Date
1 - 20 of 29
Critiquing Pre-production Models?
|
Brian Chapman <cornbeltroute@...>
Thank you for the interesting comments. . . .
I have a self-interested reason for asking the question, and I believe prototype modelers have a self-interested reason for making suggestions (we both want accurate models). I have formed a business association with a friend who is an experienced pressure resin-caster. He has a new laser cutter with which he's getting up to speed and new spin-casting equipment, too (resin and metal casting capability). Myself, I use 2D CAD/CAM and 3D software to draw model items precisely (the 3D software works wonderfully to ensure that the master parts to be cut fit together accurately). I am experienced, too, at creating double-sided photo-etching artwork. The 2D drawings generate G-code to operate my CNC mill and CNC lathe. Within the next year I expect to upgrade my CAM mill software to 3D cutting capability. Also, I expect to use the 3D software to test 3D printing capabilities, too. The laser can vector cut with a cutting beam about .003" diameter. Often, I have cut with a .005" diameter end mill (about twice the diameter of a human hair) on the CNC mill (brickwork looks fantastic, in my biased opinion). So, between the two of us, we not only believe we're well equipped to create fine-scale models, we're anxious to get going on our devised plan of operation. But. . . . I am a rivet-counter nit-picker type of personality. From a variety of sources (outstanding multiple photos and manufacturer brochures, modeling articles), for example, I have been able to 2D and 3D draw (and test cut many parts) of a P70 PiggyPacker. There is one area of the vehicle, though, for which I have no information. And, perhaps none can be had (after searching laboriously, I have been unable to find an existing P70 vehicle). I hate to commercially issue this intermodal lift vehicle without that information, it grates on my sensibility for accuracy. OTOH, intermodal modelers might wish to have the option to purchase it since it might be the most accurate model to be had. A dilemma. How would prototype modelers here suggest that a manufacturer in my, uh, boat, proceed? Along this same line, I've been highly intrigued by Ray Breyer's comments about the short NYC offset side twin hopper. (Hey, Ray, are drawings available?) I have Karig's "Coal Cars" book, CBC cyclopedias, tons of articles with hopper drawings and construction methods. I'd like to give the car a shot (and not just in HO scale). But, how to overcome the inevitable drawing and/or cutting errors? Are modelers here on the list saying, "Have at it, after you've released the kit, we'll tell you what's wrong with it"? I had some idea that I might be able to upload screen shots of the 3D art and invite critiquing before moving on to CNC cutting, but pilfering by another model manufacturer is the likely result of this approach, I take it. Perhaps, then, lists such as this one, populated by individuals with extraordinary knowledge about historical freight cars, must remain untapped. Is this so? BTW, I do wish to say that I'm a passionate hobbyist. A love for the hobby goes hand-in-hand with my desire to produce prototype models with all the accuracy it is in my power to create. The question I am attempting to answer for myself, though, is how best do I do this? Thanks much, Brian Brian Chapman Evansdale, Iowa |
|
|
|
SUVCWORR@...
Brian,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
IMHO, you and the hobby would be best served by consulting with a few from this list with some expertise in the particular road/car/vehicle/etc you are considering.? Since only a select few individuals would have knowledge of what you are planning, it would be simple to determine who let the cat out of the bag if some other manufacturer jumped in a rushed the same model to market.? This has worked will for BLI and Athearn.? No reason it can't work for you. Rich Orr -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Chapman <cornbeltroute@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Sun, Jul 12, 2009 1:13 pm Subject: [STMFC] Re: Critiquing Pre-production Models? Thank you for the interesting comments. . . . I have a self-interested reason for asking the question, and I believe prototype modelers have a self-interested reason for making suggestions (we both want accurate models). I have formed a business association with a friend who is an experienced pressure resin-caster. He has a new laser cutter with which he's getting up to speed and new spin-casting equipment, too (resin and metal casting capability). Myself, I use 2D CAD/CAM and 3D software to draw model items precisely (the 3D software works wonderfully to ensure that the master parts to be cut fit together accurately). I am experienced, too, at creating double-sided photo-etching artwork. The 2D drawings generate G-code to operate my CNC mill and CNC lathe. Within the next year I expect to upgrade my CAM mill software to 3D cutting capability. Also, I expect to use the 3D software to test 3D printing capabilities, too. The laser can vector cut with a cutting beam about .003" diameter. Often, I have cut with a .005" diameter end mill (about twice the diameter of a human hair) on the CNC mill (brickwork looks fantastic, in my biased opinion). So, between the two of us, we not only believe we're well equipped to create fine-scale models, we're anxious to get going on our devised plan of operation. But. . . . I am a rivet-counter nit-picker type of personality. From a variety of sources (outstanding multiple photos and manufacturer brochures, modeling articles), for example, I have been able to 2D and 3D draw (and test cut many parts) of a P70 PiggyPacker. There is one area of the vehicle, though, for which I have no information. And, perhaps none can be had (after searching laboriously, I have been unable to find an existing P70 vehicle). I hate to commercially issue this intermodal lift vehicle without that information, it grates on my sensibility for accuracy. OTOH, intermodal modelers might wish to have the option to purchase it since it might be the most accurate model to be had. A dilemma. How would prototype modelers here suggest that a manufacturer in my, uh, boat, proceed? Along this same line, I've been highly intrigued by Ray Breyer's comments about the short NYC offset side twin hopper. (Hey, Ray, are drawings available?) I have Karig's "Coal Cars" book, CBC cyclopedias, tons of articles with hopper drawings and construction methods. I'd like to give the car a shot (and not just in HO scale). But, how to overcome the inevitable drawing and/or cutting errors? Are modelers here on the list saying, "Have at it, after you've released the kit, we'll tell you what's wrong with it"? I had some idea that I might be able to upload screen shots of the 3D art and invite critiquing before moving on to CNC cutting, but pilfering by another model manufacturer is the likely result of this approach, I take it. Perhaps, then, lists such as this one, populated by individuals with extraordinary knowledge about historical freight cars, must remain untapped. Is this so? BTW, I do wish to say that I'm a passionate hobbyist. A love for the hobby goes hand-in-hand with my desire to produce prototype models with all the accuracy it is in my power to create. The question I am attempting to answer for myself, though, is how best do I do this? Thanks much, Brian Brian Chapman Evansdale, Iowa ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "Brian Chapman" <cornbeltroute@...> wrote:
I hate to commercially issue this intermodal lift vehicle without that information, it grates on my sensibility for accuracy. OTOH, intermodal modelers might wish to have the option to purchase it since it might be the most accurate model to be had. A dilemma. How would prototype modelers here suggest that a manufacturer in my, uh, boat, proceed?Brian, By all means, find the last extant example of the prototype; send me its location and put me on expense account to travel out to take field measurements and photos; then come back here and tell us how it doesn't cost any more to do it right. :-) You REALLY don't want to ever make your CAD files publicly available... they are all you have that makes your product unique. Anybody can have tooling made, on six of the seven continents. Anybody can have parts molded. And once someone has your CAD files, they can do it with your design. The world, even this list, is filled with people who don't see a problem with making copies of someone's published work; don't see a problem with using another's plastic parts as masters for their copies; you won't have to go far to find someone who will "borrow" your design. Anyway. as you say yourself, it is quite difficult to get a feel for the finished product from a 3-D CAD rendering. It is even more difficult to do a proper check of the design before giving the OK to cut steel. Few here are competent to do so, and those who have all have stories they'd rather not repeat about things they missed. I'm firmly convinced that the root cause of two of the recent publicly acknowledged project disasters... the "foot-too-long boxcar" and the one that was undersize, lies with the project manager signing off on a design done elsewhere without doing an exhausting dimension by dimension check. I classify deviations from the prototype (I don't call them errors, because for all we know they are intentional) into three groups: 1. Omissions. These are details that should be there but aren't, either because the designer didn't know they were supposed to be there, or because the budget didn't allow for their inclusion. An example would be a boxcar with no locking mechanism on the doors. 2. Substitutions. Often done to make use of existing mold work or design work, sometimes done because sufficient data isn't available on what was really there. Examples would be different style door rollers, or straight taper vs. "rolling pin" ribs on the ends. 3. Implausibility. These are the things that don't really model anything. They are brought on by insufficient data, or misinterpreting what data there was available. These are the worst, because while one can add details that were omitted, and substituted details at least look plausible, these are the kind of things that aren't easy to change, and just don't look right. The last several newly released kits that have won high acclaim on this list all have plausibility issues, and not a single person here has mentioned them. Either those who have spotted them don't want to hurt the manufacturer's sale by mentioning them (as I usually refrain from mentioning this sort of thing... hey, if the customer is happy, why ruin his enjoyment?) or the experts simply haven't spotted them. In which case, they likely won't do any better job on your project, at least until after you've committed all your resources to bringing it to production. Dennis |
|
|
|
Gee, Dennis, the problem with the "hand grenade" style of criticism
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
is that there tends to be collateral damage, you know? I think it is much better to just say what's wrong with which models, and let the cards fall where they may. Besides, none of us has ever seen an absolutely perfect model, so what do you think we expect? Tim O'Connor The last several newly released kits that have won high acclaim on this list all have plausibility issues, and not a single person here has mentioned them. Either those who have spotted them don't want to hurt the manufacturer's sale by mentioning them (as I usually refrain from mentioning this sort of thing... hey, if the customer is happy, why ruin his enjoyment?) or the experts simply haven't spotted them. In which case, they likely won't do any better job on your project, at least until after you've committed all your resources to bringing it to production. |
|
|
|
Brian Chapman <cornbeltroute@...>
Brian, by all means, find the last extant example of the prototype; send me its location and put me on expense account to travel out to take field measurements and photos; then come back here and tell us how it doesn't cost any more to do it right. :-) <Dennis, hi, Uh, you know, I didn't make the comment about cost and doing it right? (Or, maybe you're using my example to clarify a point about the other poster's comment?) Terrific post because of all the insight. Gained from lots of experience, I'm sure. Looking through a 1984 Mainline Modeler magazine last night, I believe I came across an ad for your introductory product. In any of my comments about posting artwork here, I was thinking screen shots of 2D and 3D items. Or, are you saying even screen shots would be a mistake to post, too? Actual CAD files do not leave my PC. Thanks much, Brian Brian Chapman Evansdale, Iowa |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "Brian Chapman" <cornbeltroute@...> wrote:
No you didn't, and yes I was.Brian, by all means, find the last extant example of the prototype; send me its location and put me on expense account to travel out to take field measurements and photos; then come back here and tell us how it doesn't cost any more to do it right. :-) <Dennis, hi, In any of my comments about posting artwork here, I was thinking screen shots of 2D and 3D items. Or, are you saying even screen shots would be a mistake to post, too? Actual CAD files do not leave my PC.A very wise policy. However, screen shots don't give much info to critique, kind of like the pix posted of the Atlas model that's being discussed. They show enough to let you know that something looks not quite right, without giving a hint as to what. You think anyone could give us a width over the model sills and a width over the side sheets so we can put the issue to rest? Not likely. Dennis |
|
|
|
Dave Nelson
Dennis Storzek wrote:
You REALLY don't want to ever make your CAD files publiclyThe law is pretty simple: 3d cad files of pre-existing real world objects are not protected by copyright because no creativity was used in producing the cad files. Lots of time sure, but no creativity. Dave Nelson |
|
|
|
drgwrail
The manufacturer's CAD files are not files of an existing object. They are a set of enginering drawing to make a set of dies for a product.
Beginning to detect a pretty gross misunderstanding of what engineering CAD programs and files are, as contrasted to a handy dandy simple CAD program for making simple floor plans , schematics, etc. Chuck Y Boulder CO ________________________________ From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:44:03 PM Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Critiquing Pre-production Models? Dennis Storzek wrote: You REALLY don't want to ever make your CAD files publiclyThe law is pretty simple: 3d cad files of pre-existing real world objects are not protected by copyright because no creativity was used in producing the cad files. Lots of time sure, but no creativity. Dave Nelson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
Schuyler Larrabee
Not only that, Chuck, but as the creator (note that word) of CAD files that represent a pre-existing
and no-longer-extant object (a steam engine) I can tell you that it involved a LOT of creativity. It isn't (yet) the source material for a model, but took a very long time to develop the graphic representation of the three-d object, making interpretations and testing them against each other. I am just floored, Dave, that you would not consider the creation of scale drawings a creative act. I made it, It's artwork. It's copyrighted. It's mine. SGL PS: Chuck, those "simple floor plans, schematics, etc." are copyrightable works. I'm an architect, and ALL of my office's drawings carried a copyright symbol. The manufacturer's CAD files are not files of an existing object. They are a set of engineeringdrawing to make a set of dies for a product.are, as contrasted to a handy dandy simple CAD program for making simple floor plans , schematics, etc. E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441) Database version: 6.12810 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ |
|
|
|
Dave Nelson
Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
Not only that, Chuck, but as the creator (note that word) of CADNot necessarilly. See Meshworks v Toyota. Per that decision, 3d cad models exhibt no creativity for those elements that are accurately representing a real world object and therefore cannot be copyrighted. IIRC, the decision referenced an earlier decision WRT scale pencil drawings which had come to the same conclusion. So make an accurate representation of a Camel door or Dreadnaught Brand car end and bingo, it is in the public domain because all you contributed was research time, drawing skill, and labor, **but not creativity**. Essentially, all you did was make a drawing (or cad model) of someone else's creative stuff. FWIW, I do 3d cad work daily and I too was floored by this... But there it is. Dave Nelson |
|
|
|
Dave Nelson
Charles R Yungkurth wrote:
The manufacturer's CAD files are not files of an existing object. I do 3d cad work every day. Drawings of utilitarian objects, such as blueprints, cannot be copyrighted. The exception are building plans and any creative aspect applied to the utilitarian object, such as artistic pattern or motif whose purpose is not functional. The case of Meshworks v Toyota determined that 3d can models, if accurately representing a utilitarian object, such as an automobile -- or for our purposes, a freight car--, is the same as a blueprint or other exact drawing -- meaning there is no creativity present, only drawing skill and ordinary labor. Dave Nelson |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Dave Nelson wrote:
Not necessarilly. See Meshworks v Toyota.Dave is right. The more accurate your drawing is, in representing the real-world object, the LESS creativity was supplied by you. Lotsa labor, sure, but not creativity; and copyright rewards original creation. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
Drawings of utilitarian objects, such as blueprints, cannot be copyrighted.Dave, I think I understand all that, but in this case I thought we were talking about designing miniature versions of real world objects. Or, more precisely, designing a series of smaller parts which, when assembled, form visually and, in our case, operationally accurate (as far as possible) miniature replicas of real world objects. None of the smaller parts (sides, doors, roofs, ends, detail parts, etc.) will be totally accurate representations of any real world object. They may have "skins" on one or more surfaces that are accurate representations of real world objects, but will otherwise be designed so they can be manufactured, assembled and survive in their intended use. Their contours and thicknesses will be modified for optimum plastic or resin flow and have draft angles so they will release from the mold. They will have various tabs, slots, holes, notches, keys, interlocks or bosses for assembly. The CAD assembly of all these parts may well result in an image indistinguishable from a blueprint of a real world object, but I can't believe the final CAD package is devoid of creativity any more than I'd believe a new sonata is similarly devoid because the composer used some of the same notes as Mozart. Tom Madden |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "Tom Madden" <tgmadden@...> wrote:
All the more reason why a model manufacturer needs to be very careful about letting his design work become available on a public forum.Drawings of utilitarian objects, such as blueprints, cannot be copyrighted. The situation briefly was that Meshworks constructed 3-D surface models at the behest Toyota's ad agency, using data wholly supplied by Toyota. They then tried to limit the ad agency to one time use of the models, claiming copyright protection, which the court said doesn't exist. Read more here: http://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/copyrights-meshworks-inc-v-toyota-motor-sales-usa-good-news-and-bad-news-for-creators-of-new-media-works.html Dave, I think I understand all that, but in this case I thought we were talking about designing miniature versions of real world objects. Or, more precisely, designing a series of smaller parts which, when assembled, form visually and, in our case, operationally accurate (as far as possible) miniature replicas of real world objects. None of the smaller parts (sides, doors, roofs, ends, detail parts, etc.) will be totally accurate representations of any real world object. They may have "skins" on one or more surfaces that are accurate representations of real world objects, but will otherwise be designed so they can be manufactured, assembled and survive in their intended use. Their contours and thicknesses will be modified for optimum plastic or resin flow and have draft angles so they will release from the mold. They will have various tabs, slots, holes, notches, keys, interlocks or bosses for assembly. The CAD assembly of all these parts may well result in an image indistinguishable from a blueprint of a real world object, but I can't believe the final CAD package is devoid of creativity any more than I'd believe a new sonata is similarly devoid because the composer used some of the same notes as Mozart.All well and good, but I suspect that all of this could be considered a "derivative" of the original work. However, there is basis in the law for protecting trade secrets, as illustrated in Mike's Train House v. Lionel, L.L.C. While Lionel has won an appeal based on several factors including the misapplication of punitive damages and the case has been remanded to the district court, the curt of appeals did reaffirm that: "...their design drawings are trade secrets, even though they contain a combination of secret and non-secret information. If the court had determined that the design drawings were not trade secrets, it would have dismissed the case altogether, without the need for a new trial." This one bears watching. I would suspect, however, that if one makes no attempt to keep the "trade secrets" secret, one loses the right to claim them as such later. More here: http://ogaugewatch.com/2006/12/summary_of_appe.html http://www.gehrkelaw.com/2006/12/mikes_train_hou.html Dennis |
|
|
|
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
Copyright or not isn't relevant, is it? If you were to establish a proprietary item non-disclosure agreement and it was violated, wouldn't that be the issue?
All that aside, previewing and critiquing happens all the time in other model subject areas, and has been happening for years, without massive industrial espionage. Are model railroaders really so duplicitious and untrustworthy that it couldn't be done with trains? KL |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:
Your right, Kurt, and that is how it is normally done. But the original question was about making 3-D files available for critique on a public forum. The ensuing discussion is about why this is a bad idea. Dennis |
|
|
|
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...> wrote:
Your right, Kurt, and that is how it is normally done. But the original question was about making 3-D files available for critique on a public forum. The ensuing discussion is about why this is a bad idea.Well, maybe we shouldn't be so literal - perhaps the idea of soliciting willing reviewers via public forums is really what was intended, and the rest was just talking to hear ourselves talk? KL |
|
|
but I can't believe the final CAD package is devoid of creativity any more than I'd believe a new sonata is similarly devoid because the composer used some of the same notes as Mozart.Technically, copyright law is very specific about music -- you can copy up to 5 bars/measures of a piece of music at a time. This has been widely employed especially in movie music, and a few popular songs are infamous for doing it (e.g. M C Hammer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_Can%27t_Touch_This Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Dave Nelson
Tom Madden wrote:
Dave, I think I understand all that, but in this case I thought weTom, no doubt there are many possible scenarios and I don't profess to be any sort of expert, just a sort-of-informed layman. One might argue the layout you described is creative. One might also argue it is entirely utilitarian because you do what you have to do to inject the plastic. I dunno which point of view would carry the day. But before trying to figure that out, be warned that copyright offers no protection to design unless that design is a creative expression, such as an attractive visual pattern. I will say tho there are CAD models and there are CAD models. The sort of modeling I do is 1:1 representations that are used in computer simulations. It's supposed to have very high fidelity to the original. OTOH, what I also do is just create data -- a collection of numbers and data that per se is not protected by copyright. Go figure. But let me ask this: Is a cad model that is scaled down really that different than one that is 1:1? At any rate, let's pull back to the original topic: I asked why 3d cad models are not shared w/ reviewers; Dennis gave one reason and that prompted me to think of this one, and in turn Dennis added the wisdom of using NDA's. In the end tho, it still comes down to what the law will protect and what it will not. I expect some protection is gained by a valid NDA (that's really a contract isn't it?) but for the most part no protection is provided by copyright law. Given that, none of the drawings in a CBC are protected by copyright. Not are any of the scale drawings you see in modeling magazines. Yes, a good deal of skill was necessary to produce those drawings but the exercise of skill is not what copyright is about. Copyright is only about the exercise of creativity Dave Nelson |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Dave Nelson wrote:
. . . Given that, none of the drawings in a CBC are protected by copyright.I understand the logic behind this statement, and it may well be true; but at least one person who acted on this belief (or something similar) got a nasty-gram from Simmons-Boardman's lawyers, and ended up paying a hefty settlement to avoid court costs. Sometimes going to court to prove you are right is a very expensive option. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|