"Dropship Horizon reviews Antenociti's Workshop 15mm Vehicles" Topic

Thanks John, they certainly sold exceptionally well! (which, lets face it, is the real indicator of suitability!)

The best one can do is provide visual evidence and then let other people make their own minds up based on something substantive, rather than somebody else's WAGs & MUS.

On the internet someone will always argue that white is black no matter what you do. :-0

I don't have many 15mm figures but the ones I have from several companies are very different in height and build, some short and squat others tall and slender.

A customer on facebok says the featured miniatures were Critical Mass Games figures, they all appear to be within the normal range for 15mm figures.

Ateotd the photos tell the real story. :-)

/Dee

On the internet someone will always argue that white is black no matter what you do.

And companies will choose to interpret consumer feedback as they see fit. Some even argue that the customer is "wrong."

Zebu more VBL than Oskosh MRAP

"Yes, the best equivalent to the oshkosh (in the GOT line) is the Warthog:

which is an interesting example as at the time of its release, when the oshkosh and other MRAPs were less well known, it was accused of being "too big for a jeep".

Since the bigger MRAPs have become more commonly identified those criticism have long vanished and its sales have steadily increased over time."

/Dee
(edit: sorry, quoting Jed there above… i know very little about military vehicles, sci-fi or otherwise!!!!)

In this case though the culprit is a poorly arranged set of photos in the review. As Jed's article points out (linked above) the only proper way to do comparison photos is to take the photos with the figures at the same level, and to show a gauge for the figures.

Otherwise people get all sorts of funny and incorrect impressions of size.

This comment seems needlessly blameful.

I realise that I am coming into this discussion late, I did make my own comments on the Dropship horizon blog much earlier. those comments, like Chris' were supportive of the models' size and scale.

Consider that Chris did this as a review of the product and not a scale comparison. His original review states clearly which miniatures he used along side the models. All his following comments have been nothing but favorable of the design and supportive of their suitability as well as their scale.

I would also like to mention that Dropship Horizon was approached to do this review. We did not solicit AW to do so. Chris provided a positive review of the samples he was sent. It was readers who drew their own conclusions on the scale of the vehicles and those conclusions were a mixed bag.

Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions and I encourage them to do so. 15mm is not an exact scale. any model produced using a true scale is going to encounter variation in how it scales with given lines. Other factors such as presentation, painting, and camera position will have an effect. A metered measurement is not an entirely accurate measure of how it will LOOK on the table or with a given army.

Even the scale pictures, provided by AW in rebuttal are not exactly accurate as they depict and unbased vehicle model, in front of the meter, with 15mm miniatures with integral bases in front of that. In a close-up shot, the resulting perspective change as well as the variance in relative position between meter/model/figure and the lack of equal basing can account for several milimeters of variation in height of the side-on pictures.

To place the blame on Chris and his review is shameful, in my opinion.

Thank you,

-Eli

In a close-up shot, the resulting perspective change as well as the variance in relative position between meter/model/figure and the lack of equal basing can account for several milimeters of variation in height of the side-on pictures.

photos with figures touching vehicles is much better than long way from vehicles. if figures are away from vehicles the problem is much much bigger. which is why review photos are not very good.

the review is good but the photos are not, how tall are the figures in the review and if they are based why are not the vehicles?

emu don't you realise -- the fact that people might criticise their itsy bitsy vehicles is everyone's fault but Antenociti's?

Get with the program already!

How not to manage a PR problem ….

Unless somebody owns every possible figure that could be presented in a review, the inclusion of figures in a review is only really of any use in determining general scale.

The review was of the overall quality of the models and said nothing but good things about the model. It made no claims to be a scale comparison. In fact, the only comentary made in the review of the model, "The body could hold anywhere from 8-12 troops convincingly, depending on their load," supports the manufacturer's claims to scale.

I think that there is far too much weight being placed on the subject of scale in this review. And an undeserved bit of blame is being placed on the author.

-Eli

Just wanted to mention that some of the infantry models in the comparison pics are our Federal Army as well! Hi guys, hope you're enjoying your deployment in the UK! :-)

It must be a rotten turn of affairs to find you and I on the same side of things, Porfirio. but when you are right you are right.

Especially amusing considering the review itself didn't criticise them at all.

-Eli

i will be buying , principally for the Petal Thrones JTFB fireteams , now there's a challenge to get some of those guys in . Like the models , it seems to have created quite a debate .

LOL!

I look forward to seeing that, Steve.

Some of those JTFB will require their own APC, either that or a very big trailer towed behind the APC. Maybe a set of bogey wheels worn on a harness?

-Eli

but when you are right you are right

Eli? you might want to read Jeds email before acting too smug about handling PR.

Possibly have a chat with Chris also.

All the best :-)

/Dee

Just wanted to mention that some of the infantry models in the comparison pics are our Federal Army as well!

Oh cheers Khurasan – which ones are yours? Can you link to the image please so we can give creds?

/Dee

I have one correction to make and that is that apparently members of Dropship Horizon had contacted AW prior to my initial contact with them. To my knowledge, my contact with them, which was an incoming contact, was the first and certainly the first I had had with Jed at AW.

I should also apologize if I came off needlessly strong in my response to AW's posting. There are more diplomatic channels for expressing such concerns and though the issue had already been brought into the public, it was my choice to continue in public.

I apologize for that inaccuracy and my indiscretion.

Sincerely,

-Eli

Some of those JTFB will require their own APC, either that or a very big trailer towed behind the APC. Maybe a set of bogey wheels worn on a harness? grin

Worked for the French:

Now there's an idea for when Jon gets 'round to releasing the JTFB… a Lorraine Chenillette analogue… that Vulk trooper and the Garn Flesheater will each need a trailer all their own… vive l'difference!

Leland R. Erickson

"Even the scale pictures, provided by AW in rebuttal are not exactly accurate as they depict and unbased vehicle model, in front of the meter, with 15mm miniatures with integral bases in front of that. In a close-up shot, the resulting perspective change as well as the variance in relative position between meter/model/figure and the lack of equal basing can account for several milimeters of variation in height of the side-on pictures."

I have to butt in because this is tosh.

A picture with figures next to the object is MUCH more useful than a picture of figures standing away from the object. Saying that there is a bigger error when the figures are next to it is madness! This is NOT SPARTA!

This picture tells me nothing at all about the height of the truck and almost nothing at all about the figure:

This picture tells me the height of the figures and the height of the vehicle and the relationship between the figures and the vehicle:

I don't care about the review or the people or the models, but saying that a picture with guides on it, and figures right next to the object in question, taken from the side is LESS accurate as a picture taken from isometric perspective with the objects separated is total rubbish.

"Even the scale pictures, provided by AW in rebuttal are not exactly accurate as they depict and unbased vehicle model, in front of the meter, with 15mm miniatures with integral bases in front of that."

But the dropship horizon pictures had the vehicle unbased and the figure on top of a base that was ADDED to the figure! Your own argument makes the Dropship Horizon pictures less accurate! You have just proved AW point that the DH pictures were a bit dodgy! They ARE!

Look, a couple of years ago there was a website that had nothing but pictures of figures standing against a paper backdrop with reference lines on it and it was FANTASTIC. Sadly it died as it soaked up all the authors time keeping it updated.

You just had to look at it to make your own mind up about how big a figure was. You didn't have to believe the spin about it being 25mm when you could SEE it was 30mm.

You take a picture looking DOWN at a figure and there is NO WAY AT ALL to see that information that the other method makes CLEAR.

link

And when you ask to see if a vehicle works with certain figures you ask for a shot of the figure next to the vehicle and taken from the side. You dont ask for a shot from above.

Timbrown,

I can appreicate your point of view here, but I feel you missed my point.

Dropship horizon never set out to make an accurate scale comparison with those pictures. AW's method, while MORE accurate, is not compeltely accurate. I was trying to make the latter point.

This hobby is a visual one and all the accurate measurements in the world can be completely blown away by matters of taste, perception and even optical illusions created by paint and pattern choice, basing, relative bulk of detailing.

Paint a figure black it will shrink into the background and seem smaller than a louder more vibrant model. Patterning can break up the lines and drastically effect the perception of vehicle size. Paint a figure bright blue and it looks horrid, paint it in more usbdued natural colors the same figure is stellar.

When it comes down to it, people will draw their own conclusions no matter how much effort you put into presenting the miniatures. they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but sometimes it's the unspoken thousandth-and-one word that counts.

To all those who feel that Dropship Horizon somehow did AW a diservice, I invite you to go back and reread the initial post and the accompanying comments. I think you will find that there was never any presumption of mathematical quantification of any sort. Simply an artistic, hobbyist review based on naked eye scrutiny of the models.

-Eli

An abridged version of the above…

I don't care about the review or the people or the models, but saying that a picture with guides on it, and figures right next to the object in question, taken from the side is LESS accurate as a picture taken from isometric perspective with the objects separated is total rubbish.

Never said this.

In addition, this statement shows an obvious misinterpretation of the intent of the review in the first place.

But the dropship horizon pictures had the vehicle unbased and the figure on top of a base that was ADDED to the figure! Your own argument makes the Dropship Horizon pictures less accurate! You have just proved AW point that the DH pictures were a bit dodgy! They ARE!

Once again, not what I said.

Also implies a lack of understanding of the goals of the review.

Look, a couple of years ago there was a website that had nothing but pictures of figures standing against a paper backdrop with reference lines on it and it was FANTASTIC. Sadly it died as it soaked up all the authors time keeping it updated.

Unfortunate, but never a part of Dropship Horizon's mission and not a burden that should be shifted to us by default.

-Eli

These models look far too small for 15mm gaming.

Hang on sorry, that was my joke answer! :) I actually have a set and think they are perfectly formed. They certainly fit well into my mix of models from other companies and the detail is great. I have some plans to get them airbrushed up in a grey-modern urban scheme and will share the results.

Matthew, who attended Salute to play Gruntz, also had the jeep in his force he brought to play. He had painted it up very well and we had some great scenes where it was deployed across the table. It fitted in very well with his force.

Larger images here: link

Also just to confirm that size is not an issue here. This photo from the Gruntz forum shows a Sdkfz/2 Puma by SHQ miniatures. It is a 20mm scale model, so should be larger but you might notice it is actually almost the same size as the AW model.

Perhaps mounting the Puma turret on the Antenociti Kabardin some of the size issues (which, sorry GruntZ, but they DO exist, at least for a fraction of the crowd here) could be compounded.

Does any company like Zvezda, HaT or Armourfast produce a dirt-cheap SdKfz 'Puma'??

A picture with figures next to the object is MUCH more useful than a picture of figures standing away from the object. Saying that there is a bigger error when the figures are next to it is madness!

Depends what you mean. I'd agree with what you say IF you just are talking about proximity, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean based on the photos you then supplied.

Models seen close to the vehicles, at about a 45 degree angle, show what you'll be seeing when you play. Models seen from the ground level, viewer crouching down at tabletop level, are NOT what you will see when you play.

Models should be judged based on the way you see them on the tabletop. Anything else is tosh.

By the way, I can see the designers of the Warthog now, smiling and congratulating themselves on a job well done, when suddenly … "christ, we forgot the windows!"

Models should be judged based on the way you see them on the tabletop. Anything else is tosh.

yes because of course when you look at a real vehicle you're looking down at it no-one ever sees real vehicles from the side.

arngrimson,

Let me point out to you that we're tabletop wargamers judging toys and models,

hence porfirio's point is extremely and entirely valid.

yes but to the little pewter troops who get moved by the vehicles they are real.

Otherwise why don't you just use 1/50th scale tanks with your 15mm troops then the tanks/APC's will not be too small for the miniatures.

"…forgot the windows"
Which Warthog do you mean? MkI has cameras and MkII has vision 'slits' (and probabley cameras ;-))

yes because of course when you look at a real vehicle you're going to be moving it around with your hand and turning it on its side placing a bit of steel wool on it to pretend it's been destroyed.

There, fixed that for you.

If a model of a vehicle is too small for you you have the option of not buying it.

If you need a vehicle model that is bigger then buy 20mm 25mm 28mm 1/50th/1/56th/1/43rd/1/35th scale vehicle mmodels then no matter what 15mm figures you use the vehicle will be big enough for them.

TMP bug has struck and my comment has disappeared!

Also implies a lack of understanding of the goals of the review.
So I am wrong in believing that a reviews' goal is to impart information to the gamer so that they can decide whether or not the figure would fit in with their existing forces?

If that is indeed NOT a part of your reviewing aim can you please tell me what is?

I read reviews to help me decide what I want to buy, and to do that I want to see how figures look compared to other companies figures.

If you actually set out NOT to do that, then clearly reading reviews at Dropship Horizon is pointless for me and, I must add, many others as every other wargamer I know also wants the same sort of information.

As with the person's comments below, the sudden revelation that discussing figure size is irrelevant to wargamers is, frankly, bizarre.

Either do the job properly or not at all. You cannot do half a job then complain when somebody says "You only did half a job!"

. Sometimes the manufacturer even listens, or at least lets you have your opinion, instead of telling you you're daft, and bringing in their mates to do it by proxy.

Companies listen to people who make relevant and considered points. They don't listen to people just trying to be clever.

It is very clear that , but if you want them to take you seriously then you need to spend more time to make more valid points and less time trying to say clever things or simply being snide.

If you tried that approach perhaps more people would take what you say seriously.

There, fixed that for you.

That is a perfect example of my point Porfirio: you trying to be clever, ending up being snide, and making no valid point at all.

Really, if you so desperately want this company to listen to you then you really need to rethink your approach.

Companies listen to people who make relevant and considered points. They don't listen to people just trying to be clever.

Talk about begging the question. Your argument , as they have made it clear that the only people they consider to be making relevant and considered points are those that agree with them and at the same time show their product precisely as they wish.

Perfect example: The reviewer wrote a mostly positive review, even speaking the company line about the models, but he GASP showed a photo of the model at normal tabletop view and that raised some eyebrows about their size, so he was immediately thrown under the bus by them is a very rude and condescending manner. You'll note that's when I first got involved.

Speaking of being taken seriously, people might be just a little less inclined to buy their teeny trucks as they seem so so intent on shouting down all criticism.

as they have made it clear that the only people they consider to be making relevant and considered points are those that agree with them.

That is not my impression.

people might be just a little less inclined to buy their teeny trucks if they weren't so intent on shouting down all criticism.

and once again, snidery and clever remarks.

The ONLY person that they are obviously ignoring is you and, let us be honest, they should.

You are doing nothing other than now.

Oh dear, listen to the .

Care to specify where is? (chirp chirp)

(Notice by the way the attempt to shift the spotlight away from the company and their response to criticism, to personal attacks on those who dare criticise the products -- "they are all evil s!")

I've stifled you I'm afraid; you are adding nothing of value to this thread.

(Wow! That is a lot of stifles! I wish I had looked at that before.)

Viz to the very point I've just made. Cheers for that, very helpful and illustrative.

I'm afraid you've done your friends little favour here, . (Note that's clearly what he is -- he signed up just to take the at those who had the nerve to say critical things about his mate's products.)

If I may address the thread as a whole for a moment,

I find it interesting that the Dropship Horizon blog is suddenly being held accountable for something that it has never maintained as a regular part of its content. Even before the new crew, most product reviews were photographs of the models themselves and not held against another model. I perosnally believe in reviewing a model based on its own merits, not how it stands up to another product or another manufacturer.

Much of the confusion over DH's reviewmay stem from a few reviews that were done where we were invited to use another blogger's pictures where he had presented them on a gridded background or from release anouncements that feature pictures provided by the manufacturer which often show the vehicles on gridded work station hobby mats.

I am sorry if some people felt that the review was misleading or inaccurate, but really it was what it was, a hobbyist's view on the models. Anything else is a conclusion or intent prescribed to the blog by the reader and not of our own doing or lack of doing.

I stand by Chris's review as it was a very detailed, quality review that maintained or exceded the standards set by past Dropship Horizon reviews.

Thank you,

-Eli

I find it interesting that the Dropship Horizon blog is suddenly being held accountable for something that it has never maintained as a regular part of its content.

Yes and how interesting that timbrown has never raised this issue he has with DH before….

Anything but an acknowledgement that the review might actually have uncovered a valid criticism (for some at least). So naturally its time to announce that "the job is simply not being done right. Show our products only in ways that don't raise such questions, or don't show them at all."

Whole thing is perfectly ghastly, to be honest.

I stand by Chris's review as it was a very detailed, quality review that maintained or exceded the standards set by past Dropship Horizon reviews.

the review was good but some pictures were not so good as they could be. i think that you miss this point every time people say it. instead you act like this is calling the whole review bad. i dont think anybody said that.

other than you.

so i will say it again for you only. the review was ok, the pictures were not as ok as they can be. CAN be.

maybe if you listen to this point and not think everybody is saying the review is all bad you will see this.

big problem at this moment is that the rubirosa person wants to make it all worse by being oh so clever and so runs about saying like big drama queen, just as timbrown says he does. ignore the rubirosa person and you see that only you keep saying that the review was bad.

remember what i said first "the review is good but the photos are not,"

see? bad review mentioned there, no.

one person with big axe and conspiracy theory makes you think it is worse than it is. just stick rubirosa on stifle and thread is much much better and problem goes away.

use different photos and reviews will be BETTER. already good, but BETTER.

see how this is not a bad thing this time? ;-)

Well… this is what I got out of all this foma. I will be buying these APCs soon. Like the look (and the size) and they will work well for the "Government Troops" in my 'verse.

I have never believed people were saying it was a bad review. I will also argue that the pictures were NOT bad pictures. They clearly show the models being reviewed.

What I HAVE been doing is disputing the claim that the review somehow misrepresented the models when it did not. There have been claims regarding the accurate display of models in past posts on Dropship Horizon that are simply unfounded.

I recently went back through all the posts marked as "Review". Granted this is not the entirety of all posts that were reviews as some are not labelled as such, but there are few instances where photos showing actual measurements are used. Mark's own pictures had a tendency to be nearly the same composition as the ones Chris used in his post, utilizing a 3/4 view from above.

So, when I argue that Chris' post is being judged unfairly and against a supposed standard that has neither been standard of Dropship Horizon in the past, nor a standard of blog reviews in general, I am stating just that.

Could pictures in reviews be better? Sure they could.

Have photos of this style been sufficient in the past, thereby leaving no expectation that anything greater was desired? Yes. In fact, they have been so good as to keep Dropship Horizon growing steadily for the three years and into the future.

I would like to put this discussion to rest, please.

The crew of the dropship are doing their best to make the blog an interesting and informative place to visit. We may not always do it perfect or the way that you want it done, but we do try to keep it going at the highest quality that is practical for us to maintain.

-Eli

I've stifled you I'm afraid; you are adding nothing of value to this thread.

(Wow! That is a lot of stifles! I wish I had looked at that before.)

A man after my own heart…

John T

What I HAVE been doing is disputing the claim that the review somehow misrepresented the models when it did not.

What you appear to have been doing is defending a review that nobody has really attacked; other than to say the pictures could have been taken differently and in a fashion that is often used elsewhere and can offer advantages.

You have taken this one issue as overt criticism of the entire review, the reviewer and all of DH. I do not believe that anybody has ever said that or made those claims. There is no reason to feel that way.

You have said that images taken from the side offer no substantial advantages. I believe that you are mistaken and it appears others have been able to use the side images to make a purchasing decision. A point I would encourage you to consider.

So, when I argue that Chris' post is being judged unfairly and against a supposed standard that has neither been standard of Dropship Horizon in the past, nor a standard of blog reviews in general, I am stating just that.

Eli: about the claim "unfairly judging DH by other standards".

Why should not people judge DH by any standards they want to? Why should not people judge how DH goes about the presentation of images? What ‘right' has any review website to claim that it cannot be compared to other sites and other methods, just as TMP is often compared to other websites?

That is not unfair, that is common practice Eli.

As Link suggests you do appear to have been led into this all being an attack on DH and I think that you have missed constructive points for exactly the reasons that Link suggests and precisely because of the person he indicated.

I respect the decision to put this behind you, and I will not comment further on that issue, but I would ask that you keep an open mind on other ways of representing figures, vehicles and scenery in your reviews.

I believe they would enhance what is already a good website and a good resource.

I had posted something long and detailed, but really, I am tired of this.

I am replacing it with this.

This issue is done.

-Eli

What you appear to have been doing is defending a review that nobody has really attacked;

This from someone who claimed that the review was done "wrong" and if DH is to do the review at all it is to be done "right."

Apparently it was "wrong" because it did not show the models at the angle most flattering to his mates at Antenociti. By the way Antenociti said the same thing in their response to the criticisms. All one needs to do is go back and read it.

Apparently tim brown is suddenly passionate about this as he signed up for TMP just to post about it. Which is rather odd as he's never mentioned it in the countless other reviews of vehicles on DH which show the vehicle and a 15mm figurine for comparison.

Welcome to the " hey your crap models are too small to fit in my vision of perfection" club!
Well I for one love your kits and think they are some of nicest castings on the market. Keep up the great work and get to producing more exciting kits for us. I own 8 APCs and hope to outfit another unit soon!
Combat wombat
Too tiny tanks brother in arms!

Woah, mr. business sense here still prefers to slander and use insulting terms towards possible customers rather to try and cater to their likes and needs.

Go ahead mate, that's the right attitude to sell products (and I don't mean to me specifically but to anyone with half a brain seeing how you choose to treat your potential clientele).

Hmmm funny that you took that personally. How does it feel?
I am doing just fine with my customer base. If they choose not to buy from me and spend their money on one of the other great companies making 15mm scifi it's good for the hobby.
Carry on

@ Moqawama
"Perhaps mounting the Puma turret on the Antenociti Kabardin some of the size issues (which, sorry GruntZ, but they DO exist, at least for a fraction of the crowd here) could be compounded.

Does any company like Zvezda, HaT or Armourfast produce a dirt-cheap SdKfz 'Puma'??
"

Like the idea of the turret swap! I may just try it :D

How cheap is dirt cheap? Mine were £9.00 GBP (SHQ product code GV92)

Heh, 9 quids for a Puma is a good price for the wonderful SHQ metal model in pic, but definitely too much for something which has to be sacrificed for its turret.

I have investigated a bit, the cheapest 20mm Puma seems still to be the old Matchbox plastic kit in 1/76.

One has to locate cheap ones on ebay and then he could add the turrets to his Kabardin platoons, they would surely end up looking bulkier.