Lately, I have been spending far too much time using Sketchup at work, and far too less for modelling.
But finally I have made a modest start on the hardware for a Ore car in 0-scale.
Here are some pictures of the prototype (slightly different ones):
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fkisvogn_w.jpg&hash=719680cce96700390cae89329f92754eccda5609)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fkisvogn2.jpg&hash=771685be8153637743ea28838e55d787f2c9e009)
I am not sure how I will model it, I think I will make a resin casting of the body, and an underframe made of brass profiles and custom etched fittings.
But I have also ben contemplating making some brass castings for the body hardware.
Either way, I plan to 3D print a lot of the parts, so I just have to get on with the SU modelling.
Here is the first part:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Foversikt_su.jpg&hash=bcf027f11bb10ec7917e34edd2035e7471865a87)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fdetalj_su.jpg&hash=047dcfa1602572a249ae65483b170c40683a08a8)
It is not a mistake that the bolt has an indent (dimple?) instead of a "bolt" sticking out, the plan is that the casting will be drilled through the bolt so a thin wire can be inserted to connect another part to this one.
One thing I a uncertain about is that some of the hexnuts seems to lack contours. Can this be a source of problem? They are made by drawing a circle with just 6 sides, and then lifted with the "Push/pull" tool.
Maybe not to much to comment on, but any input is most welcome!
Regards, Håvard H
I see that this will allow that part to connect to the .. support bracket? Door arm? Seems if you did the same on the upper hinge then you could make the door operable ... :)
Very neat subject, and nice work so far on the drawings and planning. Nice to see you diving into this. Look forward to your progress and results.
In regards to the bolt/circle issue....just curious why you are using the 'circle' tool for this instead of the 'polygon' tool. I don't know if using the circle tool will make any difference when it is read/converted and surfaced for an STL. as the converters merely read surfaces/facets.....but looking at the one bolt in the last image, it seems to have softened the transition to adj. surfaces....which could be because you used the circle tool rather than the poly (being that the circle overridingly is meant to transition from plane to plane, whereas a poly isn't.)...during the STL conversion this will usually be recalculated as a straight facet transition....but I am thinking of an off chance where this could really increase your STL file size, because deep down it is still registering these as more complex circles rather than simple-plane poly's.
....just a wild-ass bunch of assumptions on my part. ;D
Marc
Quote from: eTraxx on June 30, 2010, 01:58:32 PM
I see that this will allow that part to connect to the .. support bracket? Door arm? Seems if you did the same on the upper hinge then you could make the door operable ... :)
A valid point. If I am going to make this part in brass, I would do that. In resin, I think the connection will be far too fragile.
But I wonder if it is possible to cast such a long, thin part in brass. It is just 0,3mm thick.
If I cast this part in brass, It will be as hardware for a body made of stripwood. I would then make some of the bolts with "dimples", so that I can drill through them and pin the part to the wooden body with thin brass wire.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Foversikt2_SU.jpg&hash=3f2476fbc2a35ad045b5cf6f85f84d08f39f1f20)
Regards, Håvard H
Quote from: marc_reusser on June 30, 2010, 02:10:16 PM
In regards to the bolt/circle issue....just curious why you are using the 'circle' tool for this instead of the 'polygon' tool.
Marc
Another good point! I have no idea why I havent discovered the polygon tool. I felt quite clever using the circle tool...
And thanks for the input. Where else than on this forum do you get constructive comments just *minutes* after posting?
This place is just the best.
Regards, Håvard H
Here is a similar car I designed some years ago. An engineer went over it to ensure it would hold together but a fellow modeler noticed the hinge design might foul. I had planned to make styrene masters and cast resin parts. Those were the days before stereo lithography and laser cutters. -- Russ
Some progress. The body is almost finished:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2FSU_vognkasse.jpg&hash=aff96b916538b175b953659a98e8ab8abe84ecdb)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2FSU_vognkasse_detalj.jpg&hash=5c26b3f1960b6ab9d808fff0aed3052b1417b32d)
The assembly is for the photo, I will print the sides flat as individual parts. Then I will get away with two masters only 2,5mm high.
But I really wonder how they will turn out in print. For instance, will the grooves between the boards show? Or become too prominent?
I am also wondering if i should make triangular or square grooves. I have tried 0,1mm X 0,1 mm square grooves and triangular grooves with 0,3 mm sides. Input is welcome!
-Håvard
Hauk,
Looking great.
The grooves will show when printed. By no means in any form am I an expert, Chuck could probably offer more input, but FWIW, here are few thoughts based on my very limited experience so far:
If you print the surfaces flat (the grooved exterior side facing upwards) you should have much less large syrface clean-up than if you print the sides vertical. (I noticed on my prints that the top and bottom surfaces had less printing texture...at times even completelu smooth.) this means you would possibly have to do stack the sides, with sprue posts between them supporting the pieces...these small spots would need to be cleaned-up/sanded in the end. By stacing the sides, you also reduce the printing footprint, thus redicing cost (since part of charge/cost is the sq. area your printed item occupies.
Re. the grooves....Either one will show.....you just need to conseder which shape will be easier to do a crisp sanding clean-up in, without rounding over the corners/edges....personally I would probably choose the 'V', and then make a shaped piece/sanding-block to fit the sandpaper overso that it fits neatly in the groove (this piece could be printed with PAP as well ;D ).
I am a bit concerned that the bolts will be too much detail and to small to get a good cleanup on (not to mention the time and effort needed to do so)...because crooked or oversanding would really show on this type of detail.....I would probably go the route Chuck did with some of his small details, and do dimples..or just complete holes (depending on how you like to install NBW's) at those locations and then use styrene NBW's from Grandt or Tichy...or whomever you prefer.
...anyhow...just some thoughts.
Whatever way you go, it will be a great learning experience for us all. Thanks for doing this.
Marc
Thanks for the feedback, Marc!
I have not decided yet where to print the parts, but it is possible that the parts will be printed on a Solidscape printer.
I hope that with the resolution of the Solidscape printer, no cleanup will be neccesary. If cleanup is needed, I agree that it will be virtually imposible to clean up all the bolt detail.
A friend of mine runs a small model company, and he places order for batch runs on a Soildscape printer every now and then. I guess one side and one end will be around USD 100 if I can join him on one of those runs.
But wax parts are really more suited for a lost wax casting production chain, and not a resin route as I am leaning towards. But I have heard that some people have made RTV silicone masters from wax parts, anyone here with experience on that?
My friend never actually sees his wax parts by the way, he gets his wax parts made by a jeweller, and he delivers masters in metal. For convinience, he often does the masters in pure silver!
But I am not sure if US 100 will cover the metal masters as well. You could of course make RTV moulds from metal masters. With metal masters it would be easier to assemble a complete body before making the mould, but then you would of course need to print two sets of ends and sides, as you can make only one metal part from each of the wax prints.
I am also seriously considering casting all the parts in brass. It is possible that this will be cheaper than casting 50 bodies in resin. You would then have to solder up each body from 6 brass parts, but with some clever wooden jigs I think that will be pretty straight forward. Two things to consider though; weight of the finished car, and will the sides and ends be flat enough when casted in brass?
Two sum up:
1. My 3D parts will be used as masters.
2. The 3D parts should need no cleanup
3. From the masters, I need castings for at least 50 bodies.
4. The finished parts will be cast in brass or resin.
5. Resin bodies could be cast as one piece.
6.Cast in brass the bodies will be assembled from 6 parts (sides, ends and bottoms).
7. With brass part, working side doors is a possibillity, but it will require a separate print (and part) for the door.
7. Cost is really not that important, as this is a project that will span several years, and some of the cost could be covered by selling a few finished cars.
Lots of things to consider, but to me all this tinkering is half the fun!
Please keep the comments coming!
Regards, Håvard
OK, after some tweaking and colorful language, som .stl files have been made:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fside_stl.jpg&hash=ef63249ab98cc6e44f33941cad70dbcfdd294575)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fende_stl.jpg&hash=96bbadb018a8204223b9e241dc8445b22ce0ef9f)
If anyone would like to take a look at the .stl files, they can be downloaded here:
http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Ende_test.stl (http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Ende_test.stl)
http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Side_test.stl (http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Side_test.stl)
If somebody has comments on the integrety of thos files, cry out!
I made them by exporting .dwg files from SU, and Importing them in Vectorworks, and exportin from VW as .stl.
It would make more sense to export directly from SU to .stl, but my SU .stl xport plugins aint wotking for some reason. So I use what I have available.
Uploaded tem to Print-A-part to get a price just for the heck of it, do not really think I will use PAP.
Got a quote for the side at $20 (63mmX31mmX2,5mm), and $18 or the end (51mmX31mmX2,2mm)
-Håvard
Just to take things a bit further, I uploaded one of my parts to PAP and ordered a print as a test.
It seems PAP accepted the part, but when I checked the file with Mini Magics, it seems that it is seriously flawed with multiple bad edges and reversed faces.
Can PAP stilll use the file? And those of you that has tested PAP, did you test the files prior to uploading?
Regards, Håvard
Quote from: Hauk on July 02, 2010, 08:07:34 AM
http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Ende_test.stl (http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Ende_test.stl)
http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Side_test.stl (http://www.folk-rovere.org/mj/bilder/Side_test.stl)
If somebody has comments on the integrety of thos files, cry out!
I imported them into Solidworks are the files didn't show any errors.
What width have you used on the board gaps? I have all my parts printed on a Solidscape machine and have tried some V shaped fine grooves 0.15mm wide - these didn't reproduce well. A square bottom groove works better.
d
Quote from: Hauk on July 05, 2010, 07:44:24 AM
Just to take things a bit further, I uploaded one of my parts to PAP and ordered a print as a test.
It seems PAP accepted the part, but when I checked the file with Mini Magics, it seems that it is seriously flawed with multiple bad edges and reversed faces.
Can PAP stilll use the file? And those of you that has tested PAP, did you test the files prior to uploading?
Regards, Håvard
Havard,
If PAP accepts it after their "check", then they should be printable without any problems. You will note on the PAP check page that there is something called "gap fill setting" or some such thing (not looking at the page at the moment)....maybe their use of this is what helps the part not show problems.
If you have reversed faces, some check programs will potentially read them as holes (don't ask me why..I havent a clue)
RE. orienting the part faces in SU......if you select the entire component (or all the parts by dragging across), then right click, you will see a command "Orient Faces"....this should orient all the faces in the same direction...now that may be all inside or all outside...depending on how the program handles it.....if they all oriented to the "interior face" (darker color showing, then, before deselecting the items, right click again, and select "reverse faces" this will reverse all the previously oriented faces so that the other side shows.
HTH.
Marc
Quote from: davej on July 06, 2010, 11:43:01 PM
I imported them into Solidworks are the files didn't show any errors.
What width have you used on the board gaps? I have all my parts printed on a Solidscape machine and have tried some V shaped fine grooves 0.15mm wide - these didn't reproduce well. A square bottom groove works better.
Thanks a lot for checking the files!
I was a bit worried as I got error messages in MiniMagics an MeshLab.
As for the grooves, The v-shaped ones are 0,3 mm deep and wide. I also have some square grooves that are 0,1 by 0,1.
Guess I have to wait for the PAP test part for the final verdict.
-Håvard
Just got word from PAP that my test part printed without problems.
I was a bit worried as I got error messages in MiniMagics and MeshLab. Speaking of MiniMagics, have anybody managed to get a part other than the most basic shape to validiate as error free in this software? Whatever I do, I get error messages in that program. Also on the file that PAP and others found no fault with.
Regards, Havard
Havard. I ran into problems with that myself .. but figure it's something I did. I just lathed a simple spoke to test the program with this simple shape.
Wanting to create this
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FModelTSpoke_s.png&hash=f188e8f67a6924a2be2859a2d748b477f36a9235)
So the first step is to lathe the thing. I exported the .stl file and loaded into MiniMagics and it found no problems.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FSpokeTest.png&hash=4735c1414e6fdf412fe68ee43c14f7206ca5e7d2)
The next step is what I am curious to see .. if I slice the sides off and wedge the object like the spoke .. will I still get errors? Donno yet.
Well .. darn. Intersected a couple of planes in the lathed object, deleted out the bits I didn't want .. and got errors when I imported the .STL file into MiniMagics.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FSpokeTest2.png&hash=6b871b792d629d4d7e5d138cdd00c598ac6dff36)
Quote from: eTraxx on July 09, 2010, 08:59:23 AM
Well .. darn. Intersected a couple of planes in the lathed object, deleted out the bits I didn't want .. and got errors when I imported the .STL file into MiniMagics.
It seems that MiniMagics is a tad too sensitive.
The real test is if the service provider can use your file. It does not matter if MM gives errors if PAP or whoever can print it.
Regards, Håvard H
Yeah. I've about come to the conclusion that Sketchup just isn't working at the level I need. Full scale .. no problem but I had to simplify the wheel I was playing with to get it to scale to 1:48 .. it gets really confused with any small curves. I ran this through the MiniMagics program and it tells me that I have a bunch of errors. They tell you to goto their website to download a trial version of software that can repair errors .. but .. I swear. I have never thought myself dumb .. but I feel really stupid on that website. Oh well. I made a pretty picture at least! :)
Why are you guys using MM, when you can just use CAD-SPAN??? ??? ::) http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview (http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview).....it even has a toolbar to integrate it right into SU? So far none of the models I have run through CAD-SPAN have shown any errors or problems. CAD-SPAN will even re-wrap everyting, in case you have touching individual non-combined componets, and output them as a single component in the .STL file.
MR
Quote from: marc_reusser on July 10, 2010, 12:29:15 AM
Why are you guys using MM, when you can just use CAD-SPAN??? ??? ::) http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview (http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview).....it even has a toolbar to integrate it right into SU? So far none of the models I have run through CAD-SPAN have shown any errors or problems. CAD-SPAN will even re-wrap everyting, in case you have touching individual non-combined componets, and output them as a single component in the .STL file.
I am using Cad-span, I use MM just for looking over the finished .stl parts. I do get some odd results even when using CS, sometimes it works better just to use SU2stl, a free ruby script for SU.
Since I have not really decided where to print my parts, it is really a somewhat wild chase.
I have found a service provider in Korea, it makes sence to print the parts in Korea if they are going to be cast in brass there.
Sending the parts by messenger should be safer than shipping them half around the globe by mail. Could save some on customs, as well, not to mention time.
Regards, Håvard
Quote from: marc_reusser on July 10, 2010, 12:29:15 AM
Why are you guys using MM, when you can just use CAD-SPAN??? ??? ::) http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview (http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview).....it even has a toolbar to integrate it right into SU? So far none of the models I have run through CAD-SPAN have shown any errors or problems. CAD-SPAN will even re-wrap everyting, in case you have touching individual non-combined componets, and output them as a single component in the .STL file.
MR
Marc, thanks. My answer is .. I wasn't aware of the CAD-Span plugin. I downloaded and installed it so that part is fine. Currently, I'm playing with a plug-in that scales .stl files. Since you can only use it 10 times or for 10 days I have to be careful not to waste the trial. With all the problems I had with trying to scale down anything with curves to 1:48 I thinking that 'if' I can scale the full-size .stl then I should be able to by-pass that.
A little update on the design.
All the parts have been carefully redrawn to minimize trouble and errors in the stl files. Circles are now drawn with 24 facets rather than 96. It seems to pay off, far fewer crashes and much more easy to downscale the final models.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fcomplete.jpg&hash=c263fd18d8c491eb5f7db1ff70d3672bb097abcf)
I draw at a 10 times enrlagement, since SU starts to act weird when the faces gets really tiny. I think this is the most important lesson learned from this excercise.
SU on the Mac is one of the most unstable programs I run on my mac, and I find this quite disappointing. I will look more into VectorWorks (I have this at Work) to see if I can get a smoother workflow with that software.
At the moment I would very much like to know the volume of the parts, since I am really unsure if the car will have a brass or resin body. I would very much like to know what the weight of the body will be. I have made some rough calculations, and my estimates come out at around 100-150 gr. Anyone with opinions on how much a narrow gauge freightcar in 0 scale should weigh? There is a plugin available for SU that calculates the volume of models, but all I get is crashes... Dave, you looked over some earler versions in Solidworks, does SW calculate the volume of parts?
Some notes on the design. As someone noted, in brass it should be possible to make working hinges. I plan to go for this, so I have designed the parts so that the hinges will be drilled out, and 0,4 mm brass rod inserted. How wellthis will work remains to be seen!
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fhinge.jpg&hash=0a0b614dd6360baae1611623d437105a04d53884)
Regards, Håvard H
The MiniMagics page shows the volume under Properties
Quote from: eTraxx on July 13, 2010, 10:15:20 AM
The MiniMagics page shows the volume under Properties
Thanks!
-Haavard
This has been a wonderful thread and I can't wait to see the final result. Even so, the lessons we learn with each post are invaluable. -- Russ
When you process it through PAP for a price quote, it also gives you resin/material volume.
MR
Ha. I have to massively reduce the number of triangle in my wheel. Seems that 28K is a bit much. Snicker.
Quote from: marc_reusser on July 13, 2010, 01:47:20 PM
When you process it through PAP for a price quote, it also gives you resin/material volume.
Thanks!
I checked, and PAP gives a precise figur for the volume.
The body clocks in at right over 100gr (3,5 oz.). Since 0m gauge is about the same as S scale standard gauge in actual gauge and volume, I looked up the NMRA RP for car weight.
The NMRA suggests that my car should weigh 3,5 oz in total, so a brass body will probably make the car a bit too heavy.
But it would be fairly easy to trim some fat by making the floor in resin. The floor need detail only on one side, and has no bolt detail. I think it would work well to print these at PAP, and make my own resin parts. This brings the body down to 70 gr, and the wheels and underframe will probably bring the weight back up to around 100gr.
I might have mentioned that I have found a Solidscape service provider in Korea, and I got a quote for exactly USD 100 for 3 wax masters. I put them in touch with caster, (MKTrading, formerly Korean Brass) and I am awaiting a quote for a batch of parts for 50 wagons.
But I am still agonizing over doing the body as a brass/resin project or just a resin one. Decisions, decisions...
Regards, Håvard
I have now received prints both from Print-a-part and Korean Brass. The PAP part is the usual blue plastic. The brass sample is made from a wax print made on a Solidscape machine.
To sum up things:
The PAP part is utterly useless.
The brass pattern is promesing.
First, I do not blame either PAP or Korean Brass for the mixed results. I tend to push thing as far as possible, and always try to challenge the limits of the technology applied.
The poor result on the PAP sample is possible due both to faults in the geometry on my .stl file, and that the features of the parts are actually too small/fine to be printed on a machine with the resolution of the PAP machine.
But I still find the difference in surface quality puzzeling, some areas of the parts are really fuzzy compared to others. Anyhow, my conclusion is that PAP is not really suited for the quality I want.
The brass part is another matter. To the bare eye, it looks really good. It has a somewhat rough look that suits the subject rather well. The lines between the boards is a bit uneven. But look at the prototype photos, the boards do not have very distinct lines between them. They are not grooved in any way. It is tongue and groove boards, and the lines between the boards are probably due to the shrinkage of the wood.
But if you want to sure of consistent lines in the masters, you should use grooves at least 0,3mm wide.
The general sharpness could be better, and I really wonder if the final LW castings will be even softer. If so, the results will probably not be satisfactory.
A big problem with the brass master is that I have not seen the wax pattern. So I can not be sure if it is the brass casting process or the Solidscape wax printer.
So all in all, I almost have more questions than answers after receiving the parts. To be continued!
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fpp_02_w.jpg&hash=894d0ab27a5e04f5a787c6a67f6c791bd627a6bd)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fpp_03_w.jpg&hash=cff8bc29414c09045428b566c86d828988fe32d1)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fpp_01_w.jpg&hash=28c061162c9e9197c5893528fb00a4adeb7b5d8b)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fmessing_00_w.jpg&hash=2577791d9f80516ff5d5a795414a8c906995ef36)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fmessing_01_w.jpg&hash=46ffd3d893d2122e36ce3a5d73211065077a967a)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fmessing_02_w.jpg&hash=3e85df114d06f16578539b36ed423f68da802cab)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fmessing_03_w.jpg&hash=75df1f276449f826aaf9cba0bd5a6d3f8459929b)
Each seems to have its good and bad qualities. In both cases, though, the resolution seems too low and it might take as long to clean up the parts as to have made styrene masters and cast them in resin! How about the company that does jewelry quality printing where the guy came onto the forum and posted photos? Too expensive? Still too rough? -- Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on August 09, 2010, 01:13:03 PM
Each seems to have its good and bad qualities. In both cases, though, the resolution seems too low and it might take as long to clean up the parts as to have made styrene masters and cast them in resin! How about the company that does jewelry quality printing where the guy came onto the forum and posted photos? Too expensive? Still too rough? -- Russ
It seems to me that I might just bite the bullet and get my masters printed by a service provider that uses the Viper printer from 3D systems.
Like RJM (http://www.rjmrp.com/main/) that you are refering to.
The quality seems good enough, but a you suggest, quite expencive.
Have to think this through very thoroughly, a different approach might be just to print a few key hardware parts in brass or resin and use regular wood or styrene for the body.
-Håvard
I have a quote in at Fineline prototyping for the green Viper material. They don't do automated quoting. Still standing by....
Hauk I'm interested in the brass process. Your parts look pretty good in the photos though there are some surface issues as you poinu out. For my Heywood Brake Van project there are several metal components (journal boxes, couplers, truss rod braces, etc.) that I'd like to have produced from my CAD drawings, but the PAP solution won't work as the plastic wouldn't be robust enough for the finished components. I'm not planning on a big production run, so I'm not concerned about producing masters for a casting run, but would like to just have some metal parts "printed" for a couple of vans. May not be cost effective though and it may be worth having quantities cast as a modest income opportunity. As you can tell, I haven't given this a great deal of thought up to this point, been preoccupied with other issues, but it's something I'm going to have to deal with shortly.
Paul
Hauk,
Very interesting to see these results. Thanks for going through the effort to produce them.
One thing I am thinking when looking at the PAP piece. From the looks if it, I am assuming that it was printed vertical (IE, the side was staning upright in the drawing and thus the printer). I nooticed on the test pieces that I did, that the vertical surfaces had more texture than horizontal top and bottom surfaces. If my assumption on yuor set-up is correct, then you should be able to get far better and smoother results if your pieces were laid flat....that way all the horizontal surfaces of the straps, board faces, and bolt faces should be pretty smooth. Yes, you would still have texture on the small edges of the boards, in the grooves, and on the sdes of the bolts, and straps, but these areas should be far less noticeable and easier/less area to clean-up.
I may be all wrong in my assumption.....and it's only based on my limited experience/results.
Marc
Quote from: Chuck Doan on August 09, 2010, 04:17:40 PM
I have a quote in at Fineline prototyping for the green Viper material. They don't do automated quoting. Still standing by....
Check the link to a thread on 3D printing on a British forum. Towards the end of the page you will find an image of a very attractive green part printed by Fineline.
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/8147-3d-printing-class-25-parts/page__st__50 (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/8147-3d-printing-class-25-parts/page__st__50)
By the way, £ 112 is around US$ 177,-...
Regards, Haavard
I have just had a quote from the UK agent for a part 10x8x8mm using the 'green' Fineline process - it was GBP 226.03. Ridiculous.
I would luv to have my stuff done in that green goo, but it sounds like it requires too much green for now. Unless Unc's cats can help me out. Anyway, sanding is good exercise, right?
I ordered all my gas pump parts from Printa Part for 75 bucks which included some expediting. Should be in by Friday.
Havard,
Great thread on RP and the green stuff....it looks beautiful, but as Chuck said...ouch!....especially for just one-off pieces. Would hate to screw up painting a $200 1/35 scale welding tank or lamp shade. ;) ;D
Hopefully cost will become more accessible in the next couple of years.
MR
Do you suppose they charge so much because it takes more time to render a piece to that resolution, because they paid through the nose for hardware, or simply because they can? The cost really seems outrageous. -- Russ
Probably a combination of all three. I am sure time is a key factor as they are printing in 0.025mm layers.
Quote from: Chuck Doan on August 10, 2010, 02:53:00 PM
I would luv to have my stuff done in that green goo, but it sounds like it requires too much green for now. Unless Unc's cats can help me out. Anyway, sanding is good exercise, right?
I ordered all my gas pump parts from Printa Part for 75 bucks which included some expediting. Should be in by Friday.
Since Fineline Prototyping is the owner of PAP, maybe it is part of their business plan to steer the hobbyist towards PAP by charging so much for the high resolution stuff that only proffesional customers will be interested.
Have anyone gotten quotes both from Fineline Prototyping and RJMRP (http://www.rjmrp.com/main/ (http://www.rjmrp.com/main/)) for the same parts? They both us the same type of printers, 3D Systems Vipers.
-Håvard H
Quote from: Roughboy on August 09, 2010, 08:58:07 PM
Hauk I'm interested in the brass process. Your parts look pretty good in the photos though there are some surface issues as you poinu out. For my Heywood Brake Van project there are several metal components (journal boxes, couplers, truss rod braces, etc.) that I'd like to have produced from my CAD drawings, but the PAP solution won't work as the plastic wouldn't be robust enough for the finished components. I'm not planning on a big production run, so I'm not concerned about producing masters for a casting run, but would like to just have some metal parts "printed" for a couple of vans. May not be cost effective though and it may be worth having quantities cast as a modest income opportunity. As you can tell, I haven't given this a great deal of thought up to this point, been preoccupied with other issues, but it's something I'm going to have to deal with shortly.
Paul
I think you in fact could use PAP for brass parts. On their website they claim that their parts can be burnt out, a neccesity for the lost wax casting process. As you probably know, the LW-casting process usually goes something like this:
1. Make a master in a stable material, preferably metal.
2. Make a rubber mould from the master
3. Cast a wax part in the rubbermould Casters usually make several wax patterns and assemble them into a casting "three".
4. Cover the wax part (or an PAP-part) with plaster.
5. Burn out the wax part in a special oven.
6. Fill the void in plaster with molten brass.
7. Smash the plaster
8.Go back to step 3 and repeat as many times as neccesary.
With a PAP part you start at point 4. If you need more than one part, you use the first brass as a master for a rubber mould and restart the process.
Remember that you have to take shrinkage into account two times if you use your brass part as a master.
From master to brass part you will have shrinkage of around 3%.
If you just want a single brass part, why not contact a local jeweller and ask if he can convert a PAP part into brass or another suitable metal?
-Haavard
Another testpart has arrived from PAP, and it looks far better than the last one.
I think this is both due both to better control over the geometry of the SU part, and to Marc´s suggestion that I should make sure that PAP printed the part flat.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2FPAP_test2_3.jpg&hash=e0250bcdea4da476784e571153cd5cb329d83f83)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2FPAP_test2_2.jpg&hash=549954f9a129a8c81a996bb19b09d30da3f63e73)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fpap_2test.jpg&hash=133b7d4e304d5e6da49586e2388d0696abd302b1)
In the extreme closeups it is easy to see that the part is by no means perfect, but I am planning to run a string of these cars on a layout some day, and without magnifying glasses I feel the quality might be good enough.
And the hassle-free dealings with PAP is a great bonus!
-Haavard
My dealings with PAP were very easy also. I am planning on trying a few more items. I would like to see how rivets look both horizontally and vertically in 1:48.
If you look closely at my castings from the Phoenix bridge column, the striations are a bit visible in areas I couldn't sand or scrape. But they will be lost in the final product. So I am accepting of the results and value. Like Haarvard, you make your choices.
The green high-res part on the above forum is beautiful. Sure I would love to have everything mastered with that machine. But I am wondering how the bloke with the loco cabs is ever going to smooth them out.
John
This suggestion may go contrary to the underlying reason for using rapid prototyping but maybe you should leave off the rivets and possibly the hinges if you try another test. As I study your photos, I see little ridges on every flat surface. You will need to sand them off both the boards and the steel strapping. But the rivets will create a big problem if you sand the strapping. Moreover I have no idea how you would adequately clean up the hinges or any other fine detail.
I guess the problem is that the resolution is not good enough to withstand a close look, especially the nut/bolt renderings and the hinges. At this point, were it my own model, I either would abandon rapid prototyping as too crude or I would pay a fortune for a higher resolution output.
Years ago I started work on a styrene pattern for an ore car with very similar hardware and planned to do resin castings. In the long run, that might provide more satisfactory results given your level of skill.
Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on August 27, 2010, 01:14:27 AM
I guess the problem is that the resolution is not good enough to withstand a close look, especially the nut/bolt renderings and the hinges. At this point, were it my own model, I either would abandon rapid prototyping as too crude or I would pay a fortune for a higher resolution output.
I have played around with the online qouting software now used by FineLines, and it seems that the price is significantly reduced if you order several parts (different .stl files). My wagon consists of 4 different parts of around the same type, and this bring the price down from $133 to around $61 pr. part. another *identical* part will cost $18
If more people get together and order 10 similiar parts the price drops to around $52.
All this is based on the part shown above, and take into account that I might have overseen somethng that can influence the price. Go check for yourself, the app is fun to play with!
Still expencive, but close to worth considering...
I'll have to give it a look. When I was there last they would only quote the Micro res parts via a review (they never did get back to me)
When creating 3D drawings for printing, you mentioned that Marc suggested you have PAP print the part flat. My question is, if you orient the part on the XY plane of your drawing screen, and build it up or out along the Z-axis, is it safe to assume the PAP will orient and build the part this way as well?
Donnell
Quote from: Hauk on August 26, 2010, 01:15:15 PM
Another testpart has arrived from PAP, and it looks far better than the last one.
I think this is both due both to better control over the geometry of the SU part, and to Marc´s suggestion that I should make sure that PAP printed the part flat.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2FPAP_test2_3.jpg&hash=e0250bcdea4da476784e571153cd5cb329d83f83)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2FPAP_test2_2.jpg&hash=549954f9a129a8c81a996bb19b09d30da3f63e73)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fpap_2test.jpg&hash=133b7d4e304d5e6da49586e2388d0696abd302b1)
In the extreme closeups it is easy to see that the part is by no means perfect, but I am planning to run a string of these cars on a layout some day, and without magnifying glasses I feel the quality might be good enough.
And the hassle-free dealings with PAP is a great bonus!
-Haavard
Marc is right, it would be a pain to smooth surfaces with rivet or NBW details PAP'd in.
Now, one could also create a center dimple or even a hole where the parts go. Then commercial details would be added and come out aligned properly.
John
Quote from: sd80mac on October 07, 2010, 02:08:22 PM
When creating 3D drawings for printing, you mentioned that Marc suggested you have PAP print the part flat. My question is, if you orient the part on the XY plane of your drawing screen, and build it up or out along the Z-axis, is it safe to assume the PAP will orient and build the part this way as well?
Donnell
Yes, that is correct. And it is best to raise the part slightly, ca. .050" above the x-y plane to prevent resolution problems with the underside. PAP will fill that gap and any other voids between parts with their wax support material.
Paul
Hauk,
Can you tell us about the process of getting the brass part made? Dealing with the company, costs, timing, etc...
I googled Korean Brass and one of the first hits was your web site!
Paul
Quote from: SandiaPaul on October 08, 2010, 05:10:30 AM
Hauk,
Can you tell us about the process of getting the brass part made? Dealing with the company, costs, timing, etc...
I googled Korean Brass and one of the first hits was your web site!
Paul
I can, and I will tell about the process, but I need to go through all the correspondance etc. first, and this will take some time. All I can say at the moment is that I have put brass casting on hold, and I am focusing at the printapart route at the time.
Regards, Haavard
During all this testing my priorities have shiftet somewhat, and I am now focusing more on getting a string of these ore cars into operation.
So some compromises must be made. After priming the latest PAP-part (pictures will follow) I feel the quality is good enough for a train of say, 10 cars.
This also made me think about casting cost vs. printing cost. If I order parts for 10 car at the same time, the PAP parts will cost USD 315,-
But how much should one expect to spend on materials for making moulds and casting 40 bubble-free resin parts from two masters like the PAP part shown earlier in this thread?
(sizes are 63mm X 32mm X 2,7mm and 52mm X 32mm X 2,7mm)
Could anyone give a ballpark estimate? It have to be taken into account that I have have no access to a vaccum chamber or a pressure pot. So the reject rate would be somewhat high, I fear.
Regards, Haavard
Quote from: Hauk on October 21, 2010, 02:55:31 AM
<snip>
Could anyone give a ballpark estimate? It have to be taken into account that I have have no access to a vaccum chamber or a pressure pot. So the reject rate would be somewhat high, I fear.
Regards, Haavard
Haavard. I should think that if Dallas turns back up he should be the one to answer that ..
Hi Haavard
The casting costs depend in part on materials used. I use smooth-on for all my resin and rubber. A gallon kit which goes a long way is around 100-125.00 - the resin is cheaper and again it depends on the resin used. I use a resin called Task by Smooth-on that is very strong and can be machined really well. For bubble free castings I do all my under pressure. (pressure pot) at 50psi until cured. I also use a vacuum chamber to vacuum the rubber. This is a must if you pressure cast. I like the route of casting myself - I get 1-2 masters printed in 3D then make molds as needed. The rubber I use varies depending if I cam casting in metal or resin. My resin molds will do hundreds of impressions before any sign of wear, the metal molds will break down after about 50 castings if there is a lot of small parts or details.
I don't mean to make it sound difficult as it is a simple process, however making perfect castings is an art that takes a bit of practice.
Here is a simple pdf I put together on casting a few years back.
http://www.78ths.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=3 (http://www.78ths.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=3)
cheers Ferd
Haavard --
You certainly should be able to cast all the desired parts for less than the cost of having them all printed ... HOWEVER ... that would then mean that your "new hobby" becomes learning how to make satisfactory resin castings, at least for a while!
Quote from: Hauk on July 01, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
But I really wonder how they will turn out in print. For instance, will the grooves between the boards show? Or become too prominent?
I am also wondering if i should make triangular or square grooves. I have tried 0,1mm X 0,1 mm square grooves and triangular grooves with 0,3 mm sides. Input is welcome!
-Håvard
Early on, you made this comment. Before you decide to print or cast the parts for ALL of the desired cars, it might be wise to assemble and finish one car to make sure:
(a) all the parts fit together as desired
(b) the assembled car has the desired appearance
(c) the desired finishes can be achieved with the intended materials
But, considering the project as a whole, I'd have to say that I'd lean strongly to using the CAD/printing aspect of the project to produce the HARDWARE and assemble the wood components in a home-made jig. I think that this would produce the
least expensive ... AND ... most realistic appearance. By doing this, you would have the precision of the CAD/printing to insure that the hardware is consistent, but you would gain the "modeler's edge" in terms of finish by being able to apply board-by-board weathering techniques, distressing, coloring, etc.
I think Chuck or one of the other PAP users indicated that the PAP pieces were a bit brittle. I think this would be a
serious concern for your project. The most delicate parts of your pieces are the hinge bits ... and as those are intended to be functional, they would be subject to the greatest stress and the highest likelihood of breakage.
So, it seems like it might be wise to use a printing process to produce waxes as you described earlier and have all the hardware cast in brass ... or use one of the printing services that uses metals.
That's my 2 cents worth ... but it's only 8 am, and I'm not really a morning person! ;D
Cheers,
Dallas
Why don't you just make brass masters of the hinged strapping, with nuts and washers and get someone to cast them in a good whitemetal or a lost wax brass, then fix them to the wooden sides. Cut out all this computer nonsense completely and make you more fulfilled as a model hobbyist. Which I thought was the original idea.
Martin
After reading all the above, and as much as I love the potential of 3-D printing, Martin's suggestion seems to make good sense.
Here is why: You may recall I was concerned the texture of the Printapart "metal" straps was too coarse and would be very difficult to clean up for a master, let alone a series of cars; it would take about the same amount of time to produce a single brass (or styrene) master of that piece as to clean one. Also, the straps and hinges need strength and metal is the best material to provide that. Finally, individual wood boards will look far better than cast resin.
Back at the start of this thread I think I mentioned building styrene patterns for a similar car a decade ago, long before 3-D printing was a viable choice, and the plan was to cast the parts in resin. But even then I had serious misgivings about using resin in place of wood because, in my experience, it takes as long to get a satisfactory weathered wood appearance from resin as it does to build the whole damned thing from pre-weathered wood in the first place! And, at least in scales above 1:48, wood always looks better.
I guess, no matter what technology is available, we always come back to using the best material for the job.
Russ
Jeepers Haarvard- Russ and Martin would have you cut your own trees and carve scale lumber from that! ;) But those are the choices in the hobby; it should always be about satisfying whatever modeling craving you have at the moment.
But if you do decide to cast just to learn a new technique and make 10 - 20 - 50 or more cars for yourself, friends, Christmas tree ornaments, etc., I would recommend an easy to use soft rubber like Smooth-On OoMoo or, even better, their new Mold Star platinum cure RTV. Both of these are a low viscosity and the bubbles will free themselves. Vacuum is absolutely not required- I used OoMoo extensively to develop my mold box and mastering techniques. The 1:1 mix means you need no scale as well. Either rubbers are adequate for making 10 cars worth of castings.
For resin I found that the Smooth-On Smooth-Cast 305 cures better in a very thin section over the Task series. The Task resins are tougher though so if you need strength and have adequate mass to the casting they will cure just fine. I recommend a slower setting resin- this will give you time to mess with mixing and pouring, it will cure with less heating so it is easier on the rubber, and there will be no noticeable shrinkage of the finished part.
You will absolutely need pressure casting to remove bubbles. You will need a pressure pot used for spray painting and a compressor. I use 50 psi and never get bubbles in hundreds of thin castings. Don't use anything but a rated pressure pot for this application for safety. Some sources recommend higher pressure but I never have troubles at 50 psi. I dislike metal objects under pressure in my workroom so a lower pressure is better for me.
Do not use release spray on the rubber when casting. It is difficult to clean off, makes paint not stick and is unnecessary because RTV releases well. But if you are using a clay mold half layup, you will need a release for the exposed rubber on the first half of the mold when you pour the second half.
Have another look at my thread http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=1024.0 (http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=1024.0), ignore the vacuum part and feel free to ask questions.
John
John, nothing to do with cutting trees and milling the timber...more to do with suitability. Fitness for purpose as the politicians are always crowing about. having a machine make all of it is bad enough, especially at that price, but when it produces "work" of that level of unfinished awfulness, you're wasting precious time. And wood WILL look better. CAD your patterns for hinges, axleboxes, buffers, etc if you must and get them them cast in a strong metal, but you'll still be cleaning all those annoying little lines off till the cows come home, whereas using easily acquired basic metal making skills to produce brass patterns for them and getting them cast is much the more fit for purpose method and more fulfilling personally. You could also sell on any excess to other builders of that vehicle.
Of course, if CAD is the hobby I suppose you'll follow that path. Can't argue with that. My argument is entirely in the finished product not being very good! Many years ago I went for a job with the guy who basically invented STL in England. He wanted someone to clean up the "models" straight out of the pot, prior to casting them in aluminium. All these years later, they don't seem to have improved much. Somewhere in between I had to use Stereo sintered epoxy castings in Germany and whilst they were immensely strong, they had a spotty finish that was very difficult to clean up. The part was a prototype ashtray for a VW Passat. I'd made one in vac formed abs from my patterns in a morning, painted and fitted. The stereo came back in a week, spotty and needing a lot of attention before it could be fitted.
QED
Martin
New materials, design and production methodes alway attract modelers who like to experiment. Sometimes it turns out very usefull, sometimes it makes clear that working with the known materials is still giving better results. I am glad there are pioneers, who spend time ( and money) to satisfy their curiousity and give the rest alternatives to produce their models.
Jacq
But that is not satisfying curiosity. If the company that did it had any integrity, they'd have warned of its shortcomings before taking the money, surely.
Martin
Martin,
I understand and admire your background , experience, knowledge and skill level...but I am sorry, I have to say I think you are absolutely wrong here and have no clue as to what you are talking about...or at the very least to set in your ways, and unwilling to explore ways that are uncomfortable to you.
As someone that has done models (and I am speaking of both scale hobby models and full scale product design and automotive models) and design, using many of the same techniques and approaches you have, I see no problem or issues with the rapid prototyping. ...it is modeling all the same...and merely adds another tool to my toolbox.....why would I want to spend hours laying something out with ships-curves, templates, slicks and sulfur-clay, when I can do the same in CAD, and have it machined for me in less time and with less muss and fuss.....yes it does not provide the same modeling or artistic experience...but trust me...I have had enough of that experience to last a lifetime...and though I truly enjoy it....there are times when I just don't care to go through it, and want to use a different, faster, more flexible and often more practical method/approach. By doing something in this "new" way in no way diminishes the quality, or design result (remember a computer and machines are just tools....the result depends on the person doing the design/data entry and manipulating them).....and using a rapid prototyping method, does not necessarily mean that this is the end resulting piece....it can be just the rough "buck", that then still needs to be added to and manipulated with the modelers/artists hand and eye....it just provides a method of getting to the "buck" much faster and often more economically ( and it definitely allows one to manipulate and see far greater, and more accurate/rpresentative, variations of a piece/design than are reasonably possible using the tried and true "classic" methods).
...and insofar as your comment regarding the manufacturer warning or noting the shortcomings, they do do that....one just needs to read through their site, where they give a clear and concise information as to the grade, quality, and cost differentials involved in the different machines and materials that they use....they even have close in detail photos showing each material/method.
I do not see this method as an "end all"....but rather as another great tool to have at ones disposal. On just has to understand the "tool" and what is possible with it, and know how to use it properly....same as with any other tool one may use.
Marc
Marc, you cannot suggest for a moment that those blue things were worth the effort and cost, surely?
All you said about modern technologies being used in business is fair enough, (except it took my two trades away at a point where I was considered too old to retrain).
But in a HOBBY domain, what is the point if all you end up with is dodgey looking unsuitable for purpose lumps of blue stuff like those?
THAT'S my point. They are crap, just like Dave's hated toytown "craftsman" kits are crap.
Having worked at the sharp end of product design and in the car industry I've seen some stuff that really made me say, "WoW!", like CNC machined aluminium for a computer case in a rear arm rest, but the STL and sintered stuff was 'orrible and took far too long to clean up.
Experiment by all means, but when it turns up crap, have the honesty to call it crap and do it the "proper" way, having admitted it was fun trying...maybe.
And when I use tools, at least it's me on the end of them, all the time, so I can still take pride in having made every part, not sent a file to a company who say, "look at our stuff. It can be crap, but you'll still buy it because you don't want to be a dinosaur in front of your friends".
Martin
Hello Martin,
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you about the use of CAD and rapid prototying as a means of modeling. I can see some contention in your statement regarding RP as a modeling medium, however, there are many methods (as I'm sure you know) to produce models and this is they way some people choose to do it. But to call it crap, well, I think that's bit harsh. There are many examples on this forum of people that have used RP and have created beautiful models, of which I'm sure you can agree are far from crap.
3D CAD takes considerable skill and patience to learn and do just as with conventional modeling. Personally, I do feel as proud when I complete a drawing as I do when I finish a conventional model. But the fact is, they two different ways of modeling and each offers it own level of satisfaction. Both are "proper" in their own rite.
Sure, the computer is a not a knife, or file, or sanding stick, but it is a tool nonetheless, and I'm sure that guys that use it (including myself) can atest to the time and effort that goes into creating that file.
Donnell Wells
Martin, we have been over this road before. You like the old ways and we know that. Most of the rest of us embrace what may help us create a better product with less effort. The artistry and satisfaction of modeling often come from the latter stages of construction and finish; the early stages can be little more than obnoxious tedium and anything that helps to relieve that is a blessing.
Please don't criticize technology. We all know its strengths and weaknesses. Some of us test its limits. Nobody here is less a modeler than you and some could impress even you with their low tech skills.
I, and probably the rest of us, admire your own skill, talent, models, and ethic. Please don't temper that by taking opportunities to deride advances in technology and our attempts to use them. We are all aware of the advantages and shortcomings of 3-D printing and each of us comments on its suitability to a given application. (Recently I agreed with you that 3-D printing might not be the best solution to Haavard's dilemma, remember?)
You have been an asset to this forum in every way except your attitude toward technological advances. Please capitalize on your strengths.
Russ
Russ, all fair enough and agreed. My point over the blue things was that THEY were very poor bits of kit. I wasn't actually generalising. I was referring only to those pieces and what seemed to be the general willingness to accept them. If I put up a picture of a wagon side covered in file marks, I'd rightly be slammed for it.
However, Paul's Heywood stuff, whilst a little bit spotty is actually OK, because the scale allows the spottiness to look like casting finish in the real piece. So that is a damned great way to make a wheel centre with writing on it, which couldn't be done any other way, except by microscopic photo-etching and a steady hand with a glue pin!
I am not anti technology. I couldn't manage without my minidrill and whatever technology it takes to make superb dental burrs which I use in it.
I think Paul has it spot on. Use CAD to make a near impossible item, then turn the wheel tyres on a lathe and back to the "art" modelmaking for the finish and weathering. To me, that seems a very satisfying balance. I could do that happily, if only I could learn the CAD stuff. And I have a brand new unused legal copy of TurboCAD sitting here, so there (blows cyber raspberry at you lot<G>)
If I could work out how to get long grass, ferns, thistles and yes, damned nettles cut by laser, I would throw myself at the man with the machine, because although I CAN make them, I'd go cross-eyed doing so in any number. For larger scales such things are identifiable and therefore needed.
What frustrates me (and there, admittedly is some of my beef,) is that I CAN draw and bloody well. Used to do it for a living after all, but I can find no means to do it on pootah! My network connection, as this morning, comes and goes and is never other than slow as hell, so I can't watch video tutorials. Staring at the screen makes my eyes sting after half an hour.
I did a self financed course in surfacing in the car industry, when the bottom suddenly fell out of clay modelling, so I ain't against technology. The fact that the company I trained with suddenly fell out of favour along with anyone who worked with them including me was just one of life's little knocks. After 8 years away I can't remember a thing about it! I offered to retrain on computer when I was 47 and was told bluntly I was too old, so I have history of being prepared even keen to learn it all.
I know a chap in Germany, an old fashioned technical illustrator. He knows how to use Adobe Illustrator but prefers not to, because he has a great job. He sketches how the layouts and details should be portrayed in pencil, then the "kids" put it on computer. He gets all the fun of creating, they do the tedium. And he's still the highest paid one there.
Maybe I could draw the stuff and someone else could put it on screen and play with it. Having done p/e and decal artwork for years, I know how to lay stuff out on a sheet for maximum use. I am not averse to letting someone with the pootah knowhow have my artwork to fiddle with. I am not anti technology, only the increasing belief that hand skills, actually making it by hand is somehow laughable, pointless, cussed. That attitude is as prevalent in some quarters as my apparent anti stance.
Most of the iconic work that people remember in the model railway world was done without even a decal. George Stokes, Peter Denny, layouts like Pendon, Ynys Gwyntog, Uptha Vale, Madder Valley were all made without the benefit of computers. They might have used them if they had them, but only for the really tedious stuff like cutting all those individual bricks that George Stokes used on his buildings. The artistry and acute manual skills they all showed are what made us all say, "Good grief!" and remember them.
That is not to say my Lantern Yard or Havengore WITH some laser cut nettles, or Stereoed bridge rivetting wouldn't be remembered if I did a good enough job on the rest of it!
Please don't misunderstand me.
Martin
Hector, it's unfortunate that we're separated by several thousands of miles otherwise I'd be happy to come by and teach you how to use the CAD software. Admittedly CAD can have a long learning curve, but I believe, given your already considerable abilities to conceptualize 3D form in a 2D fashion, it wouldn't be difficult for you to pick up with a little practice and patience. However, should you not want to invest that time and energy, I would be happy to prepare 3D CAD files for you and even have the parts rapid-prototyped if you wish. It is a service I provide, and given the response I'm getting from around the world (thanks entirely to the internet), one that is needed.
We are all of us (well, most anyway... ;) ), grumpy old men in our own way. But, I believe, the true measure of a creative individual is the unblinkered willingness to learn, try and experiment with new materials, techniques and technologies. We're not afraid to learn from our mistakes and retain the materials, techniques and technologies that work for us and leave the ones that don't behind. Because something doesn't work for us doesn't mean it won't work for someone else. Admittedly the standards on this forum are very high and rightly so. None of us is going to accept anything in our own work that doesn't measure up to our own stringent standards as well as that of our peers and colleagues.
Rapid-prototyping is a fairly young technology and new to most of us. We are each of us learning by our experiments and mistakes. The Heywood wheel was an experiment, but I believe an ideal application of the technology. The remaining "cast" components for the van (axle box & pedestal, coupler) will be produced the same way. I've reworked some details in the wheel drawings based on the test outcome and learned that the wheel was in fact printed on edge, not flat as I had intended or understood. The final wheels will be printed flat to give better resolution to the outside visible surface of the wheel. Now if only I could find some way to afford my own Invision printer I could eliminate some of these troublesome misunderstandings... ;D
Paul
Paul, that would be very good...if only, eh?
But I could send you some drawings of stuff like foliage for laser cutting. however, I don't have the finances for such a thing, which is another reason I make everything I can. I've always had a guilty concience about trying to justify expense on my hobby. only if I can cover it by doing a job for someone else will I spend any of our limited budget.
I'm sure you can charge a handsome hourly rate for your excellent renderings. I have only seen CAD drawings that good in Alias. If I could do that, I'd be sittin' pretty financially, so I can hardly expect you to do anything "on the cheap".
If we were neighbours I'd offer to pop in and do some conventional work for you in exchange for a look over your shoulder.
However, if a customer was prepared to use your services, I wouldn't hesitate to get in touch about it.
I would never have said that Heywood wheel was done upright, by the pattern of spottiness, which suggests it was laid flat, but as I said, it seems to me to be the ideal use for the process. Not so sure about the axleboxes, etc, because of the cleaning up required, but maybe they lend themselves better to a clean finish.
The devil is in the balance of techniques I think.
Martin
Martin, thanks for clearing up your point of view. I had the impression you were much more narrow minded about technology. I only wish I could send you a few thousand dollars for a better Internet connection, a faster computer, some appropriate software, and a budget for your laser and 3-D printing projects. It is that marriage of old school talent, technique, and restraint with appropriate hi-tech tools that seems to produce the best results in a reasonable time. -- Russ
Russ,
that is a hell of a kind view and wish! Thankyou indeed.
The connection here is to do with British Telecom "unbundling" the exchange, whatever that entails and they've been promising that for years, but no progress.
I have the software. I understand TurboCAD is a good 'un. But by heavens, you need a kick start! I'd like to do 3D, but a start in 2D for laser cutting artwork would be good.
I just read that Marc paid just $37 for his latest set of parts, an ingenious set of brake bits on a sprue tree and from what I could see they were very crisp. Now that starts to get a bit tempting where repetition is involved. I HATE repetition of parts!
Maybe I should reload TurboCAD and go down the Public Library for an hour a week (it's free for an hour!)Their hook up will play the tutorials.
Martin
Kudos to all from an interested lurker on this particular thread. Variety of viewpoints expressed ... some quite different than others ... very reasonable debate and discussion ... all interesting items to consider as one who will someday play with some variation of these technologies. Thanks to all for expressing the different views and the underlying decency obviated by the willingness to "argue" politely!
Cheers,
Dallas
Martin, I have been using the basic TurboCAD for 4 or 5 years. It works well for 2D, and for 3D it has useful but pretty simple capabilities. But for a novice, that might be the best way so you don't have a million option buttons to click. It has worked well for me as I figure out the fit of parts on my bridge kits and create instruction diagrams.
I learned to technical draw on green paper, actually I had a set of inking pens and really loved that work. Then I learned CAD on a shared network system in an engineering school. Green screen, 20 commands to make a box, no rendering, and hours to get a printout of a cube with a cone on top. Now I sit at home, make a 3D object, inspect it on the screen, assemble parts on the screen, and order that same part to be made in the physical world via PAP. Not too shabby even if the part was a bit lumpy.
If STL technology stopped at the PAP blue quality, it would be like CAD stopped at the green screen level above and few would use it. But, as you know, STL is already better. We are all waiting for the price to drop on the much finer resolution machines. Just like it did on CAD programs.
John
In my alter-ego world of making show cars for the Germans, I saw a few different types of stereoed parts and CNC machined stuff. I also got to know a lot of mainly British ex-draughtsmen who'd got in early on the CAD train. They were all trained at their companies' expense and just up to a level that made them useful as contractors. They then changed their title to "engineer", which annoyed me because most of them were just superannuated draughtsmen.
I've worked with a chartered engineer and he was astonishing in his breadth of knowledge and speed. He even used a slide rule like it was a calculator!
But what struck me, even on speaking to the Chief "Engineer" was that they would all admit to using maybe 12% of their software's capability. The main one in use was CATIA, a French programme used widely in the car industry. Bear in mind that on 12%, they were designing whole modern cars in complete detail!
Some (from a Ford background) used Solidworks and were mercilessly attacked in fun over a beer by the CATIA guys. Then came the Alias men. What a programme that is! Even I was blown away, dinosaur that I am!
The Alias guys we imported for a special job, real specialists, admitted they maybe used 40% of the software.
It frightens me to think what would be possible if anyone with a complete knowledge of their software was let loose on these things!!
Alias is now used from the styling end right through to the detail design end of car design. And it'll do the surfacing AND the promotional video AND, well just about everything else!
To show I ain't a complete dinosaur, I was given a bit of file space one weekend and a file name and allowed to play on a spare Alias machine. Within 2 hours of reading one of the 12 manuals, I had put up a half decent rendering of my little aluminium speedboat in perspective, rotatable.
The manuals are SO beautifully written that even I could do it.
Of course, I was told I was too old to retrain back in 2002, when I was 49.
Alias is not something we could have at home. The basic software is incredibly expensive and at the time I played with it, the licence was 200,000 DeutcheMarks per year!! But what an earner it was.
I understand Maya is similar for home use but I haven't seen it.
Martin
Martin,
your fight with progress in engineering and drafting I very well understand. Remember CAD is only a tool to produce information from which parts are being made.
As launch manager for exterior and interior of various Volvo models I was less interested in the possibilities of CAD than in the ability to get a large amount of parts to fit within the produced tolerances of the parts, the tolerances of the assembly jigs and the manual assembly abilities in the line.
The art to produce the correct information is the pride of every draftsman, while it is less important for the production, purchase, process or the testing departements. The way Marc's parts turned out shows he investigated the complete proces and went one step beyond the standard draftsman practice and produced the part in a production solution. He optimised, like a draftsman of a supplier, the part drawings for the materials and machines to be used.
Jacq
Martin, there is not a single human being who uses or even knows all parts of Microsoft Office. I don't think it is possible. It makes sense CAD drafters would use only certain parts of software to get the job done. TurboCAD comes with house wall and window bits that I'll never use.
200,000 DM/year! I wonder what that would be in Euros/dollars now.
John
Martin:
I did some work with Maya (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=13577897) a few years ago (aeons in computer software time). It's a fabulous piece of software but not aimed towards technical/architectural/product design CAD and I found it difficult to use. The entire nurbs modelling concept seems counter-intuitive to me and beyond my comprehension. My frustrations with Maya eventually led me to Ashlar-Vellum Cobalt (http://www.ashlar.com/) which is the 3D CAD software I use. Maya's primary markets are animation, computer gaming and film compositing/CG where it's used extensively and to great effect. In concert with Alias it's used to animate design visualizations and expand rendering and compositing functions. You need a very powerful graphics computer to be able to get it up to speed. It's put out by Autodesk, same company that puts out Alias, Autocad and 3DS Max.
Paul
Quote from: Hector Bell on October 24, 2010, 02:50:36 AM
Of course, I was told I was too old to retrain back in 2002, when I was 49.
Martin
I trust you told them to go get stuffed...
Paul
I've come to the conclusion that technology in this hobby/business basically goes two ways.
It can dumb things down and make more products more accessable to more users. That's what we've seen with Craftsman Kits. They aren't much different from the Craftsman Kits of the 1950s, except a robot has done most of the hand cutting for you, and practically anyone can start up a kit factory. Craftsmanship is optional.
Or high tech can enhance craftsmanship by making the impossible possible, increasing precision, miniaturization, and basically raising standards. One very clear example is with plastic ship models on exhibit at IPMS shows. Before photo etch, they were little more than toys, but now they are scale models of ships. As technology pushed the limits of what was possible in the standard 1/700 and 1/350 scales, it also raised standards generally, ultimately leading to an improvement of traditional hand skills like painting and assembly to match the refinement of the parts.
Its all the new possibilities that make me excited about 3d printing and SL etc. I see Hauks PaP experiment and see potential. Anyway, its pointless to argue against the march of technology, better to take advantage of it.
Dave
Paul, I reminded them that it was their f***ing loss and that they'd just lost a bloody good man!
Then our house was broken into and in a fit of pique, my wife said, "Right, that's it, let's buy a boat". So we tarted the house up, flogged it quick, shoved the kids into their own and bought a 70 year old ex-working canal boat.
If yer gonna do it, do it right!
Two fingers to the agent. In fact he was going down the pan himself. And I thought, "If Mr. ten percent ain't steady, I'm getting out of this game"
Best thing I ever did as our time on the canals, or "on the Cut" as we said, was fantastic.
It means you come "back on the bank" like church mice, but hey, everyone's gotta live somewhere, ain't they?
I can always (so far, touch wood) scratch a living and our needs aren't much.
Jacq, I'm not fighting progress in engineering, just trying without any luck to be part of it, AS LONG AS it leads to quality without diminution of personal skills. As an add-on, fine if you can do it. As a replacement, no.
My last longish contract was at Volvo! In Gothenburg. I was in the splendid canteen having my usual coffee and ice cream, when 9/11 was on the TV in the foyer. I couldn't work out why hundreds of people were all looking at the overhead tellies, until my English mate told me what had happened.
I'd never been a big Volvo fan, but seeing the ordinary guys doing that quality of prototyping was amazing. Carbon fibre door skins that were little thicker than the final steel. Superb workmanship. I was there when Ford's came round with their "Craftsmanship" ideas. They looked around and went back to Dunton with their tails between their legs<G> There was nothing they could teach Volvo's guys.
Paul,
Alias, despite what it's been used for in movies et al, is a perfectly good engineering software. Top prove it, our team of imported Alias whizz-kids at SAL in Sontra, mid Germany, designed a new interior for a Golf, then they engineered it and surfaced it. The Chief "engineer" poo-pood it all, calling Alias a felt-pen fairy software, smugly, but the guys imported all the Golf tin information from Wolfsburg, which was on CATIA and then engineered the new interior (dashboard, centre stack, door cards, etc) to be made overnight on a five axis mill in close grain foam.
Next morning a big pink interior was wheeled in. I made damned sure this smug and useless "engineer" was there, when the big pink was wheeled into the cut and shut Golf body and went in with a satisfying "thunk" right up to the tin, perfectly. Thus they proved that Alias could do it all. Those 4 guys achieved that in a week!!
The Chief "engineer" turned on his shiny toes, pulled himself up to his full height of 5ft nothing, stubbed out his nervously puffed-at Marlborough Lite and high tailed it out of the studio. Nobody saw him for four days!! Boy could that guy sulk.
And to think I actually got on great with that programme! Ain't it Sod'sLaw that the one you can't afford is the one you get good at?
Cheers,
Martin
My old room-mate and good friend from school used to teach/tutor Alias at their lab here in LA. He used to bring home some incredible stuff (he once brought home a disk with a bunch of the renderings/sequences made for the film Titanic). At the time you not only needed the software, but it helped to also use their specially built machines to properly run it on. He had the box of software sitting around the house.....but, I was not really using computers yet, beyond word processing and such....so I never learned the program....same story with Photoshop and Illustrator ::) :( :-X :-\
Marc
Marc. all I know is the system worked on Linux and the computers at work were Sun and Octane. Hope that helps.
You had it at home and you didn't steal it??????
Lordy, if you had you'd now be absolutely intolerable ;D
Cheers,
Martin
Quote from: marc_reusser on October 25, 2010, 02:31:08 PM
He had the box of software sitting around the house.....but, I was not really using computers yet, beyond word processing and such....so I never learned the program....same story with Photoshop and Illustrator ::) :( :-X :-\
Marc
Oh well... chalk it up to another one of life's missed opportunities... ;)
Paul
Okay...so not exactly using Print-A-Part, but I thought it might be of interest as I used SU to design the parts...and then had the pieces made....albeit slightly larger and heavier ones.
I need to dig out and format the SU drawing, and post it later...but here is the machine....
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FInnovations_Mill.jpg&hash=2c5122a2dfff82a9c2ec622c673174dd54f15568)
And here is what it made for me this week. These are both milled out of blocks of French limestone.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_BothFP.jpg&hash=b739be0c65b7e4a4cd25e99a6a08afff7762bd6b)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_Family1.jpg&hash=b17979d760383a8c8601d05e6c30dbe3e91dceba)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_Family2.jpg&hash=50d51d0f0e4fa72455f11b14c0cc15c8353143e8)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_Family3.jpg&hash=1e7e6c35b19a9e1d34a9eaa1c2665c0a84eaecc1)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_Living5.jpg&hash=6753c067bdb175b0212510ab81ab8d7d95b6a1cb)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_Living2.jpg&hash=e6d236db8ac01209f8633b56f1636ae86b71396c)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJK_Living3.jpg&hash=bc6ff6188ec31db007a0d7b88c3bb86fd1e0e600)
The tooling marks and chipping are intentional....and cost extra.
Very cool Marc... I'm assuming that's basically a CNC mill for stone work, not a printer per se. Are you planning any sort of finish on the stone or are you leaving it raw? By the way, if you have an extra one of those, it would look nice on our fireplace... ;)
Paul
Thanks Paul,
Yes, it is basically a giant 5-axis mill. They place the block in there and cut away. My designs were very basic and simple (I prefer them that way)....but the machine can make beautiful compound surface and small intricate designs. I was told that it cuts 1mm in depth at a time.
The mantles will remain as raw stone. Hopefully they will get some natural staining/discoloration and weathering while on site waiting to be installed, and then of course from use once in place. The shop can/will do staining on them to age and discolor the stone to look old....but that's an upcharge. ;D
The simpler one is actually missing some more pieces on the legs (a plinth base like the more ornate one).
I was thinking the simpler one would go perfect in my guest house......"Rosebud". ;D
Marc
Do you suppose anyone would mind if you were to apply some subtle weathering yourself? -- ssuR
I'd have to drink an awful lot of beer to get that much surface coverage. ::)
M
Then why not ask Wiki Leaks to help? -- ssuR
I know I'm jumping on this thread rather late but I thought I might be able to add some useful information.
i began my 3D training at a special effects shop in Chicago right near the beginning of the era.n I trained on "seat number one" that was the first commercial license of Alias. It was several 100 K and ran on SGI hardware And truthfully the rendered images looked like crap but it didn't take that long for the medium to refine and competition to start bringing prices down. this was a few years before the PC came into its own and software was developed to run on them. Now a days no one runs the big iron its all on PC (though pretty freakin powerful ones)
I'm typing this on a laptop that runs MAYA (Alias) Autodesk 3D studio, animation master and Blender (free ware) Oh yeah Sketch up too.
The shifts and growth in capability never stop and we are about to go through another one.
My point is, if it doesen't look good now or is too expensive, give it a year. keep your eyes open and be wary of definitive statements. we live in a time of technological tectonic shifts. when i first started my career 30 years ago the film effects industry was all, well film. The hot tech was animation stands run under computer control. All those guys said the same thing about electronic animation. It looks terrible, It will never look compete with us. They were ALL out of business within 2 years. Films are no longer shot on film. Digital cameras resolution is now far greater and more discretely controlled that the finest resolved film. If you suggest shooting on film people are going to look at you funny.
I now teach 3d and i can tell you that the free ware available is every bit as good as the formerly high priced stuff.
Jeepers Marc, mess up a hobby PAP project and throw away $75. Mess up one of your MAO (Mill-A-Part) limestone projects-? :o
How much one of those cost?
John
These are smallish (65x60)....so they run around 5K each (nic. shipping, and 4.5K to install both). We have done larger and more slightly more complex ones (carved by hand) that run between 10-20K.
Since I have the file, I am sorely tempted to print them (or a slightly modified version) in 1/35. Might make a neat diorama accessory.....even as just a jumble of individual segments in a junk yard, damaged building, or in a stone yard scene.
M
Here is the SU drawing showing both fireplaces, that I promised.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FJustin_FirePlaces_Rendering.jpg&hash=dd74fc2cc57bc2dfb7909793711ca54b109c8d18)
M
That smaller one would look absolutely perfect in our house Marc... ;) Though, with the floors already sagging to the middle of the house, I suspect the weight would send it crashing down into the shop below....
Paul
Well if it's just going to end up in the shop...why not go for this one from another project....you can use it for a forge as well. ;D
Awesome ! :o Thanks for sharing Marc.
Philip
Thanks Phillip.
Here is the last example of this..I promise.
The door surround drawing and then shown installed on the house. The font in the middle of the gravel motor-court was also done in SU, and milled.....it's one single piece (If I recall it was around 7' in dia), except for the step/base around the bottom.
M
That is very interesting. Put ol Michelangelo right out of business!
Very nice Marc... did you do the entire house as a new construction or was that a redo? I particularly like the large window into the "great hall." I suspect that font, being one piece, is a planter full of hernias... ;)
Paul
Thanks Paul.
Thats a new build we did (around 10,000 sf.). The lit window is the main stair hall. It's a very shallow radius bay (oriel) widow. The wierd light areas in the front door and sitting room window above, are because you are seeing through the house and out the other side.
Marc
Finally posting a update. I still sort of mourn the loss of PAP, as it was probably the best option for hobbyists, despite the thechnologys shortcomings.
I took a couple of new pictures for an article on SU & 3D printing:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fkisvogn_3Dprint_01_w.jpg&hash=8edf95f0fbd0d6122462394760c7e41a7470a258)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fkisvogn_3Dprint_01utsnitt_W.jpg&hash=90dd8e58c169f4923bc44e47fbbce107bb85046f)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fkisvogn_3Dprint_02_W.jpg&hash=db3e009fb1b7eea8e682b5fb93b6b79a4b6f7058)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folk-rovere.org%2Fmj%2Fbilder%2Fkisvogn_3Dprint_U%2520_W_02.jpg&hash=42d3104fd2127138cdbbf7b6e6de96cf1cd1225a)
I feel that the extreme closeups shows that the claims that PAP parts were useless is just BS.
No cleanup expect an acetone wash, no Photoshop cleanup.
The primed part was Tamiya metal primer from a rattlecan.
The problem withthe PAP parts was getting consistent quality on the parts.
But I feel these problems could have been adressed, and that it should be possible to make a business on supplying the blue stuff to addicted hobbists. Anyone got any good news or other relevant info?
Regards, Hauk
@Hauk. I had the same part printed both at PAP and Shapeways (their FUD / Frosted Ultra Detail). Other then the color they are virtually the same
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages57.fotki.com%2Fv283%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2Fbothframes-vi.jpg&hash=2e0ba9720082a8c0c794830c807fcbc41aba8b5d)
Here's the brickwork for my coke oven printed in FUD (the base is an embossed pvc card called Sintra)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages17.fotki.com%2Fv1622%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2Fassemble_4-vi.jpg&hash=f89c7b578e2552050874c3745d9eed6fa1022622)
Close-up of one side with a penny
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages110.fotki.com%2Fv615%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2FColandpenny-vi.jpg&hash=4e29b859c811849987d6d957fa4bb405df310e22)
Ed, would you say the strength of the two materials is the same?
The one (blue) oven frame print from PAP was all I ever had done .. so it's hard to compare but ... they *feel* similar. I dropped one of my FUD printed oven frames and it broke when it hit the floor. Now .. it's pretty darn thin. My impression is that it's strength is similar to clear styrene .. meaning somewhat on the brittle side. That being said .. the only other part I broke was a bridge shoe .. and I stepped on that with my full weight so I can't fault that! :)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages56.fotki.com%2Fv127%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9700169%2FOnQuarter-vi.jpg&hash=7751dcf942bf0b20263fa252c05f2f3167790510)
Ed, how did you get the brick texture on that Sintra? Scribe it?
There is another print house called Ponoko that uses the Projet 3000 HD, the successor to the Invision HR.
Donnell
Quote from: Ray Dunakin on September 19, 2011, 05:29:43 PM
Ed, how did you get the brick texture on that Sintra? Scribe it?
@Ray .. a combination of scribing and embossing I guess .. scribing with the tool held at an acute ange so it embosses. There's a modeler in Europe .. Emmanuel Nouaillier does stuff similar to Marcel Ackle who uses it under the name Fortex® for modeling. Managed to translate Fortex® to Sintra® but still haven't confirmed what he calls Feather Board. There is a thread here on this forum (http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=444.15)that says it is Komacel®, Foamlux® or Simopor®. Looks like some great modeling material .. need to get some .. whatever trade mark it is sold under.
Linkie - Making Buildings from Foamboard (http://www.009.cd2.com/members/how_to/nouaillier_a.htm)