done with initial draft

This commit is contained in:
Joe Ardent 2023-01-19 16:28:27 -08:00
parent 0795e76a6c
commit 72a888500d
6 changed files with 169 additions and 27 deletions

View file

@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
name = "From the Office of the Chief Sundries Officer and Head of R&D" name = "Office of the Chief Sundries Officer and Head of R&D"
title = "From the Office of the Chief Sundries Officer and Head of R&D" title = "From the Desk of the Chief Sundries Officer and Head of R&D"
# The URL the site will be built for # The URL the site will be built for
base_url = "https://proclamations.nebcorp-hias.com" base_url = "https://proclamations.nebcorp-hias.com"

View file

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title = "A Thoroughly Digital Artifact"
slug = "a-thoroughly-digital-artifact" slug = "a-thoroughly-digital-artifact"
date = "2023-01-17" date = "2023-01-17"
[taxonomies] [taxonomies]
tags = ["3dprinting", "CAD", "GIS", "CNC", "art", "sundries", "proclamation"] tags = ["3dprinting", "CAD", "GIS", "CNC", "art", "sundry", "proclamation", "research"]
+++ +++
![A plywood slab carved with CNC into a topographic representation of California][main_image] ![A plywood slab carved with CNC into a topographic representation of California][main_image]
@ -87,10 +87,11 @@ The CNC shop had requested a model in a format called
[ST**P**](https://www.fastradius.com/resources/everything-you-need-to-know-about-step-files/). `.stp` [ST**P**](https://www.fastradius.com/resources/everything-you-need-to-know-about-step-files/). `.stp`
is the extension for a "STEP" file; STEP is supposed to be short for "standard for the exchange of is the extension for a "STEP" file; STEP is supposed to be short for "standard for the exchange of
product data", so someone was playing pretty fast and loose with their initialisms, but I product data", so someone was playing pretty fast and loose with their initialisms, but I
digress. The main thing about STEP files is that CAD programs can really easily convert them digress. The main thing about STEP files is that CAD programs can really easily convert them into
into their native internal solid body representation, which allows easy manipulation. Another thing their native internal solid body representation, which allows easy manipulation. <a
about them is that a CAD program can usually turn a manifold mesh into an STP file, unless the mesh is name="prophecy"></a> Another thing about them is that a CAD program can usually turn a manifold mesh
too complicated and your computer doesn't have enough RAM (*note: foreshadowing*[^chekhovs-ram]). into an STP file, unless the mesh is too complicated and your computer doesn't have enough RAM
(*note: foreshadowing*[^chekhovs-ram]).
![an overly-complicated mesh of a cube][meshy-cube] ![an overly-complicated mesh of a cube][meshy-cube]
*<center><sup><sub>this cube's mesh has too many vertices and edges, I hope my computer has enough *<center><sup><sub>this cube's mesh has too many vertices and edges, I hope my computer has enough
@ -554,8 +555,8 @@ different tools.
This also meant that I would run into limits due to translation overhead when going between This also meant that I would run into limits due to translation overhead when going between
them. Let me explain. I'd get a mesh in Blender, export it to a neutral mesh format like them. Let me explain. I'd get a mesh in Blender, export it to a neutral mesh format like
[OBJ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file) that both programs understand well, and it [OBJ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file) that both programs understand well, and it
would be a 60 megabyte file. My computer has 32 **giga**bytes, more 500 times more memory than would be a 60 megabyte file. My computer has 32 **giga**bytes, more than 500 times more memory than
that, so you'd think it would not be a problem. that, so you'd think it would not be a problem.
The act of asking FreeCAD to import that OBJ file as a *mesh*, and not even as a solid body, caused The act of asking FreeCAD to import that OBJ file as a *mesh*, and not even as a solid body, caused
the memory use to go to 21 gigabytes. This is a lot, but the computer still had plenty of room left the memory use to go to 21 gigabytes. This is a lot, but the computer still had plenty of room left
@ -566,7 +567,8 @@ When I attempted to convert that mesh into a solid body, though, memory use ball
encompass all available RAM, and my system slowed to a nearly imperceptible crawl until my frantic encompass all available RAM, and my system slowed to a nearly imperceptible crawl until my frantic
`ctrl-c`s were finally registered by the [signal `ctrl-c`s were finally registered by the [signal
handlers](https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Termination-Signals.html) in FreeCAD handlers](https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Termination-Signals.html) in FreeCAD
before I could use it again. This happened a lot. before I could use it again. This happened *a lot*. At last, <a href="#prophecy">the prophecy</a> had
come to pass.
I went through many rounds of attempting to clean up the mesh and reduce its complexity, but I don't I went through many rounds of attempting to clean up the mesh and reduce its complexity, but I don't
have many notes or intermediate artifacts from this time. A lot of that was being a beginner at both have many notes or intermediate artifacts from this time. A lot of that was being a beginner at both
@ -581,12 +583,13 @@ conspired to make this portion of the process a total slog with very little to s
Finally, after a couple weeks of trying and failing to get something into FreeCAD that I could then Finally, after a couple weeks of trying and failing to get something into FreeCAD that I could then
work with (like melding it with a thick base and trimming that base to follow the shape of the work with (like melding it with a thick base and trimming that base to follow the shape of the
state), I had had enough. I have some notes from the time: state), I had had enough. I have some notes from the time, from right after I'd started a test print
of my latest model:
> I'm finally printing something out. I've given up on converting it into a parametric > I'm finally printing something out. I've given up on converting it into [something CAD-friendly];
CAD-like object; it seems this is a Hard Problem, but I'm not sure why. My goal with doing that was it seems this is a Hard Problem, but I'm not sure why. My goal with doing that was to give a
to give a parametric CAD file to a local CNC milling shop, per their request, since when I suggested CAD-friendly file to a local CNC milling shop, per their request, since when I suggested a
a mesh-based file (STL), the guy was like "I can't do much manipulation with that to make it more mesh-based file (STL), the guy was like "I can't do much manipulation with that to make it more
manufacturable, so a real CAD file would be best". manufacturable, so a real CAD file would be best".
> >
> But at least with an STL file, I can print it myself. So that's going now, we'll see how it turns > But at least with an STL file, I can print it myself. So that's going now, we'll see how it turns
@ -598,13 +601,13 @@ When that print was done, here's what it looked like:
![a piece of literal dogshit][crappy_test_print] ![a piece of literal dogshit][crappy_test_print]
In case you were not revolted enough, I invite you to cast your gaze upon this eldritch abomination: In case you were not revolted enough, then please allow me to direct your gaze upon this eldritch abomination:
![close-up of extremely bad print results][crappy-close-up] ![close-up of extremely bad print results][crappy-close-up]
As bad as it looked, it felt even worse to touch. Setting aside the hideous base with its weird As bad as it looked, it felt even worse to touch. Setting aside the hideous base with its weird
artifacts due to those areas not being a single flat polygon, but rather several polygons that were artifacts due to those areas not being a single flat polygon, but rather several polygons that were
not parallel or co-planar (modeling artifact), there was just too much high-frequency detail in the not parallel or co-planar (modeling artifact), there was still just too much high-frequency detail in the
terrain, and it was a total mismatch with the 3D printed medium. terrain, and it was a total mismatch with the 3D printed medium.
The real thing was going to be carved out of wood by a [CNC The real thing was going to be carved out of wood by a [CNC
@ -634,11 +637,12 @@ simplification](https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs468-10-fall/LectureSlide
the geometry was practically homeopathic. the geometry was practically homeopathic.
![the final model in blender][final-model] ![the final model in blender][final-model]
*<center><sup><sub>by the principles of homeopathy, the fewer the vertices, the more potent the mesh</sub></sup></center>*
Check out this close-up of Mt Shasta: Check out this close-up of Mt Shasta:
![close-up of Shasta in the final model][final-shasta] ![close-up of Shasta in the final model][final-shasta]
*<center><sup><sub>a less lonely Mt Shasta</sub></sup></center>* *<center><sup><sub>a chonkier, less lonesome Mt Shasta</sub></sup></center>*
Present, but not obnoxious. I printed out another test print to make sure it looked as good in Present, but not obnoxious. I printed out another test print to make sure it looked as good in
physical reality: physical reality:
@ -652,25 +656,158 @@ can still look at and interact with a 3D model of it in the browser on that site
of neat. A couple different strangers uploaded pictures of their prints of it, which I thought was of neat. A couple different strangers uploaded pictures of their prints of it, which I thought was
cool! cool!
I brought the mesh into FreeCAD and finally was able to create the STP[^fancy-iges] file the shop had
asked for, a mere twenty-five days after I'd last spoken with them.
# Final cut # Final cut
# Thank yous, lessons learned, and open questions I emailed the file to the shop, and said,
thank you: wife, steve at the shop, friends indulging my oversharing, NASA, Blender, FreeCAD > As modeled, there's probably more high-frequency detail in the mountains than is necessary, as I'm
> going for something that feels nice to the touch so smoother is better. It's also modeled at a
> slightly larger scale than necessary, though not too far off (it's 500x577mm, and I'm interested
> in the 400-500mm range for width; the relief height is in the 20-30mm range depending on scale). I
> was imagining it would be carved with contour cuts in some thick nice ply, though I'm happy to
> hear better ideas; I have literally no experience with making something like this.
lesson: I started basically knowing nothing, but now retracing my steps I feel like I understand everything The shop came back with,
much better than when I was first racing through the material trying to get to a point where I could
just produce the artifact.
lesson: pipeline of geotiff -> mask -> scaled heightmap -> mesh -> solid body > I cant smooth out the cuts, I can only cut what is there. That being said, if I use a rounded cutter, it will round out the valleys but not the peaks as it wont go into areas that it cant reach.
>
> Hope that makes sense.
>
> Let me know if this will work for you or not. If you think it will, I will try to program the toolpaths and see what it will look like.
lesson: see whole article about GIS stuff I definitely didn't want to lose the sharp seams in the bottoms of the valleys.
question: could I do it better in blender? freecad? could I have used gdal_polygonize (doubtful, > Me: I guess what I was really saying is that if some detail is lost due to using a larger cutting
given how much I had to blur and decimate)? head that's probably fine. I wouldn't necessarily want the valleys to be made more concave than they
already are, though. Does that make sense?
>
> Shop: Yes, that makes sense. I can use a Vee cutter and it will cut the sharp edges in the
valleys."
It felt nice to be understood! Next came the issue of cost:
> I ran the numbers on both sizes using a .01” step-over cut, meaning that is how far apart the
> finish cuts will be from each other.
>
> You will probably see some tool marks depending on what type of material is used.
>
> The larger one is coming in at around $850.00 and the 12” one at $350.00.
>
> I can go tighter, say .005” step-over and it will probably not show many marks but I wont know
> until I run it.
>
> If I do that it will double the cut time so close to doubling the price.
One of the things that my wife had said she wanted to do with the carving of California was sand and
finish it herself, so the coarser 0.01-inch step-over cut was not really a problem. Even the
0.005-inch cut would still require a final sanding before staining or sealing.
The "larger one" the shop referred to was for a 20-inch wide carving, which would be huge anyway; 12
inches was fine. Still, $350 was at the top of what I had hoped/expected to spend. I hoped it was
worth it!
After a few more back-and-forths and days, I got a message from the shop saying it was ready. They
also said,
> I decided to run these with half the original step-over, which means it takes twice as long but
> the finish is almost smooth. I think you will be pleased with it.
Whoa! This meant he had used the 0.005-inch cutting resolution, and the job had taken twice as long
as originally quoted. Like the [kind and generous tailor from *The Hudsucker
Proxy*](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0f78e11f-df94-42e4-8bdf-b11c39326f7c), he had given me the
double-stitch anyway, even though I had insisted that single stitch was fine. I was very excited and
grateful, and couldn't wait to see it.
## Pics or it didn't happen
When I got there, it was almost exactly what I had imagined and hoped it would be. Obviously, you've
seen the photo at the top of the page, but please enjoy this CNC-carved topographic California porn.
![portrait of the whole state][wood-portrait]
*<center><sup><sub>some nice soft lighting</sub></sup></center>*
![our old friend, the Sutter Buttes][wood-buttes]
*<center><sup><sub>sutter buttes, we meet again</sub></sup></center>*
![down low view, like the shot from Blender][wood-blender]
*<center><sup><sub>recognize this angle, from blender?</sub></sup></center>*
![close up of Shasta][wood-shasta]
*<center><sup><sub>lookin' good, shasta</sub></sup></center>*
I wasn't the only one pleased with it; my wife was delighted when she saw it.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, HAPPY *<sub>belated</sub>* BIRTHDAY!
# Thank yous
Obviously, I have tons of people to thank for their help with this, either directly or
indirectly. First and foremost, my wife, for everything but especially the inspiration and also
patience with me during this process.
A close second goes to Steve at [Triumph CNC](https://www.triumphcnc.com/). He asked me what I was
going to do with it, and when I said give it to my wife as a gift, he said, "Oh, that's great! I
feel even better about using the smaller step-over now." If you need some CNC milling done in Los
Angeles, maybe give them a call!
Along the way during this journey I got a lot of feedback and suggestions from friends and
colleagues, so thank you, 'rades[^short-for-comrades]!
Of course, this would all have been unthinkably difficult not so long ago, but thanks to things like
NASA's missions and public GIS datasets, almost anyone can do something like this.
And not just public, government data and organizations, but private, passion-driven free software
projects like Blender and FreeCAD rival functionality available only in multi-thousand-dollar
commercial packages. I'm in awe of their accomplishments; they are true wonders of the modern world.
# Things I learned, and some lessons
I said early on that I knew basically nothing about any of this, and that was true. I had had some
earlier casual experience with both Blender and FreeCAD, and many, many years ago I had taken a
semester of engineering drafting my first year of college. But I knew basically nothing about GIS,
about the different map projections, about shapefiles, about any of the tools or jargon. Likewise,
I have no experience or instruction in any kind of CNC milling; my scant 3D printing experience
doesn't really apply.
This article is as close as I could get to serializing nearly everything I had to learn and do to
create that carving.
And at the time it was happening, it didn't feel like I was retaining all of it, or that I really,
truly understood everything I had done; I was hurrying as fast as I could toward a particular
goal. But in the course of writing this, I was basically retracing my steps, and found that I really
did have a pretty good handle on it. One of my favorite things to do is learn stuff, so this was a
great outcome for me!
If I were to do this again, or if I were starting for the first time with the benefit of someone
else's experience, there are obviously a few things I would do differently. First off, I'd see if I
could find a lower-resolution dataset. One arc second is way overkill; at the scale of a topo
carving that you can hold in your hands, a resolution of several arc *minutes* (one arc minute is
one [nautical mile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile), which is about 1.1 regular
(terrestrial?) miles) would probably be enough.
I'd also use the USGS [national map downloader](https://apps.nationalmap.gov/downloader/) site to
get just the California data; you can upload a shapefile and it'll give you back a masked
geotiff. If I had started from that, it would have shaved at least two weeks off the time it took me
to make the thing; I could have jumped immediately into being frustrated in Blender and FreeCAD.
Speaking of, I wish I could give some guidance on effectively using Blender and FreeCAD, but that's
a journey only you can plot. That's probably not true, but I still feel like a doofus in those
tools, so I don't feel like it's worth anyone's time to hear from me about them. Good luck in your
quest!
--- ---
[wood-portrait]: wood-full-portrait.jpg "portrait shot of the whole carving"
[wood-buttes]: wood_sutter_buttes.jpg "our old friend, the Sutter Buttes"
[wood-blender]: wooden_like_blender.jpg "down low view, like the shot from Blender"
[wood-shasta]: wooden_shasta_close-up.jpg "close up of Shasta"
[final-print]: final_printed.jpg "the final test print of the final model" [final-print]: final_printed.jpg "the final test print of the final model"
[final-shasta]: final_shasta.png "close-up of Shasta in the final model" [final-shasta]: final_shasta.png "close-up of Shasta in the final model"
@ -744,3 +881,8 @@ heightmap shown above, so you can imagine all the dead-ends I went down and did
write-up. write-up.
[^zero-forty-oneth]: I think this was just the first fractional value that I tried, and it was fine. [^zero-forty-oneth]: I think this was just the first fractional value that I tried, and it was fine.
[^fancy-iges]: I actually produced an [IGES](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGES) file; STP is basically
fancy IGES, and my model didn't include the extra info in STP files like material and color anyway.
[^short-for-comrades]: pronounced "rads", and is short for "comrades".

Binary file not shown.

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 454 KiB

Binary file not shown.

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 650 KiB

Binary file not shown.

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 202 KiB

Binary file not shown.

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 335 KiB