clipka wrote:
> Another fight won. This train is going somewhere, but I tell you - 
> complex cast-iron parts like that cylinder block are no fun to model in 
> CSG when you want proper beveling...
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


Either you're nuts, computers have advanced even more than I think since 
I bought mine, or (most likely) both.

The "steam" is very solid. Looking forward to checking out the "punk."

Bit of a shame you'll take this nice model and spoil it with realism. 
Realism is a limitation which prevents us from seeing how nice the model 
is. I prefer the pink and green version.

JRG posted a transformer model some time ago; Might be some beveling 
solutions there if you want to see another's take on it.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay schrieb:

> Either you're nuts, computers have advanced even more than I think since 
> I bought mine, or (most likely) both.

Yeah, I guess so :-)

I think 33 minutes isn't too bad for such a render; maybe it'll go up to 
1 hour when the geometry is finished, and maybe with all bells & 
whistles (by which in this case I mean texturing, special effects and 
lighting - the actual physical devices will be part of the geometry ;-)) 
I'll face a day of rendering time. I've seen worse :-)


> The "steam" is very solid. Looking forward to checking out the "punk."

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is actually not intended for 
the IRTC, but the "Across the Plains" TINA-CHeP contest, so this is 
unlikely to become the stage for a punk rock band or something :-)

(Though I might change my mind in case I fail to finish in time for 
TINA-CHeP; I'm already thinking about ways to force the "time" and 
"punk" into the concept, as it would hurt tremendously to waste the 
opportunity.)


> Bit of a shame you'll take this nice model and spoil it with realism. 
> Realism is a limitation which prevents us from seeing how nice the model 
> is. I prefer the pink and green version.

Well, realism will spoil the opportunity to see all the /geometry/, but 
I do intend to invest some more time into texturing, too, in hope of 
making up for it.


> JRG posted a transformer model some time ago; Might be some beveling 
> solutions there if you want to see another's take on it.

Way too late to go for anything other than my own framework. No time to 
learn anything new on the remaining miles ahead. (And as you can see, my 
own beveling tools take me quite some distance already :-))

Post a reply to this message

More structural members added.

(Some of the rivets may appear to be "floating"; this is because they 
are: Still missing some pieces there.)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'steam 2009-09-30 0451.jpg' (67 KB) Download 'steam 2009-09-30 0501.jpg' (98 KB)

Preview of image 'steam 2009-09-30 0451.jpg'

Preview of image 'steam 2009-09-30 0501.jpg'

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> More structural members added.
>
> (Some of the rivets may appear to be "floating"; this is because they
> are: Still missing some pieces there.)

This is spectacular stuff, I've been following with great interest. I hope you
finish it! You should definitely put some sort of image-series together on a
page somewhere showing the evolution of the model. I'd be as interested in that
as I would the final image(s).

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4ac2ca8d@news.povray.org...
> More structural members added.
>
> (Some of the rivets may appear to be "floating"; this is because they
> are: Still missing some pieces there.)
>
>

Flange on the foreground wheel missing.... :-)

I am nitpicking of course. Like Bill suggests, a series of progress images 
would be wonderfully instructive, after everything is finished. THis is a 
terrific project.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> More structural members added.
>
> (Some of the rivets may appear to be "floating"; this is because they
> are: Still missing some pieces there.)

O_O

a true craftsman...

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:

> Flange on the foreground wheel missing.... :-)

Duh... should I have been /that/ blind?

No, but the /wheel/ is :-P

This is what in railway terms was called a "blind driver" - not an 
uncommon thing on the middle wheel set of steam locomotives with five 
driving axles, as with a long wheelbase the flanges became a problem in 
narrow curves. Even on locomotives with just 3 driving axles, it was not 
uncommon to reduce the track of the outer wheel sets for the same reason.

The conical shape of the tyres still contributed to guiding the train 
through curves, and the horizontally very rigid chassis made sure that 
the blind wheels could not slip off the track.

Other designs empolyed a mechanism that would shift the wheelsets 
horizontally against each other in curves, but it made the suspension 
and the drive rods a deal more complex.

Locomotives with more than 5 driving axles almost invariably had half of 
the driving wheels mounted on a bogey with separate cylinders (so-called 
"articulated" locomotives).

> I am nitpicking of course.

As you see, ATM it may be difficult to out-nitpick me about my own model :-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is actually not intended for 
> the IRTC, but the "Across the Plains" TINA-CHeP contest, so this is 
> unlikely to become the stage for a punk rock band or something :-)

Not disappointed at all. In fact, quite pleased to see the RTChallenge 
still going on -- I've been out of touch for a while. I like the 
RTChallenge concept selection and a quick visit shows some great images.

>> JRG posted a transformer model some time ago; Might be some beveling 
>> solutions there if you want to see another's take on it.
> 
> Way too late to go for anything other than my own framework. No time to 
> learn anything new on the remaining miles ahead. (And as you can see, my 
> own beveling tools take me quite some distance already :-))

I'm not suggesting otherwise, but know from my own experience with 
rounding objects that one must usually select a set of compromises and 
constraints which affect the structure of his model as much as did the 
manufacturing constraints of a real-life steam engine's construction 
affect its structure.

It is, for me, interesting and often educational to see a similar model 
constructed within a different set of constraints. So interesting, in 
fact, that if I were to attempt to model a locomotive, I would likely 
select an extremely limiting set of constraints in order to see how the 
model developed within them.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Hey Christoph, you made my day!  :-)  I never knew about blind wheels and... 
never noticed them of course. Thanks for the extensive info.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> Hey Christoph, you made my day!  :-)  I never knew about blind wheels and... 
> never noticed them of course.

You bet I didn't either, before this! :-)

Had I not happened to come across this term by chance, I would have 
considered it an oversight in the blueprints myself.


There's an /awful/ lot to learn about steam locomotives... you'd think 
they're just boilers on wheels, with some steam cylinders? Well, 
basically you're right... /very/ basically :-P

Did you know, for instance, how they get fresh water into the boiler 
while "under steam"? I mean, they can't just open a lid and pour water 
in, can they?

Even more astonishing is the fact that the device they use to accomplish 
this has /zero/ moving parts. And to top it off, the device essentially 
works by using the boiler's steam /pressure/ to have the fresh water 
/sucked/ in.

Huh? Duh!

Perfectly black thermodynamics magic, as far as I'm concerned, but 
Wikipedia claims it actually works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injector

Post a reply to this message