BUILDING FROM SCRATCH WITH SHAPE 3D

Industry Talk
1

I did a serach but didn’t immediately find an answer to this, much to my surprise.

Okay, so I finally broke down and ordered up the Shape 3D to see what everyone thinks is the panacea for modern board building. Thomas was gr8 about making sure I was set up so no complaints there.

I’ve never thought about board design in this manner but I’m willing to give it my best effort in the hopes that it can help me expedite realizing designs from an appreciable amount of learned knowledge.

My frustration right now is thinking I could use the “Build a board from scratch” by going to that facility and plugging in a bunch of dims I’m already well familiar with. I’m speaking particularly about rocker measurements, thickness flow (foil) for the entire board and the other stuff like rail cross sections, bottom configs, deck contours could be built around my primary concerns.

Okay, so I click on that option and I currently see I can input info for hardly anything like what I want. I mean, as far as bottom rocker and thickness points, isn’t there an option where I can input numbers every 2, 3, 6"? I thought there was? Am I missing something?

 

I know you can slide the tangent line to reflect measurement from center on the bottom as I do with my rocker stick so I have a familiar base to work from, but I must be missing the option where I can get critical points along the bottom or at least familiar destination points every 6" or 12" that I can quickly plug the number in w/o wasting massive amounts of time sliding the damn cursor/arrows around creating the desired destinations?

Yes or No.

Maybe once i get my feet wet more I’ll end up realizing it’s a valuable tool. From my experience thus far I feel like Shape 3D is actually 2-1/2"D esp. when hoping to generate my foils.

Any insight is greatly appreciated.

 

1 Like
2

Bruce:

I have only been working with Shape3D the full version for the past 2 years or so but here's my tweak on how to work in your curves.  First off I get my outline set (that's the easy part) and the numbers right.  Then I add lots of slices, usually at 6" increments.  If I have a tricky rocker, I check where the break points are and that's where I put in the control points on the bottom curve and adjust them to come close to my numbers.  The thing to remember is that the program draws curves and so if you have "kinks" in the outline, it might not show up until it gets to the cutting path part of the program which is not in the $500 Euro version but only in the full version like Mike(surfding) uses for his machine.  Marie is really good in sorting this out.  Finally, when I get the rocker set, i delete some of the points to check if that will smooth out the transition.  I do the same with the slices so that my rails flow from one end of the board to the other.  I usually end up with 4 rocker points and 4 to 6 slices before Marie sees the file.  I always look at the design in the 3D view to try and see bumps and dips in the shape.  Finally, I don't do little stuff like tail vee or slight nose belly as I can hand shape those in very fast in the sand-out process.  Hope this helps, you might want to call Mike for further advice as he has way more experience than me.

3

Unfortunately, I had a detailed response and further discussion to this, and my computer jumped out and lost it.

Maybe it’s an omen.

Afrer seeing considerable variance from one size to another that makes no rhyme nor reason, particularly when it comes to bottom rocker and resizing, I come away from the whole process luke warm.

I’m aware after reading another thread about machining of blanks that there are many ways the end result can vary.

Still, you would think that the software shoudl be able to generate a pretty close and consistent result to what you originally designed in this widely accepted method of producing a product.

In your mention of how you install more slices in order to achieve what you are after, you also note that you remove some of those in order to ensure a smooth file and use the term cutting path. There seems to be a lot of importance placed on the creation of smooth nice looking files.

I don’t really care about having a pretty file. Ultimately I want the machine to correctly cut to destination points in the manner that I dictated. If it isn’t doing so, then I have to look at it with some degree of failure.I don’t care if I ave to blend junctions together as long as the volume being removed to save me time are correct.

WHY DOES MY FILE HAVE TO BE SMOOTH IF IT TAKES ME MORE WORK & TIME TO GET WHAT I WANT?

It has been suggested to me that unless you are personally capable of designating the cuts you want in any given design, the chances are you will never get what you desire from a service that makes files for you. The primary reason for that is economics. The number of additional points being put into that file, and the time to do so would result inat least triple the cost for the person charging to do your bidding, if they are even capable of doing so.

Which brings up another facet of this whole approach to file creation.

If you really desire as exact duplication of your original design how do you go about getting it?

Is your master built from scrath?

Is it “SCANNED”?

Is it “MAPPED”?

To sound a bit redundant here, I don’t really care what the file looks like as long as it gets me where I need to be in record time. I have a file that is, at best, 75% there. Another bitch is that it doesn’t seem to follow a consistent formula for its resizing when it comes to rocker.I just can’t reationalize tail rockers that net 1-3/8" to 2-3/8" to 1-5/8" when you go from short to longer to longest. It does not make sense.

Is that the program or the operator?

Mapping to scanning may as well be apples to oranges. I may as well just have finished bottom rockers glued in the blanks and handshape them. I don’t think anyone attempting to measure the high degree of subtle deck foil I prescribe to will ever get near what a probe can do.

I think there are a LOT of people out there designing boards with software like this that work at about 75% (tops) of their capacity. If good is good enough, then so be it.

I want more.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to have a file that ‘hits’ destination points you design in a program. I liken this to the waning numbers of us shapers that learned to “read foam” before the advent of close tolerance blanks and the arranging of custom rockers. It was common daily practice to read the blank, then ‘cut down’ to a desired number esp. at nose and tails, then BLEND the rest of the blank in the process. Some guys marked vee, rail lines, even punched pencils to prescribed depths in areas of the board in order to quickly mow down to where they wanted to be. A lot of guys just counted cuts at pre set depths instead of stopping and constantly measuring where they were at. The more you shaped, the more you already knew what thickness you were at. Then comes adjusting thickness while on the fly (aka adjusting depth of cut as you fluidly move from one destination to another).

If I want standardization of a model w/o using machining, I can use system of ‘punches’ that incorpates predetermined “stamps” that allow me to hit destinations quickly. Envision a rail contour cookie cutter stamp with bottom slide bar and a stop that places that contoured stamp at specific spots along a rail and cuts the contour into the shape and destination you want it. A punch/stamp that you line up on the bottom and punch for accurate depths of vee or concave(s). If you don’t have the bottom rocker already preglued into the board, you can have a rocker stamp that tells you when and where to stop. This isn’t the “joy of shaping” approach, but it is a way of getting you there.

It’s just a different approach. But in so doing, YOU are controlling what you ultimately get versus something that is supposed to be precise but isn’t.

 

 

4

I feel ya!  I have a fair amount of home-made tools that in the past have allowed me to replicate rail contours at specific points, etc.  I am one of those guys that also count cuts...  I have reached a point where the body is complaining and so I reverted to using the machine for repeat orders.  I have seen cuts done for production shapers down here that leave the rail bands undone, flat bottoms for boards that end up with heavy concave, etc.  A matter of preference?  Anyway, to try to aid in your situation, I would think that you need to set the board up the way you want and do test cuts (could get expensive here) to check what you get.  Like I said before, I am a relative amateur on Shape3d but the boards I do cut come out very close to what a rough shape would be.  I don't however size up/down.  I like a smother outline to go off of and then shape in breaks in rocker, peaks in concaves, etc.. depending on the customer.

Hope this helps, there is a definite learning curve with any program and I have tried them all but like shape3d the best for what I need and it sure saves the elbows & rotator cuff!!

PS:  I have had models scanned and had to do a lot of work to get the file right after getting test cuts...........mucho $$$$$$

5

Well, I for one, would be very interested to hear from shapers that have used both Shape3D and have had their work scanned aka a PROBE.

What I have found to date is you can achieve good results (the more cuts the better) for achieving rail line and especially outlines. Shape3D seems to excel at doing outlines. Og course outline would be the easiest to map. Deck rocker and top rail line foil? NOT EVEN.

I have talked to a number of shapers, particularly one who is a younger guy that from what comes out of his mouth, is cleartly ahead of the game. It’s ironic that he told me his colleagues tell him his work is pregnant here or there and he will have a bumpy ugly file. He told me he replies to them “I want those in there so I can shape what I intended”.

I know exactly what he is saying.

It’s clear to me from hsi statement and looking at his little glass slippers in the glass shop that we are both foil freaks. I don’t know what his precuts look like, but I see the end results in the glass shop and this guy is my future pick to click. I’m not one of shapers that wants to teach anyone but if I was it would be this guy.

He would be my pick to go far, but we know it takes MANY aspects for anyone in this industry to even make a living much less be regarded as successful. Of the guys that I did show stuff that are now prominent, it’s sort of what Barnfield related once, it’s like it never happened and they work up geniuses at birth or something, so what’s even the point? The surfboard shaping world is a lotta take and a little bit of give.

So to get back on point, I find it pretty ironic that Shape 3D is used to make blank files that we shape from but I’m almost better off specifying the bottom rocker I want in the blanks I use for different size ranges of a model then having the file do the outline, and basic rail deck & rail rough out. That seems ridiculous to me… to use a file just to true the blank and give me my outline.  It’s like having an over competent profiler.

Shape 3D SHOULD have the option (if it doesn’t already) for me to build a board by  scratch by pulling up a deck or bottom rockerline, set what increments I want to input measurements using the tangent line I am most familiar with (yes, I know this is an existing option) and quickly input the numbers I want.

IF THIS IS AN OPTION I would love knoing I can do so and how to do it. If that is the case, I could create several files specifying specific rocker and foil dims for different lengths rather than being at the mercy of some mathematical formula that isn’t doing what I need.

I’m sure it can be argued whether ‘true math’ or whatever you want to term it, is truly logical. 

At the end of the day, logical or not… it is actual APPLICATION that remains the bottom line.

Surfboards sometimes defy logic. Anyone that has been in the business long enough has been faced with scaling dilemmas, a board that has “correct” numbers that doesn’t plane as designed even though the numbers are right, or have realized you have to make scaling allowances for boards to work right (esp. the little micro ones) based on a formula generating from a completely different length.

. and I’m not just talking about amatuers here. I know of one model that was created by one of the foremost board companies in the world that the design worked really great at 6’2" that ended up a complete bummer scaled up to 7’6". That was based on talking to FOUR different guys that had the boards, too. Same consensus. They all said “a nightmare to paddle to catch the wave, once up and getting it moving, it worked great”.

You gotta catch em to ride em.

Maybe the 6’2" is a nightmare to catch em too, but the pro who the model is named for is probably so used to swimming boards in that he never thought twice about it.

 

 

6

Edit

7

I know it frustrating when you first start in shape3d , but its worth the hours pullingout your hair .

this may or not help but , and in no way do I confess to be a master but here goes !!

 The way i work is a bit different to a Few,even if  I share simular views .

I make shure my shaping stands are level.

I look at the board, with a pencil I mark where the apex is. I place my rocker bar(that has a level on ) on the stringer apex  I measure my rockers tip 3 6 12 18 24 . same measure for outline and thickness.

 

I work in stringer and thickness mode at this point( I know you are  limited in the demo version) . I work off a model simular to the model I am looking to make as the changes are less ( mail me I can help you ) . place the  dims in the measure wizard ,do fit to sellected curves . open the design window get the tangents close to what you looking for in dims then fit sellected curve .

I do agree some people are more worried that the curve is smooth, when we handshape we sometimes shape a break or 'bump on purpose . (its my view why a few  of the big companies are using so much tail lift when if the board had a break point you would not need it.

as for slices get the midle right copy a paste to tip reshape these then add where u need as this will give you the smooothest flow less is better !!

 

But i would be glad to help you with any problems derek@dgssurfboards.com

8

DS, you should probably talk to Mike W about this, because he can probably explain it better than me. It's a complicated process. Think about what a CAD program has to do and you'll start to imagine how complicated...

In your original question, you ask why you can't plug in rocker #s and have the program fit a curve to them. It's because the programs don't work off of points, they work off of rates of curvature (this is a generalization, but I'm trying to be concise). Best way to get a set a curve that you desire or want to reference is to have it scanned. All scans aren't created equal either; you have a great resource in Mike and his wife. But you can't take that scan and scale rockers way up or down because surfboard rockers don't work like that. Look at the rates of curve in a small board rocker and apply them to a much larger board and you'll see what I mean. The sooner you start thinking of rockers as curves in space and quit focusing on numbers, the better (IMO).

I spent a lot of time this summer on the phone with a friend who was having some of the same problems. And he'd been having stuff cut for a long time - just never did his own files by himself. You'll get there, it's just something new to learn!

9

Hi Mike.

I spoke to Mike when we first did this and I agree that Mike and Marie are terrific people offering an important servce to many people wanting to use this approach to making surfboards.

That being said, I have learned a lot about the inadequacies of the current software which in NO WAY places fault with Mike or Marie who I continue to have the highest regard.

To get to the point, I see that there is much to be desired if one chooses to (or attempts to) use Shape 3D’s resizing option for many different lengths of one particular model. From my personal experience, that has been met with marginal success.

I’m surprised that you would suggest looking at the rockers as lines in space versus focusing on the numbers, because I have documented in numerous previous threads that I have been practicing this, as originally stated by Bill (Barnfield) for numerous years and espcially make note of the importance of deck rocker lines and their significance to the foil and subsequent draft of any surfboard design moving thru air and water. This was discussed in great detail in the “Rocker Apex” thread where both Bill and I weighed in heavily.

One of the chief concerns that I had in doing a file with Michael, was exactly what i just stated in the last paragraph. This is not a blame game or finger pointing statement in any size, shape or form. At that point in time I was ignorant of what the capabilties of a Shape 3D file is/are. I am still ignorant as to what the ultimate capabilities are to an unknown degree.

As far as the ‘lines in space’, I’ve been doing this since at least the 1980’s when I did line drawings for the hotwires ot cut EPS blanks. This was also the time that I discovered a lot of freedom in creating deck line and bottom rockers that were not solely dependent upon transposing thickness alone.

I also  envision the lines THREE DIMENSIONALLY, with the careful combination of those compounding curves to achieve specific results, it becomes particularly frustrating when it becomes apparent that the software doesn’t have the capability to scale in critically important areas such as bottom and deck rocker.

I sincerely appreciate you calling to my attention that Shape 3D cannot apply some mathematical formula to arrive upon “rates of curve” in rocker as the design changes lengths. Bottom line is… ONE FILE DOES NOT FIT ALL. 

I wish it were that easy… in some ways, then again, I’m glad it is not, if you catch my drift.

Some of your statement has already provided me with a great degree of enlightenment as to what I now need to do to control the quality of the design as intended. 

A good part of the problem involves the usual methodolgy that most shapers are used to ordering their blanks with finished or very close to finish bottom rockers in their blanks thereby saving them time as many of them follow a status quo of design. I know that your approach is completely different from the norm with your Coil design and products in general.

Although I am using conventional materials opposed to what you are offering, the typical habit of ordering specific bottom rockers with the widely accepted “fact” that deck rocker is a consequence of bottom rocker is not ‘true’ in at least one of my designs. This fact alone, supports my concern that all the blanks I use have accurate deck rockers glued up to the design regardless of length. I appreciate that blank manufacturers are diligent about the amount of foam that is machined off the decks for any certain file design that may compromise the existing curves inherent to the available blank being used. But unless I can give them a series of files that reflect true deck and bottom curves and how they relate to each other with the necessary curves so vitally important to atain roll, pitch and yaw as I intend the rider to feel, there is very little point in machining my file. 

IOW, it would be better to control the rockers I want glued into each blank by providing line drawings or rocker templates that give me the curves I need and expect to get for each size without distortation due to the limitations of the current software.

At the end of the day, the curve is the curve is the curve. I observed a curve taken from a 6’8" that was resized into a 7’6" that does not reflect the curve of a handshaped 7’6".  That’s not Mike’s fault. It’s a learning curve I have to experience in order to move forward while respecting the tool for the benefit it can offer and it’s inherent limitations. 

 

10

Simplest solution is to do more files, just handshape what you want and have them scanned. Each file will scale +/- 5% in length. So 3 or 4 files will get you from 5'6'' to 7'6''. I did a similar thing with a board that ran across those sizes. I used KKL and was really happy, once we got the files tuned in and as long as I got a good machine operator for my cuts. I was a little picky. Indexing is everything...

Everybody (the people that don't use CAD/CAM for surfboards) seems to assume this stuff is easy and all the cuts come out perfect. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

11

Well said Mike. I figure I will need four files at 6" increments to achieve what I will find acceptable.

I would then require the blanks’ decks to be glued to the file’s specs with the bottom rocker machined in…much like how we have approached handshaping for many years.

I know you realize why I appear to be doing it “ass backwards” while most shapers would order finished or close to finish bottom rocker and the blank maker would transpose the blanks’ thickness flow to the deck. Who cares about the deck other than it is strong and nets the weight you want. right?

Wrong.

I spent a good portion of time refining what I wanted in the design to reflect an optimum experience for the rider while creating a unique experience. To be able to do so, I read a lot of foam that would give me room to move to create the foil I desired. 

People don’t seem to realize that the available blanks and the usual methodology of arranging glued up ocker(s) has its confines to someone intent on designing something out of the box. And of course, there is always the concern of netting a good strength to weight ratio… otherwise we’d have one big block of foam that you could have machined (resulting in tons of waste) to ultimately get wha you want. It truly would be a ONE SIZE FITS ALL kinda blank. 

You know and I know that is EPS. that can be designed and cut as needed w/o the tons of waste. The general public is still loath to accept EPS with open arms, even though Rusty, C.I. and other team riders have quietly ridden contest boards with huge successes since the early 80’s.

Thanks for your input.

12

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.

Cheers!

13

I agree.

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…  :wink:

14

 

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.

15

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. 

Example: 

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   

16

I’m hip.

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.

400×600 64.2 KB

17

“In the rush to “progress” be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.”

Agreed - there are far too many babies out there.

18

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.

19

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.

20

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”.

Realist?

Compromise?

Yikes.

How close is close enough?

How many do you want/need to do per week?

Necessity is the mother of invention.