>>5857584>Compared to resin (which is a terrible thing to make toys out of)?Most plastics are resins. Go look at a McFarlane or Bones to get an idea of how super fine the details are. Almost all details are only limited by what the sculptor is willing to do, rarely ever the material.
>high-end transforming figures need die-cast on transformation jointswhich wear out faster than plastic joints, hence not as durable. And the majority of toys break at the joints, and most toys that use diecast don't put them at the joints, so it's a pretty moot point and pretty detrimental sometimes.
>What you're thinking of is when companies use bare plastic and painted diecastNope, I'm talking about paint, not bare plastic, but bare plastic does count, as it can and does look good all the time.
>Pointing out that a material is good when it's used properly is not No True ScotsmanExcept here you are, bullshitting that only Japanese companies do it right (no true scotsman) and outright lying about diecast paint not being thicker than painted plastic.
>...So apparently diecast is great when Mattel do it?As i said, EVERYONE has paint apps that are overly thick. No one is exempt, unless you have a clear example or anything to prove otherwise. I'm just saying that Mattel is an expert in making high end diecast stuff, but they're not able to change physics.
>Wire gets pretty fucking droopy over time.Only if it can't support the weight, in which case, you get a thicker gauge.
being prone to snapping, being weaker, and looking like shit if it gets a kink in it (which is basically impossible to straighten out if the wire is stiff enough to support the figure in the first place
First, it's not weaker and won't snap until you bend it like like crazy (which is cheap to replace) and it's not hard at all to straighten out. Do you even have pliers & a heavy book?
pic an example of a high end collector company used plastic for fine detail, with diecast for less detailed areas.
