What is scratch building in 2012?

[Jol Wilkinson]

I have been following this lively and interesting thread but haven’t yet added my invaluable views as I have been too busy model making. I therefore apologise if what follows reiterates some of what has already been said.

 

The use of the phrase scratch built probably goes back quite some way and was intended to describe a model built from scratch. Remembering that in the 50s, when modelling magazines came into common circulation, RTR items were relatively restricted and kits were in their infancy. So for those that wanted something different, making it from scratch or going without were the main options (or a tremendous imagination and sticking new transfers on something to convert it from LMS to GWR!).

 

So a definition of a scratchbuilt model would have been one where the builder started with nothing other than information describing the prototype and through the use of his/her own skills, created a finished model. At the time, those skills would have effectively meant metal or wood working (plus the ability to draw), all things that that were included in the school curriculum.

 

However, things move on and new techniques, equipment and skills develop. Should they be excluded from what would be considered as a scratch builders armoury? I would suggest that a scratch built model is one where, starting from scratch with a drawing of the prototype or a freelance design, the builder makes a model using his own skills, employing only those specialist manufacturing processes that require the use of dedicated equipment which is beyond his means. So, if he has the skill to take a 2D drawing of the prototype and turn that into the artwork or software to etch or 3D print an item, then surely that is acceptable.

 

The use of a small number of component where the ability/equipment to create the item is beyond reasonable means has always been acceptable (e.g. injected moulded or die cast items including wheels, or turned items and motors ). So why not using etching processes or 3D printing to create what you have designed. Surely it’s the creation of the parts and assembling them yourself that defines scratch building.

 

Jol

 

Who is now going to do some scratch building, albeit using some etched, moulded and cast parts. It’s part of a model railway layout and as I have designed and assembled it, then I consider it scratch built.

[Rumblestripe]

Scratchbuilding is starting from scratch. From nothing. That's what it means. There should be no presumed exclusion of power tools, expensive machine tools or computer based aids. Why should there?

 

And yet it doesn't mean that does it? If we are talking about a "scratchbuilt" locomotive no-one would expect that the wheels, the motor, the gears or even the DCC chip were constructed from scratch. Many would also accept turned buffers, cast axleboxes, smokebox doors, air horns end crew members straight from the packaging into the "scratchbuilt" locomotive. We would marvel at the parts created using a milling machine or a lathe. If we talk about a "scratchbuilt" building we accept brick papers, embossed or moulded plastics, etched windows, cast drainpipe etc.

 

I cannot for the life of me work out why you wish to exclude parts created by CAD?

[coachmann]

To my mind, scratchbuilding is just that, building from scratch. Taken to its logical conclusion one would also be building ones own motors and wheels as Ross Pochin did, but we generally accept that these items are usualy bought in.

 

Coaches : I start off with a blank sheet and so the term scratch building does appear to apply here. From the 'blank sheet' (in this case a computer screen), coach sides and all the components required to complete a coach are designed on CAD (I contract out for this and the man follows my spec). The components are etched by a commercial firm and I solder them together. Then I scratch paint them (ha ha), however, I use a compressor so that air is used to propel paint at a model instead of applying it by human hand......Is this cheating?

 

If the above CAD work was prepared for 3D printing, it then cuts out much of the manual assembly, as it has been done by machine. However, seeing as the design work has to be carried out by an expert at his job, that person is still scratchbuilding surely?

 

Whitemetal castings : I build my own masters = scratchbuilt. Then castings are produced from them for me. Has this process removed the scratchbuilding element?

 

I realise this is merely something to chew over. That's what forums do. But at the end of the day, it doesnt amount to a hill of beans.....does it?

[Guest Natalie Graham]

Scratchbuilding is starting from scratch. From nothing. That's what it means.

 

Surely it means building from scratch, don't you think? There are two elements to the term. It is my view that both need to be fulfilled to be scratch-building.

[Rumblestripe]

Surely it means building from scratch, don't you think? There are two elements to the term. It is my view that both need to be fulfilled to be scratch-building.

 

As I pointed out, it isn't though is it? We buy in motors, wheels etc and perhaps certain castings, etc. You seem willing to accept in your definition of "scratchbuilding" parts created using expensive machines that are rarely available to a modeller on a limited budget such as milling machines, pantograph cutters and lathes, yet a technology that is becoming increasingly affordable (bordering on cheap) you would seek to exclude as scratchbuilding for what reason?

[Horsetan]

Surely it means building from scratch, don't you think? There are two elements to the term. It is my view that both need to be fulfilled to be scratch-building.

 

So there's no such thing as scratchbuilding any more?

[Guest Natalie Graham]

As I pointed out, it isn't though is it? We buy in motors, wheels etc and perhaps certain castings, etc. You seem willing to accept in your definition of "scratchbuilding" parts created using expensive machines that are rarely available to a modeller on a limited budget such as milling machines, pantograph cutters and lathes, yet a technology that is becoming increasingly affordable (bordering on cheap) you would seek to exclude as scratchbuilding for what reason?

 

From my post 107

As to whether an individual model is scratch-built, as I have already said, if the model is predominantly built using scratch-building methods, as defined above, then, in my view, it is a scratch-built model. No, I don't believe you have to enamel your own copper wire to wind the motor armature and I do not believe that using commercial wheels or boiler fittings for example on an otherwise scratch-built model precludes it from being termed scratch-built, any more than if you build your own wheels and boiler fittings for a kit, that stops it being a kit. With something like a coach, I would say that if you have the sides etched and fit them to a scratch-built body shell and maybe use commercial bogie overlays on your own built bogie frames then that is most likely still within the ethos of scratch-building but if you are using etched sides, ends, roof, partitions, underframe etc and commercial bogies you have moved too far from scratch-building to justify the use of the term.

 

It is not about excluding things. Scratch-built is not some kind of exclusive club that new techniques seek to gain approval for. It is my view that scratch-building is the process of building things from scratch. You need to be starting from basic materials and build it yourself. With things like 3d printing the modeller is having the model built on a machine. he is not building it himself therefore, however skilled the CAD design or however good the quality of the finished model , it is inappropriate to term this scratch-building. That is not to say that it isn't as good as scratch-building (I feel I need to say this now) after all you could get a really ropey model entirely hand-built from raw materials and it would still be scratch-built. Just because it is scratch-built doesn't automatically mean it is any good. It is just a different way of doing things.

 

There is a further point with regard to 3d printing that hasn't been mentioned yet. When I upload my CAD design to Shapeways or wherever, with a few clicks on the computer keyboard I can make my model available to anyone who wants one. They only have to pay the required sum and a model exactly like the one I had made for myself will turn up through their letter-box in due course. Is that one scratch-built also? How about the tenth one or the hundredth? If so by whom?The person who ordered it, me, or Shapeways? If I go to an exhibition and see this model running round on the layout of someone I have never met in my life can I justifiably tell everyone around me that I scratch-built that model?

 

So there's no such thing as scratchbuilding any more?

 

I don't follow your reasoning to get that question from my comment or the point you are trying to make, but if we are to accept that designing on computer for production by a machine is scratch-building then pretty much everything qualifies as scratch-built, including the products of Hornby and the like, then the term has become so all-encompassing as to be redundant.

[James]

Can open... worms everywhere...

 

Well, this is an interesting thread! But perhaps the good thing is everyone's talking about modelling! Not what new bit of RTR they've just bought!

 

I think I 'create' and 'build' models more than pure kit and scratch building - very few models I have built have been as intended as there's often room for improvement somewhere. But the end result and the enjoyment of the whole process matters more to me than the source of components.

 

I genuinely think that diesels which use Shawplan's EE parts, for example, with scrtachbuilt underframe details require more ingenuity (sp?) and skill than many straight kit builds, but the less informed and evolved modellers would still class these as 'detailed RTR', which annoys me as it dismisses much of the skill which the project will have required.

 

The important thing to me, in light of the current range of RTR and ready to use buildings, is that people are still learning and developing creative skills. This will keep hobbies like ours going, not the range of RTR.

 

And I reckon the only truely scratchbuilt item I have is the scale and fully working model of a human I have...

[halfwit]

The important thing to me, in light of the current range of RTR and ready to use buildings, is that people are still learning and developing creative skills. This will keep hobbies like ours going, not the range of RTR.

 

Exactly! Its heartening to see that there are plenty of people on here who want to do far more than just open boxes.

[S.A.C Martin]

Must we always quantify our own opinions by being derogatory of others? I despair. Whether it's box opening or scratch building, I find it wearying to see open debate not quantified wholly with evidence and argument.

 

I think the debate's come full circle as it's clear some things are not going to be acceptable for one group, and the other would rather it was all acceptable.

[James]

But is that all your own work?

 

It was a joint effort, I admit...!

 

The sound chip works well, just don't know how to access the CVs to turn the volume down!

 

Must we always quantify our own opinions by being derogatory of others?

 

It's human nature though, isn't it?

 

For me, that people buy RTR is great, but I'm not fussed in the slighest by people posting what's essentially a shopping list! But if they then weather them or detail them in some shape or form, then I'm interested!

 

The silly thing with this debate is that regardless of how we create our models, it just amazes me how ignorant of the real railway many enthusiasts actually are.

[AJ427]

There is a further point with regard to 3d printing that hasn't been mentioned yet. When I upload my CAD design to Shapeways or wherever, with a few clicks on the computer keyboard I can make my model available to anyone who wants one. They only have to pay the required sum and a model exactly like the one I had made for myself will turn up through their letter-box in due course. Is that one scratch-built also? How about the tenth one or the hundredth? If so by whom?The person who ordered it, me, or Shapeways? If I go to an exhibition and see this model running round on the layout of someone I have never met in my life can I justifiably tell everyone around me that I scratch-built that model?

 

This is really no different to making a mould of what you would consider to be a 'traditional' scratch-built model.

 

I think you are getting hung-up on the word building and associating it purely with hand-building. You also seem to dismiss any creative processes involved even though these are completely necessary whatever the method.

 

Surely, it's simply about creating something from scratch. The methods employed to get there are irrelevant.

[Revolution Mike]

It is not about excluding things. Scratch-built is not some kind of exclusive club that new techniques seek to gain approval for. It is my view that scratch-building is the process of building things from scratch. You need to be starting from basic materials and build it yourself.

 

How about things with multi media components? eg a mixture of 3d printed parts, etched parts and cast parts (from a variety of masters eg hand built or 3d printed)?

 

There is a further point with regard to 3d printing that hasn't been mentioned yet. When I upload my CAD design to Shapeways or wherever, with a few clicks on the computer keyboard I can make my model available to anyone who wants one. They only have to pay the required sum and a model exactly like the one I had made for myself will turn up through their letter-box in due course. Is that one scratch-built also? How about the tenth one or the hundredth? If so by whom?The person who ordered it, me, or Shapeways? If I go to an exhibition and see this model running round on the layout of someone I have never met in my life can I justifiably tell everyone around me that I scratch-built that model?

 

but if we are to accept that designing on computer for production by a machine is scratch-building then pretty much everything qualifies as scratch-built, including the products of Hornby and the like, then the term has become so all-encompassing as to be redundant.

 

No it doesn't that is a complete straw man argument. No one is claiming that nor would anyone say they are comparable.

 

In your Shapeways example the designer would have scratch built and anyone purchasing a copy of that work would be buying some form of kit or part.

[Rumblestripe]

 

It is not about excluding things. Scratch-built is not some kind of exclusive club that new techniques seek to gain approval for. It is my view that scratch-building is the process of building things from scratch. You need to be starting from basic materials and build it yourself. With things like 3d printing the modeller is having the model built on a machine. he is not building it himself therefore, however skilled the CAD design or however good the quality of the finished model , it is inappropriate to term this scratch-building. That is not to say that it isn't as good as scratch-building (I feel I need to say this now) after all you could get a really ropey model entirely hand-built from raw materials and it would still be scratch-built. Just because it is scratch-built doesn't automatically mean it is any good. It is just a different way of doing things.

 

So, it is your view that "scratch-building is the process of building things from scratch". What could be more "scratch" than a blank sheet of paper oir a blank computer screen?

 

 

There is a further point with regard to 3d printing that hasn't been mentioned yet. When I upload my CAD design to Shapeways or wherever, with a few clicks on the computer keyboard I can make my model available to anyone who wants one. They only have to pay the required sum and a model exactly like the one I had made for myself will turn up through their letter-box in due course. Is that one scratch-built also? How about the tenth one or the hundredth? If so by whom?The person who ordered it, me, or Shapeways? If I go to an exhibition and see this model running round on the layout of someone I have never met in my life can I justifiably tell everyone around me that I scratch-built that model?

 

That has been adressed by others. The first one is the original. You also seem to blythely ignore the currently accepted practise of using complex components in a "scratchbuild" such as wheels and perhaps axlebox castings. Even if someone makes their own axlebox they will USUALLY make one and then replicate using perhaps a cold casting resin if not whitemetal.

 

 

I don't follow your reasoning to get that question from my comment or the point you are trying to make, but if we are to accept that designing on computer for production by a machine is scratch-building then pretty much everything qualifies as scratch-built, including the products of Hornby and the like, then the term has become so all-encompassing as to be redundant.

 

CAD is a technology available to anyone VERY cheaply and yet you would seek to exclude it from your definition of scratchbuilding whilst embracing other more mature technologies like lathes and milling machines which are expensive and exclusive.

 

If you start from scratch you are scratchbuilding. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[The Nth Degree]

Is the problem the interpretation of the word 'built' and what that traditionally means?

 

I have to admit, it certainly conjures up visions of oily blue overalls and an impressive collection of tools. But is that still true today? Words, their meanings and perceptions change over time, so do methods and techniques, but are still used and understood under their original banners.

 

I wonder if those scratch building pioneers would still choose to use methods which they had no choice over? Or would they also embrace technology to make even better models?

Steve

[buffalo]

Several contributors have said that scratch building simply means building something from scratch. On the surface, this sounds ok, but it is worth pointing out that the meaning of a term can only be understood by examining how it is commonly used, something which may well evolve over time. It is not sufficient to take the derivation of the individual words and insist that it must forever mean that, and that only, whilst at the same time varying what they encompass.

 

The term scratch building has been around for a long time and, in general, most people have understood that it as a manual process of transforming basic modelling materials (not raw materials) into a finished model, with or without the inclusion of a small proportion of bought-in material (from buffers and domes to brick paper). Now, the use of the term may evolve to include many more approaches as some have advocated in this thread. In my view, this would dilute the meaning to the point where it means little more than "I built it myself".

 

If I were to build a couple of wagons, say, one by cutting brass and/or plastic materials and sticking them together in some way, I could reasonably claim to have scratch-built them. Perhaps I might qualify this claim by saying that I used bought-in buffers, couplings and wheels, but it would remain reasonable to say that the body, at least, was scratch built. I would contend that most people would understand what I meant, particularly if I qualified my claim by saying that I scratch built it using brass or plastic.

 

Now the second one is built using CAD modelling and 3D printing. If, as some appear to suggest, I then claim that this is scratch built, most would probably make an erroneous assumption about how I made it. On the other hand, if I said it was produced by 3D printing from my own design model, most would have a somewhat better idea of how I produced it.

 

Assuming the two results are of equal quality, there is no implication of greater prestige, or greater skill, involved in one or the other. They have simply been built using different techniques which I have described in a way that allows the reader some insight into the processes.

 

Nick

[billbedford]

What absolute nonsense. Just because I doin't think 3D printing is the same as scratch-building doesn't mean it has a 'special status'. As I said previously photography is not the same as oil painting but it doesn't mean I think one form of producing pictures has a special status over the other. My view on scratch-builidng is that the supposed difficulty is very much over-stated and that anyone with a modicum of modelling ability could very quickly learn the skills and techniques involved if they have the desire to do so. Woodworking is not metalworking but it doesn't mean one is better than the other, just that they are two different aproaches to making things.

 

It's interesting that you invoke the art world since the whole thrust of art thinking over the last 170 years is to put as much distance as possible between 'artistic' work and those of mass production. So painting became impressionist and later abstract, and paint surfaces were left rough to to distinguish them from the 'flat' surface of photographs. The Arts and Crafts Movement and their later followers did used similar thinking and left tool marks on metal work to show the work made by 'honest' labour. I have even heard the same sort of muddied thinking applied to models, "The cab on his model may be out of square, but he captures the 'essential presence' of the original" -- really?

 

This is not something that is useful in any sort of modelling. There are only two criteria to judge a model with: a/ fidelity to prototype, and b/ how well it works (stays on the track, pulls stock etc) together with the understanding that b/ will always compromise a/. The more faithful models are to the prototype the harder it is to distinguish between the method of manufacture. So the way a part or even whole model is made becomes irrelevant, and the debate about what 'scratch-building' is, becomes as futile as trying to count the number of angels that can stand on a pin head.

 

Don't ask :- 'Is this scratch-building'?

 

Do ask:- 'What is the best way to build this part/model'?

[Guest Natalie Graham]

That has been adressed by others. The first one is the original

 

Tell you what then, you design something and order one from Shapeways. I will then order five more and we'll put them all in a box and you can pick out the one you have scratch-built.

 

You also seem to blythely ignore the currently accepted practise of using complex components in a "scratchbuild" such as wheels and perhaps axlebox castings. Even if someone makes their own axlebox they will USUALLY make one and then replicate using perhaps a cold casting resin if not whitemetal.

 

No it you who is doing the ignoring. Read the comment I quoted from my earlier post no 107. I have addressed this repeatedly. As to the axleboxes. No I don't consider castings made in resin to be scratch-built any more than the parts in a Wills Loco kit. I think I discussed this also, back in my first post with regard to the kits I made the patterns for. The original pattern is scratch-built the castings are, well ... castings. If Mr Wills had sat at his bench and painstakingly fabricated every component of hs loco kits the parts would have been scratch-built, as it is he, presumablty made scratch-built masters, took moulds from these and then reproduced the castings thus the parts were cast rather than scratch-built. The same as if I make a set of six axle box castings for a loco I am scratch-building.

 

Yes a blank sheel of paper is 'scratch' as you term it but unless you proceed to fabricate your model out of the piece of paper where is the building element involved. A big user of CAD are architects. The processes involved in designing a house are a lot more complex than a model railway component, Are architects building houses when they produce a CAD design on the computer? If so what do builders do? CAD is design, not building, hence why it is called CAD and not CAB. The fact that there are now machines capable of interpreting those designs and reproducing them in physical form doesn't alter the nature of the design. If you design a model in CAD and send me the designs and I build it for you I have built the model not you. If you send the design to Shapeways and they build it for you Shapeways have built the model and not you. The technology involved in the process of turning the design into the reality doesn't alter that. Starting from scratch doesn't mean you are scratch-building if you aren't the one doing the building. You may as well say that if you build up a kit you have scrsatch-built it because you built it. One without the other is not scratch-building.

 

 

No it doesn't that is a complete straw man argument. No one is claiming that nor would anyone say they are comparable.

It has already been said in this thread that Dapol build their models from scratch. It is no more a straw-man argument than trying to claim that I must regard building one's own wheels or motors is a requirement for scratch-building. It just the same reductio ad absurdum of the opposing argument.

 

What relevance does the cost or accessibility of a process have to whether it is scratch-building or not? it is the nature of the process that matters not the price of it.

This is really no different to making a mould of what you would consider to be a 'traditional' scratch-built model.

 

I think you are getting hung-up on the word building and associating it purely with hand-building. You also seem to dismiss any creative processes involved even though these are completely necessary whatever the method.

 

Surely, it's simply about creating something from scratch. The methods employed to get there are irrelevant.

 

If you take a mould from a scratch-built model then the copies are not scratch-built. How can they be when they are castings made in a mould? I am not getting hung up on the word building, I am trying to point out that the term scratch-building includes two terms and that you cannot be scratch-building if someone else is doing the building.

 

 

 

I think I have made it pretty clear what my opinion is regarding the question posed in the original post. I have tried to explain my opinion and give reasoned arguments in suport of that opinion. I have put forward my view of what is a sensible working definition of scratch-building. I think also I have covered all the ground I feel I can on this topic and while I suppose I could feel flattered that so many people feel my opinion is important enough to devote so much time to discussing it, it is getting a little tedious to have to keep going over ground I discussed pages ago. Anyone who has further questions on what I have posted please refer back to my earlier posts I am sure it will be covered in there.

 

For those who feel the need to try and prove my opinion wrong I will say this: It is an opinion, it is neither wrong or right, it is merely an opinion.

 

Now I will hand over to those who feel that 3D printing and so on are scratch-building to propose a defintion of what constitues scratch-building in a way that doesn't involve one of a pair of identical items manufactured on the same machine by the same process being scratch-built and the other one not, or isn't so wide in scope as to allow Dapol Dave to claim he has scratch-built every item his company has ever produced.

 

Now I am signing off to work on my current CAD project. It makes a nice change from scratch-building.

[S.A.C Martin]

You are pretty much proving the point I made earlier. There's a level of thinking which says computer skills are less valuable or in some way unworthy, compared to physical designwork. Your thinking is precisely that.

 

The ability to copy or manufacture more is pretty much your argument for saying anything made by CAD and by 3D printing or similar is not scratchbuilt, at the risk of lumping in the very difficult and sometimes lengthy design process into the bracket which will include starting with the same blank space that hand building requires.

 

Of course if you put three identical printed objects in a box and say "which one was the original" or "which one was scratch built" you're not going to prove one was scratch built. But the exact same argument could be made of any identical etches made from a template.

 

You seem unwilling to accept the level of the "prototype" in design, whether it's scratch built to your view (handbuilt) or scratch built in my view which includes CAD. So there lies the crux of the matter: the impass, if you will. One side wants to exclude one type and the other doesn't.

[Revolution Mike]

It has already been said in this thread that Dapol build their models from scratch. It is no more a straw-man argument than trying to claim that I must regard building one's own wheels or motors is a requirement for scratch-building. It just the same reductio ad absurdum of the opposing argument.

 

What relevance does the cost or accessibility of a process have to whether it is scratch-building or not? it is the nature of the process that matters not the price of it.

 

Well of course Dapol build their models from scratch (they aren't magicked out of thin air!), but that doesn't mean if I buy one that I have anything more than a manufactured model. Same with if I buy a model that is a one off built by hand - I will still be buying a manufactured model.

 

The differences in those examples are the techniques employed.

 

Back to the original essence of scratch building - the crucial difference (to me) is whether I designed it and manufactured it, not how I manufactured it. The how is the techniques used which will have changed with time and as different tools become available.

[54Strat]

I see no de-valuation of any skills, implied or otherwise in any of Natilie's posts. Her opinion is shared by me and is well put forward and robust.

 

Any thing that is reproduced is a copy, and a copy of a model is not a scratch built model. A physical 3D printed model is the copy of it's 3D virtual source. An etch is a copy of it's template. A casting is a copy of the master.

 

The original template for the etch, and the original 3D file in the software are arguably the scratch built contemporaries. This is where the distinction should be made and stated.

 

Paul

[martin_wynne]

What is scratch building in 2012? After deciding that you would like a model of, say, http://www.rmweb.co....ona-07-06-1957/ do you,

 

a) look for a catalogue, or

 

b) look for a drawing?

 

Martin.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

You are pretty much proving the point I made earlier. There's a level of thinking which says computer skills are less valuable or in some way unworthy, compared to physical designwork. Your thinking is precisely that.

 

 

Now you are telling me what i am thinking? Look at the example I gave of Architecture. Do you really think I believe the architect who designs a building using CAD is less skilled than one who does it the old fashioned way on a drawing board, or the guy who comes along and pours the concrete? Come off it.

 

 

Back to the original essence of scratch building - the crucial difference (to me) is whether I designed it and manufactured it, not how I manufactured it.

 

Whethrr you designed and manufactured it. Exactly. Now tell me how you manufacture a part by 3D printing. I don't dispute you design it now talk me through your involvement in the manufacturing process and you might have me convinced.

[buffalo]

You are pretty much proving the point I made earlier. There's a level of thinking which says computer skills are less valuable or in some way unworthy, compared to physical designwork. Your thinking is precisely that....

Just who is this imaginary person that is making relative value judgements about different skill sets? As far as I can see, Natalie has said nothing of the sort and I've repeatedly said that they are just different skill sets, nothing about relative values at all.

 

If there ever were a sport involving the creation of red herrings and straw men, you could assemble a winning team from RMweb

 

Nick

[S.A.C Martin]

 

Now you are telling me what i am thinking? Look at the example I gave of Architecture. Do you really think I believe the architect who designs a building using CAD is less skilled than one who does it the old fashioned way on a drawing board, or the guy who comes along and pours the concrete? Come off it.

 

But (whether you do so intentionally or not) you are saying that scratchbuilding in your view discounts those who use CADwork whether 3D printing or not. That insinuation being, that those using CADwork are not scratchbuilding and therefore unworthy of being placed alongside the handbuilt model.

 

Whethrr you designed and manufactured it. Exactly. Now tell me how you manufacture a part by 3D printing. I don't dispute you design it now talk me through your involvement in the manufacturing process and you might have me convinced.

 

It does take more than just designing the model to prepare it for manufacturing/3D printing.