338 replies to this topic

[Peter M. Skaar]

Very nice, Healey!  It is interesting to see the two different models of sister ships together.  I actually have 2 GHQ Elbings, 1 of which is painted and 1 that is still unpainted.

I have been busy painting little tanks as well as doing some posts here for my Mein Panzer tutorial.  I do plan to doing a few WWI ships in the not too distant future.  I will probably concentrate on doing some of the British ships for Coronel and Falklands first.  GHQ came out with the Canopus and the Otranto recently and they look like really nice models.

[healey36]

Thanks, Peter. Panzerschiffe is a really old range that thankfully is still in production. Their stuff is primitive by most modern standards, but that's part of the charm for me. Harkens back to the early days when we were playing Barry Carter's rulesets on the dormitory-room floor.

 

Read this AM that War Times Journal has ceased production of their extensive small-scale ranges of 3D-printed models. This is most unfortunate, as their stuff was brilliant and included many, many ships. I have about thirty unpainted sitting in the project pile, but many more were needed to complete numerous classes. 

 

A disaster...I'm gutted.

 

 

[Peter M. Skaar]

I'm sorry to hear about War Times Journal, Healey.  I have a large number of British and German WWI ships all by GHQ.  I have a lot of other 1/285th scale stuff also by GHQ.  My worry is that with the price increases that were needed plus the plethora of 3D printed models out there, there may come a time when GHQ and some others have to close their doors.  I will continue to support them as long as they are viable but who knows how long that will be.  Once they are gone, they are gone.

[healey36]

I agree with you, Peter, which partially explains the mountains of unpainted miniatures to be found on, under, and over the workbench. I'm not sure what the demographics of the miniature gaming hobby looks like, but I suspect it's drifting north at an accelerating rate. GHQ makes brilliant stuff, and I've been buying their bits since the 1970s. Unfortunately, the manufacture of miniatures seems largely a cottage industry, many of them one-man-bands, so there's a bit of instability that comes with costs, interests, family commitments, etc. I try to support all of them as often as possible.

 

As far as their (GHQ) recent price increase goes, it wasn't quite as bad as I anticipated. However, close to thirty bucks for a WWII fleet carrier (when you add in shipping) is starting to put stuff out of reach. I've taken to buying from them via their website specials more and more.

 

I might break down and purchase a couple of WTJ's print-files and head over to the public library and see what's involved in getting a few prints done. My expectations are low, but who knows, maybe I'll be surprised.

[healey36]

One has to pay careful attention to 3D-print offerings that are out there. Some are great, some awful. Here's a Dodge WC54 that (IMHO) falls into the latter category:

 

 

No amount of paint and decals makes this presentable    As my kid said, it looks like it was from a time when the USA made their stuff out of wicker.

[Dave Franklin]

I first glanced at the picture, and thought, "No amount of paint and decals makes this presentable?  That's harsh."  Then I clicked on the picture, saw the larger image, and thought "Oh, I see". 

[healey36]

To be fair, the vendor describes his 3D prints as "quality is good, for gaming; these are not meant to be display models". I don't know much about 3D printing, but I wonder if such coarseness is a function of the file resolution or the quality of the printer (or perhaps both). I've seen some of the stuff Kenny has printed, and his prints look far superior to this. I have a box full of 1/100 prints here somewhere, along with another WC54 print by a different printer. I should dig that out and see what it looks like.

Here's a T62a printed by the same outfit:




I had to replace the gun tube with a piece of brass rod and a bore-evacuator fashioned from a bit of cellophane tape (the original tube arrived in pieces, unsalvageable). Similar coarseness seen in the print, but not quite as objectionable here.

[Kenny Noe]

Yea, The maker's printer is not tuned to very high quality on either of those prints.  Did you replace the T-62 gun tube with the brass rod??  The rod's thickness seems ok but the tube itself and the bore evac are too long.  IMHO.

 

Here is a Pz4 I did

https://www.odgw.com...480-pz4/medium/

 

 

The roof slope is noticable but the hull and rest are pretty good.

 

What company did you buy the T-62 and ambulance?

[healey36]

Yes, I did the replacement of the tube with brass, and I would agree with you, the tube and evacuator are likely both a bit too long (and the evacuator should be roughly at the tube's midpoint). It's tough to find specs for the 115mm smoothbore that the T-62A packed. I tried to use an unbuilt Tamiya kit as a guide. My recollection, having seen a number of them at Aberdeen, was that the tube was ungodly long. When viewing contemporary photos, it can be tough to gauge given the perspective.

Your Pzkpfw-IV looks good, at least to my eye. Many 3D prints with sloped surfaces have some striation which is the printer achieving the "flat" sloped surface by moving, shortening, or lengthening the strata with height. Typically, at least from what I've seen, you get nice clean/smooth vertical and horizontal surfaces, but a bit of striation on the sloped/curved bits.

A year or so ago I started buying 1/100-scale 3D prints from various printers just to see what the stuff looks like. Some of it is very sharp, some not so great (the Dodge WC54 being an example). I don't recall specifically who made the Dodge. One vendor who I think makes really nice stuff is:

https://miniaturetanks.com/

A nice ever-changing selection of stuff, minimal striation, virtually no flash, and fun to deal with.

[healey36]

Another source of 1/285 and 1/100-scale prints (amongst other scales) is:

 

https://www.alternateendinggames.com/

 

My experience has been that the fidelity of the actual prints is better than the CAD images in the online product catalog.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Healey, those particular 3D prints that you showed look pretty bad to me.  Are those 15mm? 

I am pretty much of a hard-core 1/285th/6mm guy as i have lots of it, mostly GHQ.  I would consider 3D prints of items GHQ might never make but for me, the print quality has to get better.  I have seen some things lately, especially buildings, that look very good to me.  I am always on the lookout for buildings and other terrain pieces but don't need too much in the way of vehicles to fill out most of my forces.

Thanks for sharing these on this page. 

[healey36]

Yes, Peter, those are 15mm or 1/100-scale. They are examples of some of the earliest 3D prints I acquired when I was starting to look at what was being produced using print tech. While these are still offered, there is stuff out there now that is of a far higher fidelity. Here's an unpainted 15mm BMP-2 print from AlternateEndingGames, as an example:

 

 

Is it perfect, nope, but it's headed in the right direction. Still some issues with fragility and the scale of some components (those tracks, for example), but generally a nice clean print with little flash or print marks.

 

I'm with you, a dedicated 1/285 or 1/300 scale devotee for nearly 50 years, but the hobby seems to be evolving away from that scale now. Things, at least from an armor perspective, have moved toward 15mm, then 25mm/28mm, or at least that's how it appears. You can see this at the cons; lots of games played at 15mm and 28mm scales, micro-armor not so much (if at all). I'm not sure what's driving that (hopefully not aging demographics and failing eyesight as many claim).

 

Regardless of scale, I do think 3D print is the future. The tech, as with most things, seems to be improving rapidly. The casters (GHQ, CinC, Viking Forge, et al) are going to have a tough time competing (IMHO). It'll be interesting (and possibly heartbreaking) to watch it play out over the next decade or so (if I'm still around  ).  

[Peter M. Skaar]

That one is much better, Healey.  I think one of the reasons for the move to 15mm and larger is that you have Battlefront and Warlord Games that have the rules and minis all contained and with Battlefront some tournament action.  There are a number of people that still love the 6mm scale as evidenced by many of the Facebook sites I inhabit.  I think 6mm may be more popular over in England as they have their Joy of Six convention in which all the games are done in 6mm.

I love 1/285th aka 6mm and have lots of stuff already and at my age I don't see giving it up for another scale.  I also have some 10mm Civil War by GHQ which are really nice as well but I need to prioritize.

[healey36]

Battlefront offered/offers a lot of nice vehicle kits and figures, but I was never too keen on their rule sets (and I have played them a few times). They have brought a lot of folks into the hobby, though, and for that I am grateful.

 

Peter, I'm glad to hear you are seeing a lot of activity in 6mm. Here on the East Coast, at least locally, it seems a desert. Still the best scale for modelling large actions, to my mind.

[healey36]

Here's USS Hornet in her postwar configuration (Viking Forge casting, decal by Flight Deck, etched base by ODGW, homemade label):

 

 

 

I'm still working on this. There's a bit of overlap of the decal in places which should be trimmed away, if possible, and some white along the edges in other places that should be touched up (the result of an imprecise cut-out of the decal from it's backing). I'm also trying to find some decals usable for pennant numbers on the island.

 

The camera is sooooo unforgiving. 

 

[Kenny Noe]

Well Done!!!     She's awesome!!!  

[Peter M. Skaar]

That is a great looking Hornet, Healey!  Flight Deck Decals has been a godsend to us micro modelers.  I used some of their German tactical numbers on some half-tracks recently and they worked great.  I-94 also does some fine decals as well.

I am currently working on finishing some T-34s that will give me the 2nd Company in my battalion plus the Battalion and Brigade HQ tanks.

Before Flight Deck, I had to cobble numbers together from various sources.  Here is my Midway, painted for the GHQ catalog a few years ago.  I had to do a lot of cutting and pasting to get what I wanted.  It was quite a bit of work.

[healey36]

Thanks guys. I have a half-dozen carriers sitting here waiting for a flight deck. Once I finish getting Hornet sorted, may try another.

 

Peter, if you can remember, what set did you use for your island pennant number for Midway? Flight Deck's postwar sets start with '59', USS Forrestal. I thought about using hull numbers, but figured those might be too small. BTW, nice pre-decal flight deck.

 

Hornet needs some airplanes, but GHQ doesn't offer any of that era (at least that I could find). Viking Forge has a "Vietnam Era" set, so I might take a look at those. I'll need S-2 and A-4, along with a few H-34 and an E-1 or two. 

[healey36]

The original BB token for Monopoly was a nicely detailed casting  from around 1937:

 

 

My understanding is the earliest castings were zamac, later pewter, then white metal of some sort, and it seems much of the detail (portholes, anchor chains, casemates, etc,) has gotten lost over the years. Found this early one in a bucket of odds-n-ends at the local indoor flea market this past weekend.

 

Back in the day, I always chose the battleship as my Monopoly token. Scottie dog...oh please.

[Kenny Noe]

Sweet find.....     "Scottie dog..."  ROTFLMAO!!!