Standup Zone Forum
General => The Shape Shack => Topic started by: jondrums on August 19, 2020, 10:08:40 AM
-
I have a board design I want to execute and I can't get Shape3D to do what I want. I have it modelled in CAD software and can export in STL/IGES/etc - but none of the board CNC guys can program their cutters from anything other than Aku or Shape3D file. So I'm trying to redo it in Shape3D. I've got the design I want in there as a ghost, so that's a start. Need some specific advise from someone with experience. Private message is fine - thanks!
-
Talldude is your guy, or my brother Bob (stoneaxe). PM them. I tried importing the file you sent me into Shape3D and couldn't get it to work. I sort of got it into Fusion3d, but it required a lot of goofy steps and I haven't figured out how to make changes.
-
Have you e.mailed them. They have always been super helpful for me. The hollow board functions have got better and better over the years.
If enough people ask for the same thing they will add it in the next update. So any ideas you have let them know.
-
yeah, they've been pretty responsive over email. They pretty much confirmed that it can't be done without redesigning it in Shape3D. So I paid for a month's license (I am very thankful that they price it that way) and I'm on my way. Fiddled and faddled for a while to get it to import as a ghost board, which helps immensely. Its really just that the shape I want doesn't loft into orthogonal cross sections nicely.
PonoBill - I WILL get this into shape3D, I'm determined. I can always re-share once I do
-
I'll help if I can. Did some heavy lifting with Shape3D including my new foil board, which was the easiest job by far but had to export it to STL so I could finish in Rhino3D to adapt it for the builder machine.
-
I paid for a month's license (I am very thankful that they price it that way) and I'm on my way. Fiddled and faddled for a while to get it to import as a ghost board, which helps immensely. Its really just that the shape I want doesn't loft into orthogonal cross sections nicely.
I just learn about this 'one month license' purchase for the level you need, from a fellow Zoner (Paul) who I was surfing with a few days ago. That was a good move on Shape3D's part. Usually the person operating the CNC machine can clean up your file if you sit with them for a few minutes. Some CNC machines have limitations and the result is weird flat spots or worse. The actual operators know their machines. They are not at all the same from machine to machine.
-
If anyone is curious about the issue, STL file can be downloaded here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dpqfcih7pw898q/5_8_117L_binflipped.stl?dl=0
This imports into Shape3D as a ghost file or can be viewed in the 3D viewer. Or there are plenty of other ways to view a STL file like this online viewer
https://www.viewstl.com/
The issue is all around the tail area.
1) The whole tail profile was created with a linear sweep around the bottom contour. When viewed as a slice, it isn't a straight line from the bottom to the rail. So the bottom shape of the tail just isn't looking good when generated from a bunch of slices in Shape3D.
2) I can't get the deck to rail radius to blend around the corner smoothly. This could be dealt with by hand sanding after the CNC cut, so not super worried about this, but kind of a bummer not to be able to get it to do what I want.
-
The 1 month license is a winner. Not that easy to find though.Thats what I did ages ago. When the free version was awsome I designed a load of boards. Then took the 1 month license and saved them all. Then I took the 1 year. Luckily that has run out. Not sure I am ready to play dot to dot again.
Aku and Shape 3D dont seem to like to share files either. Not surprising as they are the only 2 programs you can use!
As said there seems to be problems in the tail.
The company that cut the blanks for me just said dont worry hand sand it. Again as said here.
Sometimes it looks worse on the computer than it is.
-
The issue is all around the tail area.
1) The whole tail profile was created with a linear sweep around the bottom contour. When viewed as a slice, it isn't a straight line from the bottom to the rail. So the bottom shape of the tail just isn't looking good when generated from a bunch of slices in Shape3D.
2) I can't get the deck to rail radius to blend around the corner smoothly. This could be dealt with by hand sanding after the CNC cut, so not super worried about this, but kind of a bummer not to be able to get it to do what I want.
I can see how this could be an issue. If you can post the shape3D file for download I could see how it looks like on your end and maybe suggest an approach.
-
What I have now is looking pretty ugly, but the solution might be a whole bunch more slices. Still learning how to edit curves, which I think could help also.
in-work Shape3d file here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ka6zzxvnwbte0b/5_8_117.s3dx?dl=0
-
ps. you can load the STL file above as a ghost - I don't think the shape file includes the ghost shape
-
What I have now is looking pretty ugly, but the solution might be a whole bunch more slices. Still learning how to edit curves, which I think could help also.
in-work Shape3d file here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ka6zzxvnwbte0b/5_8_117.s3dx?dl=0
The key in shape3D is simplicity. The least amount of control points and slices will usually generate the smoothest shape without kinks. You would sometime compromise on some minor
aesthetics but if you identify and choose the right placement for key slices, Shape3D will calculate the transitions nicely, the trick is to play with the tangents controls between consecutive slices thus manipulating Shape3d to generate the preferred transition.
My method is usually starting with a lot more controls and slices to get to reasonable shape and then start eliminating controls and slices to let shape3d do its thing. once there I start with fine tuning.
I'll look further into the file and see if I have more suggestions.
-
I found less slices and make sure the widest point on the rail is an apex. If you let the program do the work it will. I think I ended up with 5 slices for a 14 ft board.
Say goodbye to hours of your life.
There is a 1 month and 1 year option.
The free version used to be awsome. It slowly got worse and you had to pay.
-
There are a lot of tools in the pro version to create custom tails (split tails or noses), create recessed foot wells, etc. The college I teach at has a board cutting CNC setup. They have the pro version of Shape3D setup. I was recently working on an inflatable board design in Shape3D free version, but didn't have the tail tool. I worked with the CNC operator at the college to create the right tail. He used the tail tool and it looked perfect. The next step was top export it to a .IGES file so we could send it to a manufacturer for pricing. Shape3D pro version exports .IGS files, but...... it doesn't recognize some of the custom tools such as the tail tool. It looks like a broken tail in the IGS file. So we had to fix it in Solidworks and re-export a complete .IGES file from solid works.
Here's the result https://tandemboogie.com/
-
This is an attractive shape BTW. See attached rough copy with simplified lines. I think you can finish it from here quickly.
-
This is an attractive shape BTW. See attached rough copy with simplified lines. I think you can finish it from here quickly.
Looks like this...
-
Yes, I'm kind of McLoving that shape except for the bevelled tail, the tail would be great on a SUP foil board, but for winging I think i'd like a more rounded transition. Still, if I had this as a blank i'd be a happy dude.
-
are you thinking to ditch the centerline V - or are you talking about rounding off the transition from flat bottom to the rear bevel?
I really puzzled over how much roundness to add to the bottom to tail transition since I saw Dwight's treatment of tail shapes. He prefers tail C (at least according to his website)
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5264117ce4b077de040303d1/1535798388326-0RZSADF7JCOH05CFK2W2/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kEcar-MDmlKVzfFEgooW-FNZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWEtT5uBSRWt4vQZAgTJucoTqqXjS3CfNDSuuf31e0tVFnU7Va1PDrpQ2XomRWVMaTAJl8C2k0zDkiLvt2xQuxI5aB96T4CFO4T8Ti43_giHc/Screen+Shot+2018-09-01+at+6.32.01+AM.jpg?format=1000w)
-
Thanks for all your help Burchas - working from your file got me close enough to where we can do just a bit of hand-work after the CNC cut. Here's my shaping notes after CNC cut
(https://i.imgur.com/ruhkXmY.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/1nNcv91.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/0WMkDxe.jpg?1)
-
Put the handle in the bottom. You don’t need one in the deck.
-
Have you noticed Kalama doesn’t shape his rail at all. Flat dam square, top and bottom edge sharp. That adds HUGE stability. You gave away all stability rounding your rails.
Even KT and the flyingdutchman are starting to use flat square rails on some boards showing up on instagram.
-
Thanks for all your help Burchas - working from your file got me close enough to where we can do just a bit of hand-work after the CNC cut. Here's my shaping notes after CNC cut
You're welcome. Just few minutes of tweaking your file. Looking over your shaping notes, it's not hard to get there with shape3D just by adding 1 curve (between rail to apex), 1 slice for the rail transition in the front and two 3d layers for tail and nose. The rest is just tweaking controls to generate nice transitions. Probably an overkill with the cuts i've seen from most machines though my board required almost no touching out of the CNC.
As for the handle, having only one on the bottom did the trick for me as DW pointed out.
-
The bottom handle works well if it's perfectly located to balance the foil. But i'd still add a top handle for those occassions you have to carry the board some distance. It's easier to carry the whole thing with the foil mast across the front of your thighs and one hand on the foil or mast. Just don't head into shorebreak that way.
-
Have you noticed Kalama doesn’t shape his rail at all. Flat dam square, top and bottom edge sharp. That adds HUGE stability. You gave away all stability rounding your rails.
Thanks for the tip. Makes total sense that volume out at the edges has the biggest impact. But "give away all stability" by having round edges? Hard to believe that - why?
-
Have you noticed Kalama doesn’t shape his rail at all. Flat dam square, top and bottom edge sharp. That adds HUGE stability. You gave away all stability rounding your rails.
Thanks for the tip. Makes total sense that volume out at the edges has the biggest impact. But "give away all stability" by having round edges? Hard to believe that - why?
When I first prototyped square rails a few years ago, it doubled the stability of the board. It blew my mind how much it improved.
-
Thanks for the tip. Makes total sense that volume out at the edges has the biggest impact. But "give away all stability" by having round edges? Hard to believe that - why?
Fat square rails with sharp edges have a very good roll resistance. These are fast as well. My board at 28.5" has impressive stability in rough conditions. For the sake of my shins
and other bones I skipped the top sharp edges though. Not a good experience when remounting the board.
-
awesome advise, thank you!
I'm going to look into this a little further to see if I can understand the science behind why hard corners provide such stability improvements. That's because I'm stubborn, and gosh its ugly so it'd better work.
-
I really like the way the rounded rails look, so I wanted to be sure before I ditch them for ugly boxy rails. So I put two cross sections into CAD with exactly the same area (would yield the same volume board) and looked at the "righting moment" versus tilt angle in the water. The righting moment can be determined by looking at the lateral shift in center of buoyancy as the board floats at an angle. I did this for three different submersion levels to see if that is a factor. I'll share some of the data below to give you a sense of what I found - which is that any difference in righting moment between the two shapes is within measurement error.
Perhaps there is another effect I'm not thinking of? I'd really like to know - this is super puzzling to me. I don't want to discount the experience that you guys have - I am sure you know what you are feeling in the boards you've ridden!
Or perhaps the idea is that if we keep the width of the board the same, then boxy rails add a bit more volume where it counts to give extra stability? No question, for the same volume and same stability, boxy rails allow the width to be a bit narrower.
Here's the two cross sections I studied (obviously relevant to the board I am shaping). The three blue lines are the the three float levels I studied.
(https://i.imgur.com/sSUcLb7.png?1)
And here is the data for righting moment versus tilt angle in the water (this is for the most submerged float line - but all three sets of data were similarly identical between rounded and boxy rails).
(https://i.imgur.com/8YQkdhx.png)
-
Thanks for all your help Burchas - working from your file got me close enough to where we can do just a bit of hand-work after the CNC cut. Here's my shaping notes after CNC cut
Nice. Nah, don't hand shape it. Move the current 'post CNC features' into the Shape3Dx file (so you can duplicate it, build on that shape later and share it).
-
You didn’t compare same width boards.
I continue to get feedback from people that other boards (brands with pretty rails) are less stable.
Kalama has actually gone more extreme in his squareness over the last two years. His boards are the ones I recommend people buy.
-
Perhaps there is another effect I'm not thinking of?
Have you considered water wrapping? It seems to me that when it applies there are a whole new set of forces to take into account. At least that's the sense I got trying different boards.
-
Well, first make the overall width the same.
The calculated righting moment probably only looks at buoyancy location which is the source of static stability. The shape of the rail (or any other element) also has a dynamic effect on stability from its resistance to flow in the lateral direction from tipping, which I doubt is included in the embedded calculation. Curved edges reduce the flow resistance like a less effective version of rounded bottoms--allowing fewer direction changes and therefore having less inertia to overcome in the water flowing across the shape during tipping. You can have a very wide cylinder sunk to its midpoint offering lots of stability from buoyancy which actually has almost no dynamic stability and rotates easily in the water. Add flat surfaces at the waterline with even just a tiny bit of buoyancy to keep them at the water's surface without materially changing the righting moment and the shape becomes far more dynamically stable.
When I try to understand something like this it helps to consider the extreme cases that have some common elements with the change I'm considering.
-
Well, first make the overall width the same.
The calculated righting moment probably only looks at buoyancy location which is the source of static stability. The shape of the rail (or any other element) also has a dynamic effect on stability from its resistance to flow in the lateral direction from tipping, which I doubt is included in the embedded calculation. Curved edges reduce the flow resistance like a less effective version of rounded bottoms--allowing fewer direction changes and therefore having less inertia to overcome in the water flowing across the shape during tipping. You can have a very wide cylinder sunk to its midpoint offering lots of stability from buoyancy which actually has almost no dynamic stability and rotates easily in the water. Add flat surfaces at the waterline with even just a tiny bit of buoyancy to keep them at the water's surface without materially changing the righting moment and the shape becomes far more dynamically stable.
When I try to understand something like this it helps to consider the extreme cases that have some common elements with the change I'm considering.
OK Great! Can you now put it simply in one sentence? Geek speak is a known cause for brain pain ;)
-
Nail a 2X4 to a log and it's harder to roll it.
-
Nail a 2X4 to a log and it's harder to roll it.
And of course, this is how an outrigger on a canoe works too I suppose.
-
Thanks for all your help Burchas - working from your file got me close enough to where we can do just a bit of hand-work after the CNC cut. Here's my shaping notes after CNC cut
You're welcome. Just few minutes of tweaking your file. Looking over your shaping notes, it's not hard to get there with shape3D just by adding 1 curve (between rail to apex), 1 slice for the rail transition in the front and two 3d layers for tail and nose. The rest is just tweaking controls to generate nice transitions. Probably an overkill with the cuts i've seen from most machines though my board required almost no touching out of the CNC.
As for the handle, having only one on the bottom did the trick for me as DW pointed out.
Shape 3Dx has many different versions with different suites of features (different versions can be activated for a month, a year or even permanently). burchas, what version of Shape3Dx did you use. Seems that it must have been the Design Pro version to allow putting on the 3D Layers.
-
I find it interesting rail shape would make a difference on stability on such a short board when you have a mast and foil under it that should give you plenty of stability.
I would think you want a rail shape that releases as easily as possible. Square not rounded. If you have a round rail with water wrapping around it wont want to release as easily as a square rail ??
-
Nail a 2X4 to a log and it's harder to roll it.
And of course, this is how an outrigger on a canoe works too I suppose.
Actually an outrigger canoe is stable mostly because of the buoyancy of the ama located on a long moment arm. the dynamic stability of the hull is not enhanced much as anyone who has hulied can attest.
-
Awesome, I'm glad you guys are as interested in this as I am!
Well, first make the overall width the same.
ok, I'll try that. I'll make the deck a little lower so the overall board is the same volume. I think it is important to change one variable at a time. In the last study I changed the rail profile and width to keep volume constant. Next one I'll keep width the same and change rail profile and deck to keep volume the same. I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen from a pure righting moment perspective (very little change). Let's see.
The calculated righting moment probably only looks at buoyancy location which is the source of static stability. The shape of the rail (or any other element) also has a dynamic effect on stability from its resistance to flow in the lateral direction from tipping, which I doubt is included in the embedded calculation.
correct, I did not include anything to capture dynamic flow of water. The dynamic effect on stability would act as damping (righting moment is like a spring). This could well be the main thing people are noticing - but let's remember we have a huge foil underwater with a big moment arm acting as a pure damper. Hard to believe the rails are contributing much damping beyond that - but maybe so!
You can have a very wide cylinder sunk to its midpoint offering lots of stability from buoyancy which actually has almost no dynamic stability and rotates easily in the water. Add flat surfaces at the waterline with even just a tiny bit of buoyancy to keep them at the water's surface without materially changing the righting moment and the shape becomes far more dynamically stable.
That's because a cylinder has zero righting moment and zero roll damping, so anything you do will infinitely improve both the righting moment and the roll damping. Don't think this is a relevant analogy.
-
back on topic of shape3D
Nice. Nah, don't hand shape it. Move the current 'post CNC features' into the Shape3Dx file (so you can duplicate it, build on that shape later and share it).
yes, I would much prefer this. Burchas and I are both using the pro version, with the import option to get the STL ghost file into the program.
That said, shape3D cannot replicate the tail feature I want as far as I can tell. It is fundamentally designed to create lofted surfaces based on orthogonal cross-sections (slices and rocker profiles). I might spend a few more hours fiddling with it, I am not an expert yet. But the tail feature I want is modelled accurately by using slices that are not orthogonal, the slices wrap around the tail at an angle. More complex CAD programs can compute that surface, but Shape3D cannot. Anything I do in Shape3D will be an approximation of that surface and will not be true and fair without post-work.
-
That's because a cylinder has zero righting moment and zero roll damping, so anything you do will infinitely improve both the righting moment and the roll damping. Don't think this is a relevant analogy.
OK, just think about a round bottom surfski. Same principle.
-
That said, shape3D cannot replicate the tail feature I want as far as I can tell.
I believe there is a way to get really close to the effect you're after (maybe enough to forgo post work). You'll have to model the tail lines in the same shape you model the rail lines.
Then you'll have to create another curve between the rail line and the apex. This curve will allow you to control the transition from the rail to the tail when you edit it in both dimensions.
Finally, you add a 3d layer to cut the tail to fit the outline you originally created and you can also add the bevel at the top of the tail like in your original model.
for that you'll have to add few more inches to the shape length in order to leave enough meat to work with at the tail.
What I did was butchering all the intricate touches of your original shape just to demonstrate the structure simplicity in 10 minutes. You can dig a lot deeper.
-
back on topic of shape3D
Nice. Nah, don't hand shape it. Move the current 'post CNC features' into the Shape3Dx file (so you can duplicate it, build on that shape later and share it).
More complex CAD programs can compute that surface, but Shape3D cannot. Anything I do in Shape3D will be an approximation of that surface and will not be true and fair without post-work.
I've done some pretty detailed work in Shape3D free version that are much easier with the pro tools, but can be done if you know how to work the program. I draw in 2D and 3D CAD for a living. Solidworks, AutoCAD, Revit, etc. Shape3D is an old version of AutoCAD at it's core. It doesn't work in solids, just surfaces. The surfaces are a mesh that you push and pull. The amount of points you can edit are really limitless except for a few. Doing a fish requires a tool. The length of the board is fixed at the center line of the stringer. It defaults to a mirror so everything you do to one side of the stringer is mirrored on the other. Asymmetrical boards must require a pro tool. I drew a chair in Shape3D one time.
The thing is, why not just do a little hand detailing? It's quick and easy. Dicking with the program to get perfection is a waste of time unless you are doing production runs.
I was at my friends glassing shop last year, and the foil board they had just got from the CNC shop had a squared block tail. They owner wanted a wedge from tail to plate. They both looked at me and asked If I could do it. I marked it with a pencil and hand shaped the tail in about 5 minutes. Done. Off to glassing.
-
The thing is, why not just do a little hand detailing? It's quick and easy. Dicking with the program to get perfection is a waste of time unless you are doing production runs.
I was at my friends glassing shop last year, and the foil board they had just got from the CNC shop had a squared block tail. They owner wanted a wedge from tail to plate. They both looked at me and asked If I could do it. I marked it with a pencil and hand shaped the tail in about 5 minutes. Done. Off to glassing.
It can work as described or end up a disaster. I designed a board for a friend and he wanted a complex nose shape beyond Shape3D capabilities. I told him no problem, I'll finish in Rhino so you
can have the exact model to work with the shaper. He said "Nah, I know what I want, I'll be able to work it". It ended up like a Frnakenose.
F*ck around on the computer and you can always "undo". F*ck around on foam and you're f*cked ;D
-
creating this tail in Shape3D is a disaster. I ended up making a while bunch of slices to replicate the ghost board. Its a bit ugly on screen, but will be really easy to fair out with a sanding board - no creative shaping necessary, just cleaning it up.
I also redesigned with sharp transition on the bottom edge of the rails but nice big round-over on the top. I'm not going to ignore everyone's advise about stability, and I think that sharp corners increasing roll-damping makes total sense. But I don't think the round-over on the topside is going to matter much.
(https://i.imgur.com/SShmibT.jpg)
-
creating this tail in Shape3D is a disaster. I ended up making a bunch of slices to replicate the ghost board. Its a bit ugly on screen, but will be really easy to fair out with a sanding board - no creative shaping necessary, just cleaning it up.
Good enough. Can't wait to see it comes to life.
-
Have you noticed Kalama doesn’t shape his rail at all. Flat dam square, top and bottom edge sharp. That adds HUGE stability. You gave away all stability rounding your rails.
Thanks for the tip. Makes total sense that volume out at the edges has the biggest impact. But "give away all stability" by having round edges? Hard to believe that - why?
When I first prototyped square rails a few years ago, it doubled the stability of the board. It blew my mind how much it improved.
Dwight, I am trying to understand why you chime the rails on your wing foil boards, since you said square rails are so stable and since with wings I believe we are not leaning over so far as kite foil racers to need a deep chime to have board rail not hit the water.
-
Read 'Unlocking the Sky' https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Sky-Hammond-Curtiss-Airplane-ebook/dp/B0014H32FS Glen Curtiss invented the chines so his sea plane could break the surface tension in water and take flight. Plus it's just a great frick'n read. Glen Curtiss is the true father of modern aviation. Wright brothers were stiffs. The only reason they got any credit is because they were the first one's to lawyer up. They just copied other peoples work and took credit.
-
I helped launch a Curtis seaplane near Watkins Glen once. Mostly I was tall enough to catch the wing when it blew towards the dock. Amazing piece of equipment. I'll have to get that book. I think I would have liked to meet Mr. Curtis.
https://www.ponostyle.com/aa-punted-at-watkins-glen/
My race car, Peyote, got more or less destroyed by a dickhead in a Corvette at this race at Watkins Glen. The most significant thing about this race for me was not that my car got smushed (I fixed that) but that my brother David was there, and he had a great time watching me race. We had time together, and a little while later he died--had a heart attack and drowned trying to help a guy that had grounded a rented sailboat. It was so good that he was there, and that we connected so well and so effortlessly at this race. It wasn't always this way between us, but I got the chance to enjoy my brother, and it was good.
-
That was a good read Bill. Nice memory of your brother. Good to reflect from time to time.
-
finally got the blank cut, shaping next - a little more of a rough cut than I thought it would be
(https://i.imgur.com/6QLax6k.jpg)
-
That looks like it was cut on one of those old CNC wheel cutter machines. The new small router head type machines cut it so tight you barely have to finish sand them.
-
That's the roughest I've seen. APS3000 rules. Looking forward to see the build.
-
That's the roughest I've seen. APS3000 rules. Looking forward to see the build.
It kind of defeats the purpose of fine tuning your Shape3D file....
-
That's the roughest I've seen. APS3000 rules. Looking forward to see the build.
It kind of defeats the purpose of fine tuning your Shape3D file....
With that logic why even use Shape3D at all...
-
That's the roughest I've seen. APS3000 rules. Looking forward to see the build.
It kind of defeats the purpose of fine tuning your Shape3D file....
With that logic why even use Shape3D at all...
Seriously, I could get that close with my hand saw.
-
Seriously, I could get that close with my hand saw.
What's your point TD. The op already knows he got a bad cut, why rain on his parade now.
-
Seriously, I could get that close with my hand saw.
What's your point TD. The op already knows he got a bad cut, why rain on his parade now.
My point is, some times we get caught up in the tech and ultimately the result isn't what we expected. I'm not trying to throw salt in the wound. Before I had my first board CNC'd I asked a lot of questions about the machine. After about a couple of phone calls and I was about to pay for it, the operator notices that my board exceeds their width limit by 3/4". The person I was talking to was just a salesman. I found a different place who even offered me extra pass options for a finer cut. Which created more questions for me about their machine and cutting head. I was learning. The board still came out with some small flat spots that was a Shape3D programing mistake on my part.
-
Seriously, I could get that close with my hand saw.
What's your point TD. The op already knows he got a bad cut, why rain on his parade now.
My point is, some times we get caught up in the tech and ultimately the result isn't what we expected.
I for one wouldn't want to dumb-down my shape on the account of a crappy operator. There's a lot of time and thinking going into a nice shape. I'll take the same time to find a good
operator/builder who's taking pride in his work, otherwise why bother? Get one off the shelf and be done with it. My foil board turned out exactly as the file. The operator told me he'd rather
get a Rhino file than a shape3D to guaranty exact match so I rebuilt the board in Rhino and it was worth it. As expected with such attention to detail, the build quality is on a class of it's own
for anything available on the market at that price point.
If I just want to test a concept I'm working on and get a prototype, I'll give it to my local shaper. I know for a fact that whatever I put into the shape will NOT fully translate to the finished board.
Same goes for the craftsmanship. Learned that the hard way. Point is, there are still good shapers/builders out there. If you want something special, give it to someone special and make sure
you pay them well rather than nickel and dime them.
-
I couldn't find anyone who would accept anything other than boardcad or shape3d, so I redid everything into that format. Looking at the cut I'm also wondering what's the point? I'm going to finish off the board, but I'll be looking for someone else who will take a little more care with the cutting for next time. You live and learn
-
I couldn't find anyone who would accept anything other than boardcad or shape3d, so I redid everything into that format. Looking at the cut I'm also wondering what's the point? I'm going to finish off the board, but I'll be looking for someone else who will take a little more care with the cutting for next time. You live and learn
Good luck with the build. Next time look into APS3000 for cuts, very impressive results. Looking forward seeing the finished product.
-
Are people willing to share their recommendations for 'cutters' who are better at different CAD formats and/or non-standard surfboard shapes?
The picture of the cut also shows what good side lighting can reveal in a shape or blank.
All the best for the build!
-
Are people willing to share their recommendations for 'cutters' who are better at different CAD formats and/or non-standard surfboard shapes?
The picture of the cut also shows what good side lighting can reveal in a shape or blank.
All the best for the build!
Following.
I am planning to try Marko Foam (Huntington Beach, CA) for cutting a wing foil board shape soon. They almost certainly cut only using their own foam blocks and blanks (but that works for me). I know Marko cuts Shape3dX files (...what I am using). Shape3D maintains a list of compatible cutters on their website. I suspect Marko also cuts from AkuShaper (and other CAD programs?). They offer both standard and also precision cuts that don't require much scrubbing....may be almost ready to glass. It seems they cuts lots of boards. I think they even cut for real professional shapers. I look forward to other peoples' recommendations for other foam cutters to consider.
-
yeah, I think next time I might try Marko foam. This time around I literally never even though to ask for a fine cut, although now its fairly obvious.
Nice shape liv2surf! can't wait to see it come to life.
-
Marko does a good job and has good prices. Brian at ProCam, Inc in Huntington Beach has been doing it the longest of anyone I know. He cut a race board for me years ago / via Hobie. He knows all the file types and can tell right away if something doesn't look right in the file. He converted my Shape3D into a DXF and cut my 18' board in half. Ran the front half then the back. I just glued them together. Basham's in San Clemente does a nice job as well. They have a relatively new machine. I spoke with their operator and he didn't know how to chop an 18' board into two files. He may have figured it out by now?
-
I don't know if Dave Daum (King Surfboards) does just blanks for folks, but he can make his machines bark like a dog. I was super impressed at his ability with the tech.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/m7mz0IP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MwENlXi.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/e3zRn2M.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rL79DFG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Zlfrz0Y.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rCFis50.jpg)
-
Rides fantastic. Came in at 16# with pad, straps, handle, rail tape. Perfectly balanced center of gravity over with wing. Still need to play with the placement of the foil, but it works absolutely awesome. Really really stable platform in the water. I'm stoked!
-
Looks amazing! Great to read it work just as well. Congrats 8)