Model Railway Forum

I’ve run out of superlatives. R-

Pigeons with a d .

Superb figures showing exceptional painting skills (and patience!)

Another little job completed today.

I bought my first ‘genesis’ coaches at a Hornby factory ex-display sale - this one was missing its running boards. Twenty minutes on the computer and I produced these 3D printed replacements - even down to the 0.1mm lip at the rear of the board. Better still three brackets line up with the existing mounting holes and the fourth is only out by 1mm. Close enough for government work.

Untitled by Steve Mumford, on Flickr

And now I have just realised that I have painted them the wrong colour - tomorrow’s task beckons.

I would have enjoyed scratch building one of those with plasticard. I guess using a printer exercises different parts of your brain. Is the resin you use strong. I seem to remember early 3D figures were brittle. Are there different grades?

Plasticard was an option. 'Standard' resins are still brittle - a couple of the carriage figures lost feet yesterday.
More 'exotic' resins are available but not worth spending out for small parts like these unless I make a habit of making bits like these.
I will have to be careful when I fit the carriage lights to this one though - good job I printed a few spare.

On another forum a bloke has had a printer long before you got yours and doesn’t have a lot of luck. You definitely seem to have taken to it like a duck to water.

Walkingthedog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 11:22 pm On another forum a bloke has had a printer long before you got yours and doesn’t have a lot of luck. You definitely seem to have taken to it like a duck to water.

I think I have seen his thread on RMWeb? If so he is trying to run before he can walk with some slightly more complex software. I am taking baby steps with some very basic programmes that seem to work for the limits of what I am trying to achieve.
I know my software is limited so I don't ask it to do something that it can't achieve but sometimes it takes a mistake or two to understand where those limits are. For example, I made the supports (that's like the sprue of a plastic kit) for the print quite short - the result being that the brittle resin of the running board broke rather than separate. So I went back into the software, lengthened the supports and got a perfect print. Another of those baby steps.

Interesting that the one bracket that didn't line up for me was because I didn't have fine control over placing the bracket - it 'jumped' by 1mm rather than something finer. I think like most things, it's understanding the limits of the software and hardware and working within those boundaries - that seems to avoid disappointment.

A parallel example would be the new Hornby DCC system which I have helped to test. It has clear limits and boundaries of what works and what doesn't. Quite a few users have had issues with it because they are trying to operate outside the design parameters of the system yet still blame the manufacturer for their own failings.
Sorry, I'm starting to rant.

Not at all Steve. A good point well made. R-

This does appear to be a problem with many things, but does show it's in 3d printing quite often... (i'm guilty as much as anyone) Many people start, have an issue, and then run to google to find the answer, and do all the things google comes back with, making multiple changes. They try and print and are met with even more issues than they started with.

It seems you have the right mindset steve, in making a single change and checking before moving on to the next thing... well done!

Which software are you referring to? Some software does allow you to change the grid snapping constraints.