|
Post by impervious on May 8, 2016 20:38:10 GMT
Does anyone here also think it would be a fantastic idea for GW to start using 3d printing methods instead of injection moulding for their models? Seriously, they are pretty much all made right now with 3d software already, and imagine never having mould lines ever again! Also, there would be less limitations on design features of the models, because it could print them in ways that injection moulding could never properly do. I'm sure right now that it is still a bit more expensive to 3d print, but the price of that is dropping dramatically, so I don't think it will be long until they could literally just print a better product.
|
|
|
Post by bolk on May 8, 2016 23:01:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by desmo on May 9, 2016 1:52:18 GMT
I have done some 3d printing at home as well has having some of my designs printed by third party companies with hi quality 3d printers. Injection molded models are stronger, lighter, and possess better detail than all but the highest quality 3d printers. And even then, the injection molded model - even at GW's pricing - is more affordable than trying to print the same design on a 3D printer. 3D printing is really only worth it for original and custom designs which are not otherwise being manufactured. It's possible, maybe inevitable, that DLP 3d printers will become affordable enough to be a part of every hobbyist's tool set but it's going to be a while.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on May 9, 2016 9:10:26 GMT
Besides, it takes time to print off a model in 3D. Let's say it takes a minute to print off a model (which is generous considering the speed of 3D printers). A box of tactical marines has ten models in it, which means it would take ten minutes to make a box of tactical marines. By my math that's 6 boxes of marines an hour. Let's say GW works 2 shifts, that's a 16 hour work day for a grand total of 96 boxes of tactical marines per day (for each printer). There is no way that 96 boxes of tactical marines keeps up with demand. And that's just one box, how many different units does GW make?
|
|
|
Post by No One on May 9, 2016 10:00:40 GMT
There's (basically) 3 things that GW would be concerned about with swapping to 3D printing:
1. Cost: how much to change the machines, and run them? 2. Production speed: as yori points out, they need to be able to make things in sufficient quantities. Ties into 1, in that more can be produced by buying more/bigger printers. 3. Quality: how good is the kit?
Until all of those are at least parity (and at least 1 much better) GW won't switch (and currently, I think all are under parity). If it costs similar, they aren't going to spend the money (which would likely be a very large amount, when you factor in the changes they'd likely have to undergo with regards to supply, staff, design, current moulds etc) on new machines unless the production speed and quality is greater, they aren't going to spend heaps of money on better quality kits unless they can make them for similar prices and in similar quantities etc.
|
|
|
Post by impervious on May 9, 2016 23:41:32 GMT
Besides, it takes time to print off a model in 3D. Let's say it takes a minute to print off a model (which is generous considering the speed of 3D printers). A box of tactical marines has ten models in it, which means it would take ten minutes to make a box of tactical marines. By my math that's 6 boxes of marines an hour. Let's say GW works 2 shifts, that's a 16 hour work day for a grand total of 96 boxes of tactical marines per day (for each printer). There is no way that 96 boxes of tactical marines keeps up with demand. And that's just one box, how many different units does GW make? How long does it take for the plastic to harden in the moulds they currently use? It's far from instantaneous, and still going to take far longer than 10 minutes..... So they must have dozens or even hundreds of moulds of every design (or one very large mould with multiple copies of the same thing on it) to keep up with current demand for each and every product. Those moulds are not cheap either..... The plastic has to be injected at extremely high pressures, and it takes a lot of force to hold the sides of the moulds together properly during this process, and the machinery needed to do that is not cheap. Not to mention they need to be cleaned thoroughly between each use, otherwise details would get clogged up really quickly. With how expensive it is (I have a little bit of history in the injection moulding industry), I'd suspect that they outsource a lot of it, and really only have to pay for the moulds, so someone else has paid for the machinery. And what is to stop them from using a printer that is setup to produce models not just 1 at a time, but dozens at a time? What is stopping them from outsourcing the printing of it to a company who has already invested in the really expensive printers required for the job? What if, instead of getting these big boxes filled with relatively little plastic, most of which is useless anyways, we get a small box that contains all the individual parts that were 3d printed instead? It would save a fortune in shipping and storage costs by taking up significantly less weight and space, and stores could have more of the product on the same amount of shelf space.
|
|
|
Post by Overread on May 10, 2016 6:56:23 GMT
They'd still have to employ an army of people to clean the layerlines - or players would find that mould lines were a lesser evil compared to layerlines from 3D printers.
High detail highly complex models are just not really what the 3D printing market is geared up to make. Even those companies that use them to make master copies have to spend ages cleaning the masters of the layer lines before they can use them to make the master moulds.
We also have to consider the material cost involved and also the fact that retooling and reskilling staff would be a big investment. GW has a very advanced and possibly the best plastic casting of the miniature wargames community. They are also fully inhouse and not reliant on a Chinese producer with all the quality control issues that an arise (at least early in production from what I've heard - a big considering for a company that turns over a lot of new sculpts annually).
3D printing is a bit like 3D TVs or VR. It's got potential to change things; it could be the next big thing but its not really ready
As for parts VS sprues I doubt that space would be saved; boxed sets are designed not only to hold contents but to advertise the product within. Also without a sprue to hold things still the packaging would have to be tighter inside; that might raise costs for internal packaging material. Whilst its resin and thus softer, Spartan ships with individual parts and no sprue and they have to wrap their parts in little packs of bubblewrap - that would certainly slow the packaging process.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on May 10, 2016 13:22:40 GMT
Do you print and bind your own codex? What makes you think you will print your own models. The two are analogous: both leave you with an inferior product and cost you more money once you factor in the costs of raw materials.
|
|
|
Post by barbedsparky on May 10, 2016 19:13:26 GMT
Not sure anyone was thinking of printing their own models. More of a discussion on whether GW would be better off doing that.
I'm pretty sure they would have done the research (maybe not considering how they are...) to work out what is more economically viable. As soon as 3D printing works out that way you can be sure they'd be right on it.
(edit) had a mate print some space hulk figures, took a long time and the end result was not worth the effort... maybe with a better printer...
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on May 11, 2016 3:37:17 GMT
That's a lot of what ifs. I don't generally like arguing "what ifs" because by the time you're done you have something so limited in scope that it is impractical in real life. Given enough what ifs I'm pretty sure I could get people to believe murder is an ethical way to solve problems.
I'm also not too keen to argue your outsourcing point. That's because if GW outsources then it isn't really a GW model anymore, it's a licenced model. And GW would only have a limited influence on how a third party makes models anyway.
I've spent some time in manufacturing myself (though not plastics). One thing I know is that your throughput is limited by your choke point. In the case of 3D printers the choke point will always be the printer itself. With good design you can make the most of your print area, but in the end your printer is only so fast.
With injection molding the choke point is not the cool down time. There are interchangeable molds that let me take it out of the machine to cool on a rack. Nor is it the cleaning of the molds, my line can run while someone cleans the molds. No, the choke point is the injection itself, which is much quicker than a 3D printer.
If your molds are your choke point then that means that either you don't have enough molds, or you are okay with the molds being your choke point. I would like to point out that molds are much cheaper than an industrial 3D printer.
It should be noted that it is also much easier to automate an injection molding process than it is to automate a 3D printing process. That may change it time, but that will be years in the future.
|
|
|
Post by impervious on May 11, 2016 23:53:18 GMT
I am well aware that the quality is not that good right now when looking at high detail models. That may not be something that is easily fixed, or it could have a stupidly easy fix that someone just hasn't figured out yet because they aren't really looking for it.....
Maybe this is a Canadian thing, but have you ever seen an ice sculpture? When carving the ice, the finish of it is incredibly rough. But at the very end, the sculptor will take a blow torch to the thing, to smooth the surface and get rid of imperfections. It keeps remarkable detail if done properly, and takes almost no time relative to how long it takes to actually make the sculpture. I know very little about the 3d printing process, I'll admit, but the fix could be something as simple as that. Or maybe they can make a nozzle on the printer that can change the angle of the application of the layer to allow it to have a much smoother finish at the end. Who knows where the technology could be in even one year from now..... And without anyone trying to make it happen, you can be sure it won't. I mean, 5 years ago, the idea of a reusable rocket was pretty much a pipe dream, and here we are, with SpaceX having already had multiple successful landings, and well on their way to having a ridiculously cost effective reusable rocket.
Also, you can outsource the production of the product and still keep license of it, which is the important part. And if you've worked in manufacturing, then you should be well aware of how strict standards can be, if the customer is willing to pay for it. If the customer is requesting very strict standards, then more man hours will be involved, it will take longer to machine everything, and more gets thrown out/recycled for not passing quality assurance checks, so it will end up costing the company paying for it.
The only real "what if" I've stated was that "what if they were 3d printed individual pieces instead of injection moulded on sprues". The rest has been fairly logical progression from there.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on May 12, 2016 0:33:58 GMT
we don't have the blowtorch option to smooth plastic. it doesn't work that way. the stepping is a real problem, and not just on the detail pieces.
the tech for mass-consumer 3d models isn't really there yet. it'll get there though, and then we can have this conversation when there are viable options.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on May 12, 2016 2:31:02 GMT
I am well aware of how strict our specifications are. And I am well aware that anything that gets outsourced is going to meet those exacting specifications. The one thing I don't control is the manufacturing process that the other company uses. They could use the same machines I use, they could use a different brand of machines, or they could use proprietary machines they developed in house. Once I send off the work I do t care as much how it gets done as I do how it meets my specifications.
Saying GW could outsource 3D printing is a strawman argument. If GW were to outsource their models, they wouldn't care about the technology used to make the models, they would care about the quality and price.
|
|
|
Post by blackrainbow on May 12, 2016 4:09:43 GMT
It would be cool though if your local GW shop could print you up a unit as you chat. Maybe in a decade, but that would be cool.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on May 12, 2016 5:18:05 GMT
Yes, it would be cool. And I imagine that is why Mr. Impervious is so passionate in his argument for 3D printing of 40K models.
Think about it, if you want to try out a new unit in your army all you would need to do is download it and hit print and you would have both the rules and the model to play with, all in your own home.
Sadly we just aren't to that point yet.
|
|