Видео

Thanks Yeah I have had my fair share of 2 strokes. currently a ktm 250. The way they were done historically (not talking about all the pie cut ones) is with hydro forming, or hammer forming over bucks. To model one is probably going to be done with loft and a centerline path, but there is a bit of math involved. I used to make spacers for pipes at the head for yz 250s. 50mm spacing from the head changed the hit of the power band. On my ktms i actually have a bit more control with power valve springs and preload, but on a design where you don't have easy control over that the distance from the piston, the shape of the expansion chamber and location of the "stinger" where it necks back down are super critical. If i remember right there are some calculators online where you can put in some basic parameters for the bore, rpm ranges etc. As for making them. I did a video awhile back on making a buck for a fender. ruclips.net/video/2sLDPpolLpA/видео.html I would likely do something like this but you would need to do planes along the centerline path of the loft and cut a bunch of circles, then build a centerline path out of wood for the expansion chamber.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign thanks a lot for the detailed anwser!

@@nahuelise4055 My short answer suggestion... just call Mitch at PC and order one 😂

@@billyfrank6318 He can make a custom pipe just with his mind he is that good :)

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign kinda related,theres a way to save several flat patterns in a single DXF file?

Glad you like it!

was your selection filter in the upper left of the modeling area set to edges? If you have all (5 or tab on the keyboard) or set it to faces (3 on the keyboard) that will let you select those closed profiles. The only reason it shouldnt is if you don't have the face selection on.

It was meant to be a companion to model solids/surfaces and a lot of the defaults are blender like. such as move/scale/rotate

Yup, that one is the most difficult and i plan to close out these with that as the last option. I made one but the struggle is how to teach the leaf shape design. still working on that part.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign that’s awesome! Thank you so much for your hard work!

Thanks Billy!

Yeah sadly I noticed that too. good eye :)

Thanks! I have avoided that but I am working on some new options. Been thinking about starting a subStack where the videos will have no ads and we can do custom vids and give-aways. We do have a merch store which has a donate option on it. learn-everything-about-desi-shop.fourthwall.com

Awesome to hear! We did some full overfenders in this series and i have a few more including scanning and designing.

Tough to say what the problem is. The Patch tool has to have 100% connected and closed boundary. Even a tiny gap or two ends that look connected but are not coincident, it will not work.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign my problem is, often when transforming the surfaces (like stitching, splitting), or when projecting surfaces, they become inaccurate. How can I keep those accurate

@@ruphus02 Stitching has a tolerance in it and it will move the edges around to get things to stitch together. Splitting shouldn't though. One thing about splitting complex surfaces is that your inputs are generally planar. Like if you use a line on the front plane and split a complex part, it will seem to get distorted. A lot of times i use offsets and ruled surfaces as split tools, but that comes with its own problems. Whenever I am defining a boundary for complex shapes I try to make sure things like projected or intersecting edges are fully defined in their own sketches first.

Awesome! 3rd video will be out later today.

Yeah sorry to hear that! Take note Creality.

Thank you

Very welcome! Check out our 5 part series on common modeling workflows. ruclips.net/p/PLBDfGh8A8kXVIrO1aizPFmRBy-A-G9svk

You would need at least 2 edges for the tool to work. When you UnWeld a single edge the end vertices are still attached so it can't do anything. If you select two edges, it can break apart the verts in the middle.

Thanks! We have a design for Injection Molding course going live soon our our site www.learneverythingaboutdesign.com

it will be early next week.

Wow thank you!

Glad to hear it!

With Plasticity there is no direct dimensioning system like you have with other CAD programs. You can dimension "curves" meaning lines on input but not on a spline curve. About the best you could do is set up some reference lines for where you want control points and snap to them. You can use Measure so there is an onscreen dimension to show you where they are in space. If you need precise input for complex splines Plasticity might not be the right program currently.

Oh man that sucks! One thing I will say is to check your USB at the computer. On my desktop the front panel has 3 USB3.0 ports on it and one of them started giving me issues. Cables were fine but from so many uses im guessing the contacts just werent great. I can't use it for anything 3.0 data transfer related like moving scan projects around or scanning directly. IF you have a USBc on your computer you could try that. One thing I don't like about all wired scanners is that at the computer side the weight of the cable pulls down on the usb and can affect things. Anyway worth a shot. I had a problem with my printer and creality sent me a new part FYI, not sure if you contacted support or not (this was before i was an affiliate which honestly doesn't make a difference for support).

True, and I did note that in the video at the end that it doesn't come with the tripod or turntable. The only scanner of theirs that does is the Lizard to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks for sharing. I will note about the button to start the scan, i don't think it lets you start unless the light is green and you are the optimal distance from your target. I had a similar thing where i hit it a few times and believe it is based on the distance. The play button in the software doesn't seem to care but the on scanner one does. And as for editing you can clean up the raw points a bit but I agree with you, the software is really the handicap for this and all creality scanners and hopefully feedback like yours will help nudge some big improvements. I have already shared my thoughts with them on the software.

This is true of all 3d scanners. The required specs for the creality scan software is less than that of others but you do notice a big performance difference. My laptop is old but was a high end CAD laptop years ago and does well enough, but trying to scan with a lower end general use laptop without a high CPU speed and a Gcard with GPU could be rough.

That would be great but none that I am aware of. There are some very high end professional software packages that I do believe can capture from certain scanners BUT I believe capturing via the provided scan software is still the only way to go. You can capture just the point clouds with no processing in many cases and send the raw points to another piece of software like Meshlab which is free, but meshlab won't capture them directly.

Glad it was helpful!! Thanks for watching and commenting.

The Ferret is much smaller/lighter and a great price. its the versatility to scan small things that it lacks.

Yeah, i never saw the claimed 30fps with it, but did get up to 27fps on a desktop with the Otter.

I think its a much better value proposition if you are ok with the Creality scan software. Since you have(had) a Ferret and are used to using that I would guess that is a yes.

Great question! What I have found is that the processing takes longer in the Creality software but scanning actually happens pretty quick. Best I can tell Creality does a different sort of intermediate step with the raw data. In other scanners like the Einstar or scanners from Revopoint you are seeing all the points on the screen you capture. Creality has a nice interface where the on screen image changes from red to green when you have captured enough points. So it lets you know where you need to stay or move around to capture enough. The downside to this is if you are scanning and have an area that is say light green, it might actually get removed during processing if there aren't enough points. So I would say capture and tracking is actually pretty good and doesn't feel slow or laggy. The processing part in the software feels a little limited and more geared towards users who go for the one-click option to process their scans. Easy to use though.

Thanks for the info! I really hope the software takes a leap forward as it would be ashame to have a low priced laser scanner only to be undone by the software needed to run it.

I will say the hardware difference from the Ferret to this Otter is a pretty big jump, but software is still the sore spot.

Revopoint improved their software too. Isn’t Shining with their scanners a Chinese company too? Einstar got a rewind function recently. Creality is updating their software once a month. You can see this in their download section. Even offering older versions. The Raptor firmware got updated twice since I’m owning it too. And yes they have to work on their software. Especially deleting point clouds after merging for example. There is no smoothing or sharpening like in the Exstar software. A marker mode alignment for point clouds is missing too.

Its a tricky one to compare the two. Both are IR structured light. The Otter captures at a higher framerate than the einstar. Einstar has a hybrid alignment which lets you use some markers on a part while the creality scanners are all marker or all geometry. I think the Otter is more versatile with the various scan size options and yes i think the base PC suggestions are lower than that for the Exscan stuff BUT I do believe Exscan is a better mesh processing tool.... So the otter would be good if you need more detail and smaller object scans than the einstar is capable of, but for the larger stuff i think the einstar still has a slight edge because of its software.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign thanks, I will wait for more input on the Raptor

Yeah there is a lot of overlap. You can scan car panels with many of the different scanners. This Otter will scan a car fender just fine, so will the revopoint range and miraco, as will the shining einstar. The otter has some flexibility letting you scan small detailed parts as well as big parts, but as mentioned at the end of this video the software is really the areas these scanners could use improvement. I have another video planned with this scanner and ill be doing some car parts so if you are interested in the Otter wait a week or two until we can get that video out.

The Raptor is using the same software as the Otter. For Automotive stuff the Otter or Einstar are probably better because they have a wider field of view. I have the Einstar and the Raptor. The Raptor is very good for small and medium size stuff but it needs markers in laser mode. It also can scan metallic or black parts without preparing if they are not too shiny.

Sorry to hear that, but as mentioned in the video I agree. These scanners don't really have a hardware issue as they are getting very good. I think more processing options and a coordinate system alignment option would go a very long way.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign One thing that does look like a game changer is scanning dark parts with no prep! Scan spray costs add up in no time

I'm going to unlike my comment cause you probably didn't like it 🤣

Agreed. This style of "iris" is common in wood working type projects. I am working on a 3rd part to this with a more traditional camera Iris which has the smallest "ring" and most overlap :)

You're welcome

Glad you liked it!

It does yes. you would want to use the provided wall plug and usbc cable. its pretty long. If you try to charge it via a usbc on say a laptop i don't know that it would be able to actually charge while also scanning. I have gotten more than 2hrs out of it. If you are trying to run for 5 hrs continous that would be a lot of points and you might run into memory issue, i can't say for sure.

Great to hear! and yeah Perspective can really mess with you! I generally model in Perspective with Ortho so when i go to standard views it is ortho and makes it much easier. Thanks for the comment/reminder!!

No problem!

Thanks :) I did but in the download in the description they are built in ;)

Sadly no. There is a "Duplicate with joint" BUT that only works if its a joint and not an as-built joint. which kind of defeats the purpose of modeling everything in place. If you made a sub-component of one wedge and one link with one joint and did a copy/paste, it would keep the joint. but then you have to manually add the other two and it wouldn't be nicely patterned... maybe one day.

Thanks a lot. Appreciate the reply