Clock88
Well-Known Member
Graphic is 7" wide, board is approx 8" wide (including the bevels). The props all varied a bit.
Please help with hoverboard parts
- Thread starter formula388
- Start date
Graphic is 7" wide, board is approx 8" wide (including the bevels). The props all varied a bit.
Clock88
Well-Known Member
Anyone come up with similar measurements? Should be accurate within 1/8 of an inch.
The biggest correction is it looks like the top disk is a bit bigger than a CD. I measured 4.95... Maybe that was misinformation? I always thought it was CD sized. BTTF123's parts were always that big.
The biggest correction is it looks like the top disk is a bit bigger than a CD. I measured 4.95... Maybe that was misinformation? I always thought it was CD sized. BTTF123's parts were always that big.
Last edited:
Clock88
Well-Known Member
Also forumala388: Just to let you know, I got the exact same battery box dimensions as you did (using the 1.5 inch pink stripe width for scaling)... So I think we are on the same page.
I also now agree with you that the "thinner parts" on the left of the picture are way better (the non "failed" parts).
I also now agree with you that the "thinner parts" on the left of the picture are way better (the non "failed" parts).
Well considering the scaling element (The stripe) is further away from the lens, there could be enough perspective and lens distortion to make that true. I've always held that the top of the resin magnets were 4.72." (The size of a CD) And just eyeballing things, I'd still hold to my guns on that. I mean it's not like these images are orthographic, so we have to figure there is SOME perspective/parallax coming into play here.
...I'm sure the vacuformed sets come out just over 4.75. So I'd say you're probably damn close with your measurements.
-Nick
EDIT: Quick little workup I did to showing what it would look like if we assumed that perspective/parallax is to blame for the sizing issues. So assuming the top of the disk is 4.72" and the maintaining the scaling of the stripes, I've added references for what the difference in 1" would be on the surface of the board versus at the height of the magnets. As you can see they are damn close (The smaller one is 94% of the size of the larger one) which I would say could easily be within the range of tolerance for perspective/parallax anomalies. Now if we could all agree upon a height for the magnets, then all we would have to do is set these two different 1" reference markers that far apart (In scale) and draw lines between their ends and we'd have a scale that would allow us to calculate the size of anything in any plane of the photograph, negating parallax. Thoughts?
Last edited:
Clock88
Well-Known Member
This is what I have battling with this whole time. Thanks for this! The paralaxing is certainly an issue. Here is what I have come up with...
If the difference is 4.9375 v.s 4.72, we should subtract them to see the difference (.2175)
Then divide 4.9375/.2175 and we get .044 less per inch on top.
It is now a simple matter of multiply by .044, and subtracting the outcome from the original number to get the result.
Example: 5" on the bottom.
5 x .044 = .22
5 - .22 = 4.78
5 Inches on the bottom would be 4.78 on top.
If the difference is 4.9375 v.s 4.72, we should subtract them to see the difference (.2175)
Then divide 4.9375/.2175 and we get .044 less per inch on top.
It is now a simple matter of multiply by .044, and subtracting the outcome from the original number to get the result.
Example: 5" on the bottom.
5 x .044 = .22
5 - .22 = 4.78
5 Inches on the bottom would be 4.78 on top.
formula388
Well-Known Member
I have lots to say but am on my phone right now. Everytime you guys throw measurements out there, I end up redrawing all these models!
formula388
Well-Known Member
going with your 6.45 measurements this is what I came up with...
formula388
Well-Known Member
I took your dimensions you posted and made a drawing of the part then I took my dimensions and made a drawing of the part.
In the side view I think that it is most noticable that the angle of side is more drastic in yours. I think either would work and until a screen used board comes with dimensions on it I dont think that we will be able to tell which is better.
In the side view I think that it is most noticable that the angle of side is more drastic in yours. I think either would work and until a screen used board comes with dimensions on it I dont think that we will be able to tell which is better.
Last edited:
BlobVanDam
Sr Member
Right pic looks more correct to me. From photos, the slant seems to be 45 degrees to me, and I think perspective from top views would make the silver disc area appear slightly larger than it actually is.
formula388
Well-Known Member
Clock88, see post 53. I used those dimensions that I drew on his image. I will take pictures and update the thread tomorrow. I printed out a few more prototypes... They are at work right now.
formula388
Well-Known Member
The left side is the most current printout of my parts. The right side is much smaller. Any suggestions please let me know, I am willing to make the most accurate parts possible if people help!
Similar threads
