wunwinglow

OBJ and STL file formats are very similar in that that for the 3d model shape, they just record the vertices (corners) of every triangle that makes up the surface of the mesh provided. If the mesh is the same, for the same design, in either an STL or OBJ file for that design. The two file formats carry other information as well, but for the purposes of this discussion, we can say they are equivalent. The problems of faceting on a 3d printed physical model stem directly from the mesh model being sliced. If the model is say, a cube, with sharp edges and corners, the cube can be accurately described with 12 triangles, the faces each of two triangles, both planar with each other, and if you printed it, you might see the layer lines from the build process, but the facets would be precisely describing the required surface. 100% success! The problems come when you want to model a curved surface, because triangular facets are, well, flat!! So, we add small triangles to approximate the curved surface. We need to add enough that they look good when printed. Add too few, which is what is happening in these models, and the flat facets are still visible in the print, add too many, and you just ramp up the file size, lengthen the time it takes to slice the data, and increase the chances of a glitch somewhere. You need ENOUGH triangles, no more, no less. Where do the triangle come from? Depends on your modelling software. Some, like Blender, Z Brush, you literally push and pull and multiply and delete actual mesh triangles. Likely your graphics system renders the triangles as a smooth surface, but this is a visual trick, try turning off smooth rendering and see the actual facets, then you can decide if it is OK . Other CAD programs describe their data mathematically, and their surfaces are usually rendered smoothly while you work on them. It is only at the end of the modelling process that you use the CAD model almost like a mould to 'vacform' a mesh, and it is this mesh that gets exported as the data in the OBJ or STL file. And this is where things get interesting...... You will have some control over the fidelity of your 'vacforming' process, how tightly the mesh hugs your CAD data, because the tighter it fits, usually, the more triangles you will need. Some CAD systems have a simple slider, 'less triangles >>>>>>more triangles' and you might have to try a few goes, then import the mesh back into the program to see how well it did. Others, allow you to see the mesh before you finally save it. Some will have numerical controls over several aspects of the triangle size and a tolerance of how close they have to be to the original surface. One of the reasons I love Rhino 3d so much is the excellent triangulation control it gives you, but other CAD programs have very similar capabilities. So, in short, if your models are printing with faceted areas where you were expecting smoothly curved ones, you need to increase the number of triangles, to make them much smaller, so they follow your nominal surface more closely, and more finely than you printer will resolve them. If your models have layer lines in them, that is an entirely different problem!

Typhoon.....

Ultimately, it is a numbers game. If enough folks buy them, there will be more. This applies to all commercial products, not just model kits. Moving' on...... Tim

So sorry to hear this news. Brian and I would occasionally compare notes on all sorts of problems, and folks may remember our PP Models Fairey Firefly kits, Brian made the patterns for the Mk 1 version for us, and a number of our other products. His skills with shapes and materials, especially brass, were just phenomenal, I learned so much from his gentle guidance. And we had had the same model Kawasaki motorcycles too! Kindred spirits. My sincere condolences to you and your family, Chris. Your dad was a gent, and I am so glad our paths crossed.

At least you are not suffering from this terrible affliction... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_induced_sneezing

Words fail me! So I'll have to make one up! Fablus! Just Fablus! Tim

Folks discovering how involved it ACTUALLY is to go from idea to a batch of successfully sold products. The Road to Perdition is paved with good intentions. And before anyone asks, yes, I have several of those tee shirts.....

Funny, I'd do them the other way up, so all the supports were on the joining surfaces or inside, so all hidden away. Also, would avoid any 'cup suction' effects, but hey, if it works, it works!

,,, and look out for reflections, I thought I was safe until a neighbour parked her car opposite and the windscreen reflected the sun STRAIGHT into my garage JUST as I was clearing parts off my FormLabs 2 platform. 27 hour build ruined in a couple of seconds..... wun

Fablus!

Phwoooar!!!

Why? I find it irritating beyond belief. No one has yet given me a cogent reason why this is a good thing. Just a vague shrugging of the shoulders, and some ill considered resignation that 'it is what it is'. If the scale of the model is not important to some folks, fine. It presumably would not matter then, if it was one scale or another. So it strikes me as odd, especially when there IS an established scale, AND there is some seriously useful interaction between the kit subjects, say, airfield refuelling vehicles, that a manufacturer would go out of their way to alienate a serious portion of their potential market. Why would you produce kits of subjects which have no contextual link to AFVs, but a MASSIVE contextual link to a huge range of existing kits, with an equally huge established fan base presumably hankering for kits of your chosen subjects, and thus alienate those potential customers? I just don't get it!! There are dozens of existing Japanese carrier based aircraft, in 1:32, with a fair number coming from Tamiya of all people. So why produce kits of aircraft carrier decks, and then aircraft too, which are INCOMPATIBLE with those existing kits, but, and this is what I really don't get, compatible with a range of kit subjects THAT HAVE NO POSSIBLE CONTEXTUAL LINK, and utterly no interoperability. And then try and sell that incompatibility as some kind of commercial advantage!! My point about Tamiya redoing all their armour kits in 1:32 is entirely valid. They did EXACTLY that with their 1:48 armour kits. They wanted a new range, understand that. But they tapped into an existing fan base. What they didn't do, this time around, was invent some new and close, but incompatible scale. In short, why go out of your way to alienate potential customers? Unnecessarily. I just don't get it! Any more than I would buy a 1:35 kit, to go with my 1:32 aircraft models.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BENECREAT-Copper-Bezel-Platinum-Setting/dp/B0CGJ1QNJK?th=1

...and I would laugh like a drain! 🤣

It is all my fault.....

Imagine the uproar if Tamiya decided to revisit their entire tank range in 1:32, to be compatible with all the aircraft kits they already make......

Mmmmm. No.

Perfectly good comparison, showing clearly that quality costs....

Interesting detail in the pic, the pull-out weather plugs in the gun cartridge ejection chutes.....

Ooo, just think of the diorama possibilities!! Dauntless, UH-60, Panther tank..... Even a Reichsbahn locomotive!! Shakes head slowly and walks away.....

Crap in, crap out. T'was ever thus.

Solder balls. But that way lays madness......

The Interweb. So, just go on Faceache and post ten times, 'Hawker Typhoon Firewalls were painted pink' and within 8 milliseconds AI will happily be informing anyone who will listen that Typhoon firewalls were pink. And after 0.23 seconds, this will have been repeated so many times that it will now be fact. Doubleplusgood eh, Winston? How many fingers am I holding up? It has no sense of history, non-digital references, no common sense, none of irony, and definitely no idea of when those of us take delight in pulling it's chain are pulling it's chain.

Ha! Fanksfer dat! Itwus werf dee effer den!! Maybee a burss ufda Wurzles ud top'n off!!