A question about sno-cad
Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp
A question about sno-cad
Hello all.
Im looking for a bit of advice in using sno-cad X. When using the programme its easy enough to achieve the width you would like underfoot. But this is not the narrowest part of the ski and i would like to be able to predict where the narrowest part of the ski is so that i can predict or specify where i want my boot centre to be as there is a relationship between the 2. hope that makes sense. All help greatly appreciated.
Im looking for a bit of advice in using sno-cad X. When using the programme its easy enough to achieve the width you would like underfoot. But this is not the narrowest part of the ski and i would like to be able to predict where the narrowest part of the ski is so that i can predict or specify where i want my boot centre to be as there is a relationship between the 2. hope that makes sense. All help greatly appreciated.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:09 pm
hm, the waist width measurement is the narrowest point. moving your 'sidecut radius/bias' will move your narrowest point front or back of the middle of your running length. i.e. +10mm of bias would move your narrowest point of sidecut to 10mm back from the running length middle. i usually have to work things out on paper as well as the program once i start messing with the tip and tail lengths.
does that help?
does that help?
Hey ULC. If you as an exercise creat a ski with rediculesly large tip and super narrow tail it makes it clear what is stressing me out. then the narrowest part of the ski is super far back towards the tail and the calculated waist width given is at the mid point of the running length. or am i wrong. i want to be able to decide to put the narrowest part of my ski at 55 percent of runnning length and im finding that onc i print a ski out it the narrowest part simply is not where its supposed to be. am i losing my mind or does this make sense.
thanks again
thanks again
Ya it does move the narrowest point around if you exaggerate your measurements it's really obvious.
You can grab the sidecut radius/bias point and move it where you want it to a certain extent.
Free software always has some limitations.
Either learn to live with it or learn a proper cad program.
I've been using snocad but I don't always stick to the lines.
Most of the time I eyeball and sand to the shape I want.
sam
You can grab the sidecut radius/bias point and move it where you want it to a certain extent.
Free software always has some limitations.
Either learn to live with it or learn a proper cad program.
I've been using snocad but I don't always stick to the lines.
Most of the time I eyeball and sand to the shape I want.
sam
You don't even have a legit signature, nothing to reveal who you are and what you do...
Best of luck to you. (uneva)
Best of luck to you. (uneva)
Thanks for that Sammer.At least Im not crazy. its just a bit frustrating not being able to predict or specify where you want the narrow point relative to your skis lenth. Your right,I just need to learn to use something better. Its just such a simple programme to use. Makes life really easy except for this one point.
Cheers again guys.
Cheers again guys.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:09 pm
This is the reason why I started with a full fledged CAD program right from the start. I felt I had much more control of my curves and certain points.
However, I have since changed some of my design parameters with surprising results. In the past, I always put my narrowest point where my boot midsole would be mounted on the ski. On my most recent design which I skied yesterday, the narrowest point was 11 centimeters behind midsole and they were awesome. I could feel the difference in swing weight and taper angle but the way they carved felt the same.
I still feel that putting the boot midsole at the waist is the ideal reference point to start from and then tweak from there depending on what you want the ski to do.
However, I have since changed some of my design parameters with surprising results. In the past, I always put my narrowest point where my boot midsole would be mounted on the ski. On my most recent design which I skied yesterday, the narrowest point was 11 centimeters behind midsole and they were awesome. I could feel the difference in swing weight and taper angle but the way they carved felt the same.
I still feel that putting the boot midsole at the waist is the ideal reference point to start from and then tweak from there depending on what you want the ski to do.
With a little creativity it will do pretty much anything you want.Upper Left Coast wrote: i dont think it will do reverse sidecut shapes.
It will do reverse sidecut, under tools- rail shaper -check convex box, works OK.
I've done tapered tips by making your tip/tail really long.
Running length on screen no longer has any real meaning except to delineate turning radius.
Made a pretty good looking 180cm design with 420mm tip 200mm tail and 1200mm running length.
Actual running length would be closer to 1600 when in the press.
(Less if you take rocker into consideration, Rocker would start at the widest points.)
Tip and tail widths show on screen no longer apply.
I only use it for ski shapes and as I said don't always stay in the lines when cutting my pattern.
Play around with it. It's definitely limited compared to a proper CAD program and if your using CNC you'll want to learn CAD, But overall it works good enough for the majority of us.
THANKS, DAN GRAF !!!!!!
sam
You don't even have a legit signature, nothing to reveal who you are and what you do...
Best of luck to you. (uneva)
Best of luck to you. (uneva)
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:09 pm
I find the 7 pt. spline to be finicky also. Once I have a good model I keep it and then modify that one good model to create variations in length and width so I'm not starting from scratch every time.
Fighting gravity on a daily basis
www.Whiteroomcustomskis.com
www.Whiteroomcustomskis.com