RCP 2023-2024-101

12 Comments

1. JAMES FILLER says:

   02January24 at 11:33 pm

   Test reply

2. JOHN BROHM says:

   03January24 at 7:11 pm

   I’m generally in favor of this proposal. Encouraging the use of 3D printed parts opens up competition to a greater variety of prototypes, and for many modelers would provide an avenue to custom scale parts that otherwise would be unavailable. If one of the goals is to encourage greater participation in craftsmanship events, this proposal would further that goal.

   Perhaps there is a question whether all-3D printed models should be allowed in the regular scale events or restricted to PMC; 56.1 doesn’t actually define what a “manufacturer” is. But I’m of the view that with the modified Degree of Difficulty scoring we now have room to accommodate this should we leave things as is.

3. Jon Bolden says:

   16January24 at 9:37 pm

   Test

4. Alberto De La Iglesia says:

   22January24 at 5:10 pm

   I I am in favor of encouraging 3D printed parts in the scale events. I don’t think that we should limit how a scale model should or should not be built as long as it follows the current rules.

5. MARC MCREYNOLDS says:

   25January24 at 7:13 pm

   The change to Rule 9.9 would largely eliminate Rule 9.9 — an entrant could now use a model which someone else printed and requires no modeling skill on their part whatsoever. The requirement that models used in competition be constructed, which has been a cornerstone of our hobby, goes away.

   Regarding John Brohm’s “Perhaps there is a question whether all-3D printed models should be allowed in the regular scale events or restricted to PMC”, I would argue against allowing all-3D printed models in PMC. The event exists in part to challenge a modeler’s ability to make flyable something which was not designed to fly. But a 3D-printed model can simply be configured for flight capability/compatibility before the printing starts. That’s headed in the opposite direction from the intent of PMC. Unless something is spelled out in the PMC rules regarding what’s not eligible, an entrant would be able to print literally any flying model rocket which doesn’t fall under Scale or Classic Model rules (possibly with an eye towards maximum points) and call it a PMC entry.

   Errata:

   Hyphens everywhere that “3D” is used as part of a compound adjective, e.g. “3D-printed models”.

   “and/or”

   “may be used on Scale entries”
   “may be used on Sport Scale entries”
   “may be used on Concept Sport Scale entries”
   “may be used on Classic Model entries”

   Note that the event names cited in the RCP do not always align with their event numbers (been there: my boss once wrote in the margin of some calculations I had submitted “Were you doing this at 3 am?”… and my response was “4 am” ; )

6. EDWARD CHESS says:

   27January24 at 2:17 pm

   I think Kevin’s proposal provides the guidance needed by both modeler and judge to use 3D-printed parts without prejudice. This is a thoughtful approach to the issue.

7. MARK B. BUNDICK says:

   29January24 at 5:00 pm

   I support this rule change. Disclosing the use of 3D parts is the right way to go. We should not be in the business of creating rules that unnecessarily limit the contestant’s choices in how they construct their models.

8. KEVIN KUCZEK says:

   04February24 at 4:53 am

   3d printing is the wave of the future. However, should someone be able to post a top static score if most of their model is 3d printed vs someone who enters a model that is not 3d printed? And how to determine what % of the model is 3d printed? Obviously 100% is 100%, but what about anything under that? One could claim that ALL external features are 100% printed, but internal support, avionics if any, recovery device, motor mounts, shock cord mounts were not printed. And then how to award points to someone who simply downloads another author’s print file and in seconds sends it to their printer? New printers also are employing custom colors…so no painting required.

   I’m really not on the fence on how I would score a Space X Falcon fully 3d printed entry vs a homebrew Mercury Redstone done well and hand crafted. As a “builder”, I’d lean toward the latter and in giving more craftsmanship/degree of difficulty points. Much more and in fact penalizing the 3d print unless the contestant could prove they designed all or most of the files.

9. KEVIN JOHNSON says:

   07February24 at 5:06 pm

   Re: PMC and fully 3D printed models- I tried to address the use of 3D-printed parts in this RCP. There have been edge conditions allowed in PMC in the past (Happy Meal containers, and plastic toys converted as opposed to a plastic model kit) but I think the spirit of the event is to take a model not meant for flight and add the needed components to make it fly successfully. If a fully 3D printed model was designed for flight from the start, then that would make it an invalid entry in PMC.

   Re: Percent use of 3d printed parts- I purposefully avoided that consideration when writing this RCP. The goal of having the contestant point out such parts in the data packet gives the modeler the chance to describe if the parts were designed by them or another source. The data packet should highlight the difficulty in constructing the model as well as give the required scale documentation.

10. R SCOTT ALEXANDER says:

    08February24 at 1:07 am

    I do not consider myself a fine scale modeler, but I have competed a few times. I think 3D printed detail pieces are a great way to enhance a model especially as access to traditional scale modeling materials are harder to find. Properly documented 3D parts open up new possibilities for the scale modeler. I suggest that modelers not only disclose the use of 3D parts, but also document the effort they went through to create the part. I know how hard it is to make a clean detailed part with a 3D printer. A part designed by the modeler, properly sanded, filled and smoothed is perhaps more work than one hand carved or crafted out of other hobby materials. The modeler should be rewarded for the effort and skill shown and documented. A fully 3D printed model is a separate issue in my opinion.

11. BERNARD CAWLEY says:

    08February24 at 3:42 am

    I’m of two minds about this one. On the one hand, allowing 3D-printed components in Craftsmanship events seems appropriate in that this is another technique to create parts added to “our” toolboxes — for some folks, anyway.

    But I balk at whole 3D-printed models being permitted here unless there is some way to require that the creation of the 3D-printed model’s design be done by the competitor with more personal creative involvement than getting files from an online repository and perhaps rescaling them. However, I have no idea how that could/would be enforced.

    I also think that the proposed change to 9.9 that concerns Marc McReynolds is not necessary in order to allow 3D-printed components in the Section 50 events — even though I can’t find anywhere explicitly “entries that require construction” either in section 50 or elsewhere. Perhaps there is some institutional memory amongst all you old hands at NAR competition that this relative neophyte can’t find in the actual Sporting Code document as it currently exists.

    So I don’t know which way I will go on this one once the voting opens, at least not right now.

12. JOHN VIGGIANO says:

    08February24 at 9:34 pm

    Perhaps I am missing something, but I didn’t see language requiring identification of which components were additively manufactured (which is the correct terminology for what I believe you are describing here). Unless not otherwise indicated by the entrant, should the judges assume a part was not produced from a 3D model created by the entrant?