I would never index off bottom rocker (for PU blank glue-ups), precisely because of the problems it creates deckside. You're on the right track having them match the decks. But have your blank supplier glue in just a touch more deck rocker at the tips. It'll make the operators job easier; gives him a little forgivedness in location/indexing.
I know this advice of doing more masters runs counter to your original query, but getting good results are what matter and IMO it's your quickest path. Once you have some files you like you can get in the programs and manipulate them, which will put you on your way to just designing on the screen. I'm not sure just designing on the screen is a good thing, however. But that's a subject for a different thread.
Any bottom rocker glue ups are only for raw blanks for handshaping.
Deck rocker indexing is a must for machining to net best result foam by thicknessing from the bottom as we historically do.
Marty @ Arctic told me Pavel has programs for every 4" in length.
Obviously guys building a file for one offs or a couple don't have this concern.
Zephyr is just up the road from me and we have talked about using the probe versus Shape 3D, and he maintains it is truly apples to oranges, particularly when I have explained a greater desire for precise top rail line foils from nose to tail, and, of course, the rocker concerns.
Marty mentioned modifiying the current file by first resizing, then going in to the resized version and making the modifications. Which, if I can do this, sounds like a way to expedite and alleviate some concerns I have to date.
At the end of the day, I'm blessed to have such concerns.
If there wasn't such demand, it wouldn't matter so much...... ;)
Oh the agony, I feel for you as I went down the slice method in the early years around the mid 90’s and have done extensive R+D over the years. Using the probe in slices also doesn’t give you an exact surface, the most exacting and consistent way to attain data is in true 3D. Slices are limiting especially if you want to scale or control individual axis individually. Then you are at the mercy of having to do scaling at the controller. And that is also limiting.
Designing or even probing in slices is working in interpolated data. The best way I have found requires attaining your data with a probe and eliminate using slices and scanning in slices.
Attaining the data in absolute numeric’s will give you the freedom to scale infinitely with out distortion.
Hint; if you use the slice method as everyone else your boards will look like everyone else’s. As you are relying on a set of algorithms to create surfaces.
There are many ways to go down this road don’t limit yourself to what everyone else does. The low road can take you to places the high road can’t. Find your own way.
If you are in the So Ca area feel free to stop by my shop and I’ll give you some insights. Contrary to what this place believes, not all CAD, CAM, CNC are the same. Some of the posts here crack me up when I hear the nay sayers spew about CNC’s they have no REAL experience.
Hi Bruce -
I don't know much about Shape 3D.
What sounds like a similar problem was discussed here concerning widths and how they are affected when scaling up in length.
A 6' board that is 19" wide if direct proportioned to 9' will result in a width of 28 1/2". A similar situation occurs when using direct proportioning to scale up rocker.
Greg Loehr posted a formula he uses that limits the overall width to something more reasonable. He also posted the math he used to obtain the formula but it basically amounted to 1/8" width increase for every 1" of length increase.
Maybe the Shape 3D is performing a direct proportioning on your scaled up designs? Maybe a similar formula to Greg's would help?
Curiously enough, on a thread that discussed these matters several years ago it was none other than yourself who chimed in, "You guys are giving me a headache... Just go get some wax and go surfing." http://www2.swaylocks.com/forums/i-want-to-shrink-board
The scaling that Greg suggested in that thread is approximate, but a pretty good approximation. I had learned years ago thru Hynson or Steve , or Bill while doing business with Bahne (1970-72) something sort of similar. But you are right that scaling outlines from very short to very long doesn't follow a consistent formula practical for real application.
The Shape 3D resizing program is overall pretty good for outlines and some other aspects, but when it comes to deck and bottom rockers, it has obvious limitations.
And as stated before you........... all cnc machines are not created equal, the methododoly used cannot take into account variances that make sense for different sized surfboards in real life applications versus some consistent, mathmatical absolute formula that can be applied to surfboard rockers.
I called Mike (Ward) yesterday as we haven't had a chat in quite awhile and to see how he and Marie are getting on. They provide a terrific and knowledgeable service for many clients using Shape 3D.:these are the folks you can learn a wealth from among others here on Sways. Michael explained a bit to me about G Codes and how some machines may read the data differently than others. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, and he agreed that for what demands I have that some limitations exist that, as I learn, I can address many of them but will find that my instincts about the inherent limitations of such approaches are well founded.
That doesn't mean you can't make a really good file of a design you have conceived, it just means that there is a level that the current process is capable of, and as suggested by D, may represent a limiting factor if strictly adhered to that one approach........... which has never been even a remote consideration for me.
What I have gathered from talking to both Michael and Zephyr is that Shape 3D may appeal to users because it has an ability to smooth out a file whereas the scan aka probe approach will be more literal in what the scan measures and itnerprets into a file. Zephyr told me that, for instance, if you have a pressure dent in the master you are scanning, and the probe travels over that area, that the dent will faithfully be produced in the file and machining.
I can see some shapers preferring Shape 3D because of it's smoothing aka editing ability whereas others desire as exact a duplication of their master as possible. And as D stated, even then, that may not necessarily happen.
The relevance of all this stuff is whether you're a hobbyist or an industry guy trying to make a living. That's why I posted this in the Industry section, because what we are really talking about is how literal each method can interpret and reproduce a master design that one wants faithfully reproduced whether at it's original length or scaled up or down. How much control do you need to have over that design? Do you have other shapers finishing that work and how close is your original design coming to them to be finished. I understand those considerations can turn off a lot of Sways memebers, but if you are in the industry trying to make a living, the concerns are real and valid, esp. for the big guys that produce thousands of boards per year with large rosters of models.
Michael told me as far as Shape 3D, to correct, control.create rockers for different lengths, I would be well advised to pull up the orginal file, click into resize, then turn off resize and plug in all the dims I want........ then save it as a new file. He emphasized the need to TURN OFF RESIZE prior to saving it as a new file.
But as far as low roads and high roads.......... I'm in total ageement in what has been stated here. I am sure there are LOTS of guys that over rely on the automatic features that will just let Shape 3D 'fill in the gaps'.
While this feature may produce a good riding surfboard (or not), the difference between good & great may just be the difference between a good or great design.
In the rush to "progress" be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
IMHO if your from a hand shaping back ground like I am, you will NEVER be satisfied by doodling on a 2D program with the outcome of your shape from the Shape 3D, APS any of the over the counter ready made shaper programs.
All G-Codes are universal CNC language, if there are any discrepancies it is NOT the machine but the software or tooling/fixturing issues.
In terms of scaling and resizing, if the scaling methods are not locked in by the 2D slices you should be able to scale infinitely with out ANY distortion. The cause of the distortion is due to the slices. I have been scaling my programs since the mid 90’s an my shapes are scalable to any size and I have nearly 100 percent satisfaction from my customers.
This is what I don’t understand; a decent machine that’s designed with some insight and knowledge to how complicated surfboards can be should be able to design and replicate exactly what you have in mind. Anything less is not ideal in my mind, a decent designed machine has the ability to shape your boards EXACTLY, but why settle for having to resizing/ retemplating/ refoiling/ is a joke. At that point it’s just a glorified profiler, you can do it by hand with a profiler and router templates faster and just as clean, why spend all that money?
As far as smoothing out, with out giving away the farm there are some trick ways to deal with smoothing is not a problem for me. (Hint; convert data and filter. :-) If you’re a beginner shaper and your hand shapes abilities aren’t up to par, sure the slices will smooth out lumps for you. For myself I didn’t like that, I wanted my hand shapes replicated faithfully and desired the softer ANALOGUE look of my shapes. There are just some template curves that the slices can’t replicate. I can easily tell a digital 2D sliced shape just by the rate of the curves. Also, I have some areas on my shapes that magically disappeared by the slice methods, no good.
I have to be careful here not to be misunderstood.
Shape 3D version X is a better program today.
However it's still not perfect.
I have been using it since version 4.
Many miss use it and some expect way too much from it.
We use RHINO 3D and T Spline as well as a few other programs.
Once a Digital scan is performed you still have to refine the file.
We have used lasers as well.
You have file work regardless.
You still have to know what your doing.
Files are brought to me that I have to refuse to cut on my machine.
CNC/CAD is such a wonderful tool in the right hands.
Sure we can always do better we just need a money tree.
You can only throw so much money at it.
Surfing does not give you the ROI needed to qualify the investment to operate in NASSA mode.
To buy a CAD program will not make you a shaper.
Being a Shaper will help you to be a better designer in CAD.
Wayne is very skilled in both CNC Technology as well as a very talented hand shaper.
Why he doesn't work in the Aerospace Industry is beyond me?
Michael aka surfding
Here is a current model scanned and cut for one of my team guys.
Right on............ I think I spaced and referred to you as "D" not Oak....... oh well, we all have learned to read between the lines.......... but I absolutely agree when you describe the difference between a two dimensional shape and a "true 3D" one.
It takes a long time for shapers to grasp the signifcance of thinking three dimensionally.
This is a MUST if you want to be successful designing when using compound curves.
For some, it's the difference of being a proficient shaper but not a designer. Not to sound conceited or belittling of anyone aspiring in the craft. The fact is that some people think linear and others conceptually. Some grasp concepts quickly thru images and others do better with verbiage. Some study physics and plane geometry while others hit the snooze button.
If you can do both, you are blessed and well ahead of the game. Shaping is sensual to be sure......... but it is also a discipline, and the more one studies, practices, visualizes, the more likely they will be able to create spontaneously.
Then we remove ourselves from that spontaneity and sit down to a computer screen and there's a whole new dance happening. The screen is flat........ its well suited to two dimensional thinking. But even with the 3D option you really can't reach in and feel the board. Those vanishing points are soothing, but whether they end up looking like that on your blank is the challenge.
I totally grok your take on why a cnc machine should not be relegated to nothing more than a glorified profiler. But some very capable shapers have long settled for "give me correct deck and bottom rockers with the thicknesses I want, correct outlines and leave the rails square....... I'll do the rest".
How close is close enough?
How many do you want/need to do per week?
Necessity is the mother of invention.