roma847 Posted October 20, 2018 Author Share Posted October 20, 2018 Hello everybody, after my friend Joe had uploaded the upright-standing Sprocket, to see how the Support wax is distributed at this printing orientation, I have ordered both variants (FUD and FXD). Source: shapeways.com (Crackerjazz) And this is the distribution of the Support Material which shows that the wheel is quite bizarre wrapped in wax, Source: shapeways.com (Crackerjazz) which is why I think that the flat printing orientation might even be more favourable. Source: shapeways.com (Crackerjazz) Since at least the top side does not come in contact with the wax, it would remain smooth, and the rougher underside of the wheels would hardly be visible between the truck chains from the outside anyway. And then I tried the same trick from the Track shoe story again and ordered the sprocket once again in a flat printing orientation come hell or high water, in the hope that this time it might just as well come through the control like the criticized Track Shoe Set in those days, whereby this flat lying sprocket now, strangely enough, is only still offered in FXD. Now I'm curious how the story ends this time, so keep your fingers crossed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 20, 2018 Author Share Posted October 20, 2018 5 hours ago, Kirk said: I think those "why don't you print it?" messages are automatic, Manfred. I uploaded a drawing a couple of weeks ago and received quite a few. Incidentally, had you thought of using anyone other than Shapeways? There's a company based in Germany who I think are cheaper than them and similar quality. I'll dig out a link if this is relevant. Kirk Hi Kirk, sorry that I overlooked you. Do you mean the guys from BUZZ Medialabs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 Hello everyone, but I have at least achieved a partial success, because the upright standing Sprocket variant, which I ordered in FUD and FXD, went through Processing and is meanwhile In Production. Source: shapeways.com The again ordered flat lying variant, however, is still under review (Processing), but still not rejected at least. No matter how, at least that would prove that the Sprocket is printable, so I have an argument in hand to demand the printing of the flat version as well. So far there is also still no explanation why this variant could not be printed at the first attempt. So SW is somehow in a tight spot, let's see how it goes out ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 Hello everybody, this is the reason for SW's rejection what my friend Joe will check now. Source: shapeways.com (Mitchell Jetten) That's strange, because that is the same model as used for the upright standing sprocket, which is in production. Why can this be produced and the flat lying sprocket not? That is a contradiction, which SW should explain, whereupon I am curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichO Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Like you have stated previously, "the left hand dose not know what the right hand is doing". It all look really good though. Hang in there my man, you'll get it sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 Thanks Rich, this is the sad message. But now watch out, my friends. Here is the answer of "my" SW-Service Team employee Mitchell Jetten: It looks like these 2 orders are checked by 2 different people. One of them didn't mind the 0,21 mm thickness while the other engineer did catch it and rejected the model for this reason: Source: shapeways.com (Mitchell Jetten) So right now the order 2672981 is being produced! These are the two standing variants (FUD & FXD). As all models are subject by manual checking, if a part does't meet the minimum required the 0,3 mm thickness, there are chances it gets rejected Would you be able to ask the designer to increase the thickness to 0,3 mm to make sure these are not being rejected again? There you look!!! This is the same nonsense as at the Track shoes dispute. I just wanted to answer him that this change would mean quite an effort for the designer, and that it would be easier if SW internally would enforce that this flat variant is to be printed since it is based on the same 3D model as the current upright standing variant which is just in production. Only well, that for the umpteenth time I've checked the processing status of the newly ordered (previously rejected) flat version, because lo and behold, suddenly this sprocket is now also In Production ... Source: shapeways.com What does that tell us? One has to go only long enough on the SW-species' nerves to the motto Steady drops hollow the stone, then it works already ... Now I can sit back and wait until both variants are there to inspect the wax residuals ... And then we can decide from which variant my friend Joe should upload a Set of 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustermark Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 It seems that this 3d modeling world is more of an adventure than it really should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 Hi Mark, yep, one can almost get that impression the longer one deals with this matter. At first, I also did not think so, and therefore one has to gain some own experience first and sometimes learn the hard way too. And apparently one needs still a little bit luck too ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 Hello everybody, today came the happy message from Shapeways that both ordered Sprocket variants are shipped. Now I'm curious how they will look! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 26, 2018 Author Share Posted October 26, 2018 Hello everybody today, the Main Sprockets have arrived, which should not be printable at first and were rejected by Shapeways because of too small wall thicknesses (< 0,3 mm) were. When looking at the photos, one has to take into account that FUD/FXD prints do not provide much contrast when unpainted, which makes it difficult to see details. In the following pictures I have to differentiate between the upright and the flat print orientation, which I wanted to test with regard to the supporting wax problem. Here one can see the sprockets in FUD (left) and FXD (right), printed in upright standing orientation, whereby one can see the clearer details of the FXD Sprocket. And now still the FXD Sprocket (left) in flat print orientation comes in addition, in the middle the FUD Sprocket (upright print orientation). In this picture below the two FXD Sprockets lay side by side, on the left the flat and on the right the upright print orientation. But I have to say, I can not see any differences in the surface roughness between the two variants, which could have been due to the different support wax arrangement. And here once again the FXD Sprocket (upright orientation) in mounting position, as well as on four Track shoes that go well together, which I had hoped for. As matters stand I will probably decide for a Set of 16 (FXD) with flat print orientation, which my friend Joe could have to model now. From close up, it looks pretty big and clear on those macro shots. But with a little more distance (about 30 cm), the chain is clearly shrinking already, so that I could probably live well with FUD Sprockets. Therefore, we first wait for the Set of 16 model and then continue. Maybe in the end SW will throw again their arms in the air ... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichO Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Great looking Drive Wheels Manfred! It's all very small, but looks like it will work great for your project. Are you going to use David's crawler or Mischa's? Either way, you're going to have a heck of a construction project! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share Posted October 27, 2018 Thanks Rich for your nice comment, yep it's all 1:160 which is very small indeed. Yes, I'm going to use David Maier's Paper Kit, which I had let downscale, and a lot of other materials of course ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share Posted October 27, 2018 Hello everybody today, the Main Sprockets have arrived, which should not be printable at first and were rejected by Shapeways because of too small wall thicknesses (< 0,3 mm) were. When looking at the photos, one has to take into account that FUD/FXD prints do not provide much contrast when unpainted, which makes it difficult to see details. In the following pictures I have to differentiate between the upright and the flat print orientation, which I wanted to test with regard to the supporting wax problem. Here one can see the sprockets in FUD (left) and FXD (right), printed in upright standing orientation, whereby one can see the clearer details of the FXD Sprocket. And now still the FXD Sprocket (left) in flat print orientation comes in addition, in the middle the FUD Sprocket (upright print orientation). In this picture below the two FXD Sprockets lay side by side, on the left the flat and on the right the upright print orientation. But I have to say, I can not see any differences in the surface roughness between the two variants, which could have been due to the different support wax arrangement. And here once again the FXD Sprocket (upright orientation) in mounting position, as well as on four Track shoes that go well together, which I had hoped for. As matters stand I will probably decide for a Set of 16 (FXD) with flat print orientation, which my friend Joe could have to model now. From close up, it looks pretty big and clear on those macro shots. But with a little more distance (about 30 cm), the chain is clearly shrinking already, so that I could probably live well with FUD Sprockets. Therefore, we first wait for the Set of 16 model and then continue. Maybe in the end SW will throw again their arms in the air ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 Hello friends, in the forum NASASpaceflight.com a friend has remarked critically that the chains have to go around the sprocket about 110°, which one would not be judged by the sprocket I've shown so far with only four shoes, wherewith he is certainly right first. At first, my only concern was to check that the Sprocket wreath (1,75 mm) would fit into the Pin Lug gap (W1 > W2). Here's an original photo, where one can see that the Pin Lugs of six Track shoes are in direct both-sided contact with the Sprocket, which corresponds to an angle of about 150°. Source: NASA I checked it out and connected eight shoes and put them around the drive wheel. And as one can see, these eight shoes are in direct contact with the sprocket, which normally does not happen, as the first photo shows. Therefore, this criterion of the accuracy of fit of the chain is also fulfilled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Amazing quality of engineering Manfred. People always joke about models being so life-like that they could actually work, but it seems to be more and more possible. Not sure you'd manage a hydraulic motor at this scale (just a guess of how the real thing is powered - Rich probably explained it in his build but my memory is overflowing), but it seems entirely feasible that it could roll at least. Can't wait to see the crawler start to come together. Kirk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 Thanks Kirk, nothing is impossible, but I will be satisfied if everything is illuminated, which will be difficult enough. BTW, one should not forget that 1:160 is a damn small scale for scratch building, and that my Crawler will be based on David Maier's Paper Kit ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 5 hours ago, roma847 said: ...one should not forget that 1:160 is a damn small scale... I've probably asked this before but remind me again why you're not scaling everything to a consistent 1:144?? There's so much work involved in all the fitting you have done that I'd assume that consistency would outweigh the possible disadvantages. What am I missing? Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 Hi Kirk, this is related to the scale problems of the old Revell Launch Tower Kit (4911), whereupon I've pointed this out at the beginning of my project. On the kit box is written indeed 1:144, only what is in it, is not everything 1:144, but a wild mix. Only the Shuttle stack and the RSS-PCR are 1:144, but the main problem is the Micky Mouse MLP, which is only 1:200!!! That's why I decided to compromise on building the MLP and Crawler in 1:160. If I would start once again, I would scratch build everything in 1:144, but that's illusory ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Thanks for the reminder diagram. Revell's fault. I see. In UK, we have a law known as "The Trades Descriptions Act", which would entitle you to your money back if the goods were misleading in their description. You might have difficulty getting compensation for the thousands of hours you've spent at 1:160 though. If you're going to start again, then it should be 1:72 - so much easier on the eyes. (I'm joking, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 With this you could presumably be right, although to my inner feeling those were still much more hours ... And against 1:72 my tired eyes would certainly have nothing to oppose ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 How fascinating!! WIll have to put some time aside to really read through more thoroughly. Incidentally I witnessed a Shuttle launch in September 2000. It was Atlantis. An experiencenot to forget! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Set aside a recovery day after the read through Paul; the ambition and execution of this project is highly likely to leave you with considerable brain ache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 12 hours ago, Paul J said: How fascinating!! WIll have to put some time aside to really read through more thoroughly. Incidentally I witnessed a Shuttle launch in September 2000. It was Atlantis. An experiencenot to forget! Thanks Paul for your great interest. But take your time, meanwhile it has become a very long way ... And if you want to read my report from the beginning, then you will find the first 16 pages in the NASASpaceflight Forums, then it goes on with the LED lighting ... So dress warmly and keep ready enough provisions ... ... And then stay tuned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Hadn't seen the NASASpaceflight link before Manfred. It all makes sense now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roma847 Posted November 4, 2018 Author Share Posted November 4, 2018 Hello everybody, and now back to the Main Sprockets, for which my friend Joe has meanwhile also modeled two variants of a Set of 16. Here is the set with the flat arrangement of the wheels, although the set is upright in the picture, Source: arcforums.com (crackerjazz) and here the set with upright standing wheels. I mean, he should upload the Flat arrangement, but whereby he has to be careful to select also the Flat print orientation! Hopefully there is no Déjà vu experience with Shapeways ... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now