HAOLONGGOOD - New For 2023

[Concavenator]

The skeletal below shows Kosmoceratops would have been around 4m long

4 m?? That's about the same length, or even shorter, than Kentrosaurus! 

[thomasw100]

I think that this is the price we pay for the Haolonggood models being considerably cheaper than PNSO models.

I'm afraid I disagree. These inaccuracies could be avoided simply by paying more attention to the creature's anatomy when sculpting, how is this related in any way to the prices the figures are sold at?

Safari's figures are (generally) even more affordable than Haolonggood's, and are, in general, better researched too. And as I previously mentioned, Eofauna's figures are in a very similar price point to HLG (I live in Spain and here their figures are noticeably cheaper than in the USA/UK for instance) while also being more accurate. So a lower price point is not by any means an excuse for giving up on accuracy. HLG is the type of company that markets their figures as "scientific", so one would expect their figures to be scientifically accurate, and in case inaccuracies are present, we are free to point them out (unlike something like a Mattel figure).

Granted, I know nobody's perfect and everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but I'm not exaggerating when I say there's at least one inaccuracy in almost each of their figures, so it's a recurrent issue. I hope they can pay more attention to this area for next year.

What I meant is that doing the research about the anatomy and paleontology of a dinosaur species comes with hours paid for personnel actually doing that research. A thorough critical review of all the literature on a species (and related species to fill in the gaps) will certainly take some time and will not be cheap. People have to read and understand the papers, analyze the information, compare different skeletal reconstructions and so forth. These are base costs which then make up part of price for which a model is sold.

[thomasw100]

Am i crazy or does the Kosmoceratops seems small, i'm not a ceratopsian expert but the size difference with the Sino is surprising

For Kosmoceratops the typical size estimate is around 5 meters and for Sinoceratops it is 6 meters. This would in 1:35 scale translate into model sizes of 14 and 17 cm. The Haolonggood Kosmoceratops model is 12.7 cm and the Sinoceratops model is 17 cm. So indeed the Kosmoceratops appears to be a bit on the small end. But these size estimates are somewhat variable between different scientists.

The skeletal below shows Kosmoceratops would have been around 4m long unless it had some unprecented weird proportions in missing parts (grey).
  (image source)

I measured 4.43 meters horizontal length on that skeletal reconstruction that you posted. This would translate into 12.7 cm in 1:35 scale, which is exactly the size of the Haolonggood model. I believe the 5 meters length that is given in some references refers to the curve length and not the horizontal length. So you are correct and the Kosmoceratops model has the correct size.

[Flaffy]

Granted, I know nobody's perfect and everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but I'm not exaggerating when I say there's at least one inaccuracy in almost each of their figures, so it's a recurrent issue. I hope they can pay more attention to this area for next year.

Nasutoceratops: Head sculpt does not reflect fossil material
Ouranosaurus: Missing thumb spike, Incorrect crest
Tianzhenosaurus: n/a (lack of reliable figures)
Pentaceratops: Frill embayment (notch) too shallow, Crocodilian scutes on the hip
Apatosaurus: Head sculpt does not reflect fossil material
Pachyrhinosaurus: Lack of jugal horns
Edmontonia: Lack of buccal plate
Allosaurus: Head sculpt follows outdated skull reconstructions, Lipless
Dacentrurus: n/a (too fragmentary for comparison)
Wuerhosaurus: Rectangular plates follows oudated reconstructions
Otodus megalodon: big great white shark
Carnotaurus: Caudofemoralis muscle too thin, Lipless
Ampelosaurus: Follows outdated osteoderm placement, new material pending description
Daspletosaurus: Lack of lacrimal crests
Dilophosaurus: Lipess
Megaraptor: n/a (too fragmentary), lack of feathers may bother some if following Rolando et al (2022)'s phylogeny?
Baryonyx: n/a , extremely conservative soft tissue may bother some?
Tlatolophus: n/a
Kosmoceratops: Brow horns too short and don't curve downwards enough, Episquamosal 1 shape and position errornous, blunt beak may bother some?
Sinoceratops: Lack of raised knobs on the frill, Epoccipitals curvature too conservative?

[Concavenator]

@Flaffy About HLG's Pachyrhinosaurus, Allosaurus, Dilophosaurus, Megaraptor and Tlatolophus:

- Pachyrhinosaurus: @Halichoeres found more issues about it too.

- Allosaurus: wrong skull shape and lack of lips aside, the thumb claw should be the biggest one as well.

- Dilophosaurus: lack of lips aside, it has a torso that's almost 20 % too short, according to @Fembrogon 's calculations. Anyways, checking an up-to-date skeletal like this one, it's evident the torso is too short (and perhaps the arms are a tad too big as well?), regardless of the exact %:




By TheSynopsis.

- Megaraptor: I recall you said the thumb claw was too short. Plus, aside from Rolando et al. 2022, Naish & Cau 2022 and Novas et al. 2014 also support the notion of megaraptorans as coelurosaurs (though important to point out is the very poor knowledge we have of the group as a result of their very scrappy remains). So some feathering would have indeed been appreciated.

- Tlatolophus. Wrong head shape. Here's a screen cap from DinosDragon's review:



Compare to Ancestor's version, which shows an accurate Tlatolophus skull:



All things considered, I think the Baryonyx might be their most accurate figure from this year's lineup.

[postsaurischian]

   It's a pity but I'm losing interest in this thread. The exaggerated didactic criticism puts me off. This is pure showmanship.

[Sim]

I personally feel the criticism of Haolonggood's figures is going too far...  Some of the suggested inaccuracies aren't inaccuracies in my opinion...

[bmathison1972]

Wholeheartedly agree with both @postsaurischian and @Sim above; especially given we're talking about a 6-inch chunk of plastic representing an animal that honestly no one knows what they truly and completely looked like.

[Roar]

This is the same shit I see over and over and over again. The criticism is going too far. I get it we are all excited. And criticism is good. But this is plucking all feathers till the dinosaur is as it was in the 90s. Dinosaurs are subject to change. But with this behaviour I think Haolonggood will not be long on this forum. I can't wait till the next figure.

[Flaffy]

Again I don't see the issue with pointing out inaccuracies? Haolonggood has expressed and shown that they're committed to producing more accurate figures going forward, as seen with them readding the thumb-spike on Ouranosaurus, and gracefully sharing WIP pictures of the Euoplocephalus & Stegosaurus sculpts. They've even directly asked the community for such feedback.

The only two explainations on the continued prevelance of errors (be it minor or major) I can think of are:
1) The revealed sculpts for 2023 were all completed / too far along the production process before HLG decided to ask for community feedback on scientific accuracy
2) Oversights in the research process prior to sculpting the models

If it's because of 1), then I'm very excited to see what HLG has in store for 2024. However if it's because of 2), then I believe such matters has to be addressed internally, as many of these errors could've been easily amended by refering to fossil material and papers save for exceptional circumstances such as the Ampelosaurus, where material is not yet published.

In respect to discussions of scientific accuracy, most members engaging in these discussions have been very respectful and have not resorted to personal attacks or insults. I don't see how an objective discussion is going "too far", DinosDragons does it all the time in his wonderfully crafted videos. I have seen far harsher remarks in non-fan favourite companies with little to no backlash.

Another important point to emphasise:
Just because people point out inaccuracies, does not necessarily mean that they think the figure is objectively bad. I've said this before in a PNSO thread couple years back when this exact same "when does critisism go too far" debate was held. One can point out valid critisisms within a model yet still support the company by purchasing it as they want to see the company succeed in the future, such things are not mutually exclusive.

[thomasw100]

Making a model scientifically accurate carries higher costs with it. This has to translate into a higher price. We cannot expect scientifically accurate models which are produced to a high quality standard (sculpt detail, paint application, production quality) for a price that is equal to considerably simpler products. So either we need to accept the small scientific inaccuracies at the current price level of Haolonggood models or if we demand higher standards the models will have to become more expensive because it will simply cost more to make them. The latter is the path that PNSO has chosen, whereas the former is the path some other companies have chosen. Many people complain about the price increase of PNSO, but we need to understand that this price increase correlates with a massive quality increase as well. Ultimately only Haolonggood can decide which path they want to take, and their decision will depend on the their very evaluation of the market situation. It is clear that scientifically accurate models of the highest quality cost more and will sell in smaller numbers. Haolonggood models, unlike PNSO models, are still affordable for children who are probably the largest group of dinosaur enthusiasts. One option for Haolonggood would be that they diversify their portfolio into two lines, one with scientifically accurate models produced at the highest quality standards which will cost more and one line with simpler but more affordable models. You get what you pay for.

[dragon53]

[Gwangi]

Over the years I've increasingly noticed that armchair expert toy collectors and enthusiasts seem far more concerned with accuracy than actual paleontologists and other experts. Example, I've been watching The Skeleton Crew on Youtube for over a year. They're a group of actual paleontologists that rank the dinosaurs in the Jurassic World: Evolution video game. In every video they discuss one of the dinosaurs in the game, accuracy among other things, and then place it on a tier list. They've covered about 50 so far. They are considerably more forgiving of inaccuracies than you might expect. Exposed teeth, long arms, and an inaccurate snout shape didn't stop Albertosaurus from getting an A ranking from each of the five of them. They're able to recognize the inaccuracies while still appreciating the overall design and the fact that it's still identifiable as the animal it is meant to represent.   

Likewise, there are actual experts in our own hobby (Darren Naish is a collector) that also seem far less critical than the amateur collector. This is just an observation, not picking on anyone. Obviously each person is their own individual with their own collecting priorities. I find these discussions occasionally interesting and occasionally pedantic. I just think it's interesting that a lot of actual experts are able to overlook these things easier than your average collector.

[Stegotyranno420]

I understand both perspectives but I side with @Flaffy more . Nothing wrong with being educated and passionate in a field, theres a difference with pointing out inaccuracies and just bashing a figure.

[Zephyr2007]

I agree wholeheartedly with thomasw100's statement. There is nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies, but we have to remember that this level of accuracy comes with a price. Also, proper use of tone is important in order for it to be constructive. No one is outright bashing the figures on this thread, but the discussion does come off as pedantic and overbearing.

[Faelrin]

T @thomasw100 I can't agree with that. Many of Safari Ltd's figures are scientifically rigorous to the current evidence (when the figures were initially sculpted, as science marches on), but cost far less then PNSO's. Especially sculptor Doug Watson's many beautiful, but mostly now sadly retired ceratopsians. Their dromaeosaurids are also good examples of this. Might also be worth mentioning that Safari Ltd has been ahead of the games on the lips (extra oral tissue) debate long before PNSO, and other companies aside from Creative Beast Studio, for whatever it is worth. That said I'm pretty sure PNSO's are cheaper domestically, but more expensive elsewhere for numerous unspecified factors. Higher paint quality and articulation could also increase the cost, but that doesn't necessarily have a correlation or direct bearing on whether certain details where sculpted based on the current evidence or not.

As far as Halonggood's figures many anatomical quirks (minor and a few major), I wonder if access to scientific material/papers could just be a matter of a barrier to entry issue, among others? Most papers that I'm aware of are in English would could come with language barrier issues, unless translated properly, never mind how many are frequently paywalled.

That said, I also don't think there's anything wrong with offering constructive criticism, or pointing out legitimate (however minor) anatomical issues based on the current data, especially if one one is being respectful about it. I imagine the folks criticizing these things are also doing it because they enjoy the figures but want to see things improve going forward. I also find it educational when folks point out things like this, like the length of Dilophosaurus torso (though I did pick up on it with the new Cyberzoic sculpt), or the bumps on the Sinoceratops frill, etc. I would not know some of these things without going of my way and explicitly doing research on it (like I have for my more recent reviews).

@Flaffy is also right in that there's a way to have nuance to this, in that yes one can like their figures, and still find some objective anatomical faults with them, and just because one finds an issue or whatever doesn't mean they are saying the figure is bad. Flaffy and other members here have even gone out of their way to share references, if not papers, and not just gripe about something being incorrect. I love their Ouranosaurus for example, beautifully done, and one I've wanted on my wishlist for years, but the hands were incorrect on an objective level. Thankfully they later went on and revised this, something very few companies do these days (especially without outright replacing and reselling a new sculpt), instead of just fixing the issue to begin with. What they did should be commended.

Every time there is some discussion regarding anatomical issues (minor or major), there is this push-back against it, almost as if it were toxic positivity. I don't see folks being rude or otherwise outwardly hostile, etc with this criticism here, other then bringing it up semi-frequently, unlike what happens to other brands (Schleich, Takara Tomy, Mojo, Mattel, etc), as Flaffy pointed out, which would definitely push away fans of the brand. We're probably all guilty of it, or at least most of us in varying degrees. And dare I say it, some of the folks against the criticism here, have been rather hypocritical in how outright hostile to those brands in some of those particular threads in the past and recently, going as far as calling their figures awful, trash, etc. What goes on here and PNSO's threads for example is absolutely much more tactful and thought out much of the time. However I also do see Gwangi's counter point that some folks here could be doing it too much (rather they are bothered by it or not), and it could be burning some folks out. In fact when I first joined this forum back in 2016, it's been an ever present attitude and atmosphere here, in which I've gotten accustomed to, but it certainly could be pushing folks away (actually in which it did for several accounts in the past).


@Gwangi That's honestly some good food for thought. I've been watching a lot of the Skeleton Crew as of late, and one can certainly learn from them in more ways then one regarding things like this.

Perhaps a solution could be reached. Folks could try to lessen the amount of criticism that they do here (particularly over rather minor things, that most folks are able to look past, aka the "nitpicks", unless for the purposes of a review), or perhaps even just spoiler tag it with a warning. Perhaps alternatively folks could (temporarily) use the ignore feature rather then outright abandoning a thread (or even outright chastising and targeting folks) because there's some (re-occurring) discussion with criticism involved? In any case it sounds we could all do some introspection on how we could do better here for the future.

[Bread]

This is really interesting to read to some degree.

Some of the criticism, I find valid; for example lack of lips on some of their therapods, outdated skull for the Allosaurus was used as a reference, or the missing thumb spike on Ouranosaurus (which was fixed).

Otherwise some criticisms do seem a bit nitpicky. However, I am pretty sure V @vampiredesign did ask for criticism, plus I do not see many or little to none members or people in general on social media claiming "they dislike this" or "hate this" about certain inaccuracies.

This really is complicated discussion in my opinion. At least in my eyes I see some points valid and others not so much. And I usually tend to get annoyed with the constant criticism, too.

[Sim]

I felt that criticism was going too far for two reasons:

1. Listing inaccuracies in all of Haolonggood's figures this year seems unnecessary to me.  The post it was in response to didn't warrant it as far as I understood it and listing all those inaccuracies to me felt like piling on criticsm on Haolonggood when it isn't needed.

2. Some of the "inaccuracies" are not inaccuracies, as far as I know.  The crocodilian scales on Pentaceratops could lack bone cores and be possible for the animal, after all Triceratops has been found to have "crocodilian" belly scales.  The Apatosaurus's head shape could be due to lips changing the outline of the head?  The lack of cheek plates in Edmontonia is considered a feature that makes the two Edmontonia species different.  Lacking lips is not known to be inaccurate for theropods, it's being actively debated at present.  The shape of the Wuerhosaurus's plates is possible, what just one palaeontologist thinks is not the only way to think about it.  It could be just the edges of the plates are worn making them look broken.  I stand by that it would be weird if they were all broken into the specific shapes they were found as.  There's nothing wrong with megalodon looking like a great white shark.  I don't see anything wrong with the Tlatolophus's head shape.  If it's the crest that's being referred to, a keratin covering can make it bigger.  I could continue with this but I'll stop here.

[Flaffy]

1. Listing inaccuracies in all of Haolonggood's figures this year seems unnecessary to me.  The post it was in response to didn't warrant it as far as I understood it and listing all those inaccuracies to me felt like piling on criticsm on Haolonggood when it isn't needed.

The intent of the list was to display that most of the inaccuracies on HLG figures could've been easily fixed with a quick internet search, or contacting knowledgeable individuals on the subject matter. Particularly in response to T @thomasw100 's claims that better research would greatly increase the cost, something @Faelrin pointed out is simply not true with the existance of highly accurate yet very affordable Safari ltd products.

Most if not all information provided in that list (alongside similar posts by others) are easily accessible by the layman, and do not require hours upon hours of research to access. A company that specialises in producting dinosaur models would surely have the resources to conduct a base level of information gathering. If time is an issue, then the solution I propose would be to slow down the rate of releases in favour of a more refined end-product. While HLG's rapid fire releases may be exciting, as the list demonstrates some things inevitably slips through the cracks.

While I agree that toxic negativity needs to be nipped at the bud, equally I do not wish for this forum to become a toxic echo chamber of perceived "positivity"; where posts, ciritisisms, opinions and concerns are policed and silenced if they do not fit-in with the majority consensus. Moreover, just because one member does not find a perceived inaccuracy significant or noteworthy, does not mean said concern should be dismissed as trivial or even invalid. Almost everyone is guilty of "nitpicking" at one point or another. In this thread it might be me with my obsession with Sinoceratops's frill knobs, but in another thread it's about Tyrannosaurus dew claws being placed slightly too high. No one should have the moral high ground to be able to police what other people find worthy of discussion as long as all parties remain respectful.

[Flaffy]

Addressing @Sim 's points on accuracy vs inaccuracy as I find the subject very facinating to discuss. Please ignore if not interested.

2. Some of the "inaccuracies" are not inaccuracies, as far as I know.

Spoiler

"The crocodilian scales on Pentaceratops could lack bone cores and be possible for the animal, after all Triceratops has been found to have "crocodilian" belly scales."
Scale impressions of other ceratopsids show otherwise. Scale impressions around the hip/pelvic region are consistent with the rest of the body: round scales with the occasional large feature scale.



"The Apatosaurus's head shape could be due to lips changing the outline of the head?"
It's not just the lips. The eye placement is not consistent with fossil material, and either the preorbital crania is too narrow, or the back of the skull is too wide, it almost looks pinched.


- Credit Paleonerd


"The lack of cheek plates in Edmontonia is considered a feature that makes the two Edmontonia species different."
As discussed here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg355035#msg355035


"Lacking lips is not known to be inaccurate for theropods, it's being actively debated at present."
Given the default state of tetrapods being lipped, along with Cullen et al 2023, the burden of proof is now on lipless supporters. I don't recall any theropod outside of Spinosauridae (+ a few other odd balls) having adaptations for prolonged teeth exposure.


"The shape of the Wuerhosaurus's plates is possible, what just one palaeontologist thinks is not the only way to think about it.  It could be just the edges of the plates are worn making them look broken.  I stand by that it would be weird if they were all broken into the specific shapes they were found as."
Only two dorsal plates were recovered (strictly one and a half). It is presumptuous to assume that all plates would look the exact same as the existing fragments. Moreover, I've discussed in a previous post that HLG could've kept to the short plate aesthetic, while also acknowledging that the plates were indeed broken by reconstructing them like JWE did. Distinctly different from Stegosaurus, yet still uniquely recognisable as Wuerhosaurus.




"There's nothing wrong with megalodon looking like a great white shark."
Yes there is plenty wrong with just scaling up a white shark 1:1 and calling it an O. megalodon. For one the skull of megalodon would've been far more robust, with a blunter snout and lower set eyes. And this was before we recovered the articulate fossil of a juvenile megalodon. The rest of megalodon's proposed body proportions compared to white sharks have been discussed elsewhere, starting here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg351786#msg351786

- Reconstruction of the jaws and skull of Megalodon, left,  based on an extrapolation from the White Shark, right. Re-drawn from Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996


"I don't see anything wrong with the Tlatolophus's head shape. If it's the crest that's being referred to, a keratin covering can make it bigger."
No, the crest is not the main point of contention. While I'm sure you meant no ill intent, please don't assume before concluding. DinosDragons's review clearly states that the premaxilla is too short.

[close]