable, and for whatever reason (which we don't know) the Pod has decided not to go for it.

But hey, what do I know.

Having spent 2 years learning to use Solidworks, I'm backing up Albertorius' comments.

The official explanations for the plastic Tiger's er "design choices" can be summed up to "we couldn't be bothered".

Okay, think of it this way, how much would you charge for creating a similar model to the Tiger?

Nomeny wrote:
Okay, think of it this way, how much would you charge for creating a similar model to the Tiger?

Are you suggesting that the budget allocated and asked for during the kickstarter is not enough to pay for models with the expected level of details and fidelity to the original ?

'Cause I'm not quite getting what you are trying to say, other than that, or "but it's haaaaaaaaard".

The answer to my first hypothesis is: "yep."
The answer to my second is: "that's why people gave them money to do it, instead of doing it themselves."
That's assuming you are trying to say on of those two things. If you are not, disregard the above.

Actually, from comparing a picture of a painted Tiger side by side with the model, the model seems pretty high fidelity to me. So I'm kind of lost as to what the problem with the Tiger is supposed to be.

Nomeny wrote:
Actually, from comparing a picture of a painted Tiger side by side with the model, the model seems pretty high fidelity to me. So I'm kind of lost as to what the problem with the Tiger is supposed to be.

...really. Hm. So, this:


...is a pretty high fidelity rendition of this:



OK then, nothing more to say. Well, yes, one thing. The actual fidelity of the model has nothing to do with the fact that the parts breakdown chosen for the plastic minis is limiting a lot the poseability of the resulting minis.

Seriously now, most of the problems with that mini are from the waist down, TBH.

Yup, those were the exact pictures I was looking at. I'm guessing they were the first pictures of "Heavy Gear Tiger" in a GIS for you too?

From the sound of things on the Kickstarter, the "poseability" of the models will be enhanced by ball and socket joints, and the fact that they'll be plastic. Maybe you should wait until your kickstarter order arrives before passing judgement?

May I ask how much you put up for the Kickstarter?

Nomeny wrote:
Yup, those were the exact pictures I was looking at. I'm guessing they were the first pictures of "Heavy Gear Tiger" in a GIS for you too?

Yes, and I can't for the life of me how would I rate the two of them as "high fidelity" when compared ne with the other: the proportions are all different, one looks almost twice as high as the other one, and the plastic one has basically made away with any detail smaller than the sensor visor (and even that one has been grossly simplified).

From the sound of things on the Kickstarter, the "poseability" of the models will be enhanced by ball and socket joints, and the fact that they'll be plastic. Maybe you should wait until your kickstarter order arrives before passing judgement?

They've already shown the parts it's made of, as if it wasn't obvious by looking at the renders. And all the ball and socket joints in the world aren't going to do anything at all for the leg to hip joint. That design basically forces the legs to either go more or less straight down, with the results shown, or you'd need to remove part of the leg to make more dynamic poses (which would prevent much poseability in those particular legs), unless the players is willing to do hip surgery afterward (mainly cutting it up to do what I said some posts above).

I can pass judgement on the stuff shown pretty easily, partily due to experience and partly because they have deemed it worthy of showing (so, worthy of critique). Also because this is the exact moment where a critique can have a beneficial effect!! Waiting until the deed is done will only lead to regrets. What good is it going to do to anyone, once it's been produced? They won't have the money to do it again!!. I (we, actually) have done as much (offering critique), and lo and behold, in at least one instance the Pod has even agreed and made amends (to their credit, hopefully they will continue doing so and the line will benefit from it).

May I ask how much you put up for the Kickstarter?

May I ask before...

1) How is that relevant to anything we're discussing here? (I've said how much over here more than once. Or thrice)
2) Why do you so firmly believe the Pod's way of cutting up the mini is the best possible without them even explaining the motivations for it?

1. I'm just curious what your skin in the game is. I mean, if you aren't supporting the Kickstarter, then why do you care what they do? If you are supporting the Kickstarter, then why don't you trust them to do what they do?

2. Because I know some of them personally, and I trust their judgement?

Nomeny wrote:Okay, think of it this way, how much would you charge for creating a similar model to the Tiger?

I'm not sure what's your point there, would you expand on that one ?

Nomeny wrote:1. I'm just curious what your skin in the game is. I mean, if you aren't supporting the Kickstarter, then why do you care what they do? If you are supporting the Kickstarter, then why don't you trust them to do what they do?
2. Because I know some of them personally, and I trust their judgement?

The good 'ol "if you don't pay, you have no rights to complain; if you pay, why should you complain ?" routine.
Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that.
The KS is supposed to be the future of the HG mini line, so anyone interested in HG minis has every right to care.

As for the actual DP9 staff, well, I'm not sure what you mean by "personally know them", but I've met them in MTL, and worked with them on a couple of books, which is precisely why I don't trust DP9's judgement one bit.

Nomeny wrote:
1. I'm just curious what your skin in the game is. I mean, if you aren't supporting the Kickstarter, then why do you care what they do?

Because one can care about Heavy Gear the game without being involved in Heavy Gear the Kickstarter? Not that it matters, or is relevant to the conversation (except, apparently, in your mind). As I've said, repeatedly, I pledged on the KS exactly $1, to be able to go in heavily if, and only if, what they show is worthwile. And I say this having about 400 Gears already at home. That's your answer to "why I care", right there.

If you are supporting the Kickstarter, then why don't you trust them to do what they do?

Because trust must be won and retained every day. And their account with me is quite a bit spent, nowadays, and they haven't shown me anything so far to make me change my mind in this particular case (I am very much sold on the Caprice mounts, for example).

2. Because I know some of them personally, and I trust their judgement?

So do I, which is why I don't. Particularly Robert, who is the one with the keys.

But that's besides the point: the point is what they've shown so far, and what they've shown so far is lacking... resolution, you might say.

It's an old adage, Albertorius, and you hear it all the time over in the 40k threads. Somehow, having 20,000pts of painted 40k models isn't enough "cred" for me to comment on what I see as continously negative changes to that game that both literally and figuratively devalue my collection. The same is true here. i didn't pledge much for HG partly because of my lack of faith in them (from a short stint looking behind the curtain at how the gear sausage is made) and partly because I already have three armies that are 50% to 300% greater than the average sized HG game played during the blitz era... and I haven't been any to use any of them for years. That doesn't mean that somehow my lack of an arbitrary KS pledge amount disqualifies me from caring where the game goes.

Also, 400 gears? My god, man... what were you thinking!!?!

 warboss wrote:
Also, 400 gears? My god, man... what were you thinking!!?!

I'm not sure I was thinking much, or at all XDD

 Albertorius wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Also, 400 gears? My god, man... what were you thinking!!?!

I'm not sure I was thinking much, or at all XDD

And you bought those mainly during the rafm/tactical days too, right? When you could only use about 5 or 6 at a time max!?!

 warboss wrote:
gear sausage

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Also, 400 gears? My god, man... what were you thinking!!?!

I'm not sure I was thinking much, or at all XDD

And you bought those mainly during the rafm/tactical days too, right? When you could only use about 5 or 6 at a time max!?!

Tactical/early Blitz, actually ^_^. I only have about 30 rafm Gears and striders. Most of the stuff I have is 2nd ed tactical or Blitz.

...but yeah >_>, although back on the day we were doing 20 vs. 20 without too many problems (it was right after playing heavily Battletech in our group, though).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huh... the northern plastic designs have been going from strength to strenght, haven't they -_-

The Cheetah put on its tall pants!

I think they look good.

Nomeny wrote:
I think they look good.

Then you'd be the first, looks like. Most people at the Pod forum (even the playtester coordinator and main PRDF "we want it all" promoter guy, and for whom might be the very first time I've seem "bashing" the pod) it's basically saying the same: they look from "off" to "horrid".

Personally, I think they look kinda horrid and I'd be disappointed if they didn't fix them, but to each their own.