Rapido FL-9 progress

[John]

The FL9 nose shape is not changing.  Not at all.

Quite the contrary, in fact. MRN thought our FP9A was the best F-unit ever produced in model form.

The FL9 nose and the FP9A nose share the same profile. There are subtle differences, which we are replicating. But the overall shape is not changing AT ALL. 

That being said, if Bill finds that our test sample - not our drawing - has a tooling problem in the nose, that will be fixed. 

I am very proud of the work we've done to ensure our model is as accurate as can be done in model form, and I am especially proud of the nose. The N scale FL9 nose will match the HO scale FL9 nose, as it rightly should.

Bravo ...

[Leggy]

Yet to see the nose of the sample compared with a real photo....all we've had so far is the CAD image compared to a real shot. Just sayin'....

[wcfn100]

Yet to see the nose of the sample compared with a real photo....all we've had so far is the CAD image compared to a real shot. Just sayin'....

I could only find one sample picture (and I don't know what stage the sample was in), and I couldn't find any prototype shots from a similar angle. That's why I used the drawing.





Jason

[Sokramiketes]

I don't care how much you spent or how long you've been in business. All I know is the Rapido shell has high sharp cheeks. The prototype doesn't. The Highliner shell doesn't.

Here's the Highliner shell.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Can we talk about the cheeks and actual reasons why you believe they are sharper than the photos shown here? Are there photos of the unit that was scanned? Were there variations and high sharp cheeks might be prototype in some cases?

[bbussey]

It's extremely difficult to argue against expert affirmation that the Rapido FP9A nose is correct.

Looking at the following photo that was posted up-thread ...



... there is evidence of a "high hard cheek" on the prototype, just above the red and black paint color separation.  And again, it's impossible to compare such a complex surface to the CAD 3D rendering, as there is little chance of the rendered shadows from the simulated lighting being fully accurate to reality.

Also, given that the model in this photo is the first-shot and needs to be verified that it matches the designed model, it's academic at this point to negatively comment on it at all until Rapido confirms or refutes that the first-shot is accurate.

Regarding the SolidWorks questions — yes, it is more difficult to render compound curves in SolidWorks than it is in Rhino, but it is not impossible.  I've done the nose of a New Haven EP4 electric, which is as equally as challenging as an EMD E/F nose, as well as doing heavyweight and turtleback passenger car roofs.  You just have to make sure all of your significant sketch guidelines are in place before lofting, whether plane-based or 3D-based.
 

[wcfn100]

RE: Highliner Shell -

Since I've been out the the field for so long, I'm open to being impressed with what a current laser scanner (and software) can do.

Maybe things are different now but this is how I remember it going.

- What's the point cloud (I don't remember that term but that's what they seem to call it today) look like straight from the scanner?
- What's the resulting mesh generated by the software look like?
- What's the conversion from the mesh to a solid surface look like?

It's the last step I'm most interested if that's all that could be provided.  I have no problem believing the data cloud and mesh are 100% accurate to the prototype (within the tolerance or resolution of the scanner).  But I also have no problem believing that the conversion to a solid or surface generates inconsistencies between the mesh and resulting surface particularly on curved surfaces.

But like I said, I'm from the stone age on some of this, and maybe now you can just wave a laser around and perfect models drop from the sky, which would be awesome so please let me know if that's the case.

Jason

[wcfn100]

It's extremely difficult to argue against expert affirmation that the Rapido FP9A nose is correct.

Not really.  Right or wrong, the argument has been very easy.  You even pointed out the same things.


Jason

[daniel_leavitt2000]

You know, a model that is a true representation will always look off. Just like paint matching a prototype will always look too dark. Curves will always look too sharp. Atmosphere, lighting and optics are all at fault on this. Prototypes will always look a bit more dilute than a model with the exact same proportions.

Hand made tooling can compensate for this if the tooler has an eye for the disparity. But this results in a model that is NOT AS ACCURATE. It just looks that way.

[Sokramiketes]

It's extremely difficult to argue against expert affirmation that the Rapido FP9A nose is correct.

Looking at the following photo that was posted up-thread ...



... there is evidence of a "high hard cheek" on the prototype, just above the red and black paint color separation.  And again, it's impossible to compare such a complex surface to the CAD 3D rendering, as there is little chance of the rendered shadows from the simulated lighting being fully accurate to reality.

Also, given that the model in this photo is the first-shot and needs to be verified that it matches the designed model, it's academic at this point to negatively comment on it at all until Rapido confirms or refutes that the first-shot is accurate.

Regarding the SolidWorks questions — yes, it is more difficult to render compound curves in SolidWorks than it is in Rhino, but it is not impossible.  I've done the nose of a New Haven EP4 electric, which is as equally as challenging as an EMD E/F nose, as well as doing heavyweight and turtleback passenger car roofs.  You just have to make sure all of your significant sketch guidelines are in place before lofting, whether plane-based or 3D-based.

That particular photo is not a 3D rendering.  It is a shell.  Jason said the nose is not changing and it will match the previously released FP9.  It is what it is. 

THE EMPORER HAS CLOTHES!

I think Ben Hom described the Tichy USRA hopper the best.  "Once you know, it's an itch you can't scratch"



The middle panels should be the same width as the outer ones.  How long did that go undetected and how many experts reviewed?

[bbussey]

Not really.  Right or wrong, the argument has been very easy.  You even pointed out the same things.

You know, this is getting past tiring.  I've done nothing of the sort.  What's the flippin' problem??  You bitched about "sharp high cheeks" and the very prototype photo you posted has them.  You complain about the light rendering, when you know full well that digital solid modeling programs do not display certain subtleties well, let alone complex curves accurately on screen.  Multitudes of people FAR more familiar with the prototype than you have attested the Rapido FP9A model IS ACCURATE TO THE PROTOTYPE, and Rapido has stated that the FL9 nose is using the same FP9A nose with minor relief modifications as appropriate.  It also was stated that the first-shot model remains to be verified that it matches the model spec.  What more do you want at this point?  Everything you've sited has been or is being addressed: the digital nose is correct, and the first-shot has to be verified that it matches the digital nose.  It's as if you can't accept when the process is following the path exactly as you want!  There's nothing further to discuss until Rapido confirms it has a physical-model that matches the digital model.

Dude, the trolling (and the snark) has to stop.  Your credibility is taking a hit. 

[bbussey]

That particular photo is not a 3D rendering.  It is a shell.  Jason said the nose is not changing and it will match the previously released FP9.  It is what it is.  ...

I wasn't taking about the model.  I was taking about the prototype.  The "sharp high cheeks" are clearly apparent above the paint separation line.

[Sokramiketes]

Snarky much?

You know, a model that is a true representation will always look off. Just like paint matching a prototype will always look too dark. Curves will always look too sharp. Atmosphere, lighting and optics are all at fault on this. Prototypes will always look a bit more dilute than a model with the exact same proportions.

Hand made tooling can compensate for this if the tooler has an eye for the disparity. But this results in a model that is NOT AS ACCURATE. It just looks that way.

Sounds a bit existential, but if I get what you're saying... you think that the Highliner shell is less accurate, even though it matches better to the prototype?

Or that models need to be tooled softer because of scale proportion issues?  I guess I need to refresh my memory on Gary's evaluation of optics and centered heralds on tenders to recalibrate my eye.

[Sokramiketes]

I wasn't taking about the model.  I was taking about the prototype.  The "sharp high cheeks" are clearly apparent above the paint separation line.

I think you're talking about the radius that is parallel to the carbody side.  I believe that radius is longer on the prototype, but you could argue that it is there and is a simple radius.  But the "sharp high cheek" is the point directly above the back edge of the number board casing.  That is not apparent in prototype shots, it doesn't catch the eye, and was properly addressed on the Highliner shell. 

[bbussey]

I think you're talking about the radius that is parallel to the carbody side.  I believe that radius is longer on the prototype, but you could argue that it is there and is a simple radius.  But the "sharp high cheek" is the point directly above the back edge of the number board casing.  That is not apparent in prototype shots, it doesn't catch the eye, and was properly addressed on the Highliner shell.

ABOVE the paint separation, IN FRONT of the windshield.  The EXACT section of the (unverified) first-shot that you circled.  It's clearly there, as evidenced by the sharp change of shading in the black area.

[tom mann]

Guys, lets take a step back and treat others (and manufacturer representatives) with respect.