Rob, there've been some issues I've been noticing forming a disturbing pattern over the past year's releases--I didn't want to throw the Problem Flag without having some ideas to take corrective action, but after months of thought it seems that it might be best to just call it as I see it, let the chips fall where they will and then see if between all of us we can come up with a viable plan where I've just been spinning my wheels on my own. If this means my usefulness is at an end so be it, but I owe it to both you and the game community to present the issues I've observed firsthand and heard repeatedly mentioned to try to figure out why this pattern keeps happening and how we can stop it... and how we can make right for the miniatures already out in the wild, since entire production runs are too big for recall.
- Sopwith Triplane wing spacing - not to beat a dead horse, but this seems to be where the pattern of otherwise-excellent models with head-scratching "Wait-WHUT?!" major mistakes started.
- Beaufighter Mk. VI tailgroup on Mk. I/II aircraft - a simple one, but still a headscratcher. We know you can tool detail-variations on a sculpt, so why not both Mk I/II flat and Mk VI dihedral tailplanes to suit the models? All it would have taken was different mounting tabs, less work than even the 1- and 2-seat variations on the Sopwith 1-1/2 Strutter.
- Bf109K incorrect wings and tailgroup - glaringly obvious. We know you can do better, we've SEEN it on the market, how did this one happen? While I bought yours for collection completeness, my miniatures will probably never leave their boxes and instead see their bases and cards used with third-party models for play.
- SGN108 and SGN201 gunport-layout major issues - Head scratcher. Neither model's gunport arrangement is correct for anything ever built, which is a personal burr under my saddle since *I* sent you links to the original draughts and even some mid-life rebuilds. As with the Bf109K, as soon as I find more accurate hulls in the same scale the "official" miniatures will be permanently replaced and retired to storage in their original boxes.
- SGN109 and SGN110 backward spritsails - Your CAD modeler "billowed" the spritsail the wrong direction.
- SGN110 gun projection - Design level, guns only project from their ports at extreme ends.
- wrong-scale SGN111 Meregildos and SGN112 Gautier 74s - SGN111 and 112 both measure out as 1/1200, more closely matching the size of the Langton 1/1200 Meregildos on SGN101 than SGN108/201 which it should be at least the same size as for the "short" version of the Meregildos design. Not to mention the apparent cutting-corners by shrinking the mini to re-use SGN104 masts rather than doing it right... Similarly SGN112, which appears to also be downscaled to 1/1200 to maintain proportion relative to SGN111, is closer to the size of pewter 1/1200 offerings rather than somewhere between the sizes of SGN102 and SGN104 as it should be.
In light of this pattern, I must suggest that when the Wave 4 3d models are ready to go to pre-production, it might be prudent to have David, Jose Manuel and myself review and sign-off on the model designs and suggest any final revisions as required BEFORE the CAD models are transferred to the toolmaker to start cutting metal, and to send us photos
including rulers for scale reference of the pre-production samples for review before committing to production for release. This also seems to be a systemic pattern by your modelmakers, so an in-house Root Cause Analysis would seem to be in order trying to figure out why they're consistently glitching at least one model almost every recent release.
Here's what I've come up with for a few ideas we might discuss as possible options on making things right:
- Sopwith Triplane wing spacing - this ship has sailed, the damage is done. However, should you start running out of Entente fighter sculpts a re-tool might work to fill a slot, just have to retire the old tooling and re-use the new when re-running its wave.
- Beaufighter Mk. VI tailgroup on Mk. I/II aircraft - it's very simple to fix, pop the tailplanes off, file down the mounting tabs and reglue. But the point still stands that that's a DIY correction we shouldn't HAVE to do.
- Bf109K incorrect wings and tailgroup - not readily fixable. Less die-hards will probably never know, but I would suggest flagging the Bf109K to get the same treatment I propose for the Tripe, a "Mulligan" do-over resculpt when you run out of Axis fighter sculpts. In the interim, I would suggest either directly or via Licensing Partner if Keith is game for it and can find a 3d-modeler collaborator offering a produced-on-demand Correction Kit through Shapeways with replacement wingtips and tailgroup.
- SGN108 and SGN201 gunport-layout major issues - another BIG challenge fixing. Most of the casual players probably won't care but for the seriously historically-minded it matters in a big way. My suggestion here involves two new lines--first, as part of the Accessory Line offering Spare Mast Sets, which would be a welcome addition for fumble-fingered klutzes like me too. Second part, like Bf109K, offer a series of Produce-On-Order Correction Hulls via Shapeways--the hardcore types won't mind doing their own assembly and painting, and as a bonus with no tooling cost this would allow more variations to better capture the major visible differences between the three-decker designs.
- SGN109 and SGN110 backward spritsails - for the already released, owner-performed surgery for the customers where it matters. For future reprints, the spritsail/jib piece needs to be retooled.
- SGN110 no-gun gunports - can be fixed by customer but a nuisance to do so. Inner-hull insert with guns should probably be retooled to extend most guns.
- wrong-scale SGN111 Meregildos, aka "MINI-gildos", and SGN112 - see SGN108 and SGN201.
This pattern, combined with an overall decline in quality since Sails Wave 2 which may be traceable to the standard practices of Chinese manufacturing where they relax their standards each batch
(an Anchorage member with his own experience in the same sector observed a reduction of meeting-spec by about 1% every order with his business) figuring once they have you hooked you won't go to the expense of changing vendors, is of no small concern to the serious customer-base. It sucks having to be hardline and break bad news about this, but part of my role is to be an advocate for the community--and the natives have noticed this pattern
along with growing inconsistency in detail and scale-fidelity and are growing restless. We CAN do better, we SHOULD if we're serious about earning their money, and we MUST if we want to avoid negative word of mouth slowly poisoning the brand.
This pattern, if not checked, will eventually lead to a product of completely unacceptable quality; the question without corrective action is not if the time will come when you must pay the piper but *when,* though there will probably be steady desertions as individual customers hit their tolerance limits as you approach that breaking point.
