craigwelsh Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Not sure re number of articles, but I'm eagerly awaiting the first post saying 'I/Normal modellers can't afford pantograph milling machines', thus proving they've not actually read the article. very true The Manchester club recently replaced its pantograph miller as the old one had been locked at 4:1 I think it was whereas the new one is a bit bigger and does variable scaling correctly. Its basically two tables with the drawing pen linked to the milling head by some collection of arms. There are pictures of the things online though. Tbh I wouldn't bother using it in 4mm as by the time you've drawn the frames or whatever you'll get a better result just etching them rather than making the pattern and doing the milling. Great for larger scales though where the milled sheet does away with etch cusp issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike knowles Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So, if you put your pantograph through the milling machine does it improve the pick up from the overhead wires? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 25, 2011 you'll get a better result just etching them So it's 'simply' a case of mastering the requisite software, I suppose? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 So it's 'simply' a case of mastering the requisite software, I suppose? Or just drawing a picture, scanning it and sending to the etchers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I think a lot would depend on what you were after; a couple of pairs of tender frames and loco frames or a small number of idnetical parts might make pantograph milling quite desirable for some people. A lot of people struggle to produce decent technical style drawings (and I mean the quality of the drawing itself rather than knowledge of things like BS 8888) so working with plastikard templates would probably be much more forgiving and more within people's comfort zone in many cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 26, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 26, 2011 I think a lot would depend on what you were after; a couple of pairs of tender frames and loco frames or a small number of idnetical parts might make pantograph milling quite desirable for some people. A lot of people struggle to produce decent technical style drawings (and I mean the quality of the drawing itself rather than knowledge of things like BS 8888) so working with plastikard templates would probably be much more forgiving and more within people's comfort zone in many cases. I'd agree with that, James. Much of it is about 'comfort zones'. Craig is very, very good at producing etched components, but I suspect (and with all due respect to Craig), that it may be all too easy to overlook the fact that others might not be able to get to grips with the required processes with the same apparent ease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I think access to the appropriate software is an issue for many too. If I was still at uni I've no doubt that I'd be spending spare time on AutoCAD for all sorts of things for Botanic! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'd agree with that, James. Much of it is about 'comfort zones'. Craig is very, very good at producing etched components, but I suspect (and with all due respect to Craig), that it may be all too easy to overlook the fact that others might not be able to get to grips with the required processes with the same apparent ease. I work on the basis that if I can do something, so can most other people. I've successfully designed my own etches now, and got to grips with both the process itself and the software to create the artwork, which is often available for free. It takes a bit of practice, but you'll get there if you want to, I personally think that absolutely anyone could create their own etches. Of course there is the possibility that I'm one of those irritating people that are good at whatever they turn their hand too, but I don't think I am It's definitely to do with comfort zones, and those that are most prepared to learn something new are those that are most prepared to get out of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I think access to the appropriate software is an issue for many too. If I was still at uni I've no doubt that I'd be spending spare time on AutoCAD for all sorts of things for Botanic! There's a multitude of free and cheap CAD packages around now, most of which are easier to use that AutoCAD ever was. There is a whole guide here to the various options available: http://www.eland.org.uk/pages/Misc/cadnotes.html All you need now is a bit of spare time to learn how to use it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Martin, I haven't looked at what's avaliable to be honest! But I was always happy using AutoCAD and wasn't, being a little less modest, too bad with it. It was ProEngineer which I didn't like! Probably because I had to learn it in a very short space of time! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 In case you've got a little spare time this: http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/velocity/solidedge/free2d/index.shtml Should give you everything you need for free Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Here we go again The question of etch design has been discussed before on RMWeb (many, many times). What you need is 2D drawing software, with the ability to export a file in a format that the etcher wants/likes. As professionals, they tend to use established commercial software such as CorelDraw or Illustrator. They aren't interested in 3D renditions of the finished model, etc. What people too often get is either too complicated and difficult to learn without formal training, too cheap or free and hence not always compatable with the etchers requirements. I've been designing etch artwork for more than twelve years and in that time I've found that CorelDraw provides all that I need. Older versions can be picked up cheaply (one etcher is still using v9 and so I have to send files saved in that format, although I am using v12). Equally I've found that people have struggled to learn how to use AutoCad or similar and have had problems providing satisfactory (un-corrupted) files from conversions from cheap or free software. When the result is only apparent when the etches turn up, it shows what a false economy such a penny pinching approach can be. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 27, 2011 It's also about having the time to devote to it, having the inclination to do so, and (most importantly) being able to break through the psychological/confidence barriers that encircle most peoples' comfort zones. Based on personal experience and that of some of my friends, I am absolutely convinced that achieving success in these 'hi-tech/software-based' areas isn't as easy for some, as it appears to be for others. It's a bit like P4. The 'accepted wisdom' these days, pushed hard by the Scalefour Society, is that 'P4 is easy'. Well, it is easier than it used to be, but I think that the 'degree of easiness' is over-egged in many quarters. In my personal experience, it still requires considerably more work to achieve the kind of operational reliabilty that 'finescale OO' can offer (horizon now being scanned for incoming howls of anguished denials...) Sometimes you just have to accept your personal limitations and get on with what you know you can do. Perhaps this should be a seperate thread - it's a topic I'm interested in but I don't think that it's really appropriate for the MRJ thread... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 It's also about having the time to devote to it, having the inclination to do so, and (most importantly) being able to break through the psychological/confidence barriers that encircle most peoples' comfort zones. Based on personal experience and that of some of my friends, I am absolutely convinced that achieving success in these 'hi-tech/software-based' areas isn't as easy for some, as it appears to be for others. It's a bit like P4. The 'accepted wisdom' these days, pushed hard by the Scalefour Society, is that 'P4 is easy'. Well, it is easier than it used to be, but I think that the 'degree of easiness' is over-egged in many quarters. In my personal experience, it still requires considerably more work to achieve the kind of operational reliabilty that 'finescale OO' can offer (horizon now being scanned for incoming howls of anguished denials...) Sometimes you just have to accept your personal limitations and get on with what you know you can do. Perhaps this should be a seperate thread - it's a topic I'm interested in but I don't think that it's really appropriate for the MRJ thread... From past threads, it's been apparent that a number of people do have the inclination/desire/time to have a go. Regrettably, the desire to do it with inappropriate tools (software) too often becomes a barrier that can so readily be avoided. Your comparison with P4 modelling is an interesting one. Using unsuitable CAD software would be comparable to building decent trackwork using a ruler but no gauges. Possible but more difficult than it need be. As a modeller in P4, I have found that the discipline forced on me by working to accurately defined tolerances, etc. has enabled me to create better models than I ever did when I followed the OO road. No, it's not easy, but building (hopefully) a good model in any scale/gauge isn't either, even with the advantage of some of the superb kits/products available today. However, other than using this thread as a bit of an opportunity to have a pop at P4, I don't see the relevance. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 It's also about having the time to devote to it, having the inclination to do so, and (most importantly) being able to break through the psychological/confidence barriers that encircle most peoples' comfort zones. Based on personal experience and that of some of my friends, I am absolutely convinced that achieving success in these 'hi-tech/software-based' areas isn't as easy for some, as it appears to be for others. It's a bit like P4. The 'accepted wisdom' these days, pushed hard by the Scalefour Society, is that 'P4 is easy'. Well, it is easier than it used to be, but I think that the 'degree of easiness' is over-egged in many quarters. In my personal experience, it still requires considerably more work to achieve the kind of operational reliabilty that 'finescale OO' can offer (horizon now being scanned for incoming howls of anguished denials...) Sometimes you just have to accept your personal limitations and get on with what you know you can do. Perhaps this should be a seperate thread - it's a topic I'm interested in but I don't think that it's really appropriate for the MRJ thread... I agree with much of this post, especially the part concerning the ease, or lack of it, in modelling to P4 standards. It has long been an opinion of mine that any modeller who can solder should be able to model in P4, but my own experiences of attempting to do so show that there are massive barriers to the realisation of this. The barriers are poor engineering design in the kits and the poor standard of instructions given with the kits. In addition it doesn't help that neither RMweb or the ScaleFour Society's web pages have 'sticky' threads that would offer help to guide the aspiring modeller through the minefield that is P4. Too much of P4 is designed and made by people who are craftsmen for people who are craftsmen who know the tricks of the trade. The result is that support for P4 itself and the S4 society is falling away. Sorry if this offends Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 ....The barriers are poor engineering design in the kits and the poor standard of instructions given with the kits.... This would affect any of the three 4mm gauges, not just P4. A poor kit remains poor, no matter what gauge you intend to build it in. Too much of P4 is designed and made by people who are craftsmen for people who are craftsmen who know the tricks of the trade. The result is that support for P4 itself and the S4 society is falling away. Not offended, but where's your proof for this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meil Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 ScaleFour Society's web pages have 'sticky' threads that would offer help to guide the aspiring modeller through the minefield that is P4. Too This has been available on the S4 web site for a considerable time and was produced for the purpose of helping beginners: http://www.scalefour.org/downloads/movingtop4.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 27, 2011 I agree with much of this post, especially the part concerning the ease, or lack of it, in modelling to P4 standards. Sorry if this offends No offence whatsoever, it's helpful to know that others on here share my view. However, other than using this thread as a bit of an opportunity to have a pop at P4, I don't see the relevance Jol, I won't blame you for not knowing more of my background, but I speak as an experienced P4 modeller and member of the Society. I have successfully got P4 to work for me, I have a working layout under construction and there is little in 'conventional' modelling terms and skills that puts me off 'having a go'. I am also committed to modelling in P4 'for the forseeable' (although I still indulge in 'OO finescale' as well). I made the transition from OO to P4 several years ago, and as I still model in both gauges, I feel I am sufficiently well-qualified to comment on the 'easiness' of P4 as compared with OO. So I am not 'having a pop at P4', rather just 'daring to say' what some folk are probably thinking and using the way in which P4 is promulgated as 'easy', and particularly as a way of illustrating my point about how some of us find it difficult to get to grips with some aspects of 'new technology'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 How surprised was I to discover i'd created a thread since I was last logged in --- I'm a bit worried though it was the mod's intent to create a separate thread on 'how easy is etching' and its turned into something about P4 being hard . Penrith Beacon - plenty of people who have done something in P4 are and have provided broad and specific advice on here, if you've had something unanswered please do link to it. I'd suggest looking at the roller gauges thread in p'way area for where i've used my P4 experience to help someone doing 00-SF. I'd also say that the S4 Society membership is the highest its been for a few years now based on the membership secretary report this year. edit: I've remembered your 14xx project now http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/29073-project-to-make-a-locomotive-underframe/ Your post has finally made my mind up, I will not be posting again. RMWeb is essentially for the experts, not for people like me. P4/EM/Finescale 00 is a bit like deciding to use stilts when you could have just walked - it needs a bit of effort to master and maybe P4 also adds juggling into the mix.. Now I think the latter is clearly much more exciting than just walking but many wont think its worth the effort --- When i'd mentioned a drawing i'd meant you get a pen and paper and draw something equal to that shown in MRJ then send it to an etcher rather than cutting it out of plasticard. Yes this would be more expensive than doing a CAD drawing as the etcher needs to translate but it is possible. Comfort zones is a good analogy, im bloody awful at cutting plasticard as I reaffirmed last night doing capping strips in 5 thou . I guess if you are good at that and have a pantograph miller then you will like using that approach. Both need the ability to mark out for cutting though and etching companies are normally linked to more often than pantograph milling services. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod6 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 How surprised was I to discover i'd created a thread since I was last logged in --- I'm a bit worried though it was the mod's intent to create a separate thread on 'how easy is etching' and its turned into something about P4 being hard I concur with that - can members please stick to the subject that I created for Craig? Captain Kernow (who asked for the topic split in the first place) only used P4 as an analogy for the comfort zone issue as I see it, not as another tangent to head off on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfwit Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Back to etching. I personally don't have the know-how or confidence to draw or design etched parts/kits using CAD. Learning how to use such a system would take me several months and use a lot of foul language! I struggle enough with computors as it is!* But I can see how usefull designing my own etches could be in the future. I wonder if there is a service to convert someones rough sketches to CAD drawings suitable to be sent to the etchers? Just a thought anyway. *Part of the reason I chose my username is because of my total ineptitude with technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D51 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 In case you've got a little spare time this: http://www.plm.autom...e2d/index.shtml Should give you everything you need for free Going back to last night's discussion on preparing designs for etching, I downloaded the program suggested by Pugsley. It is huge, about 2GB. Unfortunately it requires Windows XP Professional or the equivalent in Windows 7 to run it, and will not run in Windows 7 home premium. The problem with these CAD programs is that you have to learn them and with limited use you would soon forget how to use them. I find this with many computer programs. It is making models that interests me, not trying to understand and remember highly complex programs. In the end it is much easier to draw the project on paper at, say, 3X size (12mm to 1 foot), then scan it and reduce it to the correct size. Life is too short! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 27, 2011 Captain Kernow (who asked for the topic split in the first place) only used P4 as an analogy for the comfort zone issue as I see it, not as another tangent to head off on. Yes, that's essentially correct. P4/EM/Finescale 00 is a bit like deciding to use stilts when you could have just walked - it needs a bit of effort to master and maybe P4 also adds juggling into the mix.. Now I think the latter is clearly much more exciting than just walking but many wont think its worth the effort I rather like that analagy. I may also compare it to having the opportunity to (say) cross the channel in a bog standard car ferry or in a restored sailing clipper, you get there eventually in the clipper but the voyage is much more rewarding! Back to etching, I recall seeing the (hand-drawn) artwork done by a friend for etched 009 kits back in the 1970s - no home computers or software then. The artwork was exquisite and my friend explained how important it was to get everything 'just so'. The finished product was equally superb, but I felt at the time that I would be better off buying and building other people's kits, and scratchbuilding what I couldn't get. It never occurred to me at the time (how could it have?) that private individuals would one day be able to produce their own, private etched components of high quality on computers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 This has been available on the S4 web site for a considerable time and was produced for the purpose of helping beginners: http://www.scalefour.org/downloads/movingtop4.pdf Not so, sorry. This pdf file is essentially about the virtues of changing to P4 which I accept, not about doing, in a practical way, that change. There's a difference. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Going back to last night's discussion on preparing designs for etching, I downloaded the program suggested by Pugsley. It is huge, about 2GB. Unfortunately it requires Windows XP Professional or the equivalent in Windows 7 to run it, and will not run in Windows 7 home premium. Sorry about that, I only linked to it as it seemed pretty full featured and free. I use TurboCAD for 2D stuff myself, but that isn't free (although it's not hugely expensive). There are other free ones available, including one I downloaded, but haven't been able to find since, and i don't remember what it was called! This might be a better option for anyone looking for a free 2D CAD package: http://www.3ds.com/products/draftsight/free-cad-software/ Again, I haven't used it, so don't know if it's any good - it might have the same problem as the Siemens one. I've also used CorelDraw in the past for artwork, but have gone over to using a CAD package instead as there's a few ways in which it is easier and quicker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.