|
|
Post by cpn on Sept 19, 2018 6:26:04 GMT
Hi everyone, I finally received my delivery and was surprised by the very small size of the latest four references of Nap French infantry and command.
It is sad but I am glad I only bought a test batch of box for each.
Big question is what bid wrong? After the long awaiting, the big désillusion of the Peninsular cavalry.
Let's hope for better product soon, it is only plastic hobby after all.
Have a great day
CPN
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve W on Sept 19, 2018 6:51:53 GMT
I haven't seen them yet (they're not in shops in Oz) but the images on PSR are sized as mid range, so similar to sets 8041 and 8042, if very slightly smaller, and the same size as the recently released Prussian Landwehr.
I'm happy with that size - they are meant to be 1/72 figures of men (and often boys) at the start of the 19th century, so that size is about right.
I had hoped to match the 1815 marching figures with rebased officers and musicians from the Zvezda 1815 French command set, but these figures are probably going to be too big to go with the new HaT set.
So let me be the first to reiterate my wish for a matching command set - I realise the original masters were lost but this is what economists call a sunk cost, and I would have thought HaT will sell a lot more marching figures if gamers and modellers have access to command figures to create decent looking battalions.
|
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge tribute
Guest
|
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge tribute on Sept 19, 2018 22:05:47 GMT
In truth I'm getting a bit fed up with the variation in size between figures that calim to be 1/72 scale. How difficult can it be?
I can understand (almost) that different manufacturers have their own interpretations, but surely the definition of 1/72 scale is unambiguous: 1 inch (25.4mm) = 72 inches (6 feet). This fact is unchanging and immutable.
So, a modern 21st-century man would stand at 5ft 10ins on average, let's call that 24mm, while a well-fed early 19th century grognard would measure in at about 5ft 7ins, or a little under 23mm. Grenadiers are taller and stockier on average, voltigeurs smaller and more wiry, so a little variation is both expected and desirable, but within very strict boundaries.
Sure there can be problems with what exactly constitutes 20mm, 25mm or 28mm scale. Are we measuring to the eye-level or the top of the head? Are we saying 25mm is 6 feet, or the height of the average man? These problems DO NOT ARISE when you print "1/72 scale" on the box. It is precisely defined, no misunderstandings possible. This is not rocket science!
I can only assume this is all down to indisciplined sculptors, who obviously find it easier to sculpt figures that are slightly larger. Hence we get scale creep. Well, dear manufacturer, you have to write it down and specify to them exactly what you mean and what you want.
(As an aside, I should mention that one plastic kit manufacturer recently produced a rare Panzer IV variant in what was supposed to be 1/72 scale. Turns out the kit is closer to 1/77 or 1/78 - a significant anomaly. Yet the kit still got released despite the massive ill-will it has generated towards that manufacturer. Clearly deadlines and filling slots in the schedule were judged more important than quality control.)
So, messers HaT, we love your figures. Please keep producing them. But have a care for your customers. Size matters!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonymather on Sept 20, 2018 8:46:55 GMT
Well said “disgusted of Tunbridge”
A disappointment that begn with the Sassanid cavalry has continued with the French infantry - they are all midgets
Now made the decision not to look forward to or buy any future Hat issues. And that’s after circa 150 boxes over the years
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris D on Sept 20, 2018 10:31:38 GMT
I was not going to get involved in this topic having written to Hat already. However, I am so disappointed after my high expections of competing Bonaparte's Division for Quatre Bras with these figures that this will graphically illustrate the problem url=https://postimg.cc/XpJLHq55]  [/url] The good news is the the Chasseurs are being re issued and after suitable carving I can use some of those outstanding figures instead. Best wishes, Chris |
|
|
|
Post by joe5790 on Sept 20, 2018 10:41:06 GMT
Well, the size of the model doesn't matter that much to me, so long as it is close enough to other models in my collection, for example like my 28mm Prussian infantry do look a little smaller next to othwr manufacturers 28mm models, but when all painted up they look perfectly fine next to them.
But on thing I take issue with in the disgruntled post, you can blame a lot of things, but the sculptors aren't totally at fault. They create a Large master model, then HaT takes digital scans of that model and uses a computer to finalise the box sets.
Every set HaT make can be made to be the same size regardless of what the sculptor has done to the master model. However, no one is perfect and maybe the models size went under the radar on the I.T end things
|
|
|
|
Post by Ironsides on Sept 20, 2018 11:05:29 GMT
Well, the size of the model doesn't matter that much to me, so long as it is close enough to other models in my collection, for example like my 28mm Prussian infantry do look a little smaller next to othwr manufacturers 28mm models, but when all painted up they look perfectly fine next to them. But on thing I take issue with in the disgruntled post, you can blame a lot of things, but the sculptors aren't totally at fault. They create a Large master model, then HaT takes digital scans of that model and uses a computer to finalise the box sets. Every set HaT make can be made to be the same size regardless of what the sculptor has done to the master model. However, no one is perfect and maybe the models size went under the radar on the I.T end things Correct the sculpts are large size BUT can vary which can cause problems in scaling, scanning for CAD which allows for 3D printed prototypes for visual scaling is a new thing that Hät is using.. I believe mainly to overcome this problem... that said though the first set as far as I know to be done this way was the unmarried Zulus, so I think these were done using the old non CAD pantograph method at a time before that... and well anything can happen with that...
Theotetically your correct that all things being equal all figures should be the same size but unfortunatly(for some) its only theoretical...
just my 2cents 
|
|
|
|
Post by joe5790 on Sept 20, 2018 11:41:58 GMT
Considering the Zulus were released this year, according to Plastic Soldier Review as I needed to check, I would have assumed the CAD method would have been used on the French as well. The development times must have overlapped at some point for the CAD to be used. Why use more unreliable technology which it can cause serious issues, and even at that I'm sure they would have noticed if the model was coming out smaller than it should using the other method? So it could have gone back to be redone.
A digital error though is slightly harder to noticebecause there is no physical copy to inspect, especially if it is only one person doing the Computer modelling. A simple mistake in what units the modeller is working in (imperial vs metric for example) could easily be made accounting for the sizing mistake above.
I'm Just trying thinking of other ways that the model may have gone wrong, other than the sculptor is at fault. By this point there is no excuse for a company like HaT to still be using more analogue methods to create their models.
They may not want a proper computer sculptor to take over from a normal sculptor, but they must at this point use CAD for the final processing of the models.
|
|
|
|
Post by tommo7 on Sept 20, 2018 15:09:10 GMT
It may just be my eyes but the figures in the picture above look fine to me. I always feel there should be variation in heights, it adds a bit of character to units to have some sgt Harper (italeri Prussians!) style giants in there. It'd look very odd if everyone was the same height.
|
|
|
|
Post by aggiejohn on Sept 20, 2018 15:54:56 GMT
Normally I totally agree that the scale issue is problematic especially between companies. But in this case I am not seeing the issue. The line infantry were generally shorter than elite units, who often had the largest and strongest men in them. Those men look like to different height men, but are generally proportionally the same. I get the impression that one is about 6 foot and the other is pushing 5'9 maybe 5'10. For me its when the scale is so off that it looks like they could not exist in the same universe. But this is mainly an issue with the more proportionally correct troops vs the more cherub/exaggerated features sets produced a ways back.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevo0113 on Sept 20, 2018 17:10:25 GMT
I have a couple of boxes of each of these sets & opened the boxes for a quick look before getting blown away by the Austrian & Nassau restocks
I thought the figures looked OK and a fair size mind you only took a quick look.
any way it will be a long time before I get round to paint them as I have so many French sets to paint who ever said you can never have enough French infantry hasn't seen my stash.
|
|
|
|
Post by waynew on Sept 21, 2018 6:00:14 GMT
As has been pointed out the elite troops tended to be somewhat larger than line troops. What IS important is the weapons. Look at the muskets on the two figures - they appear to be very close in size - if not the same size, so the figures can be used together with any difference (small to my eye - and I have mine in and am waiting to get to them and paint them) can be excused. At the same time, if the size isn't too out of proportion (and there are limits, I passed on some of the giants that were released in the past) one can merely brigade them separately from each other and place them on different parts of the board.
I can understand folks having issues with poor product and real problems, but excuse me if I sometimes think folks are looking for reasons to complain. I pulled my guys out and looked at them again, I don't see that much difference in scale compared to some other giants and dwarfs that have been produced to make me quit HaT all together. Geez...
|
|
|
|
Post by vellek on Sept 21, 2018 17:16:55 GMT
What IS important is the weapons. Look at the muskets on the two figures - they appear to be very close in size - if not the same size, so the figures can be used together with any difference Excellent point, Wayne |
|
|
|
Post by stevo0113 on Sept 21, 2018 18:59:41 GMT
Of course they can be used with other troops just add a thicker base underneath the figures or if you want to mix them with other bigger figures on the same base add a small platform to the base you will never notice the difference by the time you have flocked & added static grass.
|
|
|
|
Post by endeavour on Sept 21, 2018 20:19:19 GMT
I've matched my greatcoat elites with the young guard in greatcoats to form battalions and disappointingly the top of the shako on the elites comes to the base of the shako on the young guard. The new figures are also slighter built. its not a good match but as someone who grew up with the choice of airfix or nothing I'm just going to have make do. Maybe if the elites in greatcoats ever get an action or command set these disparities will be reduced
|
|
Jordan
Quaestor
New Member ? More like - Newly commissioned from the rank and file...
Posts: 32 
|
Post by Jordan on Sept 22, 2018 1:23:05 GMT
If you base these figures you can always try use a thicker base or make the ground on the base uneven so that all the figures on the stand appear to be of the same height. It's the old Hollywood build a trench so that the "Leading Actress can appear to be shorter than Tom Cruise on screen trick"...
|
|
