Author Topic: Miniatures?  (Read 7235 times)

Toolian

  • Able Airman
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Your Forum Heel
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #195 on: February 18, 2010, 06:47:08 PM »
I gave the history of hollowed plastics and the reason why the invention was made. Though it seems you have missed the point, the very purpose of hollowed toys are to save on material costs, I thought I would run that by you again...

Not all plastics are the same. That is a given.

But you should take note  majority of toys and action figures do use HIP since the 1950s mainly because it is cheap and easy to manipulate. Many toys you will find to be hollow for material costs.

You automatically assume or introduce the quality of the plastic to your standard. Which is a flawed point in an argument.

The debate is whether or not Hollow is a cheaper production.

Set up costs for a hollow miniature is more expensive, mainly because the mechanics that are involved (movable plunger, etc.)

But in the long term it is cheaper since less material costs = less of an investment, commone knowledge.


HIP comes in many forms, and (a solid piece) can have resistances of up to 3,000 PSI, much higher than our need for gaming.

Once again, you only assume the material is to your liking and aspects of the miniature are to your thoughts, which in an argument is laughable. You could be correct, but in the current state it is erroneous.

I do hope the miniatures are solid as it would  make them stronger, but to say the costs are equal is incorrect. 

Please do some research and fact checking, I have worked in a local factory part time dealing with plastic molds and ejections for computer and military parts and worked with a large number of different plastics.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 06:51:27 PM by Toolian »

Meatshield

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #196 on: February 18, 2010, 07:33:06 PM »
Toolian, I have been reasonable and explained why your analogy of 1890s plastics and action figure/toy/whatever plastics is flawed. You're talking about toys that are made in different propotions, with different quality levels, with different volumes of expected sales. You're even talking about a solid piece of HIP, which has nothing to do with a miniature, which is most certainly not a solid piece, with turrets and other things sticking out.

Let's see here.

The polystyrene used has been stated before to be the same as the material used in Catalyst's superb new Loki and Thor battlemech sculpts. The proportions of HML Leviathan have been shown and the detail level shown in the lucite prototype. I happen to know, as someone who has worked extensively with polystyrene miniatures, the properties of the substance in practical use in miniatures. I own several battlefleet gothic spaceships made of the stuff, and thinner does compromise it. loose wingtips and antennae are easy to damage, even when made to 3/16th inch thickness or thicker.

If any hollowness is involved, it's going to be to make an easier to produce sprue. A few forms of HI Polystyrene as a material is something around $1000-1400 per metric TONNE. Saving 50 grams worth in a battleship mini is not going to make a notable difference in miniatures cost. I don't know the exact cost of the type CGL plans to use for their minis, but I can't imagine the price deviating much from that estimate.

I'm pleased that you have worked in a plastics factory. I could tell you very much that I am an engineer. Does that change anything? What matters is how the material actually works. The difference in our arguments is that you assume somehow that those examples apply, while I am stating explicitly what we know so far related to this actual miniature, and polystyrene use in miniatures in general.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 07:47:24 PM by Meatshield »

Toolian

  • Able Airman
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Your Forum Heel
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #197 on: February 18, 2010, 07:40:07 PM »
Toolian, I have been reasonable and explained why your analogy of 1890s plastics and action figure/toy/whatever plastics is flawed. You're talking about toys that are made in different propotions, with different quality levels, with different volumes of expected sales. You're even talking about a solid piece of HIP, which has nothing to do with a miniature, which is most certainly not a solid piece, with turrets and other things sticking out.


And yet you still confuse the ultimate goal through the process and materials.

Completely missed it.

Quote
The polystyrene used has been stated before to be the same as the material used in Catalyst's superb new Loki and Thor battlemech sculpts. The proportions of HML Leviathan have been shown and the detail level shown in the lucite prototype. I happen to know, as someone who has worked extensively with polystyrene miniatures, the properties of the substance in practical use in miniatures. I own several battlefleet gothic spaceships made of the stuff, and thinner does compromise it. loose wingtips and antennae are easy to damage, even when made to 3/16th inch thickness or thicker.

 I have held in my hand, depending on the thickness of a hollow miniature can easily be done without compensating too much. But still hope they are solid, hollow feels rather "cheap" either way I'll buy as long as they are painted.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 07:53:01 PM by Toolian »

Meatshield

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #198 on: February 18, 2010, 07:52:41 PM »
Listen. I don't want to fight, but quite honestly, you're not listening. You have refused to address the actual points mentioned and remain fixated on obscure tangents. You're not discussing rationally, and I think I'm done with this. Please, continue to enlighten us about what it takes to build an action figure, or miniatures from the 1890s, while ignoring points made about wargaming miniatures made by CGL and other companies using HIP. Please continue to using the strength of a solid chunk of HIP as a measure of the durability of miniatures with fine details. Please continue to ignore the fact that HIP material costs are almost negligible, at something around 1000-1400 dollars per metric ton.

I think this discussion has come to a close, and I will be the better man and step back from this.

Toolian

  • Able Airman
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Your Forum Heel
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #199 on: February 18, 2010, 07:55:20 PM »
Listen. I don't want to fight, but quite honestly, you're not listening. You have refused to address the actual points mentioned and remain fixated on obscure tangents. You're not discussing rationally, and I think I'm done with this. Please, continue to enlighten us about what it takes to build an action figure, or miniatures from the 1890s, while ignoring points made about wargaming miniatures made by CGL and other companies using HIP. Please continue to using the strength of a solid chunk of HIP as a measure of the durability of miniatures with fine details. Please continue to ignore the fact that HIP material costs are almost negligible, at something around 1000-1400 dollars per metric ton.

I think this discussion has come to a close, and I will be the better man and step back from this.

I am not talking about how to build a toy from 1890, that is something you conjured up.

If you have to lie about something you have nothing else to argue.

Sorry, but half your arguments are distortions of other people's posts.

trboturtle

  • House of Commons
  • Airman
  • *******
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #200 on: February 18, 2010, 07:57:43 PM »
Guys, what CGL decides to do, they will decide based on economics and  other factors we are not privy to. This debate (which is sliding into arguement) will have little if any effect on their decision. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the matter, but I wait and see what happens and go from there.

So, agree to disagree -- whatever they decide, CGL will be the one praised or yelled at, not you guys. SHo, shake hands and wait to see what they decide....

Craig


Toolian

  • Able Airman
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Your Forum Heel
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #201 on: February 18, 2010, 08:05:53 PM »
Guys, what CGL decides to do, they will decide based on economics and  other factors we are not privy to. This debate (which is sliding into arguement) will have little if any effect on their decision. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the matter, but I wait and see what happens and go from there.

So, agree to disagree -- whatever they decide, CGL will be the one praised or yelled at, not you guys. SHo, shake hands and wait to see what they decide....

Craig

Get it, got it, good.

 ;)

Conteshard

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #202 on: March 19, 2010, 08:47:46 AM »
Let's jump back 7 or 8 pages in this tread: any news of type of minis chosen by CGL?
Personally, I'll go with prepainted, AT43 quality: I'm a builder and painter, but have a lack of the 4th dimention (a.k.a. time) that makes my lean toward "redy to play".

Shard

Thayendanegea

  • Airman Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Miniatures?
« Reply #203 on: March 19, 2010, 09:45:23 AM »
Hi John  ;D

I would like to be able to play out of the box. If not I'll just leave the miniatures as is and play with them in factory color. If people at Gen-Con do not like it. Too bad. Show me a rule that says they must be painted to play.
No person among us deserves any other
reward for performing a brave and
worthy action, but the consciousness
of having served his nation.