Jump to content


Photo

Koosh Vortex Tornado Scans (Now a shell replica concept thread)

3D printing 3D scan Koosh Tornado crossbow CNC Injection Molding Resin Casting Fiberglass

152 replies to this topic

#126 Maniacal Coyote

Maniacal Coyote

    On Increasingly Thin Ice

  • Members
  • 358 posts
  • Location:Sacramento
  • State:California
  • Country:United States
  • u/Maniacal_coyote on Reddit

Posted 24 January 2017 - 09:04 PM

So, the legality of this is not a question. The question is, "How will we make this?"

 

Let me recap our options.

  1. Casting
    A. Resin
    B. Aluminium
  2. 3D Printing
  3. CNC Lathe/Mill

Options 2 and 3 would allow for easy customization of the design, while option 1 would be more for replicating a copy that somebody has in possession. That being said, if somebody CNC'ed or printed something, they could take a leaf out of Xplorer's book and cast duplicates of it.

 

... If we have a properly meshed model, sections can be printed.  If it was made somewhat modularly, a person could swap out a handle for the TTG, Maverick, or the Recon version (Modulus for the masochists).  Or print the longer plunger housing, stock attachment point, etc.  Once all the sections are printed, then a negative mold couple be made.

Conversely, if you have the model, you can contract with a CNC machine shop to cut a mold. ...

 

On the topic of getting a model, I've just downloaded an APK version of "123D Catch", which has the potential to turn my phone into a 3d scanner, and I think that it might just work for our purposes. I'll attach the APK if it doesn't bollocks my phone. I'll try it out and see if I can get my TTG, SSII, and XBow modeled. Who knows, I might send scans to Spectre to forward to Heng (of Xplorer), in addition to posting here, on my blog, and elsewhere!


Edited by Maniacal Coyote, 24 January 2017 - 09:13 PM.

  • 0

I know how to help you because I have broken every rule in the book.


#127 Spud Spudoni

Spud Spudoni

    Member

  • Members
  • 313 posts
  • Location:SC and student at Auburn University
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2017 - 10:44 PM

Companies contract out their intellectual property all the time. I don't know about toys, but it's standard practice in the entertainment industry. Most of the time it is very expensive, yes, but I would imagine that production molds for discontinued toys would be much less valuable than, EG, the film rights to the X-men. If spending fifty thousand dollars to reverse engineer the molds is up for discussion, who not discuss spending a similar amount to try and use the originals?

 

I wasn't saying that some random person should just take the initiative to call up and say "Hey I'm Dave can I give you $200 to use your old factory for an hour?" but more along the lines of "Hello, I represent a newly formed LLC that is interested in acquiring licensing and production rights to one of your discontinued product lines, would you be interested in looking at our business plan and discussing the disposition of any tooling or molds you may still have in inventory?"

 

Sorry if this comes off adversarial, I'm just trying to elaborate on my thought processes.

I don't think investing 50k to reverse engineer a 22 year old shell was up for discussion. Hence why this very thread exist, to try to recreate the shell in other ways.

 

I'm not saying that it isn't feasible to recreate the shell, but the amount of skill required or money just isn't worth the time to create that shell. But note, I say that it is not worth it, not that it shouldn't be attempted.


  • 0

industrial designer


#128 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,159 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 25 January 2017 - 03:50 PM

So, the legality of this is not a question. The question is, "How will we make this?"
 
Let me recap our options.


  • Casting
    A. Resin
    B. Aluminium
  • 3D Printing
  • CNC Lathe/Mill
Options 2 and 3 would allow for easy customization of the design, while option 1 would be more for replicating a copy that somebody has in possession. That being said, if somebody CNC'ed or printed something, they could take a leaf out of Xplorer's book and cast duplicates of it.


You forget 3a: Copy-carver, which is *way* more in our range as the requisites are a router, a shell, and a special jig setup that can be homebuilt and probably purchased. It'd be less expensive than purchasing a CNC, possibly less than contracting out milling.

On the topic of getting a model, I've just downloaded an APK version of "123D Catch", which has the potential to turn my phone into a 3d scanner, and I think that it might just work for our purposes. I'll attach the APK if it doesn't bollocks my phone. I'll try it out and see if I can get my TTG, SSII, and XBow modeled. Who knows, I might send scans to Spectre to forward to Heng (of Xplorer), in addition to posting here, on my blog, and elsewhere!


That probably won't work. I've messed with 123D files, they're not good enough.
  • 0

#129 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,761 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:48 AM

You forget 3a: Copy-carver

The cheapest possible builds are just below $1,000. Which is around what you might be able to find one used. I just don't have that amount of money sittings around to spend right now though.

 

In other news, the CMM is being installed at work today. Not sure when I will be getting trained on using it.


  • 0
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?

#130 Maniacal Coyote

Maniacal Coyote

    On Increasingly Thin Ice

  • Members
  • 358 posts
  • Location:Sacramento
  • State:California
  • Country:United States
  • u/Maniacal_coyote on Reddit

Posted 26 January 2017 - 03:20 PM

Okay. 123D Catch sucks ass.

I tried getting it to model a d6 (die), and it took forever to spit out something that looked like the results of the transporter beam malfunction in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
  • 0

I know how to help you because I have broken every rule in the book.


#131 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,159 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 26 January 2017 - 05:14 PM

Okay. 123D Catch sucks ass.

I tried getting it to model a d6 (die), and it took forever to spit out something that looked like the results of the transporter beam malfunction in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.


Like I said; it won't work. You also need a pretty sophisticated setup to get results useful just for animation purposes (i.e.: Nowhere near good enough for manufacturing) - a well-lit object 'stage' with the ability to accurately rotate the camera at a fixed distance and even increments around the object.


  • 0

#132 Kilomona

Kilomona

    Member

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 28 January 2017 - 06:32 PM

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but how could acetone vapor smoothing or epoxy resin smoothing 3D prints affect this? We all know we don't want the rough texture of 3D printed parts that haven't been sanded, and they remain weak in between layers, but acetone vapor smoothing would both bind the layers better and smooth the outside without removing material. Drawbacks of this method include the required use of ABS plastic, and the toxic and flammable fumes, of course. Resin smoothing would bond the layers even better, adding considerable strength, and smooth them out. Either of these methods help the practicality of making negative molds without bubbles between the layers of the print, and general use of 3D printed parts. Hand mixed silicon could be poured over a smoothed 3D print to make a very high resolution mold, or the printed part could be used in greensand (special sand for aluminum casting) to make aluminum shells. Just wanted to throw that out.

 

Here's a video by tested on using silicon molds to recreate 3D printed parts in resin. For full size nerf blasters, you would need a lot of materials, but we could "mass-produce" parts.
The drawback to this method is as far as I know, you need a solid piece, so shells would be a challenge.
 


  • 0

#133 shmmee

shmmee

    Member

  • Members
  • 467 posts
  • Location:West Valley, Ut.
  • State:Utah
  • Country:United States

Posted 30 January 2017 - 11:08 AM

I don't think it's come up yet but what about "sand casting" off of an altered and optimized 3d printed part? I've looked into sand casting before. nearly all of the components are diy build-able including the forge. Sand and oil is cheap (way cheaper than silicone), aluminum can be bought as scrap and melted down. and you get a metal frame once you're done. It does make a rough surface though due to the coarseness of the sand. so there will be some finish work needed. There are also hazards though. If theirs any moisture on any tools that interact with the molten aluminum it flashes to steam and explodes molten metal everywhere so tools need to be preheated to melt off any water. Once the hazards are mitigated with procedure and PPE sand casting might be a very strong option. I don't know how thin walled a cast can get, but an aluminum shell could take any spring we could physically draw.  Also with sand casting you could literally build the reworked internal supports out of cardboard hot glue and duct tape and the casting would duplicate them in metal. I'd bet a complete sand casting setup could be assembled for less than $100. And an aluminum shell - already reinforced for drop in internals? That's got to be a tempting final product.

 

Side note - I just brought home a new 3d printer with a massive 300x300x400 cm (roughly 12"x12"x16") build area. I'm semi inexperienced when it comes to printing and a complete noob when it comes to 3d design but I'd be happy to try to print anything that might contribute to this challenge. 

 

Secondary side note, a contract company I work with has occasional access to a high end laser scanner (It can read stamping the 1/4" tall stamping on a flange from 30' away, and pick up the raised surface of a sticker on a flat surface) and I'm reasonably friendly with the guy who runs it. the next time we have a reason to bring the scanner in I'll try to have a gutted x bow make an appearance on site so it can be used as a "calibration test". I really don't know when the next chance is going to be for that though - could be weeks, months or never. If - and I do mean *if* i can scan a x bow or a tgg shell do we have any render experts I can punt the plans to for tweaking? are there any other super coveted blasters that I should add to the scanning short list? The cyber stryke Defender T3 pistol perhaps? (defender T3>any other pistol released due to plunger volume and overall sexyness level IMHO.)


  • 0
"and we should respect the people who make our blasters. Even if we do molest the hell out of them..."
~BritNerfMogul


#134 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,761 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 03:32 PM

Sand casting for a part as thin and detailed as a blaster shell is NOT something you can do accurately at home for a wide variety of reasons. You need a master of the part to make the mold with, and preferably out of something that would melt away or combust while pouring in the molten aluminum. A variety of foams are typically used in this case. As are Co2-cured temporary sands which can be unbound then poured back out once the sand mold is solidified.

 

Sand-casting at home is okay for creating low precision blanks with huge sprue channels. The resulting blank is then post-machined to dimensional requirements, or is otherwise just a decorative piece.

 

How thin you can cast is very very dependent upon the equipment you have available to use and the volume of the fill. The aluminum starts to shed heat as soon as you remove it from the furnace and will try to continue cooling rapidly as soon as it hits the mold. In industry the molds typically going through a pre-heating continuous belt furnace before they enter the casting stage. Do you have a furnace or oven on hand large enough to accommodate a mold that could be used to cast a whole blaster shell half? Do you have a crucible large enough to hold that volume (times 2) of the molten aluminum? Can you heat that crucible to beyond the melting point of aluminum?


  • 0
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?

#135 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,159 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 30 January 2017 - 04:27 PM

are there any other super coveted blasters that I should add to the scanning short list? The cyber stryke Defender T3 pistol perhaps? (defender T3>any other pistol released due to plunger volume and overall sexyness level IMHO.)


The TTG is also nice.


  • 0

#136 Maniacal Coyote

Maniacal Coyote

    On Increasingly Thin Ice

  • Members
  • 358 posts
  • Location:Sacramento
  • State:California
  • Country:United States
  • u/Maniacal_coyote on Reddit

Posted 30 January 2017 - 04:59 PM

Nerf:

Secret Shot 1

 

Lanard:

Tripleshot

 

ERTL:

PAS

RFSG


  • 0

I know how to help you because I have broken every rule in the book.


#137 Kilomona

Kilomona

    Member

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 05:23 PM

As for the aluminum casting, what about modeling shells in foam? We could experiment with small, less detailed shells like the SSPB, or print shells in flammable filaments ( if such a thing exists).
  • 0

#138 mysterio

mysterio

    Member

  • Members
  • 249 posts
  • Location:Pasadena, California
  • State:California
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 February 2017 - 06:39 PM

*
POPULAR

17WNwZR.jpg

 

 

ZAKtxh8.jpg

 


  • 3

If two powerful is a problem then just go with one powerful. I guess this style of hopper will work even beyond three powerful..


15:46 *** Buff is now known as TheGdiddler
15:51 TheGdiddler I'M GONNA GRAPE YOU"

#139 Kilomona

Kilomona

    Member

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 06 February 2017 - 08:26 PM

DON'T QUOTE THE PICTURES IF THEY'RE IN THE POST IMMEDIATELY ABOVE YOU, YOU DUMMY.

- ICE NINE



That is niiiice. Is it 3D printed? And do you have internals to put into it to test the strength? I don't think it won't matter as much for the tornado, as the internal parts take most of the stress, but it would be nice to see some good progress.


  • 0

#140 Spud Spudoni

Spud Spudoni

    Member

  • Members
  • 313 posts
  • Location:SC and student at Auburn University
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 February 2017 - 02:06 AM

That is niiiice. Is it 3D printed? And do you have internals to put into it to test the strength? I don't think it won't matter as much for the tornado, as the internal parts take most of the stress, but it would be nice to see some good progress.

This is good progess.  I assume you scanned the shell and 3D printed what you have into three parts? What glue is holding that together, is it sturdy? The outer part of the screw port is one thing, but I question how the inner part, that screws actually go into, will hold up and print. When do you plan on making the other half?


  • 0

industrial designer


#141 NerfGeek416

NerfGeek416

    Member

  • Members
  • 151 posts
  • Location:12180
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 February 2017 - 09:57 PM

I question why people are so very attached to the idea of exactly mimicking these old designs. While I have never personally held a Tornadobow or X-bow, I understand that while they are very comfortable, the main draw is the rarity and status associated with it, correct? A 3D printed or cast or whatever won't have the same value. If people are seriously discussing trying to acquire tooling rights for this stuff, why not just design our own shells?

 

I don't have a ton of experience with surface modeling, but I'm sure there are people in the community capable of drawing comfortable and attractive blasters that would be easy to fit standard rainbows into. 

 

That said, that is a very impressive print mysterio. I just think that with the amount of effort put into replicating a 22 year old design, we could build something better from scratch.


  • 0
 

#142 Maniacal Coyote

Maniacal Coyote

    On Increasingly Thin Ice

  • Members
  • 358 posts
  • Location:Sacramento
  • State:California
  • Country:United States
  • u/Maniacal_coyote on Reddit

Posted 07 February 2017 - 10:52 PM

Well, NerfGeek, I'm thinking along similar lines. The only difference is, I've made some progress towards a new design. I've been dicking around in SketchUp, and have the beginnings of a 95% CNC-able NIC primary. (Everything but the O-rings, springs, and plunger tube) Hell, it could probably be machined from a single piece of 1" sheet, if everything is aligned correctly.

 

Once I get a basic design working, I could then redesign it to have a similar look and feel to the '95.


  • 0

I know how to help you because I have broken every rule in the book.


#143 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,159 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 07 February 2017 - 11:07 PM

I question why people are so very attached to the idea of exactly mimicking these old designs. While I have never personally held a Tornadobow or X-bow, I understand that while they are very comfortable, the main draw is the rarity and status associated with it, correct?


The old designs had huge plunger volumes and were comfortable. The status came later, and they're expensive now because of the status. That and nostalgia.
 

I don't have a ton of experience with surface modeling, but I'm sure there are people in the community capable of drawing comfortable and attractive blasters that would be easy to fit standard rainbows into. 
 
That said, that is a very impressive print mysterio. I just think that with the amount of effort put into replicating a 22 year old design, we could build something better from scratch.


Printing a whole shell is pretty overkill no matter what IMO. Takes too long and it's not a strong as almost literally any other way of doing it. Printing the shell as a part of a prototyping process that will turn something else out or printing the parts you'll touch are both worthwhile.


  • 0

#144 Gemeneye

Gemeneye

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts
  • State:Illinois
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 February 2017 - 12:14 AM

I question why people are so very attached to the idea of exactly mimicking these old designs. While I have never personally held a Tornadobow or X-bow, I understand that while they are very comfortable, the main draw is the rarity and status associated with it, correct? A 3D printed or cast or whatever won't have the same value. If people are seriously discussing trying to acquire tooling rights for this stuff, why not just design our own shells?

 

I don't have a ton of experience with surface modeling, but I'm sure there are people in the community capable of drawing comfortable and attractive blasters that would be easy to fit standard rainbows into. 

 

That said, that is a very impressive print mysterio. I just think that with the amount of effort put into replicating a 22 year old design, we could build something better from scratch.

 

I already answered this question on page 3 of this thread, but I have little to no interest in using the shells for homemade internals.  All of the Tornado internals are self-contained, so the strength of the shell is less of an issue for my purposes.  I collect Koosh Vortex launchers, and I wanted to have a way to make myself shells to mess around with without destroying originals.  Additionally, I was just curious to see if replicating a shell could be done. 


  • 0

#145 Spud Spudoni

Spud Spudoni

    Member

  • Members
  • 313 posts
  • Location:SC and student at Auburn University
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 February 2017 - 02:06 AM

why not just design our own shells?

 

I don't have a ton of experience with surface modeling, but I'm sure there are people in the community capable of drawing comfortable and attractive blasters that would be easy to fit standard rainbows into. 

 

That said, that is a very impressive print mysterio. I just think that with the amount of effort put into replicating a 22 year old design, we could build something better from scratch.

Just because something is old, doesn't mean it needs to be redesigned. The saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.

 

Not only is the Vortex Tornado shell extremely comfortable, the inside of its shell is almost made to put your own internals into it. Nothing really needs to be changed inside or out.


  • 0

industrial designer


#146 mysterio

mysterio

    Member

  • Members
  • 249 posts
  • Location:Pasadena, California
  • State:California
  • Country:United States

Posted 11 February 2017 - 01:23 PM

That is niiiice. Is it 3D printed? And do you have internals to put into it to test the strength? I don't think it won't matter as much for the tornado, as the internal parts take most of the stress, but it would be nice to see some good progress.

 

Yep, nope, I'll probably put something dumb in it or just keep it as a shell.

 

This is good progess.  I assume you scanned the shell and 3D printed what you have into three parts? What glue is holding that together, is it sturdy? The outer part of the screw port is one thing, but I question how the inner part, that screws actually go into, will hold up and print. When do you plan on making the other half?

 

Scanned by Gemeneye, the half shell is 6 parts glued together. Just superglue for now, but i'll probably pick up clear epoxy soon. Whenever I find the time, probably within the next two weeks. The screw ports should hold up okay, maybe.

 

I question why people are so very attached to the idea of exactly mimicking these old designs. While I have never personally held a Tornadobow or X-bow, I understand that while they are very comfortable, the main draw is the rarity and status associated with it, correct? A 3D printed or cast or whatever won't have the same value. If people are seriously discussing trying to acquire tooling rights for this stuff, why not just design our own shells?

 

I don't have a ton of experience with surface modeling, but I'm sure there are people in the community capable of drawing comfortable and attractive blasters that would be easy to fit standard rainbows into. 

 

That said, that is a very impressive print mysterio. I just think that with the amount of effort put into replicating a 22 year old design, we could build something better from scratch.

 

I mean, I've designed a 3D printed homemade that didn't turn out very well, but I've also learned a lot since then. Handles are pretty easy as long as you model them off something comfy. And I figured for the length of time people have been wanting re-makes of vintage shells someone should actually make one.


  • 0

If two powerful is a problem then just go with one powerful. I guess this style of hopper will work even beyond three powerful..


15:46 *** Buff is now known as TheGdiddler
15:51 TheGdiddler I'M GONNA GRAPE YOU"

#147 Silly

Silly

    Member

  • Members
  • 197 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:48 PM

 

 

http://www.carbon3d.com/

 

Could these (if someone bought one *unlikely* or found someone with one or otherwise got access to one) be easier/better/stronger/easier then all the other options listed here? 

 

As far as i can tell its better then:

 

3d Printing

Casting

molding (purely because price)

carving/whatever it is (CapSlug's Posts)

 

 

Please tell me what you think!


Edited by Silly, 20 February 2017 - 08:49 PM.

  • 0

"This is a bullshit quote with no significant meaning." -Me, 2017
 


#148 charlie156

charlie156

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:ottawa
  • Country:Canada

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:52 PM


https://www.youtube....h?v=O2thSsQrZUM

 

 

http://www.carbon3d.com/

 

Could these (if someone bought one *unlikely* or found someone with one or otherwise got access to one) be easier/better/stronger/easier then all the other options listed here? 

 

As far as i can tell its better then:

 

3d Printing

Casting

molding (purely because price)

carving/whatever it is (CapSlug's Posts)

 

 

Please tell me what you think!


I have access to one. Not worth it. It's strength is only slightly stronger, and it's too expensive. Not worth it
  • 0

#149 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,159 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 21 February 2017 - 05:37 PM

I have access to one. Not worth it. It's strength is only slightly stronger, and it's too expensive. Not worth it

 

Can you elaborate? I know resin printing is *super* expensive, and with this machine at ~$40,000/year you'd need to crank out parts likely far faster than it can to break even, but I'd like to know more about your experiences with this type of machine.


  • 0

#150 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,761 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 04:38 PM

*
POPULAR

Mostly done. I still have to do the springs and the shell.
c95_00.jpg
c95_01.jpgc95_02.jpgc95_03.jpgc95_04.jpgc95_05.jpgc95_06.jpgc95_07.jpgc95_08.jpg
I didn't realize that the tubing that connects the plunger tube to the arrow post has a spring inside of it that keeps the tubing from collapsing at bends. I haven't had an entirely stock one of these in my hands since the mid-90s.
 
Edit: I will make STL and STEP files available once the assembly is fully modeled.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 23 February 2017 - 07:21 PM.

  • 1
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 3D printing, 3D scan, Koosh, Tornado, crossbow, CNC, Injection Molding, Resin Casting, Fiberglass

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users