|
|
Post by jedi3251 on Apr 28, 2019 10:25:28 GMT -5
brrogers, ARKM, darthbrooks and everyone else: 1" or 7/8" blade? Or both supported in the model with two different emitters? ARKM wants a static emitter modeled too so... I guess it would be easy to model both blade sizes... Again... this doesn't apply to what would actually get machined if anything. But someone could take the components they want to a machinist... I’m usually in the minority on this but always 7/8”... more realistic esp if the goal is screen accurate |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 10:55:00 GMT -5
brrogers, ARKM, darthbrooks and everyone else: 1" or 7/8" blade? Or both supported in the model with two different emitters? ARKM wants a static emitter modeled too so... I guess it would be easy to model both blade sizes... Again... this doesn't apply to what would actually get machined if anything. But someone could take the components they want to a machinist... I’m usually in the minority on this but always 7/8”... more realistic esp if the goal is screen accurate I'll make modeled components for both like I am doing with the idealized and uneven grenades. My thinking is that 1" can be compatible with most other hilts. In fact I am probably going to make the emitter cup the same as the Roman MK1 so. blades can be shared. But I agree a 7/8" would be more screen accurate. Should be able to model both easily enough. |
|
|
|
Post by darthbrooks on Apr 28, 2019 11:13:10 GMT -5
brrogers, ARKM, darthbrooks and everyone else: 1" or 7/8" blade? Or both supported in the model with two different emitters? ARKM wants a static emitter modeled too so... I guess it would be easy to model both blade sizes... Again... this doesn't apply to what would actually get machined if anything. But someone could take the components they want to a machinist... gotta be both, personally I'm a 7/8th guy if only one though... I feel like a 1" is probably more accurate to the OT or at least ROTJ but like ARKM has said before in regard to color, those movies have been remastered and changed so many times I'm not sure it matters? |
|
|
|
Post by darthbrooks on Apr 28, 2019 11:15:15 GMT -5
On 2nd thought I think I'd only ever use a 7/8" anyway I wouldn't use the 1" emitter for anything
|
|
|
|
Post by brrogers on Apr 28, 2019 11:29:52 GMT -5
Call me crazy but f you made it a 3/4 ID cup and a 1” OD it could use a 7/8 blade with an adapter or a one inch heavy blade (my preferred) or a 1 “ thin wall with an Inner adapter.
If there are multiple emitter face options then it wouldn’t affect the look anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 11:42:29 GMT -5
Call me crazy but f you made it a 3/4 ID cup and a 1” OD it could use a 7/8 blade with an adapter or a one inch heavy blade (my preferred) or a 1 “ thin wall with an Inner adapter. If there are multiple emitter face options then it wouldn’t affect the look anyway This is a good idea.... I'll have to think through the face options. I was going to keep the face and the overall emitter one chunk but you are suggesting something akin to Rudy's V3? darthbrooks, I don't have a v3 can you get me some good pics of the faces for your v3 and how it attaches? brrogers, like a shallow screw in emitter lip? That would make the static faceplate seamless... 🤔 You'd probably run into a second clocking issue though with the blade retention screw....? |
|
|
|
Post by Rogue 5 on Apr 28, 2019 12:01:46 GMT -5
I have to applaud you for taking this on dayadjocen and brrogers for getting the ball rolling. We always talk about our ideal hilt but none of us actually go about getting it made. If I might also make a suggestion about the emitter that it looks like ARKM already made to you. I personally prefer a two emitter solution like the SH V2 and a set screw solution the Rudy Pando V3 where it's hidden inside the threads of the emitter. This way you don't have a visible screw and no need for an inaccurate blade plug, just two emitters- one static, one fx. Edit: When I say inside the threads, basically where the lip or "face" of the emitter connects. Pictures incoming... I should note my V3 is from the first run which was a 3/4 emitter.   
|
|
|
|
Post by Rogue 5 on Apr 28, 2019 12:03:46 GMT -5
Call me crazy but f you made it a 3/4 ID cup and a 1” OD it could use a 7/8 blade with an adapter or a one inch heavy blade (my preferred) or a 1 “ thin wall with an Inner adapter. If there are multiple emitter face options then it wouldn’t affect the look anyway This is a good idea.... I'll have to think through the face options. I was going to keep the face and the overall emitter one chunk but you are suggesting something akin to Rudy's V3? darthbrooks , I don't have a v3 can you get me some good pics of the faces for your v3 and how it attaches? brrogers , like a shallow screw in emitter lip? That would make the static faceplate seamless... 🤔 You'd probably run into a second clocking issue though with the blade retention screw....? Exactly what I'm talking about haha. |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 13:21:56 GMT -5
I have to applaud you for taking this on dayadjocen and brrogers for getting the ball rolling. We always talk about our ideal hilt but none of us actually go about getting it made. If I might also make a suggestion about the emitter that it looks like ARKM already made to you. I personally prefer a two emitter solution like the SH V2 and a set screw solution the Rudy Pando V3 where it's hidden inside the threads of the emitter. This way you don't have a visible screw and no need for an inaccurate blade plug, just two emitters- one static, one fx. Edit: When I say inside the threads, basically where the lip or "face" of the emitter connects. Pictures incoming... i think I see what you're saying but I see a hole on the side face of the emitter bell? Also, ARKM, idealize grenade is now modeled as well. All dimensions are identical except for the groove cuts and ring widths, the base of the grenade (the black raised area that joins to the body) is also slightly modified so it can all mathematically work. All rings are 2.5mm wide on the idealized with a 70-degree groove angle. Pics coming in a min of the two. |
|
|
|
Post by darthbrooks on Apr 28, 2019 13:30:10 GMT -5
Ya, you'd think that's the retention screw but it's not when you say "face" what exactly you wanna see?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rogue 5 on Apr 28, 2019 13:32:07 GMT -5
The original prop also has that hole in the bell. I'm not sure if it had a set screw as well or if Rudy just put one in there to give us an option so to not have to unscrew the lip every time or more likely just to simply have more overall blade retention.
Sorry, it looks like I was focusing on that bell hole in my picture as if that's what I was talking about when I just meant to show the emitter with the lip attached.
|
|
|
|
Post by darthbrooks on Apr 28, 2019 13:35:24 GMT -5
dayadjocen just post a couple of pics of a hero at the angles you wanna see the v3 and I will post up some pics. With the 3/4 and 7/8 emitters on... my v3 also has the hole in the bell and then the retention screw hidden under the threads Rogue 5 is that also a Rudy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rogue 5 on Apr 28, 2019 13:41:23 GMT -5
dayadjocen just post a couple of pics of a hero at the angles you wanna see the v3 and I will post up some pics. With the 3/4 and 7/8 emitters on... my v3 also has the hole in the bell and then the retention screw hidden under the threads Rogue 5 is that also a Rudy? Yup! It's from the first run. I opted for a non-anodized, unpolished option so I could paint it to look more screen accurate even though I ended up loving the cleaned up ones like you have. Also at that point it was a 3/4 emitter. I wish I had waited for the run that yours is from when he made it 7/8. |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 13:51:18 GMT -5
ARKM: Both grenade options:  They may look slightly off cuz my collaging sucks. Length dimensions of the overall component is identical.
|
|
|
|
Post by ARKM on Apr 28, 2019 13:56:18 GMT -5
Very nice. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 15:05:38 GMT -5
So Rogue 5, Something like this?   Threw together just a static face to see if this is what folks mean. Also I see an issue: emitter depth... not sure how I am gonna do that yet.... 😳 |
|
|
|
Post by Rogue 5 on Apr 28, 2019 16:18:52 GMT -5
So Rogue 5 , Something like this? Threw together just a static face to see if this is what folks mean. Also I see an issue: emitter depth... not sure how I am gonna do that yet.... 😳 YES!!! That's exactly what I had in mind👍👍👍 |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 16:56:13 GMT -5
Ok. So combining Rogue 5's idea and brrogers', I am pretty sure with the two adapters and a couple face plates we can handle static, 7/8" and 1" all with one hilt... Now THAT is cool. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by darthbrooks on Apr 28, 2019 16:56:58 GMT -5
I also love that set up on my Rudy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 17:29:01 GMT -5
I also love that set up on my Rudy. Well that is what I'm gonna do. Hehe... |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 17:29:26 GMT -5
Using this method I now have the static and 1" plates done.
|
|
|
|
Post by darthbrooks on Apr 28, 2019 18:00:18 GMT -5
Using this method I now have the static and 1" plates done. man you aren't playing! |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 18:24:55 GMT -5
Using this method I now have the static and 1" plates done. man you aren't playing! 7/8" blade plate done now too. Now for adapter rings.... Then I can start on the lower body / gear... not looking forward to that. And the heat sink emitter cup (at 3/4")... But we're getting there! |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 18:32:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 19:25:12 GMT -5
Hmm. That little divot / bevel just below the main body is gonna trip me up.... grrr. It's messing with my MHS threading and my desired internal diameter. 😣
Also have no idea if Fusion takes care of tolerances or not. I hope it does... lol
|
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 28, 2019 20:31:14 GMT -5
Hey brrogers, any idea how they came up with the geometry for the gear? I assume it is a set of lines developed by bisecting a couple of concentric circles. One at 44mm and one at 34mm... Trying to figure out how to make the proper gear profile to then extrude. |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 29, 2019 10:10:08 GMT -5
Couple minor updates. I am reworking the main body to unthread at the small groove behind the control box instead of at the part where it narrows to the pommel.
The chamfer/divot/bevel makes it too hard for it to thread there unless I make the body narrower starting at that point and essentially make the thread OD the same as the narrowest part of the bevel. Opinions?.
Also still banging my head on the keyboard trying to figure out the gear geometry. 😳
|
|
|
|
Post by Rogue 5 on Apr 29, 2019 11:32:52 GMT -5
Couple minor updates. I am reworking the main body to unthread at the small groove behind the control box instead of at the part where it narrows to the pommel. The chamfer/divot/bevel makes it too hard for it to thread there unless I make the body narrower starting at that point and essentially make the thread OD the same as the narrowest part of the bevel. Opinions?. Also still banging my head on the keyboard trying to figure out the gear geometry. 😳 Ah I see what you're saying. Which makes me now understand why every hero I've ever seen has a one piece main body  . Well, I'm not certainly not in my depth when it comes to CAD design (and I hope I'm understanding the dilemma correctly), but if you want ease of access to a kill switch, I would suggest foregoing a removeable pommel and instead look for a slide out chassis solution. This would give you access and save you the headache of calculating threading to have the pommel cubes line up with the control box, not to mention a seamless lower body (except for the pommel cap obviously). Goth designed this exact thing for the KR Hero |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 29, 2019 12:37:19 GMT -5
Couple minor updates. I am reworking the main body to unthread at the small groove behind the control box instead of at the part where it narrows to the pommel. The chamfer/divot/bevel makes it too hard for it to thread there unless I make the body narrower starting at that point and essentially make the thread OD the same as the narrowest part of the bevel. Opinions?. Also still banging my head on the keyboard trying to figure out the gear geometry. 😳 Ah I see what you're saying. Which makes me now understand why every hero I've ever seen has a one piece main body . Well, I'm not certainly not in my depth when it comes to CAD design (and I hope I'm understanding the dilemma correctly), but if you want ease of access to a kill switch, I would suggest foregoing a removeable pommel and instead look for a slide out chassis solution. This would give you access and save you the headache of calculating threading to have the pommel cubes line up with the control box, not to mention a seamless lower body (except for the pommel cap obviously). Goth designed this exact thing for the KR Hero Btw. After careful study of the original prop photos the lower body does not actually seamlessly go into the gear. There is a step down into the recesses between gears. From what I can tell the lower body is a 35mm diameter and the inside circle of the gear itself is 34mm. 0.5mm step down on each side. Technically that IS canon from what I can tell. Tho what is weird is some show a step down and some a step up.. it's actually like the machining was off center when the gear was milled. |
|
|
|
Post by dayadjocen on Apr 29, 2019 12:50:05 GMT -5
Also the model will have the gear clocked correctly. What I don't know is if a machinist can index the threads correctly when fabricating (this gets into my inexperience with developing models for machining).
It would be my understanding that the CNC would follow the model precisely when doing it, including where the threads start. Especially if I add toolpath specifications to the model, which I plan to do once I have the model finished.
You can specify instructions to the CNC to the level of toolpath, bit sizes, initial stock size specifications, chamfer angles and distances (since even sharp corners are slightly chamfered).
What I am less familiar with is how these implications apply exactly to the CNC, but I have a couple friends with CNC experience so once I have a complete base model of all the parts I will consult with them to determine what tweaks are needed.
|
|
.
