1/72 Wine Cellar WIP

[Lluís of Minairons]

Despite still awaiting a roof to top the thing, I've thought you would like to see what our upcoming modernist styled Catalonian
Wine Cellar is starting to look like. Better than trying to explain it in words, let's share a few captions on the prototype:

Please note the main trick we're using to make a relatively lightweight model kit from this otherwise massive building: the thick cardboard box of its packaging is going to be the building main body, on which socles, windows, false towers, terraces and other architectural details are to be fixed, so as to build the ultimate kit.

Such trick will allow us to set an affordable pricing for the model kit, as well as to keep its total weight below 400g --a measure that ought to permit shipping expenses economy too, while still allowing for a durable, tough model building on tabletop.

Two long side terraces will allow for miniatures to be placed on top, so as to help using the building not just as a simple background decoration, but as a terrain element by itself. And last, users will have the choice not to glue the roof on top, thus allowing indoor practicability too.

I'm quite happy about the thing development, honestly.
Cheers,
Lluís
www.minairons.eu
minairons-news.blogspot.com
www.facebook.com/MinaironsMiniatures

[pocoloco]

Nice progress and ideas with the kit! 

[FramFramson]

Ahahah, vewwy clever.

[tin shed gamer]

It's nice to see an old idea brought back to life.

Personally I'd be comfortable using what's pictured on the forum for 28mm.

If your not at a production stage then I'd recommend a minor adjustment to the front towers which will reduce costs and weight even further,and remove the joint line on the leading edges.

The towers appear to be constructed in two parts an inner 'W' section designed to attach around the corner of the box. Then a 'C' shaped outer wall with window detail to create the curve.

From experience I can honestly say its over engineered as the 'W' section is more likely to peal away from the box card than give the structural support you intend it to.
The card will delaminate around the adhesive both at the depth of absorption and at the lateral edge.

A much stronger solution would to be to remove the 90 degree 'L' which wraps around the corner,and attach the remaining detail panels to the 'C' shaped corner and eliminate the highly visible corner joint.
This would leave the box corner inside the rear curve.
A couple of Tenon pins,or conical grips attached to the contact surfaces where the resin meets the card creating either puncture holes or Tenon joints would greatly improve strength and reduce flexing while providing more area and points of absorption for adhesive and at greater depths.

Not discounting the removal of the 'L' shapes will reduce weight for posting and cut the amount of resin used.
If your concerned about the joint between the walkway and the rear of the towers then a small panel could be built onto the walkway its self or a blocked off with a piece of packing card.

I've no intention of teaching granny how to suck eggs This is simply my first thought on reading your thread.
All the best.
Mark.

[FramFramson]

It's nice to see an old idea brought back to life.

Personally I'd be comfortable using what's pictured on the forum for 28mm.

If your not at a production stage then I'd recommend a minor adjustment to the front towers which will reduce costs and weight even further,and remove the joint line on the leading edges.

The towers appear to be constructed in two parts an inner 'W' section designed to attach around the corner of the box. Then a 'C' shaped outer wall with window detail to create the curve.

From experience I can honestly say its over engineered as the 'W' section is more likely to peal away from the box card than give the structural support you intend it to.
The card will delaminate around the adhesive both at the depth of absorption and at the lateral edge.

A much stronger solution would to be to remove the 90 degree 'L' which wraps around the corner,and attach the remaining detail panels to the 'C' shaped corner and eliminate the highly visible corner joint.
This would leave the box corner inside the rear curve.
A couple of Tenon pins,or conical grips attached to the contact surfaces where the resin meets the card creating either puncture holes or Tenon joints would greatly improve strength and reduce flexing while providing more area and points of absorption for adhesive and at greater depths.

Not discounting the removal of the 'L' shapes will reduce weight for posting and cut the amount of resin used.
If your concerned about the joint between the walkway and the rear of the towers then a small panel could be built onto the walkway its self or a blocked off with a piece of packing card.

I've no intention of teaching granny how to suck eggs This is simply my first thought on reading your thread.
All the best.
Mark.

+1 for good ideas.

Simplify, simplify! An engineer's mantra.

[Lluís of Minairons]

Hi @tin shed gamer,

I'm glad this project is making discussion arise, what probably means it overall likes people. Thanks for posting your criticisms and suggestions, that certainly make sense. I'm already talking about them with the model maker. Sooner or later, a decision will be taken at regard.

thanks,
Lluís

[tin shed gamer]

Lluís,

No criticism intended,only observations born of experience and practice. I've mixed media commissions for the new year,as its a pretty standard method for display pieces.

I do like the idea of using the packaging as part of the model.There are however a few questions raised by this method.
How do you intend to control the location of packing tape,and postal labeling. As these will effect the finish of the model?
If you leave the labels and tape on the box it will more than likely be visible as raised areas of obvious shapes even when painted.
Also tape doesn't take paint or super glue well.Labeling can start to lift once the paint has dried normally a couple of weeks after painting.
If you remove the labeling and tape then you risk de laminating the surface when you pull the tape and labels off.This intern requires sealing otherwise the delaminated area will feather when painted.
On the positive side it does add a texture to exposed areas of card.
It will require the final design to take into account the relationship between the resin parts and the potential areas of label and tape .its going to be down to location location location.

Otherwise this will be the point lackies and trolls (not on this forum)use to undermine a genuine attempt to reduce costs for both consumer and manufacturer alike

Contrary to how my observations may read. I am impressed with the concept and do think you've found an unexplored gap in the market between resin , MDF,and card models,not only in 20mm but 28's as well.so I wish well and I'll be keeping an interested eye on your progress.

Mark.

[FramFramson]

Good questions. Maybe they intend for the box to be inverted from interior to exterior?

[Lluís of Minairons]

Hi again,

Lots of questions requiring a response there,

...packaging as part of the model...
How do you intend to control the location of packing tape,and postal labeling. As these will effect the finish of the model?

Mark, don't worry anymore at this. The box you see isn't to be the ultimate mailing parcel package, because it's just for showcase purposes --just as our model kits or metal figures boxes. Building kit parts along with their 'showcase' box will be always appropriately packed into a sturdy mailing case.

...a minor adjustment to the front towers which will reduce costs and weight even further, and remove the joint line on the leading edges...

The solution you pointed out is clever indeed, and was already considered by the kit modeler --as he told me yesterday. However, in the end he chose to keep the 'W' shaped walls because of the moulding silicone saving it would mean, with regard to the suggested 'C' shaped parts extension. True that some resin is saved with your suggested modification, but the artist (who is also the resin caster) judged it better to save silicone by tooling 'flatter' pieces --I mean, with a lesser depth in mould. He also shows remarkable aplomb at your doubts about eventual insufficient force of jointure surfaces, adducing that the large surfaces involved will co-operate in a solid, durable joint.

As for other eventual issues, there are still some critical parts to be finished before being able to judge (roof, upper façade and rear, annex water tank...). I'll show you pictures as soon as I can.

BTW, the artist clarified me that 400g is the current structure weight only. After the addition of these parts above mentioned, it's likely to reach 700g --that is still a remarkable light weight for such a relatively large building.

As soon as possible, I'll post some pictures of a 28mm figure close to the building too.

Regards,
Lluís

[tin shed gamer]

Wow.
What interesting response.It would appear that having been on and off in the trade for Thirty years  making moulds for vacuum and pressure chambers' as well as sculpting .
Not forgetting being an  accredited advisor and supplier for museums.
Be it physical help or display solutions.
That I have in fact. mis understood the relationship between the surface areas and the volume of masters.For all these years.
You may thank your mould maker on my behalf. As I was short of topics of conversation for an up coming new years Trade dinner .I'm sure his response will amuse.

As for the issues of delamination.I stated this was an old idea.
late 1989,Rob Baker,Steve Mussard of Monolith Designs and myself made a series of resin projects for GamesWorkshop.These were test projects sold at Games Day including resin rhino conversion kits, prysm cannons ,and a conversion kit for card buildings. The feed back showed that the kit actually reduced the table life of the card build.Simply through constant handling it required the buildings to be statically based in order for them to work .As encouraging additional basing wasn't part of the sale strategy at the time it was dropped.Other ideas like the conversions for rhinos were run with.
This kind of adaption is still readily available for card railway models in the scale your working in all be it mainly in plastic. Because of the static nature of the models. That is why this idea has taken so long to resurface.

I profoundly dislike having to qualify my knowledge in such a fashion. However your mould makers response made it an imperative. I do not wish to cause offence,I have no concerns with your project as I've no investment other than reading your thread. I gave only appropriate observations.
 
His methods are his own. If your content with them then I wish you all the best.
As for me I'll stick with my own as they've paid a mortgage and put three children through university,and look likely to do the same for rest.

[Lluís of Minairons]

Sorry to have disappointed you that much, for having provoked such a reaction from you.

I just wished to give an answer to your questions and suggestions, and I believe to have done it the best and kindest way I've been able --nothing further from my will than honestly explain you why of our choices, and by no means tried to show them as better than yours own. Just explaining why.

Seemingly this is not what you required from me, but constraint and rectification instead.
As an old Catalan saying says, two aren't going to argue if one is unwilling to.
Apologies Sir for having dared antagonizing your wide knowledge, then.

Have a best New Year.
Lluís Vilalta
www.minairons.eu

[tin shed gamer]

Lluís,

Thank you for your reply.Its not you personally that has in sensed me.I'm in disbelief at the answer your mould maker has provided you with. I fail to see how he believes that two moulds are more cost effective than one only that should if constructed correctly should use  40% less of the second moulds silicon.
I've no doubt your mould maker will argue day is night.
So I'll give you a simple visual example that you can use to see with your own eyes,and since you've used his explanation on the forum and be undertaken by anyone reading this topic.
If you draw two rectangles 2.3 cm by 10cm each with a centre line 3mm wide and 8cm.(this line represents the master with in the silicone)Then over lap the two rectangles so the centre lines form an 'L' you'll see just how much of an overlap of mould there is.Coupled with the mould saved from the central 'V' section of the 'W' shaped master.
Given that there is an optimal thickness for mould wall.If you reduce the size of the master then maintaining the optimal thickness of the mould means a smaller mould. Therefore smaller mould less silicon.
Mould making 101, thicker walls increases the amount of force used to extract the casting. Running the risk of fracturing the casting .It increases the strain on the detailed silicon and leads to tearing of the mould in undercuts and corners.This is covered in any table top manual for home casting.
A thicker mould has a shorter production life.The only reason there would be more silicon is if your mould maker chose not to reduce the size of the moulding box when constructing the mould.
You stated that he'd considered a one piece master in the form I suggested
And having considered this option gone with the more expensive route of two moulds. I'd be asking why?

Nor do I see how two parts made with three right angle returns and a separate curve can be considered simpler,or smoother than one curve with two angles attached to it.

As for weight that's not the issue. The issues arrive from ergonomic use , thermal properties ,and the rigidity and flex of two conflicting materials. Personally I'd want to look into these issues if there was a possibility I'd over looked something.I would certainly not be dismissive.
Simple observation would show just how shallow the absorption of super glue is card.The delamination occurs in the fibre layer immediately beneath this and not between the card and the resin.

I was not out to appear as a know it all, nor demand some sort of gratitude or recognition.I simply intended on asking questions which probed these issues,in the spirit fostered by this forum.

If it is a case of being lost in translation then I  unreservedly apologise if my comments offended. To imply by the use of a local phrase,that my comments are intended as an argument is uncalled for.

As the wording of your caster comments  read as complacent , dismissive,and patronising  to some one as long in the tooth as I am.
As this was done publically you left me no option but to qualify my opinion and state how flawed his logic is.
If you were uncomfortable with my participation in this thread Then a PM would have sufficed.

I still wish you well with this project,and sincerely wish it goes as planned.