make your own models

[wcfn100]

So let me ask a question. What is easier, drawing to full size and scale down, or drawing to scale size with 3D software?

From my little experience drawing so far, I wouldn't see any reason to try and draw to full size.  There are too many tolerances to consider when 'scaling down'.  Also, when the software allows 17 decimal places, you don't lose anything when dividing down to 160.  Besides that, some of your design is based off of stuff that is already 160 scale like mechanisms, handrails and glass.


please note, Mark responded while I was typing so I've learned something about drawing full size


Jason

[Robbman]

Message deleted

[Sokramiketes]

I hate doing calculations in the middle of modeling.  Solidworks is handy for that as equations can be used in lieu of scaled dimensions.  But, it's still easier to input the dimensions in whatever form you measured them.  Then scale down and add in the components that are measured off similar models.  For example... if one were to do a flat car, I would model the body in full size, then apply the scale factor, then create the N scale bolsters and coupler mounting pads.  That was you can use real measurements for each, full size dimensions taken from the actual car, and N scale dimensions to match to N scale compenents like trucks and couplers.

AutoCad has been trumped by associative dimensioning. 

[wcfn100]

I must admit it is annoying to see all the dimension in decimals when you're trying to double check the drawing.  But when trying to create an NE-5 caboose that will drop onto the Atlas NE-6 using it's detail parts, it's easier for me to reference the scale measurements on the Atlas caboose for the placement of the roofwalk holes, ladders and glass. 

Jason

[KelNScale]

Thanks for the thoughts guys. I've done a ton at full size, then gone back and touched up what I need to at the scale size. I was just curious if I'm the only one that jumps all the hoops..

Kel

[Chris333]

For example... if one were to do a flat car

Yeah like that will happen  :

[Sokramiketes]

For example... if one were to do a flat car

Yeah like that will happen  :

Not ever.

[Mark4]

So let me ask a question. What is easier, drawing to full size and scale down, or drawing to scale size with 3D software?

From my little experience drawing so far, I wouldn't see any reason to try and draw to full size.  There are too many tolerances to consider when 'scaling down'.  Also, when the software allows 17 decimal places, you don't lose anything when dividing down to 160.  Besides that, some of your design is based off of stuff that is already 160 scale like mechanisms, handrails and glass.


please note, Mark responded while I was typing so I've learned something about drawing full size


Jason

We have worked on models in 6 different scales so far: Z, N, TT, HO, S and 1:43 (and soon 1:34) so for us working in 1:1 makes more sense than someone who is set on one scale. Parametric modelling is flexible, particularly if you plan the 3D model well. Some of our early stuff was not well planned insofar as tweaking the detail was long and involved but it was all part of the learning process. When you do this for a living you become very pragmatic and the adage that "the best is the enemy of the good" is worth noting.

Another issue to consider is that of units. We work in mm wherever possible. In metric engineering (except civil) mm are used wherever possible. Keeps the chance of mistakes and misunderstandings down.

[Mark4]

AutoCad has been trumped by associative dimensioning. 

More broadly speaking, 3D design is trumping 2D design with all of its compromises and conventions. Autodesk has a product (Inventor) that is very similar in price and capabilty to Solidworks. I prefer Inventor as I find the user interface more efficient (and you have to standardize on something). Autodesk is now going after products such as Rhino to cover the low-cost (relatively speaking!) surfacing and freeform modelling market.

[Iain]

My current project is being done 1:1, but with tolarances and details designed to work in N.  However, it is not hard at all to change things to work with, say, HO.  Although the way I do it is probably not the absolute best way, it is still a heck of a lot easier to change something than if each individual rivet were a seperate entity, requiring  manual changing of everything to switch scales.

[Iain]

So, now this is a thing.

[3DTrains]

...the TrainSim models don't generally have windows and doors and louvers called out, they are just "painted" on the box with graphics and don't have real 3D detail to them.

Generally, yes, but for every rule there are exceptions:





Cheers!
Marc - Riverside

[Lemosteam]

MAN THAT'S GORGEOUS. MARC!

[rschaffter]

That's an impressive model.     I'd love to see it rendered in something like Lightwave or Vue, or even Poser...

[3DTrains]

Thanks. Here's a couple with passenger pilots. These also differ from the ones above as they have the original roof overhangs and lack the wrecking lugs:



I created these a few years ago for Railworks, a game similar to MS Train Simulator. I have a few more screens, including some interior shots here.

Not wanting to switch to HO, I'm waiting for the fidelity of the printed parts to improve, and then I may try my hand at creating ATSF and SP-specific details for the Intermountain and Kato Fs.

Cheers!
Marc - Riverside