Mickoos European dabblings

Brian McKenzie

Western Thunderer
The large objects with broad rounded faces has thrown up something new, nothing to do with the resin, machine or artwork, it's to do with the export model, Autocad doesn't make perfect round faces, instead it makes them from many small flat faces (lands).
If you crank-up the number of Isolines showing on the curved surfaces of 3D solids - will this help increase the number of facets displayed - or does this only work with wireframe models ? The default setting is very low at something like 4, when the maximum is apparently 2047.

Not sure how this works in conjunction with the 'FACETRES' maximum of 10, (or if it can be downgraded by a low setting of VIEWRES).


Perhaps the 3D capability of long-in-the-tooth AutoCAD has now been surpassed by today's 3D printers and Autodesk's more recent software offerings of 'Inventor' and 'Fusion 360' etc., but the work you've put into the Soviet loco is most excellent.

How does your printer/slicer receive AutoCAD files, as an STL, or ??
 

simond

Western Thunderer
Mick,

I don’t know if it will help, but if you want to send me the native AutoCad file, I’ll happily load it in Solidworks and save as an STL from there. Maybe SW is a bit better at curve fitting.

atb
Simon
 

mickoo

Western Thunderer
If you crank-up the number of Isolines showing on the curved surfaces of 3D solids - will this help increase the number of facets displayed - or does this only work with wireframe models ? The default setting is very low at something like 4, when the maximum is apparently 2047.

Not sure how this works in conjunction with the 'FACETRES' maximum of 10, (or if it can be downgraded by a low setting of VIEWRES).


Perhaps the 3D capability of long-in-the-tooth AutoCAD has now been surpassed by today's 3D printers and Autodesk's more recent software offerings of 'Inventor' and 'Fusion 360' etc., but the work you've put into the Soviet loco is most excellent.

How does your printer/slicer receive AutoCAD files, as an STL, or ??
Sadly it appears Isolines has no impact on the rendered model, Autocad is not really designed for 3D modeling, I'd much prefer to go back to 3DSMax but that platform is more suited to real world scales like aircraft, ships, cities etc, it struggles with smaller scaled items. The trick with 3DSMax is to model in 1:1 scale and then rescale outside the platform but then that compresses all the vertices and you get lots of stray artifacts.

Having said that it was 20 odd years ago when I was working in Max so it might have changed by now.

I'm using Chitubox and it receives files as stl format.

I have been considering alternative platforms but it's the learning curve that muddies the waters, more like finding the time to learn these days than the actual learning.

I know the issue is not just confined to Autocad, several other 3D software programs suffer the same as well.

To date it has never been much of an issue as the parts or curved surfaces of parts have been small, the 3F smoke box is about the biggest curved item I've done before and on the final model they were barely visible so it surprised me when the lands are so much larger and visible on the VL80.

MD
 

mickoo

Western Thunderer
Mick,

I don’t know if it will help, but if you want to send me the native AutoCad file, I’ll happily load it in Solidworks and save as an STL from there. Maybe SW is a bit better at curve fitting.

atb
Simon
Certainly worth a basic exploration, busy weekend coming up so I'll try and organise something next week :thumbs:
 

Big Train James

Western Thunderer
As Brian says, FacetRes should be set to 10. The Isolines and Viewres commands will have no effect. What I find odd is that Viewresm Isolines, and Facetres are all commands that are purportedly related to display resolution, so I don't think any should have an effect on the process of exporting to an stl file. But Facetres certainly does affect the stl file.

One option to export stl files from Autocad is to use the 3dprint command rather than the export or Stlout commands. The 3dprint command will automatically use a Facetres setting of 10 when creating the stl file, without regard to the actual variable value that is currently set.

What Solidworks allows you to do is adjust settings to determine how many triangles to break a curved surface down to when creating the stl. Or rather, it allows you to adjust settings to determine how far the representative flat surface can be from the theoretical curved surface, which then dictates the size of the triangles. Another way to think of it is to set a max length for any side of a triangle, which is equivalent to a chord length between two points on the curved surface. The shorter the chord length, the smaller and more numerous the triangles. All of that is a way to achieve a larger included angle between any two faces, which more closely approximates the curved surface. I'm guessing that Autocad uses the angle between faces to determine the number of facets, rather than the length of side or distance between flat and curved surfaces. Using that method would make the size of facets independent of scale.

I don't believe Autocad allows for any similar adjustments other than Facetres, at least with respect to creating stl files. There seems to be a similar capability when converting solid entities to meshes, but that's not what we are trying to do. I suppose a workaround is possible where a solid entity is converted to a mesh using certain settings, which will create a faceted representation of the original. Then convert the mesh back to a faceted solid, in essence creating in advance, the same result as the stl export process would achieve. Not ideal though.

There was a similar discussion several years back. I've found at least one of the threads about the topic, I know there was a second thread about the faceting when somebody tried to 3d print a boiler and it came out as eight-sided (or similar) rather than round. I haven't found that thread yet. Brian also contributed to the linked thread, he can almost certainly offer better insight into the capabilities of Solidworks when creating stl files.

Jim
 

Brian McKenzie

Western Thunderer

Rob R

Western Thunderer
I'm not sure if this goes in my European thread as I'm not sure how far Europe actually extends Eastward........But I don't have a global thread so it might as well go here.

Something a little more left field, well a lot more left field, a long standing and niggling itch needed scratching, it's also a good test to see how the Saturn 2 8K copes with large (very large) objects. After much testing I've nearly got the support structure and orientation dialed in, this one was almost perfect but got damaged whilst extracting the support structure.

I'll keep it as a paint and weathering test pig and as a basis to work out how to smooth some areas that need doing post processing.

The large objects with broad rounded faces has thrown up something new, nothing to do with the resin, machine or artwork, it's to do with the export model, Autocad doesn't make perfect round faces, instead it makes them from many small flat faces (lands). Normally this is no issue on smaller parts as the lands are so fine as to be near invisible, the larger the part the bigger the lands, Autocad seems to keep the same number of lands to radius when you scale up, rather than keep them the same size and add more to make the surface smoother.

It's quite a big problem as you need to post process them smooth so you need to make sure those surfaces do not have any surface detail. The worst areas are the cant rail radii and the nose corners, it's even present on the nose front but not the buffer beam as that's three flat faces. On the cant rail are two sand fill ports (sans lids) and these might have to be changed from raised boxes to hollow square holes that the enclosure drops into and the gap sealed up. The same applies to the nose, I might have to make the star and MU socket groups are separate parts fitted later.

Essentially it's a Soviet block dual unit electric engine, with 9000 units to choose from spread over what was the whole of the cold war empire and dozens of classes there are one or two variations, this one being one of the semi permanently coupled triple sets. Once you have the basic cab and shell then the rest is down to detail differences, vent placement windows styles and roof fittings. Even then you can carve the nose off and fit the later more angular ones to model those later classes.

View attachment 175895

View attachment 175896

View attachment 175897

View attachment 175898

View attachment 175899

View attachment 175900

There's still a little kick up at the base toward the rear so I need to fine tune my angles and support structure, problem is, at 50 microns it take over 16 hours to churn out and eats a ton of resin, I can just squeak four cab units from one litre of resin.

The other down side is the resin, FNG has a tendency to separate and marble quite quickly, so 16 hour prints run the risk of the resin changing properties during the process, it'll be worse at 30 microns and I've no idea how it would cope with a 10 micron run which I may need to do to ease the layering on the cab roof front and nose top.

I've only smoothed (very roughly) the LH side of the model so the layering is still evident on the RH side if you look closely. The 3D model is a bit rough on the cab top corners as Autocad doesn't so this sort of thing well, they'll need smoothing better on later runs but I'm not overly concerned as I'd like to use brass strip to replicate the gutter eventually; that's going to be fun to form and fit and I may just not bother and 3D print a small ledge on there and be done.
I hope this one is 1/48th 'cos then it'll be the right gauge for a change :D
 

simond

Western Thunderer
I’m going to have to look into this, I drew a loco headlamp yesterday, and the file size is ludicrously bigger than an ostensibly bigger and more complex part. One of therm’s not ideal for sure.
 

mickoo

Western Thunderer
I’m going to have to look into this, I drew a loco headlamp yesterday, and the file size is ludicrously bigger than an ostensibly bigger and more complex part. One of therm’s not ideal for sure.
I'm sure folks have been here before, it's going to be a trade off between more facets and managible file sizes. I did a back head recently for some one and with a few lands that were easily sanded smooth around the top it came to 38Mb, smoothed at the highest level is was 57Gb.

I'll just have to be careful when smoothing them down, they don't show so much with matt paint and given these engines are 99.9% worn and faded I don't think high gloss finish is going to be a problem.

Image.jpg
 
Last edited:

mickoo

Western Thunderer
I tried all the Autocad tweaks noted above and several more, the only one that has any impact is FACETRES and mine is default 10, I think this is as good as it gets from Autocad if I'm honest, not ideal but not the end of the world and just another post processing step to add to the list.

I tried to use the trial Fusion 360, guess what.....OS out of date :headbang: so before I can even try it I have to upgrade the PC......not happening, not for the foreseeable future.
 

mickoo

Western Thunderer
57mb? That’s tiny. I was recently working on a 2gb image file :))

JB.
Sorry, FUBAR, got my KB, MB and GB's all mixed up, it was 57 GB and it was only a smoke box door.

2GB is a healthy size for an image :p typically I work in RAW and they're around 22 MB.
 

Lancastrian

Western Thunderer
I tried all the Autocad tweaks noted above and several more, the only one that has any impact is FACETRES and mine is default 10, I think this is as good as it gets from Autocad if I'm honest, not ideal but not the end of the world and just another post processing step to add to the list.

I tried to use the trial Fusion 360, guess what.....OS out of date :headbang: so before I can even try it I have to upgrade the PC......not happening, not for the foreseeable future.
Mick,

Windows 10 ?

Ian
 

simond

Western Thunderer
W10 is fine, actually really quite good, provided you copy in some of the older stuff like the snipping tool and the old office photo editor.

I’m being somewhat Luddite, but avoiding W11 for as long as possible.
 

mickoo

Western Thunderer
W10 is fine, actually really quite good, provided you copy in some of the older stuff like the snipping tool and the old office photo editor.

I’m being somewhat Luddite, but avoiding W11 for as long as possible.
Our mileage differs drastically :D......It's on my laptop and (polite mode ON) I don't like it (polite mode OFF), besides, Win 7 on the tower is working just fine so why got through all the stress of upgrading, that's like beating yourself with a bigger stick.

On top of that Win 10 will probably need new faster hard drives and bigger processor, suddenly it all becomes rather unappealing and bloody expensive, all for something I don't really need. Then there's copying across all your software, licenses and upgrading to work on Win 10, sorry done it often enough in the past and for a career to know it's just a big hate fest.

On the down side, I just do not have the spare time to devote two maybe three days to get a new system up and running, I'm so far behind with other work it's just not viable or fair on clients to loose more time.

If and when W12 comes out I'll just buy a whole new tower with higher end graphics and hard drives and leave this one to one side as a back up whilst I migrate stuff across.
 
Last edited:
Top