Model sizes?

[djdood]

Bear in mind, the freighters have all been declared "non-scale", along with the other general units and bases. They exist in their own scale and are usable for both Starline 2400 and Starline 2500 (thus the new term for them, Starline 2425). Don't put too much weight into the difference between these two.

When new freighters were going to be done for Starline 2500, I lobbied hard for them to be placed at the proper scale, relative to the Fed Tug pod. That was overruled for various reasons.



When the new small and large freighters showed up, they were pretty much 100% to my drawings... and also almost identical in scale to the existing minis, so they were cancelled after the first batch.

[Sgt_G]

I hear you, Will. I'm just glad I got them to shrink the police cutter down some. The first draft was as big as the freighter. Even after they brought it down, my deck plans grew from 90 meters long to 108 meters and gained another deck. Also, I needed them to move the engine pylons back as they were set so far forward they'd connect into the sick bay.

[Scoutdad]

I cannot remember exactly where its at, but even though the freighter mini and tug pods are different sizes - they should be the same.

IIRC the lore correctly, the pods were pretty much interchangeable.
Tugs / Freighters would work a circuit of far flung worlds.

They might go to Sherman's Planet (for example) with a cargo pod full of necessary materials...
Drop it off and pick up a pod full of exportable materials from Sherman's Planet...
And head to the next stop.
Leaving a pod behind that was emptied by locals, then refilled by locals and picked up by the next scheduled freighter / tug to visit.

That's why SFB has diagrams for freighters in 'bob-tail' configuration.
It's a very expensive way to move one (since there's no paying cargo), but the bridge section and the propulsion section basically clamp onto the end of the pod and turn it into a ship.

[mjwest]

Again, even if it were done again, the freighter pod should NOT be the same size as the Federation cargo pod. The Federation cargo pod has a larger volume than a civilian pod. The freighter is based on the civilian pod. Ergo, the freighter should NOT be directly scaled to the Federation cargo pod. The civilian cargo pod (and, therefore, the freighter) should be just over three-quarters the size of the Federation cargo pod. In other words the civilian cargo pod to the Federation cargo pod should be 3:4, not 1:1.

I still don't know why this mistake is always being made. Civilian cargo pods ARE NOT Federation cargo pods. They cannot be the same size.

[mjwest]

Let's use some numbers.

If the Fed cargo pod is 40 meters in diameter and 200 meters long, and we want the civilian cargo pod to have the same diameter, then the civilian cargo pod would only be 156.25 meters long. If we wanted the civilian cargo pod to be the same length, it would only be 35.36 meters in diameter.

Regardless of how you cut it, the volume of a civilian cargo pod is only 78.125% of the volume of a Federation cargo pod.

[djdood]

Numbers don't lie.

[Steve Cole]

2400s are 3788, a number that happened when Zocchi told them "make it three inches long."

2500s are 3125.

The change of scale is officially "the biggest mistake I ever allowed to happen" and "the decision I regret the most." Mongoose (in fairness, they did it for good business reasons) wanted to force people to toss their 2400s and buy all new 2500s, which is why they prohibited 2400s from being used in tournaments and conventions they sponsored.

As far as more 2500s, I haven't said "no more" and I haven't said "yes more" but the market decides. The problem is that the last six we did for 2500s sold like 12 ships each, meaning we lost hundreds of dollars on molds and sculpting, but the low sales may be because they are less poular ships. For perfectly obvious reasons, Mongoose did the best sellers first and it's arguable than there is nothing left that's going to sell well enough to be worth doing. On the other hand, Mongoose and I both want to do more if we can do it without losing money.

[Itharus]

Well, you've got guys who know CAD apparently. Some software and a commercial 3D printer could be an option for updating the whole line or making a new one, no?

Some of the better 3D printers actually have chambers with laser measuring tools. You could scan the existing models into software, clean them up, edit as desired, and then 3D print them. You could even print on demand as ordered to reduce inventorying costs

Probably be a nasty initial expenditure but it may pay off if you guys do decent minis business. Or does Mongoose have you guys locked into the current set up?

Also, don't feel too bad - the 2500s LOOK nice. So at least it's a pretty mistake if nothing else! I'm surprised the resins were a limited set though - was pewter cheaper?

I also fully understand if discussing any of the above business oriented things is not something for the forum. I'm just a very curious person by nature, especially about things I enjoy

I was actually surprised when I first bought SFB that the set had a bunch of counters instead of a few minis. I had always perceived this as a miniatures game.

[Sgt_G]

I for one don't mind that Fed tug pods and civilian freighter pods aren't the same-same because other empires use the same kind of civilian freighters, do they not?

[djdood]

Well, you've got guys who know CAD apparently.

That would be me, among others. I'm the only one besides Mongoose that has a proven master production-pipeline though.

Some software and a commercial 3D printer could be an option for updating the whole line or making a new one, no?

It's not that simple. (is anything ever as simple as we wish it could be?)

No one working at ADB knows or is likely to learn 3D CAD modeling.

Besides that, cheap/free software often yields dodgy models that need much massaging to get them to print well. That massaging takes time (=$). To get "watertight" solid models that print on the first go requires some combination of better-software and/or skilled designer (who can work around the limitations).

Some of the better 3D printers actually have chambers with laser measuring tools. You could scan the existing models into software, clean them up, edit as desired, and then 3D print them. You could even print on demand as ordered to reduce inventorying costs

Probably be a nasty initial expenditure but it may pay off if you guys do decent minis business. Or does Mongoose have you guys locked into the current set up?

Can't speak to ADB's business with Mongoose, but it has no impact on my doing work for them.

Affordable laser-scanners will get you a cloud model good enough to print fun widgets, kitchen tools, bike parts, etc.

If you want the surface quality and detail levels (phaser bumps) that people are used to from Starline minis, then it needs to be done on a much higher-end scanner and will still need an expert modeler to clean it up (who probably won't know the SFU and what is "noise" and what is a navigation light). By that point, it's cheaper to have a CAD model built from scratch by someone who knows the tools and the SFU (or can be coached).

3D printing can produce minis at our expected level of quality. I own the first-print prototype of the upcoming jumbo and heavy freighters - it's beautiful. It also cost me over $150 for the three parts. No one in their right mind will pay that for a 2-inch gaming mini.

Cheaper printing methods yield interesting widgets with rough surface texture and no phasers, etc. A $300 MakerBot or M3D Cube don't cut it (I have one on my bench).

The time will come where affordable "home" printers will get the quality we need (the Form 2 SLI machine is *almost* there), but currently to have the resulting mini be producible for mass-sale via spin-cast metal (the only economical production method, currently), it's thousands of dollars for the jeweler's 3D printer that prints in burn-out compatible resin for investment-casting.

Also, don't feel too bad - the 2500s LOOK nice. So at least it's a pretty mistake if nothing else! I'm surprised the resins were a limited set though - was pewter cheaper?

Resin was a Mongoose thing. Someone convinced them that spin-casting resin would yield results as good as pewter, for a lot less... something (I wasn't involved).

I do know that the results pretty much universally underwhelmed.

Folks (like me) who buy "garage kit" resin models from the cottage industry are used to dealing with bubbles, voids, and the occasional sticky uncured part. The gaming mini customer base absolutely was not.

I'd hazard that pewter is more expensive to produce with, as the raw material is so much more costly, but the customer-relation hit from the delays and wildly inconsistent quality from the resin was probably worse.

I also fully understand if discussing any of the above business oriented things is not something for the forum. I'm just a very curious person by nature, especially about things I enjoy

No harm in asking. Just be aware that you missed about 5 years of long, sometimes contentious, conversations. Don't take the explanations above as trying to stifle your curiosity; just explaining what shook down and where things stand now (from my non-ADB knothole).

If you ever wanted the full-meal-deal long-read, the legacy board archives all the discussions (product development happens there, not here; this site is primarily about support and for folks who just dislike the discus software on the legacy site).

I was actually surprised when I first bought SFB that the set had a bunch of counters instead of a few minis. I had always perceived this as a miniatures game.

You're in the minority there.

SFB started with cardboard chits and there are a lot of "cardboard purists" who wish ADB would stop spending time and money on the minis and make more game modules. (As an aside; A Call To Arms Star Fleet is 100% a miniatures-oriented game.)

I believe there is more than enough room for both. Even "minis guys" like me keep the MegaHex counters handy, for same-hex situations.

[Itharus]

Nothing stifles my curiosity. I'm like the proverbial cat. Thankfully, I also have nine lives

The first time I ever saw the game was with minis, probably why I see it that way. The same group of players introduced me to BattleTech/MechWarrior, Warhammer, D&D played with minis, etc.

[djdood]

I've seen two major types of SFB player archetypes:
1) the "meta-gamer" who is playing the ruleset.
2) the "role-player" who is playing the setting.
(with some folks in the middle)

Hardcore grognard tactical masterminds tend to be #1.The game components are just markers to them, something to track progress and not much more.

Minis folks (myself included) tend more to #2. I'm commanding a starship - there are rules in place to simulate that for me and I'm responsible for my own (often bad) tactical choices, but flying starships around and winning the day for the good guys is why I'm at the table. In my case, I don't even care if I win; it's nice, but getting a good game in (in space!) is the mission.

I'll play with whatever folks bring to the table, but minis are always going to draw the spirit more than flat cardboard, for me at least.

[mjwest]

I for one don't mind that Fed tug pods and civilian freighter pods aren't the same-same because other empires use the same kind of civilian freighters, do they not?

In theory, yes. By using standardized freighters, you can have cargo transfer from Earth to Hydra using the same container the whole way. It just makes things easier if things are standardized. (Plus, by making the civilian pods unique, it means that no one's nationalism is offended by "having to use" pods that are implicit efforts of "Federation/Klingon/whoever" cultural imperialism.) That is pretty much how the game is set up and runs.

However, once you get artists involved, it all goes weird. You get things where Klingon civilian pods are shaped like their military pods, and Kzinti civilian pods are hexagonal cylinders, and so forth. Artistic impression has influenced how civilian ships have always been presented, for good or ill.

[Jack Bohn]

I'd hazard that pewter is more expensive to produce with, as the raw material is so much more costly, but the customer-relation hit from the delays and wildly inconsistent quality from the resin was probably worse.

There is one economy to pewter in that defective castings can be recycled as the raw material for another attempt. I remember some disgruntlement expressed that the only thing to do with rejected resin ships was dispose of them.

[djdood]

Yes.

That's one of the great things about casting with almost all metals - if you have a bad cast, you can just chuck it in the remelt bin, along with all the pour sprues and vent stacks.

2-part liquid resins are indeed a one-shot deal. Once cured, they're done, good or bad.

Some folks get casting with liquid resins confused with injection-molding of thermoplastics. Many plastics for injection molding allow regrinding and re-use of their waste too, but not cast resins.