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.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Humm not sure of what I see there. Looks like some of those have warping issues ( looking at the base of the last picture, guy on the left) I wonder how easy are those to fix, if the resin has memory its going to be a pain if not impossible.

Those are Gears of War miniatures. They were not created with UniCast but are standard fair for most board game miniatures.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Also does unicast revolution = having attached bases?

Another thing is this is not exactly practical for a painter, I mean good for them that they can cast shields on the miniature but good luck painting the undercuts. Not even going to digress on non existent customization.

UniCast does not require the bases to be attached.

To answer about the attached bases and painting, it will depend on the market. Miniature hobbiests, those usually associated with miniatures war gaming will probably not be interested in them. These are targeted towards board game audiences that tend to like to have attached bases (CMoN, Soda Pop, etc).

Hell i would rather back a kickstarter buy Daniel mandelbaum than another buy prodos and any that they are incolved with are a no go too .

 MLaw wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Humm not sure of what I see there. Looks like some of those have warping issues ( looking at the base of the last picture, guy on the left) I wonder how easy are those to fix, if the resin has memory its going to be a pain if not impossible.

Also does unicast revolution = having attached bases? Because thats going back to metal bases done many decades ago.

Another thing is this is not exactly practical for a painter, I mean good for them that they can cast shields on the miniature but good luck painting the undercuts. Not even going to digress on non existent customization.

Sorry this all may be technical very groovy but I see NO advantages for me personally. A pass on this revolution.

There's a few companies (at least) still casting with bases on... though I didn't see anywhere that this is a requirement. As a point of fact, for board game pieces, this is downright fantastic. I just mentioned how flat I thought some of the most recent CMoN miniatures for their newer boardgames were looking and this would be an answer to that.
Likewise, if it's bendy, then it's probably soft enough that you could cut the base off with a hobby knife. As to the painting thing.. this allows things to be cast as single piece with undercuts. That doesn't mean they will be single piece with undercuts, but more importantly, I don't really understand why a model being single piece would be such a barrier. Most Bones miniatures are single piece and frankly kinda crappy in detail. That doesn't stop James Wappel, Victoria Lamb, or Jen Haley from painting them up to tournament level paintjobs. I mean, reading your post it just looks like you're trying your best to tear this down... but the things you're saying don't make sense. If someone does have a logical argument against this then fine but I think that's predicated on understanding the intended use of the technology in the first place. Which IMO, is most applicable to board game pieces or lower cost figures aimed primarily at the same audience as Reaper's Bones.

Not sure if you are somewhat willing to listen but you did try to reply. As such here goes nothing.

I have no interest in tear anything down here ( you do seem to have the opposite stance though), but if people come here and say this is the best thing since sliced bread then I need to have a closer look at it... unfortunately I did not find this revolution useful for me personally. You may call me illogical or that I lack the understanding but lets see, where does it say this process/material is exclusive to boardgaming and that it will only be used as cheap and lowercost miniatures? For all we know PP with plasresin crap and GW with finecast are the on the top of their game. If its cheap people will use it so this may well be flooding the market.
As for the painting, you can have picasso painting it but it does not make a difference that if you have an attached shield a few mm in front of your chest your not going to be able to paint that chest or the back of the shield... got it now?

So your arguments to:

Attached bases are not revolutionary in any shape or form by the contrary -
Mlaw- Plastic is soft so you can cut them and some companies cast bases too.

Painting is going to be more difficult due to unreachable parts of the mini obscured with shields etc
Mlaw- good painters do it

Warping issues, unreachable painting areas, attached bases and no customization means that I personally do not see any advantages as a customer. Pass.
Mlaw - your argument is not logical this is cheap stuff man.

Sorry I did make a little parody with your post I believe a chill pill was needed mate.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Attached bases

It is not required to have attached bases.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Warping issues, unreachable painting areas, attached bases and no customization means that I personally do not see any advantages as a customer.

There have been no reported issues with warping. Again the images you looked at where not created with UniCast but were board game miniatures from a different game. They do not have to have attached bases, that is up to the game company. Unreachable painting areas is really up to the game company and sculptor, it does not require it to have unreachable paint areas. You are correct there is no customization because this isn't targeted to those wanting multi-piece miniatures.

 NAVARRO wrote:
but if people come here and say this is the best thing since sliced bread

No one here has actually come here to say this is the "best thing since sliced bread". In fact the person who did state that was someone who was saying it was not.

No bases is good, they are not needed.
A couple Prodos minis on the weekender seem to have the Designer problem, not a fan of minis that are painful to paint but then again if I paint them digitally like prodos does I should have no problems

Sliced bread was joke but both weekender title and some posts in this thread say revolutionary, not that I care but you seem to.

Btw, those pics I posted I realize the article states these are 2ups/50mm test models. Not 28/30mm like they will be on release. Details might be exaggerated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reading another article, prodos blog, the blood rage, doom, gears minis I mentioned and pictured are "pvc" resin and prodos says theirs are a more solid resin (not pvc) and more precise in details, and won't warp (as seen in my example of warped bases of the gears mini).

 Theophony wrote:
I was interested in the upcoming kickstarter for blackwater gulch until I saw that he was going to be using Prodos for manufacturing.......

For what it's worth, we're going to be sticking to metal after all. I do still think this is a great new technology and all though, I'm looking forward to see what else comes out of it. I really like how they can have bases attached, I think that will be really great for board game minis.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Sliced bread was joke but both weekender title and some posts in this thread say revolutionary, not that I care but you seem to.

It isn't better than sliced bread but it is revolutionary for what it can offer to people looking for single piece casts. The possibilities of not having to deal with undercuts, overhang issues amongst other limitations that exist for current mult-piece miniatures can mean a lot too. Technically you could utilize it to create a multi-piece miniature as well. I believe their larger ones are multi-piece but only a couple pieces instead of many, letting them easily glue them together.

Usually a miniature is broken up into smaller pieces or multiple pieces because of the limitations of casting. If you want single pieces then you stuck paying a high cost for tooling. I don't think it is a new method, as it is taking an existing method and applying how it is used differently. However I can't be sure because it depends on how they tool the actual mold. I don't think it is a replacement but it does provide an alternate path for small companies that didn't exist which does make it revolutionary in that aspect.

We will see how it really pans out though in time. Which is why I'm part of the wait and see crowd.

 russian69hitman wrote:
prodos says theirs are a more solid resin (not pvc) and more precise in details, and won't warp

It is a HIPS/resin hybrid according to their product information. Not a soft, not completely rigid but precise and holds details that shouldn't warp. I'll know more when the samples I had were sent off to someone to review. I get them back next week I think.

 NAVARRO wrote:

Also does unicast revolution = having attached bases? Because thats going back to metal bases done many decades ago.

You understand it is clearly marketed for boardgame manufacturers and not boutique ranges for painters, integral base with undercuts as a single part in a reasonable price is quite attractive.

Especially now that Kickstarter has made miniatures almost mandatory.

I've looked over what's available on their web shop & all the stuff I wanted from the is are there - ie there's no wave 3 in my pledge - ie there's no reason for Prodos to send me my sodding stuff.
Not that interested in one piece casts with integral bases. Sick of the gw stuff which makes converting harder & harder as it is. And if I have a problem with gw stuff I know I can just call them up to get a replacement. Until Prodoesn't can offer that level of customer service, [MOD EDIT - Unnecessary. - Alpharius]

 Dark Severance wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Sliced bread was joke but both weekender title and some posts in this thread say revolutionary, not that I care but you seem to.

. Technically you could utilize it to create a multi-piece miniature as well. I believe their larger ones are multi-piece but only a couple pieces instead of many, letting them easily glue them together.

That would be the best option to be honest, for things like shields or even extra/alternative bits. Then again is up to the designer to think about these possibilities. Things can look great in 3d software and can be cast in unicast but at the end of the day all of that is redundant if the miniature does not fit the purpose which is to be painted. Unless you just want coloured plastic tokens for your games which in that case you do not even need crisp details etc.

PsychoticStorm you do understand that I already commented that... If finecast, PP bad casts, mantic nightmare casts etc are examples to go by, your ideal world that this will be contained only in boardames is just wishful thinking.
Its not a problem for me I simply vote with my wallet but not for a second I believe this will be just the cheap board game option.

As for the comments regarding the credibility of the company, well this industry unfortunately has plenty of bad examples and big hairy ones too, so with time people will forget and carry on. I would not touch this company KS with a stick though and by principle I refuse to get AVP until all is solved. Hopefully Prodos will make it right soon enough.

I guess even though we agree on many things we have to disagree here.

The purpose of the mini is not solely to be painted, miniatures can be used to be painted, they can be used to be just a 3D game counter and as the market grows so do people who frankly do not care to paint their models (or assemble them for that matter), lets call them casual gamers? I believe there is a market that will grow catering those people and as always their existence and the existence of companies making products for them will not stop other companies making multi part models that are a joy to paint.

Now, it is not my "ideal world" point of view when I stated they are marketed for boardgames, the entire announcement page is marketed for boargame companies, their showcase product is a boardgame and their comparisons are boargame pieces, the integral base is a hallmark of boargames.

The boardgame market because of the kickstarter has acquired a taste of assembled models that is quite expensive for startups and it has gone out of kickstarter to the main market, this is a huge expense for small and middle companies and this manufacturing method aims for companies in this spot.

I am sure this method can be used by wargame companies with a slota base and or to minimize the parts of a model, but it is not the intended purpose, I would also argue that the wargame companies that will try this are not the companies that have miniature painters as their target audience.

For the comments about credibility I am afraid there is an extremely vocal minority who potentially can scare small companies from a contractor who can potentially be beneficial for them and we have two sides here on one hand essentially AVP backers who, while having a legitimate case (still undetermined how much is prodos fault and how much is the IP holders fault) are not the customers this method is marketed for and on the other hand the companies who this method is marketed for who have a good experience.

On what grounds all the accusations mentioned here stand since the people who give them have not used Prodos as a contracted manufacturer and their word stands against the companies who do have used them and give them a good reputation?

I shared this info with a friend who has extensive resin casting experience and wanted to share this thought.

He thinks it is impossible to cast in this manner and he even thinks the picture of the mold has been photo shopped. I think if true this is a major advancement over other methods.

My resin buddy insists that the undercuts will shred any mold with only a few pulls. If you use a plastic injection machine the clamping force will deform the rubber component of the mold when closing. The aluminum frame surrounding the rubber insert can protect it from the clamping force and perhaps prevent this.

But, the entire rubber insert is going to have to be removed after each injection in order to be flexed to remove the model.

The looped handle on the backpack is an enigma for sure, as the mold has to be split in the tiny area under the handle in order for it to be extracted. If you pour a rubber mold over a master you are going to have to melt the master to get it to flow out and then try to cut it with a razor knife.

It is possible the molds themselves are 3D printed, which solves the problem with pouring the molds. I know you can 3D print in soft rubbery materials which could be used as a mold material, and maybe this is how the process was done.

In any event, my small group of tinkers has been having fun trying to figure this out!

Necros wrote:

 Theophony wrote:
I was interested in the upcoming kickstarter for blackwater gulch until I saw that he was going to be using Prodos for manufacturing.......

For what it's worth, we're going to be sticking to metal after all. I do still think this is a great new technology and all though, I'm looking forward to see what else comes out of it. I really like how they can have bases attached, I think that will be really great for board game minis.

Glad to hear it . At this point any connection to Prodos is an instant ending point for me.

kenofyork wrote:
I shared this info with a friend who has extensive resin casting experience and wanted to share this thought.

He thinks it is impossible to cast in this manner and he even thinks the picture of the mold has been photo shopped. I think if true this is a major advancement over other methods.

My resin buddy insists that the undercuts will shred any mold with only a few pulls. If you use a plastic injection machine the clamping force will deform the rubber component of the mold when closing. The aluminum frame surrounding the rubber insert can protect it from the clamping force and perhaps prevent this.

But, the entire rubber insert is going to have to be removed after each injection in order to be flexed to remove the model.

The looped handle on the backpack is an enigma for sure, as the mold has to be split in the tiny area under the handle in order for it to be extracted. If you pour a rubber mold over a master you are going to have to melt the master to get it to flow out and then try to cut it with a razor knife.

It is possible the molds themselves are 3D printed, which solves the problem with pouring the molds. I know you can 3D print in soft rubbery materials which could be used as a mold material, and maybe this is how the process was done.

In any event, my small group of tinkers has been having fun trying to figure this out!

What if the molds aren't rubber? Again.. I'm not for Prodos, I just want to know how to do this before everyone burns them to the ground!
My thought is, what if they're taking 3d models, making a 3d mold with the negative of that.. then splitting that up digitally and tooling from that?
OR
What if they're doing something with brush on molding?
OR
What if they're creating a partial mold from a 3d print with a printed channel to block rubber from sections, dividing it into 3 areas. Then they're doing a similar technique to a 2 part mold and on the 3rd section using a vacuum pump to pull the rubber into the final section with the cavities or something.. I dunno!

Anyone who has ever made molds or tried to.. or even understands what's actually involved will look at this and be like WHA!?!? I get that people who just buy army guys and don't care about the process are going to be more interested in what's going on with Prodos. I have no dog in that fight and it sucks what's going on with the people in that position. Trying to figure this out though has my gears turning. This is supposed to be impossible according to conventional thinking.

@PsychoticStorm I hope this does not snowball into wargaming but like I said big companies do try to sell subpar material at premium prices so its only a question of time. Nothing wrong if thats what people want I guess, its just not for me. Yes miniatures can just be game tokens like I said in that case there is no need for uber sharpen detail work since the unpainted plastic does not show them properly, specially if its a coloured plastic.

Reputation is one of those things that takes years to build yet just minutes to destroy it. I do not possess the numbers of undelivered goods VS happy companies but the negative feedback is quite real. Prodos should do better than this, specially when they are currently selling the goods a bit everywhere for some time now.

kenofyork wrote:
If you use a plastic injection machine the clamping force will deform the rubber component of the mold when closing. The aluminum frame surrounding the rubber insert can protect it from the clamping force and perhaps prevent this.

We don't know if the mold is made of rubber, I was guessing a silicone type substance given the inexpensive cost for tooling and only flexible material I could think of that would allow it to get round the undercuts. They also didn't say it was using a plastic injection machine per say, it is implied though when they say "plastic injection manufacturing process" but not sure of the exacts of what that can be referring to if machine or just the method of forced injection of material.

I have 3d printed negative molds in wax, then used liquid metal to create the negative mold before. However I don't think these molds are metal, the cost and detail doesn't seem like that would be viable. They can 3d print silicone now, so maybe a high temperature resistant but flexible material is 3d printed in a negative mold.

They have a method as I have seen the models, they aren't glued, they are one piece. I have seen very little mold lines if any, so I haven't quite been able to figure out how the mold was set against the miniature. Getting around the shoulder, arm joints and shield parts seem difficult so it would require the mold to be flexible unless there is a new method to get it to just pop out.

It also does not help their cause when in their thread one of the company reps comes on, refuses to answer questions that are not getting answered in the KS thread, bashes DakkaDakka and then stops posting. So it's more than just a KS issue, it's their corporate identity. They either need to step up their game as an international company and do some PR damage control, or decide to shrink back into obscurity and do behind the scenes work without plastering their name everywhere. The name brings up red flags, and as this thread goes to show, it doesn't matter how great a new process is if people see the name attached and instantly attack.

They just have little polish kids carving the models buy hand .

A simple 2 minute video showing the casts being removed from the mold would pretty much put all the hub-bub to rest.

I wonder why they haven't done that...?

 mad robot wrote:
A simple 2 minute video showing the casts being removed from the mold would pretty much put all the hub-bub to rest.

I wonder why they haven't done that...?

Trade secret?

 Dark Severance wrote:

From a contractor standpoint however they have never had any issues, other than being slow. Every product they have been responsible in manufacturing from prototypes to the whole Kickstarter, has been created, delivered and still has been being delivered. As a manufacturer and supplier in those regards there haven't been any issues. If you take every kickstarter they have been part of and responsible for and even add AvP, that is still 10% of issues. They have A ranking according to school systems, probably be at a 3.5 out of 5 star rankings in reviews (mainly because there are more negative vocal people).

There have NEVER been ANY issues as a contractor? So you've followed up every single person/company that hired them since their inception, not just the happy public ones they tell you about? Even the ones that they don't tell anyone about and may have made sign an NDA as a condition to get money/moulds/files/whatever back? Because that's their modus operandi (hide complaints behind an access wall as much as possible). I know that folks talk behind closed doors in every industry but that's a pretty absolute statement to make if you haven't taken a close look at their internal books.

 mad robot wrote:
A simple 2 minute video showing the casts being removed from the mold would pretty much put all the hub-bub to rest.

I wonder why they haven't done that...?

Probably because it isn't protectable in terms of a patent and once it is explained or shown, it will make it easier for to be reversed engineered. If it is using existing technology, just in a new and different method then it technically isn't something new, just how it is applied. Could also be time if it was something that can be patent... no idea though, I'm not a lawyer in that regards. If it ends up being one of those things you see, then smack your head going "Duh" then they probably could be worried others could reverse engineer it easily.

There isn't a bunch of hub-bub, I mean there isn't a large group saying this is impossible or questioning it so they really don't have a medium or reason to answer. The miniatures exist, the quality can speak for themselves, so it isn't like it is renders or a theoretical process, some process exists to get them.

 mad robot wrote:
A simple 2 minute video showing the casts being removed from the mold would pretty much put all the hub-bub to rest.

I wonder why they haven't done that...?

Clearly they remove the unicast minis using tool bits made of AVP models that were destined to go to backers.

 warboss wrote:
There have NEVER been ANY issues as a contractor? So you've followed up every single person/company that hired them since their inception, not just the happy public ones they tell you about?

A single dissatisfied customer tends to speak louder than a hundred satisfied ones, generally for good reasons. I think by now we would have heard at least rumours of poor handling of company customers, had it happened.

 warboss wrote:

So you've followed up every single person/company that hired them since their inception, not just the happy public ones they tell you about? Even the ones that they don't tell anyone about and may have made sign an NDA as a condition to get money/moulds/files/whatever back? Because that's their modus operandi (hide complaints behind an access wall as much as possible). I know that folks talk behind closed doors in every industry but that's a pretty absolute statement to make if you haven't taken a close look at their internal books.

No have you? absolute statements go either way.

 warboss wrote:
There have NEVER been ANY issues as a contractor? So you've followed up every single person/company that hired them since their inception, not just the happy public ones they tell you about? Even the ones that they don't tell anyone about and may have made sign an NDA as a condition to get money/moulds/files/whatever back?

You do have a point, I should have stated that better.

I have not followed up with every single company, but yes I have been in contact with various companies and projects (23, give or take a couple as there are some mixing of projects) that have used them on Kickstarter and a couple outside of Kickstarter. There were also a couple products I was surprised were Prodos manufactured as they had "prodos games" on the sprue when I got the miniatures. Those were ones I also followed up with because I was expecting it.

I can't say it is every one. Our industry is however fairly small and as we know word travels fast and quickly. Any issues or complications get talked about and communicated rather quickly through the community. I have never had a manufacturer require an NDA as a condition for anything, ever. Now that doesn't mean it isn't possible but it does seem improbably. The reverse though tends to happen where a company requires the manufacturer to sign a NDA, usually to protect information from getting out sooner or for other reasons. There have however been people who didn't mention that Prodos was doing manufacturing, mainly due to the negative image so they chose not to release that.

I didn't look since their inception, only after issues with AvP, because they were a viable manufacturing source. When looking at options for my projects and a couple contracts we had to research them as one of them. The issues we that we did and others tend to deal around communication to actually finalize and start a project. Once it was in the pipe, the only real complications other than some 3d models being fixed, reprinted was timing of deliveries. There have been delays for various reasons but not enough that it has had a major impact on any game. An exception could probably be said for Demi-Gods, however they had issues with their original manufacturer and basically have been bailed out by Prodos as a viable manufacturer.

Almost every one of their issues have are from a consumer/backer standpoint for AvP. Issues with mispackages on their own products do get resolved, but shipping and handling can be anywhere from 2 weeks to 4 weeks. There was definitely an issue about a year ago. We've seen some of the fallout, company split, people left and restructuring. Since then there has been an improvement. They still don't have someone specifically to handle customer service and PR which hurts them a lot on the consumer side of things.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
A single dissatisfied customer tends to speak louder than a hundred satisfied ones, generally for good reasons. I think by now we would have heard at least rumours of poor handling of company customers, had it happened.

With regards to small business, that's not necessarily true. I obviously am posting hypotheticals just like Dark Severance (although I'm admitted that they're such instead of indisputable facts). If prodos took first time business owners' money and designs, they could easily strongarm conditions for the return that favor them potentially as the party with the upper hand in that case (just like with KS backers). We saw that scenario with Defiance games in the past. Also, plenty of small business owners and/or first timers wouldn't want it to be public that they did potentially get duped with no real recourse so wouldn't share the info in private until someone else (or multiple other customers) did in order to not look foolish themselves. There are plenty of reasons why potentially news of Prodos doing to other companies what they CONTINUE to do to kickstarter backers wouldn't become public. Airing that dirty laundry in public is actively frowned upon and ends up costing the grieved business just as much as the one doing the drity work. Unless D.S. has someone gotten an unfettered look at Prodos' own internal financial documents, he shouldn't be saying anything for certain. The only thing we know for certain is that Prodos CONTINUES to disappoint kickstarter backers and prioritize new customers and future customers over those with little recourse for a refund. If they get busy on the business to business side of things, there is nothing stopping them from continuing that long term established pattern there as well in the short term (1-2 years) until the rumors got too loud to ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 warboss wrote:

So you've followed up every single person/company that hired them since their inception, not just the happy public ones they tell you about? Even the ones that they don't tell anyone about and may have made sign an NDA as a condition to get money/moulds/files/whatever back? Because that's their modus operandi (hide complaints behind an access wall as much as possible). I know that folks talk behind closed doors in every industry but that's a pretty absolute statement to make if you haven't taken a close look at their internal books.

No have you? absolute statements go either way.

I didn't make an absolute statement so your point is moot. I simply posted an indisputable and easily verifiable fact (that they DO currently try to hide valid criticism and have long done so) and said it is wise to extrapolate that possibility to their other revenue stream instead of disavowing it completely in the absense of information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 warboss wrote:
There have NEVER been ANY issues as a contractor? So you've followed up every single person/company that hired them since their inception, not just the happy public ones they tell you about? Even the ones that they don't tell anyone about and may have made sign an NDA as a condition to get money/moulds/files/whatever back?

You do have a point, I should have stated that better.

I have not followed up with every single company, but yes I have been in contact with various companies and projects (23, give or take a couple as there are some mixing of projects) that have used them on Kickstarter and a couple outside of Kickstarter. There were also a couple products I was surprised were Prodos manufactured as they had "prodos games" on the sprue when I got the miniatures. Those were ones I also followed up with because I was expecting it.

I can't say it is every one. Our industry is however fairly small and as we know word travels fast and quickly. Any issues or complications get talked about and communicated rather quickly through the community. I have never had a manufacturer require an NDA as a condition for anything, ever. Now that doesn't mean it isn't possible but it does seem improbably. The reverse though tends to happen where a company requires the manufacturer to sign a NDA, usually to protect information from getting out sooner or for other reasons. There have however been people who didn't mention that Prodos was doing manufacturing, mainly due to the negative image so they chose not to release that.

That's very diligent of you and kudos for putting in that groundwork (no sarcasm intended). That's much more than I thought you did. I'm just advising caution as their shifting priorities seem to come part and parcel with screwing over those who already paid in favor of those about to pay (or recently paid).

Can you post your "indisputable and easily verifiable facts", your statement is disprovable by asking the same question you did, since it is impossible to know all the data (according to you) how can you be so sure there are dissatisfied companies that are just "too shy to speak".

Because Dark Severance has done his groundwork from your words I get you just assume things without doing any groundwork.

 mad robot wrote:
A simple 2 minute video showing the casts being removed from the mold would pretty much put all the hub-bub to rest.

I wonder why they haven't done that...?

I recall some conversations in PM about 3d printing between you and I where I was told I had to figure some things out for myself. I think they might be taking that approach.
Honestly, if they have found a process that brings something to the industry, do you really expect them to give that up without a fight? Yeah, I want to know how they do it but I don't blame them for not doing so.

EDIT: I gotta say, I've received things from kickstarters done by Prodos and I didn't know Prodos had a hand in it. White Dragon's 15mm comes to mind.. my reaction was pretty much "huh".. I was admittedly annoyed that I didn't notice or they didn't disclose Prodos' involvement. I am bothered by that a little just like I felt put-off after someone pointed out that Prodos' contact info on their page is misleading. Those things are deceptive IMO.. them withholding their technique though, that's a legit trade secret.