Egilman

+1

I was given a piece of advice, (and a demonstration of it) back in my tech school days that has always served me well.... My instructor, a retired toolmaker, told me that it isn't the tool that the craftsman uses, it's how he uses it.... Then, he took a 4 inch dia. bar of 4130 and cut a perfect #2 morse taper on it.. The lathe he used was a 150 year old South Bend that was converted from overhead belt drive.... It had 1/8" of lash in the cross slide lead screw.... What he said after the demonstration was it isn't the tool it's the operators knowledge of the tool and his skill in using it... The 3D Printer is a tool, the software is a tool.... WE need to learn how to use them correctly....

Absolutely sir! Cad is cad, just like sculpting is sculpting, but in sculpting, the material your working with can be very different, from solid stone to soft clay so the tools and techniques are different... Cad for machine parts is vastly different than cad for geomapping... They are both cad, but they work with different subjects so have a different workflow and process.... That's exactly the point I'm making, 3D software is 3D software, some of them are optimized for 3D imagery others lean towards the physical cad side... There are quite a few well developed programs for 3d imagery, while software for physical 3D printing design is still working on a way forward.... The main problem is figuring out what works best for you... Eventually as best practices and methods to accomplish a creation develop, they will all start becoming similar, with the same functions and processes like the basic cad and 3D imagery software has become... We aren't there yet....

As far as 3D design software goes I've learned that they are all the same, they all do the same thing, they just do it "differently".... Sufficiently different to make one totally feel and operate like it was from the other side of the planet compared to the next one.... I started with Maya from back when it wasn't owned by Autodesk, found that I couldn't afford it and eventually switched to Blender 1.9... It was a real issue trying to find anything out there for learning it though, everything was run through user groups and forums.... It's much better now along those lines but the learning curve is still like trying to climb an overhanging cliff with out a rope.. {chuckle} Me I'm an drafting dude, engineering type, the artist organic thing just doesn't work for me... So realizing what side of the design spectrum you fall on is the first step.... The software's for 3D also fall into the same spectrum, they are designed to make you inner engineer or inner artist come to the surface.... The one thing I have learned is 3D printing, (software model to print) works best using solid modeling software... The end result from your software has to be a solid object if there is any holes or detached edges or overlapping surfaces it may print but your chance of a print failure rises geometrically the more errors there are in the model.... Currently there is NO software out there specifically designed for 3D printing.... (although they all tout their abilities towards it) The second thing you learn is general 3D modeling and modeling for 3D printing are not the same.... There are necessary mechanics involved in 3D printing that just plain don't matter in general 3D like Animation, Gaming, CGI, Photogrammetry and Photorealistic Rendering... You are creating something that has physical properties like size, mass, volume, weight and other real world issues that the rest of the 3D applications don't need to deal with.... Call it the difference between what a draughtsman and artist does, An artist only needs his minds eye vision and a knowledge of the tools and practiced experience... A draughtsman needs all that plus an understanding of real world items, the materials they are made of and the properties of them in the environment they are going to live for the job they are going to do.... The tools are different to effect the end.... On one side is the artsy world of 3D and on the other is the hard, real world side of 3D.... 3D is mature enough to start showing this issue... But it's not so well developed that there is one go too tool for accomplishing this.... So be prepared to take a second trip down the rabbit hole when you consider software to design 3D objects... 3D printing is a process, one that is in it's infancy still... It is plain that FDM is a tool for actual engineering purposes, Resin printing for the arts and crafts type.. (modelers fall into the arts and crafts genre) In the CGI world, it doesn't matter to the employers what software you know, it's do you understand the process, if you do, you can learn the software the company uses... We are not at this point in 3D printing yet... Especially with resin printing.... Understanding the process is what we are exploring here... When the software thread is posted, I'll be there.... Please pardon this long excursion into the philosophy cum history of 3D... But it is the world we are delving into... EG

That's pretty much been my experience traveling this road as well.... I think the PFTE lube helps and I'm going to go back to Anycubic's setting for the resin.... A little thump is ok a lot of thump is not.... I haven't tried any washable resin yet, but I think, in the long run, a little more cost for the resin will outpace a lot more cost for the IPA on the savings side.... And the Wash & Cure will work with water as well as IPA... Anycubic recently reduced their prices on the Mono X making it comparable to the Elegoo Saturn pricewise... Physically and mechanically there is no difference I can find between the two.... They both do the same thing to the same standards... Still need to get the extra vat and the steel handled screw clamps for mine, but I've decided to pass on the mag plate Currently I'm doing a bit of training in 3D software, cause my experience downloading models and attempting to print them has been less that optimal, besides I intend to go my own way and print what I want, so needing to learn how to create the objects to print becomes a necessity.... I haven't decided yet which software I'm going to settle on, Solidworks, Inventor or Fusion 360.... They all have their advantages and a few disadvantages.... I've found a few outstanding models I'm going to take a shot at printing in the near future, one with over 500 parts! there is some wonderful stuff out there you will never see from a model company.... Keep posting brother... it's the way we learn....

It's really not that bad, the resin under normal light cures very, very slowly... I left some sitting out in a cup for three days in normal room light, no curing evidence at all... (it actually starts getting gummy around five days, direct sunlight would probably cure it faster) The real issue is pigments settling out of the resin and spillage on anything making a mess... With careful handling resin is easy to work with....

#1, not recommended for longer than two days, (according to Anycubic and several other brands) what happens is the resin starts settling out in the vat leaving a residue on the FEP that is difficult to get clean... (like a ultra fine powder suspended in the resin) #2 I have, didn't seem to hurt anything... but refer to #1 above... if your going to gone longer than a day, don't start a print would be my thoughts......

Sometimes brother accuracy is left behind to production... and, Aftermarket PE generally follows the model, not the actual item.... But you are doing a bang up job of it, very impressive just making headway out of the mishmash of conflicting info..... Beautiful work, not just the assembly, the research also as well....

I thought so... That's where the strength comes from.... in airplane engineering it is called semi-monocoque construction where the strength is derived from the skin attached to the formers That as opposed to monocoque construction where all the structural strength is in the skin....

Are they using a one piece wrap for the wing skins or is it cut up in separate pieces?

I'm glad the info helped get you to the good data my friend..... And it's an object lesson in relying on Nasa websites for data... Check your sources.... {chuckle}

That would work.... It's a nice kit too... Mine is the V2 on a Vidalwagen version, but the Strabokran is the same.... They used it a lot for depot level maintenance....

A cut-a-way is the best way, battle destroyed, (turret blown off) can be done very nicely as well but a lot of the detail will still be hidden... A maintenance scene like an engine swap is another... Then there is always do two, a cutaway to display the insides and a normal one for the outside.... Tanks are a toughie for displaying the inside work.....

You mean 40K views right.... It's worth it my friend....

Same here, won a few, lost many..... For me it was too unrealistic.... But then again most capture the flag games don't do a lot for my interests.... (way too boring) Also I'm not into kill until your killed type stuff.... There has to be a clear path to a clear win no matter how difficult it is to get there....

I figured it must have been something like that.... I probably should have sent you a private note, but for some reason the PN system failed to open up for me right at that point... I apologize.

Brother, I'm down/in for this one.... But a point.... Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G/H means Ausfuhrung G/H... Or, (in English) Armored War Vehicle IV Model G/H... I know nit picking...... Sorry Brother....

Not something to rely on Mike... my experience is their estimate could be as much an an ounce off.....

Every kit ever made has one of those moments where we think it is a simple task, two days to a week later, we wonder how we got it done..... Call it character building, the manufacturers, in their zeal make it so easy...... {chuckle} But I see you made it through.... that what we do, solve problems....

It's our pleasure Grant, the interactions in a forum like this is where the art of modeling grows... it takes the place of the old time model shop where the owner has built everything that was ever molded/sold and knew just how to fix it.... I built a coach for a gent who wanted spinable wheels, so superglue was out... in sufficient quantities to hold securely, it freezes everything solid.... My solution was to use a brass collar just large enough to fit over the Britannia axel, had to shave one of the axels flash down to get it to slip over.... At time for assembly, using 5 min epoxy, I slip the wheel over the axel, cut a split washer of wax paper a hair smaller than the collar and place it over the collar against the wheel hub, then a dab of 5 minute into the hole in the wheel side of the collar.... (if you get a bit on the mating surface of the collar, that's what the wax paper is for) slip the collar over the axel, and as the epoxy sets up, spin the wheel... The wax paper ensures that little if any epoxy will get on the hub, and the rough surface of the axle ensures a solid joint.... added bonus you can wipe off any epoxy that comes out the collar hole before it cures..... When it's dry it looks just like a greasy hub nut on the end of an axle.... Perfect turning wheels that will never come off.... If the coach has exposed hub nuts then drill them out rather than use a collar to keep the hex detail.... When it's dry it looks just like a greasy hub nut on the end of an axle....

I wonder how long that is going to last until it gets all scraped up and you wind up having to sand it smooth again... Looks neat though and it's proof positive that they will be releasing the DLP sooner rather than later....

The Germans used EVERYTHING they could lay their hands on off the battlefield.... (but then so did the Russians) The US army was well known for using captured 88's as anti aircraft guns in the place of 90mm's when they had production shortages later in the war.... They had captured over a thousand 88's and a mountain of ammo... They even wrote their own tech and service manuals for them as foreign issue equipment.... (they even had 100's of AA crew prisoners willing to teach) In total war you make use of everything you can no matter where you get it from....

There were several planes they didn't acquire, mostly the late war US navy aircraft, but there is one interesting aircraft they never obtained a copy of good enough to make flyable again... the B-25 Mitchell...... And it flew throughout the war.. At least that is my understanding..... (could be wrong)

It won't Grant, the shafts will snap off.. Been there done that.... The answer is to drill a hole and insert a hard brass rod... I know modelers who didn't even mess with the soft cast axels, the cut them off and go straight to brass or steel rods.. when you screw the nut on it's trying to force form the threads, think for a second, a die will actually be digging in trying to cut the threads, even more torque applied to the axel as the teeth in the die start cutting..... This is the answer if you don't want to mess with switching the axels to rods.... (it's a solution I've used) and you have hubcaps to cover the glue spot.... You'll want to use epoxy for this gluing as well, CA just won't hold....

I hope I wasn't the cause of this.... I'm not a rivet or plank counter by any stretch, modeling is a series of compromises and no one will ever get to perfection, especially me... Nasa 3D itself has four voyager models for download from four different designers... they are all different as well..... I apologize if I caused any misgivings my friend, that was not my intent.... I think whatever you build will be downright gorgeous..... I will follow with great interest, and keep my overrunning fingers (and commentary) to myself.... EG