New Proto Slug Body PICS!!!!

[aaron_mag]

In terms of expense J.T.'s design shouldn't be too expensive should it? As I already stated in a previous post what I liked about Miscue's from the beginning was that it looked like it would be economical. It is a clean design that maybe could be jazzed up with a little engraving. *EDIT* J.T.'s design is actually similar to Miscue's. He uses a slanting telescope effect versus the straight telescope effect.

One thing to consider, however, is would Miscue's design fit with a sight rail? Would J.T.'s even look right with a sight rail? I believe Tom mentioned in a previous post that they might extend the body and make an integrated sight rail. If so I prefer the minimal approach. More of the "sight rail here, use me if you want" rather than the huge sight rails that come with the Emags and RT Pros (personal preference).

As for Shartley's last comments I don't think that you have wasted your time with the designs. It wasn't the design I preferred but there were alot of people who raved over it. As it was well liked it might become a limited edition body. You never know.

*EDIT* LOL! The Shartley Extreme Limited Edition! Seemed funny to me when I thought about it. Of course it is 5:30 AM so it might not be.....:)

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
As for Shartley's last comments I don't think that you have wasted your time with the designs. It wasn't the design I preferred but there were alot of people who raved over it. As it was well liked it might become a limited edition body. You never know.

*EDIT* LOL! The Shartley Extreme Limited Edition! Seemed funny to me when I thought about it. Of course it is 5:30 AM so it might not be.....:)

LOL

Okay, let me elaborate... it was not a waste of time to design what has already been posted. After all, noone knew what AGD was actually looking for. It would be a waste of time now however, to continue along those lines knowing that Tom is not looking for that.

Once it has been established what level of design work is wanted (or certain criteria), it would be silly to keep designing OVER that level (or criteria). And up until Tom's last post, what AGD actually wanted was pretty much up in the air. That is not the case now. It is pretty clear what they want..... and honestly, it is far from what I personally want as a consumer. I don't want blocky or cones with cuts put into them.... I want smooth, flowing lines... and it looks like AGD will just not be able to deliver that.

No problem. I am sure there will be some portion of the marketplace that will like whatever they end up doing. And I may submit other designs closer to what the new standard is.... but I will not rush out to do so. My heart would not be in it since I don't like designing something that I would not want to own myself.

And I am not the only guy here that is submitting designs... LOL What my personal opinions are can surely be taken into account, but they are not THAT important all by themselves. It's all good... Most who know me, know I ALWAYS want that little extra. :)

[omni]

I'm lost here, heh. Which designs wont work? When I made mine I tried to keep is simple with some nice curvy lines. Is it hard to do curvy lines on a tube? I was going to make another one, when I can pry the Ps2 controller from my hand ( GTA: Vice City hehe ), what things should we stay away from?

[shartley]

Originally posted by omni
I'm lost here, heh. Which designs wont work? When I made mine I tried to keep is simple with some nice curvy lines. Is it hard to do curvy lines on a tube? I was going to make another one, when I can pry the Ps2 controller from my hand ( GTA: Vice City hehe ), what things should we stay away from?

Yes, it is harder to do curvy lines on a rounded surface. I think some might confuse the issues of simple designs VS complicated ones as it deals with what you see, vs what it takes to MAKE it.

For instance MY design is really not that complicated. It has very little intricate work, it is however the curving lines and sweeps that would make it "complicated" to actually produce.

I hope this makes sense. And I would love if someone such as Manike would verify this, or correct me if I am wrong in this thinking. It will also help others in the fact that they will further know what AGD is truly looking for.

[Bulldog]

SHartley:
Darn, I really tried read to ALL the posts. I got tired near the end I guess.

Well that's too bad. I really liked that design. Maybe AGD should just make aluminum versions of their current bodies instead. Maybe make a version with center feed and one for a warp. Maybe coupled with a cut down rail too. O well :)

[mykroft]

Heh, Looks like a Matrix.

[z-zero]

I really like JT last one

Man that last one J.T. did was excellent. I really like that design!

z-zero

[Aliens-8-MyDad]

tom could you just give us a block of aluminum to work with, instead of the rounded body?

[RetroEclipseMan]

Alright. Here is my first design. Remember that it's only a start. All the correct dimensions were used so it coulb be possible. If not then it will stimulate ideas i guess. I gotta get to class so I'll elaborate a bit later.

[j.t.]

Aaron, i designed the body in order to match the RT body rail.(draw lines from the slants and lines on the body rail and you will notice they will all match up with the milling on the body) I do not know how it would look with a different though.

[sniper1rfa]

shartley: i told you!

anyway, would somebody please make one with something similar to the back upper of a westwood? that would be quite simple on a lathe, and would look pretty cool.

[shartley]

Originally posted by sniper1rfa
shartley: i told you!

anyway, would somebody please make one with something similar to the back upper of a westwood? that would be quite simple on a lathe, and would look pretty cool.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by j.t.
Aaron, i designed the body in order to match the RT body rail.(draw lines from the slants and lines on the body rail and you will notice they will all match up with the milling on the body) I do not know how it would look with a different though.

I was talking about a *sight* rail rather than a body rail. It was just a thought because Tom mentioned that he might include an integrated sight rail to cover the back of the valve. Also wondered if the current sight rails would even fit on some of the designs. It isn't a big deal as most of us do not use sights anyway but some people like them.

Originally posted by Shartley [/B]

Pinto is a little extreme! You Stang owners are all the same. Once they get this body made (whatever it happens to be) I'll upgrade and teach you a lesson with it!

Seriously though I don't think it is going to be a Pinto. My feeling was that AGD wanted to get some design ideas that they *might* incorporate into a totally different design.

[shartley]

aaron_mag-
Now THAT's the spirit!

I hope you are right though.

Demand nothing but the best. Expect nothing but the worse. And be pleasantly surprised with whatever you do get.

[Dave]

Just a question about the idea of using a lathe. I have had a little experience around lathes, since my dad owns one. Now, in taking away metal from a round object spinning around, it would take metal off everywhere, right?

Now, how would it work for the top to be milled in a telescoping fashion, because the same would then be applied to the bottom of the body, since it's spinning around and a round tube on a lathe has no up or down. If this is true, then the whole underside of any lathed bodies would need to be milled flat to lay flat against the rail. Even if it were a little taken off from around the front, it means that much is taken away from the contact surface of the bottom where it meets up with the rail.

I don't know if this comes into play or not, but if any design was to be attempted, no matter what, a flat surface with the rail needs to be achieved. Does this rule out the use of a lathe because there is complete symmetry with the top of the body, and the bottom where it meets up with the rail?

-Dave