Jump to content

MoFo

Members
  • Content Count

    3,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MoFo

  • Rank
    Arise... again.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canadark

Recent Profile Visitors

20,966 profile views
  1. https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1118174489131532289 https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1021607182213767168 https://xueqiu.com/7956505474/195521830 https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/china-defense-close
  2. Anybody have any idea about the relative reputations of the drawings from Aviation & Time vs DM(? the 1/35 drawings by Malkov)? I'm finding serious discrepancies between the two sets of drawings. Of course, there are also minor discrepancies between the different drawings from Aviation & Time, so I'm not really sure which to trust...
  3. Googling 'airbrush patent 1908' shows the patent belongs to Paashe, along with a few useful pages. https://www.airbrushmuseum.com/airbrush_patents_14.5.htm https://www.airbrushmuseum.com/airbrush_lit_1915_paasche_cat_index.htm I'd guess it's a Paasche H, based on the 'H' on the body.
  4. You could reach out to the person who printed the model in the OP. It wouldn't be hard to re-scale the larger prints.
  5. To be fair to the builder, the instructions probably weren't ready when they had to build the display model. And they probably had a very short amount of time to build the model/s (it wouldn't surprise me if they had a few models to build in, like, a day), so no time for research. And as you suggested, they're just a worker, doing a job, building everything from Sopwith Camels to submarines, so they can't be expected to know the arcane details of every kit they have to slam together and photograph.
  6. Well it might be coming back: https://www.pink-unicorn.tv/jpsmodell-de In the mean time, this Flickr stream popped up in a Google search. Not sure if it's everything, but there are a lot of profiles. https://www.flickr.com/photos/70058423@N07/35860014711/in/photostream/
  7. Could be worse: https://jalopnik.com/europe-funds-nuclear-rocket-research-deep-space-travel-1850405252
  8. No, not at all. Apart from the obvious pylon/cockpit differences, there are a few panel line subtleties around the engine humps between the fighter and strike Eagles. There is zero reason to split it that way for the A/B/C/D - they're all the same. The only reason for that specific breakdown is that they're at least considering a Strike Eagle.
  9. The only reason for that unusual rear fuselage breakdown is to allow them to do an accurate Strike Eagle rear fuselage. Interesting.
  10. I mean, he uses the scan to completely re-draft the part in CAD, because it's not even remotely useable for production purposes, but other than that, sure, it's great. My point being, if it's so bad at recreating such fundamental geometric shapes as "circle", "flat" and "parallel", then don't expect to be able to just scan and print kit parts. The technology, while it has its uses, just isn't there yet. As for the Solidworks vs Fusion 360 debate... Solidworks now offer a hobbyist license for $90/year. https://discover.solidworks.com/3dexperience-solidworks-mak
  11. Note, though, that the scan... sucks. None of the holes are round, smooth surfaces aren't, and the raw scan data is basically unusable - he's just using it for gross measurements to completely rebuild the part in CAD.
  12. Short answer: yes, we are light years from that. Again, there is no magic button that turns an idea into a physical object. If you want to 3D print for scale models, you need to learn CAD, or digital sculpting. There aren't. Again, if you want to 3D print for scale models, you need to learn CAD, or digital sculpting. And that's really unlikely to change; after all, it hasn't changed for decals or masks, even though between printers, plotters and laser cutters, you can pretty much reproduce those at home. Because it takes time, experience and expertise to create quali
×
×
  • Create New...