Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
August 07, 2020, 01:41:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Computer Aid in Building Scale Models  (Read 1822 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Art356A
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,367




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2013, 04:34:56 PM »

George, complex subjects aren't a problem. I don't like Ford Trimotors.

On the other hand, I do like Brisfits. I can sit and look at the Diels plan for hours, think about how RolandD6 or Wingnut might tackle it, knock back a couple of Newks, fall asleep and in the morning I've forgotten all about it. 'Til next time. I don't think a machine could build a Brisfit, could it??

a.
Logged

My arms are so weak, it's like that pushup I did last year was a total waste.
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 50
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 725




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2013, 04:43:39 PM »

Dave,
I hope my wording was not an insult... Should I have written: How "wrong" you are ? I certainly didn't mean it  literally, I really hope you understand that...


Bill,
you are right. The rules do not specify it, my mistake.
But the judging certainly promotes opaque finishes to transclucent, since the key is realism and texture
You also have stated your preference on this in your scale matters column many times, if I recall correctly.

Art,
no a machine cannot do anything. All it can do is make some parts you tell it to do and how to do it. And even then, you do most of the remaining job, the last 10% that takes up the 90% of the time...

George
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,231



Ignore
« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2013, 04:46:26 PM »

The process is 'interesting' but probably doesn't have anything to do with this thread. Sorry.

Thank you Dave, for the immediate reply and the article pages.

How wrong you are... it has everything to do with this thread... The only difference being, since this was 1985 that not a computer, but a xerox copier was used...
Mr. Fineman used the existing plan lettering and xeroxed it on to the Decalon. In essence the same as a modern day printing of a computer generated text...
He did use a machine, he could repeat it many many times... Next he applied the Decalon in the same way we apply water slide decals, like the ones we print.

So, for example, was it or was it not ok to use this method? Was there "traditional" skill needed?


George

George,
Sorry about being 'wrong'.
Until today, I was one of your fans.
Dave

Dave, I think you've misread the word wrong... The use of decals/letraset is applicable to this thread is what George was saying.
Logged
Dave Andreski
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 82
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3,052




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2013, 05:00:29 PM »

OK George and Monz.
I apologize for posting in this thread. It won't happen again.
Dave
Logged

Aspire to inspire before you expire.
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,231



Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2013, 05:05:30 PM »

Expanding the topic heading a bit: Computer aid in building and FLYING scale models.

Part of getting a scale free flight model to fly is the trimming process, which in itself is a skill (the weekend's wreckages showing this is a skill I still need to develop Smiley ) so where do we draw the line in using radio control to trim a free flight model? Should that not also be penalised when it comes to the flying? I look at people like Bill who builds large, diesel powered, free flight scale models that are trimmed free flight and wonder how'd you do that! How is that fair competing against someone who's trimmed their model with a radio? If I want to do that I'll build an R/C model and trim it to fly hands off for a while, cos that's essentially what it is...

Logged
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,231



Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2013, 05:07:56 PM »

OK George and Monz.
I apologize for posting in this thread. It won't happen again.
Dave

Oh c'mon Dave. Really???
Logged
Dave Andreski
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 82
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3,052




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2013, 05:14:19 PM »

OK George and Monz.
I apologize for posting in this thread. It won't happen again.
Dave

Oh c'mon Dave. Really???

YUP!
I don't know anything BUT, I can prove it!
Dave
Logged

Aspire to inspire before you expire.
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,231



Ignore
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2013, 05:17:11 PM »

OK George and Monz.
I apologize for posting in this thread. It won't happen again.
Dave

Oh c'mon Dave. Really???

YUP!
I don't know anything BUT, I can prove it!
Dave

You're one up on me then! I don't know anything and can't prove it  Grin
Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 210


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2013, 05:23:23 PM »

Can we get back on topic, please.

As a reminder, what I'm after is a way for the BMFA to take account of modern production methods in the static scoring of scale models. If you want to find out why, take a look at the current rules and Judges Guide, then figure out how we can do this and post your suggestion.

Thanks,
Andy

Rules: http://www.bmfa.org/publications/rulebooks/files/Ru13-sca.pdf
Judges guides via: http://www.scalebmfa.co.uk/downloads.html
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,231



Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2013, 05:53:21 PM »

Can we get back on topic, please.

As a reminder, what I'm after is a way for the BMFA to take account of modern production methods in the static scoring of scale models. If you want to find out why, take a look at the current rules and Judges Guide, then figure out how we can do this and post your suggestion.

Thanks,
Andy

Rules: http://www.bmfa.org/publications/rulebooks/files/Ru13-sca.pdf
Judges guides via: http://www.scalebmfa.co.uk/downloads.html

Sorry Andy.

The declaration form.

Take my Extra as an example.

If I were to enter it in a scale comp, I would say on the form that the markings are computer generated (by me) water transfer decals and that the prop is two commercial props cut up and modified into a three blader (by me). Everything else is manufactured/done by me. It would then be up to the judges, having looked at all the models entered and agreed on a benchmark for judging, to award or deduct points for workmanship according to the info on the  declarations. I feel it should be at the judges' discretion to award or deduct points for a model that has a commercially available part or a part manufactured through commercial means but which was designed for manufacture by the modeller.

This does rely on honesty on the part of the modeller and discernment on the part of the judges...
Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 63
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,137



Ignore
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2013, 06:09:00 PM »

Andy, as I said, no need to do anything. Our rules and guide cover it. If you bought it or were given it, declare it. Contests are won on flying and accuracy, not fancy bits.
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 484



Ignore
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2013, 06:28:51 PM »

Having thought about this and gone round in circles a few times, my thoughts are similar to Bills.  Leave it alone but guide the judges.

The FF scale declaration form says :-
"List all items or parts of the model that have not been entirely designed and constructed by you."
It has to be assumed that the competitor is honest and declares everything, then the problem rests with the judges.  They in turn should have clear guidelines as to how much to deduct from a static score - like the gyro assisted aspect of the RC scale flight scoring. 

Take George's 3D printed Avro engine, he designed the 3D cad programme for the printing of the engine,  a separate company used his cad file to 3D print the parts and then George assembled it and finished and painted it. 
So he designed it and he constructed and finish painted it, but did not make the kit of parts (3 out of 4 parts of the process).

I think that certainly for the time being it is covered by the rules you currently have in place.  But in the future it may be that more and more computer aids and machining automation etc will creep in.

John
Logged
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 39
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,232


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2013, 07:59:02 PM »

In short, If you do something, in any way and do not buy the complete finished item, but invest some amount of time, skill and effort for the final result, than I am fine with it...

George
Well said! It takes time and dedication to master any skill.  I see no benefit to outlawing those that have mastered the digital world.

I get a lot of grief for having skills many do not. I have made a living as  a painter, machinist, engineer and maybe some other skills. These I use towards making my models. Do I have an advantage over those that don't have these tools of skills? Maybe, but looking at what George has done might drive me to learn some of the skills he has mastered. This has been the same driver when I look at what other champions have done with traditional methods. That is I want to make better models. To that end I try acquire the tools and skills to try to make my next model better than the previous model.

I do know that making things digitally is just as difficult as it was using "real" (analog) world tools. Different but still difficult, modeling the part in 2D or 3D and then manufacturing it.

I think the issue is that some don't want to loose what they perceive as their hard earned advantage over guys like me.
I see no benefit to excluding any technology. In the real world we need to adapt or perish. If one can't or doesn't want to learn what George has learned then one shouldn't expect to be on the top podium when the awards are handed out.

The FF scale declaration form says :-
"List all items or parts of the model that have not been entirely designed and constructed by you."
It has to be assumed that the competitor is honest and declares everything, then the problem rests with the judges.  They in turn should have clear guidelines as to how much to deduct from a static score - like the gyro assisted aspect of the RC scale flight scoring.  

Take George's 3D printed Avro engine, he designed the 3D cad programme for the printing of the engine,  a separate company used his cad file to 3D print the parts and then George assembled it and finished and painted it.  
So he designed it and he constructed and finish painted it, but did not make the kit of parts (3 out of 4 parts of the process).

I think that certainly for the time being it is covered by the rules you currently have in place.  But in the future it may be that more and more computer aids and machining automation etc will creep in.

John
As for the builder of the model (material) rule. Should we give bonus points to the guy that forges his own spring wire or cuts his own balsa grown from his own plantation.
I'd give George a full 4 out of 4. Just as most would give you and me  4 out of 4 if using spring steel wire and balsa sheets. I see no benefit to crippling one for not having the financial wherewithal to buy a computer driven tool.  We aren't crippled (handicapped) for not having our own balsa plantation!

George,
Great job in making models that are so much more exquisite than anything I can currently make. But keep looking over your shoulder!

All the best,
Konrad
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 08:11:07 PM by Konrad » Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
skyraider
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 93
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,309

WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2013, 11:13:31 PM »

I really don't see what the problem is with CAD or 3D modeling. Isn't the goal to produce a fair rendition of an
actual aircraft subject, ie... more realistic and then fly it?  Not all CAD or 3D model designs will fly well but thats
the chance we have to take and improve on our skills to make the next one better. This is what I would call progress.

CAD,3D, 3D printing ect... is the next logical step in the evolution of modeling and would benefit the modeling community
by leaps and bounds. Its been around for some time but as usual, we are ever so slow to accept change.
I strongly believe that once accepted, one would find that a whole lot of doors would open. I know I have.

I've been using CAD for the better part of 14 years. I find it a very useful tool and have no regrets learning it and
applying it to my designs. My next step is to learn 3D.

Skyraider
Logged
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 39
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,232


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2013, 11:43:06 PM »

I really don't see what the problem is with CAD or 3D modeling. Isn't the goal to produce a fair rendition of an
actual aircraft subject, ie... more realistic and then fly it?  Not all CAD or 3D model designs will fly well but thats
the chance we have to take and improve on our skills to make the next one better. This is what I would call progress.

CAD,3D, 3D printing ect... is the next logical step in the evolution of modeling and would benefit the modeling community
by leaps and bounds. Its been around for some time but as usual, we are ever so slow to accept change.
I strongly believe that once accepted, one would find that a whole lot of doors would open. I know I have.

I've been using CAD for the better part of 14 years. I find it a very useful tool and have no regrets learning it and
applying it to my designs. My next step is to learn 3D.

Skyraider
Your SRK kits are a good example of this. They are so much better than the original printed or die crushed kits. You and I might know how to deal with printed wood part or die crushed parts. But the use of a laser allows you to make these traditional kit far superior, as you can now use proper weight wood. The use of light weight wood makes die cutting impractical (one winds up with crushed fibers is using light wood. Heavier grades of wood will actually cut under the die). You also often have wood cowls in place of the original vacuum pulled cowl.

http://dpcmodels.homestead.com/SRKS.html

I can't for the life of me understand why one would want to impede progress or even go backwards. The use of a 3D printer will likely make a far superior part regardless of how skilled one currently is with his vacuum forming machine.*

The good old days really weren't that good!


All the best,
Konrad

* Yes, there is a place for vacuum formed parts. Wether the plug was made by hand or with a 3D printer what is the difference?
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 63
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,137



Ignore
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2013, 05:51:55 AM »

This has been a useful and informative debate. I kicked it off on George's Avro thread with:
"Hi George,
OK here goes - I'm not sure I agree with 3D printing techniques being used in competition models against those using traditional, manual methods.
Bill"

When I said 'I'm not sure' it was because I knew nothing about 3D printing other than it was done by magic. I imagined that you pressed a button, had a cup of tea, and out comes the engine. Now I understand that it is more a case of printing a few component parts and assembling them. Like commissioning Williams Bros to make a special cylinder. In that way it is no different to me asking a friend to turn me up an instrument bezel (and, yes, declaring it). It's just that my bezel is a tiny and unimportant part of the model, while a model featuring major details in 3D seems another level.

I do know that my response to looking at a '3D printed' model will never be the same as looking at, say, the detailing on one of Pete Iliffe's models and having him explain the manual skills he used to create it while I gawp in wonder. I don't agree that computer skills are comparable (I didn't say as worthy; I mean they are completely different).

Just to clarify our UK rules; we don't give bonus marks for this and that. We judge the model for realism and accuracy under a number of headings. A few marks may then be deducted under craftsmanship in light of the declaration stating which parts were not made by the builder. Hitherto, this has never made much difference in FF but has been more of a problem with the accurate RC kits and plan models being entered in F4C, even at International level. Andy is trying to quantify the deductions. As I have said, I don't think it matters and should be left to the judges.
Logged
Rich Moore
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,493




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2013, 06:46:14 AM »

Just to add to that Bill - The 3D drawing must be 'constructed' before printing the component. This would require careful study of drawings/ photos much the same as if you might construct it by hand. The only difference is that the construction is on a screen. The only time I think a 3D CAD modeller would have the advantage is in the ability to repeat a print (and to any scale factor). George has produced a work of art in that engine (and the wheels) and I don't think he has had much advantage in terms of skill, time and resourcefulness over a modeller who uses more traditional techniques. Just different techniques.

As you say, I think it should be left to the judges, but they might well need guidelines to help determine how much of the modellers skill/ research has gone into the build. You just said it - 'press a button and have a cup of tea'. If this is the judges perception, then they might deduct more marks than is fair. For one small detail it may not be important, but it may soon be the case that a considerable contribution to a models realism may be a result of CAD/ CAM techniques. Engine, wheels, brackets, pilots, cockpit instruments, control horns, blahdy blah. If it is the modellers own work, I think they should be credited for it. However, as more modellers may use these techniques it'll become important to be able to distinguish between a dedicated 'one off' print and a repeat print (using a repeat print is a bit like using a bought part). Also, it is not unlikely that CAD drawings for aero-models may become available for purchase, in which case it should be treated more like bought parts. Again, the declaration is there for this purpose. Perhaps, if it was going to make a difference to the marks a judge might award, it would be a good idea to expect the modeller to provide evidence of the CAD process in the documentation, such as screen prints of the components being constructed in the CAD software.

Just more thunks...

Logged

It wasn't me
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2013, 08:37:22 AM »

I suppose some of this could come down to cost and the availability of the technology too.  I know that the 3D printers are getting cheaper, but will it ever be as cheap as taking a lump of balsa an carving it to shape?

One of the reasons I like this hobby is I get a lot of satisfaction for very little outlay (the word is "thrifty", not "mean" Grin), either in the tools to do the job or in the materials to build the simple models I like to do.  I reckon an average kit scale model costs me no more than £15 or so if that but then again they aren't a patch on George's exquisite models.  I'd never get to that standard 3D printer or not.

There are significant skills and craft in all of the processes that George uses throughout his models no doubt about that and nothing should be taken away from that at all.  He is also pushing the boundaries, never a bad thing.

I suppose IMHO the difference is anyone can get a lump of balsa, some grass stems, string etc and make the shape they want, all the basics are accessible to all.  The outcome is merely down to what you can do with your hands. What an artisan would have is skill the translate the shape in their mind or on paper then craft skill to carve it.  For for me that is different to the skill to translate it to a 3D cad model plus access to what is (arguably still) special and relatively expensive technology to actually make it a real tangible object. Ie the missing bit for me in doing it that way is the "craft"

This is a real tricky one!  Needless to say I won't be using a 3D printer, unless of course PC world start selling them for £29.99.....

sorry for rambling....but there you go.

Cheers

Andrew
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 04:12:19 PM by Ratz » Logged
Greg Langelius
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 596




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2013, 08:43:07 AM »

I think it's enough of a complexity just building something without having to cope with others looking over one's shoulder and dickering about whether or not it 'qualifies' under their own arbitrary rules system. Or worse, getting their pointy little heads together deciding how to limit, nay, stamp out, this evil new magic materializing in their midst.

Control freaks, we has them, to paraphrase a commercial.

If we want to drive away new builders and flyers, then yes, let's inject new hurdles into the process.

IMHO, judging is about the object lying before one's eyes. Stopping to read in aspects not in evidence would get you thrown out of a court; the same should apply here.

Once you open the can of worms, they are out there, never to be recanned. We shouldn't be damning things because they empower new capabilities, that's the way of the Luddites. If we damn what's new now, where to draw the line, what about something that appeared some time in the near or distant past?

...And what's this stuff about styrofoam being a disqualifier? Its a common product, in use everywhere in modern society. Can we say the same for balsa?

Traditional, shmaditional, what's so great and sacred about being archaic? Forcing others to be so is just another control freak mannerism. Needs to join the Dodo.

If we want to know why our numbers are dwindling, look no further. We have met the impediment, and it is us!

Greg
Logged

New knowledge is found by re-examining old assumptions.
Rich Moore
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,493




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2013, 08:47:43 AM »

The beauty of this hobby is that just because the technology is there doesn't mean you have to use it. Some people have their own vacuum former. Not having one is not really a problem - modellers find different ways of doing things. Not having the CAD skills or funds to make good use of a 3D printer does not stop you making a decent scale engine. Some people manage to construct amazing replicas using balsa and grass. The question for me is how to award points fairly for a model using CAD versus one that doesn't. Is there really any difference?
Logged

It wasn't me
Mooney
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 697


Whenever possible, fly with the sun at your back



Ignore
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2013, 10:44:56 AM »

Honestly, if George and I were building the Avro and he gave me a 3D printed engine, mine would still not look anywhere near as good as his.  There is quite a bit of input to the model and various components by him to obtain the high degree of  realism and detail.   
As a mortal, I know the frustration of always chasing the standard.  Each year it seems the models on the table improve even when this seems impossible.  For me, I see it as I have to step it up.  Or get busy with watercolors.  Earlier in the thread it was stated that you find another way to beat'em, usually by flying.  In FAC, the top guys have dt's on their scale models...no luck there either.

I'm knocked over by the models guys like George are building...keep it up, I say.  Although the bar is high, I have somewhere to aim
Logged
skyraider
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 93
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,309

WWW

Ignore
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2013, 01:27:05 PM »

I think Greg hit it pretty close to the mark and the way I feel.  Its the reason why I don't compete. Its my opinion
that the judging of contest have gone stagnate in recent years. Being on the outside looking in, I can see this and
it hasn't gone unnoticed by modelers.  However, I can see both sides of the fence. Wouldn't it be easier and more
conformable to everyone to have two classes? One class for those who wish to build everything by hand as is the
current status. And the second class to use modern tech's such as CAD, 3D, 3D printing, ect.....
Wouldn't that be fair enough to all parties?

Those of us who do CAD or work with 3D & 3D printers put in the same amount of time ( more or less ) as those
who don't. Its not really a matter of who can afford the software. There are a number of free programs on the web
that are user friendly. Some of us have had CAD training either in schools or work places and then there are those
of us like me who have learned on their own.

For me personally, I respect all builders and admire all the great things they have done for the community. I think
if we all came together and worked out the bugs on this issue and made it public we would have more involvement
in our hobby. Just my opinion.

Skyraider
Logged
Russ Lister
Free Flight Modeller .... sub 250g!
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 73
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,414


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2013, 07:15:57 PM »


This is a real tricky one!  Needless to say I won't be using a 3D printer, unless of course PC world start selling them for £29.99.....


Not quite that low, but getting there!

http://www.maplin.co.uk/3d-printer
Logged
Greg Langelius
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 596




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: July 29, 2013, 07:16:58 AM »

I cam see both sides of the fence, too; and I have made a conscious choice about which side I want to be on. But I'd rather build a gate.

Greg
Logged

New knowledge is found by re-examining old assumptions.
flying minkey
Copper Member
**

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5



Ignore
« Reply #49 on: February 23, 2014, 12:50:05 PM »

I'm a newbie (back after a 50yr hiatus).Don't know if this is the correct thread. I need help with water slide decals. I use ironed,preshrunk esaki tissue with 2 coats of 50/50 dope. I sand the area for the decal to break the glaze, and have tried setting and solvent solutions. They look good when done, but the next morning are falling off. Can someone help or direct me to heip. I am old and not very tech savvy. I got to here by entering "water slide decals" in the search box. I'm sure this subject has been broached before, I just can't find it. Thanx for any help offered.
George
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!