For all you math genious and quantium physic majors.

[Jaxom]

This is wierd, I hate math! It took me 3 trys to finally pass highschool alegbra with a D- !!!, Geometry was another matter, I aced that class. Again with accounting. Even my act's and sat's say I'm math orientated, whatever the heck that means.

A few posts back someone suggested a "junkyard" wars type art contest. I really like the idea myself, and started planing out what I'd would build. Now I'm not gonna let the cat out of the bag just yet, but I do have a couple of questions reguardings sizes and scales.

Now, I did some research on the "project" and was able to find a faxsimile of it complete with diamentions. With the help of some online friends I was able to determine the picture of said "project" 1 foot equals 7/40's of an inch, or 1/69th scale. (This was determined by a measurement on the drawing that 5 feet equals 7/8ths of an inch)

I do realize this art work and doesn't nessarily have to be to exact scale. I just don't want parts of it to look WAY out of spec, so much so any potential buyer might just laugh and walk away.

When I asked the same friends on how to calculate size into relations with the parts I've already have, I'm sort of confused with what they said. The main piece of scrap I have and one diamention I cannot change is the diamter of the scrap item. This happens to be 5 1/4" wide. The same diamention on paper is 1 1/8th inch wide. To keep things in proportion, it has been suggested i mulitply the remaining parts by 5.25.

If I did this, the same part that is 1 1/8th" wide is 4 3/4ths long, times 5.25 would give me just shy of 25" long. Some how this doesn't look right when I look at the diagram and look at the scrap piece of steel.

Again, I would like to stress, this doesn't have to be "exactilly to scale". I'm not building a perfect scale model where every nut and bolt has to be the propper 1/10000 of an inch just to be right. I just don't want it to look bozoish either. I figure if a few of the main pieces are "close" to being proper size the rest can be eyeballed and things will still look good.

Jax

[enlpck]

You'll probably be close enough to the scale you want at by multiplying by the round number 5, though 4.67 is the 'exact' scale you want. This is the scaling. Funny thing is, though, the eye sees things a little differently than the math shows, and you may need to scale some parts differently than others to make it look 'right'

[Rocky D]

I'm no good at this stuff, either. That's why I took AutoCad. I would scan picture into ACAD trace it, then I would have a drawing I could scale...then draw a box the size want, and scale it to fit in the box, then dimension it...works like a charm and very accurate. Now, there's prolly a hundred other ways to do it, but this is what came to mind first.

[LarryM]

Jax,

To do the scale 5' equals 7/8". You divide all the measurements by 5' then multiply the answers by .875 or 7/8".

Larry

[Masher Mfg]

Probably the best thing to do is work in Metric, no fractions to deal with.

[thingy]

Huh? thingy

[preacher2]

I consider my self an artist and most of my freinds call me a math geek. Here are my thoughts for what thay are worth.

Depending on the peice the scale may or may not be important. Two dimentional works scale up or down nicely with out looking distorted. That is not always the case in 3D. Sometimes in art measurments the measuring is best done by eye. Making carding board mock ups and adjusting by eye until it looked right has saved me a lot of time a materials. They being said I will admit to haveing a calculator and a tape measure with me most of the and using both of them often.

It looks to me like the others have made some good sugestions for do the calculations. Good luck and please post some pics when you can let the cat out of the bag.

preacher

[Jaxom]

enlpck,

You're right, I was checking my notes after I posted, it was multiply by 4.67 instead of 5.25. I was gonna ask, I've got frineds in the computing/software industry, I've many offers for just about any software I want legally. Mainly this is beta copys of the next version of the most popular stuff out. Which cad program has the easiest learning curve to it. I've got alot going on right now, and I don't want to have yet another thing on my plate. (Please don't say sketch up, I don't like that program at all).

[usmcpop]

If you are just working in 2D and need something to scale and sketch, see if you can get hold of a copy of Visio. I really like it.

[BillDaCatt]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

enlpck,

You're right, I was checking my notes after I posted, it was multiply by 4.67 instead of 5.25. I was gonna ask, I've got frineds in the computing/software industry, I've many offers for just about any software I want legally. Mainly this is beta copys of the next version of the most popular stuff out. Which cad program has the easiest learning curve to it. I've got alot going on right now, and I don't want to have yet another thing on my plate. (Please don't say sketch up, I don't like that program at all).

I use DeltaCad. It's very easy to learn. There is a tutorial in the manual that takes about half an hour to an hour to complete. It shows you how to use most every function, and once complete, you will be able to actually use it! It's only drawback is that it's 2D only, but that is just fine for most everything I do. It will open many of the standard CAD file formats as well. And at $40, it's hard to beat the price.

[vicegrip]

not even gonna mess with this thread

[usmcpop]

Phil is too busy thinking about stuff to mess around in this thread.

[TEK]

Originally Posted by usmcpop

Phil is too busy thinking about stuff to mess around in this thread.

Yeah, and his avatar looks a little,er, anti-social?

[usmcpop]

Doesn't look so bad to me.

[TEK]

Pops, perhaps you misunderstood. I didnt say it was bad, just anti social. I've been a weldor for 35 years. I am accustomed to hard skinned, pointy toothed, bad breathed, disagreeable individuals. I call them friends