the future?

[gpr45]

Down at my local Hobby shop this weekend, owner says What do you think of this, Geoff? It was a incredibly formed European diesel shell, TT. The man who owned it was from Germany and produced the shell from a 3 D printer. The detail was truly amazing! Perhaps all the kit bashers should get together and look at this investment. Think about it: every design of every steam, diesel and rolling stock plus buildings could be potentially produced from this technology! Just seen the future. This will be a game changer. Thanks, gpr45

[Mark W]

So the brick and mortar hobby shops are finally catching up with the new media headlines from 3 years ago? 

Maybe this will help my sales!

[gpr45]

to mark w . perhaps this technology will not be prevalent ,  in the near future . however like cell phones its just around the corner! good luck , geoff.

[Mark W]

Welcome to the future.

[up1950s]

Think about it: every design of every steam, diesel and rolling stock plus buildings could be potentially produced from this technology!

I bet they can do models of Venetian blinds . I have quite a few models made by this not new to us process that proves it .They are getting better over the last few years , but ...

[chicken45]

[Ike the BN Freak]

Welcome to the future.

However until Shapeways resolution matches that of injection molding or the shells that Mark4Design was punching out...I don't see it as a source for every model of whatever out there.

[DKS]

RP, or Rapid Prototyping, has been a topic of discussion for several years. If you search The Railwire for Shapeways, you will find dozens of threads on design issues, cleaning and painting techniques, and more fundamental points such as viability for N scale commercial product development. There are many other services besides Shapeways, and now desktop RP machines are becoming more prevalent and affordable, although it will still likely be years before the technology is capable of the resolution required to rival the quality of injection-molded products. Also, it is tempting to think that the technology will revolutionize the hobby and make "anything" possible. However, the reality goes beyond the simple issue of resolution; the 3D models must first be rendered in software, and this is still the realm of skilled designers. It is simply not possible to offer a desktop RP machine coupled with an application that magically will turn anyone into a product designer. So, if you're not proficient with 3D software, you'll need to pay someone to make that unique item for which you yearn.

[pjm20]

So, if you're not proficient with 3D software, you'll need to pay someone to make that unique item for which you yearn.

While I agree with this statement, learning how to use 3D Software is not that complicated. I took Drafting & Design Classes at my high school. After the first two basic semester courses, most of the skillsets one needs is there. AutoDesk's recent updates to AutoCAD, Inventor, etc make using the program a little easier since the way the program operates is much more logical. If a person takes the time, looks at the tutorials that AutoCAD or what other software they are using, and just practices for a half an hour a day, it will only take a few months before a person really get a handle on the software. Also, different software suites different people. I have used both AutoCAD and Inventor extensively. In the end I prefer AutoCAD, but some of my friends like Inventor better. The key really is to find a program that fits your eye. This is assuming of course that the person is a little savvy with a computer.

[DKS]

While I agree with this statement, learning how to use 3D Software is not that complicated. I took Drafting & Design Classes at my high school. After the first two basic semester courses, most of the skillsets one needs is there. AutoDesk's recent updates to AutoCAD, Inventor, etc make using the program a little easier since the way the program operates is much more logical. If a person takes the time, looks at the tutorials that AutoCAD or what other software they are using, and just practices for a half an hour a day, it will only take a few months before a person really get a handle on the software. Also, different software suites different people. I have used both AutoCAD and Inventor extensively. In the end I prefer AutoCAD, but some of my friends like Inventor better. The key really is to find a program that fits your eye. This is assuming of course that the person is a little savvy with a computer.

Sure, "learning how to use 3D Software is not that complicated" assuming you have proficiency with computers in the first place--which you acknowledge. But such proficiency may not be as widespread as you think; I spent a decade writing software for scientists, and that's an eye-opening experience--some PhDs can barely send email. Then, there are other forms of proficiency that are required: knowing how to use the software is one thing, whereas knowing exactly what you're building, and how to build it properly, is another thing altogether. It's like saying, well yes, you can use a word processor with the best of them. But can you write?

[Mark W]

there are other forms of proficiency that are required: knowing how to use the software is one thing, whereas knowing exactly what you're building, and how to build it properly, is another thing altogether. It's like saying, well yes, you can use a word processor with the best of them. But can you write?

Precisely this. 

I often wonder that Shapeways rejects models so easily because there are so many modelers, but not true designers.  You CANNOT simply scale a design without affecting the printability and model integrity, yet this is by far my most often request. 
It's also worth noting the material attributes.  FUD is very unlike any previously existing materials used in practical modeling, and therefore cannot be handled as such. 

That being said, a good design in the hands of someone familiar with FUD has been offering some amazing accents to layouts everywhere for the past several years.  Nothing yet rivals quality of injection molding, or other mass-manufacture processes (some have gotten close), but neither does injection molding/other processes rival turnaround rate and experimental ability of 3D printing. 

[DKS]

It's important, too, to understand the origins of the technology. Rapid Prototyping got its name because it was developed as a means to "proof" items intended for injection molding or other traditional mass-production processes, to test part design before spending real money on actual tooling. It was never intended to be a production process--that is, be the source of mass-produced end product. It is gradually starting to morph into that role because it has proven to be a cost-effective means of producing low-volume, essentially one-off models. But because all RP machines still depend on more or less the same means of fabrication--creating each object from scratch one at a time--they will never be a practical means of mass-production (unless someone with bottomless pockets buys an army of 3D printers and sets them off to work).

What will likely become quite viable, however, is a market for digital models that modelers can buy, download and use in their own desktop RP machines. Right now the desktop 3D printer market is literally in the process of exploding, and it may only be a few years before affordable machines with adequate resolution will be available for everyone--they may one day be nearly as ubiquitous as the inkjet printer.

[trainforfun]

Anybody knows of somebody who could draft a locomotive body ?

[Chris333]

I've been using AutoCAD for year and have no idea how any of the 3D tools work...

[Dave Schneider]

I recently commissioned a talented 3D designer to produce a car side for a Milwaukee Road beer car. Rather than doing a complete car, the idea was to do just the side to reduce printing artifacts (mainly the shadow zone) that are hard to smooth. Here is what  I received, a print that was done in a vertical aspect which maximized the shadow problem, instead of horizontal which would have provided a much smoother (but not perfect) surface. I asked Shapeways whether they could reprint in an orientation that would improve the results or refund my money. They refunded my money.

This is not a Shapeways rant. They will not allow you to chose orientation. What I had hoped was that THEY would chose an orientation that would result in the best possible product. They chose to not do that, which is their right.



I have been willing to spend money to come up with a unique car that  I need. Any recommendations for vendors that are willing to orient a design to produce a good result?

Best wishes, Dave