Tier 2 Only: Modularity Poll

I realize the poll is done but there is an angle that hasn't brought up here that is worth considering in support of option 3: You can't anticipate what proxies people will need. More options gives more usages. For example, your Vinci models make perfect Feudal Imperial guard! Because they are somewhat modular it's possible for me to do an (imperfect) swap of crossbows for lasrifles. If they were fully modular I could make a much easier and better looking swap of it.

It seems the poll is closed now? I like 3 best because I change the shields and heads with the ones I like best rather than just that's months one where possible. However often support the files myself rather than use presupports.

I like option 1 because it makes printing a bunch of guys easier, but I prefer 2 and 3 because I like to kitbash and make weird custom models. Personally I would be fine if we only got the complete models pre supported, because smaller stuff like arms and swords and easier to add custom supports

Eugen Goldstein

I find giving flat surfaces a couple rubs across sandpaper makes superglue stick far quicker, and I definitely prefer flat (or ball) to pegs as the shrinking inherent in resin makes fitting them together often a lot of work.

Andrew McMillan

I can give a specific example, that I'm looking at Vinci head-swaps to customize plastic historical minis for a Sludge battalion. I think it will always be a good idea to leave heads separate, or at least do multi-shell so it's easy to separate the head myself.

John Hammer

While I'm personally fine with flat joints, people should bear in mind that things like GW kits aren't necessarily a good analogue. GW casts its figures in hard polystyrene, and if you dab a small amount of poly cement and press two flat surfaces together, they grip each other in seconds. When you're printing with a resin printer, though, you have two not-particularly-porous surfaces that you have to glue with something like superglue, and in my experience it takes far longer to actually grip to the point you can let go of the joint. If the pegs are particularly a lot more work I'm not personally against losing them in favour of easier-to-model flat joints (I don't see how ball sockets could be any easier than pegs, frankly) but people shouldn't assume that a flat mating surface will be as easy to glue as it is for cast plastic kits.

Jake Staines

The advanced modularity allows mix and match between models in a wider collection and bits from other sources, making kitbash so much easier. Actually used the duchi of vinci as an example of what I want more of more than once.

Sezoxeufu

I agree with bits not needing support.

I agree that bits don't need support.

Single piece mini files are a huge turnoff for me, personally. I find that I do a lot of kitbashing in Meshmixer, and the easier it is to put in pieces without having to cut large pieces of them out and then fix the files, the better. I don't think that the individual pieces need to be presupported, however.

Lucas Miguel

I look at it this way, if I am individually basing I like to add variety with head swaps, arm swaps, several body poses, etc. If I am rank & file gaming, I like a lot of uniformity on my multi-bases. Think about the purpose of modularity, it's mostly about modeling resource conservation. The sculptor can design fewer basic parts for a large variety of figures; the caster can put material into a limited number of parts to create a greater number of options; the model builder can purchase a limited number of parts to assemble the slate of models that meets their needs. Those needs might be aesthetic variety or points/stats optimization for a particular game. In a physical sculpt/cast a sprue/buy a kit world, the economics have a particular formula we are familiar with and modular kits are often more popular than single-pose kits. Lets face it, some people get build satisfaction out of head swaps etc. while others don't care. Some games prefer WYSIWYG models for particular list builds, while other games aren't so tightly wound. In a digital STL/print-what-you-need world, the formula is new & different. If there are only a couple weapon options, it is possibly easier for the sculptor to digitally make whole models with those options than to model modular joint interfaces to swap arms. There is no sprue for casting waste, a whole new STL file is easy to copy, though it does take storage space. Now if there are 5 or 6 options, modularity might still be the way to go. 3 base bodies, 5 weapons, 5 heads could give you 75 different models, but you wouldn't want to sculpt and support 75 files. A number of artist I follow have moved toward troop models being somewhat modular for heads and weapon arms, and the other sculpts in the line being more unitary even if there are two or three 'poses'. So the bottom line is, always make 5 or 6 heads on a simple ball-joint neck ;-D and let the rest of the decision come from the number of valid options you want there to be. I tend to see other artists do 3 or 4 options modeled as 'poses', while more than that tend to manifest as 'modular'.

Woelore

I think the suggestion above to have the single piece models be presupported with optional unsupported modular construction would be a fine compromise. I'm probably unusual in that I combine modular models together in Blender then print that model though so I'm used to supporting models myself. I'm also with other people here that I don't think the pegs are necessary. Most plastic model manufacturers use flat joints without any issues.

Quinn Shaw

I think basic modularity is fine for me. I like to have some kitbash-ability. I'm also fine with flat joints, which are easy to magnetize

ELREYULTIMO

2 would be best, since in 3 we can see that the heads are changeable but the body stays the same, since most infantries i've seen are usually a couple of body poses with different arms, 2 is best. would reduce work needed on the head since that could come with the body, since well.. you can't exactly change the body out lol

I usually print single piece supported models, but when I print modular minis from other sculptors, I tend to assemble the pieces together with 3d builder to MAKE a single piece mini before printing it out rather than trying to glue figures together afterwards, so for my particular use case presupported single minis with unsupported modular versions I can assemble in software is ideal - but that's just me :)

Jonathan Barnes

single piece, because large hands gluing tiny models is frustrating. :)

William Burn

There's something fun about a fully posable model. But I have a tendency to print single piece models wherever possible. If doing single piece would it be possible to give us several options or does that defeat the purpose?

Head and weapon option changed are great. Not sure they need to new pegged, though. Take a look at the GW Ork boys for some information maybe? Simple joints are very effective.

Daniel Hanson

I prefer what would be 'basic' modularity. What works best for me is simply swappable hands. Best with ball joint connections.

Jefferson Thacker

i went with the basic mainly so it is a tad bit easier to modify troop weapons.

Modularity for me, although done more intelligently. Ball joints are best, but even flat joints would be better than the current hole and peg system.

Inirlan

Ugh, phone is dumb and isn't rendering the text box properly. I think the ideal solution for me would be have the single piece find be presupported, but also having a fully modular set of files that are unsupported. If I care enough about a look to print them off in pieces, I care enough to figure out the supports myself. If I just want to print stuff off quickly (or when I was new to printing), I'm just gonna want to use single piece files.

Riley Sacdpraseuth

For the most part, if I'm printing something, I don't care about magnetization since I can just print multiple copies. Basic modularity would be nice on models where painting them as a single piece would be tricky (shields closer to the body or something). Advanced modularity is nice as an option.

Riley Sacdpraseuth

Advance modularity for me! And yes whenever possible ball joints or modular bits that can easily be posed in various combinations.

Renier Banninga

I'm good with single-piece files and maybe some modularity for the leaders.

Joe Kushner

So please advanced modularity

Bhaal72516

Same for me...in addition I love the modularity part for custimization...I am planning a GF imperial armys with heads from the Davincis. e.g. right now..I would hardly miss that opportunity in the future. Like I mentioned in the poll...i do not need those parts supported. I could (and prefer to) do I myself.

Bhaal72516

I specifically love the older GW models which allow flexible poses by using ball joints at the waist, arms and neck so that every model is a true individual with the expression that you prefer. But this goes even beyond your three choices ... and even GW goes, sadly, away from it. That having said, your model lines are true works of art - I love the Saurians an am looking forward to their completion.

Hey there, us FDM guys can do amazing work.

I'm one of the heathens printing your beautiful models on an FDM printer, which definitely couldn't cope with all the little bits, so I print the one-piecers, but don't change what you're doing for weirdos like me.

Josh Rodell

I'll leave the same comment on the survey, but: well, I think there's some concerns that aren't covered by the above at all so my answers to the multi-choice questions aren't necessarily so useful. I do a mix of whole-figure-at-once and printing the modular parts. Since resin printers take the same time no matter how densely packed the build plate is, I try and fill it each time I print; if I have a bit of a spare gap on my build plate then I'll be more likely to put one of the all-one-piece figures on because they have a smaller footprint for the supports so they can actually fit into the gaps. But if I want to do more than a basic paintjob on a figure I'll prefer being able to split it into parts because it makes it easier to paint. Not just getting behind arms and weapons and so on, but also being able to hold separate pieces at convenient angles - especially relevant with the current Vinci models as the scabbards, swords, feathers etc. are so thin they'll snap off if you look at them too hard, let alone accidentally knock them while rotating the figure to get a better position to paint a shield or something. If the example above is the only option then I'd prefer the advanced modularity... because the shield is separate. I appreciate it doesn't necessarily help the file-size issue, but if it were just a question of how easy it is for you guys to prepare the models, for that specific figure I'd personally prefer to have two entire fixed-pose single-piece figures with the different head and weapon selections, and put the kitting time into the shield so that it can be painted off of the main figure. But that's not necessarily going to be the same for other figures - if weapons are held across chests or things like the wings on the aerial Vinci models obscure parts of the body, those are the parts I'd personally prefer to be separate pieces.

Jake Staines