Jump to content

Alvaro Rodriguez

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Alvaro Rodriguez's Achievements


Newbie (1/9)



  1. I´m with you here @Eivind Lunde and I also believe in the power of the communities and freesharing. We all are well aware how that works successfully for many other areas that I see no reason we modellers could do the same soon. Once more, I also have zero complaints regarding those wanting to have some (well deserved) return for their hard work. Internet is such a big place that there is room for everyone... including the bad guys wanting to take advantage of your hard work. BTW on a side note I had been contributing to some mods development in Nexus some time ago and I have to say that was a lot of fun but that required countless hours of hard work. Again, zero regrets actually. The fact that thousands of users could enjoy such collaborative work (for free) made it a truly rewarding experience. Regards! Alvaro
  2. BTW, Anycubic also has a new model in the works, the Photon Ultra. No further details yet but that they are switching from LCD to DLP (the same system you may find in Wanhao printers in example). I have no idea if there is any afordable DLP projector delivering true 4K resolution so we will have to wait and see for knowing the actual specs.
  3. Elegoo will be entering into the small factor 4K printers arena with their Mars 3. No ETA yet. Knowing the supply issues Eleggo has with their Saturn I would not hold my breath for having these M3 available anytime soon but it´s good to know that now that the trend is bigger is better that there are other manufacturers interested in releasing small factor printers with higher resolutions. The more the merrier always. Exciting times indeed! Regards! Alvaro
  4. Ops, I hope it´s evident but I forgot to say that I deleted on purpose all the dimensions and constrains in the sketches just for having cleaner images! Regards! Alvaro
  5. Mike, that bowser is a candy! Excellent! There you go a SBS. You may see that I´ll be working with a half tyre and an elemental tread for simplicity. Notice also this is the workflow that Tony explained in his earlier reply. Here we got the tyre cross section. Using revolve we create to different bodies. One for the tyre body. And another for the running band So simple: The resulting body is as follows: And now the running band simple enough! Using the previous bodies we have the (half) solid tyre But we want to mantain them as individual bodies for now because what we are going to cut is the running band only. We create a construction plane on top of the tyre. and then we create a sketch for the tyre tread using that new plane. As you may already suspect, now we can cut the running band with the tyre tread using extrude. And with the help of a circular pattern we can copy the cutout faces as required. The resulting running band is as follows And if we now add the tyre body, we are done. But let´s take a closer look at how the treads are now in the sidewalls, something may look off depending on the tyre you are designing but in most tyres the raised tread uses to be squared and not angled like this. There is a simple trick just adding a taper angle when using extrude for cutting. See how the sidewall looks now. And this is the final product. These simple steps will help you to do a ton of different tyres, no matter how much complex the tyre tread may look. It´s just a matter of iterating until you have the desired result. As you may see, in this sample we have keept the required steps to a minimun but you can introduce any changes based on your preferences. In example, you may want to generate a true body for the tread and use the splitting tool for making the cut. If that´s the case, you can also use the draft tool instead of the taper angle in the extrude. There are plenty of paths and options here so adopt what´s best for you always. Regards! Alvaro
  6. Just for the record, I also use design in scale always. While rescaling a 1:1 desing to any given scale is not an issue for the software, this is misleading because rescaling from 1:1 can lead to actual printing issues often so that´s not how this works. The problem here is that you can reach printing constrains and the model cannot be printed safely. Details (no matter in positive or negative spaces, like a rivet, a plate or a groove) can be too small, thin or fragile to be printed. So there are some minimun dimensions we should not go below for ensuring our model is printable. Those minimun dimensions will depend not only on if the print is robust enough but on the printer acurracy too. Fact is that this is not unique to 3D printing but to any other manufacturing process applied to scale modelling but we use to think that these tiny -and basic and cheap!- miracle machines have no limits many often ! Regards! Alvaro
  7. On the resin cleaning topic, note denatured alcohol -that uses to be ethanol- works flawlessly with most of the resins out there (not saying that´s the recommended choice by some resin manufacturers actually). No matter it had a low percentage of other ingredients -like IPA or even MEK-, uses to have zero adverse effect on the prints, quite the oposite. Another option is acetone. Far more aggresive but works like a charm. Just ensure you to do not let you part into the acetone bath for too long. But that´s not a problem because the cleaning is much faster. No matter the medium, a two baths cleaning uses to be the best, easiest and safest path for those without a curing station. That ensures the most of the uncured resin goes away with the first bath and the part comes pristine from the second. You can use acetone for the first and IPA or ethanol for the second (or both). Regards! Alvaro
  8. If you are thinking in testing these resin 3D printing waters on a budget I concur with the previous comments and the contenders in the small factor arena are the Anycubic Photon Mono (and not the SE) and the Elegoo Mars 2 (and not the 2 Pro). I want to remark the low cost factor because for anyone wanting to discover how this tech works that seems to me the smartest path for gaining some first hand experience with this amazing tech without breaking the bank. Both feature all the "must have" ticks in the checkboxes you may need. Rather capable 6" 2K monochrome display delivering very sharp and precise prints, linear rail and a good UV lamp (led array in the case of the AC Mono and a fantastic COB led in the Elegoo Mars 2). And both are really simple to operate. AC Photon Mono is, in my honest opinion, the queen of the entry level mono printers with a hard to beat value for the money. Note this comment is based on AC uses to run special sales in their Aliexpress official store almost every month. Past days this printer was available at a rather ridiculous price of 164eu, free shipping, and shipped from their european wharehouses (UK, DEU, SP, FR, CZ, PL...). One plus -personal opinion here always- of the AC printer is the almost undestructable four screws levelling system for the buildplate. I find this the best and more secure levelling solution. Another thing I like a lot is that it does not include any cooling fan, and this makes this printer the most silent one out there. On the other hand, and this is something quite relevant for me at least, the big plus of the Elegoo Mars 2 is the core. Unlike the AC machines with their proprietary boards, Elegoo printers use Chitu System boards and that´s why Chitubox is their native slicer. Perfect partners indeed! The UV lamp of the Elegoo Mars 2 and Mars 2 Pro is covered by a single lens delivering the best and most uniform light, far superior to any led array. In this regard, the Mars 2 is one step ahead the rest. Other than than, and in terms of actual printing, the only remarkable difference is that the Z axis is 10mm higher in the AC printer. 160mm for the AC Photon Mono vs 150mm for the Elegoo Mars 2. This makes no difference to me but others opinion may vary, of course. None of those printers include air filtration for the resin fumes. That´s not a concern in my experience and I much prefer to have a printer without air filtration actually. That means one fan less and a more quiet operation always. The price difference between them is not that high so the final decision will be driven by personal preferences mostly. But no matter which one you would chose, you can´t go wrong with any one of those two printers. Of course, there are more small factor printers out there but do not let these two low end, entry level printers mislead you. Both are capable machines and both deliver some good and solid printing. Regards! Alvaro
  9. Mike, if your print is falling off the support trees I would say that the usual suspect here is one of the following: too weak (thin) supports or too few supports... not saying a combination of both. In the slicer, and using the slice selectors, doublecheck how your print is growing. At some point the suction force is strong enough for taking the print off the supports. This uses to be when you got the maximun cross section paralell to the builplate. On a side note, and as I have already said before, while I also love to see those prints "ready to use" off the build plate requiring the minimun supports tress I see that many often thats a common cause of failed prints. And that´s why adding one support more -and removing it later- is not an issue for me. Removing supports from the print should never be an issue for a modeller used to remove kit parts from the sprue trees. Mark, the point of the pedestal is not for making the cleaning easier but for providing a solid base for the part. In fact it is easier to remove supports than to remove the pedestal but the pedestal is far easier to place and use than placing a lot of supports in the lowest part of the tyre for ensuring it will print fine. When you are not in the need of a fully detailled (and printed) running band -that could be the case of a spare wheel often- a custom base is quite handy. And into the wheels topic there you go another sample I´ve been printing past days. These are some wheels big enough for making this approach worthy. Printing the tyres upright provides us a fully detailed running band all around while printing the rims in halves and onto the build plate gives us the sharpest surface detail, a must have when you have tiny nuts and bolts in example. -my apologies for the crappy smartphone pic- The only thing you have to take into consideration here is that you may need to introduce some tolerances in the print for ensuring the wheel can receive the rims but this will depend on the precission of your printer. In this case I had to reduce the diameter of the rims 0.1mm for an almost perfect and very tight fit. Regards! Alvaro
  10. Hi Mike. My printing settings: The normal layer height uses to be that one that matches -more or less- the printer XY pixel size. In the OG Photon I used to work with 0.040mm layer height and in the Photon Mono I´m using 0.050mm AS LONG AS the print does not require to use a thinner layer. If that´s the case I use to work with 0.020 or 0.030mm layers. Regarding the bottom layers, four use to be enough for me, no matter the printer. Regarding the rest of the printing settings -exposures, speeds...- that will depend on your printer and resin setup always. I have no issues in sharing those openly but I also think that what works for you may -or may not- work for me and vice-versa. Then, any shared printing settings must be taken as orientative always and the most reliable way to know the best amd more exact printing settings for your printing setup is running an exposure test. No shortcuts here. Those are rather fast print runs and they provide quite reliable info always. That said, and just for the record, I use 1.6sec exposure for the normal layers and 15s for the bottom ones. My speeds are the quite hight default ones for the Photon Mono -4mm/s lift and 6mm/s retract-, I have adjusted the lift distance to just 4mm lately and I´m currently using a 1sec light off delay too. Supports. Please, note that previous print samples it´s not a matter of scale but a matter of size. smaller objects can be supported using small supports while larger ones may require medium or heavy ones often. I use to work with default supports but adding the ball tip always. And, again, I do not use a fixed size for the ball tips. That will depend on the print and on the available area or surface for placing a support. However, I use to ensure the ball is halfway into the model always and that the tip of the conical section of the support is a tad over the half of the ball size. If I´m using a 0.5mm ball, the tip of the cone should be around 0.3mm in example. Note that here is more a matter of proportions between the ball tip and the tip of conical section than a matter of exact sizes for me at least. My apologies if this explanation is not clear enough. I could take some screenshots of my settings for you to see if that helps. Regards! Alvaro
  11. @FZ6 as you already know better than me, orienting the part and placing the supports it´s a discipline by their own and there is no single solution that fits all the cases. I started printing the wheels flat, supported in the back (the sidewall facing the vehicle and the build plate). While this ensures a perfectly circular shape in the wheel always, that requires a true forest of supports and you may have some washed out surface detail in the supported side. I also took that route due the printer performance. I was using a OG Photon then and this orientation gave me the best detail. BTW, when I use to print wheels -or sprockets or the like- paralell to the build plate I designed custom supports in F360 because that was far easier and faster than placing them manually using the slicer. Latter I switched to a mono printer and I changed the printing orientation. Now I use to print the wheels upright. The mono display delivers sharper and more precise prints so changing the orientation has no adverse effect in the prints. Regarding where to place the supports and how many are required for a successful print, it is a matter or practice and this will depend on the wheel details always. There you go a sample of a 48th scale cross country tire that is a nightmare to support with that tyre tread full of those tiny blocks. I´m pretty sure this could be printed using less supports but I for one thinking that´s better to have one support more than a failed print always. But your deck tractor wheel is a nice one with that tyre pattern so you have a few more options out there that could require to few to no supports at all. You could desing a base for the wheel. Just a small pedestal you can place the wheel onto. And then, in the slicer, place the wheel aligned and add the required supports (if any). There you go a 76th scale wheel sample. Note in the previous sample, the wheel requires no supports at all actually because, like in your desck tractor wheel, the wheel should grow with no issues. But I added those just for ensuring the wheel is well supported when reaching the maximun cross section during the print run. Using this upright orientation, your wheel might -?- require some supports at the lowest point of the center hub for ensuring it is printed with no deformations but, as said, looks to me a charming design to print requiring almost no supports. Regards! Alvaro
  12. @Mark, looking good! And based on your comments looks like you are also following the very same workflow than Tony or me... so looks like we are all in the right path then. I wonder how it will print. Just saying because those tiny hex nuts in the centerhub may have no room enough to be printed and they end melted with the rim but as soon as you printed you will know. The development cycle -from the design to the printed part- uses to require some iterations often so nothing to worry about I would say. @Mike, sure! Just be warned designing wheels and tyres can be adictive and a ton of fun! Regards! Alvaro
  13. Exactly what FZ6 sais. When Autodesk implemented the 10 editable files limit a few months ago I already had more than one hundred F360 designs. I´m well above 140+ now and that measure has had zero impact in my workflow because I do not use to work on more than a couple or so of designs at once often. And switching any design from "read-only" to "editable" (and vice-versa) it just a mouse clic and you can do it anytime as long as you are within the 10 files limit. I can see they implemented this for saving some cloud computing with the free licenses but for a casual user like me this makes no difference at all. Zero complaints. Regards! Alvaro
  14. Oh, Matador wheels! I applaud your good taste sir! Funny enough my first braille scale wheels -I use to design 1/48th AFV bits but I also wanted to discover printing boundaries so I switched to small scale- were the 13.50-20 wheels for the venerable 76th Airfix Matador kit! For the bowser I did not design that specific tyre pattern as per that iconic pic but I went for the Firestones that you may see in other ref pictures often. If these could be of any help for you just let me know! Regards! Alvaro
  15. Hi Mike: Tony´previous post details the workflow I also use for designing tyres often. But, again, and as you already know, F360 always offers different paths for reaching at the same destination… not saying there are countless tyre treads so there is no single solution for every wheel out there. I recall that the first time I had to design a tyre, and as Mark suggests, also I went to YT and up there I found a couple of videos with different samples that led me to the starting point and gave me some useful hints and tools for job. The rest was a question of deciding which route to take for every particular case. As you already know better than me, practice is the key here but no matter how complex a tyre tread may look, you already know that in F360 this will translate into successive single (and simple) steps. BTW, just out of curiosity, may I ask which one is the tyre you are designing? Regards! Alvaro
  • Create New...