Finally getting down to business with sketchup

[Hector Bell]

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

[jacq01]

    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

[Hector Bell]

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

[marc_reusser]

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

[Hector Bell]

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

[sd80mac]

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

[finescalerr]

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

[Hector Bell]

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

[RoughboyModelworks]

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...

Paul

[Hector Bell]

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

[finescalerr]

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

[Hector Bell]

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

[Malachi Constant]

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

[JohnP]

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

[Hector Bell]

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