Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Ed Walters
A follow up - having done some testing, the desktop version of 123D is more advanced than the browser app, and Inventor Fusion is more advanced than 123D. The wrinkle with Fusion is that it will expire in April, although an update that will continue its availability has been promised.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "eddie_walters" wrote:
|
|
Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Ed Walters
http://www.123dapp.com
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Robert kirkham
I've not heard of it. Say more please . . .
Rob -------------------------------------------------- From: "eddie_walters" <eddie_walters@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 8:20 AM To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [STMFC] Re: 3D printing challenges etc. Has anyone tried 123D from Autodesk for generating STL files? It seems to be targeted at the same market as sketchup, but given that it presumably includes some of Inventor's core, it might be less susceptible to the leak problems?
|
|
Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Ed Walters
Has anyone tried 123D from Autodesk for generating STL files? It seems to be targeted at the same market as sketchup, but given that it presumably includes some of Inventor's core, it might be less susceptible to the leak problems?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Kirkham" wrote:
|
|
Re: Watch Your Step decals
Scott H. Haycock
Good memory, Bill
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I have these 2 sets on my bench as we 'speak?' . the Watch your step decals, in both white and black are printed vertically, near the bottom right corner. Scott Haycock Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent
----- Original Message -----
Going from memory this warning is on Micro scale set #1 or #2, maybe both, in HO. Perfect for L&N cabooses. Bill Welch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Re: Watch Your Step decals
Bill Welch
Going from memory this warning is on Micro scale set #1 or #2, maybe both, in HO. Perfect for L&N cabooses.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Bill Welch
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gsc3" wrote:
|
|
Re: Watch Your Step decals
Scott H. Haycock
Actually, this would be something you could do with an inkjet. The artwork could be done in a variety of programs. With lettering this small, a 'close enough' computer font could be found. The trick would be matching the paint of the steps close enough with you printer. Most drawing programs have a 64 color standard pallet. One of these colors should be a reasonably close match.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Paint a swatch of your step color, or fill a box, depending on your program. Type your text over this in black and check your font point size for scale, etc. Once you're satisfied, turn the font color to white. In the properties box, click on "always on top" and print on white decal paper. Of course, seal the decal before using! Scott Haycock Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent
----- Original Message -----
I think some of the Microscale decal sets have this. This was common wording above the pilot steps on many locomotives. Sure would be nice to have an ALPS printer, or something like it (that can print white), to whip up something like this when you need it. Arved Grass Fleming Island, Florida
|
|
Re: (was)Tichy rebuilt USRA boxcar DIVERSION (is) useful template?
Charles,
Final got to read your blog post on the Tichy 4021. Very nicely done I hope you will continue to pull more kits off the shelf. Mark From: Charles Hostetler [mailto:cesicjh@pocketinet.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:49 PM To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Subject: [STMFC] (was)Tichy rebuilt USRA boxcar DIVERSION (is) useful template? --- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Benjamin Hom wrote: take a crack at it yourself?Ben and others, I was stimulated by the idea and did take a little tiny initial crack at a variant of it. This isn't implemented as a spreadsheet, because I wanted a more pictorial format, but it is my first attempt at composing a kit profile (not a review!) that provides a description of what's inside the box and what it might become. I'd be interested in reactions to the utility of this initial post which I hope can develop into a series. It deals with the Tichy 40' 50 ton flat car. http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/01/kit-profile-tichy-4021.html Regards, Charles Hostetler
|
|
Re: Watch Your Step decals
arved_grass
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gsc3" wrote:
I think some of the Microscale decal sets have this. This was common wording above the pilot steps on many locomotives. Sure would be nice to have an ALPS printer, or something like it (that can print white), to whip up something like this when you need it. Arved Grass Fleming Island, Florida
|
|
Re: Watch Your Step decals
Once Gerry Glow gets back up to speed he my be interested. I would give
him a few months as he will need some time dealing with the recent loss of his brother. fenton wells On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, gsc3 <gsc3@yahoo.com> wrote: ** -- Fenton Wells 3047 Creek Run Sanford NC 27332 919-499-5545 srrfan1401@gmail.com
|
|
Re: can you id these tank cars?
arved_grass
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson wrote:
ECMX 502 8k Gal. AC&F Type 11ECMXX, actually. The photographer misidentified the reporting marks as ECNXX. Is the 5-letter reporting mark a Mexican thing? First time I've noticed it. Thanks for the IDs, and to Tim for finding these. FWIW, to see the image full size, go to one of the links Tim provided, click on "See Original Listing" just below he title of auction, then scroll down a bit to reveal the original listing. Double-click on that image and, presto! Arved Grass Fleming Island, Florida
|
|
Re: Box Car Database
Don <riverman_vt@...>
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gene" wrote:
Say what, Gene????? An M&StL box car turned into a billboard?? But I thought those were outlawed bak in the 1930's!!!! VBG Ah well, some would call the New Haven and Bangor & Aroostock red, white and blue cars "billboards" as well. Cordially, Don Valentine
|
|
Re: The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar
Scott H. Haycock
FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)" Jack, Greg MartinOr you could get our a mill file and...... Scott Haycock ,___
|
|
Re: The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar
Greg Martin
Jack Mullen writes (but didn't sign his post):
"I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web. Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play. FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)" Jack, So you are asking me to consider changing scales because my PRR Mainline will likely be laid with track that is not quite but close to 7/8" of a scale inch too tall? Nope, won't do it, "I'd rather fight than switch..." 3^) Perhaps, the Pennsy in the forties didn't have the extensive amount of 155 lbs rail as is being expressed here, but no doubt as we moved toward the mid-fifties it was likely more extensive than is expressed here. I would tend to believe that coal hauling eastern railways were all making their moves in that directions for all the reason you mention. So I'll use the code 100 rail that I have collected over the years as well as the turnouts and crossings on my mainlines, weather them to my liking and add secondaries and sidings out of lighter rail when visible. Greg Martin .
|
|
The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar
Jack Mullen
I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play. FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, SUVCWORR@... wrote:
|
|
Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Robert kirkham
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" <destorzek@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:46 PM To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [STMFC] Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
|
|
Re: can you id these tank cars?
Richard Hendrickson
On Feb 8, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com> wrote:
Tim O'Connor wrote:Well, for some reason I had no trouble enlarging the images, and the tank cars were as follows:http://www.ebay.com/itm/111007867594Since bidding has ended, or the item sold, in all five cases, you can no longer click to enlarge. Not many of us can identify much in the little thumbnails provided for buyers to look at. DNCXX 5509 8K gal. AC&F Type 11 TRNX 12001 16K gal. Santa Fe Tk-M built by GATC in 1942 DNCXX 2719 10K gal. Pennsylvania Tank Car Co. built in 1923 MTSX 107 8K gal. Standard Tank Car Co.mid-1920s ECMX 502 8k Gal. AC&F Type 11 Richard Hendrickson
|
|
Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Scott H. Haycock
Thanks for the explanation. It would indeed be frustrating to find out at the end that there is an error(or many) somewhere, and not know where to find it!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Scott Haycock Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent
----- Original Message -----
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
|
|
Re: 3D printing challenges etc.
Dennis Storzek
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Kirkham" wrote:
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
|
|
Pacific Electric Boxcar Brakes
super_chief37
Hello folks-
I'm currently scratchbuilding a Pacific Electric boxcar based on these examples: http://www.oerm.org/collection/red-cars-pacific-electric/pe-2731-0 http://www.oerm.org/collection/red-cars-pacific-electric/pe-2721 http://www.oerm.org/collection/red-cars-pacific-electric/pe-2737 Only piece of information I'm missing concerns the brakes. Anyone have a picture showing the arrangement of rods and levers? I did a search here, and someone did post pictures but the links have expired. Also, were the cars equipped with regular KC brakes or split K? Finally, when were they converted to AB brakes as it appears in the pictures? I'm modeling 1941 and I want to know which type is appropriate. Thanks! C.I.H.
|
|