Since there have been questions raised in other threads about how to work with SU, I thought we could start a thread for questions , discussion and an SBS where needed/possible.
FWIW and as a absolute up-front clarification/disclosure; I am by no means an expert on the program, I am completely self taught, I never watched any of the tutorials, and I tend to take a very intuitive, pragmatic, basic, and construction process oriented approach to the program/process, (instead of the way a CAD operator might approach it)....I don't always use the simplest method...but I use what works for me, and ensures me the rust I need, I don't use or write routines or scripts (except a few that came with the program that I have needed to learn). I am always still learning or finding something new with the program. In my work use of the program, I use it differently and to far greater detail than most SU users do, so my way of doing things might not be the way the users intended it...but it gets me the particular result I am after....and suits my anal nature.
I hope that others here will contribute and participate as well, otherwise this is going to be a very boring and short lived venture.
I use SU. Pro v. 7.x, the pro version differs slightly from the free version in terms of some functionality, and it has add-ons/plug-ins such as "Podium", "Style Builder", and "Layout"......so some things I do on occasion may not be possible on the basic version. I also am not sure what differences there are if any, or in command names/descriptions between the English and other language versions....so foreign language users may have to try and muddle through some of the command names/strings I list, on their own.
I am going to approach any answers in the most basic way, and not try to get into any fancy advanced concepts/approaches.
Some basics before starting:
After opening the program/new drawing, immediately Delete the little Gen-X/Y doofus that is in the drawing file when it opens...he like many Gen-X/Yers is completely useless. (using the arrow tool, click on him...this will select him with a blue box... and type 'e' (for erase.)
I am going to assume that everyone understands a 3D environment. In the case of SU the blue (vertical) line is the 'z' axis and the red/green lines (horizontal). For our discussion purposes we shall always consider the red/green plane the ground plane, bottom, or down. We shall also endeavor to draw above the "ground plane" for ease of discussion and explanation.
Since IMO SU is somewhat lacking in keyboard commands/shortcuts (compared to ACAD) I tend to more frequently use the menus for my actions. [I believe there is a printable menu/command sheet that can be downloaded/printed from the SU site. There is a way to go in and assign additional limited keyboard shortcuts/commands to certain functions (and change the ones auto assigned by the program)...I once did that, but when my HD crashed and I had to reload, I never went back and did that again]
SU, draws and operates in "Real World" dimensions...not in and selected scale dimension....so whatever dimension you enter is what exists in the real world. IE...if you want to draw a 1/48 scale model/part, and you want something that is 6'x3' in the real world.....the size you need to draw it will be 1.5"x.75"
Once the program/file is open, there is a Help tab at the top that can come in handy to you. In there you will find : the "Help Center" which is an online help index/reference....and you will find, "Welcome to SketchUp" ...which has links to training videos, the 'help center' and 'tips and tricks'.....BUT most importantly, in the "Welcome to SU" window, you will find a tab that reads "Template".....this is where you can go to select the type of format IE. Architectural, Engineering... and the unit format; feet/inches, decimal feet, meters, millimeters etc. that you want to work in. [SEE IMAGE 1 BELOW], . As an example, I for instance will use "Architectural-Feet/Inches" when doing things for work, but use either "Engineering-Feet" or "Product Design-Inches" when doing scale model related drawings (as I tend to work in decimal inches rather than fraction inches when doing my modeling). [don't worry about the color or lack of color for the drawing background...that can be adjusted /changed later....what you want to do here is assign the proper dimension/unit configuration.] )(NOTE: In the English version which I have the default setting out-of-the-box was "Architectural-Feet/Inches"...so make sure it is set to what you will need.)
Once you have your proper template selected, you need to go in and very/adjust/modify the "Units" and tolerances you will be drawing with/in. To do this, at top, select : Window>Model Info...and in the sidebar select "Units"......then set your preferences. [SEE IMAGE 2 BELOW],
......now you are pretty much ready to start drawing and asking questions.
MR.
[EDIT: A quick note re the drawing set-up:
Instead of working/drawing things the actual size of the model, and having to convert all those real world dimensions into model scale dimension, you can leave the setting and draw things at the real world scale, and then come in at the end and "Scale" the entire drawing to the appropriate size......however, I prefer not to do this because I am often dealing in and drawing "model scale" plastic, stripwood or cutting dimensions.....and when you scale downd a full size drawing at the end, you may very well end up with model dimensions that do not match available material or mfg. tolerances.]
Since there were no questions I decided to show the process for something I needed.
For the PAP thread I needed a lamp shade, so this will show how one can go about the process of modeling one in SU.
I feel that SU lacks a certain amount of finesse and functionality in its drawing tools for circles, splines and ellipses, I prefer to draw items containing such in a 2D CAD program [any CAD or drawing program that allows files to be saved in .DWG or .DXF format will work].
IMG 1:
This shows the line drawing section of the shade I want to create. The depression at the top, is where the .020 wire/duct will be inserted in the final model, and the stepped impression/detail will hopefully simulate the porcelain light socket on the inside of the finished model.
IMG 2:
By going to the tabs at the top, I went to File>Import, then found the file I wanted, clicked OK/Open, and it has now been inserted/imported into SU as a "group". Notice that t was inserted flat onto the x/y plane (red/green plane)
IMG 3:
I always like to place/form/work with, objects the way thay would generally exist in the real world....in this case the light shade opening would be at the bottom...or facing the x/y plane. To do this I need to reorient the grouping 90-degress. So....using the "Orbit" tool I adjusted my view so the U was looking primarily at the right side of the grouping. Then selecting the protractor tool, I place it on the bottom side/corner of the grouping....making sure the protractor is "red" noting that the grouping will rotate around the red axis direction.
IMG 4:
This is a bit hard to see, but I then pull the rotating line out along the green axis (in the same plane as the 2D grouping)....in the image you can faintly make out a green line running parallel/along the blue edge. When doing this you will see a pop-up box that reads "On Green Axis"
IMG 5:
The image is then rotated to the 90-degree....the indicator box will pop up and tell you that your "On Blue Axis".
[IMG 6:[/b]
To now work with the inserted drawing, I need to "Explode" the group. (select the group then go to: Edit>Group>Explode, or simply right click on the mouse and select "Explode".) Because of the previously noted finesse issues that SU can have, you can see in the image that because of mu use of ellipses in the original drawing some of them did not quite extrapolate as I wanted....and so I have some holes and overlaps in my line-work. Since I only need half the line drawing in order to extrude a circular shape, I will erase all the lines to the right of the Center-line, and crop and patch (using the eraser and pencil tools) the problems on the left.
[IMG 7:[/b]
This shows the resulting "Face" that gets created once the half is deleted and the holes are patched. Note how the face is aligned with the blue/z axis.
IMG 8:
When drawing circles in SU, I feel it is often easy to have them fall out of axial/planar alignment...so for my own peace of mind, I approach them in this manner. I am going to need to draw a circle in the x/y (red/green) plane that has its center point on the CL of the lamp shade, and its tangent (radius) on the inside edge of the lamp shade. To make sure I am "in plane" I simply use the pencil tool to draw a random sized square/rectangle in the x/y plane where I will need the circle [in this case I drew the line from the CL, along the red axis to the interior of the shade, then along the green axis for a random distance, then back along the red for a random dist.......and so forth. This then gave me what you see in the image.....you will note as is typical with SU when I closed the line-work between the CL and the shade edge it created a "Face" inside the shade.
IMG 9:
This shows the circle being drawn from the CL to the inside edge of the shade.....note the blue color of the circle as it indicates it is in plane with the surface face I just drew.
IMG 11:
Here you can now se e the circle in place, and I have gone through and deleted the face inside the lamp shade, as well as the rest of the horizontal plane. I have left the face in the circle, as I have found that the "Follow Me" tool sometimes works better along a line in a plane or along the edge of a face.
IMG 12:
Using the "Follow Me" tool I select the section face of the shade, and run the tool along the edge of the circle. Until the little pop-up tab eventually reads "To Endpoint"
IMG 14:
This is then the resulting model/object that is created.
IMG 15:
Note that when the shade is looked at from underneath , the opening is close (because of the circle/face we previously drew. Simply select the face and hit erase. This will open the bottom of the shade the way it should be.
IMG 16
You will note in the previous 2 images that the shade is "blue" in color. This denotes the back or interior face of a plane/surface.....so you need to select the entire model by using the arrow tool and crossing-box (or if there are just a few surfaces, select them individually) and then right click and choose "Reverse Faces"....this will then re-orient the faces so they show as white. Then while the model was still selected, I right clicked and selected "Make Component" to make all the individual lines and faces as one well...component; this makes objects easier to manage, move and work. Lastly, while the component was still selected, I wanted to flip it along the blue axis [the reason being, so that I could mount it in the proper direction on the PAP sprue)....to do this I right click, Flip Along>Components Blue (the blue/z axis is the vertical axis and I needed to invert the part 180-degrees)
IMG 17
Lastly, here is the part after being inverted, located on the PAP sprue, and unsmoothed (in CAdSpan).
The shade dimensions are ID.349" (about 12" in 1/35) by .278 overall height (about 9.5" in 1/35)
So... now get out there and give it a try....drawing a part like that takes about 15-20 min....creating the SBS took about 4 hours!
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 16, 2010, 02:17:42 PM
Since there were no questions I decided to show the process for something I needed.
Okay, likely that there are no questions cuz those like myself who really need this don't know what to ask (at least till we start trying it) ... however, having the entry-level SBS stuff is a great point to start. Keep it rolling ...
Thanks!
Dallas
Anyone using Sketchup and wanting a better rendering engine, check out Kerkythea. It's free .. and fully capable of very high quality renderings. Did I mention it is free?
Kerkythea (http://"http://www.kerkythea.net/joomla/")
Kerkythea Sketchup Exporter (http://"http://www.kerkythea.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=42&func=fileinfo&id=2")
P.S. It put an icon on my Sketchup that allows me to export directly to the kerkythea renderer .. pretty sweet.
Here's a 'Rusty Farm Truck' I downloaded from Google 3d Warehouse ..
As rendered and a 2d export from Sketchup (reduced to 800 px width for posting to this forum)..
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2Frustyfarmtruck.png&hash=d61dc42f82784a6f7e17fb5ee50182475c017576)
As the same view exported and rendered in Kerkythea (default settings .. bumped up with higher raytracing and applied a Ferarri red paint from the Kerkythea bucket for the fenders. The rest is whatever Sketchup had. You can see though what it is capable of ..) ..
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FRustyFarmTruck_K.jpg&hash=d32ce862cb01181240ea66291f97173311ac2b26)
Interesting results on the render. I have had Kerkythea downloaded for some time, but have not gotten around to trying. I guess I need to get of my but and give it a go.
Marc
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 16, 2010, 04:38:34 PM
Interesting results on the render. I have had Kerkythea downloaded for some time, but have not gotten around to trying. I guess I need to get of my but and give it a go.
Marc
If you goto that second link it will put an icon on your Sketchup's .. uhhh ... icon menu. Note that if you just use the Kerky defaults it renders pretty quickly .. the more you play with the Ray tracing the longer. There are a bunch of materials you can download .. like that Ferrari Red I painted the fender with. If you look through the examples there are some world class renderings done.
Great stuff, thanks for posting it, Marc!
Question: In the final step you "unsmoothed" the lampshade. Why? And can it be "unsmoothed" within SU (ie, without using another app)?
I know some people had mentioned that they don't care for the Video Tutorials for SU, and wish that there was a printed instruction book, I ran across a PDF version of one on-line that seems to be for MAC.....BUT.....even though some of the command strings for MAC might be different, the book is still a good source for basic understanding and answers as to how to work with SU.
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/sketchup.google.com/en/us/pdfs/ug_sketchup_win.pdf (http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/sketchup.google.com/en/us/pdfs/ug_sketchup_win.pdf)
Ray:
The unsmoothing is a step in the CadSpan STL conversion process...don't as me exactly why, but I am sure it has something to do with creating the polygons needed for printing. Otherwise, I have actually never tried to unsmooth something in SU.....never occured to me. Other users have noted that it is possible do say it is possible by using the Shift+Ctrl, or Shift+Options, or Ctrl+Alt key combinations....some even mention by the adjusting of the "smooth surface" slider bar.....none of which I have found to work...so I could not tell you how to do it. Maybe those things help on a full size (1:1) model...but it certaily did not seem to work on the small parts I have been drawing.
MR
Marc,
Thanks for putting in the time and effort to do this, much appreciated I'm sure not only by me but by a lot of others!
I am determined to try this soon ... works keeps on getting in the way but I have a completely free week-end on my own soon so thats the target ...... you'll know when I have had a go, not from the posted finished drawing but more likely from the emergency call for help!
Got carried away for the last hour reading and trying Marcs' notes - and then thought I had better check for 3 D printers in UK ..... anyone over here got any experience/recommendations?.
During the search came across this ... Marc you probably already know about this but thought it might interest others
http://www.blueprintmagazine.co.uk/index.php/architecture/the-worlds-first-printed-building/
Marc,
Thanks for doing the SBS, I know it took lots of time away from doing things for yourself.
I "think" I am starting to get it, will also look at the PDF manual, may be just what I need!
I guess I need to download it on the PC and see if I can make something.......
Now to come up with something I need in plastic and not brass ;)
Thanks again!
-Marty
Yes, thanks very much for taking the time. This will come in handy if I lose my Solidworks connection.
Quote from: Chuck Doan on May 17, 2010, 10:22:11 AM
Yes, thanks very much for taking the time. This will come in handy if I lose my Solidworks connection.
Going from Solid Works to this would be like going from a gas powered car to a squirrel powered soap-box derby racer. ;D
MR
Mark, I appreciate what you are doing here!
I think Sketchup is one of the important keys for bringing 3D printing to the ordinary hobbyist.
Hope to be able to contribute to the prosject, I have used Sketchup for making .stl models for CNC-milling.
Speaking of stl files, what export plugin do you use for making stl files?
I used a free plugin I found on the net, but I have had problems with it lately, so I am looking for an alternative.
I found the plugin on a guitarist blog of all places:
http://www.guitar-list.com/download-software/convert-sketchup-skp-files-dxf-or-stl (http://www.guitar-list.com/download-software/convert-sketchup-skp-files-dxf-or-stl)
Hauk,
Thanks for the input. I really look forward to your contributions here, as I know from your modeling as well as from your field of work, you have dealt with, and have experience with these.
I saw that same link when I was looking for an .STL converter, but ended up going with CadSpan http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview (http://www.cadspan.com/pluginguide/overview)....they offer a freeware plug-in for SU. It's basically 4 buttons/steps that appear in the Menu bar. real easy to use. They also seem to have an advance not free version, that you can pay for on a monthly or yearly basis....and is available for a 30-day free trial. So far the program seems that it must have worked...at least I have not had an email or call from PAP telling me there was a problem, and their upload and pricing software seems to have been able to read it okay.
Marc
Chuck, if you lose your SolidWorks connection, you will be in deep trouble, n'est-ce pas? And not just because of the software inconvenience. My guess is that will never happen unless your firm goes belly up. -- Russ
Anyone have any experience using Rhino? I have a demo version but its all mysterious to me. A friend of mine who worked with me on a book project made some very complex 3/4 view illustrations in Rhino, and they are stunning. He says its "easy and intuitive." Of course, its all easy and intuitive when you're looking down from the top of a learning curve!
Dave
No familiar with Rhino Dave. I've done some test work with Sketch-Up but my application of choice is Cobalt from Ashlar-Vellum (http://www.ashlar.com/sections/products/cobalt/cobalt.html). If you've seen my threads here on the Heywood Brake Van and the Radial Axle project, those drawings were all done with Cobalt. I started with Cobalt designing motorcycle parts. Parts below were designed and rendered in Cobalt.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FCobalt%2520Renderings%2FKnuckleKicker.jpg&hash=ec83b58fb61a4d8ed3671553e0f9f2c11cc47188)
Brass-Knuckle Kicker Pedal
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FCobalt%2520Renderings%2FRearAxleBlock.jpg&hash=49bdaba6f3855574b4470fef00be74179d81c606)
Rear Axle Block with internal LED turn/brake light
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FCobalt%2520Renderings%2FLPSeatMount.jpg&hash=ccb88817488a56f51002816fd8369d9aea7bb45b)
Low-profile hinged seat mount
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FCobalt%2520Renderings%2FVelocityStack.jpg&hash=ed108a3316da7a2e10868bb599ce3818bdd60608)
Brass velocity stack
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FCobalt%2520Renderings%2FRigidChopFrame.jpg&hash=79ea0153c10d4b1e0f286993d7b92995037ef6d8)
Rigid frame
Paul
Holy crap Paul those are nice renderings. The frame is complex too. Ever draft a complete bike?
One of these days I'm gonna buck up and a buy real ($+1000) CAD. The basic version of anything like my TurboCAD (or AutoCAD LT) can get a guy frustrated...and jealous.
John
Thanks John. No I haven't tried to draft an entire bike. My computer lacks the power to handle drawings that complex. The frame was a bit of a challenge because it alone stretched the limits of my hardware. I also have a motorcycle frame jig design (small rendering below shows the main jig frame with the adjustable fork stem and lower frame rail fixtures) that is nearly complete, but once again it's butting up against the limits of my computer. For the Heywood brake van I'm going to have to do the iron work pieces as separate designs to keep the overall file size small and within the limits of my hardware. I'm watching the PAP experiments with interest as I'm thinking that may be the way to go with the ironwork pieces rather than building them up from brass. Only thing is they'll need to be done in metal... a topic for future research.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2Fframejig.jpg&hash=2cdcfd12ffe0dd9fd6b73423595d114091f29ca8)
Paul
Laser Kit 101:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FEWA_Anim.gif&hash=e22c3ffe8c4c8f9c1b82bc269a51dcc31e38ab7a)
THAT animation is seriously cool, Marc!
It'd be even cooler if it was actual parts! ;)
Fur maker. Put fur .. or .. grass on your SU models. Makes excellent grass.
Fur Maker Plug-In (http://sketchupdate.blogspot.com/2010/05/having-spent-last-three-hours-fiddling.html)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_mDRU50FpD-E%2FTAAMSLjAMXI%2FAAAAAAAAAMY%2F595i-E17CLo%2Fs400%2FLength.jpg&hash=c0712d47b680e00723dbd7fadb15ec81529ecae2)
Sketchu STL export tutorial (http://www.shapeways.com/tutorials/sketchup_3d_printing_export_to_stl_tutorial)
He uses MeshLab and Accutrans3D
I used MeshLab for some PAP parts- it worked great and the price is right: http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=896.0 (http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=896.0). It is the final part of the pathway to stereolithography printing for modelers.
Marc, where are the glue dribbles and stuff stuck to your fingers?
John
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 15, 2010, 11:24:21 PM
<snip> ..
[EDIT: A quick note re the drawing set-up:
Instead of working/drawing things the actual size of the model, and having to convert all those real world dimensions into model scale dimension, you can leave the setting and draw things at the real world scale, and then come in at the end and "Scale" the entire drawing to the appropriate size......however, I prefer not to do this because I am often dealing in and drawing "model scale" plastic, stripwood or cutting dimensions.....and when you scale downd a full size drawing at the end, you may very well end up with model dimensions that do not match available material or mfg. tolerances.]
Well .. darn. Lesson's learned and all that. Wanting to explore the 'Print-a-Part world', I drew up a wheel in Sketchup (1927 Talbot) full 'real world' size. Fig
A shows her .. I was pretty satisfied except for the lack of a fillet where the spoke forms the hub. Know where I messed up there .. should have formed that at the same time I did the spoke and still had a location for the center of the circle. I ran into a problem when I scaled the wheel down to 1:48 .. when I went to save it I lost surfaces. Evidently when Sketchup saves .. it goes through a 'Check Validity' .. and removed Non-Valid surfaces - Fig
B. I went back and zoomed into the hub after re-scaling (so before the Validity Check and see the problem - Fig
C.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FWheel.png&hash=5840dd682d9261464d817b361da7d45a85d7fcae)
Ok. Back to the Sketchup 'Drawing Board' .. this time follow Marc's suggestion and draw it up at 1:48
About the fur/grass maker: Is it a cost effective solution for scenery? Have you seen actual output? -- Russ
I really find this topic very beautiful. Not only that, full of information too, but the renderings are very beautiful.
That being said, I dream of a software where you would have a text window and on every line an order for drawing something, with coordinates - or parameters - written by hand, or an order for drawing or removing an intersection, etc. Not something with a mouse where it's hard to correct mistakes.
I use a math program for making 2D works which is part of the TeX program that some of you may be aware of. Although a bit basic, it allows me to draw almost everything. And it's free with the TeX distribution.
Quote from: finescalerr on July 04, 2010, 01:06:15 PM
About the fur/grass maker: Is it a cost effective solution for scenery? Have you seen actual output? -- Russ
Played with it a bit .. is very effective. I'll post up some in a bit.
I just did this really really quickly just now.
Here's a scene from my Acme Oil Company I'm Imagineering ..
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FScenery%2FGround%2520Cover%2FNoGrass.png&hash=b246f281e383c0d0cc91af0fac40725464c19fba)
Here's the same scene (mostly .. I moved the mouse) with grass .. etc
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FScenery%2FGround%2520Cover%2FGrass.png&hash=290aa7005823adb564c1061f4b16ca4e7d4860c3)
I found sim problems when doing the scaling.....however, I think mine might have come partialy from some surfaces not being ansolutely in the proper/same planes (probably due to a small error/glitch when rotating and/or extruding a portion of the part)....which did not seem to cause a problem in full size...but when reduced to scale the error is oviously magnified and results in the issue you had...and when one tries to fix these in the scaled down drawing they are a hellishly frustrating excercise.
I have found some issues when drawing in "scale" as well.....SU seems to balk at really small radii (IE .010" and smaller).....I noticed this when doing my small parts for the initial test......so......My bunker I did a bit differently...instead of working in feet and inches, I worked in Metric.....then used the scale tool to shringk it to size....and maybe it was because of the simplicity of the model, or maybe because a simple decimal conversion reduction is easier for the program....Or I was just lucky.....but it seemed to go very easy and problem free.
Cool little project you have going there.....but it seems to be missing a 12x12 shed. ;) ;D ;D
Marc
Yep. I think part of the problem as you said is that I was scaling from full size to 1:48. A good example being 16" (I was putting my studs on 16" centers in my 12'x12' shed). Divide 12/48 and you get .... .3333333~ .. and so on. I ran into that exact same issue with Sketchup balking at small radii. Combine that with the scaling issues I had and I'm going to try and draw the wheel in 1:12 scale. That should be large enough to eliminate the problems with small radii and since it converting to 1:48 will simply be reducing the part by .25% that should also fix the scaling.
My next problem is trying to make the spoke correctly. The first try with the round spoke works but isn't prototypical. Here's a graphic of a Model T spoke I found online. It looks to me that they turned the lower portion round then cut the wedge and sliced off the sides. My next step will be to attempt that by basically following the original process virtually .. lathe the spoke then intersect flat planes at the right places in Sketchup and delete the 'bits' not needed.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FModelTSpoke_s.png&hash=f188e8f67a6924a2be2859a2d748b477f36a9235)
My 12'x12' shed .. is coming on nicely .. at least the walls have. I'm having as much trouble 'cutting' the birdsmouth in the rafters as I would in full scale .. the only difference being that it doesn't hurt so much to discard the messed up lumber. :) ..
That scene where I 'grew' the grass is from my on-going (and never ending) puttering around with my ACME Oil Co. I love using Sketchup for mocking up 'stuff'. In this 'scene' I have various models I have drawn up in Sketchup .. and I can move things around, change their shape and so on.
Here's a earlier version .. with two vertical storage tanks on the upper level. Not sure how that fellow got on that walkway around the tanks as I don't have any stairs yet. Ha.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FStructures%2FAcme%2520Oil%2520Company%2FImage12.png&hash=8e395c65860e3e6a3242eef386a8ee31f6f3146f)
A later version .. stairs partially completed for the tanks .. my horizontal tank added at right angles to the track .. diff upper structure.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FStructures%2FAcme%2520Oil%2520Company%2FGSS3_600.png&hash=f3af8d1a817b3d1c476afa22a88744c2560aebea)
Here, I rotated the horizontal tank and moved it behind the vertical tanks.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FStructures%2FAcme%2520Oil%2520Company%2F13Mar_c1903tank.png&hash=aaf7d7cb361c74aaa5d9a95d941f96ee4e3b3c1b)
One thing that I really like about using Sketchup in designing models is that in 3D you can see if the 'bits' don't align properly. That horizontal tank for example, I found in a book published in 1903. Trying to scale up from a fuzzy drawing having the ability to spin the object you are modeling helps make sense out of looking at a 2D elevation and front view.
Google has just released their new release, Sketchup v.8.....the Pro version has some really nifty new tools for solid modeling...especially addititive/subtractive and intersection tools. Both the Pro and the basic also have a new feature called "Wrap" wihich will apparantly wrap and clean up your models in prep for 3-D printing. There are numerous other improvements and new features, many of them in the Site Builder, Building Maker, and Layout portions and interfaces. (for instance SU Layout will now export as vector based drawings as dwg or dxf files directly into CAD.). All-in-all looks like some very cool and useful new features. I already did my upgrade, and will now have to play around with it a bit.
M
Cool. Thanks Marc. I just downloaded it. Here's a link to "What's New in Google Sketchup 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytIbyXzCMQ)"
Thought that this might be of interest. This is for my current 1/35 project. The DML 'Ommr' Gondola kits have no brake detailing whatsoever, and it looks really of, and naked underneath. A fellow modeler on a German forum was kind enough tu send me a cope of original WW2 builders drawings of these cars...from them, along with some images of current day cars, I was able to devine the brake system. This was drawn in SU. and once I get all the individual parts onto a sprue, sent to PAP for printing. The whole assembly consisits of 25 pieces per axle. (The red rods are not part of the parts to be printed, They will be brass, or are an exist. kit part.)
Quite adequate. -- Russ
Shucks, Russ...you have such a way with words.
Here are two shots of what the parts look like assembled into a sprue tree. The orientation for the parts was specifically done so that most of the larger flat surfaces faced up and down, so that they would print with the smoother finish on them.
Currently the file is being converted into a .STL with Cadspan...it's a big one 44,820 triangles and 2241084 bytes....netx is to wait for the file to finish processing, then upload it to PAP for a quote.
Well planned Marc... I'll be interested to see what PAP quotes on that. PM me if you don't want to share that information publicly.
How dimensionally accurate have you found the circular parts? I'm drawing up the contoured wheel centers for the Heywood Brake Van and was considering sending them to PAP, four on a sprue. Just the centers so I can turn a tire to fit onto them.
Paul
It's one thing to design the part and quite another to design the sprue tree. I'm speechless (at the moment). But what I really want to see is how suitable the output resolution will be for a 1:35 model. Please post follow up photos with comments. -- Russ
I am avaiting the PAP result of this with great anticipation!
But I must confess that I am wondering if PAP-printed parts is such a great idea for all those parts. The loops of flat irons looks like they could be made much easier and solid from brass strips formed and soldered. And a lot of the other parts would be very well suited for photo-etching.
Regards, Haavard
Paul:
I will post it as soon as I get the quote....for some reason my brain was on the fritz last night, and I screwed up the scaling for the final parts...drew all the parts full size in millimeters, then for some reason thought all I needed to do was scale them down by .035........but....errr....that was wrong :-X and about 20% to big.....so have now scaled the whole tree with parts down to the correct size, and need to go through the whole upload/.STL conversion thing again. :-\ ::)
Overall footprint of the parts tree (including projecting parts) is about 1.9" x 1.3" x 1.2" (I will know for sure once PAP calcs it.)
Russ:
The putting the pieces on the tree is actually quite simple....just time consuming.
Havard,
You are of course correct on your observations. In my defense, I chose this medium as it was the easiest an most workable solution for me. I suck at forming and soldering brass....so to get 10 loops the exact same shape would have been impossible at this juncture. Though doing them half-assed in brass may still be the end result....printing them was more of an experiment, than a likely solution....was just hoping to possibly get off easy.
Insofar as the PE...yes and no....some parts are too thick dimensionally to do PE...it least from the rsults I have seen as far as alignment from double sided etching (which would be needed)...other parts would have been perfect candidates....but here again came the easy choice out....not having dealt with any PE guys, the learning curve and time to get the templates set-up, the discussions with the etcher, etc, just seemed more than I wanted to tackle at the moment.
....sitting at the monitor and emailing the whole thing off, just felt so easy and quick. :)
I should probably look into the idea of some kind of combination PE, and PAP or resin compilation.....could open a side business selling them to the 1/35 crod now that more and more rail subjects/kits are showing up. ;D
marc
paul,
The order is away and paid for ...some wierd happenings in the new conversion/download and then upload to PAP.
1. The conversion process with CADSPAN Pro, and the way resulting STL file was dealt with seemed different this time around than last time...maybe because I used it in SU-8 (their plugin notes it is meant for v.7x and down...they don't have an 8-specific one yet...but I manually dropped the plug in files into v.8)
2. Because of the resilting confusion in the converion and delivery of STL....I think inadvertantly wrapped and converted the file multiple times with different settings as far as resolution, gap fill etc.....so I am not sure what one was finally on my PC and uploaded to PAP.
3. PAP took the part, checked it and accepted it just fine.....however afterward when I set the units to millimeters, it gave me an error message that some portions of parts were less than .25mm..(couldn't imagine what part that could have been...I was careful...but now in retrospect it could have been one of the thin rectangular sprue tree arms).....and due to quality control all parts needed to be thicker than this....so out of curiosity I set units to inches....and got no error message (nor did the overal dims of the part change). Just to be sure I went into their little part viewing screen and checked all the angles/views and parts (as best one can in that viewport)....all seemed fine....so I left it at "inches" and sent it off. I am most curious to see what I end up with after all this ::) ;D.....live and learn....saving grace will always be that this is hidden under the car and in shadow...with lots of grease. ;) ;D
Final Dimensions on the print were around 1.75 x 1.4. Printing cost was $39.00 plus shipping. IMO not bad, considering how long it would have taken me to scratchbuild 70 small, fussy, repetetive parts. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up to having done it in PE.....I have a feeling PE would have been far more expensive.
Marc
That's very reasonable Marc considering the quantity of parts being produced at one time. Treeing up on the sprues is obviously the way to go. I'm considering setting up the Heywood van wheel centers four per sprue then layering four or five sprues depending on vertical space limitations to produce wheel centers for four or five vans all at one time.
Fortunately Cobalt (the 3D software I use) generates its own STL files so hopefully that will simplify the process to some degree. The wheel centers are drawn by radiating a cross-section profile through 360 degrees around the inner hub. I'm leaving the tread off as I plan to machine those individually on the lathe from nickel silver. The centers have raised lettering which will present something of a challenge since they are flat to the surface of the wheel center but not at 90° to the axle and small. I may have to make them slightly larger to remain within the PAP resolution limitations.
Paul
Marc, that is an impressive part sprue tree. In other mediums the parts would need to be one layer. And as I recall, PAP has a small surface area but you can go tall with it so in that respect your layout makes sense.
But my question is, did you check to see how much multiple copies of a single layer (single car) sprue would cost? They might be easier to work with and maybe have taken less time to draw.
Of course, a single sprue could then be resin cast by the many.
Looking forward to the PAP photos.
John
John,
All those parts are actually only for a single car. I probably could have reduced the number by drawing subassemblies as one piece, but because likely issues between the DML kit and prototype dims, I wanted the linkage to be fully flexible and adjustable.
I don't know how much difference a shallower/less tall sprue would make costwise. Most not too much...or at the very least only the cost of the volume of resin the parts needed. PAP on it's site seems to indicate that their primary cost factors are square area of footprint the parts occupy on the printing plate, and resin volume. I am sure that there must be some minimum cost...but I have no idea what that is.....both prints i have made with them have been just about the same price, and i really do't see how much cheaper it could be.....they have to have some kind of income off this, if not jut to cover the time doing data entry, having a person remove and rough clean the print, package and mail it. (their packaging is great...they even have their own logo imprinted boxes....I really can't believe that they can do these for the $39. The cost also is easily in line with some of the aftermarket detail sets out there (that is if there is one for your kit ;) ;D)
Marc
Wow! Be interested to see the results. I agree with the PAP comments; I am amazed they can clean up some of the delicate parts I have done. Very well packaged.
OK Marc I went back and reread your explanation, and found a picture on the web. Lots of parts per wheel I see now.
I was also very pleased with the PAP service and packaging. The entire experience shows a great deal of back room development to sell a service on a machine anyone can buy.
John
WOW...talk about service....the PAP parts arrived today (8-day turn around). The photos below are of the sprue tree right out of the box, before rinsing off any wax residue with acetone. To give an idea of scale, the bow shaped brake retainer arms are about 0,3 mm thick. As you can see one of the bows did break during shipping...but that's ok, as I made extras, and one damaged piece is nothing considering the finesse of these parts).
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rbadesign.net%2Fmworks%2FPZ350%2FOMMR_PAP01.jpg&hash=2d2395fa7047dfd5a2abb4f6a3e64da5905eef95)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rbadesign.net%2Fmworks%2FPZ350%2FOMMR_PAP02.jpg&hash=f49b3bc162044116628ef65861e387636b2c9ef8)
Marc
Whoa... that's excellent Marc.
Paul
Marc, need to jump in with a "most excellent" .. but that's not why I am posting. I wanted to thank you. I was getting frustrated trying to get CadSpan to work with SU8. I went to the download site and changed the download location for the plugin folder to the SU8 folder .. but no luck. Then went back a bit and saw where you had dropped the SU7 files into the SU8 folder manually. I looked .. and sure enough the 'automated' install hadn't work. A little copy-n-paste .. cranked up SU8 .. and CadSpan worked fine. MOST EXCELLENT!! Thanks bunches.
Quote from: marc_reusser on September 13, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
WOW...talk about service....the PAP parts arrived today (8-day turn around). The photos below are of the sprue tree right out of the box, before rinsing off any wax residue with acetone. To give an idea of scale, the bow shaped brake retainer arms are about 0,3 mm thick. As you can see one of the bows did break during shipping...but that's ok, as I made extras, and one damaged piece is nothing considering the finesse of these parts).
Talk about taking things to the limit!
It´s a great inspiration to see what you can achive with PAP-printing.
But cleaning up those 0,3mm loops...
Regards, Håvard H
PS: How many pages of ads has PAP ordered for the modelling Annual?
And a more fitting sponsor for this forum is hard to find!
You must be kidding! Businesses have been dropping ads, not asking for new ones! Nobody takes people like us seriously. They think we are strange.
Hmm. Maybe we are ....
Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on September 14, 2010, 01:22:57 AM
You must be kidding? People have been dropping ads, not asking for new ones! Nobody takes people like us seriously. They think we are strange.
Hmm. Maybe we are ....
Russ
Of course we are strange!
But PAP´s business plan depends entirely on strange people like us.
So I still think they would make a very likely sponsor for your little forum.
-Haavard
You are correct, of course. But I doubt PAP would see it that way. -- Russ
I just sent off an order to PAP for a critter I'm working on.
Your assignment, should you choose to accept, is to keep us informed of every step. This should be pretty cool. -- Russ
Russ. I've been watching the 'guys' produce these fantastic parts using PAP and was envious. Much like the ragged urchin nibbling his crust of bread while watching the wealthy sup at a grand meal. :) ..
My critter is On18 so this is an experiment to see just how well 1:48 will replicate using the PAP service. I am curious to see the result. I have had one printing from them on a simple object that warped a bit because of the thinness. I'm hoping the sprues will help in that. I have some doubts that the seat frame (front in the blue background view) will print without warping but .. shrug .. we'll see. I'm having fun creating this little critter since every time I do a 'bit' .. I then think of a better way for the 'next one'.
I just looked back at Marc's last printing. His final dimensions were round 1.75 x 1.4. This one of mine is about 1"x.85"x.6" and cost me $28 including shipping.
Here's another view of the model. Theres' a radiator on top. Below that are some poling pockets. Below those journal boxes. Up front is a seat frame. Behind that are coupler pockets and some brackets that fit below the journals.
Yeah. I'm really curious to see how well this comes out.
I am going to guess that the resolution will be a problem in 1:48. Havaard had issues with it in that scale and Chuck, in a scale twice as large, still had a fair amount of cleanup. Please post a photo of some parts off the sprue but before cleanup, then again after you sand them.
Aside from any deficiency in the print resolution or issues of strength because the parts are so thin, the fact that you were able to design and draw the parts in 3D means that, someday, you will be able to send them somewhere and get exactly what you want. It certainly won't have been wasted time. And $30 here and there is hardly a fortune to spend on such a valuable education.
I'm watching all these things closely because I want to design and build a 1:32 scale 7 ton Plymouth. I have one 2D side view mostly complete but still haven't used SketchUp enough to do anything with it. As things slowly progress I will start posting and get input from this group about how best to proceed.
Or else I'll just make Marty scratchbuild it for me.
Russ
:o :o :o
QuoteOr else I'll just make Marty scratchbuild it for me.
Russ
I thought that was the plan! ;)
Besides by the time we get around to it we'll all have rapid prototype machines on our desks!
And robot girls (in thongs) to do the drawing & assembly!
-Marty
OK...some stuff to share.
This time around I seemed to have several issues and problems with the PAP stuff....some of which was expected, as I was really trying to see how far I could push the process in some respects, and others were just plain weird.
After receiving the parts, and as noted, I gave the whole tree a wash of acetone to clean off the wax....well, a couple of the really thin parts did not like the acetone, and became a bit deformed (top image)...and once dry, the printed parts developed a severe "snowy" condition...as you can see from the 2 images it developed on most all the parts, but it was arbitrary...some parts had it in all sides, some on one side but not the other, and some developed it with funky patterns. I have no idea what caused this...maybe the wax used as spacer when building up the stacked parts, maybe it was a fluke in the process...not a clue ( I may try to contact PAP to see what they say).....mostly it came off pretty easy during the sanding/clean-up process....in some nooks it was harder to get out, and on some parts it reappeared a bit after sanding...but was able to be "killed" once the part was primered (even once the primer got sanded back down it stayed away)....so very strange.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FPAP_Problem1.jpg&hash=2daa3a535c41ea3b254ead45e58bc759179dd2a4)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FPAP_Problem4.jpg&hash=8e2a58abca930437693c2ee41130d2cbfaca1b86)
Next issue...and I should have known better after the acetone bath...some thin parts don't react well to thick coats of brush applied solvent based primer. The brake retainer bows had a fair amount of layering texture, and due to their thickness were a bit on the fragile side for excessive sanding, so I thought I would use Mr. Surfacer 500 primer applied from directly from the jar, with a brush, and then a coat of Mr. Color Thinner, to level the surface; would work as a "filler" that then would require only some finish surface sanding.....alas, though....the solvent in the thinner and the primer caused the parts to deform (they will now have to be made of brass).
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FPAP_Problem2.jpg&hash=179e2686735adf5b71c2035e5de6f4173b45ce8c)
Lastly....and this was pretty expected.....some of the thin parts are quite brittle (luckily I made extras). These parts would definitely have been better in PE....or even styrene, which is more pliant. [Cat hair in image added for scale]
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FPAP_Problem3.jpg&hash=51ea9158ed4de4234f991a0f7f0b0a92e7800ee7)
But, in the end, despite some frustrations, I think this was a good excercise.
Here are some shots of the finished and pinned linkage (note the piece that broke while trying to shove the styrene rod through for the shot (this has been repaired). The linkage is fully articulated, for ease of installation and final positioning. Once installed it will be glued into a fixed position/form.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rbadesign.net%2Fmworks%2FPZ350%2FOMMR_BrakeRigging1.jpg&hash=e4b0d9ffd575d187fce2277ec1852defec4779b2)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rbadesign.net%2Fmworks%2FPZ350%2FOMMR_BrakeRigging2.jpg&hash=4c3e4d0f6e8e9f114276b13e21dfddb7d9121843)
Ed,
The parts look good. Looking forward to seeing your results.
M
Marc,
Thanks. Hope they resolve well .. at least this will give me a good idea what will work and what won't. I just went and looked. PAP under their FAQ says "a primer is recommended after an acetone or lacquer thinner dip". Your problems with the acetone makes me think that the lacquer thinner might be worth trying. If nothing else .. on the sprues first.
Ed,
Be careful of the laquer thinner as well, as I believe that is the base in the Mr. Color Thinner, I used to thin the primer for the retainer bows...which subsequently warped. But this could also be because the primer cured over a longer period of time, than it would take the thinner to evaporate by itself. All the parts that had the warping issue on were .010 or less in thickness.
M
I would definitely contact them. I had an issue with some duplicate parts not being as crisp as the first set. They offered to re-print them in a different orientation and this worked. They were very helpful.
I have seen the frosting, but I haven't had any issues with Acetone so far. Parts left uncleaned will develop a sparkly powder but this cleans off. I have had good results using ACC to repair breaks.
This material certainly has its limitations. I have re-printed a couple of the pump parts so they will be stronger. But none of them would weather a hit.
Quote from: marc_reusser on September 20, 2010, 02:21:17 PM
Ed,
Be careful of the laquer thinner as well, as I believe that is the base in the Mr. Color Thinner, I used to thin the primer for the retainer bows...which subsequently warped. <snip>
That's right .. you said that. RATS! :)
My extra PAP parts have also developed synthetic mold syndrome. So it is something with exposure to light or oxygen perhaps, or it could be a byproduct leaching out.
I always start with isopropyl alcohol as a solvent for cleaning, then move to denatured alcohol before hitting the hard stuff. I have to watch it at my day job of electronics manufacturing, some plastics are very susceptible to damage. PAP seems to one of those.
Meanwhile, before folks get too fussy about the rough finish from PAP in smaller scales, I believe one has to decide on the desired effect of the detail parts. If parts like these brake riggings are to create a detailed almost silhouette-like look under a car, then they are satisfactory. If they were to be part of a detailed diorama with car knockers working on a disassembled brake set, then maybe not so good. I think this was worth trying and will look good. My $0.02.
John
Heck I am not fussy about these whatsoever...I am COMPLETELY happy with the results....have been both times I used PAP so far. These parts are small and fiddely, but I would say 85% of the parts have been cleaned up to be perfectly smooth in surface, and on those, or those areas, that didn't, the remaining surface texture will work just fine with the paint and weathering finish intended. Some of the grey striation texture that you see on a few parts is where, after sanding, the Mr. Surfacer (from a can) filled in, and leveled out, minor any minor remaining surface texture.
I simply felt I should completely disclose all these issues that I encounter, so that others planning on giving this a try will have an idea of what they could be getting into (I would hate to see a bunch of whiney model railroaders ordering parts from them, expecting some kind of a ready-to-use 3D printing miracle, and when they dont, pestering PAP with complaints, stupid issues and/or refunds....that would be a perfect way to ruin a really good resource).
Marc
Quote from: marc_reusser on September 20, 2010, 09:59:22 PM
(I would hate to see a bunch of whiney model railroaders ordering parts from them, expecting some kind of a ready-to-use 3D printing miracle, and when they dont, pestering PAP with complaints, stupid issues and/or refunds....).
Marc
Whiny model railroaders ??? Can't imagine such a thing... ;)
On a more serious note though — the "snowy" growth is something of a concern and may be an indicator as to the archival properties of the material. If the condition doesn't return after painting, it would suggest it's some form of environmental reaction, suppressed due to the paint coating. My wheel centers aren't due until the first week of October, but it will be interesting to see how they stand up over time. I will probably paint mine shortly after receiving them, just to seal and isolate the resin from any environmental influences. I contacted my PAP authority on this issue and am waiting to hear if he has experienced a similar problem and if so, what does he recommend.
As far as contacting PAP is concerned about technical questions, that's one area where I've been disappointed in their service. I wrote to them on two separate occasions concerning specific STL file preference settings and have never received a response. Perhaps they're just too busy to answer what may be very simple and rudimentary questions to them, but still... In the end I just winged it using the Cobalt default settings and apparently all was well with the file.
Paul
I decided to drop PAP a note, with an offer to send them images of the issue in question, and I also gave them a link to the post with the photos here. Will let you know what they say when/if I hear back from them.
Marc
Printapart is not the only game in town and seems to have its pros and cons. One thing that concerns me is whether the parts will endure over time. Even if you prime and paint them it seems the resin may deteriorate (from what you rascals have reported). And it is increasingly apparent Printapart is generally more suitable for larger scales, with 1:35/32 being about the smallest.
The lesson may be to choose carefully what you ask Printapart to create. While it may provide a solution, it may not always be the best choice. I would expect these issues to resolve as the technology improves.
Every post on this thread has provided very important information.
Russ
Well...I would have to say, that for the quality of results, the speed of turn around, and the freedom to have any shape or part I design made, and goof around with 3D ideas,.......and so far none of my prints has cost me more than $37........it pretty much is the best game in town when all is taken into consideration. Laser cutting, & PE are more expensive, even for just the first set-up and test shot...and the higher resolution green 3D printing would be about 6 or 7 times more expensive at best.....
So...a little clean-up is nothing...I have to do that anyway on regular kit and model parts.
I kind of feel that this attitude or concept of wanting the perfect printed part that requires no additional effort, is kind of like the guys that want everything RTR, or the shake-the-box-and-hope-it-builds-itself, RR crowd.
A little work never hurt anyone...besides...if you don't learn the ins-and-outs of proper clean-up and prep, you'll never be a good model builder.
M
So are we the only ones that are testing PAP for modeling to the limits? Any other forums out there discussing it?
I was satisfied with my PAP experience and plan on doing it again as needed. I assumed that if it took my file I did it right so I didn't have to ask questions. Their business model on the PAP side seems to require very little human intervention.
OK Marc I guess I read into your statements wrong. Your official title says CURMUDGEON so I made assumptions. Were you labeled such as a child in school? That stigma will carry with you forever I'm afraid.
John
Guys,
What about using the air eraser or similar w/ baking soda to "clean" the parts?
Then a dip in alcohol?
Just a thought.
-Mj
Marty - a gentle soda blasting might work fine , certainly worth testing.
My PAP advisor has not encountered the "snowy" issue Marc. He says that the parts sometimes develop a frosty appearance after a "slosh in solvent" as he puts it, but there is no dimensional change. As far as archival properties are concerned, he had no input. His parts are masters for molding purposes so their use is temporary.
We have to remember that rapid prototyping is just that, prototyping. The parts produced are meant to be temporary, part of the assessment phase of the product design process. We are, in a sense, stretching the purpose behind the process by making final parts. It will therefore be very interesting to see how these parts endure over time.
Paul
Couple of points/ ideas- was discussing this thread with a friend in the automotive industry over the weekend and he made a couple of interesting comments from his experience as a liaison engineer who is using this technology professionally...
for longevity he recommended either using the PAP output for lost wax production in brass/nickel silver (in the US I imagine a company such as Back Shop would be able to do this) OR getting the parts metal plated- don't know if PAP offer this service but he is using 2 providers in Europe who will copper plate their output. I guess this would solve most of Marc's issues- though he did suggest adjusting the drawings to account for the plating thickness.
His second suggestion was getting PAP to print dies for plastic injection and transferring those into brass- I'm quite keen on trying this idea where greater numbers of parts are required as I don't have the equipment to machine lumps of brass into plastic injection dies. The advantage here is that you can keep the material thickness even rather than having parts of the die heat up quicker than other parts- apparently he uses this technique to quickly attain parts in plastic prior to investing in full machining for injection molding. Drawing would obviously have to be of a 'shell' around the eventual part required.
James
Quote from: JohnP on September 21, 2010, 04:39:40 AM
OK Marc I guess I read into your statements wrong. Your official title says CURMUDGEON so I made assumptions. Were you labeled such as a child in school? That stigma will carry with you forever I'm afraid.
John
I have been working hard for many years to achieve that public perception and stigma. I'm trying to find the right combination of the John Becker, Dr. House, and Hemmingway approach to life and those in it that I must suffer (though, I have curtailed the drinking aspect of the Hemmingway part, and I have no plans to blow my brains out at some lake in Idaho.) ;D
M
Quote from: marc_reusser on September 21, 2010, 01:48:32 PM
I have been working hard for many years to achieve that public perception and stigma.
M
Well by all accounts, you have succeeded in your quest... ;D ;D ;D though I do take offense to you usurping the title of "Curmudgeon" since my days as a curmudgeon predate your birth... ;D ;D just ask my wife... ;)
James, sounds like an interesting discussion and approach. PAP doesn't do plating but their parent company, Fineline Prototyping (http://www.finelineprototyping.com/) does offer that option, I'm sure at much greater expense.
Paul
Quotein the US I imagine a company such as Back Shop
HA HA ha ha!!! ROTHF LMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D If there is any question about longevity of the PAP parts that would be one way to find out!
The PAP parts would be dust by the time you got them cast from there!!!!!
Funny yet sad too Marty!
I first heard of PAP in a Finescale Modeler article several years ago. That article advocated using the printed parts for models.
Hope they don't dissolve or turn into pumpkins.
There is a model company in Australia called 'Hard Corps Models' (David Harper), that sells high end aftermarket detail kits and parts (primarily for WW2 US Pacific theater) that has a number of its items printed by PAP (a link to one of the items http://hardcorpsmodels.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=107&osCsid=b4ba624d4fd81a8ba1be395e998ef285 (http://hardcorpsmodels.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=107&osCsid=b4ba624d4fd81a8ba1be395e998ef285) ). From what I have seen and understand, he has been working closely with PAP for his parts, for quite a while (several years), ...and from what I understand he is quite the perfectionist.....so I doubt that he would continue using the process if he had experienced any issues with part degradation over time.
Marc
Agreed... the fellow who has been advising me on the process has been using PAP for two plus years producing very fine masters for commercial scale parts, 1:48 mostly I believe. Like all technical adventures, there's a learning curve and period of trial and error before you learn enough of the ins and outs to be able to adapt the technology and your application of it to suit your end needs.
Paul
Quotein the US I imagine a company such as Back Shop
HA HA ha ha!!! ROTHF LMAO!!! Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
If there is any question about longevity of the PAP parts that would be one way to find out!
The PAP parts would be dust by the time you got them cast from there!!!!!
Marty,
Really? That is too bad... you'd have to be very inept as an investment caster not to get good results.
Spoke again to my friend regarding stability and he has some surface degradation on (admittedly larger) parts that are still knocking around his office after 3 or 4 years- apparently the surface has started to powder. No doubt this is dependent on resin type and painting parts will make a difference. I've asked him to send a few photo's when he gets chance but he is a pretty busy guy so don't hold your breath.
My investment caster here is such good value I'll probably use my parts from PAP as masters and get molds made so I can repeat them in brass rather than getting them reprinted in resin- I'm adding the shrinkage rates for investment brass onto my drawings- I've had so many issues with styrene and resin deforming over the years I'd rather make the extra effort- speaking of which...
Marc, maybe not the best place for this question but as we were discussing stability of resins...how is your Smoky Bottom critter conversion holding up? I was working on a similar conversion and came back to it last week to find the frames had bowed by about .5mm along their length. Not flexed- that could be expected but if you lay the sideframes on a flat surface with a rule across the top they have visibly bent- attached a quick pic to show why I am increasingly mistrustful of resins- this has been in a drawer in my studio (so not subject to great ranges of temperature) and had a lead/ plasticard deck similar to the end beams you can see here to add weight to the finished model but never seen anything as bad as this... again, no doubt down to resin type etc.
James
James,
It's not only the issue of results with Dave Braun....but the fact of actually ever getting the part made....or after waiting years for it the guy has lost it, or just plain ignores you and never returns it (and no I am not spreading rumors I speak of personal experience with the SOB.)
The powdery surface your frinds parts have developed are probably the same stuff that we were talking about here earlier.
Insofar as the SBLCo frame, I'm sorry to hear you had this problem after starting construction. So far my frames are still perfectly flat in all directions. Before strting the build, I had the kit sitting in a cabinet for about 6 years...so hopefully it had enough time to work out it's issues over that time. I did find that the kit had some of the more common resin issues when I bought it...the large bonnet piece had "sunken" in in the center areas....probably .05+, same with the thicker more blocky end sills. The cab walls had some serious warpage, and the side sills had a slight arc like yours on the bottom side....however after carefully measuring it became apparent that the piece had either shrunk in width in this area (as the ends were the same dim, and the center narrower)...or that the mold had flexed/compressed during casting. When I started the build I merely sanded the sill flat/square (they needed to be anyhow, as the two sides were a diff height right out of the box). As far as I know this was one of his early first kits, so his casting skills may have left something less than quality....I have not purchased or personally seen any of his kits since then, so I cannot speak to what his quality is like these days.
...as an afterthought.....could this bow have been caused by the adhesive you used to glue the deck and weight in place?....I have seen times where the glue, due to different expansion and contraction properties, will cause a piece to warp (sim to how paints can do this when only one side of something is painted).
M
The more I hear about resin, the more wary I have become. Quality control of the materials, even from reputable sources, can vary and result in problems a few years down the road. And the problems one can expect from older styrene masters are legendary. That doesn't mean everyone will have problems or that all resin castings will deform. It does mean we should hope for the best but expect the worst. Err on the side of conservatism, James.
Russ
I must now come to the rescue of resin. Fear not Russ.
I dug out my rev 0 bridge castings. They were made when I first investigated bridge parts made of resin five years ago. They were made with the either the Micro-Mark kit or Smooth-On moderate cure time resins. The snapshot attached are of floor beams with and without sprues, a stringer and several chord beam parts. The dark one has color added to the resin.
These parts are straight except for the built-up beams (gray part and the one above). They have been left out on the bench, on a shelf, in a Tupperware and now reside jumbled in a bag in a box. They have sat inside in the sun and in a hot closet. The two beams that have a slight bow caused me to redesign the beam method early on in the process. They were cast as one piece with the top and sides together. I had a thick fillet on the inside corners. I believe the variation in thickness caused a slow curve in some of the early parts although not all did. My mixing and other processes were not as controlled as they are now.
My new parts are mostly rather thin. The only problem I have been having is if I am not orderly with the parts in my storage bins. They can sag or twist if piled together. I am more disciplined now.
My built-up truss bridge (http://www.jpstructures.com/ (http://www.jpstructures.com/) (top photo) is in a window that gets afternoon sun. It is holding up great and is still straight. after about one year now.
I believe if the cast part has a fairly uniform cross section it will age much better than parts like my first beams. The time it takes for resin to cure is dependent on its volume or mass, so a part with a heavy and thin side may end up with differential strains. That's my conclusion anyway.
If the resin is assembled, painted with mild paint, and kept out of direct sun and heat it will preform well. Resin is used for many outdoor amusement park decorations, although on a much grander scale. Resin is used for climbing wall handholds, movie props, frequently handled prototypes and lots of other stuff. For our modeling, a small part that is .10" out of true can be a disaster. It is up to the manufacturer to create a careful part design, use appropriate, quality, fresh resin and pack it in a stable arrangement. When we buy a resin kit we should handle it carefully and store it supported until it is assembled and painted.
Also, who hasn't purchased an plastic injection cast kit with some parts warped?
John
Marc, John, Russ, Paul, Marty, etc
thanks for all of your comments... to be fair I'm not entirely opposed to resin and am already committed to using it for some of my kits. I'd already squared up the SBLCo sideframes in my previous post but think the deck was too rigid and the sideframes shrunk a little- maybe, as Marc suggests, in reaction to the glue- I tend to use slow set superglue and reactor spray either of which could have caused a reaction with the resin. Three things that I will implement in my own kits though:-
1. All resin components will be self supporting in all planes. ie. I'll try to design items that have as many right angles as possible and with equal material thickness through the casting. The 1/32 Hibberd is a one-piece body with etched brass details which leads me to...
2. Wherever larger PE/ white metal/ investment brass parts interface with resin I'll make sure there is scope for a little movement.
3. Wherever possible from the viewpoint of cost, etc use white metal, lost wax brass or PE- resin is the most unpredictable material in this list.
Also to be fair to Richard Denot and his SBLCo kits (Richard was a close neighbour and friend of mine prior to his move to France- lived a 10 minute drive from my house) he never has done his casting in house and has gone through several suppliers because of quality issues. He does have old stock but his current supplier is, by all accounts, the finest in the UK and only uses the best quality resins so future kits should be much better.
Also a request- is there any possibility we could pool together and test the PAP parts' compatibility with various solvents, paints etc. No doubt more of us will be using this technology and it would be useful to have some kind of reference as to what works and what doesn't, both in terms of finishing and material thicknesses etc. ... Just a thought...Also, Paul, will be really interested to learn how the PAP resin responds to machining when you turn your wheels.
Cheers!
James
James
I have used Acetone for cleaning with no issues so far (but not as thin of parts as Marc's) Can create a white frosting but it sands away.
So far I have used enamel spray paints (Testors, Model Master) with very good adhesion. Have stripped pieces with Mineral spirits-no issues.
Have used Epoxy and ACC for repairs and attachments-no issues.
Cleaned, sanded and left un-painted pieces have remained stable over several months. Un-cleaned pieces can get a sparkly powder residue on them. Assuming this will clean/sand off.
I am still investigating if heat is an issue with these for warping/deforming/straightening.
Drills and taps nicely.
And I am getting to like the smell of the resin.
Got my PAP order today.
To recap. Here's the Sketchup export ... Radiator at the top. Below that poling pockets and below that journals. In back the coupler pockets. To the right of that brackets that go under the journals and finally, up front, the seat frame. This is all 1:48 and the dimensions are shown.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FPrintAPart48Dimensions.png&hash=bfc36f7c7f0fe8f04c33112ece745bee6974faee)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FImage29.jpg&hash=888c74d8c8fcdf568e097b234fc8a55fb7d02157)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FImage28.jpg&hash=61c23351fc8ba6a612fa0b5baadcc74ea09e183a)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FImage26.jpg&hash=c65cc11d62021b0ba734b3f60cb8b981587ca309)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FImage15.jpg&hash=49e84badb94e8743d98670cfb6955f1bc31215c9)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FImage7.jpg&hash=155c199e135da1f6c605a75286f5c5ccf05c1d2a)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FImage31.jpg&hash=b0d78ce76b3735ee73a8584bf88e74f24cd86586)
Looks promising!
The resolution is a little better than I expected. Please keep posting, with comments, as you cut, clean, sand, and assemble. -- Russ
That is a nice sprue of parts. You would have been scratchbuilding that stuff forever.
Which brings up a point- PAP makes things possible that normal modeling would not allow without a lot of effort or perhaps not at all. I do believe we are developing the understanding of the material limitations and we are learning to account for it. Looks like a good future for PAP.
Who could have predicted the on-line PAP service even three years ago?
John
I lightly (very) sanded the tops of the coupler pockets and dipped them in Lacquer Thinner. Got much better photos with my fingers in the viewfinder .. suppose it made the camera happy. Ha.
You can see the holes for the pin .. and just barely .. in the corners .. holes for the bolts
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FCouplerPAP_2.jpg&hash=8aacfedffad90da8484127414209cc9274c65f9e)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FCouplerPAP_1.jpg&hash=ecd28743e325c8f23b28936925dfbc1b3d99ce9f)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi856.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab130%2FLCRRinHO%2FVehicles%2FO%2520Scale%2FMimesis%2520Critter%2FCouplerPAP_3.jpg&hash=ef41186cd480d196ad88f8719072ba0cedd35851)
Coupler pocket looks very good Ed... sharp edges and crisp. Most satisfactory...
Paul
The sanded and cleaned part looks about as good as a molded styrene part of that size would look only you may have been able to include a little more cleanly rendered detail (i.e., the bolt holes). I think your tiny drawhead alone pretty much tells the story. Paul has expressed the conclusion succinctly in his final two words.
But post more anyway.
Russ
I seriously doubt I could have done that in styrene, may be one, but two?......
Possibly in a chunk of brass, but then......
-Marty
I made eight poling pockets .. and broke five of them. Ooops. The flange (where they broke) is only .005" ... I missed that somehow .. I thought I had kept minimum thickness at .010". So. There's a lower limit. I think the .010" would probably be ok.
Looks great Ed.
As soon as I know how SketchUp and PAP works, I will give it a try. But for now this is at some points to difficult for me to understand, as I am not a native speaker of English. (Yep, I found this last one in the dictionary ::) )
Leon
As of February 2009 Sketchup was also available in French, Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Polish, Brazilian Portuguese, Russian and Dutch
Quote from: LeOn3 on September 28, 2010, 01:47:49 PM
Looks great Ed.
As soon as I know how SketchUp and PAP works, I will give it a try. But for now this is at some points to difficult for me to understand, as I am not a native speaker of English. (Yep, I found this last one in the dictionary ::) )
Leon
León,
No es necesario ser bueno en Inglés, SketchUp está disponible en español ...... y no hay mucho para leer y entender acerca de PAP ..... solomente tienes que registrarte, subir, ver el archivo, y pagar ;)
Marc
Show off.
I can write, "Comment va tu?" in French. So there.
ssuR
Quote from: finescalerr on September 29, 2010, 01:26:57 AM
Show off.
You are so right. English is still getting better, but now getting a answer in spanish?? No hablé, I am Dutch.
Van spanje ken ik alleen sinterklaas. :D
Leon
Quote from: LeOn3 on September 29, 2010, 06:24:57 AM
Quote from: finescalerr on September 29, 2010, 01:26:57 AM
Show off.
You are so right. English is still getting better, but now getting a answer in spanish?? No hablé, I am Dutch.
Van spanje ken ik alleen sinterklaas. :D
Leon
Sinterklass alleen gaat naar Spanje (Ibiza) voor de partijen. 8)
Sorry...Ik ben dom ... , ik verwarde je met een ander lid uit Argentinië ::)
Marc
Marc,
it's okay. I like these kind of answers, makes me smile. We all do not have to be serious all the time.
Leon
Spent most of last night building an SU model for a cliet presentation today, then decided to play around with seeing what presentation/fun/creative effects I fould easily do in SU.....to experiment I built a simple box house, and then played with the styles and text......probably no application for here...but there are a good range stuff one can actually do, without needing any photoshop, or sim program. This quick image took all of 10 mins, start to fin....all done directky in SU. The base style is "Ground-Glass", which was then mixed and modified to get different edge styles and line styles. The text is the "Crimefighter" style.
...anyhow....just some fun for a burnt-out brain.
Interesting Marc... something of a graphic novel feel to it.
Paul
Great thread. I'm learning tons.
Thanks keep it coming
Old thread .. but .. shrug .. why start a new one?
Shorpy had a photo titled "O Little Town: 1935 (http://www.shorpy.com/node/10546)" .. November 1935. "Bethlehem houses and steel mill. Pennsylvania."
I was curious about that apparently steep slope the houses are on. I brought the photo into Sketchup and used "Match Photo" on the steps (the Sketchup drawing is from that first concrete steps to the first wooden steps this side of the divider board thing-ie). Interesting how much compression the camera had as the houses are a lot further apart then I realized from the photo (I'm sure it was obvious to others on this forum). The Match Photo tool in Sketchup is pretty 'nifty' for converting a photo of a house to a drawing.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages112.fotki.com%2Fv184%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2FSteepStreet-vi.jpg&hash=ade7807cf790662b0928b01f57f9a4884b54ff16)
Dont know if Ed has already mentioned this plug-in. Its a rendering plug-in for SU called "Shaderlight"....there is a free/basic version and a pay version that has more features.
The attached image shows the orig. SU model, and then some renderings done using some of the "Shaderlight" basic version presets.
Marc
I think I'd almost rather create models with 3-D software than actually build them; that's just too cool! -- Russ
I had meant to reply to this thread but my internet was crap for past few days. Turns out it was the freakin' wall cable connector thingie!
Anyhoo. I had Shaderlight working fine until they came out with a "New and Improved" version. Of course I had to delete the old version .. and now the new one won't work. :-\
Kerkythea (http://www.kerkythea.net/joomla/) is a free open-source renderer that even has a plug-in for Sketchup. Works pretty darn well. (just watch some of the images on the home page there .. )
I downloaded this 3d file from Google 3D Warehouse of an "Old Farm Truck". This is it displayed using Sketchup's renderer
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages15.fotki.com%2Fv246%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2FSketchupRender-vi.png&hash=8f163195d11316b9feb578cc1d343ca18d32affd)
I opened it up it Kerkythea .. and just randomly applied some materials I had. Huh. I don't have any rubber. Need to download some I guess. I used a Carbon fiber for the tires .. :D .. and various metallic paints for the truck. Silly maybe but it gives an idea of the power of Kerkythea .. and that's without any tweaking at all (I'm tweakless)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages17.fotki.com%2Fv10%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2FKerkytheaRender-vi.jpg&hash=ecdfddf7446cd38c50b86d82ec137a2c3ea2b6bc)
Fix the tires and frame the pic! -- Russ
I had Kerkythea installed and it never seemed to run well for me, and the rendered images were always wierd looking, and the materials always rendered wierd/off, if they worked at all :-\...glad it works for you, I always thought it was a useful and great program judging from their site.
Marc
Ed,
Have in all your research and printing have you tried the .STL impor/export for SU? (It's a straight plug-in....not affilliated with any mfr or pay service such as CADSPAN).
It's called "su2stl.rb"....I installed it and it seemed to put out an .stl file...but could not check the stl. file itself to see what the quality was.
For those doing stairs, roofs,slope calcs and other features, (IE architectural items) there is a plug-in called "cd_architect.rb" that will do these things automatically for you...IE when doing a stair, a tablke comes up where you can enter all or some of the parameters..rise, run. treads, steps, length, width, landing etc....and it will then autogenerate that stair for you...including railing height....granted it may not look design-wise like the stair you want, but that can be easily changed...at least the basic math and layout have been done for you. It doese the same for roofs, and site features.
marc
Marc, I have that (or one similar) installed and CADspan .. but found a better way.
Download free program - http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ .. blurb says ..
MeshLab is an open source, portable, and extensible system for the processing and editing of unstructured 3D triangular meshes.
The system is aimed to help the processing of the typical not-so-small unstructured models arising in 3D scanning, providing a set of tools for editing, cleaning, healing, inspecting, rendering and converting this kind of meshes.
I just use it to import the Sketchup .dae file and export as a .stl
then ..
Netfabb Studio basic .. will 'heal' .. fill open holes in the .stl file - http://www.netfabb.com/basic.php
also downloaded AccuTrans 3d .. will check for Water tightness
http://www.micromouse.ca/
free for 30 days then $20 .. but I have (for some reason I forget) am evidently running it from inside the zip file and it hasn't expired. Shrug
.. anyhoo .. that's what I've been using. I'm working on a plate girder bridge .. just exported, healed, checked for water tight, uploaded a over 2.5 meg file to Shapeways of a Cross-Girder Assembly using those prgs .. sweet! (and free which I like) .. http://www.shapeways.com/model/276797/cross_girder_assembly.html?gid=sg47858
For Russ .. :)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages54.fotki.com%2Fv543%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2FKerkytheaRender2-vi.jpg&hash=7be29aa81ebb1f358ef4fd9b8026acce2427d699)
The wheels now are more consistent with the rest of the rendering. Thank you. Nice job. -- Russ
Ed, I used meshlab with my TurboCAD output for a 3-D print job. It worked well.
Please post detail shots of your bridge assembly. I want to see the 1:48 rivet resolution. Have you had this type of stuff printed before?
Thanks, John
John. Nope. Nothing with the 'detail' of the rivets. I'm curious to see whether it will print well enough. The biggest problem with the lower-resolution (but affordable) printers seems to be the layer depth. I just took a photo of a column for my coke oven .. trying .. to get a good look at the detail. This was printed in FUD by Shapeways .. so you can get an idea. The mortar lines are .008" wide
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages110.fotki.com%2Fv615%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2FColandpenny-vi.jpg&hash=4e29b859c811849987d6d957fa4bb405df310e22)
Here's a close-up of that pic .. best I could do
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages107.fotki.com%2Fv159%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2FColandpenny2-vi.jpg&hash=fb6dc8481efc5a57b4b0684c768ae6c5a8ccde4e)
For brick and stone a little texture and a small roughness on the edge of a course should be OK. A smooth surface with hemispherical shapes will be different. And that depends on how magnified any viewing will be. Spray filling and abrasive smoothing are probably out as rework options on riveted surfaces.
Anyway back to .skp. Thanks for the photos!
John
I've been experimenting with Sketchup a little, trying to make an accurate drawing of a miner's cabin while learning to use the software. It's slow going. (But then I've never yet seen any software that was as quick and easy as using paper, T-square and a triangle.) Anyway... this software seems to have some odd quirks.
For instance, zooming. As far as I can tell, the only way to zoom in is select the zoom tool and "wave" it across the screen several times, then select the "pan" tool and try to drag the drawing around until you can see the area you wanted to zoom in on -- what a PITA! Why can't you just click on the area you want to zoom, and have that spot centered in the screen?? Is there actually some way to do this that I just haven't discovered yet?
Ray. I don't know whether you have a PC or Mac or .. even if that makes a diff (understand mouse is diff on a Mac)
But .. on a PC
(1) I have a mouse with a scroll wheel center of the mouse. That zooms in and out depending on the direction you move the scroll wheel. Holding the scroll down as a button allows orbiting. Hold the shift key down and press the scroll and you can pan.
(2) When the Zoom is selected .. magnification glass thingie .. double-click a point to center on screen (PC)
Me .. I never use the Mag icon .. just the scroll wheel and shift key
Anyone working in CAD and/or 3D visualization software needs a multi-button mouse with a scroll wheel! Mac or PC. It'll be the best money you invest in the adventure.
Yes, a multi-function mouse or trackball (my personal favourite) is essential. In the more advanced CAD and imaging programs, the scroll wheel (if properly set up) will zoom the screen in or out relative to the position of the cursor. No other key stroke is required. Just position the cursor over the portion of the drawing you want to zoom in on and spin the scroll wheel until you reach the magnification or view you need.
Paul
Thought this might be of interest to someone. I downloaded and installed a new (to me) rendering plug-in for SketchUp, called Maxwell Render. It works directly in SU.
http://www.maxwellrender.com/index.php/maxwell_for_google_sketchup
The attached image is a side-by-side comparison of the original SU image, and the Maxwell rendered image. Note that this render was done right out of the box, no testing, no reading the manual, no assigning materials,....only slight adjustment in the sharpness/output settings...then basically just click the button and let it do it's thing.
Its not Rhino, or 3D studio or such, but I think the results are decent, and can likely only be made better once I learn how to use it. The other nice thing is that there is a free downloadable version...or you can get the full version for $95.
Quote from: marc_reusser on January 19, 2012, 03:22:09 AM
... Note that this render was done right out of the box, no testing, no reading the manual, no assigning materials,....only slight adjustment in the sharpness/output settings...then basically just click the button and let it do it's thing.
... not bad, man ... :o
(still involved in the struggle with Inventor, due to a lack of time)
Cheers
Yes, for the price, that's fairly decent. Keyshot will also work with Sketchup 7 and 8 files, though it is 10x the price.
Paul
Heres another test run with the Maxwell program (free version), on an old project piece (simple stained plywood and marble reception desk for a small hair salon). This time I added some materials to the SU image to be rendered. After the render was done, the image was imported into photoshop, where the text, and a slight shadow halo at the upper corners was added using a PS plug-in.
That's acceptable and fairly decent for a free render app. Does it provide any options concerning shadows, reflections, ambient occlusion, light colour and balance?
Paul
I now bought the pay version, and that comes with access to a library of .mxm material files. It appears the base mapping/image jpgs for these can be used as materials/surfaces in the SU drawing, and can then be adjusted insofar as surface quality and smoothness, texture, luminance, transparency, etc...etc, in the program. Each material and color can be individually adjusted for these qualities...you can also ajust the rendering paramaters, output quality, size, resolution etc.
So far I have really not done much but the very, very basics with it, just to see if I wanted to pay for it, so I cant say if it does all the things you are asking about. I need to read the manual, check the tips on the forum, etc.
I am quite happy with the results I have gotten to this point.....I don't plan to always use this (as I dont think all things look better, or communicate an idea/concept better, when perfectly rendered), it's just another nice presentation tool/option to have. I wanted a rendering program because I thought it was the right presentation medium, to do some basic renderings for a current project, like the rough test attached below. :)
One thing that is important, is the more small detail and accuracy you add/create in the SU image...the more believable the rendering will look.
M
Looks quite adequate for basic tests Marc, showing interplay of volumes, materials and textures in space in a manner that can be easily interpreted by the client. Maxwell has a huge library (user contributed) of materials at http://resources.maxwellrender.com/visual_catalog.php?t=#page=1 (http://resources.maxwellrender.com/visual_catalog.php?t=#page=1). I've done a little work with Maxwell Render Suite and Maxwell Studio but so far, it hasn't met my needs and doesn't play well with Autodesk projects. As time allows I hope to work with it some more as I do like some of the options available in their primary product.
You are correct, perfection is in the details (as any scale modeller will attest), but perhaps more important to the rendering process is the lighting environment and therein lies the major challenge with any rendering program. It's very easy to get wrong, but quite difficult to get right.
Paul
Some more SU, and Maxwell experimenting. (A painted wooden garden chair design.)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F531002_453250404712730_816257752_n.jpg&hash=db0eab6ffc8dab397d922d8cbe20f15391706e25)
M
Google Sketchup? Terrific!!! -- Russ
Anyone notice any changes since Google sold to Trimble?
Here's a rendering of the Forks Creek Depot:
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1220.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd447%2Ffred_h1%2FForks_Creek_Depot_2_zpsa8f995c3.png&hash=29930fce11dc3f4f074025e20d5d94914cbe26ed)
Hey, Marc, or some other expert... Any suggestions as to how to export .skp files into a format that can be used to drive a laser cutter?
Here you go Fred ..
http://code.google.com/p/sketchup-svg-outline-plugin/
Quote from: eTraxx on January 27, 2013, 08:54:30 AM
Here you go Fred ..
http://code.google.com/p/sketchup-svg-outline-plugin/
Thanks, Ed. I really admire your modelling, BTW!
Quote from: Fred H. on January 27, 2013, 08:34:43 AM
Anyone notice any changes since Google sold to Trimble?
Not yet, though I am curious to see where Trimble goes with it. Am actually a bit worried that they won't support it or advance it as much as Google did after they bought it....or at least not insofar as the creative aspect.
...on the other hand, maybe they will make their LSPs and keyboard commands more intuitive and in line with general CAD programs like ACAD or REVIT....which would be nice for me, as I switch back and forth a good bit.
Has anyone played with the terrain and contours options that are buried in the sandbox tool set?
I am personally intrigued if I can find and download a contour file (with coutour lines at separation) and them apply the contour tool. Would be an interesting wrinkle if someone was trying to replicate an exact location with reference to actual contours.
RichD
Nothing special...but you've got to start somewhere. :) Trying to evaluate and learn the basics of a new rendering program (KeyShot), so thought I would give it a quick test run on a old design for a model kit. (original drawn 2D in a AutoCAD, imported and modeled/extruded in SketchUp, and Rendered in KeyShot ["matte paint" color/material only, no textures applied] )
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1391777_3469591474507_1515727616_n.jpg)
Looks good Marc.
I find keyshot quite easy to use. Drew the small electric motor below in Rhino Cad then rendered it in Keyshot. Its not finished yet, but i like the results one gets.
Hiya All
How easy do you find it to model complex shapes in Sketchup?
I'm trying to do a brick depot. Nightmare.
The main problems I'm finding are the curved brick arches as Sketchup snaps to the axes. I've also struggled with closing bricks around these odd shapes so the faces leak. The mortar lines have finally sunk me. I'd drawn it all up 2D but can't get them to sink... So I'm having to start a large section again... I must admit to being a tad annoyed after several weeks' evenings of work but I'm not going to be beaten!
I've only done one model before which I printed at Shapeways. That took me many attempts do I guess it is a learning curve.
Kathy
Kathy,
You mean like this?
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages41.fotki.com%2Fv1245%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2Fleftcolumn600-vi.jpg&hash=ec32b8e8c1ba6931c639a1a6a4e613d7e44274e9)
Printed
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages116.fotki.com%2Fv618%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9721938%2FshpColumn-vi.jpg&hash=f11aeb4603b71f3b9b7cf6ce26abbc92e86701e0)
Snapping to lines - that's usually from not grouping the individual sections. You should create the arch as a separate entity .. within a group/component so it only affects itself.
Hi Ed
That's exactly what I mean. I do have the arches etc as separate components but when I insert them or, as I'm trying now, extend the window outline through the brickwork, they don't create solid shapes with each other. I've tried doing intersect faces and that creates a line but the line doesn't create a rectangle etc.
I'm lost as to what to do as when I try and delete out my window openings, the mortar lines on the whole front are all connected depite there being a solid line between the openings and the rest of the model.
Googling required!
Kathy
No sure if I am fully understanding....but lets say you have drawn the wall, with the grout spacing, all the arched bricks, and the window opening in 2D, you should simply be able to create/make the grout as one whole surface...and the bricks as individual surfaces...then while doing this, the arched openings (openings to face of brick and grout line only...no window...should also become a surface. you should now be able to extrude the individual bricks forward...however much you want the grout to sink back....or more intuitively and faster...simply sink/push the grout back the desired depth (the latter is the far better way, but sometimes if a brick face or area did not register/isolate as a separate plane/piece, it will push back also. lastly, take the surface in the arched window opening, and push it back the thickness of the brick...or whatever depth you are after...then select the pushed back surface (surface only...no edges) and you should now have a proper depth window opening with all the bricks where needed.
Sorry, the only close/relevant images I have are these:
The brick surround, opening and hearth in these SU renders, were done in exactly the above manner.
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/480737_453262901378147_1590614418_n.jpg)
Hi Marc
You're up early.
I've tried two methods, the first was to draw the window as a component with the brick arch header. I then put in flat 2D bricks around the windows and exploded the component so it would "join up". There is a brick width inset down to the window frame itself. I finally tried to drop the mortar lines back but they just won't drop back. Offset is limited to 0".
Attempt two is to push the mortar lines down first and then cut out the window openings... I pulled up the front if the window so it pulled through the brick surface. I then did intersect faces. However, when I try to delete the window opening, it is still connected to the rest of the sunken mortar lines. I have tried drawing a box around but I cannot isolate the window openings to delete them from the rest of the mortar on the wall.
I am still a novice but have struggled with getting shapes to close so much with this that I wonder what I am doing wrong.
I'm using the free Sketchup.
Thanks for any help you can give. I'm at work now but will have another go tonight and post some pictures.
Regards
Kathy
Kathy,
Not up early....still at the office. :)
If you want, you can Email me the 2D & or the SU file, and I will have a look at it.
Sounds like issues with intersections and object isolation.
The offset to zero should not happen. If a surface is giving you problems in pushing/pulling, try holding down the shift key while you do it. I have found this helps when items only want to offset to a certain point/line/face.
The only other reason I could think that this might happen, is because you are working in a "style" that has a Ground plane, and you are working flat on that plane ...IE., you didn't tilt the wall, upright after you imported it (It is still flat on the x/y plane)......this though should not be an issue, but it is all I can think of for that issue.
Hiya Marc
Thanks for your kind offer. If this doesn't work then I will be sending you the file!
What do you do to be up so late at the office?
I had a look again this evening and I think that pushing the window frame through the brickwork caused all my bricks to join up at the back instead of bring hollows. I think that's a real no no for Shapeways as it is a non-solid solid. Or something to do with internal faces. I ended up doing the brickwork again whilst watching the last Poirot. It seemed to be marginally quicker than deleting every extra brick back.
I'm now looking at window openings again and my main problem is to stop the bricks closing up on the back again, I ended up putting the break line for the window opening round each fiddly little mortar line. When I've done one side, I might be able to copy it which would be a Godsend because it is time consuming.
I do find Sketchup longwinded, maybe because I'm used to Excel where you can press f4 and it will repeat the action. I just don't know the shortcuts here.
I wondered if the mortar lines wouldn't go down because something was interfering with them dropping. Alas, I can't find that version and think I may have saved over it by mistake. :-X :-X :-X
I'm beginning to wonder if using plasticard would have been quicker but this uses time I don't model in later in the evenings.
Thanks
Kathy
Kathy,
I'm glad to see another modeller trying 3D printing. I have been following your achivement projects on FB. I wonder if the NMRA will have a catagory for 3D printed projects someday?
Just finished these two O scale wood spoke wheels. The thick edges are to fall within the requirements for printing in FUD. The rim width for example is .012". To give an idea of scale these are .. with tire slightly smaller then a dime. Wonderful thing this 3D printing. The tire I tried uploading just crashed and burned .. but that can wait for tomorrow.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages41.fotki.com%2Fv195%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12592452%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=e63bd3c7a0f1a59d57044be84c52b67fb76ee3d0)
Hi Chuck
I'm glad to hear that someone reads my posts!
You can use 3D printing for any scratch built item in the Achievement Programme. I'm hoping to do my scratch built depot that way (depending on price). It's really interesting learning something new and 3D printing is great for so many things.
On another project I have steam lines but just couldn't drill out the globe valves easily. Now I'm thinking - just 3D print them!
Ed - hate that fail moment when you upload. I normally forget to change the scale.... Leads to some very expensive models!
Kathy
If it makes you feel any better, I've been muddling around with SketchUp for about three or four weeks now. While I'm much better that at the outset, I find it crude, especially in comparison to AutoCAD. I think that is one reason Marc Reusser suggests drawing a lot of 2-D stuff in AutoCAD and then extruding it in SketchUp. I have no other answer to your questions but we all know how misery loves company. -- Russ
Sketchup, is crude in comparison to autocad, in the way one works with it, and some of the drawinging functions....but it is by no means crude in what one can produce....at least not for most of our needs here....what can be created, is really limited by the information you provide the program, and how you construct your models. Not to toot my horn....but as a few examples. These were all relatively simple and somewhat quick renderings that were drawn in SU...and you can see that the detail is there....these could be taken and printed in 3D. All I can recommend is to keep practicing. It is by far the easiest rendering program to use and learn, and can deliver comparable results to many of the high end programs....without the steep learning curve, and without the multi-thousand dollar investment into the software.
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/487901_487971584573945_1059153915_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/281856_430784383625999_440844281_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1393518_585872064783896_1311399723_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1011028_537378662966570_1498595590_n.jpg)
Re. your drawings: Wow.
Re. SketchUp: I didn't mean to belittle the program. I actually like it and realize its potential. It has some limitations that AutoCAD helps to overcome. But its biggest limitation is ME and my limited ability to figure out how to approach a drawing. I have the same limitation when it comes to figuring out how to construct, for example, a structure with gables. That is where my personal learning curve comes into play and SketchUp is a very good tool for teaching myself to think in three dimensions.
I'll stick with it.
Russ
Scatter some debris and a few gas masks here and there ... rip a cabinet or two off the wall ... and you'd have another diorama! ;D -- Dallas
Okay, I realize the image below is probably going to embarrass me in another couple of weeks but it's the most sophisticated drawing I've managed to create so far. It's a 24 inch diameter freight car wheel and I chose the subject because of all the curves and indentations and protrusions. If any of you SketchUp guys sees an error in how I did it (not necessarily its resemblance to an actual wheel), please tell me; I've posted it so I can learn how to do better. -- Russ
Looks good...and far better than the first wheels I ever did.
Russ. That's very impressive for a curved object!
Marc. I can see that you are a master compared to the rest of us. I'm so glad you are around to help.
I have discovered (and am making progress) that Sketchup needs to have a push/pull mentality rather than drawing boxes. My first two or twenty attempts all used a lot of drawing 3D lines and making faces that way. When you then try to get them to interact correctly, they don't. You have to draw in 2D and push pull to the desired outcome. I can get Sketchup to work when I take the long road and avoid taking shortcuts! Good thing I watch a lot of TV to Sketchup in front of.
Kathy
Kathy, you have nailed it. That's how SketchUp seems to work, at least as far as I've yet discovered. Marc pointed that out at the beginning of this thread. Everything finally seemed to snap into focus after I looked up, in SketchUp's Help menu, "How to make an inner tube or donut". Let's keep cranking out drawings until we master the program.
Russ
Marc, Russ, etc.
I'd like to see a comparison of the relative merits and problems (demerits) of SketchUp,
TinkerCAD, and 123D (the latter two from Autocad). They're all free (right now), and I've
tried them all, but I find TinkerCAD works easiest for me, with no former experience in CAD.
Is it just a matter of taste? Will Autocad eventually merge their two programs (I've heard rumors)?
Carlo
I'm the wrong guy to ask, Carlo. Marc, Chuck, and a couple of the other guys deal with CAD professionally. -- Russ
Carlo,
I have never heard of or seen the other two programs (which to me does say something about their quality and usefulness, as I run 3 other AutoDesk programs for my drafting, sketching and presentation work).
Without having seen them, I would say that they are likely more toy/play/home user and for basic models for simple 3d printing......I could of course be wrong. Mind you, SketchUp was nce also at that level...and many still opine it is.....but it has become a very mainstream progam, and is now in use at major design, gaming and 3D companies.........so there are inumerable, extensions, plug-ins, files, models, objects, textures, etc. written and available that work with, and or have been designed for, Sketchup. There is a lso a very large user "community" around the program.....for help, discussions, tricks and tips, etc......so for my needs and IMO it is athis point a much more useable/better program.
Sort of related...definitely to this thread.....this fellow, is probably one of my favorite guys working with SU.....though not everyones cup of tea...and not too applicable to my type of work......the guys creativity, approach, process and results are wonderful and inspiring......and there is always something to learn or come away with......and he shares it all SBS on his blog and tutorial pages.
http://www.alexhogrefe.com/
Here is my most ambitious SketchUp attempt so far. Once I had the wheel I decided to "build" a Carter Brothers inspired truck to go around it. The drawing is not an accurate Carter truck and has a couple of awkwardly drawn details.
The hardest part about the chain was positioning the links and I was unable to do that precisely. (It probably should have started out as perpendicular flat planes.) I had similar problems aligning other curved components. Does anybody have a suggestion about how to do that? (For example, how would you accurately attach a ring to a cylinder after you have drawn each?)
If anyone else is interested in learning the program, it is not hard. The hard part is designing the drawing, not executing it.
Russ
Looks pretty good to me.
I like it. Every tip about learning Sketchup interests me too, currently. Ed (etraxx) has already given to me a good lecture about intersections and I'll avidly read more. I plan to become good enough with their scripting language Ruby to draw as many parts as possible without actually drawing them.
Frederick .. have you seen Shapeways' .. "ShapeJS"??
http://shapejs.shapeways.com/?li=nav
From the "Overview"
The ShapeJS language provides a powerful system for generating 3D printable objects via a simple Javascript program. ShapeJSs work on a voxel representation. A voxel is similar to a 2D pixel but it represents a volume element in 3 dimensional space. A script provides mechanisms to easily set the desired voxels using a series of data sources and transformations.
Was that English?
???
Kathy
Ed, that sounds like something my doctor told me before he said, "But don't worry about it right now."
Jargon aside, does anyone have a simple, clear, step by step answer to my question?
Russ
Russ, I'm amazed that I remember where the on button is on my computer :D and your saying Sketchup is easy to learn ???
It really is, Craig. As Kathy said, basically you draw in two dimensions (as you would with a pencil), then you use a couple of simple tools to extrude the drawings to 3-D. It's no more complicated than writing an e-mail and attaching a photo or a music file. The hard part is designing the drawing. That is exactly the same as scratchbuilding a model by breaking it into sub-assemblies, and knowing how much of each sub-assembly you must complete and paint before adding it to the rest of the model. I'm poor at that at the workbench and also on the computer.
Today I may have answered the questions I asked earlier. And I noticed a major limitation of the free version of SketchUp: You can import lo-res photos or drawings and trace them but you can't import, for example, AutoCad drawings. For modelers, that's a big drawback since some of us design kits and parts in 2-D CAD or illustration programs. The inability to import DXF and other such files, then extrude the components, means you essentially must redraw the entire plan! (It's not a problem if you don't already draw or have a collection of 2-D plans.)
I also discovered the limitations of free rendering plug-ins. It all reminds me of the four word law I once read in the Wall Street Journal: AIN'T NO FREE LUNCH.
Russ
There are a ton of plugins that extend the free version of SU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kei0gmOwZ5Q
http://www.guitar-list.com/download-software/convert-sketchup-skp-files-dxf-or-stl
This works fine for exporting both DXF and STL. This works as long as you remember that SU exports in inches .. no matter what system you choose in the plugin. If you have a cube 1x1x1 inches and select mm and export to STL you get a cube 25.4^3.
I hardly ever use this plugin .. instead I use MeshLab - http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ .. an open source program it can import Sketchup's .DAE file and export a variety of 3D files including .STL ..
I normally import the .dae file .. convert to .stl .. and then use MeshLab's .... Filters -> Cleaning and Repairing -> Remove Duplicate Faces (almost never find any) and -> Remove Duplicate Vertexes. (Note: to see the results of such operations you need to show the layers dialog. When finished right click the layer and select 'Freeze Matrix' to make it happy) .. MeshLab is a VERY powerful program .. kinda geeky .. but it was written by 3D computer nerds so explains a lot.
For correcting errors in the mesh you can use NetFabb Studio Basic (free) - http://www.netfabb.com/basic.php
umm .. what was your question? How to attach a ring to a cylinder after drawing each? Attach how? Ring piercing the cylinder .. or around it like a link around a pin?
I sketched up this quickly .. yeah .. I know .. a ring through a pin would require a straight hole in the pin and a straight portion of the ring but the example shows a curvy hole .. just for fun.
Thank you, Ed. I'll check out the plug-ins.
Re. the ring and cylinder, my question is how do you attach the ring precisely where you want it? (If the answer is long and boring I could contact you offline, either by e-mail or phone.)
Russ
Ok. If I show how to align .. there are a dozen other ways .. this is just one
Suppose I had a cylinder and a D-ring
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages19.fotki.com%2Fv275%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto2-vi.jpg&hash=1b728e3489e7c705c56a083837d4a896127cefa7)
I decide I want to insert the D-ring into the cylinder at an exact point ..
First zoom in on the D-ring
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages116.fotki.com%2Fv695%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=009e3594521acc21de0a13932b0bf9ea1d24ef53)
Sketchup menu: View -> Hidden Geometry. Spin the D-ring around so you can see the straight side. There is a dotted line center. Great. Draw two lines vertically from the ends of the dotted line and then a line connecting them. (You can skip to just drawing a horizontal line but this example shows better this way. This gives you a horizontal line dead center of that straight section of D-ring.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages116.fotki.com%2Fv699%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto2-vi.jpg&hash=9f65592972c89e6464972b2a1cddc4fa933c1b5c)
Hit "L" for Line. Hover over the center of the line you just drew. A blue dot will appear .. this is the center of the line. Now, draw a line out from that on the red axis (in this case)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages18.fotki.com%2Fv437%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=90f4c5e2507128d06b152f620fdb2a803cec3585)
I went back and turned off the Hidden Geometry. Now .. we have the D-ring with a line dead center. I grouped the line and D-ring so it's happy. I moved that green c-shape back 5 inches. I simply select the group .. hold down the right arrow key to constrain movement to the red axis .. and moved it .. typed in "5" and hit enter.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages107.fotki.com%2Fv71%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=01d8a40af2baa918bd25b916e6883bc66eef791d)
zoom in so I can see the pin. Hit "L" for line. Hover over the edge of the circle. You will see a purple 'dot' which means Sketchup knows you are wanting to work with that circle ..
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages116.fotki.com%2Fv716%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=bd9c82caa8b45cd21a6eb0dc891bc0bba3b0e402)
now .. move the cursor to center of the circle and a dot appears dead center. Hovering over the circumference did that.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages116.fotki.com%2Fv716%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=f143e5d04200e0a1c7b158d1afdd7bfea5451cca)
Now .. you can draw a line out from the center of the pin on the red axis. I didn't show it but you can use the tape measure too and measure the length of the line for later if needed. This line is centered on the pin .. and even with the top of the pin .. places you can measure from or to if needed.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages41.fotki.com%2Fv1577%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=155be7143eeadff9052947703c1f7f28f41668fe)
Using the tape measure tool .. I click that line I just made and dropped a measurement line down 2.5 inches. It makes a dotted line for me.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1481%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=84079ed1874cf2f5fb36c3ecb275c05ed4dfd281)
I can now drop a line from where the one on top crosses the circumference of the pin down to that dashed tape measure line
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages116.fotki.com%2Fv617%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=7c0735d56d6ea64c88982678c5311b333a04621a)
Now I can draw a line out from that last point on the red axis. This gives me a line .. center of the pin and down 2.5 inches exactly.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages18.fotki.com%2Fv329%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=4ff71fa81690bb5ca701de0f951bc39ff00bc851)
I used the eraser tool (E on keyboard) and got rid of the excess lines and clutter. Now .. hit "M" for move .. and click the end of the line extending out from the D-ring. You can now drag the D-ring wherever you wish .. connected to that point. (note. You can also use the tape measure tool to measure the length of that line for later use if needed)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages19.fotki.com%2Fv207%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=6562512e4c8a1810bc0f2a96507a795a1268bf4a)
In this case I dragged the D-ring by the end of the line and it 'snapes' to the line out from the pin.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1451%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639276%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=e20cb35a42348e9744eb7c2596dec44872bed202)
From this point .. you have control. Hold the "right arrow key" to constrain movement to the red axis. If you measured the lengths of the line from the pin (to center of pin axis) .. and the length of the line from the D-ring .. you can move from this point to the left .. type in the distance you want it to move .. and hit enter. You just moved it exactly where you needed to. When happy .. delete out those control lines.
If you hit "M" .. and then clicked where the line comes out of the D-ring you would be holding the D-ring at that point. If you then hold the 'Right Arrow Key" down to constrain movement to the red axis .. you can drag the D-ring inside the pin .. keep holding the left mouse button down .. (you clicked on the end of the line and moved the mouse (constrained on red axis). You can now move the cursor up .. since the right arrow key is held the D-ring stays constrained to movement on the red axis .. but you can hover over the center of the pin. The point you are holding aligns vertically now on that center.
Let go of everything. Now .. say .. you want that point on the D-ring back (to the right) .75 inches. Ok. Hold th right arrow key again .. to constrain movement .. move the D-right back a ways .. let go .. ener .75 on keyboard .. and hit enter.
Those trucks are looking good Russ. I'm glad you are learning this.
Thanks Ed for the explanations. Since 3D printing is growing so fast, it makes sense that both software and scanners will have to become easier to help us get the models into print.
It still surprises me that Sketchup doesn't yet allow for simple mating/coincident relationships. That is the main thing keeping me from ever going back to that software. (To be fair, I used it extensively before moving up to Solidworks, and it's a great program, especially for the price.)
I have some O scale wheels and tires I did that I need to get printed .. here's the wheels
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages41.fotki.com%2Fv195%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12592452%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=e63bd3c7a0f1a59d57044be84c52b67fb76ee3d0)
I did some wheels and tires for a c. model A type truck a while back. they came out pretty well .. mostly messed up on where the model wire axle fit into the hub .. but worth the trouble for the learning experience of "what not to do next time"
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages109.fotki.com%2Fv152%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F11247885%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=ecd94b763ec7388dce6c8f6ff20f9d9a74084813)
I just dropped an order for parts for a deck girder bridge. This is the part where you wait .. and see if they get kicked back at the printer .. which happens sometimes. Here's a snapshot from MeshLab .. cross frames, splice plates and stiffeners in back
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages41.fotki.com%2Fv1580%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F12639543%2Fsnapshot00-vi.png&hash=ce2bb1ef382dc33a43055b2587e7a9783b988257)
Quote from: Bexley on November 25, 2013, 02:51:37 PM
It still surprises me that Sketchup doesn't yet allow for simple mating/coincident relationships. That is the main thing keeping me from ever going back to that software. (To be fair, I used it extensively before moving up to Solidworks, and it's a great program, especially for the price.)
In Sketchup they call that inferencing. It's a system of object snaps, dynamic guidelines and enforced geometric relationships (e.g. tangency, perpendicularity). I still use the free version of SU .. yep .. great price!
Edit: WOWZIERS!! I was curious about the price .. found that as a US Military Veteran I can get the SolidWorks Student Edition for $20. Well .. heck! Says that it won't run on XP .. I keep saying I need a new computer ... hmmmm
https://store.solidworks.com/veteran/default.php
Just don't get a new PC with Win 8! Get Win 7 so you can use most of your existing software and avoid all the "new" quirks with W8.
Keep in mind that the student license for SW is a yearly fee. Though, if you're a veteran, you'll always get that price, so it's not bad. I'd certainly pay that much to have it at home. If you're actually a student, though, the license is about $50-$100 depending on where you go. But you have to prove every year that you're a student, so once you're out of school, you don't get that price anymore. Unlike, say, student editions of Adobe CS, which is a one time purchase that never expires. Though, I'd happily pay $100 a year for SolidWorks at home too.
It's been a while since I used Sketchup. (Version 7 was just out around the last time I used it.) I recall that you could force a line along an axis, but I don't recall being able to say, pick two lines and force them to be parallel, collinear, etc., or pick two arcs and force them to be concentric. And I thought you couldn't really do tangent, since circles aren't really circles in SU.
[EDIT: I just installed it to make sure I wasn't talking nonsense, and it does sort of allow those things, but it won't force them, which I recall being annoying, because you'd often hover over something to get the inference to happen, but you'd occasionally lose the inference when you clicked/dragged, and there was no way to know for sure if they were close but not quite. I also really it being annoying that if you wanted an exact dimension, you needed to type it in as you made the shape- if you wanted to change it, you needed to delete it and redraw it. Though, I only played with the latest version for a few minutes, so I'm sure there's lots of functionality that requires more time with the program.]
Quote from: mabloodhound on November 25, 2013, 03:38:12 PM
Just don't get a new PC with Win 8! Get Win 7 so you can use most of your existing software and avoid all the "new" quirks with W8.
When I got this computer I had them install XP on purpose instead whatever was the 'flavor of the month' at the time .. either Vista or 7. I swear .. Microsoft must be run by former Government Bureaucrats ..
Quote from: Bexley on November 25, 2013, 04:09:48 PM
<snip>I also really it being annoying that if you wanted an exact dimension, you needed to type it in as you made the shape- if you wanted to change it, you needed to delete it and redraw it. <snip>
If you have a grouped object you can scale it. Normally the bar shows the scaling but .. you can force exact dimensions. Scale in the direction you wish .. arbitrarily .. then type the new dimensions. Example. You have a cube that is 10"x10"x10 .. and want to scale it so it is say .. 12" on a side. Scale .. pull on the handles and enter 12",12",12" in the units panel and hit enter. You can also use the Tape Measure tool .. in the previous example you tape along one edge .. it says .. 10" in the units panel .. enter 12 and hit enter and that will scale it too.
Thank you very much for the tutorial, Ed. I've been doing similar things but not quite as well as you. Your explanation has saved me a week of trial and error.
A thought about SketchUp vs. SolidWorks and other high end programs: A couple of weeks ago a subscriber called. He does very sophisticated 3-D CAD for movies. He has taken some intensive courses in SketchUp and thinks very highly of it but ultimately chose a different program (not SolidWorks). The primary reason was how complicated SketchUp can become when you add a lot of plug-ins. Ultimately, for him, it was easier to have all those functions built in to a single program.
Marc uses SketchUp Pro extensively in his business. That might suggest something. He feels the free version is essentially all we modelers need.
Finally, I spent about two hours yesterday trying to find a way to import AutoCAD drawings into the free version of SketchUp. Ultimately the only way to do that was to find SketchUp 7.1 and add a plug-in for importing AutoCAD *.dwg files. Version 7.1 is the only one allowing you to import AutoCAD drawings. The plug-in worked beautifully.
Since I'm currently on a Mac notebook, I run SU7 for the import, then do the rest of the work on SU for the Mac (although I could do everything in WinXP, also on the Mac). I've built all my PCs and have no strong preference for Windows vs. Mac but currently think the Mac OS is more elegant than Windows but I 'm waiting to see what Win 9 brings.
Russ
Russ,
About a year ago (?) Google sold Sketchup to Trimble. The free version of Sketchup is now called Sketchup Make. One of the cool things that was added is "Extension Warehouse". I did a search for DWF .. and found "Architect Tools" and installed it (much easier using this Extension Warehouse as it does everything for you here). I now have a - AutoCAD Files (*.dwg, *.dwf) under the Import Menu.
Huh. Either you couldn't use the measuring tape to resize before, or I didn't know you could do that. Still, you can't use it to make a rectangle longer without also changing the other dimension. At least, not that I found in the ten minutes I just spent messing around with it. I tried drawing a rectangle a few degrees off of perpendicular, and had problems with that as well. Eventually I remembered that you would have to draw it along an axis then rotate it to get it at the angel you wanted.
Anyway. My point was, I think one of the best improvements they could make is to add some simple relations. I often found myself finding workarounds for things I felt I should just be able to do. (Of course, it's entirely possible that there are extensions that do that.) But like I said, I used the hell out of the program before learning SolidWorks, and when I was still building models at work, I still used SU for quick mockups. Plus, unless I stay in this job until I retire, it's entirely possible that I may find myself without SolidWorks, and back to using SU for everything again. Which will be fine, after a brief unlearning curve.
Ed, I have both SketchUp 8 and 2013 "Make" on the Mac side of my computer along with 7.1 on the Windows side. I just downloaded and installed "Architect Tools" but, since my version of SU 2013 is still in the SU Pro trial stage it has DWG/DXF import capability until the trial period expires.
After installing "Architect Tools" I find its functions "dead". I'm starting to understand why Bexley prefers SolidWorks!
Russ
@Bexley .. like you said, there are ways to do a lot that work. Not sure if they are work arounds or just other ways to do stuff - don't get me wrong .. if I had Solid Works I would be using that!
-moving part of a rectangle: Click a single line that you want to move of the rectangle .. hit "M" on the keyboard to move .. hold down the arrow key to constrict movement in the direction you need .. move just that line in the direction .. let go and type in the distance and hit enter ..
- drawing off the perpendicular: use the Protractor. Click on the start .. click down any line (sets the base of the Protractor .. then swivel the cursor any direction you want .. get close and type in exact degrees you need. It draws a dashed line on that degree that you can construct off of.
@Russ ..
Huh. I just imported both a .dxf and .dwg into my Sketchup Make using the Architect Tools plugin and everything worked fine.
Ah, yes, I forgot you could grab a line with the move tool. It seems to me that it makes more sense to auto-constrain to a direction perpendicular to the line (I suspect you're far more likely to want to drag one side larger without altering the angles of the other sides far more than you'd ever want to turn a rectangle into a parallelogram) and use ctrl or alt to turn off constraint.
Just to prove I sometimes make productive use of my free time, I submit herewith a SketchUp drawing of the house my parents built between 1951 and 1952 at 4537 Libbit Avenue, Encino, California. (The Oscar winning actress, Sally Field, lived next door and we went to school, together.)
I figured out the dimensions from knowing the interior length and width of my bedroom and still remember the house vividly, inside and out. The colors are the originals; my parents had it repainted white in the late '60s.
I'm still far from expert, but SketchUp is coming along and I think it's going to be a very useful and fun tool.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Russ
You went to school with Gidget?! Zowee.
Your house looks good Russ. Nice to see your progress.
This is not strictly SketchUp material but is closely related:
The "Cloud" version of Adobe Photoshop now offers a 3-D printing feature. This link appeared today: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/adobe-photoshop-cc-3d-printing,news-18210.html (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/adobe-photoshop-cc-3d-printing,news-18210.html)
Essentially, Photoshop now lets you clean up, texture, and enhance a 3-D drawing. Then it cleans up errors and sets up the drawing for output, uploads it to Shapeways (if you want), and mails you back the model.
Shall I throw away my hobby knife, file collection, disc sander, and drill press ...? (Yes, I really own some tools so no wisecracks!)
Russ
Well it seems that printing a proper finish on our 3D models is something that will happen someday. Then the whole point of building will change. Why struggle with antique hand tools when you can scan and print anything you want and have it be a prefect replica? (maybe still a few bugs to work out)
Even the best technology will NEVER compete with the eye and skill of a artist or craftsman!
A perfect example is photography: Technology has eliminated the dark room, the chemicals and made photography a lot easier. Yet, the ratio of good photographers vs "snap shooters" has not improved, in my opinion.
Some people could 3D print all day long, and their work will still look like a painted turd. Then there are 3D-projects like Chuck's gas pumps or Volker's Plettenburg projects, that are just mind blowing.
But I am very aware, that my (current) reluctance to dive into 3D drawing is ignorant. 3D-printing will become just another tool in the toolbox.
It was not my impression that Photoshop could replace paint on a printed part. If that were the case, I would squander whatever unfair price Adobe demands for the Cloud Creative Suite and crank out resin models left and right.
I think Photoshop may allow you to put a red nose on an orange clown or perhaps perform some other basic color/texture functions. It would seem its real value will be making 3-D drawings a little more elegant and print-ready. Or did I misunderstand?
Russ
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kathymillatt.co.uk%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FUnionville-Depot-2-1024x640.jpg&hash=f796cf1a73891195bb7aa0c2ab282f1039104836)
Well, after months of hard work I've nearly finished the end wall. I seem to spend ages going around and around in circles but if it checks out as a solid then I'm a quarter of the way there....
That looks great Kathy. You even got the correct brick bond in there.
8)
Kathy, That looks great. Congrats on the progress.
Russ, Things in PS only end up being more elegant, if you have the skill to, and, create/draw them that way, in the first place. :)
Thanks Guys
Correct brick bond is only because I copied a prototype picture, brick for brick!
Now I need to decide how to do the corners to the next wall. A 45 degree V so that the walls meet at an angle or carrying the bricks around the corner some how.
Kathy
It may be a pain, but if you can make the bricks interlock there will be no 45-degree glue joint lines.
Did you draw each individual brick (or string of bricks and mortar) as I did? If so, don't you feel almost like a brick mason?
Russ
Hi Russ
I did do some big sections of brick by copying a group but often struggled to get the mortar lines to drop down when I did that. The windows were a real pain to get to join with the rest if the brickwork.
I did all the diagonal direction bricks one at a time as you just can't copy and paste.
If I'm honest, I've probably drawn enough bricks to do the entire building... many times over.
I think interlocking is right so I'll need to think whether to draw the bricks and leave the mortar to allow for some wiggle room. I can always fill it later.
Regards
Kathy
Interlocking corners will look best. And don't forget the mirror image trick. You can draw one half of an item and then use the mirror to get the other half, then joining them together. Same goes for creating opposite sides or ends.
I've never seen mirror image in Sketchup so thanks for the tip!
Kathy
Kathy. Select your object and then hit "S" for Scale. Grab the center 'handle' and pull until the object collapses .. keep pulling and it inverts. You can either watch the numbers on the bottom .. until it reads -1 .. or just type -1 and hit enter.
Cool, I'll have a go.
Thanks guys, it's great to learn new things.
Kathy
I called Ed last month and he gave me a lot of extremely helpful tips about SketchUp. He really knows his stuff. The one about the Scale tool is among the most useful.
My latest exercise was to draw a truck hood with basic compound curves. Wait until you try something like THAT ....
Russ
IMO much easier for mirrored items/image, just select the object(s), or group that you want to mirror > right click >flip along (and choose the correct axis) ....that pretty much does it. I use this all the time when doing my models and renders.
To do something like the end of your building for instance, you could draw only half (to the ridge center-line), make it a group or object...your choice, depending on what further you ant to do with it...copy the group/object then flip that copied one along the appropriate axis. Take the flipped item, and just move it against/in line with the original piece. You can then leave it ss is....or group these two pieces into a single group....or simply explode them, and they will blend together.
Thanks Marc
My problem, which caused me no end of redoing things, was that when exploding components, they didn't intersect leaving me with dodgy mortar lines that wouldn't drop.
It didn't help that when I had done everything, I realised that my ridge wasn't centred and I had to redo the top, again.
You live and learn. I've learnt a lot but there is so much I don't know.
Kathy
Kathy,
FWIW, when I do walls like yours, I draw them in CAD in 2D (all the bricks, mortar lines, etc) Then import them into SU, make them intu a surface by tracing a line here and there, and closing any edges that wont allow it to become a surface.....when that is done, one can then easily extrude/pus-pull the bricks and mortar to get the depths/offset as needed.
It can be done directly in SU as well, but what I find is that when shifting/off-setting/duplicating sections of things, like brick, it is sometimes easy o be just a bit off when copying, aligning and assembling them, and this will then creat problems when trying to do the things like the grout lines, offsets, and extrusions.
Another way to do brick walls like this is to do all the bricks spaced and set up as you need them (in 2d and then extrude as needed, or as whole bricks...whichever you prefer. Once you have them set and the wall built as needed, group the wall....than create a simple plane, that is the outline shape of the wall (sans the mortar depth you want,...at each side where the wall will wrap and at window openings)...make this plane a new object. then just push ot back from the face of the brick to the mortar depth you want....and done....the surface/plane will create the mortar, withouth theheadache of accidentall clipping a brick, or tiny edge and having all the mortar disappear.
I work with/use a lot in "groups" and "objects"....this allows me to assemble duplicate and modify individual aspects pieces, without accidentally affecting other parts of the model/piece/assembly. The only caveat with this, is that you have to be very aware and careful to make objects "unique" when you copy/duplicate them if you plan to modify them to create a different piece, or fit a different condition.......if you don't do this....every other one of the same "objects" will get modified.....this is of course also a benefit of an "object", where you need to do changes/correction/modifications to multiples of the same items in your drawing.
Marc
That's really helpful. I tried dragging a plane at one point but because I had drawn in Sketchup, it didn't intersect properly.
I don't have a 2D CAD drawing programme. I have photoshop and Sketchup. Do you know any free 2D CAD programmes that would work well?
Thanks for all you guys help.
Kathy
Sorry, I don't really have a free CAD program that I can recommend or am familiar with.
When you created the plane...before dragging it...did you make it a group or object? Doing so should bake the plane very easy to move and shift, without any distortion or possibility of stretching/deforming/skewing it in any odd manner.
The attached image shows what I was trying to explain. all the bricks are one group/object....while the plane is a separate object. This allows me to easily move and place the plane wherever I want to achieve the "grout" (in the image the "grout" plane is not slid all the way through all the bricks for illustration purposes.
This could easily be taken further from this point, doing such things as extruding the grout plane to create the rest of the solid wall thickness.....or both objects could now be exploded, and then "intersected" with each other to create a single surface piece, by trimming away the back of the extruded bricks (The bricks in the original drawing actually didn't need to be full thickness...I did that only for illustration purposes...it would have been just as easy to do them onto the thickness of the desired grout depth, and then simply set them ion top of the "grout" plane.
Note that the individual bricks can also be moved or extruded forward and back, to create some slight variation/texture in the overall brick layout.
Marc
That's really clever and the picture helps tremendously! I hadn't quite clicked what you were saying before.
I have been really worried about not filling the backs on the bricks in as I'm worried I could end up with a non-solid or some manifold problem when I make the wall full depth. I don't think the free version does a lot on solids. How would you trim the back of the bricks away? I bet you have a better method than my click on each one version!
I still need to suss all the solid malarkey out on my current wall so I hope it passes muster...
Kathy.
If I recall, Sketchup's solid tools are just boolean operations that preserve manifolds. Sketchup doesn't really do "solids" in the CAD sense.
However, if you are worried about manifolds in your end product, the free/basic version of Netfabb does a pretty good job of cleaning up and repairing .STL files.
Marc, I wish I had known that trick about grouping bricks and planes a month or two ago when I drew the house I grew up in. I had all kinds of trouble and redrew the brick areas several times before I half figured out what you explained. -- Russ
Kathy, I use Double CAD XT free program for all my kit drawings http://www.doublecad.com/ (http://www.doublecad.com/). Although it uses it's own program you can save your finished drawing in a number of different formats like, .dwg or .dxf and .dwf Read the 'learn more' info in the link I posted and I think you will find this program will meet all your needs.
Thanks Dave
I will download it this evening and have a play.
I'm now torn on how to do the remaining sides. As the end is almost done in Sketchup I might reuse that for the other end and just change the two windows to one.
The sides though will be new...
Kathy
My workshop will be out of commission for a month or so as we paint the house but in the meantime I'm messing with some ideas. SketchUp is an excellent tool to help design and visualize a project prior to construction and the accompanying image is something I may build in 1:32 scale on an 8 inch square base. Its inspiration is a cabin in Wisconsin and "minimalist" dioramas by Chuck and Marc.
Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on January 30, 2014, 01:18:31 AM
My workshop
There is an implication here, that can't quite get my head around ;D ;D
Gordon, go stand in the corner. I would send you to a corner of my workshop but it currently is a storage bin and you can't even get to the corner. -- Russ
Dave
Thanks for the DoubleCad - I've downloaded but now need to play - a lot!
Kathy
Great, never been to the corner before ......... Might meet Nick there, not heard from him for a while ;D
Has anyone had experience with both AutoCAD 123D, and Google Sketchup?
If so, could you give a comparison review? Seems like everyone here is using Sketchup.
Carlo
I think somebody answered your question either at the beginning of this thread or on a related one.
I spent the day creating a detailed drawing of a hand pump. It will replace the mockup in the shack drawing I posted yesterday. This thing might be the first model I get 3-D printed and I hope it is unnecessary to break it down into subassemblies.
Russ
Russ
The good thing about 3D printing is that it doesn't need pour holes or sprues etc. I reckon your pump would print with no problems in one piece as long as the individual bits are larger than the minimum for your material.
Kathy
Quote from: Carlo on January 30, 2014, 04:56:17 PM
Has anyone had experience with both AutoCAD 123D, and Google Sketchup?
If so, could you give a comparison review? Seems like everyone here is using Sketchup.
Carlo
Carlo,
Sorry, I have no Experience with ACAD123D, but from looking at it, and comparing it to SU, it seems far more simplistic/rudimentary. It seems more for the happy home hobbyist. The nice thing about SU, is that there are a lot of plug-ins, and stand alone programs that will work with it,...and with SU you can be as simple or complex as you want (to a degree...for me compound surfaces and complex forms, start to be an issue...and are not really the programs forte)....I have found that for most everything I do in my modeling and real life, I have no limitations to the accuracy and detail I can create/build in SU.
Hi, Russ,
Quote from: RussI spent the day creating a detailed drawing of a hand pump. It will replace the mockup in the shack drawing I posted yesterday. This thing might be the first model I get 3-D printed and I hope it is unnecessary to break it down into subassemblies.
for 3D-printing you'll have to check wall dimensions especially at the spout for example. Is the body cavernous? If not it's going to be unnecessary expensive. I would suggest to separate body and pump handle parts for they might be a bit brittle. Don't print the piston rod; this is not going to be too crisp. The hinge of the handle looks somewhat strange; the lower part (the one that belongs to the body) may be a bit thicker at the hinge area?
Volker
QuoteI hope it is unnecessary to break it down into subassemblies
But then the handle wont move!
Why not just make it from brass? Then it might even "pump!" ;D
Mj,
just being brass
Marty, you know I'm hopeless with metal. Go stand in the corner.
Thank you for the tips, Volker. I suspected the handle might have to be printed separately and the piston might have to be wire. I will take another look at the hinge.
Russ
Success, I've netfabbed my wall and loaded it successfully onto Shapeways.
I'm planning on using FUD and one end wall is about €30. That's expensive to get another three walls, two of which are twice as long... It's currently 2mm thick and Shapeways say it will warp at thin thicknesses.
I'm wondering if I can thin the wall further or not. I was going to mount on sheet styrene. Laminating will hopefully strengthen it.
I may also add corner braces in too...
What do you think?
Kathy
Kathy,
I'm sure you've written that before: Which scale is it? Maybe you could print the walls in a cheaper (or do I have to say more inexpensive?) material and the window frames with FUD.
Volker
Hi Volker
It's HO. The wall is about 3.13" high to the apex.
I have printed in White, Strong & Flexible in the past but it was too rough for this scale. Having spent ages getting everything detailed to FUD specifications, I'm not sure any other material will print the mortar lines.
Kathy
Laser cut/etch by VectorCut?...
I wonder what the relative merits of 3D printing v laser cut is for a wall like this.
There's a railway club down the road with a new laser printer which I could play on but I fancied building something totally in the computer and then printing it...
Kathy
Dave at VectorCut does outstanding bricks (and many other things). Some of his bricks sit below the nominal surface, some protrude subtly. I doubt even the most hi-res 3-D print could surpass his work. You would still have to miter the corners of each laser cut wall sheet, just as you would with printed bricks. He uses laser board, a resin impregnated paper, rather than wood so there is no grain. You can see his HO brickwork at http://www.vectorcut.com/Diorama (http://www.vectorcut.com/Diorama).
Yes, I know you've already uploaded your wall. This information is just for the record.
Russ
Kathy,
The only reason I brought it up was cost, especially if you only end up printing it as a veneer sheet....and as it seems you will be need in may more, at even greater expense. IMO 3D printing shines when the object is a full 3 dimensional piece(s).....there are other almost equally effective (and likely more applicable) methods of fabrication for doing thin/veneer type items.
By all means please do print it 3D...it is interesting, and educational watching you go through the steps/process, and I am sure the results would be very nice.
Hi Kathy,
okay, then it doesn't make sense to change material. But I'm with Marc, this would have been a candidate for laser cut. Anyway you should give the print a try and see what remains of its crispness after painting.
Volker
Thanks Guys
I'll see how the 3D printing goes but next time will think laser first.
Kathy
Posting this here as to not muddy up other threads.
As far as SU goes, what "template" should I start with?
I tried several but not crazy about any.
The first part i am designing is 6" square in real space.
Ultimately I would like to get it printed in 1/16th scale.
Marty
Marty -
This is just my personal preference .. others will disagree. That being said ..
6" square cube.
I set my template to decimal inches and three decimal places
6" in 1/16 is .375"
.375" is 9.525 mm
I leave the template in decimal inches and make the object 0.525 INCHES square. I would then export the finished .dae file, import into MeshLab and remove duplicate faces and vertexes and save as a .stl file. I open the .stl file in NetFabb to correct any errors and save back as the same .stl file
in the .stl file the object is 9.525 UNITS on a side. Upload to Shapeways and when they ask what unit of measure you tell them mm.
Works every time. This gets around the fact that Sketchup won't draw a radius below 0.018" .. and has problems scaling below that also.
So .. you are in inches but THINKING in mm. This is handy for Shapeways since they tell you things like minimum walls, detail, escape holes, wires .. all in mm. You can measure directly off your model .. just ignore the inch mark and think mm.
Ed said:
"I leave the template in decimal inches and make the object 0.525 INCHES square."
He actually meant 9.525.
And yes, it works every time. Just takes some thinking to remember after re-sizing that it's in MMs
8)
Thanks guys
Im not sure why one would convert to metric if working to 4 (or more)decimal places.
Sounds like a recipe for errors (as seen above) ;D
This is what a couple hours of playing with SU produced.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii121%2Flab-dad-jones%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2Fimage_zpsoramy45z.jpg&hash=abaf5448197c3117bfd66cbc66013d6d7955d6d3)
Looks good but i have no idea how to"place" the circles and holes exactly.
* And then once I get it drawn how do I know if it is "right" without actually printing it?
* I have been using the dimensions tool so I guess thats the only way?
May be i can find some videos today after i do some real modeling.
Marty
So far so good Marty,
I've been using Sketchup and it's intuitive but as everything else you must undertand it's "intuitivness" (it reminds me of my new smartphone, I must be getting old because my kids get there a lo faster than me!). In circles usually center point is the most important reference, if you stay with the cursor on the circle line for a few seconds and then hover on the center it'll fix there. In any case there are no circles, circumferences or spheres in Sketchup (and other programs), it's just a polygon or poly-line which makes everything harder!
Okay.
Using a bunch of correctly dimensioned boxes I got the part drawn correctly in 2D.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii121%2Flab-dad-jones%2F571C6CD9-B32F-4402-8C5E-D05B5716FD3D_zpscz45lorm.jpg&hash=3c8eb75f0df19d42536b3ec1b2640c580aa6f8c1)
Now when I go to "pull" the areas to their desired thickness some work and others end up hollow. How can I make the back one solid piece and then pull the front to their correct thickness?
I'm so close!!!! :-[
Marty
select Pull tool .. then tap the contrl key . a + will appear next to the cursor. This creates a new wall when you pull
THANKS ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are my hero! ;D
I did it!
Now i just need to redraw it and change all the circles to 96 points.
I was able to go back and change the lower radius but not the one in the center.
No biggie, I need the practice!
After that the next question will be; How do i check it before "printing" and then; "how do I get it printed?
I assume I will need to learn how to copy the whole thing and connect them to some sort of sprue. Gonna need a total 8 and may be a couple extras..........
Marty
I have a Prepping for 3D Printing (http://etraxx.com/info/3d-printing/prepping-3d-printing/prepping-3d-printing-part-ii/) .. part II linked. I talk about MeshLab and netfabb. This is an older article .. you can ignore the reference to AccuTrans3D as MeshLab and NetFabb does everything you need. Both are free and very important to have.
Like anything else there are various ways to do it. Me .. i export a .dae file from Sketchup. Import the file into MeshLab. Use the filters to remove any duplicate faces, vertexes and save as a .stl file
Import the .stl file into netFabb and fix errors (looks like red cross symbol) .. apply the fix etc. and save back as the same .stl
Upload to Shapeways .. paying attention to the size you exported. A .dae file exported and turned into a .stl file does not contain units of measure .. no inches, mm whatever. Sketchup exports in inches. That is why I model in inches .. but act like they are mm. When I upload the file I simply tell Shapeways it is mm. If you design in inches then tell Shapeways it is inches and everything is good.
To Sprue or not to Sprue. The x + y + z has to be 12mm or larger for them to physiclly handle the objects. For small parts it is therefore necessary to sprue them. It doesn't hurt even for larger parts.
take note of minimum wall for FUD which is 0.3mm .. keep it above that. Also .. note that any shape that is greater than twice it's diameter is considered a wire .. such as a sprue or bit attaching to a sprue. If you have a cylinder that say is .5mm in dia that if the length is greater than 1mm it is considered a wire. Wires have constraints depending on whether the end is free or not (like a part on a sprue). Look at the materials page at Shapeways for the material you will be printing .. it gives you all the constraints.
Ed is much more versed...but FWIW....I simply draw everything 1:1 in SU. Group the model...and scale the whole thing down to the scale I want using the "scale tool"..then check the couple of places I am concerened about re. thickness for printing/material capabilities (slightly adjust if needed)[while doing this I briefly change my drawing settings/units to "decimal/mm"....once checked, I set my srawing settings back to "feet/inches"
Then I select the group....use the CadSpan plug-in to convert directly to STL. and upload it to Shapeways. once on the site I simply select "inches" to upload..and then click upload and its all done.
I have never found a need to do all the mesh and leak checks before, and scale conversion calcs and settings at the site, and never had a problem with a part/model by not doing so.
I was checking dimensions so I could redraw this for (hopefully) the final time.
And notice what seems like an error to me.
How could a computer program make a mistake like this or am I not "reading" this correctly?
I was using the "dimension tool".
Somebody more technical than I will explain "how" but I can tell you that smaller errors are common in CAD programs; for example you draw something 1.0000 inches long and next time you check it the dimension is 0.9977 inches. Yours is a more significant discrepancy and one of our resident geniuses no doubt can account for it. -- Russ
I did a quick drawing using your three dimensions and got this ..
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages20.fotki.com%2Fv193%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fdim_1-vi.jpg&hash=d41773428f04a369bb3e3bffb01e6445de0470bf)
A look at the Model Info ..... Window >> Model Info shows me that it is set up as:
Format: Architectural
Precision: 1/16"
Enable length snapping: 1/16"
I almost never use this for anything other than buildings. Instead I use ..
Format: Decimal
Precision: 0.000"
Enable leng snapping: 0.000" (sets automatically when I set the Precision)
which gives me this ...
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv302%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fdim_2-vi.jpg&hash=98c7d5a947b81ec7d67156b67e4563b56dcd2da8)
What happens is when you were set to Architectural it was set to 1/16" (in my case at least) and was snapping the dimensions to the closest 1/16". Now we can see the exact dimensions.
A little pushing and pulling gets the three dimensions to what you entered and the overall length is now correct.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages55.fotki.com%2Fv507%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fdim_3-vi.jpg&hash=f85b533ce45e19b246a24c4ef5ce8b4b42a0d9dd)
For a check switch back to Architectural ..
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages58.fotki.com%2Fv286%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fdim_4-vi.jpg&hash=59378945afa0649d8e5a6dc0870431e7be4a1a73)
Thanks Ed,
This was one of my initial questions/concerns.
Since I am working from actual blueprints.
Once I changed the format it was accurate to .0000"
Now I can get the real one drawn and hopefully move on to the sprues and printing....
-Marty
Hmmmmmmm!!! 9:36am must be a busy day at school!! ;D
Jerry
Ed,
I thought I fixed/set all my circles and arcs to 96 points but I somehow missed the left side of the bottom curve.
How can I fix this?
On some of the areas i had to "fix" I just erased the shape and started over.
For placing the circles I am using rectangles to set the starting point, is there a better way?
I'm sure thats how the right side is fine but the left is not.
And...is there a way to save a screenshot as a jpg? or do I just print and scan like I have been?
let me answer the last question first. To get a .jpg use export ..
File >> Export >> 2D Graphic
Normal file/folder screen .. but bottom right is options button .
Click that and you can set the image size to export alogn with JPEG Compression
When ready click Export button
I don't know of a way to increase the number of sides on a circle after the fact (not saying there isn't .. just don't know of one) but depending on circumstances you can cheat a bit.
Below .. the circle on the left is 24 sided. In the center I placed a mark at the outer edge and centerline. On the right I deleted the circle to the left of the cetner line and drew an ARC from top to bottom of circle and ending on the outer edge mark. It draws a 24 sided arc. Like a circle just type ins 98S and enter. This creates the circle on the right.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv613%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=c655586a5d9fb4815087e97b14f53137285877fb)
Aligning circles or anything else ..
Suppose we start with an object. I just placed marks for the left, upper and lower edges and center of arc
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv613%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fphoto2-vi.jpg&hash=4bd7e5982119a9d051f7f6e724e6ec8bf4700529)
Now suppose we want two holes. First thing is to group the object so drawing reference lines won't affect your model.
First one.
Centered on the tip of the 'left edge' and 4 inches in from that point. I simply hit "T' to select the Tape Measure Tool .. clicked once on that line that extends from the upper edge to anchor the Tape Measure Tool and move the cursor down until a green DOT appears dead on the "left edge". Click and a dotted guide line is drawn there parallel to that anchor side.
I had drawn a vertical line from the left edge earlier. I will now click that with the Tape Measure Tool and drag ot the right .. any distance .. let go and thype "4" and hit enter. This will now draw a vetical line from that left edge exactly 4 inches in (oh .. forgot .. had set to decimal inches earlier)
You draw your first circle using that crossed guide lines
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages14.fotki.com%2Fv438%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=49bf70542e2c652c8c70db68981c0228f53c4662)
Now .. we want another hole that if offset from the vertical cetner line of the arc say .. .75 inches to the left .. but centered on the horizontal center line.
Again, using the Tape Measure Tool click that vertical cetner line and move your mouse to the left, let go, type in .75 and hit enter. You will now hav a vertical guide line .75 inches to the left of the vertical center line.
use the Tape Measure Tool and Double Click the horizontal center line. A horizontal guide line with be drawn on top of it and extending across the page. where the guide lines cross you use that as the center for your second circle.
Everything is precise and exact.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv630%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F9661358%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=6c61926534926e5dc5fdfce25f4c846e46d31fef)
In the SU "Extension Warehouse", there is a plug-in/extension you can download that finds/marks circle and arc centers; "CLF Arc Centerpoint Finder" ..its one of the Chris Fullmer tools
You may also want to download the one called "1001 Bit Tools"....some helpful ones there for drawing shapes, arrays, slices, dividing and placing construction points, planes from non planar points, etc..
I just saved this page for reference. Thanks, Ed and Marc. -- Russ
Ok,
I think I have a usable "part"
I added a sprue.
I ran the part through the meshlab program and the netfab as well.
Seemed like everything was "fixed" (justa trial run with the single part)
Now how do I copy and place in an exact line 6 of so I can "print"???
-Marty
BTW; Ed your help is very appreciated!!!
To dupe it six times so you can connect the sprues with a .. master? .. sprue
1 - group the part
2 - click it (selects the part. Then tap the "M" key (for move)
3 - tap the cntrl key .. you will see a plus sign "+" beside the cursor. This duplicates the object.
4 - hold one of the arrow keys down .. right arrow x axis, left arrow y axis, down arrow z axis. This locks movement in which ever axis. Keep the key held down.
5 - move the copy a distance you are satsified with and let go.
6 - tap 5x and hit enter to dupe five times
Couple things
The only time you HAVE to add to sprue is when the x + y + z < 12mm
sometimes it is simply a good idea to keep parts togher .. help peventing 'lost parts'
for FUD .. sprue (SW calls it a 'wire') needs to be a min of .6mm if supported (connected on two sides)
needs to be 1mm if like a sprue (stuff hanging off it)
We need to set up a Google hangout so I can give instruction .. I can share my screen and show you real time some of the tricks etc.
Ed,
your explanations are very educational. Thanks for that! This had to be said :).
Volker
I have mentioned in the past that Ed once spent an hour or so on the phone teaching me things about SketchUp. I took notes and was able to do everything perfectly. Others here may be equally knowledgeable but Ed has helped so many of us so often he reigns supreme. I suggest we dub him the SketchUp King. -- Russ
"King Sup" ;D
All hail... wait, Watsup, Sup?
So taking everything Professor Ed Sup has taught me.......
I spent about 45 minutes creating the fireman's side truck box covers.
Somehow when I copied the last two i didnt keep it on the same axis as the others.
I dont thin this is a big deal for these parts. I will practice this.
Anyway here it is!
Marty
Ed helped me tremendously for my latest creation which is now in the mail to me.
Another way to get multiple copies if your item(s) are greater than the 12mm size is to use Mesh Lab to create an array.
Like now that you have created that 6 piece group on a sprue, you can now use Mesh lab to create an array and you won't need a sprue.
That's what we did with my latest item and supposedly it printed fine.
Ed also has a tutorial on how to use MeshLab to create the array. Just go to his website for all his 3D tutorials.
In case anybody has forgotten, Marc spent a lot of time putting together the beginner's tutorial at the beginning of this thread to get us started. Of course that was before he adopted his alter ego ... The Shadow! -- Russ
Thanks for the reminder Russ. I just went back and refreshed my memory (if I had one). ;D
Quote from: mabloodhound on April 24, 2015, 08:31:22 AM
Thanks for the reminder Russ. I just went back and refreshed my memory (if I had one). ;D
Well that WAS posted 5 years ago. That is something in the order of 1800 days .. more then enough time to have read-write errors!
They're only errors if you don't read 'em right .... -- ssuR
Still need to run it through the plug ins but after that I "think" i am ready for the next step(s) to send it to be printed.... :-\ ??? :'(
I could not get the circle to stay on plane and line up with all six.
I basically wimped out and did a square sprue.
-Marty
What's wrong with a rectangular sprue? It will do the job. The drawing looks wonderful and I can hardly wait to see the print. -- Russ
For me it is usually easier to pull out a short round shape (mini-sprue?) then use a square sprue to connect everything together. Just easier. Remember a round 'wire .. as Shapeways calls it) that intersects a square sprue is a circle on a flat plane. If you put a round sprue then that circle is instead a cylinder intersecting another cylinder which can cause all kinds of problems. We are working with triangles here after all.)
Ed,
I got the two part sprues scaled to 1/16th (.0625")
I ran them both through the Meshlab and Netfab.
1. After i repair and apply and remove old part the error triangle still remains?
2. Also when I export do I "optimize"?
Marty - getting excited to print!
I pulled the trigger!
Sent the parts to be printed.
Funny, the more complicated one went (mostly)fine (I lost the center depressed hole).
The simpler one had a weird issue. (see image) Shapeways kept catching it and could not fix it but I went ahead and ordered anyways. i only need 4 and made 6.
The third from the right had all kinds of errors.
Even though i copied all 5 from the first one all the way to the right (I added to the left as i kept copying).
I'll post when they arrive.
Marty, what Ed found on the one I just did was I had all sorts of internal errors and NetFab couldn't fix that.
Ed actually fixed it up for me. Some of the errors were in the sprues themselves where they connected together.
FWIW. Using square or rectangular sprues makes them much easier and quicker to build and connect. There is really no reason to use round sprue....this is not an injection molding process...where we need proper flow/fill, and need to eject them from die halves (where we would need a draught angle)....which is why we are used to seeing round. The tiny bit more build resin needed for rectilinear vs round is inconsequential. So many more problems can arise using round sprue, from incorrectly extruding (non parallel to x/y/z axis), and poor sprue intersection, to an increase in polygons/file size.
Part placement, alignment and orientation is also far easier, and more accurate.
.....even if you you just can't get over the idea of not having round connector sprues come off your part....it is still easier and more accurate to, extrude or attach those from/to a rectilinear main/connector sprue.
It is great to see more people learning this. Thanks to the mentors among us!
Quote from: lab-dad on April 29, 2015, 06:53:31 AM
Ed,
I got the two part sprues scaled to 1/16th (.0625")
I ran them both through the Meshlab and Netfab.
1. After i repair and apply and remove old part the error triangle still remains?
2. Also when I export do I "optimize"?
That is more than enough for a sprue. I usally keep my main sprue at around 1.2mm/0.47 in. .. and that is simply because the shorter/intermediate sprues to the parts I keep at 1mm. As Marc says later .. makes sense to connect to a square sprue and pulling a round sprue 1mm dia from the part to a 1.2mm main sprue I get no problems. That little extra 'meat' lets everyting nestle nice.
That error traiangle remains sometimes no matter what I do .. but .. answering your next question .. select optimize .. and export the file anyway. This usually creates a good mesh.
Still early in the morning and I have only just now started my fist up of coffee .. after feeding my screaming/starving cats .. but .. not sure if this was mentioned in the past. In order that a mesh is "good to go" I do a few things .. some of which MeshLab and NetFabb can 'fix' but I have found it easier to fix them myself at an earlier point ..
(1) remove internal walls: If you take a cube attach a sprue to it you can do that in two ways .. (a) pull the sprue from the surface .. or .. (b) create the spure(or part) and attach it to the surface. In the first case (a) creating the sprue shape on the object and pulling it .. you are pulling that face you created and there isn't an internal face. With (b) you have a face of the sprue against the face of the cube. If you export that mesh you will have an internal face. NetFabb MIGHT fix that .. or Shapeway's own software (which I believe is actually a version of NetFabb) might.
If you use the section tool you can get a cross-section of that join and you can delete that internal face yourself and you will KNOW that problem is gone. If you click that internal face and the surrounding meshes are selected then you need to select all and 'intersect faces' .. then select that face and hit delete.
Below .. the cube on the left. In the center I pulled a round sprue from the surface and it pulls the face with it so all is good. On the right is one where the cylinder was created separately from the cube and attached. This has a wall where they connect.
To fix this yourself, you select the entire object .. cube and cylinder and "intersect faces". You can then ... again using the section tool to see inside .. click that unwanted face and hit delete.
Again .. MeshLab and NetFabb may .. probably will .. fix this but I find that doing this in Sketchup prior to exporting the file really helps. JMO of course.
(2) When you open the exported mesh in Meshlab ..
Click the 7th icon from the left. Looks like a stack of paper .. is layers screen .. so you can see the following actions.
Filters >> Cleaning and Repairing >> Remove Duplicate Faces
Filters >> Cleaning and Repairing >> Remove Duplicated Vertex
When I do this I usually get no duplicate faces (I removed them in SU earlier) . but can get litterally thousands of duplicated verexes removed
You will see the mesh name in the right side screen. This is where you duplicate the mesh for multiple copies by the way .. but .. right click the name and select "Freeze Current Matrix". This might not be always necesary but
it is one of those (it may not help but sometimes it DOES) things. If you hover over that a tooltip will appear and explain in EXAUSTIVE detail what it does.
Now .. export the file as a .stl (if that is what you use) and upload to NetFabb
Thanks Ed,
I followed all your instructions on your web page and even printed them out!
I will send the original file when I get home.
My main question at this point is how did I get the one bad part in the middle?
I copied from right to left so it is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy BUT
The following copy of that copy and it's copy are fine.
Just curious HOW this can happen?
Got to be a software glitch.
It only shows up (all the triangles) in meshlab and netfab.
I hope others can learn from my experiences here.
I dreaded taking the plunge but now am very excited to use these tools when others just wont work. I have a lot to learn but am looking forward to it!
Marty
The last few sets of instructions will be very valuable to many of us. Thanks very much. -- Russ
Marty,
Did you check to see if you might have two stacked parts there? Sometimes when doing copy> paste, or copy> paste in place> move, one can inadvertently make to many copies and leave one in place....or you may have accidentally copy> pasted over one during the process and not noticed.
Ok. Marty sent me the mesh .. comments follow:
(1) I used the Section View Tool to look inside the mesh. You can see right off some potential problems. The smaller spures run into the larger with the ends extending into the larger. Intercourse walls/faces show. I'm going to talk about this .. that the various tools like NetFabb and Shapeway's versions will probably fix these issues .. but it makes sense to me to clean the mesh up yourself
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages60.fotki.com%2Fv174%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=a181cdcfc5896360b159f6a00d51dba6b8d804e7)
(2) Zoom in to the part that Marty had a problem with .. and it was what Marc suggested. There are two copies .. slightly offset
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv678%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=c7a0659a51762c57b125e43945a1680e2d9fd6e2)
(3) Here .. I pulled it out of the mesh and moved it up and out of the way. Once I exported this screen-shot I deleted it
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv1221%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=f2ae7c1950f986b09706e34f0f34c7b0a763eeed)
(4) Problem: There are open areas in the mesh where the two cylinders intersect.
Reason: You are working at the scale size. Sketchup will not draw a radius below 0.018" dia. This problem also causes errors when intersecting polygons at or below that 0.018" ..
Solution: work in a larger scale so the 0.018" doesn't enter into it.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages15.fotki.com%2Fv235%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=0bce687ad4ade70a14f18bdafb59259a2ef848a1)
Note: this is one of the things that netFabb or similar software at Shapeways CAN fix .. I just don't like *assuming* that they will do it correctly .. rather take care of the issue myself.
(5) Zooming out a bit .. the backs of the pieces are that blue gray. That means that we are looking at the inside face of the polygons .. needs to be reversed.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages15.fotki.com%2Fv235%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto2-vi.jpg&hash=6f436bc5b26764e422d5fdee82dd5e55797ea0ee)
Note: again .. the software at shapeways seem smart enough to flip the triangles .. but again .. would rather do it myself. Select the face and right click and select 'reverse face' from the menu
(6) Resizing. The width across this piece you had at 0.375". I coverted this to mm .. 0.375 x 25.4 = 9.525
Use the Tape Measure Tool to get the .375" measurement. Type in 9.525 and hit enter. It will ask you if you want to re-size. Say yes. It will re-size the entire model.
Note: I also deleted the sprues you had as shown prevously they had bad intersections.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv613%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=3c46591f9c03bd8da37c6f46da90c5a592771c40)
(7) added a new square sprue as Marc suggested. This is beause those short round sprues intersect a flat plane .. lots less math for the program. It would have probably been ok having round sprues since I enlarged the model but why go to the trouble?
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv302%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto1-vi.jpg&hash=2cdf60021a30d45613b79e3483406d33c2909634)
(8) Two issues here:
(a) The lines left over from the modeling and there is an interior face on the round part where it is attached to the square part. Use your eraser tool and delete all those lines. To get them all it would be better to move the section up .. to the very top so you can see all of them . There were twice as many in the part that was doubled.
(b) the interior face where the back of the square part and the round part join. Select the surface and hit delete.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages54.fotki.com%2Fv452%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=beb75a82a2a2fe6074bd083c5771aca4e36512b9)
(9) here we go ..everything cleaned up .. and everything ungrouped. Grouping can cause a problem sometimes .. not always .. but sometimes. Easier just to ungroup.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv677%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=094636d95aafeabf750090867eec7fe3e67e34b3)
(10) .. and this is what I would export as a .dae file.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages59.fotki.com%2Fv543%2Fphotos%2F2%2F1709102%2F13689788%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=f739e2b06cab1848bcc9c9367aac7fc3f39f75a7)
Remember .. I scaled that one side that was .375" to a 9.525" .. actually 9.525mm. When you export a .dae file and import into MeshLab .. do the .. removed duplicate faces and vertexes .. and save as a .stl file it saves in units. In the .stl file that is simply .. 9.525
Do the NetFabb thing and upload to Shapeways. They ask .. "What system of measurement?" .. and I would say .. mm
The model will print so it is 9.525mm on that side .. and everything will be copasetic ..
Once again I have saved all this as a PDF for reference. Invaluable information. -- Russ
Oh was that all it was?... :o :'( ::) ???
Thanks Ed!!!!!
Should be interesting when I get the prints, may have to resend this one.
-Marty
OK!
Ed fixed the flat square plates and using his instructions I fixed the truck boxes.
I sent them to shapeways and ordered them in Frosted Extreme detail.
The truck plates cost $16.73
The truck boxes cost $ 12.50
I will post a picture when they arrive in a couple weeks.
-Marty
One thing to remember, when creating different parts to send to Shapeways is to combine them both into one "mesh" using MeshLabs.
That way you save money in the setup charge ($5 each).
What David said. I will upload a mesh .. say truck_plates.stl and truck_boxes.stl to Shapways to make sure they are good to go. Then I will create a project_truck_stuff.stl in MeshLab and if I need 6ea of the truck_plates.stl I will duplicate that six times in MeshLab .. same with other models. You can keep adding meshes until you are happy. I have had a project with six different meshes .. and as David says you get charged the $5 handling for them all. Example .. this mesh has a pulley pair, gear pair, bearing pair, blocks, point guards and a couple of trucks .. each was a separate mesh in itself but loaded into MeshLab and layers flattened to one .stl file for upload. Shapeways sees it as one mesh.
Sucsess!!!
Parts are dead on.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii121%2Flab-dad-jones%2F36FCCE69-03B6-45FB-A00A-AB22AB8F647D_zpson5vebvo.jpg&hash=e546b00571b4d5474a70cd186e2e09120c1bb810)
;D ;D ;D
Late to the game...great news Russ! Congratulations Marty!
Here's the AutoCAD drawing of the 8 ton Plymouth DL, generic version, with a slightly remodeled cab. I drew it 1:1 to output in any scale. The end views show 2 and 3 foot gauge versions. This was the easy part. The SketchUp part of the project will be difficult.
I did not include an exhaust stack or oil hatch because locations seem to vary with the motor.
If anybody wants a print of the frame and superstructure parts, let me know. The scale of the posted drawing is 1:32 and, for you lurkers, it is copyrighted.
Russ
Russ,
looks quite good to me. I temporized to answer to your announcement of a model, because it may have been some kind of April fool hoax, considering time difference to your place, but it seems to be a bit less than six weeks ;D.
Quote from: finescalerr on May 19, 2015, 05:10:14 PMIf anybody wants a print of the frame and superstructure parts, let me know. The scale of the posted drawing is 1:32 and, for you lurkers, it is copyrighted.
If you don't want people to play around with your pdf files I'd suggest to change it to a pixel based version. The one you'd load up seems to be vector based and full scalable and I'm afraid there's no way to hinder lurkers to use it as ever they want ... :P
Cheers,
Volker
Acceptable.
Nice. Should be very easy to model/extrude in S.U. the parts are pretty much repetetive/duplicteas from one side and end to the other ...they can be copied and flipped and then tweaked/adjusted for any differences that they may have.
What will be the important and harder part is figuring out how you want it to assemble and ..and thus how the parts are to be done so they fit and work together; also material/wall thicknesses, and then on the frame, whether you are going too detail it like a prototype frame interior...or straight/simple like a static or powered RR model. Other than that it is just push/pull/extrude/tug/rotate and Bob's you're uncle.
I can't believe how rusty I am on SketchUp. I spent a good part of the day blundering around to re-familiarize myself but now I'm very slowly underway. -- Russ
Here is the Plymouth so far. The first two images show the overall frame and the end. -- Russ
The final two show the frame side(s), front and back.
I have questions:
1. The little stanchions on the front side probably won't print well in 1:32 scale and I suspect, if I do print them, they should be as separate pieces. Comments please.
2. To ensure the frame goes together correctly I am thinking about creating matching holes on the ends of the frame sides and the rear of the frame ends. A piece of brass rod could fit into the holes to keep the frame square and the sides accurately spaced. Yes? No? Better idea?
The sides have a lot of detail. Will the nuts and bolts, lettering, and other parts print cleanly in a scale as small as 1:32? I'm open to any and all comments. Thanks!
Russ
I would like to see the "bearings" a separate component.
That way the axles could be assembled.
I would be interested in having the bearings printed in brass/bronze as an option for those model that will move.
Also, here are my parts printed, washed in acetone, air erased,scrubbed with acetone again and painted.
I see the layers upon magnification but not without.
I dont feel it is a big deal as these parts were cast (even though the lines dont look like casting marks) but for "ultra" detail well I'm not impressed. I do not see a way to sand them either.
The parts are .375" wide.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii121%2Flab-dad-jones%2Ftruck%2520box%2520covers_zpsuj6xafpn.jpg&hash=a7c5422ef919238dfac895bb08f20b9bb42eeca5)
Marty
Those actually look pretty good!
Good news Russ!
On a similar note i did some renderings in sketch up today!
Jerry (trains1941) is "supposedly" going to build the Maude Monroe mine.
He asked about the foundation and i thought I would try it in SU and get some more practice.
It turned out great (I think) but since it is a "foundation" it has a lot of mass.
wondering what i should print it out in???
The overall size is 3.13 x / 1.93 y / 0.897 z
The little square indentations are for o scale 8x8's
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I have drawn this a bunch of times and every time I get the same issue(s)
Some of my circles are smooth and some show the 96 "planes.
WTF?
I am working in a "decimal" model to the 6th place.
I do exactly the same thing on each side but get this result.
Look at the difference between the right and left radii.
HELP!!!!!!
Marty, Ive had that happen also and don't know why.
But instead of drawing it again, why didn't you just copy and paste the one on the right hand over to the left side?
I do a lot of copy/paste because I hate redrawing the same thing over again.
Or select the one on the left and fiddle with the Soften/Smooth Edges dialog box until you have removed the lines. I tend to set the circle tool to 144 facets. You have to do that anytime you've restarted SketchUp because, as many of us, it forgets such things. -- Russ
If you are trying to expoert a rendering directly from Sketchup then it makes a difference. If creating a 3d mesh then it doesn't matter. IF you want a better rendering then install Kerkythea and plugin
I think it has something to do with when the arc or circle it touching another surface?
Anyway I got it "built"
Will add the sprue and send it off.......
-Marty
The fact that the lines show or don't show, has no effect on the 3D model on your screen....or the ensuing print. As Ed notes, you can use the "smooth tool" if it bothers you visually ...and by nudging it slightly up or down in value it will disappear.
When working and building the model, there is actually a better argument/reason for having the lines (defined surfaces) indicated rather than having them smooth.....if you smooth the surface/component it is much harder to work accurately, as there is a chance that you will accidentally miss a work-point or alignment...this is particularly true in beginner and intermediate level users, a there is the chance to accidentally nudge the intended work (IE line start location off point and end up somewhere on the surface or along the line).....I also seen extensive problems when the surfaces are smoothed too much, and the lines/points begin to "blend" (disappear) and lose "connectivity"/definement....and when the user goes to push/pull/move/extrude, etc. the part, some sections/areas don't extrude or some that you don't want to do, and you end up with odd plane fragments/pieces, or non co-planar or properly extruded parts/sections......which if caught immediately can be fixed.....but if they are not caught they can throw off the entire rest of the model...or at least create enough of a "bug" in the model that you have to spend inordinate amounts of time chasing down misalignment problems, gaps, holes, planes that won't form etc.
Thanks Marc, the lines make sense then.
How many sides should I set my circles to then?
Marty
Most of my models are just for render purposes so I typically don't use more than 48 or 64.....with the caveat that it depends on the object size (the larger the circle/arc the more segments) for 3d prolonging I may go up to around 96.....but again it depends on the size and surface area of the finished object. (One needs to remember that you are drawing at 1:1 scale..and depending on what you are modeling (size and surface) when reduced, those facets may become less than than the printer resolution.....so it may be excessive and create a larger file than necessary.
Also....I don't typically draw arced and curved items directly in sketchup...I draw them in ACAD...and import them...and will typically just use the imported breakdown (cad signed segments) (I have the curve and arc segmentscad segments in CAD set very high...in the thousands...but SU imports them at much less....probably at around 48.)
Also again....the more facets one has...if not careful, the greater the chance that you will pull off of, or connect to the wrong point when....which can cause problems in the model. Regardless, whenever I do circular forms cylinders or such I always draw either a center line down the center of a shape/volume or on the surface....often in both x&y or even x&y&z directions....or a create/add a small line extension at that point (what I term as a locator line)....so that I can easily and accurately attach the object to to others....or easily see/determine a reference point to work from. (I leave these in my renders...as single lines don't render or 3D print
Thanks Marc,
I can see how over engineering things can make the files large and cause problems.
If we could see the actual pixels then we could know exactly where the lines are. ;)
I always use center-lines when locating components - I cant see it being done any other way.
I would still like to know why I get the lines sometimes and sometimes not.........
I think Russ' said it best;
What do you expect for free?
-Marty
Marty -
Whenever I am wanting to ensure I connect lines exactly I use "View --> Hidden Geometry" .. you see every node then. In fact I use that so much I have set up a hot key combination for it.
Marty, I can't explain why that happens...I get it in the pro version too...sometimes it even happens in a single "follow" extrusion path when I turn a corner. ....or it will happen when I come back and do a plain extrude from a previously stopped point. I just assume it is something in the way the program happens to process the action,...TBT...it never really bothered me, so I have never tried to track it down. Maybe someone on the SU form would know.
.....and honestly not trying to sound snotty.....but to me SU and it's visual is just a tool...a step in a process/means to an end....(that end typically being a rendering or a 3D print)....so I do not care about what it looks like visually in the model (IE lines, tabs, points, etc.....for me it is all about function,expediency and accuracy....so that I can get the required end result....and everything I do in the model is geared to that end.
Another part off to shapeways. ;D
I had to redesign the tapered edges.
I could not get it to print with the nice tapering radius; as it got close to the edge it gets too thin for it to print. SW "fix" looked like boogers applied to the edge..... :(
I was able to get it to work by using an angle.
With regard to the "sides" showing(lines) I redrew it using 48 sides to the circle and the lines only show when using "show hidden geometry"
Another great tip from Ed! ;D
I must also be getting better as there were less "issues" to fix in meshlab.
HOWEVER - when I sent it through netfab it erased my star. >:( ???
So I just ran it through meshlab and it passed shapeways initial inspections fine.
FWIW the part is 7.06 x / 0.844 y / 0.378 z and in FED was $50.32
Shipping is free until 7/12/15 also.
-Marty
Please post a photo of the parts when they arrive, before and after you clean them up. -- Russ
Quote from: lab-dad on July 08, 2015, 06:03:37 AM
I had to redesign the tapered edges.
I could not get it to print with the nice tapering radius; as it got close to the edge it gets too thin for it to print. SW "fix" looked like boogers applied to the edge..... :(
I was able to get it to work by using an angle.
Marty,
I'm afraid you won't be satisfied with the results. The problem of the blade edge remains no matter if there's a radius or an angle. This 'blade' won't come out crisp. Can you please post a picture/drawing of the original pert? Perhaps there's another solution.
Volker
Marty .. spures are only really necesary for small parts. If a part is x + y + z >+ 12mm it is ok for printing.
Looks good!
I have had mixed results with floating parts. First time worked, but the second time some parts were missing, and there were more of other parts than I had sent. They stood behind it and re-printed all the parts even though I sent a model of just the missing ones. Happened twice now, so I am less inclined to send parts un-joined.
The sprue also helps with painting.
I just need to make mine a lot smaller!
These ended up huge somehow ;)
-Mj
Can SU measure or tell me the angle of two intersecting lines?
If so how? Is it part of some "measuring" function?
I thought it would be easy to calculate the angle(s) of my truss' and diagonal bracing for the box car I am working on.
If not can someone tell me the angle formed at the point of a right triangle with;
6" rise at 42"
and
22" rise at 60"
-Marty
Marty:
Rise divided by run equals the tangent. This can be done with a pencil. Then you get out your old engineering reference book and look it up.
Marty -
6/42 ------- 8.13 degrees
22/60 ----------------20.136 degrees
Bill Martinsen
Bill,
Can you show me how you got that?
I did the rise/run division and I found a chart but is one one degree intervals.
That is not a big deal but i would like to know how to do the math.
-Marty
The easiest way to deal with trigonometric functions these days is to use an online calculator, like http://web2.0calc.com/
On that website you should see a matrix of "buttons" that resemble the buttons on a handheld calculator. The top button of the left hand column should say 2nd. The third button down in the left hand column should say tan (for tangent). Put your cursor on the button that says 2nd and click your mouse. The third button should now say atan (for arctangent). Make sure that Deg has been selected at the bottom of the matrix. Now click the atan button. That should make atan( appear in the top space of the matrix. Next type 6/42 (the rise divided by the run) and then click on the = button. The answer should now be displayed in the text box at the top of the matrix.
When you know the rise and run of a slope, the tangent of the angle that defines that slope is equal to the rise divided by the run. The tangent is just a number with no dimensions. To find the angle of the slope, you use the arctangent or (inverse tangent) of the tangent. The arctangent gives the slope in degrees (or radians, but we don't want to go there). When the rise and the run are equal values, the angle of the slope is 45 degrees, and the tangent of the angle is 1.0. If we have a rise of 15 feet and a run of 15 feet, the tangent of the angle equals 15/15 (which is 1.0) The arctangent of 1.0 is 45 degrees.
Okay, lesson over for today. Please let me know if I need to clarify any of this.
Bill Martinsen
uhh .. use the protractor? I must be missing something here.
I'm so sorry I didnt learn sketchup sooner...........
It has really changed my modeling.
I still build most things by hand but some things are just easier and better in 3D.
It also allows me to "visualize" things outside of my head.
I'm lucky I have a pretty good 3D imagination but sometimes actually seeing it makes a difference.
You guys that are reluctant to try it need to.
There are guys here that are very helpful and I appreciate all they do/did/done!
Marty
Considering what a curmudgeon you can be about computer stuff, you sure learned SketchUp quickly and have become quite proficient. Disgusting. -- Russ
Thanks Russ but I am still a curmudgeon about computer crap......
And speaking of......
Figured i would try some NBW's since I am having trouble getting the size I want.
The NBW cluster below was copied from the first one (in green).
The bolts are 1mm and I used the 1mm as my minimum for all thickness'
When I sent it to shapeways it found some thin walls...
What gives?
The free program generating errors or the repairs done in meshlab and netfab creating the errors?
Even if a couple fail it is still cheaper than buying them and these are the right size.
Marty
Well another WTF?!
First image is the sketchup drawing
Second is what ends up on the screen at shapeways.
I have tried everything I can think of.
Exporting to SW directly from SU as a .dae then no meshlab or netfabb, meshlab only.
I reversed "faces" in SU
The middle (that disappears) is .25o" thick
what am I missing?
It appears i have "hit the wall" with sketchup.
Even in 1/16th some of the parts are too small.
But the biggest issue seems to be with the software.
I'm finding a work around for some things.
I will be looking into an "affordable" alternative to sketchup in the future.
-Marty
Quote from: lab-dad on August 14, 2015, 06:43:28 AM
It appears i have "hit the wall" with sketchup.
Even in 1/16th some of the parts are too small.
But the biggest issue seems to be with the software.
I'm finding a work around for some things.
I will be looking into an "affordable" alternative to sketchup in the future.
-Marty
I had the same problem, and I solved it by drawing the parts in 10:1 scale. Since I work with metrics it was esasy to draw in cm in Sketchup, but setting the units to mm when making the stl. file
Without seeing the actual digital file I cant really answer the question/see the problem. The first issue...with the nbws, I suspect it is once again a hidden repeated/double piece that is maybe slightly offset, causing "walls".
The second, I have a vague idea of what it might be.....bt cant be sure without the file.
Hawk,
I draw full scale to hopefully not have these issues.........
Marc,
In the NBW's I doubt it can be doubled walls as I copied the first one into a row of 10, then copied the row 5x with keyboard shortcuts. I would think if it was a doubled wall the error would be repeated, not random.
I really think it is software not playing nice.
As far as the band-saw I really think it is the same issue, I looked for holes at a very high magnification and played with "selecting" and found none.
I'm not worried at this point.
i will make do and am researching "other" software.
Right now Autodesk fusion looks nice and has lots of support and training.
-Marty
Marty, I can't believe what I'm reading. Mr. "I hate computers" is actually thinking about spending real American dollars on 3-D CAD software? You are my new poster boy for "when technology is the best tool, use it!" -- Russ
You can use 3D software every day and still hate computers.
Im not buying software......
I dont even "own" a computer.
Mj
I'm sure you could get Autodesk to run just fine on your abacus. How much VRAM does it have? Two bytes? Three?
I would like to draw then print some tires.
I have the dimensions and am going to start playing but I foresee some problems (deficit in my skill-set).
1. I have no idea how to do the tread.
2. I would like to "bulge" the bottom so it looks loaded.
3. I would like to make this year a "goodyear" as well as the tire sidewall.
-Marty
No one?
Only idea I have is to cut grooves for the tread on the lathe after printing.
I really wanted tread like n the picture.
Thinking about the lettering I don't know if that could be printed anyway.
May be one of those thick decals but they are expensive.
Anybody have any ideas?
Marty
Marty, I haven't done anything in SketchUp for months and I've already forgotten half of it but I think you would draw a rectangle of the proper size and use the "follow me" tool to place copies around each side of the bald tire. I'm sure Ed Traxler or somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. -- Russ
You should be able to print the lettering on the side with no problem. I have some S scale tires with lettering on the sidewall that shows up.
As for the tread, it is going to be difficult. I would add the two center treads to the profile before you extrude/follow me the tire around. After follow me, fill in the desired areas. In my mind it will work, could be a stretch though.
Thanks cjd!
Thats a good idea!
I'm getting there!
Volker is helping me (by drawing the whole thing!) but I'm still trying to improve my skills.
Marty
I never draw something like that but I saw great tutorials on youtube Marty.
Hey Marty
there's a hole in the middle you'll have to work harder ::)
MPH
Hello, all -
I want to start learning a simple, free version of 3D Cad, with a goal of 3D Printing. I did some CAD long ago, but not too much.
Is SketchUp the current best of the bunch? What about TinkerCAD? Other good free software?
My son has a 3D Printer which I can use, so I'll need any conversion software too.
Your opinions and recommendations will be appreciated,
Carlo
I use SketchUp...the free version. But there is a learning curve to it.
Once you get the different quirks sorted out it works very good.
There is plenty of help from forum members and on You Tube.
8)
Yes, go with SketchUp. It works well, it's easy to learn (took me about three days to learn most things), and many guys here can help you. Ed Traxler is an expert, for example. -- Russ
Sketchup is indeed a great way to start Carlo. I have been using it for a few years and it fulfilled all my needs. There are also a lot of plugins to go around and complete it. It's easy to use and very powerful, I'm using it for prototyping, planing and even to make schematics for the kits I sell. Just drop a line if you need help.
Here are some tires I made in Sketchup. They were created by creating a two cross sections and then spinning each into a wedge. With a thick and thin wedge section grouped I could then spin them (follow me tool) to create the side lugging you see. This could as easily add tread patterns to the wedges as complicated as you wished.
Ed,
That post has just convinced me ....... I really need to learn this ;)
Those look great Ed!
However I have no idea what you said - LOL
Marty
But I think you've basically performed that "follow me" operation in previous drawings, Marty. By the way, where have you been? -- Russ