Rapido FL-9 progress

[wcfn100]

Well I hope the nose is still open to tweeking when it's reviewed.  From pictures of the HO model and all the 3D renderings,  I think there's at least two places that could be improved upon.


Jason

[Puddington]

Thanks for the PM - I've passed your thoughts on to Bill for his review with the FL9 team.

[bbussey]

Well I hope the nose is still open to tweeking when it's reviewed.  From pictures of the HO model and all the 3D renderings,  I think there's at least two places that could be improved upon.

Seems to me that working from actual 3D scans of an actual F nose supersedes any blueprints you have.  Particularly when you're judging based on a distorted "worm's eye" photo of the model.

I've seen FL9s, and these models look spot-on.

[wcfn100]

Seems to me that working from actual 3D scans of an actual F nose supersedes any blueprints you have.  Particularly when you're judging based on a distorted "worm's eye" photo of the model.

I've seen FL9s, and these models look spot-on.

The use of a scanner doesn't even imply to me that it's somehow more correct.  Not to say it isn't, just that there's no reason to just assume it is.  Scanners are just tools and not always good ones.  Scanners, like printers have resolution or how many data points are collected.  And just like printers, it makes a huge difference depending how much data you collect.  And even if the data coming in from the scanner if 100% spot on accurate in every dimension, it still needs to be translated into a drawing on the screen and you don't get to use all those data points to make your drawing as it would be a total mess.  You have to get an approximation of the points to generate your contours.  Regardless of all that, the human eye is still many folds better than any scanner.  I can say with confidence that the nose can be improved (whether it needs to be is a different topic) and I've passed my observations onto Mike. 

Another thing I mentioned in my message was that I'm wondering if the CAD software being used isn't the best for this type of application.  I work in Inventor and it has a lot of great modeling tools and works very well as long as you are working on a plane (XYZ).  Trying to work in 3D space becomes cumbersome, at least compared to some other 3D modelers like Rhino.  What I'm seeing with this model is very similar to what I saw with the Kato E5 so I'm curious if it may be a limitation or difficulty with the drawing software that make these contours so difficult to get correct.  Someday I'll have to try for myself and maybe that will give me some insight.  But that day won't be today, so I'll just pass on what I see.


Jason

 

[rapidotrains]

The use of a scanner doesn't even imply to me that it's somehow more correct. 

How does one respond to such a bubbemeise?

Jason, you are officially hired to do all of our 3D designs for all of our future products because your eye is more correct than blueprints or 3D scans of the prototype.

We don't pay much, but we promise to put your name on the box in big letters.

 

-Jason

[wcfn100]

How does one respond to such a bubbemeise?

You may respond however you wish, or don't, it doesn't matter.

All that matters is this:



If you think the nose contours on the model are 100% perfect match to the proto, then that's the end of it.

And by your attitude, I have to assume that's the case, so there you go.


Jason

[bbussey]

Looks dead-on to me, accounting of course for the fact that the angles and perspective of the two views are vastly different.

Keep in mind that this is a signature locomotive of my primary road.  If there was an issue, I'd think I'd point it out ... with a tad more diplomacy though.

[Scottl]

This is like the Kato E5 again. 

[wcfn100]

Keep in mind that this is a signature locomotive of my primary road.  If there was an issue, I'd think I'd point it out ...

I'll keep in mind that I went school for 3D modeling and also taught it.  I know what I'm seeing even if it's not clear to anyone else.  It always drive me crazy when this happens but I've accepted that this is just going to happen and I don't argue over it anymore.

Clearly this is another 'just me' issue (at least the E5 got some corroboration) and we can just let it go as such.   Maybe by next time I'll be smart enough not to say anything.

But probably not. 

Jason

[bbussey]

Probably not. 

And regarding the E5, there was no definitive conclusion there either.  Photographs aren't evidence, in either case.

[learmoia]

You may respond however you wish, or don't, it doesn't matter.

All that matters is this:




Jason

I can see quite a few differences, but your comparing an 'as built' 3d rendering to a 2-3 times rebuilt photo, so the only one I'll bring up is:   I can see a slight difference in the blending where the headlight meets the nose.  The model 'looks like' it's using a slightly smaller radius then the prototype.

However.. we're comparing a computer trying to render lighting against an exact 3d model.. vs a low resolution photo of the locomotive (taken at a different viewing angle) - with a different lighting angle, after multiple modifications and rebuilds (Maybe even different phases of the original locomotive)...

The difference that stands out to me (which I think was mentioned earlier..) was the MU doors on the nose (which was obvious on the physical model too)..   But no one has compared the 3D design to a photo of the same phase of the locomotive as built (here)... so it may have been correct at the time..

I'm guessing this model will be as accurate (or more accurate) than the Brass alternatives.. So yeah.. I'm satisfied.. ~Ian

[peteski]

Personally I'm a "leg man" - looks like Jason is a "nose man". 

But on the serious note I can see what Jason is talking about.  I don't know if it is the angle or whatever but the real loco in the photo seems ot have more dome-like curved nose.  The curved contour blends smoothly with the sides where in the 3D model the transition between the curved top of the nose and the side has a more abrupt angle.   The 1:1 loco in the photo also has a more pronounced fillet around the headlight housing.

But what do I know - I also thought that the clapboard engraving on the N scale Rapido meat reefers was too deep and wide.    To each its own. 

[Rapidobill]

Just back from the excellent Prototype Rails Meet in Cocoa Beach, Florida where we showed the first injection and assembly sample of the HO FL9. (For reference, this is the FIRST time any of these parts have been shot and assembled. We seem to be making good progress...!)

I've posted several additional photos (warts, cat hairs - and all) on our web site at http://www.rapidotrains.com/fl9_5.html. A teaser is posted below...

I've also added a note on the page about what a "sample" actually is and I feel that is important to mention here as well. Many who are unfamiliar with the manufacturing process are often very quick to comment on sample photos when posted (from all manufacturers) pointing out all of the mistakes in the model without seeming to realize that the purpose of such samples is to find these issues.  It can make us gun-shy to post such photos sometimes. So, donning my flak jacket, here you go... 


 
Bill Schneider
Rapido Trains

[peteski]

It would be so awesome if this level of detail was available in N scale models!  Buy OTOH, this is exactly what drives the price of contemporary models way up.  RTR baby! With all its bells, whistles and hoses!

[wcfn100]

I've also added a note on the page about what a "sample" actually is and I feel that is important to mention here as well. Many who are unfamiliar with the manufacturing process are often very quick to comment on sample photos when posted (from all manufacturers) pointing out all of the mistakes in the model without seeming to realize that the purpose of such samples is to find these issues.  It can make us gun-shy to post such photos sometimes.

In my case, I was told (by Rapido) that the nose contours were final, which is the only reason I foolishly chose to pursue any of this.

So either the nose is still open to change despite all the rhetoric about blueprints and lasers, or the nose is indeed final and everything I wrote is totally fair to say about the model.

I'm good either way, but I'd most like to see the model be correct.

Jason