Instructions

[goodduck]

My Submarine 707R instructions are done. Think that’s doable? ....... I really really really.... really don't like to do instructions....... really don't like to ......it makes me sad, really sad knowing I have to do instructions....... maybe that's why I never finish anything.........

 

[Rhaven Blaack]

I know that instructions are a problem for any model (at any skill level)
You have done a GREAT JOB on the instructions.

 

[goodduck]

Thank you. I just noticed I forgot couple of thing need to add.

 

[goodduck]

Added the lines types and fixed the typo. That should do it. Next is test build version …. #3

 

[goodduck]

The test print looks pretty good, can’t wait to build some paper again. Hope this is the final test – crossing my figures. Because it is for test build, I didn’t bother to print out the cover and instructions. But this is how my 707R kit will come in when it is ready. 10 sheets of 13”x19”, including a 13” x19” cover sheet and 7 11”x17” instructions sheets. The kit will be package in clear flap seal bag and backing board to ship to...... everywhere.

 

[zathros]

They are understandable, and that is what counts. Actually, they are better than many I have seen. I would have put the model in the perpective window, andd pulled eac part away and used a sries of pics like that, but yours are more than fine, they really good.

 

[Zubie]

Has there been a thread on making instructions? There's the question of tools, or going text heavy, or text light, or just pictures to be universal, exploded view or individual step by step. I have to admit it isn't one of the main things one wants to do after one gets done designing a model. Of course, the other problem is not photographing the first build in detail to use the pics for the instructions (guilty).

 

[zathros]

Again, I suggest, in the program you use to model, separate the parts, and them label them acordingly, either in the program, or in PAINT. I left out any annotations in the Example below:

 

[Zubie]

I don't want to sound pedantic, it's just that there are many threads about how to build models, but not many on how to "build" instructions. I think the exploded view is not a bad way to go, it just isn't enough. For one thing, the pieces on the paper are flat, but in the exploded view they are already in their finished position. This may result in either trouble finding the part or shaping it correctly. Other issues with exploded views are angles on the view hiding key folds or the correct relationship to how parts go together (recently put something in backwards because the view in the instructions hid which way was forward).

Given that paper modelers in this Internet age are an international lot, many of us have muddled through interpreting images to get some sense of how it probably goes together, and frequently guess right, but not always.

 

[zathros]

If you want I could spell it out, but if you have a flat piece of paper, and are showed how it should look when bent, and can't tell how it fits, you have a serious problem. Now, some parts, can be shown in partially bent positions, and what I posted what fast and dirty, hoping you would realize that you would do this for subsections. But honestly, you should know how to make the shape from the flat peace to the shown finished peace, when they are number (which I did not do, fast and dirty, right?).

I think I do not understand your question. If you wish, I could show you how to make an "idiot" proof guide, but that is why I don't put my models out, because they are difficult. Please elucidate, I have to leave in 5 minutes, but when I get back, I will show you what I think would be an ideal set of instructions. If I remember.

 

[Zubie]

Example of something one can do to help assemble something. Marks on the parts sheet to either indicate orientation of part.

The dots indicate the bottom of the part because two of the parts are nearly but not quite symmetrical so proper alignment is important. I figure using the dots in combination of an image of the parts going together would help a lot. The doted lines are typical score alignment guides.

(ps. This is the first time I'm inserting a picture, so I hope I got this right)

 

[Zubie]

I'm sure many of us (given our interests) have picked up an origami book, looked at a particular step and thought.."what the hec?" You end up folding the paper a few different, albeit probable, ways, and finally you get the one that works out. For some reason I find this a lot in my origami books and it is often tied to 3d operations illustrated in a 2d format. There are a lot of people who do have trouble taking a flat shape and seeing mentally how that shape comes together. I've had that experience in workshops where the finished model is right in front of the assembler's eyes.

I understand that the explosion view was a "quick and dirty" example and not meant to be an end-all way of doing things. In fact I think that they are handy for a quick sense of how a subject goes together. I also think it is important to recognize the limits to having just one exploded view. I recall one kit I downloaded whose instructions was only that. From your posts zanthros I know of your bg in machining and I'm sure you appreciate the problems of putting something together when the instructions are poorly set up. I have some background with user interface design and I know that instruction design is not that simple.

I just hoped that this thread might be an opportunity for others to chime in with what's worked or not worked for them either as a designer or maker, not really a debate of whether these particular instructions are good or not (I think they are pretty good good)

 

[zathros]

Dude, honestly, most modelers would get pretty agitated if someone did such a step by step model. That is kind of on the ridiculous side. You should have basic knowledge of what you are building looks like. I cannot imagine anyone going to that extent. There are some very sophisticated models that have very few pictures and go together rather well. This has been proven over and over 1000's if not 10's of 1000's of times.

If you have a trouble with a particular section, that is what the forum is for. People will drop what they are doing to show you how it goes together. ARMORMAN has the best design format going that I have seen. I find the above illustration you provided to be excessive, especially as most parts look like the object unfolded! Also, most modelers do away with tabs when they get more experience . You cut strips and bend them, this leaves no surface raised because of that tab being on the same plane of one part.

Perfect insertion of picture by the way.

 

[Zubie]

Agitated??? As I said, I really don't see this as a debate (noo noo noo). I go through the trouble of putting in dots and arrows when I suspect the alignment is not particularly obvious. It's great that forums are available where you can ask and be answered, but people are shy, may not speak the forum's language well or at all. Maybe they could be afraid that someone might tell them that they are being clueless or ridiculous. Threads can get lost under newer threads or dropped in upgrades so relying on a historical record of a particular build of interest to act as instructions is not necessarily the best substitute for same.

Tabs, meh, neither here or there. You can always cut them off. The kits basically start off as beginner Arisia workshop projects (this case Arisia 2014) so simplicity and quick build is more important than finish. Last workshop model made liberal use of visible tabs/scales and I used an exploded view as a handout (roughly drawn on Gimp - which is pretty much all I have right now). It was for the kid crowd(7-12).

Even so, I thought there were still some details I couldn't quite capture in the image (bending the tabs outward before gluing for instance).

I've only recently joined this group even though I have known about it for some time because I felt I really wasn't ready to participate. I apologize if I've posted out of turn. ( and I had just figured how to do an inlined thumbnail)

 

[zathros]

You have posted nothing out of turn. Quite the contrary. Continue to question. It is only people who cannot handle discussion that have problems. I do not see that here. I have enjoyed our discussion, and would not mind continuing it. It's all good. Continue to speak your mind, and express your ideas, concerns, and suggestions. I may knocked down a few of them, but you may come up with an excellent methodology for instructions on building these things. My problem is I only build, (98% of the time), models that I design.

 

[Gandolf50]

I agree with Zathros..simple ask questions! Research! As far as instructions..I do like exploded views the on tricky areas a more detailed exploded view or from alternate angles...Angraf- GPM are well done..it is easy to follow Modelik on the other hand fall short in that the have isometric views and don't explain or explode the view they are hard to follow..just my opinion..

Angraf Example Easy to Follow

GPM Example Easy to Follow

Wak...Pain in the A** and instructions say "follow picture 1 and put parts together"! as in my current build...Wak-2013-02 - Scammel Pioneer SV-2S...Really GOOD model..but has many faults that were not corrected after the test build...and instructions!! Ackkkkk

 

[zathros]

I have seen some rather nice models, with only a finished drawing in a few drawings in different view with a number showing where a part should, and not necessarily showing the part!!
The worst in my opinion is the page long paragraph in some language I am not sure of.

 

[Zubie]

You can see in the lower left step of the WAK how the 3D non-exploded view can start to break down as the number of parts involved increase creating a crowd of part numbers and indicator lines. Also given that it isn't exploded it might be hard to see where one part ends and the other starts. I really like how the GPM instructions are exploded to show the individual part assemblies, but the image of the assembled engine right next to it as a reference is very helpful. Also another little detail on the GPM the part numbers are related, for instance the engine block parts are 25* and the fan belt stuff 27*. Again, one of those things one might not think about, part labels, but what and how you label can help too.

 

[zathros]

On my models, I actually label the parts themselves, not the finished parts, but the interior. The last picture shows where each part connects to the rst. This was a rough draft. I had not yet removed the superfluous dots.

 

[Zubie]

Based on the discussion on the thread, here's a pic I'm working up on a design I'm finishing up. I've built the model, I just need to finish up the instructions and number the parts.