I have only received three hardwarekit boxes in my 6 printers (the recalled A1 mini didn’t have one either).
I received the clockkit, lampkit and the boat motor.
I also didn’t get the promised MakerSupply gift from the Black Friday sale worth £35 with my P1S they promised on the original t&c’s and then removed it.
Using a different analogy than @johnfcooley…
It’s like buying a sandwich from a fuel station that is in a triangle box with the fillings shown through the front.
When you leave the place you open up your sandwich to find all the filling is at the front and nothing at the back.
All promise and no substance, a fraud.
I hate those stupid sandwiches with a passion. Like I’m so hungry and it looks acceptable enough but every time it’s freakin’ awful once you get it out of the packaging.
It’s like we were conditioned to think a sandwich made of one piece of bread is acceptable, let’s see how far we can take it!
If I make a sandwich it is between two slices of bread.
The Earl of Sandwich didn’t famously say “take one piece of bread, tear it down the middle then take one spoonful of random stuff and stick it between them”.
Peasant “The good random stuff, Sir?”
Earl “Did I say the GOOD STUFF?! Guards! Take him to the dungeon!”
And that’s one of the reasons why I’d argue for allowing non-deceptive renders that do correspond to the model as cover images. Thank you for your example.
I see where the people arguing against renders as covers come from, but it’s too hard headed. Especially tax-office-like treating everybody who’d use renders as “deceptive in all cases”…
So this model? I see that someone pointed it out to the author. By the way, you can see that the model is AI because it is without definition, the cover image is completely different because you can see that it has a texture
Huh, I got mine. Perhaps contact them, although good luck getting a response 
There is another Jolly Santa replete with renders, and the ‘photo’ evidence of the printed model looks as rendered as the rest.
It might be my poor eyesight, but, the layer lines appear to be going in different directions to the horizontal plain. The brim of the hat for example. I have seen many of the ones from this designer and I still am not sure if this is real or fake. Too many perfect overhangs with no sign of any support interface ever touching them.
The filament colour also appears weird as that amount of under lighting isn’t common to produce those strange highlights.
Am I seeing things or are these real printed blue models? I mean all of them, not just this one.
This is not printed. Don’t worry, your eyes are good. This is a well known AI model trained on 3d prints so that it can refine the prompt with artificial layer lines. Won’t post info about it here because it would just bring more people to use it.
Yeah, as you know, I have an ‘interesting’ relationship with them.
On one hand they blow my trumpet and reach out with positive message and wishes to collaborate.
Then, the minute I point out some problem it is all get the f out of here.
I may report a few as the recent ones all have those blue ‘models’.
Some have lots of downloads so, I imagine MW will ignore their hard and fast rules as usual.
Pay attention to the discoloration or the not uniform layer lines. The color is enough because AI most of the times don’t output the image with only a single color. Look also for overhangs and always, but always, do the 3d preview of the model and you will quickly find out that is not as refined 
If the tree is still in the trending page on the contest, then yes, they will not remove anything that has much downloads, sadly.
"Rich people getting richer and honest people making the rich even richer… "
I beg to differ. There are multiple angles of the same model rendered/generated/photographed and they have the same layer lines and blemishes:
So AI generated is out of the question, that wouldn’t be this consistent. It could be rendered, but there is even a retraction pointy blob on top of the hat, you really have to take some time to add details to a render that nobody will see without a magnifying glass
So how improbable they might look, and how much cleanup might have been needed (even digital), I do believe these are photos
This is faulty logic for argument, because you are phrasing it as if the only options are model ratings and “”““community witch hunters””“”.
People are constantly trying to manipulate ratings and many are successful for a while until they are caught. It would also be reasonable to assume that there have been manipulated ratings which have not been caught. If people are forced to try to manipulate ratings in order to have an even field, then that is significantly worse than requiring actual photos.
Additionally, your use of the term “community witch hunters” can only be interpreted as referring to the people here as the “witch hunters”, simply because the people here are trying to get MakerWorld to take action against these clearly deceptive practices and doing their best to help progress happen by communicating openly here in the forums and reporting obvious issues.
There is no need for disparaging remarks towards people here because you have a differing opinion. It would make more sense to rely on the logic in your argument instead of negative comments towards others.
You are free to have whatever opinions you want. However, your actions are different from your opinions. We can all clearly see your actions here of misrepresenting the discussion to suit your own opinion and flinging insults towards others because of their opinions.
Trust me, it’s not printed. As i said, i won’t post links to the trained ai model because it would be used more and more. The AI model is trained with all details in mind. It’s also trained on only single color prints so that it can generate more or less consistent lines, blobs and in some cases, it even adds support marks.
When you have time, AI knowledge, a beefy PC and a RTX4090, you can train those yourself in a matter of days. And i can say that the output is really good when used in small simple prompts and single color requests.
Again, in any doubt, look at the 3d preview of the model.
I have looked at the 3D print preview and it’s a smooth model of course, but it’s the same model. Take a look at one of his other “blue” images:
(And zoom in, really zoom in, they are big photos, so go ahead)
Under his beak, paws and hat thingy there are blemishes from removing the support. I guess you can train AI to do that as well. But the blemish I’m most interested in is the point where the hat thingy separates from the hat brim. There is a blemish because the next perimeter is a lot smaller than the previous one, just like you might see in real prints at sudden perimeter changes. I know ai is good, but this ain’t it.
And again, the AI you are referencing is 2D image generation. To have every layer line, every blemish, every ripple in the exact same place in multiple different views requires a fully 3D model, just not possible with AI image generation. These are either extremely well 3D generated models with all the correct layer lines and blemishes or just a 3D print.
If you look at his history of models, the older the model, the “worse” and more realistic the photo. I still strongly believe he really stepped up his printing and photo game, to the point people are blaming him for generating photos.
Still uses misrepresentative cover renders though. But that’s off topic. Or on topic I guess in this topic.
Actually, that’s on topic and it’s a good point. Will take a look at those models and be right back. I can also be mistaken, since i am just human, but man oh man, the things i have seen are amazing and evolving pretty quick in the private communities dedicated to models training.
Will be right back 
Maybe they saw the thread here on picture taking and took the advice?
That would be a good testament to it “take pics so you make others think it’s AI!!”
