Ace-Garageguy

I use the empty kit boxes as homes for ongoing projects, as they're, amazingly, the perfect size for all the parts a model car requires. As most of my projects are mashups of bits and pieces of numerous kits, I kinda rarely actually use a box a car came in as a build-box for that particular car...though sometimes it works out that way. I also use empty kit boxes for safe storage of often fragile old resin and vacuum-formed bodies, which warp easily if they're stored with any pressure on them. As I have more projects than I have empty kit boxes, shoeboxes, cigar boxes, and several kinds of food packaging make up the difference.

Exactly.

The link goes to "Advanced Model Railroading" again...but I tracked down a copy of the casting book, and it's winging its way to my hot little hands as we speak...so thanks for the heads-up.

Holy cow. It was sure worth the wait. Especially the shot with the air filter taken apart. Man. Nice, nice, nice.

I think what I have a problem with as far as "digital modeling" goes, is that, though it does indeed take a complex learned skill-set to do it well, it's a shortcut, and sidesteps the development of the fine motor skills and eye-hand coordination required to physically make something. You can correct endlessly within a CAD environment (or art program) so mistakes don't really count. In contrast, inking an engineering drawing, painting with watercolors, or sculpting a model car part requires a high degree of discipline, as mistakes are difficult to impossible to put right without starting over. And you don't run the risk of impaling or skinning your fingers if your attention lapses. Pain and blood can be very effective teachers. An interesting related aside...recently, several studies of younger surgical students have indicated a tendency of some to be ham-handed hackers, never having developed the fine muscle control and spatial awareness most children used to develop over time by doing more things in the physical world. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/well/live/surgeons-hobbies-dexterity.html There are, of course, those who argue that video-game play and other button-clicking/mouse-moving/joystick-jerking activities enhance eye-hand coordination and reaction times, particularly where some kind of computer or other technical interface is involved in the surgery. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/could-video-game-players-make-better-surgeons/ The problem, and apparent contradictions, are being intensely investigated. The benefits of having a surgeon who has very precise control of his hand muscles, and an excellent sense of spatial awareness, are kinda obvious. Here's a couple such investigations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906001/ https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/bcafa72a-408a-4d83-b3cc-080c4d38a5c1/view/eeb8bd89-c112-4f4a-ab93-dfbbf3859f15/Jonathan_Chainey_202006_MSc.pdf Ultimately, AI/robotics will probably replace entire classes of skilled humans whose physical abilities have been allowed to atrophy.

I think what I have a problem with as far as "digital modeling" goes, is that, though it does indeed take a definite learned skill-set to do it well, it's a shortcut, and sidesteps the development of the fine motor skills and eye-hand coordination required to physically make something. You can correct endlessly within a CAD environment, so mistakes don't really count. Nor do you run the risk of impaling or skinning your fingers if your attention lapses. An interesting related aside...recently, several studies of younger surgical students have indicated a tendency to be ham-handed hackers, never having developed the fine muscle control and spatial awareness most children used to develop over time by doing things in the physical world. And there are, of course, those who argue that video-game play and other button-clicking/mouse-moving/joystick-jerking activities enhance eye-hand coordination and reaction times. The problem, and apparent contradictions, are being intensely investigated. The benefits of having a surgeon who has very precise control of his hand muscles, and an excellent sense of spatial awareness, are kinda obvious. Here's a couple such investigations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906001/ https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/bcafa72a-408a-4d83-b3cc-080c4d38a5c1/view/eeb8bd89-c112-4f4a-ab93-dfbbf3859f15/Jonathan_Chainey_202006_MSc.pdf Ultimately, AI/robotics will probably replace entire classes of skilled humans whose physical abilities have been allowed to atrophy.

I have a couple of architectural modeling books from the '60s I bought primarily for model RR reference. Good stuff.

And in large part, they were correct.

I have an extensive collection of railroad model mags, mostly Model Railroader, going back to the mid-1930s. Much of the info on scratch-building and other modeling techniques is still relevant to skilled modelers today, at least those who elect to reject total app-dependency. One of the most valuable articles, to me, is a very early treatise on scratch-building structures and rolling stock from styrene strip, extruded shapes, and sheet. And yes, the introduction of plastic kits was viewed with much derision by old-school (at the time) modelers who built their models from wood, cardstock, and routinely tooled and cast and machined their own metal parts. As an aside, my Unimat lathe/mill is something I lusted after as a young teen, and finally acquired a few years back. It is still an absolute joy to use such a small yet precise machine tool, and I kinda feel sorry for folks who will never know the pleasure of making something without a computer interface. I also have a sizable collection of railroad "craftsman kits" dating back 60 years or more, many requiring hand-carving and shaping of wood parts, sealing of wood grain so parts simulate non-porous materials, making jigs and fixtures for assembly, etc., and I enjoy working on those old dinosaurs immensely. With careful work and minor upgrades, these ancient kits can be built into stunning models that present very well alongside the latest-greatest "digitally-modeled" offerings.

I agree in principle, entirely, and have at times found myself resenting the "oohing and ahhing" some digital art and photography seems to engender, being an old-school dirty-hands artist and photographer myself. But when I see something like Bill Cunningham's magnificent birdcage Maser, I really have to reconsider. Maybe it's because Bill is a master craftsman in all the old senses as well, excelled in hacking and carving things with his hands FIRST, so to him, CAD and 3D-printing is just another tool in his box. I'm not so sure I'd be as accepting of similar work produced by someone who had not mastered the physical skills prior to getting involved with 3D, just as I'm reluctant to embrace "fine" art produced by someone who can't draw a blade of grass, but can manipulate an image in a computer. My attitude is the very definition of ambivalence: the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone. Is original work produced by 3D printing traditional "scratchbuilding"? No, but original work is still original work, worthy of respect, no matter the tools and techniques employed. Again, if modelers stick to accurate descriptions of the way they work, saying for instance "I designed and printed such-and-such", there's no need to argue about redefining terms.

Wow. Seeing work of this exceptional caliber is really the main reason I frequent the forums. Inspiration, pure and simple.

Agreed, but creating the master by hand (from which molds are made) is...

Here's something to think about that illustrates well (I think) whether creating drawings and files to print from is actually "scratchbuilding". The basis of the concept of "scratchbuilding" is that something is created "from scratch". Like making a cake from flour and milk and eggs, sugar, etc., as opposed to using a mix (a "kit", if you will). "From scratch" means something is created from the most basic components or materials, shaped and combined in a way that didn't exist previously. Someone who creates his own 3D-printable files from measurements obtained from a real object...or from his own imagination...has used electrons, pretty "basic" components, to shape and combine design elements (lines and curves and volumes are also very "basic") inside a computer, displayed on a screen, and ultimately fed to a tool that transforms them into physical reality. Another example: I'm a machinist. I often shape raw metal or other "basic" stock into my personally-designed objects using an old-school manual lathe and vertical mill, controlling every cut and motion with my own hands. I also occasionally design parts in CAD, and use CNC milling machines to physically "make" the parts from raw stock...particularly when I need multiple copies of something quickly. In both cases, it is my own mind that is the origin of the part in question, my mind that has employed tools of various levels of sophistication (including my own hands) to reshape physical reality. And in both cases, I'm comfortable saying "I made" the parts...though I always distinguish whether I used CNC machines to perform the actual physical work. By saying "scratchbuilding" is only applicable to hand-made model parts would be akin to saying that unless I used nothing but hand-powered saws, chisels, files, and drills to machine a real-world part, I didn't actually "make" it. But in the final analysis, "scratchbuilt"...or not...is simply a matter of semantics. If YOU created the files, just say so, and avoid a pointless and pedantic discussion that can never really be settled. (As a side note, I occasionally see modelers refer to their work as "scratchbuilding" when in fact it is modification of pre-existing kit parts. Modification, no matter how extreme, is not scatchbuilding, though many of the same physical skills are employed...and entirely scratchbuilt parts are frequently included in heavily modified models)

If a modeler creates the drawings and files the parts are printed from, I think it is still "scratch building", though it obviously involves an entirely different skill set than traditional methods employ. On the other hand, if a modeler simply buys files and prints some parts and assembles them, there's nothing "scratch" about it...but extremely high-quality models can result. The best models I've ever seen employ ALL the traditional physical skills as well as 3D design and printing. Bill Cunningham is one builder who has set the bar pretty high in this area, and frankly, I don't see how the excellence of his work can ever be exceeded. His 1/24 "birdcage" Maserati has to be seen to be believed. It is easily in the same league as Gerald Wingrove's models. https://cs.finescale.com/fsm/m/online/1581167.aspx

One of those ideas that's just so good, somebody needs to build a real one. How much fun would it be to smoke a "supercar" with a Pacer? The mind boggles.

Yes, a quality epoxy is the way to go for a structural adhesive. JB Weld is easily obtainable, as is 30-minute hobby-shop stuff. Don't use anything "5-minute". You will be disappointed. "Bondo", the now-generic name for any two-part catalyzed polyester filler, is your best overall filler bet. It adheres well to both well-scuffed styrene and metal, and featheredges well on both...if you mix and apply it right. It also hardens all the way through thick applications by chemical action, so there's no waiting and shrinking like you get with one-part non-catalyzed filler. Bondo 801 Professional Glazing and Spot Putty is available in modeler-friendly packaging at mose auto parts stores, and comes with its own little tube of catalyst. Pay attention to the product number and name, as all Bondo-brand spot-putties are not the same.

Good progress recently. The front wheel mods worked a treat. Panel lines all nicely deepened, just about ready for red primer. Figgered out how to do several things I wasn't sure of, too. I like to work to a plan. Pix up this weekend lost likely. And thanks again for those reference shots, Gary. Though I've amassed many more, you pointed me in the right direction of things to look for.

Very, very nice.

Bottom line...most blue "painter's tape" is primarily intended to be used in conjunction with water-based latex paint on walls. The adhesive is not sufficiently solvent-resistant to work well with most solvent-based paints. The best "edge" tape out there is the 3M green plastic fine-line tape (6300 line) made for real cars. It comes in several widths, follows curves very well, and edge-seals perfectly with no bleed. Ever. Prices are reasonable: 60 yards of the 1/8" stuff is about $25. I've used it for decades for flame work and stripes on cars, and N-numbers and striping on aircraft, where wonky edges are simply not permissible and can cost many hundreds of $$ to correct. I've recommended it repeatedly to people having problems with masking, and everyone has had excellent results..

I like pie.

Exactly. There are many ways to hold even the smallest parts for painting, and all of them have been touched on here on the board.

Glad he's OK. He always captures exactly the right "feel" with his era-correct hot rod builds.

You're welcome.

Correct.