CCClarke

This is her in her second Ocean Engineering revision on the day she arrived for her homeport change from Mare Island to Bangor, WA in Nov '94. I rode her in when this picture was taken. As you can see, the hull is covered in SHT, (anechoic tiles) which ought make 3D modeling fun. The extra lengthening of the hull required larger fairwater planes for better depth control, so a pair of Los Angeles class planes were installed, higher on the sail.

Just checked their website and it says the veteran's $20 fee is not renewable. The license period is a one-time deal for one year. CC

Final set of 3D model renders in submerged configuration with all masts and antennas lowered. And it's on to the next project!

I use Phrozen ABS-like resin (compatible w/8k) exclusively. It flexes without shattering and handles reasonable (110 direct sun in AZ for hours) heat without warping. Highly recommended.

Added another set of US SSN submarine masts and antennas. They are paired in their relative positions, with one slot for future growth available. The radar and snorkel at each end are located by themselves, fore and aft on the sail. These print out nicely in 1/72 scale and larger. CC

If you like that, consider: Command Modern Air/Naval Operations: Fully immersive, excellent graphics, with customizable, real-world scenarios and weapons.

This guide might be of interest to anyone painting WWII U-boats. CC https://www.u-556.de/images/pdf/uboat_colours.pdf

Just found this site hidden in a folder. When manually orienting a print, the first question that comes to mind is, what angle is best? I often opt for 30/30 (pitch and roll) but sometimes it isn't suitable because the part is too large and those angles would have it extend beyond the build plate. Here's one way to determine the best print angle for a resin printer that might be of help: Angle calculator for smooth surfaces in resin printing – RC87

Since the OP is using resin printing, I'm trying to avoid discussing FDM printing in detail, but comparisons are useful for anyone on the fence regarding which technology is best for their needs. I've attached a few shots for comparison for the same shapes but with differing numbers of sides to illustrate polygon faceting. Each set shows the mesh on the surface and the surface without the mesh. (Multiple display modes are essential to object modeling. I hope the all-quad polys in the examples are large enough to show the differences. The sphere on the left has 24 sides with 12 segments. The one on the right is doubled with 48 sides and 24 segments. If you look at the edges closely, you can see the faceted surface more pronounced on the sphere on the left. The cylinders have 24, 48, and 180 sides from left to right. Increased geometry creates a smoother surface. At some point, adding additional geometry becomes overkill. If you print tiny parts, you can get away with less geometry, but large parts will show the difference clearly. It all depends on what look you need based on the part being printed - unless you're a masochist that enjoys sanding. All STL (and OBJ) files are triangle-based, meaning a four-point polygon is halved diagonally. Th eg-code printers use is triangle-based. Triangles also eliminate non-planar polygons, since a triangle can't be "bent" no matter how the three points are connected. Non-planar polygons don't render properly, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. When modeling, I always use quads, (four-point polygons) and they're automatically converted to tris, (three-point polygons) if the file is exported as an STL or OBJ. If I need to reverse-engineer an OBJ file, the triangles must be combined into quads for ease of mesh manipulation.

A higher poly count can bog some computers down during the modeling phase, but I have never experienced detrimental effects on the slicer's performance. Look at models on ThingVerse and note how faceted many are because the modeler didn't add enough geometry. There's a noticeable difference between a 48-sided cylinder and one with 360 sides as far as smoothness/finish. It's a common mistake that can ruin an otherwise nice effort. Orientation angle depends a lot on the geometry of the object being printed. If designed well, I can print hull sections vertically without a problem and all support attachment points remain hidden, cutting laborious post-support removal cosmetic restoration for a smooth finish. For smaller, organically-shaped parts, I'll start with auto-orientation before adding additional supports manually. Optimal printing results are a combination of experience and a well-designed part. Mistakes are part of the learning process if they aren't repeated. Keeping a Print Log adjacent to the printer for every print has been invaluable, allowing me to track how many hours I have on the printer's screen, maintenance and record problems and solutions. I've added a handy guide I hope will illustrate my post more clearly. CC Proper Part Orientation.pdf

I'll show you my two go-to tools I reach for often when post-processing parts after cleaning and support removal, which begs the question: Is your friend the printer giving you completed/cured parts with or without supports removed? But first, The Why Most 3D prints will have tiny pock marks where the supports contact the part. It takes a little practice, but with experience, you can manually place the supports in areas that any leftover support blemishes aren't visible. This is a good reason why the (vertical) orientation of the stern in the last shot above prints so cleanly. Most of the support structure is located inside. Even though I usually use the Automatic Orientation and Support functions in Chitubox Pro, I still add a few where I think they'll improve the part quality. Just for educational purposes to illustrate the differences between vertical and auto part orientation, I've included one sliced vertically-oriented Stern, and two shots of the stern from different angles after slicing in Auto Orientation mode. The print time differences aren't too drastic, (displayed on the left side of the slicer screen) but the number of supports contacting the exterior is. Which one would you rather touch up after the supports are removed? To fill the tiny pock marks, I apply resin to the area, smooth it with a cotton swab, feathering the edges and use a UV curing wand to cure the area. Another swab dipped in IPA, followed by a couple of swabs dipped in water get the surface ready for sanding. I've found this reciprocating sander from DSPIAE to be invaluable to reach places my other sanding tools can't and it quickly smooths the surface. There's a tip for every occasion supplied along with a few sheets of pre-cut adhesive-backed sanding paper. The Phrozen Cure Beam UV wand (a pair are supplied) is the perfect way to cure resin after applying it to the hull for support contact repairs, interior spaces that a standard cure station can't illuminate properly, or bonding parts and filling the leftover seams after filling them with resin. These have saved me hours of re-work and I highly recommend them. Both are available on Amazon. CC

Lots of good information here. I'll try to add a little more. Since you aren't doing the printing, I won't get too technical. These are requirements before starting any resin print: 1. The printer build plate is level/calibrated. 2. Slicer settings are calibrated for the resin being used. 3. Printing is performed in a temperature-controlled environment. Your first picture speaks volumes. Most parts, (especially long, thin ones) are tough to reliably print parallel to the build plate, (no matter how well supported) without problems, though there are exceptions. Parts need to be angled -or vertical, depending on the design when hanging from the build plate. All of the "Pro" slicers, (usually an upgrade from the vendor's free version) include auto-orientation. In most cases, the slicer-determined part angle is adequate, but it depends on the design of the part. You can print parts vertically, (suspended from the raft by supports) if they follow certain design guidelines. A part with gentle contours is ideal. Any overhangs parallel to the build plate require supports, but orientation is an important consideration for best results. The first two pictures I've attached illustrate this point, with two types of orientations, (Parallel to the build plate and angled) based on the part's geometry depicted. The torpedo afterbodies are vertically printed, with supports under the mid-point where the forebody will be bonded. Since its a flat surface, and subject to micro-sagging, a little sanding will quickly remove any support artifacts. FYI: The control surfaces are oversized-since these are meant to be handled by young students as part of a STEM outreach program I'm involved with. Magnets are bonded inside the body in the two places the torpedo contacts the stand, (also containing magnets) allowing the model to be removed and passed around. The slope of the top section flares away from the main body gently, requiring minimal support structure. A (unseen in the shots) hole inside the torpedo propeller shroud where the propellers live also serves to prevent suction forces from deforming the part during the build plate lift cycle. The supports that run parallel to the body are latticed, meaning the supports brace one another, minimizing the chance of a support failure that would lead to deformation of the area they're supposed to be supporting on the model. Layer lines are minimal, and the supports are easy to remove. Note the rafts on the build plate. These use less resin than a full raft and make it easier to remove the parts, minimizing breakage. Note the (3) torpedo mounts are angled. (Each torpedo requires two.) This ensures the mount's flat faces remain flat. I could have angled the torpedoes, but there would be many more support artifacts on the model that have to be filled and sanded afterwards. I'd rather wait longer for a vertically oriented print, (more layers than if it were at an angle = longer print time) than fill support pock marks with resin manually, then cure and sand. (I'm lazy that way.) The 4th and 5th pictures below illustrate thin, round part orientation for submarine sail handrails. Angled "skate" style rafts are used to minimize breaking during removal from the build plate. The part orientation works with the curve of the handrails, so they are built-up gradually while printing. -Notice the supports where they attach to the rails. Most are interlocked and all feature pointed tips where they contact the part. The four upper and lower rudders have a 3mm hole for a brass shaft. See how the holes gently slope upwards at the bottoms and then curve upwards at the top? No supports are needed, and the holes have perfect geometry and more importantly, dimensional tolerance, which is press-fit. Even the bridge compass, (the two smallest parts) have tiny handles about .1 mm thick. Properly angled, these print perfectly. Modeling: You said you're using a Sub-D modeling app. Are you "freezing" the sub-D polys with a high enough sub-division level before saving the file? Higher levels minimize faceting insuring the best possible surface finish. A lot of designers mistakenly believe a slicer will make the model's geometry smooth. Slicers can add vent holes but cannot change the model outward appearance otherwise. As mentioned, sacrificial stand-offs can be used for certain parts but require removal/re-finishing post-print. The 6th picture shows an example, with the sacrificial supports highlighted in orange. The last picture shows how I set it up for printing in the slicer - I added supports to the lower sacrificial supports, but the uppers were left alone. The lowers would probably print fine without supports, but why take a chance on a long print? The stern of the VA class submarine is printed vertically. The hull slopes inward, supporting the previous printed layer without supports. The stern planes, dihedrals, and shroud stand-offs all use sacrificial supports modeled into the stern. These angle outwards, supporting the outward angled parts of the stern and get cut out after curing, without the need for standard supports. You want to model them very thin and/or add a slight beveled inset where they meet the hull for easier removal. Properly removed, a little sanding erases any hint they ever existed. Modeling error-detection/correction: You already know what a PITA this can be to properly correct. Occasionally, errors are detected by the slicer when the part is imported. Most of the Pro-version slicers are able to eliminate most problems, but I try to correct them in the modeling phase before exporting as an OBJ/STL. If you have a feature in your modeling program that allows you to merge nearly coincident points in the mesh that's a plus. Merging points can create 2-point polys, which will be identified by the slicer as non-manifold polygons. Those have to be found and removed as well. I'll stop here. If you have any specific questions related to printing that I haven't answered clearly enough, feel free to ask questions and I'll try to do better. CC

Round-nose pliers as stated, come in multiple diameters. Their chief use has been in the electronics industry for decades to form wires prior to attaching them to terminals and posts. I attended a very tough NASA-level electronic repair course once where any marks left on the conductors resulted in a failed inspection. We placed Kapton tape on the ends to prevent any noticeable conductor deformation. I continue to use these for my ship-building, and still wrap the ends. Precision flat nose pliers are also very useful. CC

Old thread, but nice to see, since I specialize in designing and 3D printing (resin) of US Nukes. Attached are a couple of shots of my latest work for a museum project; (a Sturgeon-class boat as well): USS Parche as she appeared in the early 80's in 1/72 scale. Since the latter version of the ship, (extensively modified again in the early 90's) has a 100' extension forward of the sail, I'll re-use the aft portion, (minus the DSRV Simulator atop the aft escape trunk) and re-model the forward half of the boat. After weathering the lower hull, the sail and DSRV sim will be bonded to the hull and made ready to be mounted on 90 keel blocks, bonded to a base painted to resemble a concrete drydock basin. I also included a render of the 3D model in the wild.

I use photos to build 3D objects when detailed plans aren't available. The process isn't simple or fast, but it's possible if you have the modeling experience. When I think I'm close, I place the photo in the background and rotate the model to approximate the photo, then change anything that doesn't match up. These are relatively simple models, which helps.