I am just coming if if a bunch of GW minis but wow this picture doesn't even do it justice to just how thin these models are in some spots.

i shouldn't see light shining through these.

Why not? All of those spots are places where another piece attaches as far as I can tell.

So what's the problem exactly?

2 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Why not? All of those spots are places where another piece attaches as far as I can tell.

So what's the problem exactly?

Ummm nothing attached to the kama. And the plastic shouldn't be so thin we can almost see through it.

On the plus side the fit of these models is amazing

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

Ummm nothing attached to the kama. And the plastic shouldn't be so thin we can almost see through it.

It should if there is going to be an attachment peg that large without altering the size of the arm. And the legs don't touch the kama in that area?

I've had more than a few kits from other companies have spots with thinner areas of plastic if they do stuff as thin as half an arm/support with attachment pegs.

Why is this a problem?

22 minutes ago, Jake the Hutt said:

Why is this a problem?

It's not that's it's a problem just that with all of the other cost saving measures they are taking it isn't what you want to see

33 minutes ago, Tirion said:

It's not that's it's a problem just that with all of the other cost saving measures they are taking it isn't what you want to see

Why not? The thinness in the arms is to allow for a bigger peg to make the fit easier and more precise. The thinness on the kama is for the leg to fit there without the leg having to be oddly flat.

So if it isn't a problem, why "isn't it what you want to see?"

14 hours ago, Tirion said:

It's not that's it's a problem just that with all of the other cost saving measures they are taking it isn't what you want to see

Why do you think its a cost saving measure? Just because the models aren't super chonky like GW models doesn't mean corners were cut. Just because the models are slender and have thinner parts doesn't mean they'e poorly made or badly done.

Thin is fine as long as they don't break. At least it looks like they're starting to give at least some extra parts, which is a step in the right direction.

If ffg wants to save a bit of money they just have to make the sprues smaller and not thinner 😛

Kama are suppose to be thin. I just think they design the models to have more realistic Kamas.

17 hours ago, Tirion said:

It's not that's it's a problem just that with all of the other cost saving measures they are taking it isn't what you want to see

The plastic itself is so cheap there is no saving here.

21 minutes ago, costi said:

The plastic itself is so cheap there is no saving here.

So cheap we got a 40% price increase

Wow, some people are just dead set on complaining.

Your complaints are only valid if the pieces are too flimsy to stand up to ordinary use.

2 hours ago, Tirion said:

So cheap we got a 40% price increase

Not because of the plastic itself. It is the manufacturing process that is more expensive

2 hours ago, Krakus said:

Not because of the plastic itself. It is the manufacturing process that is more expensive

And shipping. And cost of operations. But no one wants to hear any of that.

I've spent the past half day chopping drilling and filing my Arcs to adjust their poses and can confirm that the Kamas are pretty robust and their structural integrity is no issue. They look the right thickness and I haven't had any issues with them breaking, even after applying heat and reshaping some of them, it seems people are just looking for anything to complain about.

Some of these replies that it's a cost saving measure haha!

The plastic costs cents per KG. The difference in savings on 0.01mm of plastic is beyond negligable.

The 5th Trooper did an episode the other day with the head of design and he actually went into depth about plastic casting and the process - It isn't a "set science" as many would believe, and not that many people have the knowledge to design plastic sprues to a high standard. FFG had to develop their own process.

With that said, I would image GWs design is influenced by their earlier inability to cast thin parts. On reflection, this is probably why.

18 hours ago, Jake the Hutt said:

And shipping. And cost of operations. But no one wants to hear any of that.

How is shipping and coat of operations more expensive than before? They are using a lower quality cardboard that is lighter, they have taken out the black organizers in the box there are considerably less plastic bags in each box. They have cut down there staff, they no longer pay to have the models cut off the sprues.... I could go on.

Shipping did not increase 40%, operational costs are lower. Not sure what your are referencing.

On 8/30/2020 at 10:30 AM, KommanderKeldoth said:

Wow, some people are just dead set on complaining.

Your complaints are only valid if the pieces are too flimsy to stand up to ordinary use.

I'm talking more about density of the plastic then thickness

44 minutes ago, Tirion said:

How is shipping and coat of operations more expensive than before? They are using a lower quality cardboard that is lighter, they have taken out the black organizers in the box there are considerably less plastic bags in each box. They have cut down there staff, they no longer pay to have the models cut off the sprues.... I could go on.

Shipping did not increase 40%, operational costs are lower. Not sure what your are referencing.

Licensing fees are part of operations though, and we wouldn't know if those have increased for any reason. Asmodee's parent company may have decided to make a greater profit and used the change over to hard plastic as the opportune time to change the price, since that would be a good "scapegoat" as well, so hard plastic may not have anything to do with the new price. Remember that the parent company of Asmodee is an equity firm, so they are going to make as much money as they can off of their assets. Cutting costs and maximizing profits tend to be the way those companies do business, especially since the most profit for them comes after flipping the asset (here meaning Asmodee and all subsidiaries) to yet another company.

50 minutes ago, Tirion said:

I'm talking more about density of the plastic then thickness

You have still not answered why this is an issue at all, regardless of the reason. If the density or thickness is sufficient for ordinary use once assembled, what exactly is the issue? Why is this "not something you want to see?"

9 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Licensing fees are part of operations though, and we wouldn't know if those have increased for any reason. Asmodee's parent company may have decided to make a greater profit and used the change over to hard plastic as the opportune time to change the price, since that would be a good "scapegoat" as well, so hard plastic may not have anything to do with the new price. Remember that the parent company of Asmodee is an equity firm, so they are going to make as much money as they can off of their assets. Cutting costs and maximizing profits tend to be the way those companies do business, especially since the most profit for them comes after flipping the asset (here meaning Asmodee and all subsidiaries) to yet another company.

You have still not answered why this is an issue at all, regardless of the reason. If the density or thickness is sufficient for ordinary use once assembled, what exactly is the issue? Why is this "not something you want to see?"

I guess because of the cost cutting in seeing with seemingly every other aspect of the line it is eyebrow raising to me.

And yeah that is what I have been saying in regards to the cost increase. There change in plastic was used as a "reason" for the cost I've when we know it isn't the actual reason for increases that big.

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

I guess because of the cost cutting in seeing with seemingly every other aspect of the line it is eyebrow raising to me.

And yeah that is what I have been saying in regards to the cost increase. There change in plastic was used as a "reason" for the cost I've when we know it isn't the actual reason for increases that big.

What does the density or thinness of the pieces have to do with the costs of production though? I would imagine that thinner pieces are actually more expensive as a greater number of kits could fail inspection and end up in the scrap bin to be melted back down, not to mention the greater number of returns.
Yet, despite the perceived lower density than say GW, I haven't heard of any great outcry regarding miscasts. Also I'd be interested in the results of a more scientific analysis of the density of equal weights of scrap sprue from a few different companies to see how FFG's compares prior to decrying it as a "problem." It could be that this particular density of plastic is better at providing more detailed parts with less wear on the mold or something.

Honestly this probably has very little to do with the injection side of things at all. The modeler likely was given a minimum acceptable thickness of parts to work with and ran with it on the clothing bits because they're supposed to be thin. They probably never considered light diffusion during QA testing and analysis. Structurally, the harder plastics are strong enough to make thinner bits. It may have never crossed their minds. I don't see them trying to cut fractions of a cent off the material cost of each part to save money when their distribution chain seems to be the primary source of income loss.

4 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Honestly this probably has very little to do with the injection side of things at all. The modeler likely was given a minimum acceptable thickness of parts to work with and ran with it on the clothing bits because they're supposed to be thin. They probably never considered light diffusion during QA testing and analysis. Structurally, the harder plastics are strong enough to make thinner bits. It may have never crossed their minds. I don't see them trying to cut fractions of a cent off the material cost of each part to save money when their distribution chain seems to be the primary source of income loss.

I wild the but they have done that with the cardboard of the boxes.