TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: jdcolombo on December 25, 2012, 10:16:39 PM
-
Even with the issues involved, this photo shows something I could not have but for Matthew Myers and Shapeways: my current stable of 1000-series NKP Cabooses, sitting in front of the engine terminal on my NKP layout.
John C.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-I939iFCgWDM/UNprT8UjYcI/AAAAAAAAAiQ/VWKu7dGSg14/s1024/_MG_1880.jpg)
-
John,
That is a beautiful sight!
-
well done John!
-
I was gonna bring it up during the FUD debate, but have you seen American Model Builders home page?
-
I was gonna bring it up during the FUD debate, but have you seen American Model Builders home page?
Yes. Not available yet.
John C.
-
At any rate, your cabeese are some of the nicest completed models I've seen from Shapeways.
-
Yes John, a beautiful sight!
Nothing like an appropriate caboose (way car, crummy, etc.) to put a bookend on the tail end of the train, one preferably pulled by a steam engine. ;)
Way to go!
Otto K.
-
Wow!!
Simply awesome!!
Wolf
-
Great modeling of a unique caboose model!
Frank
-
You need one without the high speed service logo just to chang things up a bit.
Brandon
-
Can you post a close up shot of one or two of these cabooses so we can see what can be truly accomplished with Shapeways materials?
Joe
-
Can you post a close up shot of one or two of these cabooses so we can see what can be truly accomplished with Shapeways materials?
Joe
Here's a side shot of 1085:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ZCVtZypm4QQ/UKVmP3tPOHI/AAAAAAAAAgg/XPdWWZXz6pI/s1024/_MG_1812.jpg)
And here's a side shot of 1066, which I've weathered some with chalk. The steps look crooked in this photo, but that is an artifact of the photo (they are straight - must have been from shooting at a slight angle at F/2.8).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KRuEfpPnhW0/UNt9MZmGrvI/AAAAAAAAAik/gUxLSdjDZC8/s1024/_MG_1883.jpg)
You can definitely see a bit of the "texturing" resulting from the printing process when you're this close; but from any "normal" viewing distance on my layout (e.g., something like my first photo), they look great.
John C.
-
for my $$$... they are more than acceptable...
thanks again for doing the project.
EP
-
Thank you for the close up photos, much appreciated. I agree with your statemetn that they look good when viewed under layout conditions, and they do. I was curious on the large sides of the car what the printing would look like.
Certainly a good model of a unique car.
Joe
-
You're welcome, Joe. Hope it helps.
The Shapeways process certainly has its foibles, and I wouldn't use it for something that I was going to super-detail and enter in a model or photo contest. But when your options are (1) not having the model at all; (2) scratchbuilding in styrene (and probably trying to fabricate the end ladder detail in brass, or perhaps doing brass etching for that); or (3) Shapeways FUD, Shapeways seemed best to me. I will say that the quality of the prints varies from "OK" to really good and the end ladder detail is VERY fragile; I've used up about half a bottle of thin CA on those end ladders. But the process of cleaning, finishing and assembling one of these is pretty simple - I do it all in a single 24-hour period, starting with an overnight soak in Bestine; painting the next morning (using PollyScale acrylics); decals and final assembly in the evening.
Also no question that some other 3D printing processes would produce smoother sides, but they are not cost-effective at this time, unless you want to do one as a master for casting, but that's also a road I didn't want to go down. For my purposes (seeing a 1000-series at the end of a 25-car train rolling along with a Berk on the front end, or maybe a 3-unit lashup of GP9's or RS11's), the Shapeways option turned out dandy. I'll almost certainly buy an AMB laser-cut wood kit when those become available just to compare (their GN prototype looks fabulous), but I'm aiming for an even dozen of these before I finish, and the bulk will be Shapeways models.
John C.
-
On the FUD thread I had a big response typed out about how you could have had those laser cut in wood and the railings in laserboard, but I thought it sounded like I was downing your models so I didn't post it.
2 days after that I saw the AMB announcement, go figure.
I like your work and your layout so please don't take it the wrong way.
-
No offense ever taken at suggestions on other ways to do things, Chris. Always open to that. One of the keys to my choice of the Shapeways process was the ability to get the underframe in the correct proportions at the right height with realistic-looking steps (which were pretty wide on these models and sort of a "spotting" feature). When a bunch of NKP N-scale modelers were discussing how to get to a 1000-series, we discovered that the MT 34' wood-sided caboose had an underframe of correct proportions. But the steps weren't quite right, and the ride height is a bit high. Still - I thought about this, mostly because my philosophy with respect to modeling is the "look and feel" solution. I know folks disagree about this as a modeling philosophy, but what I want is an operations-heavy layout that gets the look and feel of the NKP correct, without sweating the last rivet.
That means that I consider certain things and certain details essential, and others I just don't care about. A GP7 or GP9 simply has to have the Mars light sticking out the front; it's not a NKP diesel if it doesn't. But I don't worry much about whether the horn is the exact Nathan 3 chime or whatever. They can't have dynamic brakes, because again that's an easy thing to see and tell that it's "wrong" for the NKP. But I don't get caught up in whether my Berks have 4, 5, or 6 sand pipes down to the drivers (the numbers were different on the S-1, S-2 and S-3 classes). I sure would like to find a way to put a Mars light on the front, though! I'm OK with using a SP prototype bay window caboose painted in NKP colors, rather than recreating the exact window placement of the NKP's bays, because it's the overall look and the High Speed Service logo that grabs my attention (but the ladders and grabs have to be painted yellow or I'll go nuts).
And so forth. Weird, I know. But at the end of the day I think someone with a passing knowledge of the NKP could come to my layout and agree that it pretty well captures the overall "look and feel" of the NKP in 1957. And we can do an op session that is every bit as reliable as the best HO has to offer, because another weirdness is that I simply won't tolerate derailments, poor running, couplers not coupling, etc. Operational aspects do have to be perfect, or as close as I can come.
Ah well. Enough of modeling philosophy. Time to add some Mars lights to some Atlas GP7 shells, which will be renumbered as early GP9's, because . . . well, with the stripes and Mars light, they looked pretty much the same to me. ;)
John C.
-
If I would have seen a photo of something like this 20 years ago, I would have modeled NKP. (NKP Story was my first hardbound RR book that I bought) There weren't any NKP diesels out back then, if I recall, so I went with my 2nd choice, PRR. Nice cabeese, by the way.
But since I'm now a SPF, I'd like to post a link to a new Shapeways Pennsy branchline passenger shelter, which showed up today, and I just ordered. He also has 55 gallon drums for a good price; ordered a hundred of them for some reason.
http://www.shapeways.com/model/846122/n_scale_prr_standard_passenger_shelter_1_160.html?key=e1006928b7c241353c73b144b80b9c46
{the pricing on the 55 gal drums for various quantities is screwed up on Shapeways, sometimes it shows up correctly, other times more than it should be.}
-
John,
The photos did help me decide to proceed with an order via Shapeways. Again it's a choice of having a model or not for me, so I will make the order and report what it looks like. I also had a designer take a stab at a load my company has handled in the past, All I need now is the modern flatcar to go with it.
http://www.shapeways.com/model/802800/coil-car-nscale.html?li=productBox-search
http://www.shapeways.com/model/801001/jlg-telelift-arm-load-nscale.html?li=productBox-search
-
If I would have seen a photo of something like this 20 years ago, I would have modeled NKP. (NKP Story was my first hardbound RR book that I bought) There weren't any NKP diesels out back then, if I recall, so I went with my 2nd choice, PRR. Nice cabeese, by the way.
Thanks for the positive feedback. Funny thing is that I became an NKP modeler quite by accident. My first N-scale diesel was an Atlas/Kato RSD12 painted for the NKP, which I bought on sale at a LHS because some N-scale friends told me to buy something made by a Japanese company called "Kato." I didn't even know what the NKP was - I thought the N.Y.C. & St.L. was a subsidiary of the New York Central! (Turns out I was sort of right for a while back in the late 1800's . . .). When I got home, my wife, who hails from Neoga, IL, informed me that locomotives with that logo used to run through her home town. Intrigued, I went to the library at the University of Illinois, where I teach, and found a copy of "The Nickel Plate Story" by John Rehor. I read it - three times. And an NKP modeler was born.
When I started in the early 1990's, almost nothing was available factory-painted for the NKP. I chose 1963 as my "date" because I could paint diesel shells black, add the logo and the wide stripes on the front and rear (Microscale decals), number the cab and be done. I still have about 15 assorted diesels painted in the post-1959 scheme. But then Kato did an NKP Mike, LifeLike came out with its Berkshire, NKP boxcars, hoppers, etc. started to appear, and we somehow developed a friend at Atlas, with narrow-stripe GP9TT's, RS11's, SD9's, GP7's and soon RS3's from them. A surfeit of riches, and I backdated the layout to 1957, when Berks still ruled the Chicago-Buffalo mainline, supported by GP9's, RS11's, RS3's and an assortment of switchers. The only major thing lacking until a couple of months ago was the 1000-series caboose . . . and now we have two sources (Matt Myers' shop on Shapeways and American Model Builders) for those. Happy days are here!
John C.
-
John,
The photos did help me decide to proceed with an order via Shapeways. Again it's a choice of having a model or not for me, so I will make the order and report what it looks like. I also had a designer take a stab at a load my company has handled in the past, All I need now is the modern flatcar to go with it.
http://www.shapeways.com/model/802800/coil-car-nscale.html?li=productBox-search
http://www.shapeways.com/model/801001/jlg-telelift-arm-load-nscale.html?li=productBox-search
Let us know how these turn out. The coil steel car will probably look very good. I can't explain the technical issues, but often flat surfaces that don't have an "overhang" anywhere come out very smooth (the roofs of my cabooses look like injection-molded plastic; it's only the sides that have the "texturing," which I understand is at least partly because they have to be supported by wax in order to do the window sill detail and roof overhang). Don't know about the telelift load - that one looks really complicated - but will certainly look very cool on a flatcar!
John C.
-
Let us know how these turn out. The coil steel car will probably look very good. I can't explain the technical issues, but often flat surfaces that don't have an "overhang" anywhere come out very smooth (the roofs of my cabooses look like injection-molded plastic; it's only the sides that have the "texturing," which I understand is at least partly because they have to be supported by wax in order to do the window sill detail and roof overhang). Don't know about the telelift load - that one looks really complicated - but will certainly look very cool on a flatcar!
John C.
That's what I've been saying all along in the other Shapeways FUD thread!
-
Cowboy
is far more interesting to me. Gives me hope that we can get some modern train crew figures, someday...
-
Intrigued, I went to the library at the University of Illinois, where I teach,
I used to live up in Rantoul :)
-
I can vouch for the flawless operation aspect of John's 'New' NKP. Switching a busy yard with a sound-equipped 0-8-0 for 2+ hours with nary a derailment is just plain great. It really enables you to get in the frame of mind that you are working a real railroad. And the cabooses look fabulous in person. It really is the 1950s in John's basement working with all of those sound-equipped steamers.
When Chanute was open there probably was a LOT of people in model RR circles that used to live up in Rantoul!
-
While I don't at the moment have any Shapeways N scale rolling stock I do have two Z scale cabeese that I would not be able to afford any other way.I have less invested in these two cars than the cost of one AZL bay window and if I do say so my self they look pretty darn good.
-
Those 1000s look fantastic, John! Hopefully the three I bought turn out well too. The Bestine soak is underway...
Jeff
-
Those 1000s look fantastic, John! Hopefully the three I bought turn out well too. The Bestine soak is underway...
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff.
Here's a photo of a "version 2" caboose that I just finished. The new version is now for sale on Shapeways, and moves the detail parts (marker lamps, end ladders and a battery box for a radio-equipped version) to separate sprues. The photo is of a "radio equipped" version, which has a battery box on the non-smoke-stack side mounted to the underframe, the "radio equipped" logo under the left-most window, and if you look very closely, I added a "stub" antenna on top of the cupola (a short piece of .020 brass wire).
John C.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_4GSbTE_LQk/UOTbhbojXrI/AAAAAAAAAjM/AuygOMDkXEI/s1024/_MG_1946.jpg)
-
Nice cabeese collection!
-
I've been playing around with sketchup .. looking to do a BQ23-7 cab ..
-
Nice! I'll have to pick up a radio equipped version from them.
What are you using for couplers? MTL 1015s?
Jeff
-
Nice! I'll have to pick up a radio equipped version from them.
What are you using for couplers? MTL 1015s?
Jeff
Hi Jeff.
There isn't a separate "radio equipped" version - rather, it is just the kit as currently offered. We pulled the cupola marker lights off the shell and made them separate detail parts along with a battery box that you can cement to the underbody. If you want to do a Radio Equipped version, you leave off the marker lights and add the battery box plus the "Radio Equipped" decals from the Microscale NKP Caboose decal set. If you want to do a "regular" version, you simply glue the marker lights to the cupola and leave off the battery box. Your choice.
Yes, I use MT1015's. The model was designed for them and mine have all come out at exactly the right height, plus or minus a couple of thousandths of an inch!
John C.
-
I've been playing around with sketchup .. looking to do a BQ23-7 cab ..
It's still on my list! Sadly I have zero CAD training, and even less time to learn at the moment. But I really want to do at least a pair of these.
-
I broke down last night and began to work with Sketchup. I strongly recommend watching the first few instructional videos- they make it very easy to work with. After the videos, I did a test "Canadian" wide cab in about 30 minutes. I was shocked at how easy it was to use and I have absolutely no 3D or CAD background (just Adobe Illustrator and CorelDraw experience).
-
All,
Please note that the free Sketchup tool DOES NOT create solids although they look like one (there is no "material" inside the model). You must purchase the PRO version to make true boolean solids. Most RP machines can only work with 3D solids. I do not know if Shapeways can accept surface skin models or not.
I will be starting a thread soon on free and purchased 3D cad software as I test various tools and compare them to my Catia V5 experience.
Love to know if anyone out there uses the free version's models for Shapeways...
-
All,
Please note that the free Sketchup tool DOES NOT create solids although they look like one (there is no "material" inside the model). You must purchase the PRO version to make true boolean solids. Most RP machines can only work with 3D solids. I do not know if Shapeways can accept surface skin models or not.
I will be starting a thread soon on free and purchased 3D cad software as I test various tools and compare them to my Catia V5 experience.
Love to know if anyone out there uses the free version's models for Shapeways...
AFAIK, the designs do not need to be solids. They just have to have watertight skin and the surfaces all have to face in the proper direction (inside and outside). If you look around Shapeways website, they have some useful tutorials on what is required. There are plugins for SketchUp which can help with the design process (such as http://www.cadspan.com/tools (http://www.cadspan.com/tools) ).
-
Please note that the free Sketchup tool DOES NOT create solids although they look like one (there is no "material" inside the model). You must purchase the PRO version to make true boolean solids. Most RP machines can only work with 3D solids. I do not know if Shapeways can accept surface skin models or not.
As Peteski says, they do not need to be solid, just watertight. I have produced a number of Shapeways items using SketchUp with no issues at all. IIRC, there's a free plug-in for SketchUp to check for watertightness.
-
What do you mean by "watertightness"?
-
What do you mean by "watertightness"?
All surfaces are connected. No gaps. Imagine making a paint can from a flat sheet.
-
All,
Please note that the free Sketchup tool DOES NOT create solids although they look like one (there is no "material" inside the model).
Solid models don't have 'material' inside either.
You guys are all talking about the same thing. A solid is a 'watertight' mesh. Solids may have some other inherit properties over what Sketchup provides, but for this application, they are the same thing.
and the surfaces all have to face in the proper direction (inside and outside).
Inside and outside are the same thing in this case. A face has one direction. In the case of a sphere or most other objects, all the faces have to have their normals pointed outward. If not there will appear to be a hole in your mesh and it may confuse the program as to which side is supposed to be the surface.
Jason
-
After
a very little searching for shared Sketchup files, and I'm getting excited again.
Found a few worthwhile 'starter' models although most of the radiator screens, louvers, latches and other details seem lackluster even in a generous mood. It would seem that a 'Cannonized' (to use an HO term) method of virtual model construction is in our very near future. Start with a bare body core that has essential end details, guidelines, and seams. Follow the guidelines and apply 'of the shelf' doors, lights, radiators, fans, exhaust, etc. Save the 3D proof for RailWire dissection/refinement then off to print with confidence.
Now I'm completely jonesing for a couple of MPI MP20C-3s but can't decide, oiginal Detroit Diesel smooth tops or the 2012 era CAT hump on thier backs.
The bright morning of the brave new world in Nscale is almost here...
-
...In the case of a sphere or most other objects, all the faces have to have their normals pointed outward. If not there will appear to be a hole in your mesh and it may confuse the program as to which side is supposed to be the surface.
I don't know about other 3D modeling apps, but SketchUp colors the insides and outsides of surfaces differently so that you can easily spot any ambiguity.
This is a good thing, too, as I've flipped surfaces on occasion, and the outcome is... odd.
-
I don't know about other 3D modeling apps, but SketchUp colors the insides and outsides of surfaces differently so that you can easily spot any ambiguity.
This is a good thing, too, as I've flipped surfaces on occasion, and the outcome is... odd.
That's a nice feature for sure. I haven't used a non-solid modeler in a while but do remember the issues with normals, especially regarding complex boolean operations. Of course in the early days, those operations just crashed the system so it wasn't much of a problem. :)
The other issue was building game models one triangle at a time. If you built it the wrong way (CW vs. CCW) the resulting face would be looking the wrong way and the normal would have to be reversed. Hand building faces is the one thing I miss with solid modelers.
Jason
-
I don't know about other 3D modeling apps, but SketchUp colors the insides and outsides of surfaces differently so that you can easily spot any ambiguity.
This is a good thing, too, as I've flipped surfaces on occasion, and the outcome is... odd.
The Cadspan plugin, in one of the preview modes, colors those surfaces in drastically different color (like cream and red) so the mistakes really stand out. The default SketchUp color scheme is not quite as drastic (it is more difficult to tell the inside/outside difference).
-
How long does it take an idiot to learn 3D? My autoCAD has 3D, but I can't even draw a straight line with it. :|
-
I tried earnestly to learn CAD but failed miserably. Tried a couple of 3D programs, but they were too CAD-like, so that was a fail for me also. When I tried SketchUp, it was as if a lightbulb came on. They take a very different approach to 3D. Have a look at a few of their tutorials, then give it a spin. It's all free, anyway. I know a lot of hardcore CAD people look down at SketchUp like it's made for kids, but there's serious work being done with it. And you can port a SketchUp file right into Shapeways for some FUD fun.
-
+1 I invested an hour in the Sketchup videos and was making complex models. I am sure there is much more to learn, but I see this as a soft route into 3D modelling.
-
I think a class is needed for me... I had some Rhino 3D program and somewhere I have MasterCAM. Haven't been able to draw a thing with em'.
I also had Corel and Adobe and couldn't figure out how to draw with them...
-
Chris, if you can draw a box-cab in 2D CAD, and if you have even a rudimentary ability to think in 3D - which you must to design a 3D model from 2D etchings, then you can master this.
Planet Money had an interesting piece (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/04/168627298/3-d-printing-is-kind-of-a-big-deal) on 3D printing in general, and Shapeways in particular.
-
How long does it take an idiot to learn 3D? My autoCAD has 3D, but I can't even draw a straight line with it. :|
To effectively work in 3D, you need to think in 3D. Much of what you'll draw will start as a flat sketch and will be extruded (like playdough) into a 3D object. From there you add the features you need to the objects surface. Rivets are just extrude circles for example. The more planning you can do ahead of time, the better your model will be.
One plus to modern modeling packages is that things like chamfers and fillets are built in functions and don't need to factored into your sketches.
Like anything else, it just takes practice and asking questions.
I was going to make some flat car stake pockets for RPing. I can take some screen shots along the way.
Jason
-
Love to know if anyone out there uses the free version's models for Shapeways...
Right here (*raises hand*).
The aforementioned NKP Caboose was modeled entirely using the free version of Sketchup.
The conversion to .stl is also actually fairly straightforward using one of the many available free plugins (I've found three or four now).
-
Much of what you'll draw will start as a flat sketch and will be extruded (like playdough) into a 3D object.
That is precisely the way SketchUp works. You draw a flat primitive (circle, square, etc.). Then you click and drag its surface up (or down or left or right) to extrude it into a 3D shape. It's incredibly intuitive. Well, it is for me, at least. The SketchUp interface was a breakthrough; I would not have successfully gotten into 3D rendering otherwise.
-
lol just downloaded Sketchup8 opened it and it says choose template. I don't even know what that is, see what I mean.
I took 2 years of drafting. They had a CAD computer, but the teacher didn't even know how to use it. There was someone in the class who's Dad happened to win the lottery so he had CAD at home. So it was some other kid in class who showed me how to use CAD. I would guess someone who knew CAD would laugh if they saw me draw something with it. Until the first time I sent something out to etch I didn't even know what a "layer" was so I bought AutoCAD for Dummies to figure it out.
I'll try and play with Sketchup later.
-
lol just downloaded Sketchup8 opened it and it says choose template. I don't even know what that is, see what I mean
Not much. And you can change it whenever you want.
It changes some general appearance (colors, look of lines, etc), the default unit of measure, etc. It's just a template that sets some options for you based on whatever it is that you may be drawing. But it won't really impact what you're doing, outside of the biggest thing being the default unit of measure.
This isn't SketchUp support, but maybe someone here has had this issue before -- if I'm building something in "real" 1:1 measurements, and want to get it to Shapeways, I need to reduce it by 160. But the "scale" function doesn't go that low (and I can't type in a scale you want, have to simply drag the mouse). So I then scale it a second time to get it down low enough -- but SketchUp then always crashes on me. I imagine it's a result of some floating point error from reducing some fractional-inch line in my drawing down to 160th of that size.
So has anyone found a super easy to to simply scale things down to 1:160. Or do you simply draw things in the scale measurement to begin with (as I normally do, but didn't do for my shop building that I was just, out of curiousity, seeing if I could Shapeways it)
-
Or do you simply draw things in the scale measurement to begin with (as I normally do, but didn't do for my shop building that I was just, out of curiousity, seeing if I could Shapeways it)
That's what I do.
-
The SketchUp interface was a breakthrough; I would not have successfully gotten into 3D rendering otherwise.
That might be, but you're basically building a house with nothing but hand tools. The stuff you can do with a good parametric modeler over something like Sketchup is very significant.
I just downloaded Sketchup and it's like what I assume living before electricity was like. :) I'll have to look through the help section and see what this can really do.
Jason
-
That might be, but you're basically building a house with nothing but hand tools. The stuff you can do with a good parametric modeler over something like Sketchup is very significant.
I have no doubt of this! The point is the interface design is what can make or break an app for an individual. The methodology of use must fit the user's expectations in order for it to be successful, so if I must build my house with hand tools (which, to be honest, would be a joy), then so be it. Like many things, it's a stepping stone, and I'm sure at some point I'll "graduate" to something "real." Or not. If I can create things in SketchUp that meet my needs, then I've achieved a level of success I'd not expected prior to using it. Which was exactly zero.
-
If this keeps up, we'll need a "Grateful for Sketchup" thread. :trollface:
-
Solid models don't have 'material' inside either.
Jason
Jason this statement is misleading- skin models are not the same as a solid. The 3d solid software knows exactly how much material is inside the solid, otherwise it could not calculate the center of gravity or mass, which most 3D software tools can do.
The fud machine must assume that there are no interior contours, like a fluid path, in order to fill in the section inside the skin model.
Chris333, I would also draw it in scale size. Many small features disappear in the tools mind and it cannot recalculate it so it crashes. Many features such as rivets must be enlarged to the rp machines capability anyway.
I don't look down on sketchup up at all, I think the interface is great. If Catia interfaced like sketch up I'd love it. The fact that Shapeways can handle non solids is cool.
My only issue with using rudementary shapes is that it is more difficult to make that shape complex. Boolean solids make this much easier and complex filleting capabilities are crucial for me.
I cannot use my work software for personal profit so I am looking for a CAD software too. It's just disappointing knowing I can't use Catia for any projects I want to make.
Scott's, LOL!
-
The 3d solid software knows exactly how much material is inside the solid, otherwise it could not calculate the center of gravity or mass, which most 3D software tools can do.
Surely this is calculated based on the surface shape of the object? Therefore, the only real difference is that solid software has the added ability to deal with the properties of an object's material--whatever that may be; the drawing itself is still just a complex surface.
The fud machine must assume that there are no interior contours, like a fluid path, in order to fill in the section inside the skin model.
It doesn't need to assume anything, since the area is not being filled by a fluid, such as it might if injection-molded. FUD is built up layer by layer, so all it needs to know is the perimeter of any given 2D slice of a shape. (Well, that and a lot of other stuff like required support, but that's not pertinent.)
-
How long does it take an idiot to learn 3D?
I will let you know ;)
-
Jason this statement is misleading- skin models are not the same as a solid. The 3d solid software knows exactly how much material is inside the solid, otherwise it could not calculate the center of gravity or mass, which most 3D software tools can do.
It's not mis-leading because I said there may be other properties that a solid model has over what Sketchup can do. The point is that it doesn't matter because in either case the files are converted to something that the printer can use so anything 'watertight', regardless of whether it's a true solids model or not, will work.
Jason
-
Seeing as that SketchUp supports real-time newtonian-physics based manipulation and animation of complex mechanical objects via a number of available plug-ins, it surely must now "exactly how much material is inside the solid... to calculate the center of gravity or mass". It may not be in the base downloadable version, but the capability is there.
-
How long does it take an idiot to learn 3D? My autoCAD has 3D, but I can't even draw a straight line with it. :|
SketchUp is quite easy and probably even intuitive for someone with no 3D drawing experience. It is designed for average computer user to assist Google in creating 3D models of buildings from photographs (for Google Maps).
You need to take all the basic and advanced video tutorials - they will really help understanding how SketchUp works.
http://www.sketchup.com/intl/en/training/videos.html (http://www.sketchup.com/intl/en/training/videos.html)
Then, if you feel like you need to, you can dive into other tutorials on http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/cldetails?mid=36e1fa0d054a15eecc725c514c21d975&prevstart=0&hl=en&ct=lc (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/cldetails?mid=36e1fa0d054a15eecc725c514c21d975&prevstart=0&hl=en&ct=lc)
-
How long does it take an idiot to learn 3D? My autoCAD has 3D, but I can't even draw a straight line with it. :|
LOL, I had the same problem. Plain AutoCAD 3D is awful. I didn't get into 3D modeling until Solidworks. The Solidworks interface is incredibly intuitive, and more powerful than SketchUp. It's also $$$, unfortunately.
I just finished up some tooling design this afternoon. I (almost) wish my day-job needed Solidworks because it's such a joy to use.
-
I made it through the first video here:
http://www.sketchup.com/intl/en/training/videos/new_to_gsu.html
But I find it odd that I haven't used a single dimension yet.
-
I made it through the first video here:
http://www.sketchup.com/intl/en/training/videos/new_to_gsu.html
But I find it odd that I haven't used a single dimension yet.
Oh, you'll get there! You're just playing around so far.
I also found it best to design the object in larger (even in 1:1) scale, then when ready, shrink it to 1:160. If I design in 1:160 to begin with, certain operations do not work or do not produce the expected results. Weird but true.
-
I also found it best to design the object in larger (even in 1:1) scale, then when ready, shrink it to 1:160. If I design in 1:160 to begin with, certain operations do not work or do not produce the expected results. Weird but true.
See my previous query -- how do you do that?
The scale function doesn't work for me to that level (only can reduce 1/100th at a time), and scaling an item multiple times to get it down to 1:160 (first time down to 0.01, second time down to 0.6 I think it was) crashes SketchUp every time for me.
Or is that exactly how you do it, it just doesn't crash for you?
-
See my previous query -- how do you do that?
The scale function doesn't work for me to that level (only can reduce 1/100th at a time), and scaling an item multiple times to get it down to 1:160 (first time down to 0.01, second time down to 0.6 I think it was) crashes SketchUp every time for me.
Or is that exactly how you do it, it just doesn't crash for you?
Hmm... I didn't have a problem. I scaled 1:1 object down to 0.00625 of the original size.
-
I gave up on Sketchup. I can't use it to even make a simple stake pocket. Maybe with the solids tools upgrade I could get close but not with the free version.
Jason
-
Hmm... I didn't have a problem. I scaled 1:1 object down to 0.00625 of the original size.
Hm.
I'm using SketchUp Pro 8. And the Scale tool, unlike all the other functions, doesn't allow manual entry of the dimension. I just have to drag the mouse, and it only goes in 0.05 increments down to 0.05. Guess I'll have to play around with it some more.
EDIT: Weird. SketchUp on the work laptop (not Pro) works just fine.
-
Hm.
I'm using SketchUp Pro 8. And the Scale tool, unlike all the other functions, doesn't allow manual entry of the dimension. I just have to drag the mouse, and it only goes in 0.05 increments down to 0.05. Guess I'll have to play around with it some more.
EDIT: Weird. SketchUp on the work laptop (not Pro) works just fine.
That is weird. Mine is the free version (also 8).
I just select the object then when scale tool shows the handles around the object, I select one corner and start shrinking it with the mouse. At that point if you release the mouse button, you can then type in the numerical value and hit enter.
It is a bit non-intuitive but it works.
-
That is weird. Mine is the free version (also 8).
I just select the object then when scale tool shows the handles around the object, I select one corner and start shrinking it with the mouse. At that point if you release the mouse button, you can then type in the numerical value and hit enter.
It is a bit non-intuitive but it works.
That's the same way hard dimensions are entered as well while drawing primitives or dragging surfaces. However, I believe the numeric entries must be made while the mouse button is down. I'll have to check--it's been a while...
-
No, the mouse button doesn't have to be depressed. Despite my issues with "Scale", I'm quite 'fluent' in SketchUp, having used it to design a large number of real-life 1:1 objects, all the way up to my house including all the interior design work.
I'll have to play around with Pro when I get back home this weekend and see exactly what issue I was having because I was able to scale down exactly how I wanted last night with the standard build. Though I had resulting camera issues where the camera increment wanted to skip right past my now miniscule model, but I didn't play around with it much at all. It obviously goes without saying, but it's amazing just how small something gets once it's reduced to 1:160. Doing it in real-time, and seeing how small it gets, it instantly reminded me of that old (by my young'un standards) Dennis Quaid movie where the guy gets shrunk down really small and injected into this guy -- "Innerspace" I think it was called.
-
From CES .. this kind of fits
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/08/3-d-printers-ces-makerbot-Replicator-diy-revolution/
-
Fingers
look like crinkle fries...
-
I think a class is needed for me...
Chris, I'm with you on this. Stony Smith told me that knowing CorelDRAW like I do I should have no problem drawing 3D models. Wrong answer. I cannot wrap my brain around making my 2D drawings into 3D. But I learn fast when shown and I would love the class. My preference would definitely be Solidworks as well, or Truespace which is what Stony uses frequently.
As for fluid inside a FUD solid, it is in there on many models I have bought from Stony at Shapeways. He puts a drain hole or two but without Bestine all of that liquid wax wants to stay inside. If there are no drainage holes I wonder if over time it will ooze out and through any primer or paint. The advantage of making the model hollow is to save (lots) money.
-
As for fluid inside a FUD solid, it is in there on many models I have bought from Stony at Shapeways. He puts a drain hole or two but without Bestine all of that liquid wax wants to stay inside. If there are no drainage holes I wonder if over time it will ooze out and through any primer or paint. The advantage of making the model hollow is to save (lots) money.
Different kind of "fluid." But this is interesting nonetheless.
-
SketchUp is something I would like to learn so that I do some things with Shapeways. Last time I used anything CAD was AutoCAD back in high school shop class.
-
I am starting to play with Sketchup once again after a long layoff, with these as the desired result for printing a master in Shapeways. Non-working. I am assuming it should be partly hollow to reduce cost, and doing the pole and the bracket/light as separate pieces. Any thoughts on this?
(http://www.trainsetsonly.com/Merchant2/images/fullsized/FS933/lg933-2313.jpg)
Best wishes, Dave
-
I am starting to play with Sketchup once again after a long layoff, with these as the desired result for printing a master in Shapeways. Non-working. I am assuming it should be partly hollow to reduce cost, and doing the pole and the bracket/light as separate pieces. Any thoughts on this?
(http://www.trainsetsonly.com/Merchant2/images/fullsized/FS933/lg933-2313.jpg)
Dave, you may very likely run into thickness restrictions with Shapeways for this model even before you try to hollow it out. FUD may be the only material which will allow you the thin allowances. FUD is the most fragile material. I am trying to recall the limits but I think it is about 1.5 mm for the walls and that is snapping-in-pieces thickness on long thin products especially. Were you also going to pass wire up through the inside? I always allow for breakage during shipping when I order SW models....
-
Maybe design it so its not completely hollow, maybe just a channel that could fit some small brass tube up through it?
-
I can confirm that Sketchup is fairly easy to learn with the instructional videos, but I would add that, like any computer programme, you need to use it regularly in order to retain the
knowledge.
I used Sketchup to draw the benchwork for my layout. This was to learn how to use the program:
(http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx206/BCR570/Layout%20Train%20Movements%202010/Layout%20Construction%20-%20Benchwork/LayoutImage003.jpg)
I then moved on to scale drawings of the Chetwynd and Dawson Creek station/freight sheds:
(http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx206/BCR570/ChetwyndStation02_zps03fa9897.jpg)
As for Shapeways, the shells I ordered for the BCR GF6C and the PGE cabooses were terrible - not worth working with. I have since had several smaller items rendered and they have turned out quite well. Here are some fuel tanks for a flatcar:
(http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx206/BCR570/Equipment%20Photos%202012/PGE110407.jpg)
The Shapeways results will improve when they are able to specify build orientation for their customers.
Tim
-
I am starting to play with Sketchup once again after a long layoff, with these as the desired result for printing a master in Shapeways. Non-working. I am assuming it should be partly hollow to reduce cost, and doing the pole and the bracket/light as separate pieces. Any thoughts on this?
More than wall thickness, I'd be concerned about warping. I had some long thin parts similar to this rendered in FUD, and they wound up almost looking like a banana.
-
Thanks for the thoughts folks. Maybe I need to just do the arm and the "bulb" and work out a different method for the tapered pole. Again, open to suggestions.
Best wishes, Dave
Edit: A friend just sent me info on these:
http://www.holophane.com/products/family.asp?brand=hlp&family=Milwaukee%20Lanterns&producttype=Outdoor&category=Decorative&subcategory=Historical
All I need to do is shrink cast it!
-
Chris, I'm with you on this. Stony Smith told me that knowing CorelDRAW like I do I should have no problem drawing 3D models. Wrong answer. I cannot wrap my brain around making my 2D drawings into 3D. But I learn fast when shown and I would love the class. My preference would definitely be Solidworks as well, or Truespace which is what Stony uses frequently.
As for fluid inside a FUD solid, it is in there on many models I have bought from Stony at Shapeways. He puts a drain hole or two but without Bestine all of that liquid wax wants to stay inside. If there are no drainage holes I wonder if over time it will ooze out and through any primer or paint. The advantage of making the model hollow is to save (lots) money.
I use both CorelDraw and SolidWorks. The 2D drawings are extruded to create 3D shapes. You have to break down the complex object you are attempting to replicate into the most simple of geometric shapes, and build it one piece (one extruded element) at a time. Think of it as constructing a large complex model from simple Lego blocks.
(http://www.seankenney.com/portfolio/empire_state_building/2.jpg)
-
Chris, I'm with you on this. Stony Smith told me that knowing CorelDRAW like I do I should have no problem drawing 3D models. Wrong answer.
Actually, the SketchUp interface is more akin to CorelDRAW than most other 3D tools. I could have you drawing simple 3D shapes using SketchUp in twenty minutes.
-
Actually, the SketchUp interface is more akin to CorelDRAW than most other 3D tools. I could have you drawing simple 3D shapes using SketchUp in twenty minutes.
Yup. SketchUp works well for me and the learning curve is pretty easy, especially with all the online tutorials available.
-
I too am grateful for Shapeways if for nothing else than these "Q" trucks which I have been dreaming about for decades, which are available through Panamint Models thanks to Eric Cox.
THANKS Shapeways and Eric!!
Here are a set of Eric's trucks mounted on an MTL CA wooden caboose which I'm working on. WOW! What a difference they make and they're so much better than Bachmann Old-Timer trucks that I'm trashing all of those I've used over the years.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-F07Kvk3X7-M/UMcOnoQ8ZlI/AAAAAAAAB4E/sf3T3XWAhVo/s800/MTL%2520CA%2520U.P.%2520Modified%2520001.jpg)
-
I could have you drawing simple 3D shapes using SketchUp in twenty minutes.
DEAL!
-
I bought those same trucks for a caboose and yes they are great!
-
What a difference they make and they're so much better than Bachmann Old-Timer trucks that I'm trashing all of those I've used over the years.
Bob, what material were these made from, Black Detail, FUD painted black, White Detail painted black? They do look very nice and I imagine that the varied depths of the design helps to hide any raster marks that may be present. Thanks for sharing.
-
Bob, what material were these made from, Black Detail, FUD painted black, White Detail painted black? They do look very nice and I imagine that the varied depths of the design helps to hide any raster marks that may be present. Thanks for sharing.
You can buy them in other materials than FUD, but FUD is all I would consider. You gotta soak them really well with Bestine to get rid of the wax, and that means overnight, and even then use a soft toothbrush to gently get all of it off. You'll know when it's all gone because they'll get totally opaque. If your flat paint is shiny after you paint the part, you'll know you didn't get all the wax removed.
I used Krylon Cammo Black, which is an ultra flat paint to paint mine...just because I had it on hand.
Although they look a little rough (emphasis on "little") when you inspect them before painting, it goes away after a thin app of paint. I used the recommended Fox Valley wheelsets for them and I am completely taken with the brake hangar details, which simply could not be accomplished with a single piece injection molded truck sideframe.