Rods_of_Revolution Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Those windows are wrong, I can't really see any debate about it! I really hope they are 3D Printed samples and not the product of some very expensive tooling! Best regards, Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arran Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 HI All Total window depth should be 830mm over the rubbers Funny how I should know that. Regards Arran 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Could I have a larger copy of that image please? Sorry - I don't have a larger image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted April 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 21, 2015 The windows were mentioned by someone waaaaaay back when the CADs were first shown a few years ago, so it's disappointing that they haven't addressed this in the intervening time. Hopefully someone from Dapol is reading this thread and will go back and take another look. This is not a subtle error, its a whacking great obvious one! Tom. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAndy Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Again, I don't wish to be seen to be bashing manufacturers, far from it, but there seems to be an issue with modern models full stop. I model in 4mm myself, but I just had a look at this thread out of interest. I know it's only an EP example, but i would bet that not a lot is going to change with such major flaws when the unit is released for sale - the tooling will already have been done. The point I'm making here, is that in todays modern and computer driven world, how come such whacking great innacuracies can be made? There are 3d scanners, a plethora of photos on the internet of any loco, coach or unit you care to mention, yet massive mistakes are still happening.......... Hornby managed to get their 4mm MK2E spectacularly wrong - again, bodyside too short, windows too high up the bodyside, tumblehome too severe and the Roevac vents on the roof are a complete work of fiction. Bachmann have had several goes at their 37 and many other items have glaring problems, their 101 suffers from the same problem, i.e the bodyside windows are way wrong. 40 years ago, Hornby more than likely sent a guy out with a camera and a tape to measure up a class 25 in 4mm - they got it pretty much spot on, so how can Bachmann in the 21st century, still not get their 25 as correct as a 40 year old model? The same goes for Hornby's ancient, yet dimensionally spot on, MK2a - and yet an ultra modern MK2e has so much worng with it! It just amazes me that with such huge ammounts of money invested into the development of a model, these obvious mistakes are allowed to happen. cheers Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 P11.jpg This picture also shows the panel lines are very very wide and deep - I hope that isn't final..... Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PaulCheffus Posted April 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 21, 2015 The windows were mentioned by someone waaaaaay back when the CADs were first shown a few years ago, so it's disappointing that they haven't addressed this in the intervening time. Hopefully someone from Dapol is reading this thread and will go back and take another look. This is not a subtle error, its a whacking great obvious one! Tom. Hi Why don't you email them with the information. I did this with the grain wagon and we got a far better model than we would have done. Cheers Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmthtrains - David Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Annoying, but we shouldn't assume this is a mistake. Part of designing a model is making it look like the real thing. Another part is making it cost effective to produce and fit together. I would expect this shrinking of the windows is deliberate to fit the chassis in. Dapol evidently think we'd rather have a clear view of the interior over accurate windows and a chassis block protruding. I'd need to see this painted up to see which choice I'd have gone for. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigP Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) -- Edited January 30, 2021 by bigP Deleted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted April 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 22, 2015 I've been wondering what's wrong with the cab - the increased hight of the lower panel is also throwing the cab out of shape. I'm wondering if the CAD for the sides of the Class 153/156 have been copied and pasted onto the basic body shell of the Pacer. I'd much rather see a part of the mechanism than have incorrectly shaped windows. The Worsley Works etch, and the DataJammer 3d print capture the shape better: http://www.worsleyworks.co.uk/N/n_gauge_142.htm http://www.shapeways.com/product/8NW6XSW4B I've been looking forward to these since Dapol first anounced them in 2010. Looks like I may have to do without unless Dapol change it... Happy modelling. Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Annoying, but we shouldn't assume this is a mistake. Part of designing a model is making it look like the real thing. Another part is making it cost effective to produce and fit together.Whilst that is true, objective two should never overrule objective one, otherwise it becomes an impression, not a model. Edit - I suppose, what I'm trying to say is that those two design goals are not mutually exclusive. The overall priority should be to make it look like a miniature version of the real thing, but it also needs to be cost effective to produce. Edited April 22, 2015 by Pugsley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeharvey22 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Just as a parallel problem, BT Models recently released a 4mm/ft scale Bristol MW bus which was too deep by 2mm in the lower bodyside. The market response to the first two releases was such that they have now gone back and completely retooled it to get it right. Hopefully Dapol will have another think about this before releasing in its current shape. Otherwise someone will be telling us modern DMUs don't sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I'm just glad I don't need any for my layout because I would be torn. On the one hand it doesn't look right but one the other who else will tool one of up these up. I suppose the one good thing might be they will be a good basis for an after market in either etched sides or 3D prints of pacers. We're all getting a little AdrianBBS with this model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think the analysis has been fair and impartial without any bashing. The important thing to remember is that this is just a prototype. Errors spotted at this stage can (hopefully) be corrected. I picked up on an error on the Grange EP last year and Dapol had corrected it in the one on display at Ally Pally. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 I am not too concerned if things arent 100% accurate but certainly so if it doesnt look right as in this case, although painted it might be fine. I would certainly hope Dapol are reading this thread and can either correct it or be sure that it will look right in the flesh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arran Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 HI All There are liveries like Northern that have very definite links with the window line. Arran Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The fact that the glazing is included in that photo, complete with the moulded hopper glazing bar, strongly implies to me that the tooling has been done. 3D printed or handmade glazing in a 3D printed body doesn't look like that. Looks like a very expensive mistake has been made, but most likely one seen by the designer as a desirable compromise as we've already speculated, to hide the chassis that they had already said was problematic to design. I sincerely hope they go back to the drawing board on this, like they did with the 33 (which wasn't as obviously wrong as this, to my eye). But that's a hope, not an expectation ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The good news is I have just heard back from Dapol and the model is definitely a prototype, not the final tooling. This means that there is still time for improvements to be made. I have collated and forwarded the collective observations made so far on this thread and they have said they will analyse them against the EP. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 The good news is I have just heard back from Dapol and the model is definitely a prototype, not the final tooling. This means that there is still time for improvements to be made. I have collated and forwarded the collective observations made so far on this thread and they have said they will analyse them against the EP. I also emailed them early this morning so fingers crossed that they can make any adjustments required. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yes, looking again I tend to agree with you. The sharp curve of the track makes it difficult to judge exactly, but here's a rough transposition of prototype against model P11.jpg What they seem to have done does put me off rather a lot! That's clever work to superimpose the picture against the model. It shows so clearly where the model is wrong. I am no rivet counter. Very pleased to run anything that looks reasonable right. But this does not. It is right up there with the old Dapol of 25 years ago and their infamous 150. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 I've been wondering what's wrong with the cab - the increased hight of the lower panel is also throwing the cab out of shape. I'm wondering if the CAD for the sides of the Class 153/156 have been copied and pasted onto the basic body shell of the Pacer. I'd much rather see a part of the mechanism than have incorrectly shaped windows. The Worsley Works etch, and the DataJammer 3d print capture the shape better: http://www.worsleyworks.co.uk/N/n_gauge_142.htm http://www.shapeways.com/product/8NW6XSW4B I've been looking forward to these since Dapol first anounced them in 2010. Looks like I may have to do without unless Dapol change it... Happy modelling. Steven B. I agree. The 3D print is rather pricey but I could see people buying the Dapol just for the chassis and buying the Worsley kit for the body. But there may be cheaper chassis options than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philiprporter Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The good news is I have just heard back from Dapol and the model is definitely a prototype, not the final tooling. This means that there is still time for improvements to be made. I have collated and forwarded the collective observations made so far on this thread and they have said they will analyse them against the EP. That's good news and thank you for doing this - I had emailed them, but what you have done is almost certainly more useful. Been looking forward to this model for a few years now, so hoping it will be worth the wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multiple identity account Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Hi contacted Joel via facebook and sent him a link to this topic. I also sent him those pictures I drew up. He was impressed and assured me that this was just a first EP and that the final product will be as prototypical as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 Hi Why don't you email them with the information. I did this with the grain wagon and we got a far better model than we would have done. Cheers Paul I did, and received a response similar to those above, so the ball is in Dapol's court now. Lets hope they run with it! Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 No reply to my email but I don't normally do from Dapol despite spending a fortune on their products!! Link to post 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