The Ship Model Forum

I printed it vertically last night, it came out very well. I hollowed it out with Chitubox and made holes to connect its compartments, to avoid any suction phenomenon that would damage the surface.

The print is very good, the details are well rendered.

I will try a 5° print of the hull to see.

And another one at 20 microns /38 hz with the Phrozen mini printer instead of 50 with the mono X.

The advantage of the grey boats is that they are almost mono color, so you can print the elements together. Which is not a problem to paint them.

Some small rough pictures.

I'll try printing at 5 degrees later:



à 90°:







I broke the rudder when I was unstuck, but I'm going to glue it back together. The connection with the hull is very fragile.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

I'm trying a print this way, as planned. 1 hour of printing against 6 hours for the vertical solution, we'll see who wins in terms of the advantage/disadvantage ratio of the method in the end.



It printed well that way, better than vertically anyway.

I've got a bit of tearing at the bulwark at the front, nothing serious, a rectification to be done maybe.

The starboard steering wheel did not print correctly, that was to be expected.

The boat printed very well, many details are well represented, others will be replaced by PE, ladders (although they are perfectly printed), railings.

I had removed a lot of details, I will put back the fire gun, I still have a searchlight to draw too, it will print. The one of the loading mast was torn off during the printing, I will reinforce its support a little thin for 1/350.

At 1/200 ( To accompany the Hornet CV-8) and 1/100, it will be at the top!  :lol:

Conclusion, I did not expect such a result, frankly. Very happy with this project. I'll be able to use it for ST type tugs by replacing the castle and by putting the hull at the right size for these smaller tugs, 4 meters less.

Class and type Type 327-A Small Tug
Displacement 212 tons
Length 26 m (85 ft)
Beam 7 m (23 ft)
Draft 3 m (9.8 ft)
Propulsion 800 hp (597 kW) turbocharged diesel engine

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

Looking good overall !

There seems to be a bit of stepping on the various horizontal surfaces, at least on the photographs. How serious is this in reality ? would it disappear under the paint ?

_________________
Eberhard

Former chairman Arbeitskreis historischer Schiffbau e.V. (German Association for Shipbuilding History)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merci!

This is normal.

On a surface not parallel to the printing plate, the 50 micron layers deposited during printing appear on a sloping plane. It's not very noticeable especially after a very light sanding and painting. The photo amplifies all this as do all the defects on the models. In real life the model looks much better.

I'm going to make a print with 20 micron layers to see, to test, they will be less visible normally.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

Pascal:

The tiny 'Little Toot" looks very convincing! Indeed, paint always makes things look better and model photography, of any sorts, brings out every small defect. That's why the gal's wear makeup and get photoshopped.

Cheers: Tom

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

20 micron layers will give you 2.5 times as many steps, but they will be less visible.

But you are right - from arms length you really can't see them.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

I'm not sure, that's the theory, but in the field it's different, making holes of 0.1 mm is already a feat for our printer, anyway, holes in a grid of less than 0.1 mm in diameter would be almost invisible to the naked eye especially after painting.

The problem is the diffusion of UV light laterally during the printing of the layer, which makes the hole smaller than the drawing and closes it. A bad cleaning of the part makes the phenomenon even worse.

I have to receive in March the new printer Photon Ultra, with it, we get closer to professional printers (no lcd screen, but a DLP projector Texas instruments ), to see if it will be better at this level.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

Light is waves and waves get diffracted at edges and dispersed in media, such as the resin. So it is not surprising that holes become smaller than designed: the UV pulse gets diffracted at the edges of the layer already formed and also slightly disperses in the resin.

The smaller and better focused the beam is the less pronounced this effect will.

Something similar happens in laser-cutting, but here holes become bigger and parts smaller, because the energy from the diffracted waves is partially absorbed by the cut material. At least with my cheap laser-cutter I often have to experiment with the size of holes and cut-outs to get them right.

_________________
Eberhard

Former chairman Arbeitskreis historischer Schiffbau e.V. (German Association for Shipbuilding History)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tks Wefalck for the informations.

I made some other prototypes.

The missing details are now present, inner and outer steering wheel, projectors, fire cannon, bell.

For the front defense, the Tug pudding, it was complicated to print it because of its file size. I couldn't reduce it, it crashes too. Also this piece makes a mess in Chitubox.

I managed to print one copy, but the shell is full and so the supports have stretched a bit, which is not good for the shell. On the other hand, the pudding looks very good, too bad.

I'll go back to a simpler defense, I'll work on it once printed. A print is in progress.

I have to get some 2 bars railing ( Eduard ) at 1/350.

I'll be able to tackle the preparation of the 1/100 print, then 1/200 later.

The 1/200 should be easy because it goes widthwise on the printer plate at an angle. Not much to change, except for details like the railings.

My fleet is growing day by day. A few hulls have been thrown away directly.  :) But I'm on the right way.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

Is there another reason apart from printing time (which I think is independen of how croweded the printing platform is, correct ?) for not breaking up the model into several prints and, hence, to reduce the file size ?

... you can always sell off the not so good copies on ebay et al. and only keep a couple of good ones for your colleague and yourself

_________________
Eberhard

Former chairman Arbeitskreis historischer Schiffbau e.V. (German Association for Shipbuilding History)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's just the Tug Pudding that was huge in terms of file size, I removed it now replace with something simpler that also fits and is not heavy in the file size.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

very excellent works-- its a great looking Tug!

JB

_________________
....I buy them at three times the speed I build 'em.... will I live long enough to empty my stash...?
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

IPMS UK SIG (special interest group) www.finewaterline.com

Thanks Jim!

We're up to our necks in pudding with my friend Bernard who kindly offered to help me with the recipe for this thing that looks like nothing and is difficult for me to reproduce in 3D. I'm not an ace in specific technical 3D modeling, but Bernard is.

His work:

https://www.laroyale-modelisme.net/t277 ... -en-resine

https://www.laroyale-modelisme.net/t281 ... ine#635871



His prototype is very successful with texture, I will keep on these two versions the 04 with finer threads than the 004, but to see at the printing because sometimes you have to force the line to bring out the details at this scale.  

I also did my soft version, which I worked with a scalpel after printing to simulate the strings. It's not bad either.

The new version I just printed:



On the right the new version, on the left the old ones.



Both versions of Bernard, with different thread sections. I really like the first one, but it may be less suitable for 1/350 printing, the second one would be more..

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

WOW!!!

Well not very satisfied with the quality of the 1/350 Eduard railing.

The brass is not very good, too hard and therefore too elastic, a horror to form.

The vertical bars are too far apart.

I ordered IJN #3527 which will stick better at https://www.tomsmodelworks.com hoping it will be better. Also, there are ladders.

To follow!







_______________________________

Printed the 1/100 version, it's a nice hull.

I printed a temporary work support to make it more convenient to handle.

The goal might be to make a small 1/350 diorama at the foot of the 1/100 version to show the towboat in its water lines,

it would be integrated to flush with the display tray.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

The US Navy used a standard railing design from before WWII well into the third quarter of the century, and possible longer (until today?).

The three horizontal rails were spaced 12 inches apart, and the bottom of the three was 15 inches above the deck. So the top rail center line was 39 inches above the deck.

The rails were made up of standard pipe sizes, and these were specified by inside diameters (the internal volume was important for calculating the volume of material they could carry). The top rail was 1 inch INSIDE diameter, or about 1 1/4 outside diameter. The other two railings were 3/4 inch INSIDE diameter, or about 1 inch outside diameter. The stanchions were 1 1/4 inch INSIDE diameter, or about 1 1/2 outside diameter.

Stanchions at the ends of a railing typically extended 3 inches above the top rail center line (42 inches long), with an approximately 2 inch diameter cylindrical cap that was 1/4 inch thick/high. The horizontal pipes welded to the sides of the vertical stanchions. Other railings came up to the center line height of the top rail and were notched to carry the top rail pipe. The top pipe was welded into the notch and the two lower pipes were welded to the sides of the pipes. NOTE: When I say "welded to the sides of the pipes the center lines of the horizontal pipes intersected the center lines of the vertical stanchions. The horizontal pipes were notched to fit to the vertical pieces.

The bottom ends of the stanchions could be attached to the ship in two ways. One was to just weld the bottom of the stanchions to the deck inside the coaming (typically 3 inches high). However, sometimes the stanchions were welded to the outside of the deck house sides. In this case the stanchion pipes were made longer by about 3 inches and the bottom as welded to the deck house side 3 inches below deck level. They typically had a "D" shaped cap welded over the bottom end of then pipe to close it off, and the flat side of the "D" was welded to the deck house side.

NOTE: Deck house sides typically had a 3 inch high coaming around the edge of the deck to prevent water from sloshing over the edges of the deck, and channel the water into drain pipes. Because of this, if you take measurements from photographs you will see the lowest railing pipe 12 inches above the top of the coaming. But the lowest rail is actually 15 inches above the deck.

There were some instances, usually on platforms high on masts and towers, where lower railings were used.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

Tks Phil.

There was a lot of 2 bars railing in the us Navy, tugs in particular, see picture above, and tankers, the tubes were full I think and rather thin according to the pictures compared to what is done now.

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

For a reason unknown to me, many auxiliaries/amphibious such as Poseidon and the LSM's had two rail lifelines (often stanchions and wire rather than pipe). Perhaps built to a merchant marine standard of the time than a warship standard? After all the "Gummit" and especially the Navy had their own way of doing things.

Somewhere in the bowels of NARA are the incriminating documents from the office of an unknown Lt Cmdr in BuShips giving the ultimate justification "Because".

A question to the printing practicalities: on the 1/100 upright stern section I seem to see a lot of support structure over the flat deck - why is this necessary ?

Of course, it goes without saying, that the results are impressive

_________________
Eberhard

Former chairman Arbeitskreis historischer Schiffbau e.V. (German Association for Shipbuilding History)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------