Experimental Plug Track: continued

[Steve_Cornford]

Thank you Martin.

Next silly question...
In a 2D .DXF export, do you output a seperate "layer" for the socket recess, in addition to the normal socket "layer"(kerfsock)?
Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

Thank you Martin.

Next silly question...
In a 2D .DXF export, do you output a seperate "layer" for the socket recess, in addition to the normal socket "layer"(kerfsock)?
Steve

@Steve_Cornford

Hi Steve,

Yes the un-kerf-adjusted sockets are in the CHSOCKET layer:

However, I notice that layer now includes the undercuts for the tangs in the side of the sockets. Which gives you what you want to clear the tangs. But you don't want the normal socket outline at the same time. Also for laser cutting you want this kerf-adjusted too, presumably?

I will sort this out and put the undercuts in a separate layer. Thanks for mentioning it.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

I will sort this out and put the undercuts in a separate layer. Thanks for mentioning it.

@Steve_Cornford

Hi Steve,

Creating a fresh layer is a lot of work, not least because there isn't space for another combo on the dialog. The whole list would have to go in a scroll box.

Instead, I have added yet another tick box:

Ticking that causes the socket kerf line to be widened out to include the socket undercut. i.e. the undercut, not the jut width on the tang. You will need to set the socket undercut to match the jut width if you have modified it. For cutting the timbers untick this box and you will get the normal kerf line for the sockets without any undercut.

I don't know how tight you would want the cut-outs in the underlay to fit the plugs/tangs -- you might be using them to align the timbers? Whatever, there is an additional adjustment you can use to tweak the laser cutting:

Setting that to non-zero widens or narrows the cut rectangle in the underlay (positive makes it wider). No effect on the length - I could add another setting for that if needed?

This setting has no effect if there is no undercut, or the plus undercut box is unticked.

p.s. there is a setting which lets you check the kerf lines on the trackpad before exporting (click rebuild now to see the effect of any changes):

No laser here, so it will be over to you to test this stuff.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Thank you Martin, that tick box will do nicely
Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
A reminder that I have added some extra 7-seg characters in 241b, for use on the brick labels and chair rafts. Some of them are quite distorted, but just about readable. One fine day I will re-write the whole thing in 16-seg starburst or something better.

The full list (any other characters appear as a hamburger):

0 O both appear as the same
1 I both appear as the same
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
K
L
P
R
U

b
c
d
h
i
n
o
r
t
u

| pipe is on the left, 1 and I are on the right of the character block
_ underscore
- # both appear as the same
=
, . decimal point and comma appear as the same
:
space

Remember that text on brick labels and rafts must begin with a #. It gets replaced with a dash -- so that we know which way is up to read it.

The B and D mean it is now possible to write hexadecimal numbers, should you feel the need.

p.s. It is also possible to add text in 3D Builder when mesh-fixing.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

To minimise the number of wiring droppers, where possible, instead of cutting the rail into sections,I have just made a cut through the head and the foot, leaving the web intact, then sweated a brassmasters fishplate pair onto the outside and inside of the web.

Where there is a complete break in the rail, I have sweated one fishplate on the outside of one rail, then the other fishplate onto the inside of the other rail.

Loose jaw assembly allows the rails to be positioned quite easily.

Next my crude jig for attaching 24swg tinned copper dropper wires.

Cut a slot in an offset if 2x1 using a hacksaw, seems just about right for code 75 bulkhead, then clamp the dropper wire into position before soldering, remembering to get it the right way round!

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
I've been test-printing some chairs recently, and an obvious need now is a faster way of creating the rafts.

So I'm intending to add a function for the process of swapping from slotted chairs to loose jaws, and shifting the template half a timber space. Which should help.

But beyond that we need functions to automate the creation of rafts of the interchangeable chairs -- S1, S1J, L1, P, CC -- and rafts of loose jaws for them. These can all be made in bulk and kept in stock for future track building. A built-in function could be optimised to make best use of raft space, to save resin and get the maximum number of chairs.

Then some system of bunching the special chairs from different templates for best use of raft space. The difficulty is how to identify each one afterwards, and especially its loose jaws and which of them is which. It's not too much of a problem with a single turnout, but when we get to complex formations with multiple partial templates -- tandems, slips, double-junctions -- keeping track of which chair goes where is going to be a challenge.

In theory every chair is identifiable -- template ID + timber number + chair count 1..4 across from the MS main side + jaw for main rail, jaw for side rail. But finding space to write all that for each chair could take more raft space than the chair itself. Possibly number the rafts, and print a sticky label to go on the bottom of each raft identifying each chair? Then for FDM printing the raft numbers might appear on the timber webs or flanges.

None of which solves the problem of how to identify a chair after removing it from the raft. In an outside slip there could be 4 different AA chairs, 4 different BB chairs, etc. A set of multi-coloured permanent markers might be a useful aid before cutting a chair from the raft, to link the chair plug back to the support pyramid it was cut from:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06ZZX41Q1

I'm not going to be doing anything about all this until after 241b, but there is plenty to think about. Ideas welcome.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Personally I would not worry too much about bunching, especially for the special chairs.
For the standard chairs it us best not to get them too close to each other in order to get the blades of the *uron cutters in ok.
The loose jaws can be bunched as they just snap off with tweezers.
For my LH B
8 crossing testing, I made one raft for the loose jaws, and another for the slotted chairs, but then I printed 3 jaw rafts and 2 chair rafts in one batch.
Printing the jaws and chairs in the same batch( by this I mean on the same build plate) minimises any temperafure/resin mix differences.
After washing and firing I marked side of the chairs to aid orientation as you suggested.
I also made Mark's on the raft to aid chair/jaw identification

The ratio of jaws to chairs is to overcome the inevitable jaw pinging sacrifice to the carpet God!
I also found it easier to cut the crossing chairs from the raft with a piercing saw due to the extended width of the chair.

Having produced a batch of chairs and jaws I keep them in little clip lid boxes

When we get to the stage of printing .more complex combinations i would be happy to sacrifice some extra resin to make the raft bigger to allow some text identifiers to be incorporated, but I do like your idea of different colour markings on the plug ends for identification & orientation.

Also colour match the loose jaw pins to the chairs.

How many colours would we need?
ROYGBIV

More ramblings from Steve

 

[genixia]

Then some system of bunching the special chairs from different templates for best use of raft space. The difficulty is how to identify each one afterwards...

I don't think that is necessary. Make bulk rafts for the common interchangeable chairs, and one raft per template containing just the special chairs (with spares for any that might be prone to breakage during assembly). That would allow you to label the raft with the template number, then each chair and jaw just needs the timber and rail info.

Most slicers allow you to import and arrange multiple STLs, so that wouldn't even have to significantly impact print time. Even if printed individually though that's unlikely to be a problem for the average modeller - I doubt that many people will be assembling turnouts faster that they could print the next raft anyway.

If you're masochistically looking for a way to spend more of your time on 3D arrangements though, my personal preference would be to allow for the automation of splitting timber bases and adding the connectors, based upon a configurable bed-size. I imagine that might be popular amongst users.

I've been lurking here for a while now as I've been planning an EM-gauge GWR layout, and I think Plugtrack may just be the most exciting leap in fine-scale track modelling since the introduction of Templot itself. It has the potential to cut construction time by a huge factor, whilst also reducing the skill level needed to accurately assemble good trackwork. That will open the doors to many modellers who would otherwise stick to OO and all its flaws.

Don't sweat too much about the 3D printing process tolerances currently achievable. You've already proved that Plugtrack is viable with todays printers and materials. 3D printing has improved so much over the past decade, and I expect it to continue doing so over the next one too.

Thanks for the Herculean effort you've been putting into this!

 

[KHC1]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above and the huge efforts Martin is putting into plug track. I am also looking forward to setting my fdm printer to do the track bases and later in the year when I get a resin printer do the chairs etc. likewise I have a plan for Grange Road(Crawley Down) and want to build it in EM gauge.

Keith

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
I very much agree with both Genixia and KHC 1. Whilst as you say there is a need to make S1 S1J L1 P and CC easier to create rafts, as there are the items that are best pre mass produced, then stored such as (Steve hobby idea)

There is no strong driver to do the same for the turnout specify chairs, in fact a named raft with these chairs on them is likely to be the simplest way to ID them. It could then be a bit like making a old Airfix type kit. (take the parts of the sprue) or in our case the raft and move into the correct position, one by one.
cheers
Phil

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
Many thanks for the kind words.

I agree that for single turnouts, one raft per template is a sensible method.

But I'm thinking about more than single turnouts. A formation such as a tandem turnout or outside slip is comprised of multiple partial templates, some containing only one rail, or half a check rail, or a bit of vee, or whatever. When printed as a paper construction template, the boundaries between the partial templates are not visible, and you simply build to the printed rails. With 3D chairing it gets more involved, because in order to place the chair for a given piece of rail you would need to know which partial template to get it from.

I'm sure there is an answer to this, but at present I'm not seeing it. But I will leave crossing that bridge for now. I'm busy today testing the switch front filing jigs, so that I can get the 241b update released as soon as possible. It's been too long.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Hi Martin et al,
When it comes to these complex formations made up of partial tempates, I was planning on using the existing facility that you have provided of assigning a colour to a tmplate when saving, then using the existing facility when exporting of selecting a colour & exporting the chairs or jaw of all templates with hat selected colour(as a means of grouping them)
Selecting a colour before saving

Exporting the chairs of all templates stored with a particular colour by selecting the radio button "timbering brick only"

Having first created a rectangular background shape as a raft to accomodate them.
In fact we can currently even assign colours to the background rafts, but....
at present when we export we get all rafts irrespective of colour.

Would it be difficult to amend the export process so that if this radio button is selected it only exported raft(s) of the chosen colour.
Here is a rather simplistic example with two differently coloured recatngles, but both get exported

Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

Would it be difficult to amend the export process so that if this radio button is selected it only exported raft(s) of the chosen colour.
Here is a rather simplistic example with two differently coloured rectangles, but both get exported

@Steve_Cornford

Thanks Steve.

You can prevent unwanted rectangle shapes from being exported by unticking the output box below the list on the background shapes dialog.

But I have added this in 241b:

Note that this is on by default, but applies only when using the brick colour option for the exports. For the other export options, all raft rectangles get exported unless switched off on the background shapes dialog.

The brick colours were originally intended to be for timbering only, with the chairs not necessarily needing to be restricted to the same boundaries. When we get to exporting chairs for complex formations, we might want to untick this box so that chairs from different bricks can share rafts -- rather than say having 2 odd chairs on a raft of their own.

Using the background shapes functions to add 3D rafts, splints, connector clips, etc., was only ever intended to be a quick-fix kludge to get something working. I have a feeling they might be here to stay.

There was a time when I intended to do away with the background shapes entirely and replace them with the sketchboard functions. I have a feeling that will never happen either.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Paul Boyd]

There was a time when I intended to do away with the background shapes entirely and replace them with the sketchboard functions.

Please don’t let that thought ever cross your mind again!

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Thanks Martin, a new 241b tick box to look forward to.
Sreve

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
I'm quite pleased with the switch front filing jigs:

I have set the default front slope angle at 17.5 degrees:

That may be regarded as a bit too much by some, but the advantage is that it allows a wide file to clear the rail foot all the way to the blade tip. In practice it works very well after final fettling in situ with abrasive paper.

Keeping the rail foot intact at the tip makes for a stiffer blade which will open to a full flange clearance all along, and show a prototypical curve on the open blade.

But you can set the slope angle to whatever you want:

The blade needs to have been filed on the back first in the switch back jig, and then be correctly positioned in the front jig. But the results are very pleasing and easily achieved with a few strokes of a sharp file, and a light polish with a sanding block (not too much -- the file might not affect the plastic jig, but a sanding block will).

Seeing them takes me back 40 years to the 85A machined switch blades which I was supplying at the time. If the sun shines tomorrow I will try to take some pictures.

All of which means I can hopefully get 241b released this week. There is still a lot unfinished of course (don't mention saving the custom data files or slab & bracket chairs), but that is always the way.

Also not yet done are those niggling tiny filler chunks for the 3P and EF chairs.

Time for a boiled egg.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
just to clarify, after your boiled egg of course.
There will be a need to make three filing jigs per pair of switch blades, these being back jig and then the left and right hand sides of the front jigs? I am just a bit confused with the north part and south part. tick boxes.

So if most of the turnouts where to say a REA B switch, for example, there would need to be three jigs required for the B size? and presumably 3 for C etc.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

That's right, 3 jigs per switch size. But it's not like the crossings, where you might need a dozen different crossing angles, and some jigs might only ever be used a couple of times. Many users will need only 2 switch sizes A and B. Some with larger layouts will need a C. Only a few will need D switches. But it's FDM printing -- just press GO and walk away. A few hours later, there is your jig. While you were busy painting stationmaster's hats, or whatever. So for A, B, and C that's 9 jigs, which in total would use about half of a reel of filament.

The north and south parts are the two halves of the same jig. Normally you would print both together, and they come linked with short tabs. But in the event one part got damaged, you could print a replacement half without needing to print both.

Or you might want to print the parts separately in order not to have the printer tied up for such a long period printing both at once.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[genixia]

You may be missing a trick or two with the filing jigs. Not sure if they are worth the time to implement though.

For the crossing jigs, I can't see why you couldn't have multiple angles superimposed across each other, allowing one jig to handle several sizes of crossing.

For the front filing jig, if the rail were held twisted within the jig at the desired planing angle, then the planing face of the jig could be kept parallel to it's opposite face. That would allow the jig to be clamped to the bench either way up, and thus allow you to use both faces as planing faces and thus have one jig handle both LH and RH rails. Actually, twisting the rail to allow for parallel planing faces isn't even necessary to achieve that - if you simply squared up the existing jig you could put LH and RH on adjacent sides 90 degrees to each other. That should be simpler to implement. You'd probably want to add another clamp bolt hole or two.

 

[Martin Wynne]

You may be missing a trick or two with the filing jigs. Not sure if they are worth the time to implement though.

For the crossing jigs, I can't see why you couldn't have multiple angles superimposed across each other, allowing one jig to handle several sizes of crossing.

For the front filing jig, if the rail were held twisted within the jig at the desired planing angle, then the planing face of the jig could be kept parallel to it's opposite face. That would allow the jig to be clamped to the bench either way up, and thus allow you to use both faces as planing faces and thus have one jig handle both LH and RH rails. Actually, twisting the rail to allow for parallel planing faces isn't even necessary to achieve that - if you simply squared up the existing jig you could put LH and RH on adjacent sides 90 degrees to each other. That should be simpler to implement. You'd probably want to add another clamp bolt hole or two.

@genixia

Hi Genixia,

Welcome to Templot Club.

Many thanks for your thoughts and for your kind words earlier.

I spent a long time looking at the filing jigs, after establishing two years ago that the idea of a 3D-printed plastic filing jig would actually work. (The original 1:5 jig as proof of concept is still available in 241a if anyone wants to try it.)

Traditionally these filing jigs have been expensive metal items, and if I was making them on the mill I would try to get the maximum use out of each one.

But for these plastic jigs maybe we need a change of mindset -- the Templot filing jigs are intended to be a simple and inexpensive aid to building a specific track item. So that if you a building, say a 1:6.39 V-crossing, you can click a button and get a 1:6.39 filing jig. The vee rails so filed then fit snugly into the 1:6.39 chairs without needing any soldering.

Adding a second angle to the jig complicates that simple aim significantly. What should the second angle be? It's very likely to cause the jig to be longer than it would be otherwise. Allowing the user a free choice of the second angle could create small islands between the slots which wouldn't FDM-print very well. Putting the the second slot on the opposite side of the jig risks the slots being damaged when the plastic jig is held in a vice or clamped to a table.

For the switch blade fronts, I tried hard to find a way of getting both LH and RH rails in the same jig. But only if they could both be filed at the same time. If the jig has to be dismantled and reassembled for each one, it may as well be in a different jig. Bear in mind that these jigs cost less than £1 each, so going to great lengths to create a complex multi-function jig is hardly justified.

However, nothing stays the same for 5 minutes in plug track. If someone comes up with better or simpler ways of doing things I'm keen to try them. But for the present folks have been waiting eagerly for 241b, so for now I'm going to release these jigs as-is, and see how folks get on with them. For my own use I'm quite pleased with them and appreciate the simplicity of a single function for each one.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[KHC1]

Martin keep on with the jigs etc. They are a great addition to the tool box. I can appreciate that a lot of modellers may not have 3D printers and therefore do not see the advantage. I have printed out your first 1 in 5 not yet used in anger but when I have got some rail am going to give it a go. Pssss anyone got off cuts of rail so that I can have a go………. Also need to practice soldering……. For me 3D is the answer to my prayers. I am a bit hamfisted when it comes to using tools etc but I can use a computer. I can now plan on building an EM layout using the plug track and simple wheel replacement. As an example of what I have achieved for years I have played with sheet metal and plasticard to make a BR(S) 3D DEMU and each time it has failed. However this year just with an FDM printer I have already got the bodies for a 3D(no pun intended) and currently printing a 3R.

So please keep on Martin looking forward to the next release.
Keith

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Just managed to insert loose jaw number 186 in my Left Hand B8 test plank

Now just need to make and fit the stretcher bars
Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Michael Woods @Steve_Cornford

Hi Steve,

Many thanks for posting that. We now have cast-iron evidence that plug track works and can be used to build model railway track. First from Michael using solid-jaw chairs in S scale, and now your B-8 turnout in 00-SF using loose-jaw chairs.

Is that 100% loose jaws, or have you mixed in some solid jaws? I noticed you haven't (yet) fitted the spacer blocks in the crossing. Are they just too fiddly to bother with, or are you intending to fit them later?

Any conclusions? Where are you on the trade-off between fiddling with loose jaws and needing to thread solid-jaw chairs on the rail? Are you happy that the loose jaws hold the rail firmly enough, or did you make any adjustments to the rail-fit settings? Have you tried the 00-SF track gauges and crossing flangeway gauges on there?

Presumably the timbers are resin-printed? It proves that it can be done, even on the little Mars printer. Have you decided whether to use more resin-printed timbers, or is this purely a test before you get an FDM printer (or laser cutter)?

If you were starting a new layout today, would it be in plug track, or would you be equally (or more) happy to use injection-moulded chairs on plywood? Or something else? (Finetrax kits?) Or are you not yet ready to make a decision about that?

That has used up my entire stock of question marks, so I need to print some more.

Thanks again.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

There are a few solid jaw chairs.
On the TS stock rail I used solid chech rail chairs as I wanted to perform a test comparison.
I threaded the check rail first, then the stock rail. There are also a few solid L1 and S1 that I threaded onto that stock rail. I also used solid P chairs on that stock rail. All worked ok, but to be honest the MS stock rail with all loose jaws was easier. Using a CB couple of cocktail sticks to retain rail whilst first few loose jaws fitted.
On balance for turnouts I think loose jaws are better as it easier to solder the dropper wire to rail before inserting rail onto chair seats and adding loose jaws.
I have not tried fitting spacer blocks yet, but will try later.
I am happy that the loose jaws hold the rail, fit ok.
Not tried gauges yet.

Resin timbers whilst testing as have not acquired FDM printer (yet)

I have already used Finetrax kits (but the previous cast crossing type), and also C&L / Exactoscale injection moulded plastic chairs glued to ply timbers, but now plan to use Plugtrack .

I Will be giving laser cut ply timbers and laser cut cork trackbed sockets a try before starting on a layout design.

However I am having a cataract operation next week so will be out of action for a while.

Steve
ps there is at least one deliberate mistake on my B8, where I used an L1 chair in place of an S1J chair as I had run out of S1J chairs.

 

[Phil O]

Hi Steve,

I wish you well with your cataract operation. All the people I know that have had it, reckon that it's better than sliced bread, but takes a few days to get proper vision back afterwards and is initially somewhat painful. All have required reading glasses.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Thank you Phil.
Probably because they opted for long distance lenses for driving purposes, as you get a choice at the assessment consultation .
Steve

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Hi Martin,
Have now found my C&L OO-SF gauges.
All fit perfectly.
3 point gauge, roller gauge, check gauge and 1.0mm EM/OO-SF flangeway gauge.
A Bachmann 8ft bogie rolls gently through the crossing with no hesitation.
Now need to fabricate the stretcher bars and connect up all the dropper wires to give it a powered test, but I might run out of time!

Made a start on the experimental stretcher bars with some nickel-silver strip and some 0.4mm double sided pcb.


The pcb is for some tiny pads that will insulate the n-s stretcher from the blades. Hopefully the n-s strip will flex enough?
Just like the real thing!
the n-s strip nearest the pcb has now had both ends twisted by 90°
Need a small jig to aid location of pads before then soldering to blades with 20p spacer .
The pads sit horizontally under the blades & stock rail to keep blades from rising.

By the way I found it quite easy to siperglue exactoscale H shape ABS fishplates to the ends of the wing rails, and then slotted in the combine closure rail/blade before settling the combination down onto the chair seats and inserting the loose jaws.


Actual sequence:
Fabricate wing rails by putting a knuckle bend into a piece of rail using your idea of an AA battery as a bending aid.
Cut to length and make the "check rail bend" at the very end.
See a dropper wire on.
Glue an H insulated fishplate on.

Fabricate the switch blades combine with the closure rail.
Mark the position of the fishplate between blade & closure rail, make a cut with piercing saw in head & foot of rail but leave web intact.
Solder on brass fishplate by the dummy rail break thus formed.
Solder dropper wire at your chosen spot.
Connect the closure end to the fishplate already stuck to wing rail.
Locate assembly onto the chairs feeding dropper wires where you want them to go.
Insert loose jaws to fix in place.

Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
Templot update version 241b is now on the server.

Restart your copy of Templot to update.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,
Have now found my C&L OO-SF gauges.
All fit perfectly.
3 point gauge, roller gauge, check gauge and 1.0mm EM/OO-SF flangeway gauge.
A Bachmann 8ft bogie rolls gently through the crossing with no hesitation.
Now need to fabricate the stretcher bars and connect up all the dropper wires to give it a powered test, but I might run out of time!

Made a start on the experimental stretcher bars with some nickel-silver strip and some 0.4mm double sided pcb.

View attachment 6706
The pcb is for some tiny pads that will insulate the n-s stretcher from the blades. Hopefully the n-s strip will flex enough?
Just like the real thing!
the n-s strip nearest the pcb has now had both ends twisted by 90°
Need a small jig to aid location of pads before then soldering to blades with 20p spacer .
The pads sit horizontally under the blades & stock rail to keep blades from rising.

By the way I found it quite easy to siperglue exactoscale H shape ABS fishplates to the ends of the wing rails, and then slotted in the combine closure rail/blade before settling the combination down onto the chair seats and inserting the loose jaws.


Actual sequence:
Fabricate wing rails by putting a knuckle bend into a piece of rail using your idea of an AA battery as a bending aid.
Cut to length and make the "check rail bend" at the very end.
See a dropper wire on.
Glue an H insulated fishplate on.

Fabricate the switch blades combine with the closure rail.
Mark the position of the fishplate between blade & closure rail, make a cut with piercing saw in head & foot of rail but leave web intact.
Solder on brass fishplate by the dummy rail break thus formed.
Solder dropper wire at your chosen spot.
Connect the closure end to the fishplate already stuck to wing rail.
Locate assembly onto the chairs feeding dropper wires where you want them to go.
Insert loose jaws to fix in place.

Steve

@Steve_Cornford

Many thanks Steve. That's the sort of plug track info we need to start collating into a proper user guide.

p.s. 241b is now on the server. Restart Templot to update.

I will write more later.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,
Good on you for not letting it go. Is that likely to delay 241b release as you previously suggested?
Phil

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

You have suggested a couple of times that I should release 241b untested, and leave users to do the testing as a sort of beta release.

I have now done that, and 241b is on the server if you restart Templot.

It should have had a week of thorough testing before release. But I just don't have the energy to do that nowadays, it is an exhausting process.

So over to you. If folks find some glaring bugs and failings, I shall refer them to you.

There are of course a lot of unfinished loose ends -- but I know about those.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Updated to 241b ok
Now to get to grips with the revised DXFSTL export screen layouts & play with all those new buttons & tick noxes.

Now that you have released another version I think you are entitled to rest your question counter Steve

 

[KHC1]

Silly question time. I have produced a track plan and now want to try printing out using my FDM machine. Is there an idiots Gide or is the a thread answer that will help me. Also just as a matter of interest what is the difference between FDM cold and FDM hot.

Keith
Ps I want to print out the sleepers ready for plug chairs

 

[Michael Woods]

Keith - I was where you are a few months back....Steve wrote me a guide.....I am away from my workshop but will dig it out tomorrow.....it is in this thread somewhere but it was a while ago.....it has everything you need.....it took me a few runs at this as even with the instructions sometimes you dont know what you dont know but it is a good start.

 

[Martin Wynne]

Silly question time. I have produced a track plan and now want to try printing out using my FDM machine. Is there an idiots Gide or is the a thread answer that will help me. Also just as a matter of interest what is the difference between FDM cold and FDM hot.

Keith
Ps I want to print out the sleepers ready for plug chairs

@KHC1

Hi Keith,

It's not a silly question.

Unfortunately the only available answer is a silly one. There isn't an Idiot's Guide because I haven't written it yet. There isn't even a Non-Idiot's Guide. All you can do is read through about 500 pages of this and previous topics. Sorry about that, but I can only do so much at a time.

Had I written it, it would have needed so many corrections, updates and amendments by now it would be unintelligible. But we have probably now reached a stage where such a guide is sorely needed and I will try to do something about it soon.

In theory the answer to your specific question is in this topic:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/extracting-a-3d-timbering-brick-from-a-track-plan.295/

But you will find it hard to extract the final up-to-date information from the abandoned experimental stuff.

If you post your BOX file here I will prepare a bit of it for you to try printing on your FDM printer.

Most FDM printers have a heated build plate (hot). Some lower-cost FDM printers do not have a heated build plate (cold). It makes a difference to the shrinkage settings in Templot, and to the slicer settings in your slicer program.

Thanks for your kind words earlier.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[KHC1]

Thanks to both Martin and Micheal will plough on and have a go. Martin I will send a box file when I next open my laptop.

Many thanks

Keith

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
As always when I release a new update, within minutes I notice something I've missed.

If you select the filing jigs option:

and then try to export a 2-D file, you will get an empty DXF file. No message, no warning, nothing. Sorry about that, I will fix it for next time.

The filing jigs can be exported in 3-D format only.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Michael Woods]

Keith - I was where you are a few months back....Steve wrote me a guide.....I am away from my workshop but will dig it out tomorrow.....it is in this thread somewhere but it was a while ago.....it has everything you need.....it took me a few runs at this as even with the instructions sometimes you dont know what you dont know but it is a good start.

Keith this got me going but it was a while ago....and things have changed.

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.p...ed-cnc-milled-laser-cut.229/page-25#post-6447

 

[Martin Wynne]

Is there an idiot's Guide or is there a topic answer that will help me.

@KHC1 @Michael Woods

Hi Keith,

I have now started such a topic.

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/getting-started-with-3d-plug-track.722/


It will eventually form a page in the Companion:

https://85a.uk/templot/companion/plug_track.php

But I will create it as a topic here to make the writing of it a bit less daunting, and allow everyone to chip in.

But this present topic remains the one to cover ongoing developments, plus there is a lot of related practical track building stuff at:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/building-3d-track.520/

cheers,

Martin.

 

[KHC1]

Thanks Michael for the link will devour..........

Martin as offered i have attached my box file I hope it is ok but please let me know either way.

Keith

Ps typing this as you posted Martin so again many thanks for the links