Jump to content

MoFo

Members
  • Content Count

    3,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MoFo

  • Rank
    Arise... again.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canadark

Recent Profile Visitors

19,399 profile views
  1. Kind of a big topic... what do you want to know? A few TL;DR points... You won't get much modelling use out of a printer unless you can design your own parts. For miniatures, there are lots of files online (the 3d printing world is lousy with warhammer people...) For detail parts and figures, you'll want a resin printer, not an FDM one. Most resin printers use identical basic components, so brand isn't super important; size and resolution are. Resin printing and cleanup are kinda smelly - probably on par with airbrushing overall, but the printer runs for
  2. BigClive had a ton of great videos. What etchant did you use?
  3. Looking to try a bit of DIY etching, and I'm wondering if anyone has any comments regarding ferric chloride vs ammonium persulphate (or other etching solutions) for modelling purposes. All the results I'm seeing are for etching copper PCBs, which is pretty different from what modellers need. Also, any experience with laser printed masks vs. inkjet printed ones? It looks like the inkjet printer transparencies are often a milky white, which I'd think might inhibit exposing the resist. On the plus side, there's less chance of them melting inside my printer if I get the settings wro
  4. * Long nose, short gun. πŸ˜‰ Has anyone ordered the FM weapons set? I'm wondering how it compares with Hasegawa's JASDF weapons set - I was disappointed in the F-14 missiles.
  5. Wonder what they mean by 'overseas F'? Unless they mean making accurate versions for all the different users of the E, and that it'd be too much much work doing, say, an Australian-specific release... but there isn't that much to change.
  6. The nose in the Academy kit isn't the problem, the entire fuselage is wrong. So, that, for one. Also better/sharper/more detail.
  7. My only question is, are there any plans to do a J-15? I have zero interest in building a Russian jet, and particularly not one from Syria. A PLAN build would be cool, though. You don't see enough Chinese subjects built.
  8. Kinda tempted to suggest that they're the standard F-16 style fuel tanks. I mean, if you're going to misread/not read the question, you might as well give a REALLY useless answer. πŸ˜„
  9. That's really not the same thing, and you know it, Gabor. There's a huge difference between print lines that are only noticeable under magnification and something that's supposed to be round being visibly polygonal. Between needing to give a missile a coat of primer and needing to file all of the flat spots on the exhaust into round. You're pulling the same logical fallacy that you hate so much: who cares if something is clearly inaccurate, because no kit is ever 100% correct. Eduard's problem is a minor annoyance; Sio's is a major goof. More to the point, they're actually not
  10. Those parts look... terrible. Wheels are supposed to be round, not covered in flat spots. I really hope those aren't the finished, for-sale bits, because they desperately need to save and print their files at a higher resolution. It's a really simple fix, and would get rid of the ludicrous facets on the wheels and exhausts (and everything else, but those are the most egregious), but this kind of strikes me as a really rookie mistake, which is worrying for scaling to mass production. Basically, when you save a 3D file for printing, it converts the raw, mathematecal data into a se
  11. You won't need Fusion to re-scale the files; you would do that through your slicer software (the software that convers the STL file into the actual file format for the printer). This can be done with any STL file. It doesn't have to be designed it. However, you are directly scaling the part, so everything remains proportional - thicknesses, details, tolerances, everything - so what is a 1mm thick part in 1/48 would be a .3mm thick part in 1/144, and what is a .2mm wide panel line in 1/144 would be .9mm wide in 1/32. Scaling up, the fit will become sloppier as the tolerances increase; scali
  12. So, the 'for real' electronics, now, starting with the spotlight, 'cause it looks cool. πŸ™‚ I've seen diagrams that show a simple, single spot style, and some that are more like an 'array'. Not sure which one I'll end up using in the end, but I'm thoroughly pleased with how the array style turned out - the LEDs are all a nice, snug fit inside, all angled and aimed at the same point: So the heart of the electronics is a chunk of protoboard PCB, which I've built the circuits off of for strength and stability - it's basically your standard fibreglass circuit board material,
  13. Spurred in part by the LED thread elsewhere, I figured I should post an update (though it feels like screaming into the void...). I've been picking away at this, slowly but surely. Last summer was spent on the electronics - apparently it's not enough of a challenge to design an build a 6' long model kit, I also had to add lights, sound and motion. I believe they call that 'mission creep'. 😞 So... a basic schematic of the electronics inside. And focusing on the lights and motors. It's been simplified to not show every single
  14. Yes, but it's not a KH kit. It's Kinetic. πŸ™ƒ Sure it's a bummer they're not there, but it's a long way from arguing about the pooched F-16 nose, or awful buildability of the Prowlers. If that's the biggest issue with the Pucara, it's probably worth taking a deep breath to appreciate how far they've come before voicing the complaint. On the plus side, Kinetic tend to do subsequent releases, and this is an easy fix, so if they're aware that modellers want instrument decals in the kit, hopefully the next Pucara variant (Falklands war? Special markings?) will include t
×
×
  • Create New...