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.

329 dollers is still a big investment.

That's two full gw boxed sets, or about 76 models, if the other set coming maybe 82 and minus the the cleaning time and materials cost if more needed.

If your printing 100, 200 + things then yes, but you need a big economy of scale first.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think it's fair to say we are in the Dot Matrix days of 3D home printing. Give it about 10-15 years and we may have affordable home printers that can do acceptable tabletop quality, and high-end printers that can spit out commercial quality.

I've ordered a few things from Shapeways, and they turned out quite nice, but I haven't seen anything home printed that would make me go out and get a 3D printer just yet.

Ha, I'd say we are into the HP Laserjet II days of 3D printing, where tools for producing high quality prints are getting close to affordable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
329 dollers is still a big investment.

That's two full gw boxed sets, or about 76 models, if the other set coming maybe 82 and minus the the cleaning time and materials cost if more needed.

If your printing 100, 200 + things then yes, but you need a big economy of scale first.

Mmmm... the big use I could see for this is scenery, where you print out nice stuff cheaply to decorate the table.

Something that has always bothered me is when someone puts a lot of work into painting up their army, then surrounds it with tin cans, popsicle fences, foamcore buildings, and styrofoam cups.

If I could print out some walls, markers and barricades before a big game, I would happily paint them up. If it's cheap enough, I would even trash them afterwards and do it again next week.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I think it's fair to say we are in the Dot Matrix days of 3D home printing. Give it about 10-15 years and we may have affordable home printers that can do acceptable tabletop quality, and high-end printers that can spit out commercial quality.

I've ordered a few things from Shapeways, and they turned out quite nice, but I haven't seen anything home printed that would make me go out and get a 3D printer just yet.

Ha, I'd say we are into the HP Laserjet II days of 3D printing, where tools for producing high quality prints are getting close to affordable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
329 dollers is still a big investment.

That's two full gw boxed sets, or about 76 models, if the other set coming maybe 82 and minus the the cleaning time and materials cost if more needed.

If your printing 100, 200 + things then yes, but you need a big economy of scale first.

Mmmm... the big use I could see for this is scenery, where you print out nice stuff cheaply to decorate the table.

Something that has always bothered me is when someone puts a lot of work into painting up their army, then surrounds it with tin cans, popsicle fences, foamcore buildings, and styrofoam cups.

If I could print out some walls, markers and barricades before a big game, I would happily paint them up. If it's cheap enough, I would even trash them afterwards and do it again next week.

That's a use I can see... Maybe drums, cargo crates, and other simple structures. You could also prime dragons teeth and anti tank baricadrs.
Again though if its a few dozen ota gonna cost alot per item, but once you doing a entire tables worth of scatter terrain and such.

Combined with say cast plaster block kits I can see a use for sure.

Its all just the mathematics of scale vs cost.

 jhe90 wrote:
329 dollers is still a big investment.

That's two full gw boxed sets, or about 76 models, if the other set coming maybe 82 and minus the the cleaning time and materials cost if more needed.

If your printing 100, 200 + things then yes, but you need a big economy of scale first.

A 3d printer isn't going to help if you're trying to print models GW currently sells cost-effectively; your results are going to be worse, or dramatically more expensive, and/or both. You also could get into legal trouble if you try to go for economies of scale.

The point is to make things GW doesn't sell or make support elements for other projects. I've made alternate Predator turret guns, sponson mounts, and Razorback turret innards; my current project is a magnetizeable front hull of a Land Raider to make an Ares (dozer blade/Demolisher cannon, for those who don't remember it). These are things you can't buy and would be harder to build from scratch.

Faact is, good printers use Resin. Resin printers cost $3000. Resin itself costs $50 a bottle for 1 litre. Unless you plan on printing $5000 worth of stuff, perhaps 3D Printing is more expensive.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
329 dollers is still a big investment.

That's two full gw boxed sets, or about 76 models, if the other set coming maybe 82 and minus the the cleaning time and materials cost if more needed.

If your printing 100, 200 + things then yes, but you need a big economy of scale first.

A 3d printer isn't going to help if you're trying to print models GW currently sells cost-effectively; your results are going to be worse, or dramatically more expensive, and/or both. You also could get into legal trouble if you try to go for economies of scale.

The point is to make things GW doesn't sell or make support elements for other projects. I've made alternate Predator turret guns, sponson mounts, and Razorback turret innards; my current project is a magnetizeable front hull of a Land Raider to make an Ares (dozer blade/Demolisher cannon, for those who don't remember it). These are things you can't buy and would be harder to build from scratch.

It was more a price theory vs the scale etc comparison.

Not saying pirate stuff, but that say you make your own bolter patterns, maybe a tank dozer blade or a new turret for a tank your looking at making quite a few of those parts or mix of the above such as scatter terrain to make it worth your money invested.

If you want to do your own terrain is great.

SLA printers are almost there for average quality home printing of gaming minis.

If you ignore the current costs £1500 for a printer, £150 for the resin.

You can get free slicing software but could spend upto £1500+ on a licence. if you want to design your own minis, then there is that learning curve.

Time to print is still an issue. Detail and size all add to the time it takes to print something, even at 32mm.

www.goprint3d.co.uk/form1plus.html

 techsoldaten wrote:

In most parts of the developed world, this sort of IP infringement is illegal when you produce a product for sale. But it's not illegal to produce something for personal use, which makes it more like a work of art. That's why people don't go to jail for drawing Space Marines.

I don't know the US laws. But I do know a fair bit of Dutch (and some other European countries) copyright laws and you could not be further from the truth.
It is illegal to reproduce any work that is copy right protected even if it is for your own use without permission of the copy right holder. Sure there are some exceptions but most of them are facilitated murky deals with copyright protecting organisations who make money from those deals. GW will not likely sue you for your own private copies, especially if you don't brag about them on the internet. No one goes to jail because small scale copyright violations because companies like gw just threaten to sue and offer a settlement or fear the bad press that such action would have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets quote a UK source

https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/download/article_3d_printer_guide.html wrote:Currently, there is no private copying defence under copyright law. Technically, a consumer who copies an artistic work by printing a replica will be liable for copyright infringement unless he or she has permission from the copyright owner.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

In most parts of the developed world, this sort of IP infringement is illegal when you produce a product for sale. But it's not illegal to produce something for personal use, which makes it more like a work of art. That's why people don't go to jail for drawing Space Marines.

I don't know the US laws. But I do know a fair bit of Dutch (and some other European countries) copyright laws and you could not be further from the truth.
It is illegal to reproduce any work that is copy right protected even if it is for your own use without permission of the copy right holder. Sure there are some exceptions but most of them are facilitated murky deals with copyright protecting organisations who make money from those deals. GW will not likely sue you for your own private copies, especially if you don't brag about them on the internet. No one goes to jail because small scale copyright violations because companies like gw just threaten to sue and offer a settlement or fear the bad press that such action would have.

Thank you for the perspective, oldzoggy. I didn't really want to create a debate about international copyright laws, since so few of us on Dakka are lawyers. I totally agree creating a reproduction of a copyrighted work is recognized as wrong by many governments. But copyright law is amazingly complex and designed to be confusing / mildly terrifying, so I don't really try to let it stop me from doing as I wish with something I paid for.

But I do get hung up on the idea what a copy really means.

I know if I create a duplicate of a digital file, I have a copy. I know if I take all the words in a book, in the same sequence, I have a copy of a book. I know if I take a 3D scan of a model, and output it exactly the way it was composed, I have a copy.

But if create a bunch of parts that resemble components of a copyrighted work, is that a copy? I would argue no, that's the business model of many companies throughout the world. You can buy replacement parts for a car that were produced by someone other than the original manufacturer. You can download mods for video games that were not produced by the original company. You can buy alternative helmets and shoulder pads for GW miniatures that are indistinguishable from their product, but are not copies. They were produced using 3D modeling software and include subtle differences that allow them to be printed at high quality without the need for an injection mold.

To have a copy, you have to have an original. The applications people use in 3D printing are very precise, it's not difficult to produce something original that fits within a set of general specs but is characteristically it's own thing.

I am starting a 30k army right now, all the models were purchased from GW. But I am making the shoulder pads myself, mostly b/c I don't like the ones GW sells. Specifically for Sons of Horus, I think I could make something better than that, and I might use a 3D printer to do it.

Creating my own shoulder pads is not going to make me feel like a criminal or a cheat. It's going to make me feel like I paid money for something, and now I am using it the way I want.

 techsoldaten wrote:
But it's not illegal to produce something for personal use, which makes it more like a work of art. That's why people don't go to jail for drawing Space Marines.

No, the reason people don't go to jail for drawing space marines is that IP infringement is a civil offense, not criminal. You can be sued by the IP owner but you can not go to jail. The people drawing space marines don't get into trouble because suing them isn't worth it for the IP owner.

 techsoldaten wrote:
But if create a bunch of parts that resemble components of a copyrighted work, is that a copy?

Yes. Copyright protects the creative elements of a thing, not its exact physical dimensions. If you make a space marine that is 1mm different in some minor detail but still obviously a space marine it is not an exact copy, but you're still using GW's IP and open to being sued. If you make a 28mm power armored infantry miniature with a large-caliber rifle that happens to be compatible with WYSIWYG in 40k but is not GW's power armored infantry you (probably) can't be successfully sued. If you make something in the middle it's up to the court to decide whether or not you've used GW's IP.

You can buy replacement parts for a car that were produced by someone other than the original manufacturer.

The difference here is that replacement car parts are purely functional objects that do not have a creative element. It is possible that they could be protected by patents (in which case you could be sued for producing them), but copyright does not protect, say, the alignment of screw holes to hold a piece in place.

You can download mods for video games that were not produced by the original company.

This example does not apply because video game mods involve the creator distributing their own creative works, not borrowing from someone else. The mods that do use unlicensed IP tend to get by on the "not worth suing them for it" principle as long as they aren't ever sold.

You can buy alternative helmets and shoulder pads for GW miniatures that are indistinguishable from their product, but are not copies.

That's because the shoulder pad is a simple geometic object whose dimensions are not copyrightable. Things like the chapter symbols on a shoulder pad are copyrightable material, and you'll notice that third-party shoulder pads never exactly duplicate GW's designs. A third-party manufacturer might sell "wolf-head shoulder pads compatible with GW space marines", but they won't sell you "Space Wolf shoulder pads" with a chapter symbol that looks exactly like the Space Wolves wolf head.

Creating my own shoulder pads is not going to make me feel like a criminal or a cheat. It's going to make me feel like I paid money for something, and now I am using it the way I want.

Justify it to yourself however you like, but that doesn't change whether or not it is illegal copyright infringement.

 techsoldaten wrote:


I know if I create a duplicate of a digital file, I have a copy.

The big copyright organisations also know this, and they demand to be paid. So we have more murky rules about this.
The dutch solution was to pay an additional fee (that is also taxed) per item that could contain those copies. Mork knows who will eventually receive this money...
Here is our table. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/intellectueel-eigendom/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-thuiskopieheffing

Being able to copy something with extreme ease does not mean that you are always allowed to, just look at your ebooks, or game cd's.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

You can download mods for video games that were not produced by the original company.

You can but it will not always have a happy ending for the builders of the mod

http://mttlr.org/2012/11/06/gaming-mods-and-copyright/

Even popular memes aren't safe https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/08/how-copyright-is-killing-your-favorite-memes/

The current copyright laws are really in need of change.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
But it's not illegal to produce something for personal use, which makes it more like a work of art. That's why people don't go to jail for drawing Space Marines.

No, the reason people don't go to jail for drawing space marines is that IP infringement is a civil offense, not criminal. You can be sued by the IP owner but you can not go to jail. The people drawing space marines don't get into trouble because suing them isn't worth it for the IP owner.

Perhaps in some parts of the world that's the case. But in the US, bringing a case against someone over a drawing would probably be without merit, precisely because there are no damages. IANAL, but lawsuits generally involve some actual harm to the other party, measured in financial terms. It's not possible to just arbitrarily say you can't draw something I made or I will sue you for it. Civil protections don't exist for the protection of... excessive pride, or whatever that is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
But if create a bunch of parts that resemble components of a copyrighted work, is that a copy?

Yes. Copyright protects the creative elements of a thing, not its exact physical dimensions. If you make a space marine that is 1mm different in some minor detail but still obviously a space marine it is not an exact copy, but you're still using GW's IP and open to being sued. If you make a 28mm power armored infantry miniature with a large-caliber rifle that happens to be compatible with WYSIWYG in 40k but is not GW's power armored infantry you (probably) can't be successfully sued. If you make something in the middle it's up to the court to decide whether or not you've used GW's IP.

You can buy replacement parts for a car that were produced by someone other than the original manufacturer.

The difference here is that replacement car parts are purely functional objects that do not have a creative element. It is possible that they could be protected by patents (in which case you could be sued for producing them), but copyright does not protect, say, the alignment of screw holes to hold a piece in place.

Sure, but the point was the act of printing something does not in itself represent some kind of infringement. Copyright Champions just try to make it sound like you are doing something dirty, usually with some kind of doublespeak that acknowledges the fact copyright laws don't apply while insinuating they actually do. It's possible to make a part for a model without copying the model.

 Peregrine wrote:

You can download mods for video games that were not produced by the original company.

This example does not apply because video game mods involve the creator distributing their own creative works, not borrowing from someone else. The mods that do use unlicensed IP tend to get by on the "not worth suing them for it" principle as long as they aren't ever sold.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. What I was saying is that I can modify a game and I'm not doing anything wrong by doing so. Many video games come with mod tools to allow me to do this and distribute the works. Not sure how that would put me in "not worth suing" territory.

 Peregrine wrote:

You can buy alternative helmets and shoulder pads for GW miniatures that are indistinguishable from their product, but are not copies.

That's because the shoulder pad is a simple geometic object whose dimensions are not copyrightable. Things like the chapter symbols on a shoulder pad are copyrightable material, and you'll notice that third-party shoulder pads never exactly duplicate GW's designs. A third-party manufacturer might sell "wolf-head shoulder pads compatible with GW space marines", but they won't sell you "Space Wolf shoulder pads" with a chapter symbol that looks exactly like the Space Wolves wolf head.

Creating my own shoulder pads is not going to make me feel like a criminal or a cheat. It's going to make me feel like I paid money for something, and now I am using it the way I want.

Justify it to yourself however you like, but that doesn't change whether or not it is illegal copyright infringement.

It sounds like you are saying there's no copyright protection for simple geometric objects, and at the same time saying the act of producing one may constitute illegal copyright infringement.

I just want to put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

There are a number of reasons why everyone isn't just printing up everything. For example, the quality. If you could even come close to the level of detail plus material quality, the tool you bought would have bought several full armies...

 techsoldaten wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/02/01/study-shows-some-3d-printing-fumes-can-be-harmful/

Post this here, and let you make judgement calls like adults.

This is FUD. The fumes are no different from the emulsion process typesetters used to use with Compuserve Editwriters to print text, before desktop publishing became a thing. It makes the room smell a little funny, but it clears up quickly when you are not printing.

Right, that's your decision to make as an adult. Some people with infants or other small children though might make the call that they don't want to take the risk. You may say that teaching your 8 year old drafting design and creating a hobby totally worth it. But if you buy the "more affordable" versions it is not truly no risk.

I don't think you are wrong to want to. after building about 1 full army you've made it at a discount. And potentially unlimited customization potential.

I think 10-15 is extreme considering the progress made in the last year. I would be shocked if it's more than 3.

People were literally saying that exact thing on this very forum 3 years ago and they were also wrong.

I don't think Dakka is too keen on threads discussing active IP infringement.

So there's that, but beyond that, I kind of wish Dakka would put a temporary moratorium on these threads. They pop up a lot and the problem is that most of the people in them who make "factual" statements (for or against) don't actually understand the process enough to have a properly educated opinion. These eventually spiral into silly flame wars between people who haven't got the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

he printer cost $300, and the materials cost $29 for a spool. The $0.10 comes from the amount of materials used, which includes the cost of misprints.

Which is a very misleading number. You don't have the cost of the software he used to actually build the model (which could range anywhere form 0-$10,000), nor do you have the time spent making the 3D model (and I'm not even getting into the time he spent having to learn the software), nor the time spent cleaning the final print or resetting the build from misprints. Then there's the fact that he had to learn how to model specifically for 3D printing because it's a very unique process. Face normals facing the wrong way? Two over-lapping vertices? Enjoy your catastrophic failure. You also don't know if any of the misprints fouled the machine and required additional time on his part to clean and reset the machine. Over-all, I promise you, it cost him more than $0.10.

This is FUD. The fumes are no different from the emulsion process typesetters used to use with Compuserve Editwriters to print text, before desktop publishing became a thing. It makes the room smell a little funny, but it clears up quickly when you are not printing.

Certain 3D printer substrates actually use a chemical known as isocyanate as a bonding agent. Iso is highly toxic and also WAY significantly worse than the fumes you mention (I actually had to change industries due to developing a iso-allergy while working with 3D printers). So yeah, depending on your substrate, it IS MUCH worse. Also, while iso is way more prevalent in resin based printers such SLA machines, it can also be present in FDM and ABS substrates and can be present in a small enough quantity that it can still be damaging while also not needing to be listed on the MSDS.

I mean, it's a cool concept. But for the most part it's pretty easy to print out novels and books that are high quality but in general people don't really do that. But hopefully it gets to a tipping point where maybe GW will drop their prices.

This is the attitude I always default to. I mean honestly, what's easier than gluing some minis to a bucket and dumping in some silicon? Yet that process certainly hasn't done any real or lasting damage to any mini-company. I doubt that a more expensive, more complex and more time consuming process is going to trouble them. I think part of the problem is that 3D printing involves computers. Most people tend to think that this makes 3D printing easy. I remember a 3D printing thread on Dakka where the thread starter actually began by saying "Now that computers have made it a simple process for anyone to make a high quality 3D model with no training or artistic background ...". I actually thought he was trolling, but no, he was serious. Thing is, this is a much more complicated process than people think.

I think current technology is great for printing "rough" terrain, like rubble, or bombed-out walls and stuff. I'd like a 3D printer just for that.

This. I agree %100

Funny, something I wrote back in 2013 figuring if GW was still in the game and wanting to embrace 3d printing:

"Below is entirely fiction but how I see the future for their models:

Next we will have the "GW miniature printer": buy the introductory $300 box set (the printer) with the 30 model units licensing included (free!!!!) and go to their website and make your selections and it will download your models and go to work! Do not forget to purchase more of the Citadel "armorplas" TM for printing: you would not want to run out (costs like gold and sells like it!!!). You could later buy the $200 add-on for vehicle size printing, the $400 for apocalypse units and $800 for the titan builder model (special deals included for "armorplas" TM with this purchase!). All "GW miniature printers" come in various models as well: character quality (add $200), display quality (add $400) and golden daemon (add $800). Note: at any time certain models may no longer be supported for "legacy" printers since we want to ensure the highest quality output GW experience where possible. Some exceptions with quality level upgrades. You want this too right???

I think I got the heebie jeebies writing that bit. "

This day could still come.

Tycho wrote:

he printer cost $300, and the materials cost $29 for a spool. The $0.10 comes from the amount of materials used, which includes the cost of misprints.

Which is a very misleading number. You don't have the cost of the software he used to actually build the model (which could range anywhere form 0-$10,000), nor do you have the time spent making the 3D model (and I'm not even getting into the time he spent having to learn the software), nor the time spent cleaning the final print or resetting the build from misprints. Then there's the fact that he had to learn how to model specifically for 3D printing because it's a very unique process. Face normals facing the wrong way? Two over-lapping vertices? Enjoy your catastrophic failure. You also don't know if any of the misprints fouled the machine and required additional time on his part to clean and reset the machine. Over-all, I promise you, it cost him more than $0.10.

*sigh*

He used Blender for the 3D modeling, which is open source software that can be downloaded freely by anyone on the Internet.

He did go through several proofs-of-concept to get it right, but isn't that what hobbyists do anyways?

I watched him clean a model, and the process took maybe 5 minutes.

Not sure where other expenses were coming from. This is a small scale print using inexpensive materials.

Of course, those are only superficial expenses related to the production of the print, and doesn't factor in all of the other things that go into an actual cost assessment of what lead that model to be produced.

There's also the cost of the computer he used to connect to the printer, the house used to shelter the computer set from the elements, the cost of the electric used to power the machines, the expense of the carpet padding used to keep his feet comfy when crossing the room, the cost his parents took on at birth related to his delivery, the incremental expense to taxpayers educating him to the point where he could operate complex machinery, the costs related to engaging in female companionship such that he could achieve an emotional state sufficient to carry out the task, the loss of productivity stemming from the production work going into a plastic man that is not for sale, and the costs related to the act of some supreme being (or occurrence of some cosmic event) that lead to the universe being created such that this could happen.

Factor those in and, sure, I could see the expense of the production of the model, amortized over all those and other events that have happened over the course of his life and lead him to doing this work, edging closer to $0.104. There's clearly some kind of fraud going on here and I appreciate you for exposing it.

Since we are on the legal subject of IP.

My understanding is this, the following things are legal

Drawing Space marines or GW IP for fun
Being commissioned to draw artwork that happens to be of a space marine.
Molding, casting, or printing models likeness solely for the purpose of demonstration and or artistic creativity.

Things not ok
Printing, molding, or casting and claiming IP of the item
Printing, or creating artwork of an IP then selling it for profit.
Recreating a product and selling it for your profit, (IE Recasters)

So you can print ultramarine stuff off for your self as proof of concept or artistic reasons, IE you need a set of legs in a very specific stance that is not made.

IP law gets very very wishy washy because of the fair use act.

*sigh*

He used Blender for the 3D modeling, which is open source software that can be downloaded freely by anyone on the Internet.

He did go through several proofs-of-concept to get it right, but isn't that what hobbyists do anyways?

I watched him clean a model, and the process took maybe 5 minutes.

Not sure where other expenses were coming from. This is a small scale print using inexpensive materials.

Of course, those are only superficial expenses related to the production of the print, and doesn't factor in all of the other things that go into an actual cost assessment of what lead that model to be produced.

But there's also the cost of the computer he used to connect to the printer, the house used to shelter the computer set from the elements, the cost of the electric used to power the machines, the expense of the carpet padding used to keep his feet comfy when crossing the room, the cost his parents took on at birth related to his delivery, the incremental expense to taxpayers educating him to the point where he could operate complex machinery, the costs related to engaging in female companionship such that he could achieve an emotional state sufficient to carry out the task, the loss of productivity stemming from the production work going into a plastic man that is not for sale, and the costs related to the act of some supreme being (or occurrence of some cosmic event) that lead to the universe being created such that this could happen.

Factor those in and, sure, I could see the expense of the production of the model, amortized over all those and other events that have happened over the course of his life and lead him to doing this work, edging closer to $0.104. There's clearly some kind of fraud going on here and I appreciate you for exposing it.

I'm aware of Blender. That's why I listed the cost as "0-$10000". There's plenty of legal and free software (Blender IMO being by far the best). That said Blender has a very steep learning curve. Even for 3D software, so the time thing still stands. I'm not trying to "expose fraud". My point is that opportunity cost and time/labor can be (and almost always is) significant when it comes to this. Giving out costs can be very misleading (albeit unintentionally misleading) when not everything is taken into account. Too many people who don't know any better just think you do something like press a button and *boom* - 10 cents later, you've got a table ready model. Not saying you said or did that of course, but rather trying to head that off at the pass.

Tycho wrote:

I'm aware of Blender. That's why I listed the cost as "0-$10000". There's plenty of legal and free software (Blender IMO being by far the best). That said Blender has a very steep learning curve. Even for 3D software, so the time thing still stands. I'm not trying to "expose fraud". My point is that opportunity cost and time/labor can be (and almost always is) significant when it comes to this. Giving out costs can be very misleading (albeit unintentionally misleading) when not everything is taken into account. Too many people who don't know any better just think you do something like press a button and *boom* - 10 cents later, you've got a table ready model. Not saying you said or did that of course, but rather trying to head that off at the pass.

In fairness, you made a pretty strong statement that this cost way more than $0.10 per model.

Opportunity cost applies to things like business, where there's a cost of pursuing one line of action measured in terms of what you would have gotten going after the other. It's a financial measure. Does that really translate into activities related to a hobby, where all time / resources spent pursuing it is for no financial gain?

I mean, it took me years to learn how to paint miniatures well, and years more to understand how to convert models with greenstuff. What is so special about a 3D printer than makes it worth going off about the work involved in learning how to do it?

I get your point that it takes time to learn how to work with tools, but Blender is not any harder to learn than 3DSMax, AutoCAD, or Maya. Once you understand what a spline is, you can start manipulating it.

I mean, it took me years to learn how to paint miniatures well, and years more to understand how to convert models with greenstuff. What is so special about a 3D printer than makes it worth going off about the work involved in learning how to do it?

Like I said, the reason I bring it up is because so many people really do think it's just "press a button => PROFIT". Not literally profit of course but you get my point. This isn't a perfect comparison, but it would be just like if I painted a miniature, demonstrated only the part where I matte-spray a completed model and say "this only took 3cents and a few minutes". It's unintentionally misleading and can muddy the waters.

The reason I bring up the time it takes to learn how to model (and I would argue that, unless you need to write code for Maya fluids, Blender DOES have a significantly higher learning curve due to the fact that it goes against even basic conventions) is because most people looking to get into 3D printing in the home don't already know 3D modeling. So yeah, that's gonna be part of the process and needs to be considered. Some might say "well just use Turbo Squid or Daz", but then you're adding additional cost, stuck with whatever is available and 9 times out of 10 the models are actually built horrendously. So you would still need to know 3D modeling in order to fix whatever you bought.

If you're learning to paint miniatures, you need paint and miniatures. If you're going to do 3D printing, you need a computer, software, substrate, a printer, tools to clean the models with and several new skill and knowledge sets. It's a whole other ball-game.

Is it that time again? Been a good three months at least since I saw someone post a "3D printers are basically matter replicators now and they're going to put Games Workshop and every other manufacturer out of business" thread.

 EnTyme wrote:
Is it that time again? Been a good three months at least since I saw someone post a "3D printers are basically matter replicators now and they're going to put Games Workshop and every other manufacturer out of business" thread.

Considering 3d printing "counterfeit" is a small fraction compared to re-casters, probably going to be no impact lol.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Is it that time again? Been a good three months at least since I saw someone post a "3D printers are basically matter replicators now and they're going to put Games Workshop and every other manufacturer out of business" thread.

Considering 3d printing "counterfeit" is a small fraction compared to re-casters, probably going to be no impact lol.

I think this kind of talk would only have relevance if GW decides to go into ever-more price escalations where re-casting or printing trumps being ethical and convenience.

Funny though, when models become "too expensive" it is just as likely people turn to other games than to "cheaper" models.
There are so many good games out there it gets hard to double-down on GW and the instability of their product offerings.

Tycho wrote:

Like I said, the reason I bring it up is because so many people really do think it's just "press a button => PROFIT". Not literally profit of course but you get my point. This isn't a perfect comparison, but it would be just like if I painted a miniature, demonstrated only the part where I matte-spray a completed model and say "this only took 3cents and a few minutes". It's unintentionally misleading and can muddy the waters.

The reason I bring up the time it takes to learn how to model (and I would argue that, unless you need to write code for Maya fluids, Blender DOES have a significantly higher learning curve due to the fact that it goes against even basic conventions) is because most people looking to get into 3D printing in the home don't already know 3D modeling. So yeah, that's gonna be part of the process and needs to be considered. Some might say "well just use Turbo Squid or Daz", but then you're adding additional cost, stuck with whatever is available and 9 times out of 10 the models are actually built horrendously. So you would still need to know 3D modeling in order to fix whatever you bought.

I see your point and yes, it does take time to learn a new method. I just wish people would stop trying to make it sound criminal, this should be considered a valuable part of the toolset for an experienced modeler.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Is it that time again? Been a good three months at least since I saw someone post a "3D printers are basically matter replicators now and they're going to put Games Workshop and every other manufacturer out of business" thread.

Heh. No one is saying that. But I do really like the quality of what I have been seeing, and do think 3D printers can be used effectively to create parts.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Since we are on the legal subject of IP.

My understanding is this, the following things are legal

Drawing Space marines or GW IP for fun
Being commissioned to draw artwork that happens to be of a space marine.
Molding, casting, or printing models likeness solely for the purpose of demonstration and or artistic creativity.

All of these things are illegal unless you have permission from the copyright holder to do so.
Luckily for us GW does give us some room if you want to know what GW allows you to do don't guess or listen to forum "experts" just read it from their site:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/Intellectual-Property-Policy?_requestid=4492539

1) Everyone's talking about 'copyright' which is only half of what come into play, here, as so much of it is related to declared and protected trademarks.
2) 'fair use' exists for a VERY small grouping of legal reasonings and 'so i can play games with them' isn't anything that comes close to any one of them.
3) from a legal perspective, both the Berne Convention and Buenos Aires Conventions disallow the copying of both trademarked and copyrighted materials for 'private use.'
(which, yes, does mean that GW could sue someone for drawing a space marine if it could be clearly shown in a court of law that it does, in fact, represent a space marine. mind you, i can think if few courts in either the US or UK where the judge wouldn't simply dismiss the lawsuit but that doesn't mean that the actual law isn't in favour of the IP holder, it just means that most judges don't really understand IP law, themselves, and, often, see it as an overreach or a nuisance lawsuit. So, in the end, yes someone making a 3d print of a space marine [even if they've designed it themselves through whatever CAD program] can be sued by GW* for a trademark infringement.)
.
(*I'm using GW just as shorthand, right now, to be clear, and one look at the how the BBC's legal department is having Warlord send cease and desist orders over various unoffical 'Dr. Who' models should help understand the whole thing better.)
.
Personally, my hope with 3d printers is that it will allow modelers to move AWAY from just copying preexisting ideas, designs, and concepts and lead to an explosion of NEW stuff for me to enjoy.

if you want to end the arguing, just post a picture of the model, and maybe a video of him cleaning one up.