A pair of Airfix Hawks in 1/72. Finished.

[mark.au]

Never in the field of Britmodeller WIPs has so much been packed into so many printed canopy frames destined for so few painted Hawks.

[Terry1954]

27 minutes ago, Fritag said:

But I’m testing out an idea or two before not bothering….

 

You know we all want you to bother, before any hint of you not bothering, dares to infect this thread.

 

I'm sure im not alone in these stray thoughts .....?

 

T.

[TheBaron]

31 minutes ago, Fritag said:

Tiny bit of clean-up required; but it might work.

Oooooh.

Just Ooooh.

That's all which work of that quality requires in the way of long words Steve.

[rob Lyttle]

Oooooo-kay.... 

Thought I'd pop in and see how the Hawks are going. You know like, "page 162" caught my eye for one thing.... The start date for the thread, etc

 

I'll just quietly close the door again,guys. Don't mind me. Nobody told me you were all put in this room

[hendie]

Wow.  Just wow.  Impressed.  The work on this canopy alone is worth the price of admission.  

We can only dream of the wonders that will unfold in your next build when you have the printer right from the start.

 

You really are pushing the boundaries of this printing malarkey Steve.   Designing on screen is one thing - translating that design into a working successful print is another thing entirely and you appear to have your Elegoo well and truly tamed.

 

Great work and its an absolute pleasure to watch it all come to fruition

 

 

 

[Serkan Sen]

7 hours ago, Fritag said:

Had to ask Mr Amazon for a new bottle of resin today.  I think I print too many test pieces/spares 

The printed canopy frames look fantastic. I tried to do similar in my ongoing Blackbird/Oxcart projects but was not so successful.

 

By the way, you can't beat me on wasting resin!..

 

Serkan

[81-er]

Incredibly impressive work on those frames, Steve! Every time I think you've gone as far as you can, the bar is raised yet again with your latest idea to add more detail.

 

James

P.S. How did the Rossi sampling go?

[Fritag]

 

Morning.  By which I mean morning came and so time to uncross fingers and see if the frame idea has real as opposed to just theoretical merit.

 

Looks ok - but still got to remove the frame from its support network/safe space....

 

 

Some careful blade action and:

 

 

 

 

Blimey that canopy's got grimy with handling.... that'll need a polish.

 

I reckon the idea works.  next job will to be to paint a couple for best.

 

9 minutes ago, 81-er said:

How did the Rossi sampling go?

 

It didn't, James.  Had fish and chips at one of the restaurants at the Westcliff Arches with my dad and then strolled along to Rossi's only to be told that they'd sold out of Lemon Ice.  Not surprisingly given it was a 30º day and 7.30 in the evening mind.  

[81-er]

Excellent result with the canopy, it looks fantastic with the glazing in.

 

11 minutes ago, Fritag said:

It didn't, James.  Had fish and chips at one of the restaurants at the Westcliff Arches with my dad and then strolled along to Rossi's only to be told that they'd sold out of Lemon Ice.  Not surprisingly given it was a 30º day and 7.30 in the evening mind.  

 

I can't say I'm shocked they'd run out either. I took a wonder down to the front with friends on Sunday and it was heaving, We didn't make it as far as Rossi's, the lure of cold alcoholic beverages at Chinnery's was more than we could resist.

 

James

[giemme]

Impressive work on those canopies, Steve!  

 

Such a delicate detail, but I think it will really pay off in the end. And you even painted some!

 

Ciao 

[perdu]

This q is not only for Steve but also together Fusionists.

 

The additional supports on the frame, were they added to a previous version of the image or did the frame have to be drawn from scratch?

 

This question shows exactly how retarded my Fusionality is

[keefr22]

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

 

Some careful blade action and:

 

.... what a fantastic result! Really stunning effort Steve!

 

Keith

[mark.au]

Just incredible.  Inspirational and intimidating at the same time.

[Fritag]

1 hour ago, perdu said:

This q is not only for Steve but also together Fusionists.

 

The additional supports on the frame, were they added to a previous version of the image or did the frame have to be drawn from scratch?

 

Well now Bill.  Things generally get added to the previous versions.   It's like this:

 

Once the hard work was done creating the various outlines and the 'loft'  for the canopy buck (from which to vacform the canopy) the frames etc. were quite easy.

 

For the frame I started with the canopy buck and offseted a 'surface' by 0.4 mm (i.e. the canopy buck + 0.4 mm to allow for the pETG thickness all round).  And then 'thickened' that outwards by 0.2mm for the frame.  As here:

 

 

 

 

It was easy enough to form the basic frame by extruding a cut based on the side on outline of the frame:

 

 

Giving a basic frame 0.2mm thick:

 

 

Various additions and fillets later you have the frame:

 

 

 

The sealant border was done in the same way.  Another thickened 'surface' offset; but this time thickened by only 0.1mm to make a thinner border:

 

 

And trimmed to a slightly larger internal size (by 0.3mm all round) in the same way:

 

 

 

Other bits and bobs like the support frames and handle etc. get created and either joined to the frame or left as separate bodies and just viewed all together.

 

 

 

 

I tend to leave add-on bits like the handles and supports as separate bodies rather than joining them (I joined the sealant border - but made sure I had a copy of the frame without the border as well), it just depends on what exactly the add-on is.  I don't know whether that is good practice or not - It's still early days with Fusion for me (8 months in) and I'm learning as I go.  I don't think my 'workflows' are very sophisticated.

 

Any use?

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Fritag
typo

[perdu]

Brilliant Steve thank you, so basically I can add stuff to things I have already got.

 

 

Who knows, maybe one day my elderly head will get it.

[perdu]

It seems that you are adding the handle's own separate support piece under the handle itself, am I right?

[Fritag]

25 minutes ago, perdu said:

It seems that you are adding the handle's own separate support piece under the handle itself, am I right?

 

Spot on Bill:

 

 

In the view the 2 bodies haven’t been joined; they’re just both visible.  The handle and support actually overlap slightly in ‘space’ so look as if they’re joined together.

 

 If I just ‘exported’ to an STL file to slice in chitubox they’d print as one joined together object.

 

But I’m not sure if that’s good practice or not.  It could certainly lead to problems if you haven’t got all your meeting points between the 2 objects well designed/lined up etc.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Fritag

[Serkan Sen]

2 minutes ago, Fritag said:

If I just ‘exported’ to an STL file to slice in chitubox they’d print as one joined together object.

If the parts have no intersected volume and they touch each other only at the surface then having a  STL file with multiple body is ok. Otherwise they have to be united/fused/added (whatever it is called) before exporting as STL file.

Serkan

[Brandy]

6 hours ago, 81-er said:

the bar is raised yet again

Don't mention the bar, he's going on hols again!

 

Oh, THAT bar is OK.

 

Thanks for that Serkan. I have always just exported as STL and never realised that separate bodies caused an issue. I'll look out for that in future.

 

Ian

[Fritag]

4 hours ago, Serkan Sen said:

If the parts have no intersected volume and they touch each other only at the surface then having a  STL file with multiple body is ok. Otherwise they have to be united/fused/added (whatever it is called) before exporting as STL file.

Serkan

 

Thanks Serkan,

 

What I often do (probably for no better reason than I usually do...) if I have a part made up of several different bodies I want to keep separate is to combine all of the bodies into a new component (which also combines them into a single body in that new component) before exporting it as an STL.  I do this if I want to keep the individual bodies as separate in the original component - for example if I'm trying different alternatives.

 

I've been doing that more to keep the organisation neat and tidy and with nicely labelled components to print - rather than any thought about the whether or not bodies need to be combined to export 

 

That said Fusion has (at times?) seemed to allow an export to STL if 2 separate bodies overlap rather than just touching; as it allowed me to export successfully to STL (and successfully slice) the handle and support in the photo above,  and the support columns embed into the handle by about 0.1mm or so rather than just touching.

 

Definitely outside my comfort zone when it comes to the technicalities of this sort of stuff.  Try it and see - then try something different when it doesn't work; that's me....

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Fritag
typo

[hendie]

4 hours ago, Serkan Sen said:

If the parts have no intersected volume and they touch each other only at the surface then having a  STL file with multiple body is ok. Otherwise they have to be united/fused/added (whatever it is called) before exporting as STL file.

Serkan

 

Is that one of Fusions foibles?  I export assemblies with intersecting volumes all the time and the STL file doesn't care. I have my STL export set to "save all components of assembly as single file"

 

There are times when you can't get an exact mate between components due to geometry conditions and in those cases I make the components intersect to ensure there are no gaps. An example would be when a rod meets a sphere - rather than model a concave surface in the end of the rod, I just extend the length of the rod so it intersects the sphere. 

[Terry1954]

2 hours ago, Fritag said:

Definitely outside my comfort zone when it comes to the technicalities of this sort of stuff.  Try it and see - then try something different when it doesn't work; that's me....

 

Might be outside your comfort zone Steve, but your approach and methods are great learning for this particular observer!

 

Terry

[Galligraphics]

11 hours ago, mark.au said:

Just incredible.  Inspirational and intimidating at the same time.

Sums up this thread. Incredibly interesting, inspirational, intimidating, intricate, innovative, incessant, infinite...

[Serkan Sen]

6 hours ago, Brandy said:

Thanks for that Serkan. I have always just exported as STL and never realised that separate bodies caused an issue. I'll look out for that in future.

 

2 hours ago, hendie said:

Is that one of Fusions foibles?  I export assemblies with intersecting volumes all the time and the STL file doesn't care. I have my STL export set to "save all components of assembly as single file"

 

4 hours ago, Fritag said:

That said Fusion has (at times?) seemed to allow an export to STL if 2 separate bodies overlap rather than just touching; as it allowed me to export successfully to STL (and successfully slice) the handle and support in the photo above,  and the support columns embed into the handle by about 0.1mm or so rather than just touching.

 

Thanks for your all comments and feedback. I created a test model containing several 5mmx5mmx5mm overlapped cubes and saved as STL file without union operation and Chitubox software worked fine. Therefore I have to correct my previous statement. In general Chitubox works well with STL files containing overlapped bodies (and I must admit that most of my STL files are in this form ). But I also experienced that for very complex models containing significant amount of details, Chitubox fails at some areas unless the STL file contains single body. Most probably the tool fails to calculate the surface normals of some STL triangles that causes the hollow zones/volumes in print file. 

 

And sometimes Chitubox generates very strange triangular surfaces which are not part of the model if it is very complex and contains multiple bodies in a single STL:

 

The mid and below nose gear bays are the results of STL files without and with union operation respectively.

 

My conclusion: if the printed parts or Chitubox process have some unexpected/unexplained imperfections, union the model to create a single body and repeat the process.

 

Serkan

[The Spadgent]

I’m not getting into the 3D part of this conversation as I use Max and the models kinda just work.

Wonderful canopy action though Steve. I’m loving the detail you have going on.

buck. Did you vac those canopies? I think you did. Was it one of those @CedB vac form tooth things?? 
 

Johnny