Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

@cminke:

thats an exalent way of putting it. thank you i was haveing a hard time riying to desipher my own thoughs.

You and everyone else! I think.

I apologize if anyone has been “put-off” or "let-down in any way.  This has been a community project from the beginning, and we value community input.  As so many have showed enthusiasm for this project and supported it both with ideas and pre-orders, I like to share the progress with those who have “invested” in this project.

As for the timeline, we had no idea when getting into this how difficult and long of a process it would be.  Remember that we are not a multi-million dollar company, with limitless resources.  We began this as amateurs and fans…  who still have a dream and will see it to completion regardless of the cost, time or naysayers along the way.

I admit that timelines and dates may have been given incorrectly, but that just shows how difficult this process has been for us and how we were “newbs” when it came to an undertaking of this size and complexity.  We have learned many lessons along the way and some of them were costly.  You will notice in future that I will not be so optimistic about posting projected dates. ( i have been mis-lead and disappointed to many times)

Here is the final STUKA sculpt for those who are still following the project: Enjoy!

Ummm Jeremy… My question.

Wow, a stuka with real landing gear!

@FieldMarshalGames:

Here is the final STUKA sculpt for those who are still following the project: Enjoy!

I hate to do this, but I’m seeing some problems with this Stuka.
1 – The cockpit is shaped wrong.  The Stuka’s cockpit had more of a squarish look to it and was somewhat longer.  The current cockpit looks like that of a single-seat fighter plane.  It leaves no room for the rear gunner that was in all Stukas.
2 – The landing gear struts are placed wrong.  They are too close to the fuselage.  The landing struts on the Stuka were located right on the bend of the wings.
3 – I think the tail fin is a little short.  It should be a little higher.
I’ve attached some pics of one of my Stuka models so you can see the difference.  If you want the Stuka piece to be an accurate representation, these changes should be made.

@Imperious:

When they finally come out the quality will speak for itself and all these folks will just buy them in truckloads and throw the crap OOB pieces on ebay where they belong.

You know what IL?  I am starting to think the same thing myself.  I went to a lot of trouble getting all my OOB pieces to certain levels – basically take an FMG set times 5 for total piece count, excepting of course the new pieces in the FMG sets – but since I’ve been seeing the FMG pieces, I don’t know if I will be using the OOB pieces anymore.  I certainly won’t with Italy.  Now I understand why you want FMG to make an M4A1 Sherman.  Sure we have a lot from WOTC, but FMG’s will look better.

Jeremy, thanks very much for the photo of the Stuka; very nice! And thank you for the information on the production timelines. We are all waiting but we know it will be very much worth it when they finally arrive.  :-)

However, I must say I agree with knp7765 on all three points he raised about the sculpt details, and I would be extremely grateful if they could be rectified before the mould goes into production. If it’s too late, then that’s too bad.

Thank you for listening FMG.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Here is the final STUKA sculpt for those who are still following the project: Enjoy!

I’m still following the project, and I will buy the pieces when they arrive. I was put off at first by all the delays, but I’m past that now and I believe it will be worth the wait. Keep up the good work!  :-)

@knp7765:

I hate to do this, but I’m seeing some problems with this Stuka.

There are also some problems with some other pieces, for example the Tiger 1. It doesn’t look the way it’s supposed to. I pointed this out a while back, and got no response. So either it’s been taken care of, or we’ll just have to accept that all pieces are not entirely correct. Either way works for me.

remember he suplied one picture so you can realy say whats rong and whast right…yet. and cant deni: a)its much more detaild then any oob piec of its size.
        b)i can imagine how hard it is to work at that scale.
and  c)how much details are you going to point iout when you use them any way (…OMG the tail is.005 nm soo short…oooo…he should re do the whole piece  becaues it not an exact replica…oooo…ect)

Cminke, Jeremy gives us these sculpts not just as an update on the project, but because he wants feedback from all of us and so any errors can be fixed while it’s still in the sculpting stage and BEFORE they go into production.  Don’t you remember when he showed us the FIRST Italian bomber sculpt?  If nobody pointed out any errors, then we would be getting a Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” bomber for Italy.

I don’t want to slow this project down any more than you or anyone else does, but these things have to be pointed out now while they can be fixed or we end up getting pieces that don’t look right.

By the way, the tail fin height was the least worrysome problem, that’s why I listed it last.  I still think the cockpit and landing gear need to be changed and I pointed out the tail fin as a “by the way” type of thing.  Maybe you think they look okay, but I don’t and if I see a problem, or at least what I think is a problem, I am going to mention it.  It’s up to FMG whether or not they want to do something about it.

@knp7765:

Cminke, Jeremy gives us these sculpts not just as an update on the project, but because he wants feedback from all of us and so any errors can be fixed while it’s still in the sculpting stage and BEFORE they go into production.  Don’t you remember when he showed us the FIRST Italian bomber sculpt?  If nobody pointed out any errors, then we would be getting a Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” bomber for Italy.

I don’t want to slow this project down any more than you or anyone else does, but these things have to be pointed out now while they can be fixed or we end up getting pieces that don’t look right.

By the way, the tail fin height was the least worrysome problem, that’s why I listed it last.  I still think the cockpit and landing gear need to be changed and I pointed out the tail fin as a “by the way” type of thing.  Maybe you think they look okay, but I don’t and if I see a problem, or at least what I think is a problem, I am going to mention it.  It’s up to FMG whether or not they want to do something about it.

And we appreciate all the feed back.  This is what makes this a community project.  In the end you will all know that you had a part to play in these sets.

all i was saying is if it’s just over a 1/2 of a mm y bother?  it would be re-dumb-ant to

@knp7765:

@FieldMarshalGames:

Here is the final STUKA sculpt for those who are still following the project: Enjoy!

I hate to do this, but I’m seeing some problems with this Stuka.
1 – The cockpit is shaped wrong.  The Stuka’s cockpit had more of a squarish look to it and was somewhat longer.  The current cockpit looks like that of a single-seat fighter plane.  It leaves no room for the rear gunner that was in all Stukas.
2 – The landing gear struts are placed wrong.  They are too close to the fuselage.  The landing struts on the Stuka were located right on the bend of the wings.
3 – I think the tail fin is a little short.  It should be a little higher.
I’ve attached some pics of one of my Stuka models so you can see the difference.  If you want the Stuka piece to be an accurate representation, these changes should be made.

I agree on the cockpit.  Definately wrong.

As for the landing gear struts … comparing the FMG photo with the 3rd picture you posted, they look (to me anyway) to be in the exact same spot (at the bend of the wing)!

Tail fin … not a big deal of course, unless it’s already going to be resculpted.

I’m not too worried about the canopy being wrong, because it looks more like a late version Stuka.  The Rudder is definitely a little small though.

@Rorschach:

I agree on the cockpit.  Definately wrong.

As for the landing gear struts … comparing the FMG photo with the 3rd picture you posted, they look (to me anyway) to be in the exact same spot (at the bend of the wing)!

Landing gear are definately too far inboard.  Another comment though…  Did the modeler verify compatibility with the Graf Zeppelin?  Can that thing balance easily without tipping off?  Or, if the gear were wider apart (which would be more correctly placed), can it straddle the zeppelin?

I hope when you get to the Japanese pieces that any piece with extended gear (the Val) can straddle the carrier rather than trying to balance.  Or, just model the Kate so you don’t have to worry about it.

Yes, the Stuka landing gear should be compatable with the German carrier. That is very important. If the carrier deck is skinny then the gear needs to be close together.

With the WOTC German carrier, the Stuka landing struts straddled it which was fine with me.  I kept having a problem with my Vals tipping over the side of the Japanese carriers until I started using the magnets.

After looking at the sculpt pics and pre-production pics of FMG’s German carrier, it looks to me like it will be wider than the OOB German carrier.  Plus, I thought it was said that the ships from FMG will be slightly larger than the OOB ships for better detail.  With a slightly wider flight deck and slightly larger overall size, our new planes should be able to fit on our new carriers just fine, landing struts or no landing struts.  At least that is how it is looking to me so far.

Can’t wait to have these pieces in hand.  I can almost feel them already.

Looks good can’t wait. I have said it before these will replace my current pieces.