Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Battlestation and Lyrans

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Starline 2500
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sllarr
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Battlestation and Lyrans Reply with quote

So, with ADB taking the lead on the development now, is there a schedule for the 2500 battlestation and Lyran minis ? And would the Lyrans look like the digital renders presented at the SFB BBS or would be redone from scratch ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3046

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We're trying to establish the present condition of the "missing book one ships" which include the battle station. (We need an answer from somebody who is out of town and expected back in a few days.)

I can say that there might or might not be certain issues and it's entirely possible that we won't do the 2500 BATS but will just use the 2400 BATS for that role. Or maybe not.

Lyrans: I don't know for sure yet but I want to have them by March or April.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mdauben
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 49
Location: Rocket City

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
I can say that there might or might not be certain issues and it's entirely possible that we won't do the 2500 BATS but will just use the 2400 BATS for that role. Or maybe not.

Isn't there already a master for the 2500 BATS, though? I know Mongoose had a picture of a painted 2500 BATS in their on-line store before everything was taken down. If it exists it would be a shame not to use it, as like the other 2500 minis it had a bit more detail than the 2400 version, and looked quite nice. If not, I guess I could understand skipping what would probably be a low volume generic mini in favor of more popular new ships and new races.


Steve Cole wrote:
Lyrans: I don't know for sure yet but I want to have them by March or April.

Anything new in 2014 will be more then welcome! Very Happy
_________________
Mike

"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2928
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having a 3D printed prototype (which is what some of those painted ones on Mongoose's webstore were) is only 1/3 of the way there. It would still have to be investment cast into a metal master, molded and spun up for more masters, and then molded again and spun up for production copies. There is much more investment existent in "ready to produce" molds than there is in prototypes.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4468
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

djdood wrote:
Having a 3D printed prototype (which is what some of those painted ones on Mongoose's webstore were) is only 1/3 of the way there. It would still have to be investment cast into a metal master, molded and spun up for more masters, and then molded again and spun up for production copies. There is much more investment existent in "ready to produce" molds than there is in prototypes.


Several of the preview minis I received and painted for Mongoose were of this nature. They were the actual, 3D prints from the CAD file - not castings from a mold.
The BATS is most likely the same thing.
Mongoose probably had one printed out and gave it to Hugh to paint.
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3046

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure it would be a shame not to use something if it's just like something we already have. (That's the case with the small 2500 freighter, which is 98% identical to the 2400, and the 2400 doesn't have the problem of engines breaking off like the 2500 does.)

In theory, there is something, either a plastic prototype or a metal master, of the BATS at the AOG factory. The problem is that the guy who runs the factory had to drive to the tin mine in South Suchotash to get a new stock of metal, and wont' be back until Thursday. We won't know until then if he has a master/prototype or what it looks like.

I do know that the 2500 BATS was designed to use some pewter and some resin, and that since we're eliminating resin we may have to do some tricks to get the parts designed for resin to work in metal. Film at 11, on Thursday.

I think the 2500 BATS may have Augment Modules in which case it's probably worth doing. But the 2500 large freighter has issues that require it to be done over again from the CGI, and nobody knows what other "ships" have that issue. We might even want to do the 2500 BATS over again to make it identical in size to the 2400 BATS so you can use one of them for the basic station and the other for the augmented station.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mdauben
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 49
Location: Rocket City

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djdood wrote:
Having a 3D printed prototype (which is what some of those painted ones on Mongoose's webstore were) is only 1/3 of the way there.

Huh, guess I know less about current miniature making technology than I thought! Embarassed

Steve Cole wrote:
I'm not sure it would be a shame not to use something if it's just like something we already have.

Well, to an extent you could say that the whole 2500 line is just like something you already have. I do think that, like the ships that have been released, the better sculpting and detail is worth it on the BATS but that's just my opinion. I also admit I have no clue as to the economics of the cost in creating a whole new 2500 BATS mold versus the expected revenue from sales (FWIW I promise to buy multiple copies to paint in different colors for different races! Laughing ) So, I'd have to bow to your expertise on the practicality of that.

As far as the freighters... I seem to remember seeing prototypes of the 2500 freighters, and they were awfully similar to the 2400 versions in both size and detail. For those I'd say unless you wanted to totally re-sculpt them from scratch in a significantly larger size with more surface details, that going ahead and using the 2400 versions makes a lot of sense. Likewise the 2400 fighters are already way out of scale to even the larger 2500 ships, and they are nicely done, so there is certainly no reason to sculpt them again (although more varieties would be welcome) Wink
_________________
Mike

"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3046

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freighters just don't have details.

The small 2500 will probably just be forgotten. The only way to tell it from a small 2400 is that the 2500's engines break off very easily.

The 2500 large freighter is not really more detailed but is "different" in some regards, enough to make it (barely) worth doing, BUT, because the engines break, it has to go back to the CGI and be done over, which means re-spending money already spent for CGI, prototypes, master molding, and masters. For a target. Will probably get done but not in any hurry.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
trynda1701
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 123
Location: BR "Swanmay"

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know the economics of small production runs of minis like the BATS can work against you, but I liked the new design of the BATS. A lot of people may only buy one mini, its a pity you couldn't redesignate it as something else, to supplement the old 2400 BS and BATS minis.

You could always call it a Starbase! Except it wouldn't match the SSD's!

Mark
_________________
C'mon the Orions!

Check out www.AllScaleTrek.com. A new forum dedicated to Star Trek kits, miniatures and collectables.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3046

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the 2500 BATS is likely to get done because it includes the augment modules that the 2400 BATS does not. However, I'd want the two to end up being the same "size" (not scale). That might mean doing the BATS over and respending money already spent on CGI, prototypes, master molds, and masters. We'll see what I think when I actually hold a 2500 BATS in my hand.

A PERSONAL REQUEST

There is another general 2500 topic and I'd ask if you guys would STOP posting in this "bats and lyrans" topic and focus your conversations in the "future of the 2500s" topic.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Starline 2500 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group