3D Printed Models Scratch Built?

[MODEL A MODEL]

Edgar L. Roy, Don Edmunds, Jorge Sordelli, John Hagerty.

[MODEL A MODEL]

So? Is repeatability an issue?

-A fellow with no access to a lathe or a mill. No experience with a jewelers torch can, if he has a computer, learn a CAD program, create a bunch of computer files modeling everything he wants, and then send them off to be printed by a third party, they send back the components, and "there you are" a model kit in the raw, designed by the end user, assembled by the same, surfaced and painted, decaled by the same.

Not the same as carving a wood buck to form metal sheet over. But still plenty of opportunities for something to go wrong.

And yes he could have multiples made, but it's not exactly cheap, and maybe there is no interest in making more than one?

Many modelers are only interested in making one. One model the best that they can manage.

[MODEL A MODEL]

Are accuracy and fidelity important?

How about materials?

To make a model of a 1963 Corvette, does it have to be in fiber-glass?

Stainless Steel for a DeLorean?

Mr. Wingrove's beautiful Hispano-Suisa is clad in Pearwood rather than Mahogany, because he chose to do it that way. Stating, correctly, that the Pearwood looks more accurate and in scale. Mahogany would look awful, being much coarser grained.

Should the rear panels of a "Blower Bentley" be made of painted cloth?

A Bricklin could be made of plastic.

[MODEL A MODEL]

One more idea.

I have experimented with Electro-forming. I have seen another fellow's work and I was inspired to try it myself.

Make a pattern, a car body, a shell.

Make a flexible rubber or urethane mold of that pattern.

Then apply a conductive paint, to the mold, and electroplate a metal body!

This is actually a very old process called electrotyping, over 120 years old. (they used to use wax, or resin )

Carefully remove the electroformed shell, and you have a Copper body to work with!

A different skill set.

Or? carve a pattern out of wax, use that in a refractory plaster, burn out the wax, pour in melted Aluminium, and you have a Type 35 wheel!

Just like Ettore used to make!

Another skill set.

I guess it doesn't really matter, does it? -After all, we're modelers! We can do anything!

[Bugatti Fan]

I take all of Don's comments on board. I agree that there is a substantial amount of programming expertise needed to produce a workable 3D Cad file. But that particular skill is really similar to the guys at Airfix, Revell , Tamiya and others in designing a kit.
So in essence a kit is being designed and manufactured on a 3D printer. So in essence once the parts are drawn up and made on a 3D printer I cannot see how this is anything different to building a kit, apart from perhaps uniqueness of subject matter chosen.
I am not knocking 3D printing per se but just differentiating it.
Can this really be called scratch building? To my mind scratch building is making parts the conventional way using hand skills and standard machines like a lathe and milling machine. This is more satisfying to me than I would get drawing parts in 3D on a computer.

[MODEL A MODEL]

We are in complete agreement!

I have never found much satisfaction in doing anything at my computer. -it's a very very useful tool, and that can't be denied. But I will always prefer to be the one working with my hands, get the occasional cut, puncture, burn, smash or whatever.

The smell of wood, especially Oak, being sawn. The sense of victory at assembling anything! How magic spraying paint can be. Failing again and again, until you do succeed.

[PeterDaicos]

We are in complete agreement!

I have never found much satisfaction in doing anything at my computer. -it's a very very useful tool, and that can't be denied.

Same here, just can't spend very long on any computer app/programme that requires inputs. Even when I was studying 20 years back and we had these epic treatises to read on file, it was excruciating, where the same sort of thing in book form wasn't.

[MODEL A MODEL]

Perhaps now is a good time to invite those modelers here, on this forum, who are adept at CAD programs, to speak up?

We, Noel and I have shown our bias, but speaking for myself, I am an old man. -and though I had seen the future of modeling, and tried to embrace it, I have had to admit, I just do not enjoy it. (Though I work with its product on a daily basis)

We have here seen the forensic development of a computer model of the Alfa Romeo 2300 engine! -and so methodically, based on the knowledge of the piston diameter. Really something amazing! And something that would have been impossible in "conventional" work.?

Someone's Ferrari engine, another example.

And another's foundational steps toward a model of the beautiful 1927 Delage racer.

Research is a big part of "scratch building" - and some of us do enjoy the hunt.

Certainly computer modeling has proven it's value.

[Roger Zimmermann]

There are some interesting comments. I'm just repeating what I already wrote: 3-D models don't require tools, except a computer and the printer. Obviously, the skill here is working at the computer; this is not my cup of tea (or glass of red wine!).

[Bugatti Fan]

It is also a question of what can be valued more.
A scratch built model made by the hands of an artisan craftsman has to be of more intrinsic value than a model made of parts generated on a computer, and I am not talking about monetary value here. If a craftsman makes a mistake the part has to be completely remade and time consuming to do.
A skilled 3D CAD designer operative might take very little time to do a program modification and just press a button to remake a part. Also the 3D CAD guy has a fantastic advantage in being able to repeat parts at the touch of a button, and also to be able to upscale or downscale the size of the kit of parts being made.
Let's not try to deny it. 3D printing is here to stay and is the way to go for many as a means to an end. Lasers can also come into their own for making flat parts after being drawn up with a 2D CAD program. New adaptable machines and processes will continue to be developed and that is just progress.
Making a model from 3D printed parts is to me like building an outstanding model from a kit no matter how intricate, apart from the design e!ement.
There is plenty of room for both types of modeller's viewpoints whether scratch built the conventional way of using 3D. There are however guys out there who embrace both techniques to make a model like John Haddock that you can see on his website.

[MODEL A MODEL]

Great point!

Intrinsic value? How do you define that, if not monetary?

-and if alright monetary? -then marketable? sell-able?

After all Roger, (please forgive me for invoking your name to make a point), Roger could be induced to make his best work yet of a completely undesirable subject, say the AMC Pacer Station Wagon, with the faux woodgrain panels? -Who would want it?

The problem for a young aspiring model maker, presented by a firm like AMALGAM, is their pricing. They aren't cheap, but it would be very hard to match the detail they offer in a conventional way.

And as an aside, "they" can't just push a button while changing scales, (i know this from experience), part thickness, or better, thinness, is of concern. At one end of the spectrum a large part will have a determined wall thickness and the rest of it's volume will be made of a lattice support. At the small end of the spectrum, a part can be printed so thin, that it will be too thin! (I had an airplane propellor given to me to mold that was too thin. It was to scale, but not workable, durable, nor desirable!) An aside to my aside, once a mold is made, one can cast most parts faster than they can be printed, but only if multiples are needed.

Intrinsic value? Material value? -I once suggested a modeler working in Brass could switch to Silver, same skills, same tools, a bit more expensive material but with a far higher perceived value? Perhaps make a "serious" scale model out of whatever, and a few more in Silver, to "bankroll" the whole shebang!

[Roger Zimmermann]

Ah! Value...Take a Picasso worth of millions (or any other famous artist). Why are such paintings so expensive? Certainly not because of the material used which was hardly over $ 100.00.
Value for objects is totally subjective, even an AMC Pacer made with gold would be hardly have more value than the basic material, even less! Appeal (and some speculation) is the reason why this thing is expensive and the other one not. Maybe my explanation is too basic...

[MODEL A MODEL]

You wouldn't want a Gold AMC Pacer to sit next to your Avanti?

[MODEL A MODEL]

Way back when, when I started my thread on Pioneers and Past Masters of scratch-built automotive models, my purpose was to establish the beginnings of a timeline to such men. Hoping to lay a foundation for their legacy, us.

If someone has an early Olive, or Baigent, it will always be worth more than a Sutherland. (Assuming I ever finish anything!)

Conti has a following, and experts, like Mr. Buck, are around now to guide auction houses to rarity, and relative value. It's a start.

Roger is absolutely right!

Value is subjective, and will probably show most, when it is attached to a particular name.

[Roger Zimmermann]

You wouldn't want a Gold AMC Pacer to sit next to your Avanti?

As both models were an oddity, why not? However, I will not build the Pacer myself!