TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: bbussey on June 29, 2011, 10:57:02 AM
-
Well, it appears that Shapeways is now aware of the demand for FUD. The prices have jumped 50% from when I placed my first order at the beginning of last week. I was wondering why the GMC bus was so high, and then I checked the current Ice Bunkers cost to what it was last week. The parts are scheduled to arrive next week sometime, so I'm still waiting to see if this will be a viable option to making limited run esoteric models. Hopefully so, but the cost for detail parts is now a factor. Fortunately everything is make-to-order, so the only up-front investment is the model design.
The stainless steel pricing is unchanged, so that leaves a multitude of possibilities open for higher-end items that people don't mind spending cash on - specifically motive power that would require unique chassis frames, such as this:
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/RP02.jpg)
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/RP03.jpg)
Even if the FUD process ends up not being finely-detailed enough, mechanisms can be rendered without a problem. Modelers will always find a way to create the desired bodyshell. But the mechanism frames, especially for steam, always are challenging.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the heads up. I placed an order two weeks ago for some FUD stuff, so I'm glad I jumped on it when I did.
On the loco shells like you showed above, do you think Shapeways pricing will still undercut other rapid prototyping options? If the details are good enough to make masters for casting, then the resin shell guys may have a new lease on life.
-
I thought the price went down a hair. And they started charging a $5 set up fee for FUD. Some are saying this is $5 per item, but I haven't seen it clairified anywhere yet. They sent me a UPS notice so I have parts on the way, took over a month.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the heads up. I placed an order two weeks ago for some FUD stuff, so I'm glad I jumped on it when I did.
On the loco shells like you showed above, do you think Shapeways pricing will still undercut other rapid prototyping options? If the details are good enough to make masters for casting, then the resin shell guys may have a new lease on life.
The pricing is still way under the other RP companies I have used, and the detail appears to be more fine. Definitely the way to go for models produced at quantity is to try to design them so that they can be cast and removed from a rubber mold. I definitely think polyurethane resin shells are the way to go, both for rolling stock models and locomotive shells. And if you are planning a fleet of a particular model, it really doesn't matter how much the RP costs.
I thought the price went down a hair. And they started charging a $5 set up fee for FUD. Some are saying this is $5 per item, but I haven't seen it clairified anywhere yet. They sent me a UPS notice so I have parts on the way, took over a month.
I don't know Chris, but the current pricing for digital files I've posted is different than what is on the invoice I received a couple of weeks ago. And also different that what was on the product pages originally. Maybe it is the $5 setup fee factored in. If so, it is being charged per each instance of each item. So 3x of an item is costing an additional $15 if that is the case. But the cost for the GMC TDM4507 bus I posted in the Weekend Update thread will cost $26.57 to render, which seems to me that some price adjusting is involved as well.
-
Slightly off-topic what program are you using to design your parts?
Thanks,
The S.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the pricing on the stainless steel? That EP-4 is very spiffy.
-
About $60 for the frame, which means you can have a unique locomotive for slightly above the MSRP of current motive power once you factor in the commercial guts (motor, gearing, trucks, etcetera) and the DCC controller of preference.
I use SolidWorks, Rhino and CorelDraw. Depends on what's needed on a project by project basis.
-
I was just informed that the per-piece price is 25% lower, but that they are adding a $5 setup charge per piece to encourage better use of the available footprint to render parts. That makes sense and I have no problem with this. However, they have a one-million triangle ceiling on STL files which puts a damper on things (think heavily riveted models). With their limitations, heavyweight passenger cars (and heavyweight passenger car sides) become a challenge to render because Shapeways can't handle the number of triangles in such a file. So (if this process produces fine enough detail), because of the complex nature of the models I design, I most likely won't be able to take advantage of being able to combine models into a single STL file.
I will say that they have a tool available for download that allows you to review your STL files before uploading, including counting the number of triangles, which is helpful.
-
From what I've read you can upload a file with say 10 busses on it and only pay the fee once.
-
I will say that they have a tool available for download that allows you to review your STL files before uploading, including counting the number of triangles, which is helpful.
For those who use 3D Studio Max, there's a plugin that will not only count the number of faces, but also inform you on the expected price is on the finished piece. I haven't checked to see whether the plugin has been updated since the recent price change, however.
Cheers!
Marc
-
Out of curiosity, what is the pricing on the stainless steel? That EP-4 is very spiffy.
that a EP-4 or a GN W-1?
-
From what I've read you can upload a file with say 10 busses on it and only pay the fee once.
Unless the total file exceeds one million triangles, which I bump up against on a regular basis.
that a EP-4 or a GN W-1?
EP-4
-
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/RP03.jpg)
Oh, oh, oh... I want a couple!!! But I would have to have the earlier boxcab as well... if they are to be properly used!!!
-
I'm working on it, but the frame is going to be EXPENSIVE. It costs out at $139, and it's not as if you can remove material to make it cheaper. The body costs out at $23, but that is moot since it would be a master for polyurethane castings.
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/RP03f.jpg)
... But I would have to have the earlier boxcab as well...
I have most of it. I was looking at a core for the EP-3 with etched brass overlays. The chassis is half the metal and therefore less costly at $86.
(http://www.bbussey.net/rr/RP04.jpg)
There are other parts needed for the Flatbottom as well - new pilot porches, a pair of MTL cow catchers with couplers, and brass handrails. Both models also will require Kato's GG1 motor, gearing, power trucks, pilot trucks and pantographs, as well as a TCS CN-GP decoder. Worth it for me to get the electrics I want, but possibly too rich for most people's blood.
-
Little Joe next, Comrade?
-
Hey Jason,
Are you getting any closer to pulling the trigger on your H10-44?
Best wishes, Dave
-
Little Joe next, Comrade?
You may see that appear out of Schaumburg if all the cards fall right.
-
I got a bus I ordered along with the auto frames (no sign of those) early last week. It was okay. The resolution of the detail was great, but the model had an overall grainy texture, as if it was in desperate need of a good wet sanding. And that may be all it takes (but would be difficult given the general flexibility of the parts and tiny detail), but there's no way you could simply paint right over the surface.
-
Well that's a little disappointing to hear, but I'll wait until I have parts in hand to see if there is a path forward.
-
Here's a Z Scale taconite ore care designed by Stony Smith (http://www.shapeways.com/model/245517/taconite_ore_car_ii___z_scale.html?gid=sg4375).
Now, granted, it's not dead smooth; you can see the rastering, which is more obvious under macro photography, but I think much of it would go away after painting.
BTW, note the odd yellow color, which has increased over time since I received it, so I wonder how much more yellowing I can expect as time goes on.
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9517.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9518.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9519.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9520.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9521.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9522.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9523.jpg)
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_9524.jpg)
Some general notes... the material warps on large thin, flat areas, and also on parts with small cross-sections, such as the ladders. It's quite delicate--I ordered three cars, and the ladders were broken on all three. The one in the pics was the best of the bunch (Stony explained that his original design had some flaws that increased the likelihood of breakage). There are some other design issues with this car, but that's for a different topic.
I took the above images under lighting conditions to exaggerate the surface texture. Also bear in mind that it's Z Scale. It's still a long way away from the quality of injection molding, but it's also light-years ahead of what we had not long ago (anyone remember MakeMyModel?).
-
Gee, I'm getting popular, ain't I!
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa149/rkbufkin/elmer_fudd-5190.jpg)
-
My box came today. Out of 15 one was broke, but I think it was the packaging. They just pile them up in tissue paper. I just sprayed one with plain old flat black in a can.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EEXfIPjO2as/TgvJlhu1Y_I/AAAAAAAAH-E/4hj1m7783N0/s800/IMG_0656.jpg)
On a quarter:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fhAq1PvNz34/TgvJlqZpJvI/AAAAAAAAH-A/hFl2DRPJ6Vg/s800/IMG_0658.jpg)
Next to a Nn3 20' car:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ONnke13SLJg/TgvJlw2PxdI/AAAAAAAAH-I/e0Pc8Rz8Udg/s800/IMG_0659.jpg)
-
Maybe a work-around is to design the FUD specifically as a master for casting, make polyurethane castings that can be carefully sanded smooth, and then make second generation castings from those.
-
Hey Jason,
Are you getting any closer to pulling the trigger on your H10-44?
Best wishes, Dave
I have to take a look at the file. I made that over three years ago so I probably did a lot of things wrong. Another thing is that I didn't have any drawings so I don't really know how well it measures out. If someone can get drawings, I can certainly put on the pile of things to do as I'd love to have one (I still can't believe FVM did the GP60 over this ::)). The body and cab are pretty simple to draw except for the top of the nose. I don't have any experience yet with making the walkways.
Jason
-
I have to take a look at the file. I made that over three years ago so I probably did a lot of things wrong. Another thing is that I didn't have any drawings so I don't really know how well it measures out. If someone can get drawings, I can certainly put on the pile of things to do as I'd love to have one (I still can't believe FVM did the GP60 over this ::)). The body and cab are pretty simple to draw except for the top of the nose. I don't have any experience yet with making the walkways.
Jason
Thanks for the update. I have looked for FM H10-44 and H12-44 drawings and have come up empty. The best I could find were some painting diagrams. The lack of drawings are kinda amazing when you consider that SDL-39 has been published 3 or 4 times (no offense, I like it but....). Maybe this is why nobody has made the FM model yet?
Best wishes, Dave
-
I would like to make a suggestion to the guys trying this out. Instead of designing the car standing upright, lay it on it's side so that the flat side is in the plane of a layer and it should theoretically not show the raster lines (layers) as they are built. The side would be comprised of only one layer.
-
Thanks for the update. I have looked for FM H10-44 and H12-44 drawings and have come up empty. The best I could find were some painting diagrams. The lack of drawings are kinda amazing when you consider that SDL-39 has been published 3 or 4 times (no offense, I like it but....). Maybe this is why nobody has made the FM model yet?
Well Wally did in it HO, so there's gotta be plans floating somewhere.
-
Please pardon my ignorance,but what is FUD?
-
Frosted Ultra Detail the latest material that Shapeways offers. It is the $hit because the resolution is .3mm pretty much the best (affordable) out there now.
-
Here's a Z Scale taconite ore care designed by Stony Smith (http://www.shapeways.com/model/245517/taconite_ore_car_ii___z_scale.html?gid=sg4375).
Your car is significantly smoother than the bus that I've got. I'd say mine the 'bumpiness' or 'rastering' is at least double in depth as what you've got there. Mine looks and feels exactly like the orange peel you get when you spray ModelFlex paint from too far away from your subject.
I would imagine, not having much knowledge of how these are created, that the device used to create the item plays more of a role when it comes to the result of the general smoothness than the material itself.
-
I would like to make a suggestion to the guys trying this out. Instead of designing the car standing upright, lay it on it's side so that the flat side is in the plane of a layer and it should theoretically not show the raster lines (layers) as they are built. The side would be comprised of only one layer.
Tony,
I think the problem with that is going to be supporting the opposite side (now the "top" as it lays on it side) while printing it. I suppose supports could be designed into the piece and if used for a casting master it shouldn't matter if they remain. Otherwise they would have to be cut out later. It will add to the cost due to more material being used.
You also might be able to design a piece as 5 slabs (4 sides and the roof) laying flat and assembled later. Might have to contend with joint lines though. But you could probably submit them as one file still and avoid the $5 setup fee for each side.
John H. Reinhardt
-
Thank you Chris for the answer to my question,I have never heard of FUD 'till this thread.
-
The rastering looks a lot like the diagnal angles on M4D shells. I still think his material looks best, but it may be the 3D files have been optomised for his machine. One other option would be to make the file 20% larger and use a Naphtha reducer on the molds to shrink it back to N scale. That should reduce the effect by 20%. With a good spray of primer, you should be good to go without having to file it.
-
Your car is significantly smoother than the bus that I've got. I'd say mine the 'bumpiness' or 'rastering' is at least double in depth as what you've got there. Mine looks and feels exactly like the orange peel you get when you spray ModelFlex paint from too far away from your subject.
Are you sure it's FUD? I ordered his bus, too, and it's on par with the taconite car in terms of smoothness. Many of Stony's models can be ordered in a number of different materials, and you need to make sure to select FUD when ordering.
-
Are you sure it's FUD? I ordered his bus, too, and it's on par with the taconite car in terms of smoothness. Many of Stony's models can be ordered in a number of different materials, and you need to make sure to select FUD when ordering.
Well, I checked, and I stand corrected.
The bus (the one that I got) is only available in WSF, which is what I ordered. I either didn't notice when I ordered or perhaps at the time was thinking it would be an interesting comparison between materials. Either way, it's not FUD. It also, for some strange reason, was designed without the front windows (and arguably most visible and important) cut out, though every other one is. So not a great model.
-
Guess I see the price increase for myself... I ordered 15 V-tippers for $25. Now I go there and add 15 v-tippers to my cart and they are $97.50 !!! :-\
-
So, if I wanted to make a BQ23-7 cab for my Atlas B23-7s, how would one do that?
-
It also, for some strange reason, was designed without the front windows (and arguably most visible and important) cut out, though every other one is. So not a great model.
Some of Stony's models are "works in progress" or "doodles" where he's experimenting with design. I believe there may be another version of the bus.
-
So, if I wanted to make a BQ23-7 cab for my Atlas B23-7s, how would one do that?
John - you need a 3D Cad program to draw the solid files, as well as all the measurements for the cab. Alternatively, if the model exists in another scale, you can take measurements from that with a digital caliper and convert to N. A solid model generally is formed by extrusions and cut-extrusions based on sketches drawn on planes. Visually break everything down into basic geometric shapes, rather than looking at the object as one complex part. Every object on the planet, no matter how complex, consists of a series of rectangles, triangles, circles and ellipses (and their 3D equivalents). You just have to train your eye to see them.
-
Guess I see the price increase for myself... I ordered 15 V-tippers for $25. Now I go there and add 15 v-tippers to my cart and they are $97.50 !!! :-\
That is a bit more than a 50% price increase. That should take care of their problems with being swamped with orders. I know that my interest in these models has gone down significantly.
Best wishes, Dave
-
So, if I wanted to make a BQ23-7 cab for my Atlas B23-7s, how would one do that?
If someone wanted to do these I'd be interested as well . . .
-
So has the cost of Perfactory 3D printer output come down in the last year or so? Perfactory can produce objects that are nearly completely smooth. Mike Skibbe had a flat car output on one of these machine a few years back and the resolution and quality were really impressive. I'll have to get him to snap some pics.
-jamie
-
I'll be up for a BQ23 just because it is so unique. I'm sure some saw run throughs on Conrail trackage.
-
I kinda with Dave on this one, my interest just plummeted. It's one thing to make an error in calculations and realize you are under-charging and need to raise price to accommodate for the mistake; it's another to realize you're selling something people like and deciding to gouge the hell out of them.
-
So has the cost of Perfactory 3D printer output come down in the last year or so? Perfactory can produce objects that are nearly completely smooth. Mike Skibbe had a flat car output on one of these machine a few years back and the resolution and quality were really impressive. I'll have to get him to snap some pics.
The resolution is excellent - but it's expensive, and you have to design your build supports properly so that 1) the model doesn't fall over during the build and 2) the supports can be removed without compromising the detail on the model. I have a few pilot models rendered in the PerFactory resin, including the prototype for the ESM C&O well car:
(http://bbussey.net/rr/F9Well.jpg)
And if you don't cure it properly via UV rays it will warp over time, which in fact this model has done.
-
That is a bit more than a 50% price increase. That should take care of their problems with being swamped with orders. I know that my interest in these models has gone down significantly.
Supposedly if you group a number of models together into a single STL (whether disparate models or multiples of a single model) and maximize the available footprint (roughly 5"Lx7"Wx6"H) it is more economical than previously. I've been playing with packing the STLs differently to get the pricing and that does seem to be the case. That helps with people who design their own models, but not so much for those purchasing onesies and twosies from the Shapeways online stores.
I'm less concerned with the FUD pricing than with the stainless steel pricing. Rendering rolling stock underframes seems to be reasonably priced, because a lot of material isn't involved. But the locomotive chassis parts are proving to be expensive since they basically fill the entire cavity of the body shell. It may not even be necessary to fill the entire shell since steel is more dense than zinc. I have an underframe coming, and the weight of that will determine how to proceed. I suspect that it won't be necessary to fill the body cavity with stainless steel because the metal has enough weight. If that turns out to be true, then the cost of a stainless steel locomotive chassis drops significantly.
-
Thanks for the clarification on the footprint and costs Bryan. It makes sense to have fewer but larger jobs rather than a bunch of little fragile pieces to deal with.
Best wishes, Dave
-
But the locomotive chassis parts are proving to be expensive since they basically fill the entire cavity of the body shell.
Could you make the expensive stainless-steel portion hollow--with the details on the outside and just a retaining wall/dam on the inside to form the motor cavity--and then pour lead (or other cheap, low-temperature alloy) between the walls?
-
That's what I was thinking. Lead shot and glue came to mind.
-
Bryan,
If the frame idea you have works, that would open up a world of low pro frames which means way more space inside for decoders, lighting and the like. ;)
-
Bryan,
If the frame idea you have works, that would open up a world of low pro frames which means way more space inside for decoders, lighting and the like. ;)
That is true. But with the lead time on rendering stainless steel parts coupled with the other scheduling issues, it's going to take a few months to figure out if it's viable.
-
Ok dumb idea time. Why use the machined steel at all? Can't you use standard material as a master? I think it would be fairly easy to cast a medium hard high temp alloy from a rubber mold or spin casting setup.
-
Ok dumb idea time. Why use the machined steel at all? Can't you use standard material as a master?
I think the idea is to be able to make these parts without having to machine anything. Not having a mill, lathe or whatever makes it hard to produce masters; Shapeways lets you make complex, precise metal parts using only software. Plus, the cool thing about RP is you can produce parts that would be difficult if not impossible to machine or cast.
-
It also allows you to make the chassis without having to worry about milling or drilling mistakes. While not as tough to do with existing chassis, the degree of difficulty goes up when milling a master from scratch - regardless of whether your making a master to spin cast or for actual use.
I like the idea of rendering motive power chassis for a few reasons in addition to what David wrote. The Shapeways process leaves a smooth finish on the stainless steel, which is different than the FUD and other materials. Second, you have the option of rendering initial test parts in one of the cheaper plastics/resins to insure all of the mechanism parts fit properly, Third, it's harder than zinc and pewter so no worries about frames bending out of shape. And fourth, you can design a chassis specifically for the motive power you're creating - think steam locomotives in addition to electrics. And as Philip pointed out - if the steel is indeed heavy, it means that the entire bodyshell cavity doesn't have to be filled, which is not only cheaper but allows other internal details to be modeled.
-
So I understand how the resins work, but how do they RP metal, ceramics, and glass?
-
So I understand how the resins work, but how do they RP metal, ceramics, and glass?
The process is sort of like making pottery. They start by printing the object with powdered material deposited together with a bonding agent that's just strong enough to hold the powder in shape. At this point, it's called "green" which is very delicate and will crumble easily, so it's not a process that's suitable for delicate designs. The green parts are then fired in an oven to harden them. For stainless, the steel powder is mixed with brass powder, and the firing melts the brass to fuse the metal. Stainless parts are also tumbled to polish the surface.
They also offer sterling silver as an option, although for this they print a wax master, and then use traditional lost wax casting to produce the finished parts. This is their highest-resolution process, incidentally, as the wax master is supposedly finer than FUD. It's also twice as expensive as stainless steel.
Could you make the expensive stainless-steel portion hollow--with the details on the outside and just a retaining wall/dam on the inside to form the motor cavity--and then pour lead (or other cheap, low-temperature alloy) between the walls?
I would have two concerns about this. First, the hollow parts will be more delicate and prone to damage in the green state. And second, it may be cheaper from a materials standpoint, but the labor of filling in the parts adds to the cost, at which point it may likely be a wash (assuming they were being produced for resale).
-
So, if I wanted to make a BQ23-7 cab for my Atlas B23-7s, how would one do that?
If you do these count me in for a few of them too,if for no other reason than they are so funky looking. ;D
-
I just checked the specs. The weight of Shapeways stainless steel is 8,070 kg/cc. Zinc is 7,135 kg/cc. So a chassis rendered in this stainless steel / bronze hybrid material is 13% heavier than the zinc equivalent, which means a frame designed with 13% less stainless steel provides that percentage of additional free space as well as 13% off the cost.
SolidWorks allows for the measuring of mass of an object. So using the New Haven EP-4 Streamliner chassis as an example - the Kato GG-1 chassis is similar in dimensions. If I weigh an empty GG-1 chassis, I will know how much material I can remove from the EP-4 chassis to match, thus lowering the cost in the process.
UPDATE: Zamac zinc has a density of 6,600, which translates out to 23%. That should allow enough removal of stainless steel for additional electronics and cab interiors, while lowering the price a significant amount.
-
OK, I so the RP chassis is more acurate than a machined chassis, but what about casting the master steel chassis parts with less expensive metals? You would have all the benifits of a persision engineered RP design with a much lower cost.
Another question. Can they RP tooling if they are already doing steel? It would be awsome to print an FUD prototype, then quickly order RP steel tooling basted on the design if it comes out as intended.
-
UPDATE II: I have an EP-3 frame I milled from a GG-1 frame, so I weighed it. The mass of the zinc composite that Kato uses is ~6,288 kg/cc, or 53,864 mg. Since I designed the milling guide in SolidWorks, I have the solid model of the EP-3 frame. The mass of the digital model in Shapeways stainless steel is 8,060 kg/cc, or 68,756 mg. That's a whopping 28% of frame that can be trimmed from both the mass and the cost.
OK, I so the RP chassis is more acurate than a machined chassis, but what about casting the master steel chassis parts with less expensive metals? You would have all the benifits of a persision engineered RP design with a much lower cost.
What metal are you going to cast it out of that is as hard and inflexible as stainless steel? And by definition of the process of casting it won't be as precise, especially spin casting which is more suited to smaller parts.
Another question. Can they RP tooling if they are already doing steel? It would be awsome to print an FUD prototype, then quickly order RP steel tooling basted on the design if it comes out as intended.
Probably, as long as it fit within the Shapeways building footprint. It might even cost less than machining the steel tooling. But I'd rather design the solid positives and leave the cavity arrangement to my tooling contractor, rather than have to worry about making sure my multi-part molds have the proper injection/ejection points, are properly polished and fit their mold base. Also, remember that the tolerances for the stainless process are not as fine as those for FUD, so fine detail is an issue. The stainless process is better suited for underframes and chassis rather than carbody detail.
HOWEVER, that might work with simplified two-part tooling that could be injection-molded here in the States. Food for thought, as long as the surfaces of the tool that would form the plastic parts can be polished smooth.
-
Bryan,
I'll pay you $5 to do a H12-44 for the Atlas VO-1000 mechanism. ;)
Truth be known, I might be willing to go a bit higher! Maybe not $100 a piece, but I need these!!!
Best wishes, Dave
-
And therein lay the question: how much are people willing to pay for a model from a single-digit production run of a prototype that will in all likelihood never be mass produced in N scale? It's beginning to appear that a locomotive from scratch (bodyshell and mechanism chassis, other manufacturers' components, paint and decals) will cost between $150 and $250. For me, it's worth it on units such as most of the New Haven electrics since a brass model equivalent would cost 5x that. But is someone else willing to pay $300+ for such a model? Are they willing to pay $30 for just a bodyshell? I'm not so sure. Would someone be willing to spend $90 on an FGE or Mathieson ex-Pennsy R7 reefer of which only four or five may exist? Or would the demand be so overwhelming that it would be impossible to meet? If you offer one of these projects in kit form at 1/3 the price, are there enough people interested in building it on their own? Do you supply the needed components from other manufacturers, or do you instruct the modeler to procure those himself/herself? Are there commercial decals available, and if not, is that another component that must be included? All those questions are important in deciding whether to offer these types of items to the public or just use these methods to fill holes in a personal roster when time and finances allow.
-
Bryan,
You bring up a bunch of good points about a variety of potential products. Like most people I am willing to pay more for something I really need versus something that is interesting. The H10-44 or H12-44s fit this description. However this model is not so rare as to only appeal to a small number of modelers. In this case, having an available mechanism makes it more likely that people would want one or two just because they are available. There isn't the same time. money, effort commitment.
I would be willing to pay up to $50-75 for a FM shell that fits the Atlas mechanism. If the holes were included for the Atlas VO-1000 handrails (which are very close to the FM ones) that would be great. If there were a couple of different versions with different louver locations that would be a plus, but certainly not a deal breaker. The main thing is whether it is an improvement over what is currently available.
Best wishes, Dave
-
I think Trainboard had a long discusion on this a few years ago. Someone was looking to contract with Kaslo tyo build a full SDL39 kit. Everything needed to be custom run from the frame to the shell to the trucks. Lots of people were interested when it was $150. Not so many were willy to pau $300 and the toppic soon died.
For me, a full loco kit of a C32-8 or C39-8 would be worth $200, and I may get two at that price. Thats about $50-70 over a RTR engine and I think thats a good price point.
One great thing about Shapeways is that asside from the time you are putting into the project, there is very little upfront costs, so the need for pre-orders is much lower than a Kaslo style production.
I wish Shapways would sales of multimedia kits with some parts FUD, other parts metal, maybe even offer etched metal as well. That way we could order a kit from them.
-
Usually
the original gets made from love. The designer percieves a need or desire and designs the bit that fills it. In this case the rest of us can buy into the process after the initial production if the designer chooses to set up an account or just release it 'GPL' style.
This seems similar to the legend of Gordon Cannon, build a few parts that everyone needs and a business suddenly grows. The next 'Cannon and Company' rising star may already be among us thinking about what part to design first...