Are there unfair advantages of the use of 3D printing in Craftsmanship models ( Scale, Sport Scale, etc ) over conventional models ?

Should Craftsmanship modelers be given "bonus points" for "manually-made", Craftsmanship models / components, as opposed to those purchased pre-made or created by other means, including 3D printing ?

Where does 3D printing fit in ?

If someone buys / downloads a 3D-printing program, buys a 3D printer or, wisely, gets someone with a lot of experience to write a custom program for them and print precision components for them, did they actually "construct / build" anything ?

Is it fair for manually-constructed, scratch-built Craftsmanship models to have to compete against the precision of a rapid prototyping machine ?

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

I can think of no better way to address this situation than through the words and images presented by renowned championship scale modeler, James Duffy.

Hypothetical situation :

Two relatively inexperienced modelers decide to enter Scale in an NAR meet, competition against each other. Both have limited building skills, but both are excellent painters.

By coincidence, unknown to each other, they select the same prototype, the ARGO D-4 JAVELIN. So, they both buy kits. The first modeler wins a vintage FSI ARGO D-4 JAVELIN kit ( paper & balsa ), on eBay. The second modeler buys an NCR ARGO D-4 JAVELIN kit (3D printed ) online.

By coincidence, they both download identical Scale Data from the Internet and will be using it for their Scale Data packs.


I'll let the images speak for themselves, in every respect, including the potential for "buying victory".


FIRST : The FSI ARGO D-4 JAVELIN kit

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


SECOND : the NCR ARGO D-4 JAVELIN kit ( as described by master Scale modeler & Champion, James Duffy )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLXipSxoaTY


This is not, at all, about banning the use of 3D printing. It is about changing the Scoring System or, possibly, placing 3D printed models in a separate class, in Craftsmanship events.

Dave F.

Why do you care?

You do not compete.

__________________
Contest flying, Sport flying, it's all good.....
NAR# 18723 NAR.org
GeorgesRockets.com
Georges'CancerGoFundMe:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-geo...ay-fight-cancer

Hello, George,

Thank you for asking !

The answer is very simple, actually.

I care because I want the rules to be fair & equitable for everyone, from modelers flying their very first competition model to those who have made a life and career out of model rocketry, as you have done.

One's level of participation does not reflect their love or passion for hobby Rocketry, particularly NAR competition. In my case, financial constraints and family health issues have always, even starting in 1974 when I joined the NAR, at age 13, been a limiting factor on my actual participation. I wish, and have always wished, that I was able to actively participate, as fully as others. But, in my case, that has not been possible. I want everyone, who does not already know this about me to be aware of my situation, not for the sake of pity or sympathy for me, but for the knowledge of what I do and why I do it !

I strive to help other rocketeers, whenever I can, without seeking public praise or recognition. I do not "crow" on online forums about what I have done, or attack other rocketeers ( I do defend myself against personal attacks, however ), nor do I seek anything for myself.

In this thread, and others like it, I speak out for other NAR Rocketeers, who deserve better than they have had in the past, better than they have at present, and a better future for themselves and NAR Competition.

As I have said, and will continue to say, this is not about individuals or groups of individuals. I hope that everyone who ever reads this thread hears those words strongly considers them and takes them to heart !


Dave F.

No, should be no difference.
Just taking advantage of available technology and not living in the past.
Whether one has the ability to take advantage of the technology or not should make no difference. Best is best.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, TURMOIL, FIASCOS, and HAVOC !

I take the position that having a machine create a highly-accurate component or even an entire rocket. while holding tight, precise tolerances, without any physical labor being required on the part of the "builder" ( other than sanding and prepping for paint ) creates an unfair advantage.

Yes, it takes skill to write the program, but what if the modeler buys the program or even pre-made parts from another individual ?

NAR Rule 9.9 ( which first appeared, circa 1967 ) somewhat addresses this . . . The wording is a bit "clunky" and a good edit / revision is probably in order.

QUOTE :

9.9 Construction

Models not requiring construction are permitted in competition. However, for entries that require construction, the competitor must ensure that he/she has completely constructed the model rocket(s) he/she is using in competition. Materials and designs may be obtained from any source, including kits.


END QUOTE:

Note the use of "completely constructed" and "materials and designs" ( not "ready-made components" . . . As I said it is is need of "cleaning up").

As I see it, in terms of precision, an "old school" scratch-builder can't compete, on a level playing field, against a fully-automated machine. As a result, an alternate points system needs to be developed, in the interest of fairness. Failing that, creating a separate class for models that use 3D technology, should be created.

You said "best is best" . . . So, all is good, as long as you win ?

Dave F.

Baloney.
Not buyin' it.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, TURMOIL, FIASCOS, and HAVOC !

Your prerogative . . .

Dave F.

Hi Dave;

It's my view that the current rule set accommodates 3D printed parts; the differentiation occurs during static judging. That said, if someone wanted to propose a new category - say only 3D printed entries, or best build out of the box or bag, etc - then the RCP process is the way to do that. If the membership carries it, then it becomes a thing.

As it now stands, we've been seeing an increasing amount of 3D printed parts in scale entries over the past few years. And for legitimate reasons - for many prototypes it's the only way to obtain precision nose cones, for example. Almost impossible to find a source for precision turned balsa noses.

Then there's the general impact that technical evolution is causing. Hard to argue ours is a leading edge, future looking hobby if we prohibit modern parts and techniques.

The issue you raise is being handled during static judging. If I'm confronted by two models of the same prototype, yet one of them contains 3D printed parts, then the scoring gets sorted by Degree of Difficulty, Similarity of Outline, etc. Let's use the interstage Adapter between the 1st and 2nd stage in the Javelin as an example.

If builder A is entering a stock FSI model, and goes up against builder B with the NCR model, most likely the stock builder will come out short. The NCR part will score higher on Similarity of Outline, and I would argue both have about the same degree of difficulty. Slap some paint on each one and done.

But if that 3D NCR part is going up against a scratch-built part, and to the same level of detail and finish, then most likely the nod goes to the scratch builder. It would be seen as a greater degree of difficulty for the scratch builder. It is, after all, a craftsmanship event.

One change I would like to see made in the scoring rules is to reduce the number of points for Similarity of Outline to 100, and increase Degree of Difficulty to 200. This would open up the competition to a greater diversity of subjects, and give the judges more room to differentiate the models.

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004

John,

Thanks for your input . . .

The things you mentioned could be very helpful in Craftsmanship events, where 3D technology poses a challenge to accurately scoring models.

Dave F.

That post sounded like you were talking about Sport Scale, not Precision Scale, where digital calipers used used to determine adherence to Scale ( Scale Factor )

Dave F.