http://www.123dapp.com
There's a browser app and a desktop version.

There's also Inventor Fusion, which apparently is more targeted to mechanical work:
http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/fusion

It seems like there's a lot of crossover between them, though!

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Kirkham" wrote:

I've not heard of it. Say more please . . .

Rob

I've not heard of it. Say more please . . .

Rob

well, I can't disagree with you Dennis.

To answer the "other software" question, I use two programs - both free - to
convert and scale a Sketchup file. So first I export a sketchup file as a
3d model. Then I import the 3d model file into Meshlab, open it and export
it as an STL file. Then in Accutrans I open the STL file and scale it. I
know there are less clunky ways but I learned this in the early days of
Shapeways services, when Rene Gourley was the only one I knew who had tried
it. He put me onto these softwares - they were specifically recommended by
Shapeways. They work, so I haven't learned a better way - which I know
others on this list have done.

Rob

--------------------------------------------------
From: "soolinehistory"
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:46 PM
To:
Subject: [STMFC] Re: 3D printing challenges etc.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Kirkham" wrote:

yes - but if using Sketchup to scale the drawing to HO, you can also run
into the 6 decimal place rounding problem if you are not careful.
Dividing
most large numbers by 87.1 seldom produces neat 6 (or fewer) digit
quotients. Using other software to scale a full size drawing allows one
to
get around that problem. But drawing with the rounding problem in mind
from the get-go is also worth some effort.

Rob Kirkham

I think Rob's problem lies elsewhere.

Let me preface this comment with the confession that I am by no means an
expert on Sketchup... In fact, I've never used the software, and all I
know I've learned from poking around in their help files and discussion
lists, looking for answers to Rob's questions.

That said, the problem lies not in what scale the object is drawn in, or
how many decimal places entered points are calculated to. If one were to
draw the gusseted end of a hat section brace as a portion of an ellipse,
or a NURBS curve, extrude that profile to give it some thickness, lay it
over modeled sheathing with V groove edges, and preform the Boolean union
operation to attempt to make them one solid, the software is going to
preform all kinds of calculations to the limit of its precision, no matter
if the original data was entered to three place precision, two place
precision, or limited to whole numbers.

The problem is that while software operating with solids as the native
environment will either do the operation, or choke right then and there.
Sketchup, on the other hand, will happily trim all the surfaces and
display them, without any indication that the different surfaces that
define what you assume to be a solid do not have concurrent boundaries,
and you won't learn that until thousands of operations later, when you try
to convert the file to STL format. You end up with something that Sketchup
calls "leaky solids", which is basically the software development team's
admission that their product can't reliably calculate boundaries with all
points within the internal margin of error for concurrent points. It is
basically the difference between freeware, and software that will set you
back multiple thousands of dollars.



Dennis



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Anyone know of any HO or N scale decals that contain a Watch Your Step warning in white? I had a set of old Walthers with this for a caboose but naturally ruined one of the decals. Many of the decal providers don't have photos.

Thanks,
George Courtney

I don't know about 156# rail but I have track charts of the Connemaugh
Div (1940), Pittsburgh Div (1951 and 1958) and Cresson Branch (1951 and
1956) all with 152# rail for the mainline and the primary track of the
Cresson Branch.

Rich Orr


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Daniels
To: STMFC
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell Flatcar


David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your
comments. First
of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout
Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the
climb over
the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to
traffic
weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were
used on
these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75"
at the
end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid
the line
with 132 lb. rail.
 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: David
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell
Flatcar


 
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, timboconnor@ wrote:

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR,

really? I
grew up in PRR territory and none

of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the

Middle
Division, maybe that's where they used it...

IIRC the 156# stuff was only used on the line from Pittsburgh up to the
Lake
Erie ore docks, and maybe a handful of other small locations. The rest
of the
main system was the usual 120-130# rail that everyone else used for
heavy
traffic. Code 100 rail really should be banished from HO on general
principle.

David Thompson




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links