I am inspired by Chuck Doan's post on using SolidWorks and printapart.com
Therefore, I'm going to describe (and time) how long it takes to learn to use Google's SketchUp and then create ladders for C&S refrigerator cars in 1:24 scale. I am returning to scale modelling after a long hiatus and want to create my own line of C&S detail parts in 1:20.3, 1:24, and 1:32 scales. Since I need to have approximately 16-20 side ladders and an equal number of end ladders for my own use (hey, I love reefers), let's test the theory that it's possible for a very computer literate but ham-fisted modeler to do this!
Preparation (Not Counted in Elapsed Time)Locate photographs of reefers, plans, articles in books and magazines.
Sources:
- Poole & Martin, Narrow Gauge Pictorial, Vol. VIII (C&S Freight and Passenger Cars)
- Brunk, Up Clear Creek on the Narrow Gauge, NG&SL Gazette,
- Derr, Those C&S Reefers, Outdoor Railroader, Vol. 4, No. 3
Photocopied drawing from Poole and Martin. Enlarged to 1:24 scale.
Side ladders will be 24" x 90", five rungs, with a bottom step.
Quote from: Fred H. on April 15, 2010, 08:19:33 AM
I am inspired by Chuck Doan's post on using SolidWorks and printapart.com
Therefore, I'm going to describe (and time) how long it takes to learn to use Google's SketchUp and then create ladders for C&S refrigerator cars in 1:24 scale. I am returning to scale modelling after a long hiatus and want to create my own line of C&S detail parts in 1:20.3, 1:24, and 1:32 scales. Since I need to have approximately 16-20 side ladders and an equal number of end ladders for my own use (hey, I love reefers), let's test the theory that it's possible for a very computer literate but ham-fisted modeler to do this!
A very interesting project!
What .stl export plugin for sketchup do you plan to use?
This will be interesting to watch.
I certainly will be watching for any info on the Sketchup portion. I've had moderate success with Sketchup but some of the photo modeling techniques baffle me still.
I viewed all the tutorials on You tube and still can't get all the nuances right. I probably need a classroom presentation to get it right. ???
This looks like it will be a very interesting thread.
If I may interject a comment here re. drawing in SU. It is possible to do drawings in SU directly, but I have found that it is far easier and much more accurate to do your highly detailed drawings in a CAD program, and then import them (both plan and elevation drawings, then assemble [or extrude] them in SU to give the 3D model or component.)
The SU videos show pretty "basic" form drawings....but I have been able to get very detailed, accurate and refined drawings for my "real world" work, using SU......one just needs to remember it is only a "tool" and should not be "overthought"....the best aid in working with it, as in any CAD program, is understanding basic drafting/layout principles....from there it is a breeze.
Marc
Update 1: Elapsed time = 4.5 hours
Wasted the afternoon messing with SU in my typical learn-as-you-go fashion. It was time well spent, because it got me focusing on how to use this particular tool. (Thanks for the suggestion, Marc, but let's stick with the original premise of the thread... can I just use SU to produce a simple part for which I need a large quantity.)
Best photograph of the ladder. (Page 90, Poole and Martin):
Here's the end-result of my labors... Not too bad, all things considered, but... I'm going to start again from scratch.
The height seems to be right, but the uprights are under-sized (1.5 x 1.5) and the whole ladder too wide by about 3 inches. Based upon this side-by-side review, I judge the correct dimensions to be: H = 90" W=21" and the space between the rungs = 17." I'm guessing that the uprights are 2" x 2" stock.
Update 2: Elapsed Time = 6.5 hours
Here's the redo. It's in VERY good shape, actually. Now all I need to do is figure out the rungs! (I thought the 1.5 inch size step was a nice little detail and was probably pretty close?)
The little piece at the top is to keep it together if I decide to stop here and do the rungs out of flattened brass wire.
Final shot of the evening. -- Fred H.
Looks good so far.
A tip to ease the work, if you do not know it already: on your part for example, if you draw one of the basic 2x2's select it by itself (make sure not to have any other parts lines in the selection window/group), and do "Create Component" you can then copy and paste that piece/component for the second 2x2, and any alterations/additions/modifications you do to one of them, will automatically occur on the other as well. (note re this. If you are copying components that are side-sensetive...IE, adding bolts to the surface, and you have simply copied and pasted the componets on two sides of a car, you will need to "flip along axis" the other component...so that the bolt heads show up on the syurface rather than into the car sidewall (hope this makes sense) .)
If you copy a previous component, say a sheathing board or sill, and you want to keep the original component as is while modoifying the copy independently for a special condition, you need to use "Make Unique" for the component to be modified, prior to working on it (otherwise it will change the original one as well.)
Hope you don't mind info/posts like this. :)
Marc
How could anybody mind? This amounts to a custom tutorial on using SU, something I've needed forever. Maybe I'll archive the thread to make it available to others as, in the future, more people get involved with this kind of modeling. Keep the tips coming! -- Russ
Thanks, guys. Marc, I don't mind at all! I'm sure I'm destined to get stuck soon and will want your help!
I've been working in design (as part of my overall communications career) forever. My work in creating tabular layouts for print items, web sites, etc. has been extremely helpful in getting this far this fast. I should have mentioned last night that when I started the second attempt the first thing I did was to create some guidelines at the exact locations where I'd later be drawing the various elements in 2-D. To get the guidelines right I drew a simple rectangle (22" x 101") right at the zero point of the three axes (red, blue, and green lines.) The illustration shows the guidelines and the part at the end of the night. -- Fred H.
Oh, BTW, what's the general consensus about what's holding the rungs to the uprights? It looks like rivets to me, but could it be round-headed bolts (the kind with the little square cross section underneath the head)? Also, how would the bottom step have been attached to the uprights? Would it have been bolted? (That's my presumption.) If so, which side does the nut/washer go on? Inside the step or outside?
I have no clue about the questions, except that I had had the feeling that the rungs were simply inserted and that there was some way to hold the two ends of the uprights which made everything stay in place.
Apart from this, there's a real pleasure to watch your work. Thanks for sharing it.
Print-a Part has some general guidelines for parts on their website. They don't recommend thicknesses less than .02 for certain things. I am going to send some kind of potential sacrificial part to test the limits in my next batch. Also don't forget some surface sanding may be required to remove the lines created in the process. I didn't find then too troublesome so far, but it's something to consider.
Update 3. Elapsed Time = 8.5 Hours
Frustrating couple of hours trying to create the ladder rungs. The 2-D shape isn't hard to envision. The tricky part is where the round rung gets flattened at the ends. Then I tried my hand at putting a round rivet (1/2 sphere) on top of each end. Messy and imprecise. As I am contemplating this further, I'm beginning to think that it might make sense to join the rungs to the uprights and then drill holes where the rivets and or bolts go. Then I could actually pin the ladders to the side of the car. (But, that may be cheating as far as my challenge goes!)
More to come after lunch!
Something to help you in arriving at your dimensions are the Car Builders Cyclopedias. Many of the older ones are available as a free PDF download on Google.
This page link gives some definitions for your style ladder. As you will note, the vertical rails are made of wood to which the rungs are bolted to. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jv7VAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=car+builders+cyclopedia+1903&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=Jv7VAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=car+builders+cyclopedia+1903&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false)
The 1903 version is available as a free download from the American Libraries archives here:http://www.archive.org/details/carbuilderscycl00divigoog (http://www.archive.org/details/carbuilderscycl00divigoog)
Older versions are available on Google.
A good photo of the car end and ladder is on Page 204 with dimensions. There are numerous other photos and dimensions in the cyclopedia but it needs to be downloaded as I haven't been able to copy & paste the pictures.
As you will note, the dimensions of the rungs (length) are generally 18". The spacing between rungs is 14 1/4". And they are bolted to the wooden vertical sides.
Update 4. Elapsed Time = 10.0 Hours
Thanks for the assistance, Dave! I need to check some additional sources, especially as to when the C&S cars were converted from grab irons to ladders. A lot of the commercial 1:24 freight ladders have six rungs. The C&S had five. So, I'm pretty comfortable that my measurements are accurate to +/- 1 inch or so.
Here's the latest progress shots. One end of a ladder rung. (Just need to figure out how to clone the flattened end and get it attached to the rung!) May have to wait until the weekend, though. Work intrudes!
Sorry for my previous comment, Fred. I thought the ladder rungs were inserted in the sides. I see now that what you want is much more interesting.
Update 5. Elapsed Time = 11.5 Hours
Running to catch the commuter train home. Interesting progress in this last session. Check it out:
Wait a minute- running to catch a commuter train home? Are you doing this on company time Fred?
This is a neat drawing using SketchUp. The detail shaping on the end of the rungs is well formed. I use TurboCad normally and have been frustrated by SU. Your use of many guidelines looks to be a key element in building a part in SU. Nice drafting.
Plus I leaned about PrintaPart which I may use to master some difficult to model iron castings used in old bridges. And the old Car Cyclopedias are online (thanks Dave).
A fine Friday evening, thanks!
John
Looks good.
You may want to go through and reverse the faces on all the blue parts so they match the white parts. Blue in your SU format/style, is generally used as the default "interior" face.
There are several ways to do this:
1. You can select the entire part (like the rung), then go to the right click menu and select "Reverse Faces"...it should reverse all of them in that part/selection. [Note: if you have a part/section/area that is correct facing in the rung....or when crossing you accidentally select a part beyond, it wil reverse those faces as well. Using 'components' is often good for things like this because you can merely select the component and it will reverse it...or if doing the selection "within" the component it alleviates the possibility of accidentally selecting something beyond, or "outside" the component.
2. You can select each face seperately, one at a time, and do the right click "Reverse Faces"
3. You can select several faces at once by holding down the 'Ctrl' or 'Shift' key while selecting with the mouse....then do the right click "Reverse Faces".
The only reason I mention this...and it may be a non-issue in the end, since not having tried the STL conversion program myself.......I am merely wondering if having reversed faces could possibly present a problem with the converter in the way it reads/interpolates the model.
John,
SU is super easy to use, especially if you already have a CAD program, and are familiar with using one...and this next comment is in no way meant to make Fred feel bad, or denegrate his great work so far (as he is trying to show how to work and create from within SU, and as a novice to the program).....if you drew a 2D elevation of this in CAD (which only needed you to draw 1 rung, plus center marks for the locations of the rest), plus a plan view of one of each of the different bolt heads...all of which should take at most 60 mins if working at a very leasurely pace....then import the .dwg file into SU.....you could then extrapolate the 3D model from it in no more than 60 mins if working at the same leasurly pace. ....for a total of 2-hrs. (that is of course sans learning curve.)
Update 6. Elapsed Time = 12.50 Hours.
Marc! Thanks for the continued tutorial.
JohnP -- I'm self employed, man! My time is my own money! :o
Marc, those suggestions were very helpful. Was wondering about the different colored faces. (How they got that way in the first place remains a mystery.) NOW, I was wondering if I was able to get the rungs snuggled down into the face of the uprights. An extreme close up seems to indicate that I didn't! Wonder how you get components to SUCK UP to each other. (Guess I'll have to offer them monetary compensation, or as in my wife's case, a pair of Louboutin's.)
SU, like any program has some quirks. I like the idea that you view your 3-D rendering as if you were a "camera" and can easily switch views from the Camera > Standard Views drop-down list. HOWEVER, there is no keyboard shortcuts associated with those views! I mean Ctrl-T for top would save me a LOT of time. Plus, putting "Standard Views" on the "Camera" drop-down versus the "View" drop-down is NOT intuitive and takes a LOT of getting used to!
It's interesting that when I was working with the ladder rungs I used the Soften/Smooth edges tool. Not sure I love how it turned out, but it was fun!
Quote from: marc_reusser on April 16, 2010, 11:42:58 PM
John,
SU is super easy to use, especially if you already have a CAD program, and are familiar with using one...and this next comment is in no way meant to make Fred feel bad, or denegrate his great work so far (as he is trying to show how to work and create from within SU, and as a novice to the program).....if you drew a 2D elevation of this in CAD (which only needed you to draw 1 rung, plus center marks for the locations of the rest), plus a plan view of one of each of the different bolt heads...all of which should take at most 60 mins if working at a very leasurely pace....then import the .dwg file into SU.....you could then extrapolate the 3D model from it in no more than 60 mins if working at the same leasurly pace. ....for a total of 2-hrs. (that is of course sans learning curve.)
Marc, no offense taken, you block-head! ;) Seriously, I probably SHOULD purchase/learn a CAD program and have been meaning to do that for ages. But, the way I have always learned new programs is to tackle a project and sorta learn on the fly. I think PART of the secret to using SU efficiently is to think initially in 2-D and then lift up the faces. There is clearly "learning curve" time built into the elapsed time calculation. I've found that I can often use a screwdriver as a hammer (rhetorically speaking) and I'm thinking that SU may give me what I need right now to get some parts into production. But, long-term, I may well learn a CAD program, too.
BTW, you guys really are super-nice. Thanks for taking the time to view, comment, and help me as I stumble along. BTW-2, I'm working with a fellow who's probably the leading expert on the C&S. If the dimensions pass muster with him, then I'm gonna assume they're pretty "good to go." -- Fred H.
Is the guy you are working with by any chance Derrell Poole? If so, he is a whiz on CAD. -- Russ
Fred,
In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that I have learned all my programs the same way you are going/go about it..including SU and ACAD, so whatever info I provide came through that process, and there may likely be a quicker way with an LSP/routine to get something done. SU in its original form (and especially pre-Google ownership) is a pretty "basic" program which was intended to be easy and intuitive to use...it still basically is compared to SW or 3D-Studio.....there is now however such a large SU "community" that there are many plug-ins, routines, and programs that were written to do things in SU, interact/work with SU, and allow SU models to be seamlessly exported into them......think of it in a way like Linux for 3D modeling (Kerkythea is another such program but more complex IMO).
SU does have its apparent occasional oddeties/glitches, and they often appear with what seem to be no ryhme or reason, but I have found they are always easily corrected, mitigated or worked around.
The "blue" is not a true "interior" face it just is intended to denote/differentiate the other side of a plane or surface, however, when extruding solids it is generally (depending on if you push, pull, extrude, and in what direction), the "inside" surfaces of the walls that make up a solid......that like I mentioned is the only reason I was thinking about a potential STL export issue.
I am curious as to why you are using "Camera View" when working on the model. Camera view is primarily for doing walk throughs or set-ups for that will be exported as a 2D image file or printed.....so that they have the proper perspective and "view".
As far as top/left/right views there is a toolbar for that (which you probably have found)...though the minute you begen to move side to side or along the model, you begin to have a perspective view. What it sounds like is that you are looking for a "fixed" plan/elevation type view of the object......which is as far as I know not possible in the SU model mode/environment......when you get the PRO version, there is another part to the program called "Layout", this is like "paper space" in ACAD....you can create viewports that xref the 3D image into the paper space, and there give you fixed plan and elevation (as well as 3D if desired) views of the model....the viewports like in cad, are also scaleable...IE 1/4"=1'-0".
Here is not-too-clear screenshot image of a basic layout I did for another thread/project here in the forum...the plan drawings are all at 1/4" scale.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=109.0;attach=444;image)
...and if I want to I can work within the viewports to change the model.....or if I work on the model in SU, I can then select refresh, when back in layout, and it will update the changes I made in SU...while keeping the views fixed.
Insofar as small gaps and nestling of objects...yes, that can be a PIA at times....especially when you seem to be right on it, but for some reason there is just the tiniest gap. A couple of ways I have worked around this issue are as follows: (using your model as example).
Drawing a center locator mark...either an "+" or a cenreline down the top surface of the 2x2 and then cross center lines on the same surface where each of the rungs is to go. this cross would then allign with the center of the bolt/rivet holding the rung end in place...so I would draw a + on that area of the rung as well. Then in X-ray mode, select the object, use the move command, and for your base-point in the move, grab the center of the '+' on the wrung, and move it to the center of the crossed lines of the 2x2. (You will know you are on the mark by the screen pop-up/indicator).
The other way I have done it is to draw a horizontal extension line from the surface of the 2x2 then select the rung on the end point of the line, then merely shift it horixontally along the line till it's on the 2x2. (this in your case would not be my choice though, as you would then still need to center the rung in the right location, which is dicey and can easily again result in missalignment).
The third and simplest way to do it, is draw a vertical line (perp. to the face of the 2x2) at the center of the rung bolt location, select the rung, use move, once again for your selection point on the move use the center of the bolt on the rung, set that on the endpoint of the perp. line. Then reselt the rung, again use move, use any point along the bottom edge of the rung tab (the edhe that will be incontact with the 2x2).....and simply move it straigt down along the perp axis, onto the surface of the 2x2.....the screen indicator will let you know when you are there by noting "on surface".
HTH.
Marc
Quote from: finescalerr on April 17, 2010, 11:48:21 AM
Is the guy you are working with by any chance Derrell Poole? If so, he is a whiz on CAD. -- Russ
Russ, it IS Derrell. He's super nice in addition to being a super whiz. I think that perhaps he and I can fill in some gaps in the existing CO-NG space which is WAY over-focused on D&RG, IMHO.
What!...this is for a Colorado car project :-X.....OMG! >:(...I am going to have to go back and erase all my posts! ;) ;D ;D...
Marc
(sorry Fred...kind of an inside joke/issue that Russ, and some of the others that have known me for a while, will get)
Very interesting SBS here! I'm considering SU too, as I would love to be able to make use of printapart.com
Marc, regarding the gaps between rungs and uprights... is there any reason you couldn't simply draw the rungs long enough to extend _into_ the uprights a little bit?
Fred, Derrell and I are old pals. Next time you talk to him say, "Hey, 'South Park', Uncle Russ says hello!" He will know immediately that you and I have been in touch. You also should give him a hard time about not being on this forum. And about not sending me any articles since about 1995. -- Russ
Russ - I'll say hey when I visit with Derrell. I need to send him a dimensioned sketch before I proceed any further.
Marc - I just LOVE inside jokes that don't include me. For full disclosure I should say that my interests include: C&S, Gilpin Tram, Swayne Lumber Co., Feather River Rwy., and the 8th US Army Air Force!
Very interesting thread, I've always been an advocate of using high tech in model-making to push the envelope. I do all my design work in 2d in Adobe Illustrator, but would like to learn 3d software like SU or Rhino.
Questions--
The rungs on the 1/1 ladder look like they were manufactured from cylinders with squashed ends. But the drawing seems to indicate separate cylinders and end pieces. Is this because its difficult to make fillets and smooth transitions in the software? Or am I missing something in the photo?
I understand sending the the horizontals to Printapart-- you get the advantage of saving a lot of repetitive labor, and ensure that every one is identical. But why have you chosen to make the entire ladder as a single piece? Seems to me if you made only the horizontal rungs, it would be more cost effective, and much sturdier too, if you made the vertical bars by hand out of brass.
Dave
Dave, you really got me thinking...
Working on this project, like a lot of modelling, requires research/knowledge about manufacturing methods/techniques or guesstimates. I probably SHOULD find out how a part like the rungs (horizontals) was/is made. That would guide how I approach drawing it. But I also need to be thinking about: (1) how it will come out in printapart; (2) how much clean-up will be required before it goes off to the foundry for casting; (3) the look and "robustness" of the finished casting; and (4) how the ladders eventually get attached to the model. (To be 100% honest, a lot of those thoughts didn't go through my head when I started this exercise.)
So, I'm thinking that I have two choices for the end result:
- Uprights and rungs as separate elements.
- Uprights and rungs as a unified part.
I'm definitely leaning towards the second choice, but I might be making a mistake in that the rungs could end up being too delicate. Brass wire with flattened ends might be more robust, either to make the rungs for the casting or else at the very end when I'm building up the finished models. The considerations here also include how do I get that great little rounded end (on the flattened portion) which will definitely show up in 1:24 or 1:20.3?
In addition, assuming 10 reefers = 40 ladders = 200 rungs. Ick! (Maybe even double ick!) Well, why decide now anyway? Let's do it both ways and see what comes back from printapart.
On another matter... I really like the fact that scale hardware makes miniature rivets! (See: http://www.scalehardware.com/miniature-rivets-c-10 (http://www.scalehardware.com/miniature-rivets-c-10) And I think that attaching each finished ladder to the car side using four brass rivets would be really cool/smart. So, for both the "separate elements" and "unified part" runs I'm going to leave four holes all the way through.
Here is the dimensioned sketch being verified. Project on hold until dimensions finalized. (Backwards from how I SHOULD have done it, I know!)
Quote from: Ray Dunakin on April 17, 2010, 11:16:44 PM
Very interesting SBS here! I'm considering SU too, as I would love to be able to make use of printapart.com
Marc, regarding the gaps between rungs and uprights... is there any reason you couldn't simply draw the rungs long enough to extend _into_ the uprights a little bit?
Ray, you might want to find out how well this material will stand up to outdoor exposure. Even if used inside a structure, they may see temperature extremes that indoor models do not.
Fred,
The inside joke/backstory is, that I basically have a huge dislike (to put it kindly) for anything related to Colorado railroads.
One more thing re. the SU model came to mind. A while back when I once looked into exporting SU into .STL, I recalled that the convertor I was reading about/looking at (name I cannot now recall) required the removal of duplicated hidden surfaces....areas where two parts came into contact with eachother ....in your case the the rung and the 2x2....the small contacting surface areas on both parts had to be deleted, so the parts became a unified whole....(hope this makes sense)......the program at the time would run through the SU model and let you know where these areas were, so you could fix them. Don't know if the convertor you will be using has that issue/requirement, but thought I would give you a heads up.
Ray,
You would not want to draw the part "longer", as this would not solve the problem, and would likely only cause you more problems down the line. There really is little to no room for those kind of variables when working in CAD,....it is a pretty "absolute" form...and any variances/vagaries/dicrepancies will very quickly become cumulative and begin causing more and more problems down the line. The whole purpose of using a program as exacting as CAD, is to be accurate. I'ts every anal Swiss guys dream ;) ;D ;D
Marc
Well, Marc, I sure have knocked up the pooch, haven't I?
What's my penance?
Fred, if you need to add extra material such as sprues across the back of the ladder uprights for strength. They would be clipped off before installation. The ladder will be stronger when it is attached so you just need to manage it in the meantime.
Marc, I am not Swiss, but I guess the anal part makes me enjoy using CAD. I draw almost every project I do in CAD so the thinking is done at the computer and the assembly or modeling is fun. Layouts, bridges, 7/8ths railway stuff, mechanical stuff for casting equipment, house plot for our gardens- it's in my computer.
John
Quote from: Fred H. on April 19, 2010, 05:57:18 PM
Well, Marc, I sure have knocked up the pooch, haven't I?
What's my penance?
No worries.....I didn't want to mention it........but since you felt left out and asked :)
I look at this project like Freud would ....sometimes a ladder is just a ladder. ;) ;D.....and in the end, it's the modeling that matters. ;D
Marc
Well, as long as we don't get into a my ladder is bigger than yours kinda thing, I can live with that! I originally planned to model the Gilmore & Pittsburgh RR, which was an NP subsidiary that ran over the Divide from Armstead, Montana, to Leadore-Salmon-Gilmore, Idaho. Talk about obscure! (I grew up about 60 miles from Leadore.) It was affectionately known as G&P = Get Out And Push. Most beautiful river rock and timber depots. Truly stunning. When I was a kid we used to stop for an ice cream cone at the Depot Cafe. Some mindless/thoughtless asshole burned it down.
Fred,
I know this is an "experiment" ;D but I know I could have made a brass master by now and sent it off to the caster.
I like the idea of the rivets to pin the ladder to the car, using the right size will give the look of carriage bolts.
-Marty
Marty -- Thanks for the encouragement. (That WAS encouragement, right?). There's a LOT of program learnin' built into those time logs. Hope I can talk the scale hardware folks into sending me a sample pack of their stuff. But, I think using rivets probably IS a good way to proceed.
Yes Fred it was encouragement!
The owner at Scale Hardware is a nice guy and a great vendor.
I have bought from him for years.
I have quite an assortment of nuts & bolts but no rivets.
-Marty
Update 7. Elapsed Time = 14.00 Hours.
Well, guys, I'm stuck. I've just spent the last 1.5 hours rebuilding the ladder rungs and I've got two identical "halves" that for the life of me I can't join together. I'm sure there's some completely easy way to do this. Help!!
I'd be HAPPY to send someone (hint, hint) the .skp file...
You talkin to me!?...... ;D
Out on the bike at the moment.....but email it to me and I'll have a looksee over the weekend.
marc(at)rbadesign.net
....also need to know what version of SU you're using......and, are those rectangles supposed to be at each side?
MR
Quote from: marc_reusser on April 23, 2010, 05:02:39 PM
Out on the bike at the moment.....
MR
You have a computer on the bike?.... shame on you... ;)
Paul
I gots me this here new-fangled thing...I think they calls it a somethin'-"Berry"..... it's sposed to give you blue teeth.....can't rightly see how though....it tastes somethin' awful, and makes you feel gassy afterwards....which must be that "whiffy" thing they're talkin about. When I gots it they also said it would go roamin' with me....but fer some reason when I sets it on the ground, it just set there and don't go nowhere. :-\.....shoulda gotten me nother dog.
Marc
(I know, I know....to the corner)
;D ;D Uh huh...
You got to watch out fir them thangs, coz you can git a virass from computers you know....
Returning to reality here for a moment, it may seem hard to believe, but I have "clients" who refuse to use the legal research computer system for that very reason. These are the same gentlemen who won't use the typewriters because they believe the DA comes into the library at night and reads the typewriter ribbons.... :-\ We may make fun of this, but this is real to some folks...
Paul
Quote from: Roughboy on April 23, 2010, 09:22:00 PM
;D ;D Uh huh...
You got to watch out fir them thangs, coz you can git a virass.......
.
........comes into the library at night and reads the typewriter ribbons.... :-\ We may make fun of this, but this is real to some folks...
Paul
Nobody best be playin grabass with my pootie.......
.....shades of the Stazi or NKVD.....luddites unite.
MR
Ahem. And, uh, what exactly does all this have to do with modeling, gentlemen? "Nobody best be playin' 'grabass' with my 'pootie'......."? The very idea! -- ssuR
(Sent from the corner...)
Uncle, considering Marc's taste for flying over his bike, we can at least think that if he uses a puter while biking, he will soon have to remodel his face (maybe into something as charming as his current avatar).
No need to go, I'm already there...
Marc said Luddite! Come on, grab the pitchforks and torches and let's go smash some infernal machines! Who's driving?err, why's the car on fire?
Anyway, Lance Armstrong was/is famous for his Crackberry use. Any decent cyclist has one.
Back on topic, I use TurboCAD Deluxe 15 for my drafting software. It does not export in .STL for PrintaPart and similar rapid prototyping applications. A web search brought me to MeshLab www.meshlab.sourceforge.net (http://www.meshlab.sourceforge.net) which is a free download. TC15 saves in .DAE which is the extension for COLLADA 3D files. MeshLab opens .DAE and will convert to .STL. It will fix the mesh as well as give you the chance to edit the mesh. I am just starting to learn what the mesh means, but MeshLab will probably do what I need for PrintaPart and can convert other files to if you need it.
I have attached renderings of a bridge shoe as it appears and as the mesh.
John
Apologies to Fred...was a bit slow getting on this, but here is the SBS on the rung issue that he was having.
This shows the file/part as I received it. Note the gap in the center and the mis-alignment of the two parts. Each half at this point was designated as a "component". I am assuming that what Fred did was create/draw one half, save it as a component....copy that component, and then "rotated" the copy or "flipped along axis" (correct me if am wrong here Fred.)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh1a.jpg&hash=2c825d2871de3e74efe75a3c70b6db38440338f1)
First step was to align and join the two components. The right hand component was selected. Then using the "Move/Copy" tool I grabbed the endpoint of centerline of the circular shaft (these lines were there from when Fred extruded the shaft)......
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh2a.jpg&hash=71f0b347de9c7f4052291f6d5d0f386d47efe42f)
....and simply moved the whole comp. to align with the same center-line in the other comp.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh3a.jpg&hash=3a858bf98c1e751f65bdd28c78763af5c06a1c9e)
Both component halves were then selected, and "exploded" (so they were no longer individual componets).
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh4a.jpg&hash=fa13bc716a7ccdd1335cf8e75af3af6d03179127)
Next, the line that was created from the joint/joining of the two comps. was deleted.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh5a.jpg&hash=2be03137c1d085f2019dd7882c468cb24ffbe8dd)
Not shown in images, the next step was to remove the longitudinal center lines that were created from the extrusion....for some reason, due to the way it was extruded, the lines would not erase, and blend/join the adjacent surfaces (it deleted them when the lines were deleted), I could have gone through and re-extruded the shaft, but that was not what this SBS was about, so I simply selected them and did "Hide", so that they were no longer visible in the model.
A quick side-step.....but, because I always consider the blue color as the "inside" or "back" of a surface (just an anal thing with me)...I selected the entire model and did "Reverse Faces"...to make them all the white color.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh6a.jpg&hash=e37b0894527403e35a0fc21048f92b958fb3ec8a)
I then made the entire part into a new component, using "Make Component"
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh7a.jpg&hash=d7834f2c5b6714b32554a264c8ebccb181ae145f)
The initial half rung that had been drawn, was not exactly half the size/length...so the now joined model and new component was a bit shy of it's desired 21.75" overall length. The stretch could have been done by just using the "Move/Copy" tool and entering a numeric distance, but unfortunately the existing length was some odd portion of a fraction....so rather than messing with trying to determine what that was, I simply laid out some guide lines to locate the new desired/needed length (the dimension line is not something I would use...it is only on the image for your info/reference)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh8a.jpg&hash=c919ac63271a03987129ef66f158b89b3cb0ef59)
Working inside the component, I selected the end of the rung...using the "Select" tool, and dragging from top left to bottom right, so as to only select the end, and not accidentally get/include any part of the shaft.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh9a.jpg&hash=f6927bb59278ab12a0443f53eae3adcf9ade4904)
Still working in the component; using the "Move/Copy" tool, I then selected the endpoint of the part....
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh10a.jpg&hash=148240175a81074f99a7c83369c9ace2d9df598f)
....and simply pulled it to the new desired/needed length, located at the intersection of the layout lines I had previously drawn. [By not selecting the shaft before doing the move, the shaft is automatically stretched when the end /head is moved, as the model considers it "attached".....had I included the shaft in the selection, it would have stretched the end/head at the other end of the rung, thus deforming it.]
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh11a.jpg&hash=6ad9bc7f96008c74a223667bf43c6dc806596764)
....then simply exit the component, delete a couple of guidelines, hit "Save", and you have a finished rung that can now easily be duplicated and placed along the ladder braces.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2Fh12a.jpg&hash=066709434e44274f69c4e384cf8d57c34075c563)
HTH.
Marc
One small observation- circles in Sketchup are not mathematical circles, but polygons with lots of sides- I believe the default is 24 sides. If the part is small enough, it may not be noticeable, but for safety's sake, you may want to increase the number of sides to be sure that the part prints out without obvious flats. (Unfortunately, I don't think you can go back and alter circles previously made.)
That was extremely helpful. Things like that allow others with less experience to get the hang of a program without as much trial and error. This is an excellent thread. -- Russ
Yes, Russ, Marc's help was invaluable. Several key things here the more I study it.
1) Aligning the center-points of the components was something I had trouble with.
2) Now I understand about "exploding" something!
3) Now I see how to "stretch" a part! Cool!
4) The blue/white orientation thing is a good habit, I agree.
I'm going to verify the dimensions from Derrell and then back to the process. Will post an additional update this weekend.
Marc, thanks again! You're a prince among men, even if you DO set the bar WAY TOO HIGH for the rest of us! ;D
Not to horn in on Freds thread (Fred...if you want me to post this elswhere let me know).....
I did some experimenting with this process a bit. Since I needed welding tanks I decided to have a try with modeling one. Drew the half tank outline in ACAD, imported it into SU...and used the "Follow Me" tool to turn it into a tank/solid shape. I then went and downloaded the free version of the CADspan STL converter for SU. http://www.cadspan.com/ (http://www.cadspan.com/).....then ran the tank through the STL process, and it seemed to work. the image below is what the SU model looks like during the "hole/watertight" check. When the process was done, I was able to download an STL file of the tank to my computer....have no Idea what the file looks like now that it's been converted (as none of my programs can open an STL.......so I won't know how it all works till I send it to PAP at some point.....but thought I would post the experience so far. (I want to print several tanks and other parts at once on a sprue set-up like Chuck.) The only issue so far was during the conversion where the converter kept balking tellin me I had 8050 triangles and to reduce the file size.
MR
Your information is simply enhancing Fred's thread. I have downloaded both programs and, someday, will try to learn them. Fred, Chuck, and you are helping to push the envelope of our hobby. -- Russ
Russ, I agree completely. Marc is really adding to this thread. I've been meaning to get back to this project now that I have several dimensioned drawings thanks to Derrell Poole, but simply haven't found the time to do so. I'm actually planning on experimenting with the Print-A-Part service by sending them two or three different versions of the reefer ladder set-up. I bookmarked CADspan a couple of days ago and will use that as well.
While I was waiting for the reefer data from Derrell, I used SketchUp to do the C&S Forks Creek Station. Here are a few screenshots. An interesting sidebar... I went with a client up to a meeting at Penn State last Friday and showed this to two mechanical engineering professors who are working with us on a major flywheel clean energy storage proposal to ARPA-E . They were impressed that a PR guy could do this!
Thanks Fred..glad you don't mind.
I went back in and re-drew the tanks with 36 segments to the circle rather than the 42 I had, in hope so reducing file size. will be curious to see how/if it affects the final print. Drew another style tank, and 3 tank caps, and started setting them up on a sprue. Still want too ad another couple of small parts...like a light shade, a drain pipe end...maybe a corrugared Barrel, and I deifinitely want to try a pressed metal slepper like the O&K or Gregg ones.
Marc
Cool Fred...now from that you can start pulling/pushing/extruding to create all the various thicknesses and depths of door materials, frames and trim.
Marc
While in the privy this morning I actually had a bit of an epiphany... ;D ;D ;D. Since PAP charges based on a combination of size and resin quantity....and since the parts of something like the tanks that I really need are only the top and bottom....and the tanks I am doing are 9" dia (about .250." inches in 1:35) it would be more cost effective to only print tops and bottoms, and use styrene tube for the rest of the body. This will also allow me to build the different tank heights that are mfg in this dia., as I choose.
MR (sent from BlackBerry..... ;D )
Here's what the revised parts look like. The innermost dia. rod is the sprue connector. (which is also the dia. for the tank top valve area.) the second ring/step is the locator plug/insert that fits into the ID, of the tube. The overall OD. dia, of the part has been left .003 wider than the styrene tube OD., to try to account for any surface clean-up on the printed part, as well as allow it to be sanded flush to the styrene body. (at the moment I am just guessing that these tollerances will work...will have to see when I try assembling it).
MR
Marc, please don't tell us the Blackberry is a privy companion!? Am I missing out on something good? :o
And the CADspan looks interesting, another website to explore.
Thanks for all the work on this.
John
Quote from: JohnP on May 14, 2010, 06:59:43 PM
Marc, please don't tell us the Blackberry is a privy companion!? Am I missing out on something good? :o
John
Only if it's on vibrate...
Paul -->heading back to the corner-->
Oy, Gevult! Are you out of the corner again? -- Russ
Quote from: JohnP on May 14, 2010, 06:59:43 PM
Thanks for all the work on this.
John
It's really Fred's thread, I'm just tagging along and doing the parts I will need. :)
BTW....if it helps, or somewone is curious..... while I am drawing these parts, if anyone has any questions about how a certain part was made/formed or manipulated in SU, please feel free to ask, and if possible I can post short a screenshot SBS, or written explanation.
Marc
I wish there was a "book" for a newbie.
A whole series of Marc's sbs would work though ;D ;D ;D
I find videos and such hard to follow along.
I tried to use it but was overwhelmed, and no one to ask.
A step by step progression; draw a line 1.000" long, then make it into a....., then add a XXX ect.
I found the whole program to much too soon.
What you guys are doing is way too advanced for someone who never used anything like this.
I would really like to explore this, even for just printing out hole locations.
-Marty
I agree fullhearty with Marty.......
The simple basics are handled too fast.
Jacq
Marc -- On that latest drawing, would there be any advantage of rotating each of the caps 90 degrees so the insets are more exposed to the tooling area / path? Curiosity: Is there a particular reason for the L-shaped sprue?
Just a thought/question on aligning those caps .... in essence I'm with Marty and Jacq .... great stuff ... a bit overwhelming.
PS -- Y'all need to change the locks again ... another newbie got in! :P
-- Dallas the dang newbie
No offense or criticism at all inteneded to any of you guys; but I have come to notice that some of the basic/primary issues that many people have getting the hang of a program like CAD or SU, is that they tend to overthink the process and approach.....can't say exactly in what manner, it is just something I have noticed (visualization, progression, fear of making a mistake, and unrealistic or unknown expectations are some)....they seem to loose all concept of how to approach it, and the logical progression.....interestingly I have even seen this happen when trained pencil & paper draftsmen try to convert/change over.....which is really bizarre to me.
I try to tell people that the most important thing is not to think of this as a program/computer or anything that is wild and tricky (yes there is stuff later that can be)....but really approach this almost exactly like one approaches hand drafting with pencil on paper. Pick a defined start/reference point....then lay out your entire drawing from there....working from that point lay out your "overalls", then come in and do your secondaries, tirshiaries. etc. then crop/delete the unecessary crossed or extended lines. This way if there is a problem you always have the base reference piont to go back to and start checking your dimensions if something gets screwy.
SU . works sim.......but because you are working in 3D, and for the type of parts we are tending to do, I find it really critical to have a "center" line either on a surface, or in the center of a round object, that can always be used as the default reference and locator line. [If you look at the last image I posted, you can see where I left these in the drawing, and as part of the component.] The other thing in SU to think about when approaching a project/model it is to think of it a bit in the same manner you would if you were phisically building it, machining it or sculpting it from clay. This will help you think "down-the-line" and to consider what to do next, IE. if I do something what potential issues will it cause three steps from now, and how many steps, or how am I going to approach making this shape/detail.......same thought process as machining or building from real materials.
Marty:
For just doing a template or print-out for doing hole locations on a template, Su is not really the right program....all you really need is a basic 2D CAD or drafting prorgram (note I say CAD or drafting and NOT drawing...drawingis fine and well, but not nearly as accurate or purpose designed as a CAD/drafting program) SU is really intended as a 3D and solid model construction and visualization program...especially so in the free version. (there is a "layout" plugin in the pro version that allows you to create accurately scaled 2D plans/layouts from the model.....but why work in a 3D environment when all one needs is a 2D template/print.
Dallas:
First...welcome to the forum..... ;)
Because the printing process is all done with lasers on an x/y/z axis, and no real tools actually need to get into a space/location, at this point I don't see that there is any benefit to rotating the holes...I easily could...I didn't give it any though at the time, it just happend to be the orientation they were drawn befor being moved over to the sprue.
MR
OK....I think this is going to be the set-up/file that I send to PAP for a test.
It consists of (1) full acet. tank, (3) pairs of parts for Oxy tanks, (4) tank caps, (1) lamp shade, and (3) pressed metal sleepers. (I created thicker/solid areas on the underside of the sleepers, where one would spike down 600mm or 2' gauge track,...were one so inclined.)
The lamp shade and the sleepers give me the most concern, and it will be interesting to see how they turn-out, as these pieces have walls of only .0075" thick (about 0,190mm).
The entire grouping of poarts is about .8" x 1.4"x 1.2"
The conversion to an .STL file with the CadSpan seems to have gone of without any problems......but I won't know untill it gets to PAP, as I hove nothing to view/check it with. ;D.
Marc
Well, I added another small part, converted the file, and uploaded it to PAP, the provided the pricing and I placed the order. So far it seemed to go off without a hitch, and the whole process with PAP was real easy.
They calc'd. out the part as being 1.345 x 1.007 x 1.203 inches, with a volume of 0.152.......which priced out to $32, plus shipping. They also note that the part will ship from them between May 19th and June 2 (longer timeframe is due to me choosing the 'Economy' printing cost).
So now it's just sit and wait. I hope all is well with the file.....seemed to be...but who knows when trying the unknown. ::) ;D..
MR
Will you be using the tank as a master for a casting?
-Mj
Cool! I hope they work out. I think you will find that composite parts will work best for now. Maybe someday the printing will improve (affordably).
Dallas, as Marc stated, there is no conventional tooling path. I have oriented parts any ol which way. I have also done some with holes inside the parts. Pretty neat!
QuoteCool! I hope they work out
Regardless, it will have been a fun experiment, and something I have been wanting to do/learn for a long time now....so really a big thanks to you for blazing the way, and to Fred, for finally motivating me to get off my butt and doing it.
The really great part of this experience, is that if it works, it will transfer over and be wholely applicable to, and useful in, my work.
Chuck:On your parts, what was the thinnest wall thickness and smallest surface detail/relief dimensions that you did?
Marc
Quote from: lab-dad on May 17, 2010, 06:24:50 AM
Will you be using the tank as a master for a casting?
-Mj
No, I really just want to see if I can use them as kit parts to build the tanks. I actually just bought all the resin, mold, and other casting supplies about three months ago, to cast the eventual legs for the TACO project.....but now with the PAP option, depending on the quality, I may just design and draw all the leg parts and have them printed (leaving a .030+ hollow inside them to insert a brass stiffener rod).
I am really curios to see the surface and printing quality of theses parts, and how hard any clean-up/sanding is....from looking at Chuck's it seems minimal.....and even if there is some inevitable texture, it might be perfectly fine for certain types of parts like rusty pressed irin sleepers, or cast iron pieces.
Without yet seeing the printed results, I have been doing a lot of thinking about the process and application and things that this could possibly do, beyond just the actual useable PAP part....even if just the basic non-detailed forms were printed , and small things like rivets, latches, NBW's etc. were added manually later.....things like the aforementioned resin casting master, or as a "positive form" for vaccuum forming styrene, or for making complex assembly or drilling jigs, etc. Not as an end all, or only way to go, but as another tool for those that are less "machinist inclined/capable", or for things that you may need a lot of, and drawing one 3D object and copy/pasting a bunch then printing, would be quicker/easier.
Also once one has developed a library of these parts, it would be easy to modify and adapt them as and when needed. Heck, imagine, you could just contact the person with the parts library and ask them to assemble parts A,B,C., on a sprue, make the STL file, and then send it to you so you could then have them printed yourself.
....anyway...the mind races with possibilities. At the moment the one that I am really the most interested in is the pressed metal sleepers. If these work, I they will be something really unique, and look better than any out there (if there are any other than the solid KB scale ones)...not only that it's then possible to make any of the dozen or so typical sleeper patterns.
Marc
well if you still want one in aluminum I would be happy to turn one, just need the dimensions.......
-Mj
Brian Krueger from the MIG forum dropped me a note this morning with a link to the data-sheet for the printer that PAP aparently uses http://www.3dsystems.com/products/multijet/invisionHR/datasheets.asp (http://www.3dsystems.com/products/multijet/invisionHR/datasheets.asp), it lists the resolution as 656 x 656 x 800 dpi.
It seems that Brian does have opportunity to deal with SW & 3D printing in his real work, so I am hopefull he will participate in the discussion and provide some more info based on his insights and experiences.
Marc
Somewhere in one of the SU threads here one of the members posted some info on the 3D-Printing Technology show coming up in Santa Clara.....I swear I saw the post this am, but now it seems to be gone....anyhow, I wanted to thank him for the offer of sending him a file to be tested there, and was also curious as to his involvement in/with 3D printing technology.
Marc
Spencer sent that info-one message in my thread and also in Hauk's new thread.
The thinnest wall was about .018. The smallest features were probably in the meter insert. Id have to revisit the model to remember the sizes.
Thanks Chuck.
Interestingly I also just got an email from PAP with a FedEx tracking number noting that the part had shipped today....so I should hopefully have it in a few days. Damn good turn-around considering I uploaded the file to them on the 17th....and chose the slowest print method. :o
Marc
Okay... Had some more time to work on the reefer ladders in the last couple of days. I went back and followed Marc's SBS, on making the ladder rungs so as to make sure I understood what he'd done. I will lay up some of these on sprues in the next couple of days and send them off to PAP. As you can see, I've created two variants, one with bolts/nuts holding the bottom step to the uprights. I went ahead and created another variant with just holes clear through so that I can add some miniature hardware if the first variant comes out to coarse. Will give you an additional status report when I've created and checked the STL file.
-- Fred H.
FWIW,
I hate cast on hardware. Usually the hardware is of a different material than what it is attached to anyway so it is a different color/finish/texture/weathers differently. The holes would make adding hardware easy.
-Marty
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3312%2F4615503490_1632b7731e.jpg&hash=8437265792f9fb2d0c5fd6aecd1938473314cb54)
For reference, the series of raised things on either side of the center hole are .005 x .005 x .03 wide. The grommet holes at the outer edges are .015 dia. x .005 high.
The center raised diameter is .235
Those are the smallest features I have tried so far.
And not a bad job on the penny either ;D
Jerry
You may laugh...it could be done!
Quote from: Fred H. on May 19, 2010, 06:29:00 PM
Okay... Had some more time to work on the reefer ladders in the last couple of days. I went back and followed Marc's SBS, on making the ladder rungs so as to make sure I understood what he'd done. I will lay up some of these on sprues in the next couple of days and send them off to PAP. As you can see, I've created two variants, one with bolts/nuts holding the bottom step to the uprights. I went ahead and created another variant with just holes clear through so that I can add some miniature hardware if the first variant comes out to coarse. Will give you an additional status report when I've created and checked the STL file.
-- Fred H.
Fred .. just a minor thing .. when I put several bolts/nuts on something in Sketchup .. I will rotate the individual nuts/bolt heads so the faces aren't all aligned
I was looking though the info on the MakerBot DIY 3D Printer (http://makerbot.com/) and specifically their CupCake CNC (http://wiki.makerbot.com/cupcake) (about $1k). They have a link to using Google Sketchup to create 3D models for fabrication (http://wiki.makerbot.com/google-sketchup). Might be useful for you guys.
Fred,
Those finished drawings look good. Look forward to your printed parts.
Marc
The package from PAP arrived yesterday, so of course I started messing with the parts last night.
I feel the parts are great, they could be better...but that is due to things I did in their creation and not due to PAP.
What I would correct, is the number of segments in the circle, on the shade and the short tank, when creating the part in SU. I was trying to keep the file and number of triangles in the STL file to a reasonable size....so I reduced the number of segments in the circle......next time I would up them by 50%. The segments do show in the final printing, and were easily sanded away on the exterior of the tank, and pretty much on the exterior of the shade (despite it being only .0075 thick)....however the interior of the shade and the interior face/surface of the raised tank rim, presented a much more daunting task, and I was not able to (or gave up) trying to eliminate them completely.
As for the parts themselves:
They were exactly what I drew. I was thrilled with the tollerances and material thicknesses achieved (something one would be unlikely to get in most standard resin castings and injection kit parts, without a lot more work and cost)
Other than the surface texture (see next note), they were sharp and crisp.
As Chuck noted, the surfaces need some sanding, but I felt it was not nuch more than I need to sand/prep some of the typical cast or resin kit parts. I recommend that you wet-sand....it will cut much faster, and keep any dust down.
The resin they use has a slight amount of give/flex to it....which I found really great on the thin parts sich as the lamp shade, the pressed ties, and the welding tank cap, because despite some fat-fingered manhandling during sanding, the parts did not crack, or break as a normal resin or plastic part might.
Deformation on thin parts varried depending on shape and size. The lampshade at .0075" had no deformation, whereas the ties at .0075" did end up having some bend to their overall shape...which is probably easily corrected/bent back....though I left mine the way they were, as this type of deformation regularly occurs on the real thing.
The three images below show the parts right out of the box. The pressed ties must have become detached from the sprue during shipping or handling....no big deal).
Marc
These then are some of the parts after sanding and assembly. To clean, sand, and assemble these parts and get them ready for primer took about 60-90 mins.....about the same amount of time it would take me to prep regular resin or injection molded parts.
The more solid bluish areas in the ties are where the underside was cast as a solid block, to allow for spiking of the rail. On the next go around I would change this and create two versions of ties....one that has no blocking, so that it can be used for clutter, or for piles of stacked rail segments; and a version where the solid block dontinues across the center section, to allow for more varied rack gauge spiking, and some additional ridgidity and gluing surface (for attaching to the sub-roadbed). BTW. The ties are a scale 3-1/2" wide x 1" deep.....direct from the O&K catalog.
OK...here are the parts after a coat of 'Chaos Black' primer.
The shade could still use some sanding inside, because as mentioned earlier, the facets still show a bit....but I think I will leave this shade as is, and just use it as a scrap/junk piece, and print a new one with less facets. The short tank has sanded out nice and smooth, and the tall tank is a lso nice and smooth with good detail clarity. It does have a small sink at the top seam (where the part meets the styrene), and could use some very mnor putty fill (though this might disappear in weathering and chipping without filling).
The bottom two images show the track pieces after primer and a really fast sponged on rust finish with Life-Color paints, and dusted on MIG & Bragdons pigments.
Most satisfactory. I love it when a plan comes together. -- Russ
Alright! I'm glad to see the thinner parts came out OK. So, do you feel like the star child from 2001 with the world at your feet?
QuoteSo, do you feel like the star child from 2001 with the world at your feet?
Funny you should say that.....it really feels like a kid in a candy store with all the possibilities it opens. ;D ;D....All thanks to you!
Interestingly the whole process sounded/appeared far more daunting than it was....it's amazing how easy and simply it all came off. It was also great to get these parts, because once I saw them, I could now really adjust my thinking and approach to how I can use the process in my modeling, and what type of parts it is best used for (primarily in regards to material thickness possibilities, feel of the material, surface quality, drawing resolution and so forth).....without actually trying it and seeing for oneself, there are too many open questions.
MR
This is not really using SU...but I figured it might be of interest because it involves #D modeling and printing.
Over on the MIG forum, there is a fellow named Joppo that is working on sculpting a Figure of a 1930's Swedish policeman using Maya and Mudbox.....then planning on having him printed in 3D in 1/35 and possibly 1/16 scale.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.migproductionsforums.com%2FphpBB3%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D5012%26amp%3Bt%3D1&hash=a47e2b42028632a67a879b33d70342a010ebddb9)
One of his reference photos:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.migproductionsforums.com%2FphpBB3%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D5013&hash=3bc896fb2978dda578ef70f128c085a3998d08d0)
So here we already see the potential expansion of use for 3D printing...from parts and pieces to figures.
Marc
You guys may be interested in a thread on Railroad Line Forums. Theres a fellow using printapart.com to make the deck of his wholestick cane trucks.
Link to thread (http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=29677)
Note: Fixed link
eT,
Your link doesn't seem to work....at least not for me :)
Marc
There was a punctuation error in the embedded link. Try this:
http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=29677
The fellow made printed body to make an HOn30 cane wagon on a Roco HOe chassis ... and apparently done at printapart ... also showing another example of Shay stack most recently.
cheers,
Dallas
Thanks Dallas.
Interesting....on one hand it's really great to see the procees being used and furthered, but on the other a bit dissapointing to see a great opportunity missed....in regards to the fact that if you are already going to use the technology, why not go all the way, and model/print the true prototypes...when using this type of technology it does not take much more time and effort to do so....that's part of what makes it so cool! :)
Marc
Well, in that regard ... it's always something ... if it's not one thing, it's another.
Now, another curiosity thing ... using the version of the technology that builds up the part by depositing material and supporting the work with liquid/other substance ... is it possible to "print" a working hinge with the hinge pin already in place simply by drafting the hinge pin in its place with the desired clearances?
And, from the chronosynclastic infundibulum chamber ... since we're depositing material to build up parts ... how long will it be before the process includes depositing pigments so the part is "printed" with the desired paint color, level of weathering and so forth?
Quote from: Malachi Constant on May 26, 2010, 11:46:03 PM
Well, in that regard ... it's always something ... if it's not one thing, it's another.
Now, another curiosity thing ... using the version of the technology that builds up the part by depositing material and supporting the work with liquid/other substance ... is it possible to "print" a working hinge with the hinge pin already in place simply by drafting the hinge pin in its place with the desired clearances?
And, from the chronosynclastic infundibulum chamber ... since we're depositing material to build up parts ... how long will it be before the process includes depositing pigments so the part is "printed" with the desired paint color, level of weathering and so forth?
I dont really know, but my guess is that you might be able to make a working hinge on some printers.
Regarding colors, there are already machines on the market that can print parts in multiple colors. I dont think the at present will make very convincing weathering jobs, so dont throw avay the airbrush and pigment-bottles just yet.
But the really mindboggeling thing is the research on 3D printers that can print multiple material parts. For instance, a printer that can print layers in conductive, semiconductive and isolating material will one day be able to print things like DCC-decoders, working lightbulbs etc.
So some day you might just be printing parts, but complete, working engines.
-Hovard
Yes you can make "working" parts. Back when I was first exposed to this technology about 10 years ago the vendors loved to show "impossible" things like working parts and especially, hollow parts. I guess the hollow thing was to impress engineers as you can't really make hollow things by traditional ways.
This company was one that had a working hinge, though their system is less applicable to model needs:
http://www.zcorp.com/en/home.aspx
My Dad has a ball bearing assembly, inner race, outer race and balls trapped inside that were printed maybe 15 plus years ago. They roll like gravel, but its still kind of neat! Jay Leno was hawking some system on a U tube video a while back that looked like this is becoming a well refined thing.
Guess what I did last weekend?
HINT:
More photos...
Last of batch...
Doesn't THIS caboose part (sink in C&S 1009) just cry out for this methodology?
Yes (on the sink) ... and looks like you've got a great opportunity to do the "footwork" on your project ... have fun! -- Dallas
Don't think this will print parts to the standard we require at the scale most of work to but its worth keeping an eye on because its under constant development.
http://www.youtube.com/user/adrianbowyer
Looking up RepRap via google gives lots of links to forums, parts suppliers etc. Have not had a chance to cost up the parts but you can get a ready made one for about $1100
Interesting. Version II .. named Mendal, lists the price of all materials at $520. The 'build envelope' is 8" (W) x 8" (D) x 5.5" (H) .. Speed is .92 inch3 per hour solid .. and the resolution is .. Diameter of nozzle 0.020", 0.080" min. feature size, 0.004" positioning accuracy, layer thickness 0.012"
http://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel
Not sure where to post this, but here's something from todays NYT front page. Looks like this technology is growing, spreading and getting cheaper. Now there's even something to "print" a 1/1 scale house using a concrete "ink jet"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html
That is yet another exciting example of where the technology is going. If you can conceive it, you can create it. Just as metallurgy has improved vastly in the past half century, so will the development of synthetic materials such as plastics (resins?). What we must now injection mold we someday may simply print. Fascinating article. -- Russ
But no matter where technology takes us, it will still take the eyes and skills of an artist to bring a model to life.
DaKra Dave need to buy a 3D printer that's all there is to it. Artist and machine master in one. Let's start sending him lottery tickets.
John
In all seriousness, when the price of a high-resolution 3d printer goes below 10K, I'm buying one. It won't be long.
Let's say the price drops to $9500 and you buy one. Do you think you'd be able to earn back the investment in a reasonable time? Or would you consider it a "present" to yourself?
I'm also interested in the speed at which the technology is developing. Is it likely a printer you buy today would be superseded by a higher-res, higher quality model at a lower price within three or four years? That's what happened with laser and inkjet printers.
Either way, I would think that over four or five years the guys on this forum alone would help you recover some of the cost.
Russ
Hey Russ, it would be a business investment with benefits. On something as versatile as that, I have no doubt it would earn its keep. Its really just an issue of the operator getting past the steep part of the learning curve. I guess it would be obsolete by the time its paid off, but I'd have the experience.
There are actually machines currently in the 10k range, but they lack the sharp resolution I'd want. For the model work I have in mind, I'd need one that could at least match injection molded plastic.
Quote from: DaKra on September 16, 2010, 01:51:08 PM
Hey Russ, it would be a business investment with benefits. On something as versatile as that, I have no doubt it would earn its keep. Its really just an issue of the operator getting past the steep part of the learning curve. I guess it would be obsolete by the time its paid off, but I'd have the experience.
There are actually machines currently in the 10k range, but they lack the sharp resolution I'd want. For the model work I have in mind, I'd need one that could at least match injection molded plastic.
The price of the machine is only part of the equation, the build materials are pretty expencive as well.
-Haavard
Comparing two business models would be interesting.
1) Injection molding with huge upfront costs for each model mold, high cost for a machine and with a low cost for materials and time per unit.
2) Fine resolution 3-D printing with a very large upfront cost for a machine, apparently higher material cost, lots more time per unit BUT zero cost for model "mold".
Design cost would be less for the printing because there are far fewer constraints on the number of parts needed for an assembly (no problem with undercuts hence no need for multi-part sliding molds or multiple pieces), plus few sprues to worry about. I bet energy costs are significantly lower for the printer too.
Injection molding would need many units sold or a high price for the return on investment. With printing you could make 10 of something or 1000 and the cost is the same (other than spreading out the design time and marketing costs).
What are we waiting for??
John
Printing time is still a significant and expensive factor. It is very slow and even more so for higher resolution.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/the-rise-of-the-3-d-printers/
More on the evolution of these things.
So...found out something interesting today, thanks to another modeler and mfr.....apparently these pieces were done by PAP as well. These are about 1/56 scale, and as you can see in the images were used as masters for white metal and resin casting. Note the nice clean detail at this scale, and the near lack of any surface texture on the PAP parts...note also it's not the blue resin we have seen so far.
http://www.fortressfigures.com/Fortress_Figures/Archive_4/Pages/Alamo_Guns.html#11 (http://www.fortressfigures.com/Fortress_Figures/Archive_4/Pages/Alamo_Guns.html#11)
Marc
Yes, these are very clean Marc, some texture, but very slight. PAP, or more specifically its parent company, does offer different printing materials, at different prices of course. Given that these parts are clear, I suspect they were printed with one of their other formulas. If you check out the parent site for PAP - Fineline Prototyping (http://www.finelineprototyping.com/), you can see specs on the other materials they use. Downloadable datasheets are available for each material.
Paul
Yeah, I have seen the other stuff and comparison charts....I hope to find out what combination these were.
Marc
Quote from: marc_reusser on November 23, 2010, 09:32:07 PM
So...found out something interesting today, thanks to another modeler and mfr.....apparently these pieces were done by PAP as well. These are about 1/56 scale, and as you can see in the images were used as masters for white metal and resin casting.
I tought 54mm scale was 1/32?
But I still agree that the parts look very good.
Regards, Hauk
Check out their MicroFine Green (under Materials). Says it's custom formulated for their micro-resolution sterolithography progress.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finelineprototyping.com%2Fperch%2Fresources%2F1274196382mfgbrochurecropped.jpg&hash=84d9409d5bee732578ea7666747e96adb4a19230)
What can be done is one thing. What can be done affordably is another. I have heard the green parts are dramatically more expensive.
Hopefully prices will come down in time.
Quote from: marc_reusser on November 23, 2010, 09:32:07 PM
So...found out something interesting today, thanks to another modeler and mfr.....apparently these pieces were done by PAP as well.
Browsing some other galleries, I discovered that he had used this service provide for some other parts:
http://www.moddler.com/ (http://www.moddler.com/)
Would be interesting to know if he printed the cannons there as well!
Regards, Hauk
I was told by a person that knows him well that the cannons were done by PAP.
Marc
I just got a sample from a rapid proto company called "Fastproto" out of Oklahoma The plastic is white almost opaque Min resolution is 0.6mm
(.024 in ) Almost no texture but a bit brittle. they use a system called Polyjet.
Any one have any experience with them?