Rob, there's a problem--or possibly several intertwined ones--we need to discuss. Please understand up-front that this is not meant to be a dogpile or gripe-fest, but rather to analyze the performance of past Wings and Sails releases trying to understand why one product in a release can be exquisite and the next "OMGWTF?!" If I seem harsh, please bear in mind that you brought me into the fold to "call it as I see it," and community liaison is as much representing them to you as you to them.
I'm not sure of the timeline on these so some entries may be out of historical sequence--bear in mind, while some people outside see these as individual complaints to me they are only data-points in looking for and identifying a problem. I've been hesitant to bring these up because I wanted to have suggestions on how to fix them at the time I called "problem," but if I'm right about what I think I'm seeing the point-of-failure will require corrections that are outside my wheelhouse. One or two slipping through every now and again is inevitable; but when it comes to an entire SKU or sculpt every release that indicates a pattern in need of corrective action.
--WGF Series 6 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.
--WGS 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.
--WGS Bf109K incorrect wings and tailgroup, missing external stores and gaping under-wing holes - 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.
--SGN Wave 2 first-run packaging - No more need be said here.
--SGN Wave 2 108 and 201 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.
--SGN Wave 3 109 and 110 backward spritsails - Either your
CAD modeler "billowed" the spritsail the wrong direction, or somebody in the factory edited your 3d model before tooling it.
--SGN Wave 3 110 gun projection - Design level, guns only project from their ports at extreme ends.
SGNWave 3 wrong-scale miniatures - at least 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 (the long should probably be closer to Ocean). 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.
I've penciled out some thoughts on dealing with some of these for future re-runs, but for now the most important business is identifying the source of the problem and "stemming the bleeding" for future releases. As part of that triage, for Sails Wave 4 I suggest that when the 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 then to send us photos including rulers for scale reference of the pre-production samples for review before committing to production for release. I will note that anything more than a millimeter under Lower Deck lengths of 49mm (British 64), 46mm (Bonhomme Richard), 44mm (Mahonesa) and 59mm (Tonnant) would indicate to me another under-scaled miniature, and after all that the community did on this wave a Botch... well, I know after busting my own butt making it happen *I'd* take dropping the ball rather personally since this was "my baby," my big chance to mae a difference in this line. Think of this situation as a little like an airport where flights are being canceled: The passengers who you already canceled on are already pissed, so you focus on trying to get the NEXT flight out and avoid *more* Angry Mob in your face, then you come back and deal with the "Damage Is Already Done" problems as you can in between trying to push the next flights out.
An observation from a friend whose company uses Chinese manufacturing contractors similar to yours: "The quality issues in regard to aircraft, which I am more aware of, well there is definitely a drop off in regard to fineness of gross sculpt and detail over the last couple of series releases, and a greater drop in overall finish. This could easily be due to profit maximisation in
China, Ares are not getting whet they think they are paying for. My work involves checking and testing equipment increasingly sourced from chinese suppliers; the first shipments are to spec, the next 99%, then 98% and so it goes.Years ago, I worked for a small pottery manufacturer in the UK. One customer was a very large chain. If they found a single fault in one piece out of a shipment of 1000 pieces, we got the lot back and no money. Made our QC department, and all our potters and glazers VERY concientious. (1000 pieces could be more than a week's production) What they really need to do is start making sure QC is of increased importance with their suppliers, with sufficient penalty to make them sit up and take notice. When I worked in the pottery, the customer picked up the goods, but if they were returned as substandard, my employer had to pay the return frieght AND the original delivery costs. Overland in the UK is one thing, intercontinental by sea is going to sting. Not much use with existing contracts, but if their current supplier is proved to be in breach, new contract negotiations may be in order. They may also be subcontracting some of the work out without Ares knowledge, another common practice I believe; QC always suffers badly in such circumstances."
Supply Chain is another issue I'm seeing mentioned with concerning consistency; it's hard for a new person to come in when they only have brief opportunities to get the "icons" of their game. This one I do have a proposal to address: a small re-run of WGF101-104 every year, and for
WGF once you have both
BoB and Midway releases alternate between similar releases of Early Spit/Bf109E/Wildcat/Zero and P-51/Ki-84/Late Spit/Fw190, staggering them every other year. If we're doing more regular runs, I would suggest only rotating out the single weakest seller rather than only keeping the top seller.
We already have some deeply dissatisfied people out there saying things like:
"Not to put too fine a point on it: I do not believe the current management are competent to run this operation; while the Chinese are to be trusted about as far as they can be collectively thrown. I do believe it is long-past time for someone Over Here -- WHERE THE PREDOMINANT MARKET IS -- to take control; or, failing that, allow the game to pass quietly, and be replaced with something else."
and
[omitted from public view at commenter request]
And my concern is that while the rest of the community is well short of those two individuals, each point in the pattern of Quality Control misfires whether at the design, tooling or production stage pushes more people in their direction. I remember a problem Wizards of the Coast once had where their Chinese supplier (and remember, this is "thousand-pound gorilla" Hasbro!) rather than tool both the Bf109 and Spitfire the contract required only tooled the Bf109 and put British markings on it, a matter that when you say "Messerschpitt" in the Ais & Allies community still makes blood boil over a decade later and with the game long dead; and similarly to your Wave 3 scale problems, they had a War at Sea release where the factory tooled one ship under-size and designer Richard Baker scrapped that ship for that release and demanded they do it again and do it right in the next--and I really do have nightmares about something similar happening in these lines.
Bookmarks