Digital Versions of Model Kit Components

bwayne64 · May 7, 2016

DaveG said:
Joe,

Quads, Tris, doesn't matter. As mesh models done with quads are usually smaller in file size they are preferable. But not all modeling programs can work in quads.

The real Super Power in the 3D modeling for 3D printing world are surface modelers. Rhino and SolidWorks are a couple of examples. They are so much easier in keeping models water tight (a friend once described Boolean operations in mesh modelers as the "Spawn of Satan". Another major advantage to surface modelers is that they are resolution independent. you don't have to worry about having a high enough poly count, or one that is too high. The very last step is to output the surface model as a STL file, at which time you specify the resolution of the mesh.

the truth is that very few of the finely detailed kit parts are going to look good printed on FDM printers. Even at .01mm layer height they are just kind of meh. But I still think a digital nernie library is a great thing as print qualities are getting better all the time and consumer level resin SLA printers are getting cheaper and easier to use.

Thanks man, I have been looking at Fusion 360. I need a cam/cam program for a router table I'm building. Don't know if this is a surface modeler.

I agree with your friends sentiment regarding Boolean Operations. Maybe not the " spawn of Satan" but pretty close,

They can and do mess up a model almost every time. That's part of my problem with poly flow. When you want to go from a large flat area to an area of denser mesh, I start pulling out my hair. LightWave is great for visualization and animation. As for objects it can output dimensionally accurate models, but that is not it's strong suit. It is not really for a cad/cam application. Good to know about the limitation of current fdm printers. I can always build an object at a resolution that a printer cannot print. But these things , as you say, are getting better and better.

The Rocos may be best reproduced the Ole fashioned way, rubber and resin.
I'll still build them in 3d, just for the challenge. I'd like to have a 3d version of the SS Galactica, with every part built, but I need to build the real world version first, LOL. Thanks for the info. Cheers,

Joe

DaveG · May 7, 2016

I think everyone is missing another benefit of having a digital nernie library. Not only is it valuable for reproducing parts for accurate studio scale replicas, but also to be rescaled and modified for use on original designs. A win-win!

minifig · May 7, 2016

...That was exactly the reason i was doing it in the first place...if it was actually for studio scale builds i think i would be using castings of kit parts. One thing that the digital parts could be useful for to SS modellers is that they can be placed onto a 3d sculpt to help refine the dimensions of hand built structures, like an x wing fuselage or star destroyer hull...

I use solidworks...mostly because the style of modelling is most similar to how i sculpt traditionally...measurements, extruded shapes and 'virtual machining'...it is pretty rubbish at truly organic shapes though!!!

One of the reasons I find zbrush and other poly modelling programs hard to get on with is the way you have to consider the mesh structure. With solid/surface modellers, the way the model is structured just isn't visible or obtrusive.

minifig · May 7, 2016

Wow...my first double post error!

I added a couple of more components by the way...

swhite228 · May 22, 2016

Hammer3246 said:
Any update on this?

Sent from my SM-N915W8 using Tapatalk

Sorry for the delay I was working on a web site for a client.

We went back to the original download of the files and tried printing them again and they came out correct. What happened it turns out is a problem with Turbocad and the way it deals with some files. Here is the link to a forum talking about the issue http://forums.turbocad.com/index.php?topic=6645.0

Having never owned a sealab my friend who was doing the printing would open the file and find that their was no size on some of them so he would choose a size and then Turbocad would do its thing and the resulting part came out 20mm wide.

minifig · May 23, 2016

...Good to know that the maruska Sealab parts are accurate...I've been using them to size things off of!

...

mspaw · Jul 24, 2016

Fusion360 is a solid modeler in the same vein as Solidworks.

http://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/overview

Its free for students, teachers and educators, and you can download a trial version. I have to say its pretty slick.

By the way I love this idea of a digital parts library. Would be great if it could be all open source and held in one convenient place.

-Michael

minifig · Jul 25, 2016

...thanks for the PM Michael, I've been trying out fusion 360 and it looks good, i'm just too institutionalized with solidworks at the moment!!!!!

I would love for there to be a centralized library for everyone to contribute to and pull from, I just have no idea how to set up the infrastructure. It was cool to see they did a similar thing for The Force Awakens (via the archeology panel at celebration)...

The biggest obstacle for me is just sourcing the original kit parts.

M

bwayne64 · Jul 25, 2016

minifig said:
...thanks for the PM Michael, I've been trying out fusion 360 and it looks good, i'm just too institutionalized with solidworks at the moment!!!!!

I would love for there to be a centralized library for everyone to contribute to and pull from, I just have no idea how to set up the infrastructure. It was cool to see they did a similar thing for The Force Awakens (via the archeology panel at celebration)...

The biggest obstacle for me is just sourcing the original kit parts.

M

That was an awesome sight, all those 3d parts in one place. Id give an important body part to see something like that archive. Id have to redo all my 3d parts to make them printable. I just made them to look good, not for printing. Oh well I have more time than money.

stonky · Jul 25, 2016

My only concern when it comes to downloadable 3D printable parts comes down to quality control. Unless I have the donor kit part in hand as well there is no real way for me to know that the printed part is accurate to within a reasonable threshold - I'm at the whim of the person who modelled it and the quality of the print. If we could come up with some sort of metric (side by side pics maybe?) I'd have a lot more faith in the parts.

Timmythekid · Jul 25, 2016

Tangentially to this, did anyone catch the ILM panel from celebration? Really interesting as they're doing the exact same thing, creating a digital donor kit library, focusing primarily on parts that show up all over the OT miniatures, only with the intention to use them on their digital models. Very cool to see they're going down the same path!

Big Dog · Jul 25, 2016

Timmythekid said:
Tangentially to this, did anyone catch the ILM panel from celebration? Really interesting as they're doing the exact same thing, creating a digital donor kit library, focusing primarily on parts that show up all over the OT miniatures, only with the intention to use them on their digital models. Very cool to see they're going down the same path!

Is there a link to a video you could provide showing this? It sounds very interesting indeed!

Edit: I think I found it?

stonky · Jul 25, 2016

That's the one.

Timmythekid · Jul 25, 2016

Yep, was just coming to post the link - that's it. The whole video gave me some serious warm fuzzies about the obvious love Knoll has for the films and the ILM legacy he's part of, and the obvious care he is bringing to Rogue One.

stonky · Jul 25, 2016

The fruits of some of my own digital parts reconstruction (wip, obviously):

swgeek · Jul 25, 2016

I know I'm just a bitter old man, but wouldn't be easier, faster and cheaper for the Star Wars movies to just build real miniatures?

Lee S · Jul 26, 2016

The ILM/Art Dept piece at Celebration was great! Funny to see that they are finally doing what we did in 2001

http://www.leestringer.com/Images/BSG/bsg_21_hd.jpg

stonky · Jul 26, 2016

swgeek said:
I know I'm just a bitter old man, but wouldn't be easier, faster and cheaper for the Star Wars movies to just build real miniatures?

Maybe but then they'd be bound by the limitations of the motion control blue screen process (limited movement, etc.).

nicholassagan · Jul 26, 2016

Hey guys, I've been working on 3D modeling the Nebulon B and as it turns out it shares just about every donor kit for every other model. My goal is to represent it as accurately as possible so I've been collecting the real donor kits and examining them while working in 3D. Here's the X-3 Stiletto engine parts for example:

DaveG · Jul 26, 2016

swgeek said:
I know I'm just a bitter old man, but wouldn't be easier, faster and cheaper for the Star Wars movies to just build real miniatures?

Sadly no. While the costs of building a real miniature vs. a CG model are about equal, the cost to shoot real models is much higher and takes longer than the cost to animate and render the shots in the computer. The only way to be even close to making the costs work out is for the FX company to have it's own in-house modelshop and stage facilities, motion control, camera and lighting equipment. And sadly, ILM divested themselve of those when they moved from San Rafael to the Presidio.

John Knoll started out as a model maker (he was working for me when he got the call to interview at ILM) so his love for the traditional process is obvious. It's very cool that he is spending time to create a nernie library for Rogue One. So now we get the digital equivalent of "dip it in glue and roll it in model parts"!

Digital Versions of Model Kit Components

Master Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Active Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Active Member

Attachments

Master Member

Similar threads