OK . . .

That scenario would in effect be the same as, "I and my team mate discovered & downloaded all of our own data.

He made additional detailed drawings, in fine detail ( he is a commercial draftsman / CAD engineer ), but has never built a model in his life and has no physical modeling skills.

As a kid, I used to build all kinds of models, but I was only "average".

However, because of my bad eyesight, arthritis, and trembling hands and my team mate's lack of skill, I had James Duffy, a highly-skilled expert scale modeler to do all the physical work and build it for me." ( obviously "James Duffy"is a Metaphor for "automated-production" )

"I did do a little painting and gluing, though . . . "

************************************************** *************************

The issue is the precision of automated machine-made part(s) versus part(s) created manually ( i.e. - hand-holding a lathe tool, but NOT using CNC to precisely guide tools ).

There is still the margin for "human error", unless a final piece is created by a non-human device ( 3D printer ) or a machine, using mechanically-held and electronically-guided tools ( CNC ).

One might say, "the computer program might have errors in it" . . . Yes, this is very true, but the "automation" would precisely make the "mistake", over & over.

Dave F.

There is no issue. The precision is less of a factor in Sport Scale, and many handcrafted models are able to meet the precision requirements of Precision Scale. It comes down to the modeler and his/her skill set, which I think is the point of the exercise.

If you're saying that you'd like to see new competition categories, say only 3D printed models, or best stock kit build, etc, then propose such through the RCP process. As the rules now stand, 3D printed parts are accommodated (really no different than machine-produced balsa parts), and generally don't make the difference in the final outcome. If anything, 3D printing has opened the door for models of unusual prototypes to make it to the table, and in my view anything that increases the number of entries and/or introduces greater diversity in subjects is a good thing for the Scale hobby.

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004

Hi, Gary

The problem is that "sworn statement" could be completely false.

A similar example would be downloading software, agreeing to the EULA agreement ( because you can't get the program, if you don't ), and then doing whatever you want with it, even if it violates the EULA.

An "affidavit" could be incorporated to identify to source of programs, 3D printers, and materials. However the problem or "precise, automated creation" still exists.

As I see it, there are only two viable options, without outright banning "automated creation" ( 3D printers and/or CNC precision-guided tools ).

(1) Award extra static points for the use of hand-made components or penalize the use of parts created by "automated creation".

(2) Have 3 separate "classes" for the three types of models.

a) Hand-Constructed - ( Commercial Nose Cones, not made by "automated Creation" and commercial body tubes are allowed ).
b) Limited Technology - ( A given percentage of parts may use "automated creation" )
c) Cutting Edge - ( All methods are legal ).

Dave F.

John,

As I posted earlier, I am talking about Precision Scale ( physically measured for accuracy, with a deviation from scale calculated ), not Sport Scale, per se ( "eyeballed", from a distance ).

A prime example is the Honest John to Nike adapter on the NCR Argo D-4 Javelin. Attempting that degree of precision in Balsa vs. the 3D printed version, capturing the same level of precision and detail, is definitely not the same.

A "real world" illustration is football . . . "Pop Warner", high-school, college, NFL . . . It is still the "same game", but all football players do not "square off" against each other, and separate "levels" have been created.

Dave F.

Sure it is. No 3D printed parts.

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004

Bill,

Was it fair for conventional B/G's & R/G's to have to compete against Flex-wings ?

Do you remember what happened about that?

Dave F.

OK . . . Let's compare both. ( The last 4 images are the Biedron-Langford Javelin )

Also, what about a first time Precision Scale competitor who could buy an NCR Javelin and be right on par with an expert Precision Scale modeler, without learning the skills and making the effort that the scratch-builder did?

In my eyes, "buying equivalency" is not Scale Modeling.

Dave F.

Attached Thumbnails

               

Attached Files

	Javelin - Building the Honest John Booster Part III (SM).pdf (1.21 MB, 5 views)
	Javelin - Building the Honest John Booster Part II (SM).pdf (1.72 MB, 4 views)

Here is the FSI kit . . . ( for comparison )

https://www.oldrocketplans.com/fsi/fsi1025/fsi1025.htm

Dave F.

Attached Thumbnails

       

Attached Files

	FSI_Javelin_Template.tif (32.6 KB, 3 views)
	FSI_Javelin.pdf (901.8 KB, 2 views)

Still not seeing the problem. The winning model is determined by the total score across the judging categories.

If I take what appears to be your premise that somehow a 3D printed model is superior, then I would argue that the "expert Precision Scale modeler" also has the same opportunity as the first-time competitor to buy that NCR kit.

Except I don't accept your premise. Empirically I've not seen any evidence to support your speculation in any of the meets I've been at, or the events I've judged. While it's true we've seen more entries the past few years incorporating some 3D printed parts, this isn't the reason why the top models are winning.

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004

Forgive me Dave, but I'm running out of things to say that aren't redundant or duplicative to what I've said previously.

Yes, those are stock parts from an FSI kit. One has the option to just finish them as is and enter the resulting model. Or, one has the option to detail those parts to actually resemble the real thing. Most winning models do that, regardless of starting point. And as I've tried to show, you don't need a set of 3D printed parts to do that, as you've also shown with the Bob Biedron parts.

So wrapping up here, my response to your posed question whether 3D parts provide an unfair advantage in Scale competition is - NO. You are, of course, most welcome to disagree, and if you believe the rules should change, then again, please put forward your proposals in the RCP process.

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004