Thanks for the first look, Vinnie, good photo's and coverage. I've been waiting in anticipation for this article since first covered here at KitMaker!

Hmmm...interesting points have been made here, and some I agree with, some not. I'm by far a purist anymore, and yes, the horse detail is a bit off (I raised, broke, and farmed with horses on my own farm for 10 years, so yes, I can comment on this topic!), but regardless, I'm still going to buy this set, and love building it, I'm sure!...a very unique set, IMHO, and will make for a banger of a dio or vignette scene, with a little modeling.
Cheers!
Gunny

Brilliant! So we all agree that it's a great set. Well done everybody! We got there in the end!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Vinnie

Wow... differing opinions on a modeling subject/kit. That's surprising. :-)

We actually have a system to ALLOW differing opinions (or complimentary ones) built into the review page. I am not sure anyone has yet decided to take advantage of the Reader Review feature yet though. Sometimes it seems widely apparent that people would rather slug things out in a back and forth exchange in a forum than simply add the information via their own review as is allowed on the page in question.

Just my 2 cents. And for a nickel I will add that Anders diagram clearly shows that Dragon got the teeth wrong.

Jim

Excellent discussion!

yep, the teeth do look wrong; from Vinnie's pic, I can see 4 teeth from the profile heading back into the head, so there must be 8 in total. The rear one could easily be removed of course, but it doesn't look like a moulding issue to me; that would have to be included in the design, IMHO.

Does anyone one know how these figures are created? It seems that Dragon use 3D software on their AFVs and I assume these are transferred to milling machines to make the mould.
Are the figures deigned in 3D? Or is there someone sculpting them and they're then scanned in and maybe refined?

I know that GamesWorkshop now produce some masters in the computer and they are then milled, whereas previously their plastic kits were sculpted as 3ups, 3 x the size of the final piece and pantographed down for the moulds.

Rob

I think in the case of a brand new kit like this one, except for the reviewer, very few of us have actually got it from the horse's mouth (seen it in the plastic, I mean), so batting it about a thread is the only option. Maybe as more of us get our hands on the kit in question, there might be some Reader Reviews.

So when are those promised Gen2 1/16 figs actually hitting the LHS?

OK, they haven't been promised . I just live in eternal hope of avoiding the day I have to cough up for resin

Hi, Jim,

David has hit the nail - I would say none of the contributors, other than Vinnie, actually owns the model. But Vinnie's review allows for some comments based on the photographs and on previous experience with G2 sets. Even then every comment has been very conservative (well, at least those which were critical). I believe this is still useful, if the comments are sound. What is more, the rules of the site do not allow for actual reviews unless one own the model (which, I hasten to say, is obviously logical).

One thing that I consider beyond argument is that , generally speaking, the critical reviews were supported by facts, familiarity with the subject and actual experience - even by relevant images. So, in my book these have been perfectly admissible and polite, even allowing for the fact that they have not been done with the actual kit at hand.

Those critics which have been more generic and subjective and could be considered to have carried less weight are comparable to similar ones which have been completely positive, but do not carry more weight nor more objectivity.

Regards,

Daniel

I totally agree! This is the place for these sort of comments....... since we get samples ahead of the shops, thanks to Dragon, then we can't expect people not to comment until they hit the shops, that's what these topics are for...............to comment on what's been said in the review, and the kit as shown in the review pictures. Perfectly correct guys!

Vinnie

I agree, that is exactly what these threads are for, to discuss the object at hand.

However, I do not see it as 'duking' anything out. Its simply putting forth the facts on one hand and the other hand trying to sell a kit at all costs. It's just that the two dont always mix together...


Rob,

From what I understand DML figures are sculpted in 1/16th scale, then panographed down to scale. I would dare to say thats what Tamiya is doing as well by looking at their identical 35th and 48th scale sets.

For my 2 cents worth, something like this kit wouldn't have even been dreamed of 30 yrs. ago. I just thank the Dragon folks for giving me the chance for modeling a whole toop of these horsemen in a copse of woods somewhere. With less scratching on my end.
I agree with the teeth thing, but, not for nothing, when it comes right down to it, a well laid out group of these guys on some nifty bridge or terrain, ...... as one who models for an overall look or effect .... I can overlook the teeth thing.
Also the horses can be used any where or time period with a little hack and slash work.
Cheyenne

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth ...... sorry .... had to do that , or it just wouldn't be me......

Hola cheyenne,

We all agree that, technologically, G2 figures have set new levels, and all of us are glad with it. But G2 figures still present some problems which have nothing to do with technology, but with insufficient research, or other issues. And there is room for improvement in these areas.

If we just stand complacent, and just sing the excellences (and excellences there are) of every new set, the Dragon people is unlikely to be encouraged to do better with those things which are not so excellent.

Of course the above is a reasoning universally applicable!

Daniel

I think they look fairly well

My first horseys :-)

No comments?