The CB one doesn't have the pegs close to the model at all, the Siocast company's own demo ones do have within the "frame" even, it's especially clear on the last one. That could be the source of the issues with casting, indeed.
That's my point exactly. They seem to have used the spincast radial master (the shape-form of the miniature) to create the rectangular mould (because they didn't have to make it round). But this seems to have not accounted for the apparent need of pegs within the structure of the Siocast mould and could've resulted in the issues we've seen - especially the "meltneck Vostok". Yeah, the whole article they've published has the air of "we're doing Siocast, but we're doing it our way". You mean that earlier mould casters have retired?
You know spincasting molds are circular not rectangular (probably mould temperature and pressure tolerances are also different), why they chose to make the mould in a radial pattern, I do not know.
Honest question, do you at least understand the difference between the vulcanized rubber mold and the master cast that created the miniature-shaped holes in it? It seems that the master cast used for the Vostok was the same as with the original spincasts, a radial shape and layout of pieces (even if most of the radiality and vents are often cut manually) - but for the thermoplastic process rectangular molds were required - so the radial master was placed inside a rectangular "sandwich" and vulcanized as such. It could be just that the casters are used to placing them radially and did what they always do. Seems to have not allowed them to place the holding pegs within the structure though - and this might be source of the issues we've seen, mold halves not being held together close enough around the minis themselves, causing mold shift and leaks / loss of detail. That's exactly the whole of the point that went over your head - because they seem to have used the spincast masters. Which are... RADIAL. You keep talking about "people stating opinions as facts" as if you were completely informed about the process and implying that our obvious "investigative" guesswork about what CB decided to do is somehow clearly wrong. Yet you do not seem to grasp the very basics of the process. Things that are shown from A to Z on Youtube. If you knew, you'd say what you knew. But you admit you don't, so get off the high horse and stop bashing people who are simply trying to communicate with other fans on the Forum.
I'd imagine starting a new process from the place they are most comfortable with, and then making adjustments as things progress. Seeing as the uploaded image seems to be the OG Vostok with the attached "head/sensor bubble", could look different on the newest ones. Their process for getting the new material to the quality they want may not look the way an outsider, whatever their intentions, imagine it ought to look.
What interest me the most is other companies seem to position metal shift stabilizers around and close to each model, CB in the other hand seem to position them in a symmetric pattern away from actual miniatures. This might be why there have been some significant cast shifts with first Vostok, or on long parts of the Bearpode (weapon).
What? I did not even assume one would think that this is the master cast just thrown in, it does not even look like a spin casting cast, more so "masters" are cut from the master cast, cleaned up, and then placed to the mold, they are not just placed on the mould, channels are hand carved, this is pretty mundane knowledge of spincasting, so I never even thought one would suggest they took the cast and put it there. I thought what was discussed was if CB uses their regular spincasting molds for Siocast production, I do not think this is possible, different moulds, different method of inserting the material in and different material been used. I get the opportunity then with this to clarify, no what is shown in the Siocast mould is a deliberate design choice and not the use of a spincast cast, the point of material injection is a clear indicator of this, but also the channel architecture.
Maybe, I do not know, this is a new technology and some things definitely will be ironed out with time and experience.
I know most table top miniatures peeps prefer metal over plastic. But, I am happy either way. If this helps CB get more models in our hand quicker I’ll take it. lol Ultimately, with costs, shortages, shipping, anything to help CB helps us as consumers.
I prefer metal but it depends on size. For stuff the size of the Megalodron the PVC they used was decent.
It's barely tolerable if they use it for bulky main bodies, so long as the fiddly detailed pieces are still done in metal. The Megalodron made sense, but the fact that it was pre-assembled and glued by factory-line hands who don't give a **** still boils me. 'Cheap plastic pre-assembled minis to get end users without model building skills into the game faster'. That is a dangerously optimistic business strategy that more than one company has floundered upon. I sincerely hope there ain't any such bright bulbs at CB...
That's a completely different material. These thermoplastic minis discussed in this thread are not PVC and they are not pre-assembled.
I like good minatures, mostly irrespective of the material. CB makes really good metal models, the new stuff GW is producing is really good hard plastic, I've bought things from really good resin casters, etc. Right now, CB isn't as good at Siocast as they are at metal, and I think that's the main reason people are reacting poorly.
I’ll agree with this for the most part but on the subject of GW making really good hard plastic… yes, they do. Except for the new Garran Crowe model. Damn thing has his hips out of alignment with his spine. Someone went a little too far on the cad creator with that one. I’m not too bothered if a mini isn’t as detailed as I’d like, as long as I like it for the most part I’ll buy it regardless of price (and then whinge about it later. Don’t judge me, I’m British. We made whining an art form.). I think the main issue we’re seeing here is that it’s the early days of siocast for CB. I recall the early days of Forgeworld… dark days they were. I do think you’re right too though in saying that since people are really used to CB producing metal minis of high standard they’re expecting the same from siocast and since they seem not to be getting that at the moment, that’s why there are issues.
We're all happily paying premium price for premium quality metal minis. If the Siocast prices were significantly lower, these issues would've gone over much better. Premium price for subpar quality never does.
I’ll ask it anyway. Worst case scenario I get accused of witchcraft. Wouldn’t be the first time. Best case scenario people discuss the issues like adults and give CB their honest opinions so that any issues can be resolved. Lol, or am I placing too much faith in mankind here?
Charging full price for experiential, inferior minis and then using learning curve as excuse is just cheap. Either hone your skills on models you don't sell (siocast can be recycled and reused so nothing bad here) and when you are familiar with the process start seling them, or charge less for models until you are better at it.
I’d agree completely if the company in question didn’t replace any defective product without issue and let you keep the item that was broken/defective/missing parts. Quality control should be catching more of the issues than are seen but I’m far more forgiving when those issues are resolved quickly and with little to no fuss by CB. Other companies such as Warlord Games and Perry Miniatures also do this and in the past GW was known to do the same (think it still does but I haven’t dealt with GW customer services in a while). All miniatures companies suffer from problems at the start of a new run especially with new technologies that they aren’t experienced with. Edit: this is not an excusing of what’s going on vis a vis quality issues with siocast, merely an explanation. The problem with honing skill on miniatures until you can produce them without fail means that you can miss deadlines of delivery. It’s better to meet those deadlines and deal with the fallout than miss the deadlines and disappoint prospective sellers of that product. I’m not entirely disagreeing here, just I’m far more willing to give them a break if they can fix my issue with speed and no fuss.
Make a two-part (for glue testing) 25mm based sculpt, like an HVT marker, and toss it into every box for a year, requesting feedback. Or include a half-dozen in ITS boxes as give-aways.
