Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

MoFo

Members
  • Content Count

    3,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MoFo

  1. Yep, that's the pic. Thanks. Ballast it is.
  2. 1:1. Figured a full sized round would make a cool display piece behind an A-10 model. Problem is, the references that turn up when searching for the rounds are largely the same blurry cutaway shots from some brochure, which aren't really clear, and are kind of contradictory. In some, it's depicted as extruded pellets; in others it's more like a spherical granule. The latter should be pretty straightforward - use some model railroad ballast - but the former probably means cutting hundreds of tiny lengths of plastic rod, so it's kind of my last resort.
  3. They're also not always (ahem) original. I know at least one decal manufacturer who was blindsided when the artwork they had bought from Jennings suddenly appeared in a Fundekals package. John, do you happen to have any good references on the RWR? If I can convince an aftermarket manufacturer to do a set of wheels, it might make an easy add-on to the set.
  4. I'm working on a cutaway of the GAU-8's ammunition (see: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2315826 ) and I'd like to add something to depict the propellant, but I'm finding mixed messages as to what it looks like. Some seem to suggest compressed pellets, others look more like granules. Any guidance as to what it should look like? Or even better, is there a similar-looking modelling material I could use? (and thank you Craig Sargent for making me look up the model in the first place! )
  5. I've printed them in both HIPS and PLA. HIPS is pretty much standard modelling styrene, so it handles the same way, and it's more temperature resistant and holds up to handling better, but the prints aren't quite as strong (the layers don't stick as well) and details on the base aren't as sharp, since it can't be cooled while printing (or else it warps). PLA is easier to print and prints cleaner (it can be heavily cooled while printing, for crisper detail), but it starts to deform at 60`C and it's a little brittle so it can crack if it gets dropped. PLA is mostly impervious to solvent glues (apparently it melts with chloroform), but it glues nicely with CA and epoxy. Standard putties, paints and primers work fine with either material, but I've taken to giving prints a coat of the UV resin from the Photon, as it goes on thin, self levels, cures instantly on UV exposure, and sands really, really nicely.
  6. Ron McGovney's '82 Garage Demo, apparently.
  7. Resin is printed with an Anycubic Photon. The FDM prints are done on a CR-10. The smoothness is a combination of low layer heights (.08mm, IIRC) and being run in vase mode, so it's one continuous spiral. It still needs a decent coat of filler primer to smooth out the layer lines, but yes, it's pretty good as-is. The pathways are already printed. I *have* printed the mast as well, but because of its geometry, it's prone to warping, so I'm not really happy with it. Have to figure out another solution for it. Maybe bump up the thickness a bit and try it on the FDM printer... Orange, actually. Which looks *exactly* like the processed cheese sauce from Kraft Dinner. 🤮 Though I might re-print the fuselage in clear, to give a sense of translucence to the windows. No Z-wobble. I'm running the printer with anti-aliasing, so I'm pretty sure the surface on the jack stands is a product of that, plus the pixel-stepping from the shallow angles. Instead of having a hard step between each pixel, it has a softer break, which looks a little like wobble. You can see that the other parts, like the exhausts, don't suffer the same effect.
  8. My first print was the shuttle. Actually, it was mostly 'just because I can' that I upscaled the model to 1/144 and ran a print. (all parts are straight off the printers, BTW. No sanding or smoothing) I did two versions of the 3rd stage booster. The first was a simple version like the original kit; the second is more 'accurate' to the actual models and illustrations in the Disney film. Later, I realized the Glencoe tail was wrong (per the film), so it was revised to add dihedral: Quick test fit: The booster is FDM printed, as mentioned previously, since it's a simple shape without a lot of details. It wouldn't really work for the shuttle, wings or detail parts, but for the large, basically smooth rocket body, it's fine: Wings added (these are a rough test print, hence the wonky shape where they meet the rocket): The rocket is hollow, so it gets a blanking plate laid out to fit all 29(!) boosters. Again, the plate is a simple shape, so it gets FDM printed (a light coat of filler will eliminate the print lines); the boosters are finer and more detailed, so they're resin: The boosters press-fit to the plate and the plate press-fits to the rocket: Next are the support jacks to hold the whole rocket off the launch pad. These had to be beefed up slightly as it's obviously heavier in 1/144 scale, and the resin isn't quite as rigid. I didn't want anything to sag or deform. The wings just slot in for a nice, snug fit: On to the launchpad. This is just a smooth part in the Glencoe kit, but I added framework around the edges to match Disney's original. And even though the jacks pretty much auto-locate, the base has the jack locations marked off for easier assembly: Quick test fit without any glue. It's tall. Very tall: In fact, with the shuttle on, it's TOO tall for my photo tent. About 20" tall for the full stack. (as an added bonus: you can see the gear wells on the wings in this shot. I've done two versions of the shuttle - both gear up and gear down) The mast will add a bit more height, but I'm struggling to figure out the best way to reproduce it. It's a tall, skinny part, so warpage is an issue with resin.
  9. I remember when people were complaining about the kit being constantly delayed and that it was never going to come out and how much they desperately wanted it. Sigh. Time flies.
  10. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2019/06/29/wee-the-north-the-obsessive-dreamers-behind-a-17-million-miniature-model-of-canada.html Saw this in my news feed this morning and thought some ARCers might be interested. A slightly different variety of scale modelling - someone is building a miniature world version of Canada, in the vein of Miniatur Wonderland and Gulliver's Gate. Looks pretty cool.
  11. Got distracted while cleaning my hobby space, decided I could do it bigger and better than the Glencoe kit, so spent a bit of time in SW designing a 1/144 kit. The shuttle and detail parts will be printed in resin; the rocket and base are FDM printed since they're large, simple shapes. If there's interest, I'll post pics of the prints and a test-fit when it's ready.
  12. Funny how the people who complain the most about how long and stupid this thread is are the ones who post all the off-topic crap.
  13. https://www.ponoko.com/photo-etching/metal And many more: https://www.google.com/search?ei=b7MLXeS8LeHh8APjoZzwAg&q=custom+photo+etch&oq=custom+photo+etch
  14. Title says it all, really. I've heard pros and cons for both. Is there a consensus as to which is the better kit?
  15. If you have something to say, say it. Stop linking to your blog.
  16. Except that, given the shared ownership of Lucky Model and Kinetic... it does. (j/k. it's a fair point) Interesting that they're not showing the wings or fuselage, let alone actual plastic, for a kit that's due within a month. In fact, they *seem* to have censored out the wing or pylon by the drop tank. Looks like they're moulding the nose gear doors in with the gear well sidewalls. I can see that as being divisive (it'll be easier to build and stronger, but makes painting a little more difficult) From the canopy locks and ring sticking out under the canopy, looks like it will come with PE in the box. ...and, knowing the previous tensions between AMK and Kinetic/Lucky Model, I wonder if releasing a kit within one month of announcement is an intentional reaction to the F-14 saga. Also, I wonder how many 'but what about muh C-17!!!!!11!!!' comments they're getting in their announcement post.
  17. Are you asking about the two-part polyester fillers (like Bondo), or one-part spot glazing putties, like 3M Acryl Green? If it's the one-part putties, they're functionally the same as standard model putty, so they can be thinned with hardware store lacquer thinner or acetone. If it's two-part polyester filler, apparently you can use acetone to thin them, though I'd be very careful and experiment first, as it would be easy to throw the chemistry way off. Also, I'm not sure I'd want to use it on standard polyurethane model resin, as it tends to cure quite hard, so you could have problems sanding the filler out.
  18. Yup. If you set it to 1s, the printer will take 6.5s. But the time in your slicer will be wrong. If you set it to 6.5s, the printer will take 6.5s. But the print time in your slicer will be pretty much exactly right. Which is handy for knowing how long you have left in your print.
  19. You've got that backwards. It would be throwing good money after bad to spend more money on upgrades for the old kit, rather than simply cutting your losses and buying the new, better kit. Hence the sunk cost fallacy - I've sunk so much money/time/thought into this project that I have to keep going with it, even though objectively I'd be much better off if I just moved on.
  20. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/
  21. Interesting. I've read a few comments saying the grey is tricky, which is weird, since their other opaques don't seem to be anywhere near as problematic - I've almost finished a litre of blue, and I've just been using the same settings as I did with clear green; I don't think I've had a single failed print. With this bottle almost finished though, I'm on the lookout for alternatives. Oh, and one thing to note with your settings... you should change the off time to 6.5 seconds. That's the actual minimum time it takes to raise and lower the build platform - even with it set at 1 second by default, it still takes 6.5 seconds to raise and lower - so using that value won't change your actual print time at all, but it will make the estimated print time in the slicer more accurate.
×
×
  • Create New...