Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

MoFo

Members
  • Content Count

    3,494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MoFo

  • Rank
    Arise... again.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canadark

Recent Profile Visitors

18,682 profile views
  1. I'm still working on a thing! 😆 Based on a request, I've been playing around with a few modifications to the fuselage. One is to print it in solid clear, so the windows can be polished/Future-ed out for a proper glazed look, rather than just painting them black. The second is to actually open the windows up, so they can be made from clear acetate or styrene so they're actually see-through. And the last is a cargo version of the rocket with just a simple, ogival, err, rocket... rather than the proper space-plane of the ferry: I kinda prefer the space plane, but it'd make a cool diorama with a couple of cargo rockets nearby. Anyway, onto the pics: The three new fuselages, with a reasonably accurate depiction of the colour. Interestingly, they're 'more clear' before the excess resin is rinsed off - partly that's because the liquid resin fills all the surface imperfections from the individual pixels in the print (sort of like a coat of Future), but they also don't have the yellowish tint before they're rinsed, either. Unfortunately, that coat of liquid resin also fills in the panel line details so it HAS to be rinsed off, but still, kinda weird. The hollow fuselage and cargo pod look worse because they've got this slightly rough surface inside and out, whereas the solid fuselage obviously just has it on the outside. Hence doing the solid fuselage solid rather than hollow, to maximize translucency. Close-up of the 'windows open' fuselage, showing the damaged pillars and stepped window recesses. The shiny surface is a bit of resin that's oozed out from somewhere. I didn't spend a ton of time cleaning this up since it's a failed print anyway, but the frosted interior makes it look pretty rough. Did a very quick polish of a spare fuselage to give a rough feeling for transparency. This was just 5 - 10 minutes with micromesh, just on the top half of the fuselage, with the bottom left untouched (and heavily distorted - it was a failed print). So it's a little scratchy, and a coat of Future would definitely help, but it's remarkably transparent, albeit with that slight tint. Although the tint is 100% accurate for 1950's gold-impregnated Space Glass. 😄 (also, cameo for another 3D printed project that I totally haven't abandoned...) And an un-sanded fuselage next to the (quickly) polished one. Pretty big difference, and it would be even more significant if I'd smoothed out the bottom, too. Note, you can see a faint, sort of woodgrain-like texture on the un-sanded fuselage. These are from the individual pixels on the printer's screen. All the parts have them (you can see them on the cargo pod in the top pic, too), but they're *extremely* fine, so they'll completely disappear under a coat of primer, or with a quick rub with fine grit sandpaper. (interesting aside: I've used anti-aliasing to minimize these lines, which basically blinks adjacent pixels on the screen off and on each layer, to sort of feather out the edges of each pixel. so the steps are, like, .02 mm or .0008" high)
  2. Ditto the stores in Calgary. Where are you located? That would help people guide you towards a source.
  3. That's not really a fair comparison, though. Eduard's regional pricing means that their kits are 50% cheaper in Czech Republic/Slovakia/Poland than they are in the rest of the world. (literally. their MSRP for the MiG-15 is the equivalent of $12 for the 'local' price, $24 for the 'global' price). At Hannants, the Airfix kit falls squarely between the Profipack and Weekend prices for the -15. At Lucky Model, the Airfix kit is cheaper than any of the Eduard -15s. So yeah, the Eduard MiG-15 is cheaper for Czech modellers, because Eduard subsidizes their Czech prices by over-charging modellers everywhere else in the world.
  4. MoFo

    Which Victor?

    The (new) Airfix kit is vastly superior to the Revell kit, which is a re-box of the (old) Matchbox tooling.
  5. MoFo

    Katran model

    He means these. Inserted after the images for 48713/14/15 and 4817. There are some in your first post, too.
  6. Do you mean FDM (spools of plastic filament)? SLA is a resin process (the photon is a form of SLA printer), so I'm a little confused. Anyway, for the Photon, I'd suggest running a test print with .2mm wide/deep panel lines as a starting point (just make a quick, vaguely wing-shaped piece and deboss some random panel-line shapes on it). That should give you some nice, very sharp panel lines about the thickness of a sheet of paper, once you factor in the slight overcure you tend to get with the Photon. If you think they're too fine, you can jump up to .3mm and try that. Since panel lines are kind of a personal preference though, you'll need to dial it in to your own personal tastes. For the Creality printer, assuming it's an FDM (CR-10 or Ender family), my first suggestion would be to NOT add panel lines. The relatively thick nozzle diameters and layer heights mean they don't really turn out well in the first place, and the surface filling and sanding required mean they're easy to obliterate anyway, so I'd save the time in CAD and just scribe them once you've printed the parts. (also, pro-tip: save yourself a ton of time by switching to a .8mm or 1mm nozzle and printing in vase mode rather than standard multi-perimiter + infill. You can print regular bulkheads to add strength - it's what I did for my 1/144 Hindenburg and it saved literally weeks of print time). If you *really* need to do panel lines on your FDM print, it will depend on your print settings. You'll need them to be at least a little thicker than your layer height in the Z-axis, and wider than your nozzle diameter in X/Y. I'd run a test print with .25mm along the X/Y axis (parallel to the bed) and .45mm Z (perpendicular to the bed) dimensions, and tweak settings from there. You'll also need to turn your print speeds way down to minimize ringing from the 'vertical' lines, since they'll be sharp movements for the print head - if you're printing ~80mm/s+ you'll probably lose the panel line detail in the ringing/ghosting; 30 - 40mm/s gives you a better shot at having usable lines. And a last pro-tip: use your Photon resin to fill/sand the FDM prints. It self-levels nicely, sands really easily (especially if you're printing in PLA), and is much, much easier to work with than putty or spray primers. The only real downside is that you're liable to fill in any panel lines you've printed, so again, it's probably faster and easier to just scribe them in to the smoothed print rather than waste time in CAD.
  7. Depends how you're printing them. FDM will need to be bigger than SLS, which should be bigger than MJM or mSLA, which will probably be bigger than a high-end SLA. Part orientation can have an impact, too - horizontal lines on an FDM print can be a lot thinner than vertical ones, due to the way the plastic is extruded. What is it that you're modelling, and how will you be printing it?
  8. 134mm, not including the front lip or exhaust. If you flip the Esci engines 180` and cut them at the panel line right next to the raised squares, you'll be pretty close to the right length and more accurate in shape..
  9. (no idea whether this should be posted here, in GD, the Zactomodels forum or B/S/T...) Looking to unload a 1/32 Zacto Su-27 canopy and nose set, but I have no idea what the going rate is for them (particularly the canopy). Any suggestions?
  10. KA has been around a long time, and it's not their first time working with other manufacturers (they did a bunch of PE and machined parts for Fujimi), so they should have some idea what scaling production entails. Granted, the direct 3D production stuff is relatively new, but still, they're more experienced than most aftermarket manufacturers.
  11. FWIW, they weren't deleted, specifically. There was an error with the board's software and it had to be reset to a version that was saved a couple of days earlier. Everything that was posted from the 28th to the 30th was lost. It sucks, but there really wasn't any other option. So no, your (very valid) complaints weren't targeted by the mods for not being about the plastic.
  12. This is true for every category. IPMS judging is entirely based on craftsmanship, not accuracy, so you don't have to worry about whether you've got the right bomb load for a specific mission, or whether your kit's pitot tube is 1 mm too long, you *only* need to worry about whether your seams are filled and your parts are aligned. The rules are pretty explicit about this. They allow some wiggle room for using accuracy in an extreme, tie-breaking situation, but in practice this would be gross accuracy issues (like entering a pink F-15 with Hornet markings vs. one in normal USAF markings) and basically never happens. Nobody ever enters a perfectly built model, so judging is more about which faults are more severe than which entry is most perfect. http://www.ipmsnationals.com/Documents/2019-FINAL-IPMS-USA-National-Contest-Rules.pdf As for your second question, it depends entirely on the judge. At the Nats level, it should go without saying that the judges will work strictly by the rules. The more local the contest, the more likely you are to find shitty judges. In my experience, bad judges tend to get shifted to the smaller/less popular categories; if you only have a certain number of judges for your contest, you stick the idiots on the kid's table, or humour or something where they hopefully won't embarrass the club too much; meanwhile your good judges get used in the major categories like aircraft and armour, where most of the entries are. All that being said, judges are just random modellers who offer to help out, so mileage will vary widely. There's no actual qualification necessary, so judges may not even know what the rules are, let alone follow them.
×
×
  • Create New...