Chrysler Trucks


Tony Thompson
 

Mike Bauers wrote:

 

When a shot is all that exists on/of a target item, you take into consideration the points you bring up and your drawing or file that must be made, takes that into account.
Those points and flaws were considered, long before they were brought up here.
So, adjusting for that….. would it work well enough?


      MIke, perhaps it would be good to stop and think before posting. The photo you provided is of a MODEL, and very often model parts reflect compromises with the prototype. That makes ANY model something that needs careful checking before rushing ahead with a copy. Second point, the photo is a dead flat elevation view, which shows NOTHING of the three-dimensional angle of the shock absorber or of the depth of the spring mount. I would regard that particular shot as exactly useless for this purpose. And third, there DOES exist a drawing and good, angled photo (both in the 49-51 Cyc), for the truck we are discussing, though I think you are trying to address a larger topic.
       Your statement that these "points and flaws were considered, long before" . . . cannot be serious, unless your definition of "considered" is different than mine.
       I am not disagreeing with your suggestion that there may be some information, relatively poor, which might be a starting point, for any project. But to extend that point to suggest proceeding with 3-D modeling, using just the poor information, seems naive at best. My view is that if the poor info is all you have, you DON'T proceed until better material comes along. And yeah, sometimes that means you don't proceed. You've heard of GIGO.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





mwbauers
 

Sorry friend, as I wrote, the like was an example. As I included working with prototype as an example….


What you think I was thinking is just wrong…..


Only a fool would go with just the information in just one picture. The wise fellow will get the bulk of that wanted information from other photos and whatever. Optical comparison of similar standard journal boxes as one factor. Standard cast sidewall dimensions then projected into the image at scale of such [prototype] parts would be another.

To assume otherwise is just being short-sighted.

By my projection, you are telling me that the reason so few do it this way, is that they can’t work out ways of surpassing the first problem they encounter in the attempt. 

Think of it as the low end or mid-range of photo-based reverse engineering.

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Tony Thompson  wrote:


Mike Bauers wrote:

 

When a shot is all that exists on/of a target item, you take into consideration the points you bring up and your drawing or file that must be made, takes that into account.
Those points and flaws were considered, long before they were brought up here.
So, adjusting for that….. would it work well enough?


      MIke, perhaps it would be good to stop and think before posting. The photo you provided is of a MODEL, and very often model parts reflect compromises with the prototype. That makes ANY model something that needs careful checking before rushing ahead with a copy. Second point, the photo is a dead flat elevation view, which shows NOTHING of the three-dimensional angle of the shock absorber or of the depth of the spring mount. I would regard that particular shot as exactly useless for this purpose. And third, there DOES exist a drawing and good, angled photo (both in the 49-51 Cyc), for the truck we are discussing, though I think you are trying to address a larger topic.
       Your statement that these "points and flaws were considered, long before" . . . cannot be serious, unless your definition of "considered" is different than mine.
       I am not disagreeing with your suggestion that there may be some information, relatively poor, which might be a starting point, for any project. But to extend that point to suggest proceeding with 3-D modeling, using just the poor information, seems naive at best. My view is that if the poor info is all you have, you DON'T proceed until better material comes along. And yeah, sometimes that means you don't proceed. You've heard of GIGO.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


mwbauers
 

Tony,

I hope you understand that I’m not being vacuous and over reaching on this. I’ve been a model builder since about 1960, remember those fine 300-350 piece car kits we had then? and I’m a few weeks away from 43 active years in precision manufacturing. Although we make really big and complicated stuff.

Yes, I sure did think about this for many years by now. Its mainly that recently tools became somewhat commonly available to to the general public that eases this route of applied reverse engineering.

I really want that new $300 high-res 3d scanner…… Sure would like to have one of the existing beta units that are in circulation.

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:


Mike Bauers wrote:


When a shot is all that exists on/of a target item, you take into consideration the points you bring up and your drawing or file that must be made, takes that into account.
Those points and flaws were considered, long before they were brought up here.
So, adjusting for that….. would it work well enough?
MIke, perhaps it would be good to stop and think before posting. The photo you provided is of a MODEL, and very often model parts reflect compromises with the prototype. That makes ANY model something that needs careful checking before rushing ahead with a copy. Second point, the photo is a dead flat elevation view, which shows NOTHING of the three-dimensional angle of the shock absorber or of the depth of the spring mount. I would regard that particular shot as exactly useless for this purpose. And third, there DOES exist a drawing and good, angled photo (both in the 49-51 Cyc), for the truck we are discussing, though I think you are trying to address a larger topic.
Your statement that these "points and flaws were considered, long before" . . . cannot be serious, unless your definition of "considered" is different than mine.
I am not disagreeing with your suggestion that there may be some information, relatively poor, which might be a starting point, for any project. But to extend that point to suggest proceeding with 3-D modeling, using just the poor information, seems naive at best. My view is that if the poor info is all you have, you DON'T proceed until better material comes along. And yeah, sometimes that means you don't proceed. You've heard of GIGO.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history