|
|
Post by kangaroose on Mar 28, 2024 9:41:00 GMT -8
Thx, see my reply below. "This has been where Tangent, Rapido, and depending on the run, Exactrail/Arrowhead shined through much better." Did you mean Rapido? Or maybe Moloco, who, it appears, does trace all the lettering on a freight car? Yes, proof reading failed me it seems. Corrected. And yes, Moloco is certainly one of cream of the crop when it comes to recreating artwork instead of searching through serif/non-serif fonts on Adobe. |
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Mar 28, 2024 9:44:26 GMT -8
Correct, we do NOT use ANY, not ONE font from commercial sources, they are all drawn from scratch following detailed crisp images only, right down to the 1" lettering. We have always done this. To me this attention to detail shows in our cars when you compare them to the prototype. Likewise on the CAD side for moloco, i do all the CAD work myself, no 3rd parties. I'm a professional industrial designer (since 1986) and toolmaker (since 1996) and a freight car nut, it's the only way to do all this correctly in my opinion. Nick nick molo, owner and founder Moloco "This has been where Tangent, Rapido, and depending on the run, Exactrail/Arrowhead shined through much better." Did you mean Rapido? Or maybe Moloco, who, it appears, does trace all the lettering on a freight car? Exactly right, Nick. It does show, and is very much appreciated. The car guys have a phrase "There's no replacement for displacement." If you draw the artwork correctly (as much as humanly possible given the circumstances) you will always out perform any off-the-shelf font. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 28, 2024 9:50:44 GMT -8
Correct, we do NOT use ANY, not ONE font from commercial sources, they are all drawn from scratch following detailed crisp images only, right down to the 1" lettering. We have always done this. To me this attention to detail shows in our cars when you compare them to the prototype. Likewise on the CAD side for moloco, i do all the CAD work myself, no 3rd parties. I'm a professional industrial designer (since 1986) and toolmaker (since 1996) and a freight car nut, it's the only way to do all this correctly in my opinion. Nick nick molo, owner and founder Moloco "This has been where Tangent, Rapido, and depending on the run, Exactrail/Arrowhead shined through much better." Did you mean Rapido? Or maybe Moloco, who, it appears, does trace all the lettering on a freight car?
The end result shows you care. People appriciate it. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Mar 29, 2024 16:20:33 GMT -8
The above quote is from Jason from another forum from 3/29.
It would seem it’s all possible before production. I realize a company doesn’t want to keep editing CAD drawings for 10 years before sending to production but I would think everything you can fix before ever tooling is way less expensive than after tooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr4200 on Mar 30, 2024 5:05:52 GMT -8
"Always try" is a little hedgy. Not the same as "always."
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Mar 31, 2024 6:13:37 GMT -8
The above quote is from Jason from another forum from 3/29. This isn't saying very much, sorry. Any company involved with manufacturing anything will want to improve their products before going into production. |
|
Tom
Full Member
Posts: 235
|
Post by Tom on Apr 1, 2024 7:09:57 GMT -8
The above quote is from Jason from another forum from 3/29. It would seem it’s all possible before production. I realize a company doesn’t want to keep editing CAD drawings for 10 years before sending to production but I would think everything you can fix before ever tooling is way less expensive than after tooling.
Therein lies the issue. Pre-production samples can only be revised so much before new dies have to be cut. Revisions to small things will likely be done, but things that cost bigger money (new tools) or if a factory pushes back too hard..... well.
Again, this would likely be much better if production samples were done (or not as we'd get to see the same issues repeated) - this can verify many things from back and forth CAD files, conversations, paint matching, pad printing, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr4200 on Apr 1, 2024 11:54:14 GMT -8
^^^ IIRC, Bowser has 3D prints done from their CAD before they cut tooling. Does anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Apr 1, 2024 12:08:19 GMT -8
^^^ IIRC, Bowser has 3D prints done from their CAD before they cut tooling. Does anyone else? not that I've heard of, but I don't understand why. To me it seems like a genius way to catch your mistakes before it's too late. |
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Apr 1, 2024 12:32:11 GMT -8
^^^ IIRC, Bowser has 3D prints done from their CAD before they cut tooling. Does anyone else? not that I've heard of, but I don't understand why. To me it seems like a genius way to catch your mistakes before it's too late. It's a great idea, however it will not catch any mistakes introduced in the tooling phase. There are features added in the tooling phase that could impact overall accuracy of the part (or the tooling engineer / company changes something to make their lives easier). |
|
Tom
Full Member
Posts: 235
|
Post by Tom on Apr 1, 2024 20:05:36 GMT -8
not that I've heard of, but I don't understand why. To me it seems like a genius way to catch your mistakes before it's too late. It's a great idea, however it will not catch any mistakes introduced in the tooling phase. There are features added in the tooling phase that could impact overall accuracy of the part (or the tooling engineer / company changes something to make their lives easier). There's a big key point. If the maker uses a different file for the cut or if they're sloppy, the 3D print will look different than the first shot. It also depends upon the skill of the printer operator....
Atlas did this for the Procor car and the Nippon-Sharyo gallery cars (possibly along with others). Bowser did this, thanks to 3D Central, initially for at least the RS-3 and Rapido did this on, at least, the GP40.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Apr 2, 2024 5:54:38 GMT -8
It's a great idea, however it will not catch any mistakes introduced in the tooling phase. There are features added in the tooling phase that could impact overall accuracy of the part (or the tooling engineer / company changes something to make their lives easier). There's a big key point. If the maker uses a different file for the cut or if they're sloppy, the 3D print will look different than the first shot. It also depends upon the skill of the printer operator....
Atlas did this for the Procor car and the Nippon-Sharyo gallery cars (possibly along with others). Bowser did this, thanks to 3D Central, initially for at least the RS-3 and Rapido did this on, at least, the GP40.
It is required to be a different file for cutting the mold. Features need to be added for the sprues, partitioning for multipiece slides, ejector pin locations, and a whole slew of other items (draft angle requirements, modular inserts, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by cnwfan on Apr 2, 2024 7:42:20 GMT -8
There's a big key point. If the maker uses a different file for the cut or if they're sloppy, the 3D print will look different than the first shot. It also depends upon the skill of the printer operator....
Atlas did this for the Procor car and the Nippon-Sharyo gallery cars (possibly along with others). Bowser did this, thanks to 3D Central, initially for at least the RS-3 and Rapido did this on, at least, the GP40.
It is required to be a different file for cutting the mold. Features need to be added for the sprues, partitioning for multipiece slides, ejector pin locations, and a whole slew of other items (draft angle requirements, modular inserts, etc.). Making my living as a manufacturing engineer I've both designed and purchased tooling for various products. The tooling features should not impact the overall dimensional accuracy of the part. The tooling needs to ensure that the product is dimensionally accurate per the design requirements. I'd like to have easy tooling all the time too, but sometimes it's just not possible and still meet the dimensional and tolerance requirements. Where I see the issue is that perhaps the tooling suppler isn't held to account to provide tooling that meets all the product requirements. |
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Apr 2, 2024 8:11:38 GMT -8
It is required to be a different file for cutting the mold. Features need to be added for the sprues, partitioning for multipiece slides, ejector pin locations, and a whole slew of other items (draft angle requirements, modular inserts, etc.). Making my living as a manufacturing engineer I've both designed and purchased tooling for various products. The tooling features should not impact the overall dimensional accuracy of the part. The tooling needs to ensure that the product is dimensionally accurate per the design requirements. I'd like to have easy tooling all the time too, but sometimes it's just not possible and still meet the dimensional and tolerance requirements. Where I see the issue is that perhaps the tooling suppler isn't held to account to provide tooling that meets all the product requirements. All true. I was just bringing up the point that tooling is another change point that can cause issues / headaches in the production cycle. The concept of 3D print the file, check it over, push to tooling and assume it'll all be correct is a fools errand. Especially when the toolmaker is halfway around the world and might change things to make their lives easier (this burned Rapido on the E8s). Samples from the rough stage tooling (prior to rivets / fine details being cut) should catch most issues. Fixing said issues also becomes a challenge depending on what changes are required and who gets to eat the cost of the change and the associated delay in the project. |
|
|
|
Post by cnwfan on Apr 2, 2024 10:22:24 GMT -8
Making my living as a manufacturing engineer I've both designed and purchased tooling for various products. The tooling features should not impact the overall dimensional accuracy of the part. The tooling needs to ensure that the product is dimensionally accurate per the design requirements. I'd like to have easy tooling all the time too, but sometimes it's just not possible and still meet the dimensional and tolerance requirements. Where I see the issue is that perhaps the tooling suppler isn't held to account to provide tooling that meets all the product requirements. All true. I was just bringing up the point that tooling is another change point that can cause issues / headaches in the production cycle. The concept of 3D print the file, check it over, push to tooling and assume it'll all be correct is a fools errand. Especially when the toolmaker is halfway around the world and might change things to make their lives easier (this burned Rapido on the E8s). Samples from the rough stage tooling (prior to rivets / fine details being cut) should catch most issues. Fixing said issues also becomes a challenge depending on what changes are required and who gets to eat the cost of the change and the associated delay in the project. It sounds like the process is out of control if tooling suppliers can make unauthorized changes that are then accepted as being OK. |
|
|
|
Post by voyager989 on Apr 2, 2024 10:33:08 GMT -8
All true. I was just bringing up the point that tooling is another change point that can cause issues / headaches in the production cycle. The concept of 3D print the file, check it over, push to tooling and assume it'll all be correct is a fools errand. Especially when the toolmaker is halfway around the world and might change things to make their lives easier (this burned Rapido on the E8s). Samples from the rough stage tooling (prior to rivets / fine details being cut) should catch most issues. Fixing said issues also becomes a challenge depending on what changes are required and who gets to eat the cost of the change and the associated delay in the project. It sounds like the process is out of control if tooling suppliers can make unauthorized changes that are then accepted as being OK. Unauthorized changes by a supplier are always a risk with outsourcing, but there's almost no way a model train manufacturer could afford to completely in-house it. Some (iirc Bowser does, Hornby used to keep all their tooling in-house between runs before they purged their warehouse) keep tighter control of their tooling. |
|
|
|
Post by cpr4200 on Apr 2, 2024 12:57:16 GMT -8
^^^ Bowser "used to be Hornby"? What?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssw on Apr 3, 2024 8:05:44 GMT -8
^^^ Bowser "used to be Hornby"? What? I think there's some missed punctuation there - Hornby used to shoot their own models, but have outsourced everything and closed their tooling warehouse. |
|
|
|
Post by voyager989 on Apr 3, 2024 12:23:08 GMT -8
^^^ Bowser "used to be Hornby"? What? I think there's some missed punctuation there - Hornby used to shoot their own models, but have outsourced everything and closed their tooling warehouse. This. Hornby used to keep their tooling in the UK, the new owners were unpleasantly surprised to find how much had been junked or sold when they planned to refurbish it and re-run a lot of their older stock. |
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on May 9, 2024 13:48:05 GMT -8
This is mind-blowing to me. The original fan design wasn't great. While providing all the feedback to the product designer who is no longer with them (starting to be a trend with Rapido!), the fan design was changed to a separate part design similar to Atlas's, but of course with alleged better fidelity. What came out of the redesign looked even worse. I provided this feedback that this was not going in the right direction, but waved the white flag when it was clear the ugly ship was going to sail, resigned to the fact that discerning proto modelers would likely need to replace the fans REGARDLESS of what Rapido did or didn't do, because mass-producing fans of an acceptable quality is something I think only one company would/could get right, and Tangent doesn't make engines. But now to watch this video and hear they've had some sort of ridiculous revelation at Springfield that the fans suck, when I've been saying this for over two years before any tooling was even cut, likely partly because they've parted ways with yet another product designer that was working on stuff that was exciting for CSX modelers, is bang-my-head-against-the wall frustrating. Relatedly, it's been a very difficult journey for even Dave himself to get Gordon's fan design produced and flowing again, and somehow now out of the blue Rapido is going to magically start putting "Cannon" fans on their mass-produced RTR models?!?! GMAFB. A modeler needs to have some quality time at the workbench to properly build a Cannon fan and get it properly cleaned up and installed and painted and looking good. Look at all the Cannon fans on models out there that are "flashy," installed wrong, glue-y, crooked, bolts missing, bent and crooked grill rings. And Rapido thinks their factory is just going to bippity-bopp make this happen, like why has no one ever thought of this before, duh?!?! Even if they pull off Cannon fans (which they won't), we'll still be left with the god-awful journal spring "window" that's gaping hole into a big black abyss of the netherworld. ............................. "You may have seen in our last newsletter and on social media we were really excited to announce the licensed Cannon & Co fans being included on the GP40 to improve our model even more. We had also added that this was causing a delay in the redesign for our GP38s to see if we could make it happen. Unfortunately, due to production timelines, we could not ensure these licensed fans are incorporated into the design, however we did improve them greatly — the biggest difference being that we could only get down to a 0.3mm phalange thickness rather than 0.2mm. We still believe these are an incredibly improved design and can't wait for you to get your hands on the real thing!" Oh look! Color me shocked. |
|
|
|
Post by win70rob on May 15, 2024 6:32:41 GMT -8
I learned from a fellow operator at a train club that friends don’t let friends buy Rapido trains. I’ve personally been burned by them on most of the products and have just plain given up on them. They are too busy taking our money to invest in a bus or make cheesy sci-fi spoof videos when they can’t get cars to roll properly or paint to be correct. Just my opinion, other companies that focus on the top half vs the bottom half of the models will get my business. The real question I have…With the amount they advertised the bottom detail. Who runs a layout on a glass table and then looks up to see the bottom detail? Once again, just my opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on May 15, 2024 7:58:20 GMT -8
The real question I have…With the amount they advertised the bottom detail. Who runs a layout on a glass table and then looks up to see the bottom detail? Once again, just my opinion Pretty close to nobody. Certainly not me. But if you're running passenger cars without skirting, it looks much better from the side if there's underbody detailing. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on May 15, 2024 9:44:36 GMT -8
I learned from a fellow operator at a train club that friends don’t let friends buy Rapido trains. I’ve personally been burned by them on most of the products and have just plain given up on them. They are too busy taking our money to invest in a bus or make cheesy sci-fi spoof videos when they can’t get cars to roll properly or paint to be correct. Just my opinion, other companies that focus on the top half vs the bottom half of the models will get my business. The real question I have…With the amount they advertised the bottom detail. Who runs a layout on a glass table and then looks up to see the bottom detail? Once again, just my opinion I'm going to politely disagree with you on the underframe detail as I prefer to view and have built a lot of my model railroad at, or nearer to eye level. So freight cars and locomotives with detailed underframes are important to me and I pay as much attention to that aspect of a model as a whole. In general though, these days most better quality equipment does have good underframe detail, certainly better than the days of Blue box. |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on May 15, 2024 9:57:11 GMT -8
Well-detailed underframes are important to all those Penn Central modelers.... The stuff needs to look good when it inevitably derails and tips over!
|
|
|
|
Post by typhoon on May 15, 2024 11:58:56 GMT -8
The real question I have…With the amount they advertised the bottom detail. Who runs a layout on a glass table and then looks up to see the bottom detail? Once again, just my opinion Sounds like Accurail or an old blue box is right up your alley. Once again, just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by win70rob on May 15, 2024 13:51:35 GMT -8
I guess the point I was getting at, Rapido likes to stress all there bottom detail when they can focus on having engines that run properly, freight cars that roll properly, or just clearly get the paint colors correct. I prefer the detail I can see when the models are on the track and I’m looking at them
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnersteve on May 15, 2024 15:06:19 GMT -8
5/15/24, close to 6:58 p.m., EDT
As I recall, the original blue box kits, as well as at least some of Athearn's even earlier plastic RTR and kit cars, had what underbody brake system parts they did have facing the wrong way, because whoever designed them wrongly interpreted the drawings of real cars that they worked from, so that layout of the parts as seen from the bottom of the model was flipped 180 degrees from what it should have been. Another really bad mistake Athearn made for a long time was using the existing tooling it had for the roofs and ends of AAR 1937 design cars on models with new sides representing cars built considerably later.
I don't think Accurail or Branchline ever repeated that mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by hudsonyard on May 15, 2024 21:25:51 GMT -8
If you have a layout with a deck at chest/chin height, you realize how nice the detailed underbodies on cars can be, a car with a bare one will really stand out.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnersteve on May 16, 2024 1:55:23 GMT -8
5/15/24, close to 6:58 p.m., EDT
As I recall, the original blue box kits, as well as at least some of Athearn's even earlier plastic RTR and kit cars, had what underbody brake system parts they did have facing the wrong way, because whoever designed them wrongly interpreted the drawings of real cars that they worked from, so that layout of the parts as seen from the bottom of the model was flipped 180 degrees from what it should have been. Another really bad mistake Athearn made for a long time was using the existing tooling it had for the roofs and ends of AAR 1937 design cars on models with new sides representing cars built considerably later.
I don't think Accurail or Branchline ever repeated that mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by typhoon on May 16, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -8
I guess the point I was getting at, Rapido likes to stress all there bottom detail when they can focus on having engines that run properly, freight cars that roll properly, or just clearly get the paint colors correct. I prefer the detail I can see when the models are on the track and I’m looking at them You would be surprised what you can see on a double deck layout. |
|
"This has been where Tangent, Rapido, and depending on the run, Exactrail/Arrowhead shined through much better." Did you mean Rapido? Or maybe Moloco, who, it appears, does trace all the lettering on a freight car?Yes, proof reading failed me it seems. Corrected. And yes, Moloco is certainly one of cream of the crop when it comes to recreating artwork instead of searching through serif/non-serif fonts on Adobe.
