Making clearer instructions

[Plumdragon]

Hello friends :) Bafflement and confusion seem to be my lot when confronted with some papermodel instructions (and I'm not talking about those that have no instructions; they're in a league of their own!)
Now, for ages past, the convention in engineering and similar technical drawings is to present the views of your model as follows; side (or profile), front, and top (or plan view). The same particularly goes for any drawing of a complex geometric shape, as in Fig.1. This is a wholly conventional and understood (to my mind, anyway) method of showing parts or shapes, and needs nothing added except helpful 'scrap' views of particular things to note.
Fig.2 shows an isometric view of the part. Again, this is a wholly conventional and understood method of presenting such a view. Extrapolated, any assemblage of parts that join together also use the same isometric view, as in Fig.3. Easy to understand (Fig.3 also shows a side view of the part as assembled) and if consistently used throughout your instructions will help the builder, who won't be confronted by random drawings of parts, each of which is rotated in a different plane and bearing no relation to any adjoining piece....
Fig.4 shows two complex parts that are joined, their shapes being similar and there being no obvious 'right' way to put them together when looking at the built parts. 4a shows how this shouldn't be presented, because I for one don't enjoy three dimensional puzzles! By the addition of some 'marker' on your drawing, such as air vents, portholes, whatever (outlined in red in Fig.4) it is immediately apparent what goes where.
And you will note that I refer to 'drawings', because to my mind any such instructional diagrams should be drawn and not 'lifted' straight off a computer program. It may look nice on the screen, but a sinlge-shade-of-grey multi-faceted computer generated picture of your model bears little relation to how it actually looks in your hands, and the novice builder may not have the know-how to interpret all those facets and folds (which don't appear on the model anyway....)
And these are just my opinions; what do I know ;)
Plumdragon

[whulsey]

Some great observations. Fig. 3 and 4 especially look good. 4a unfortunately seems to be how too many drawings are done. The other 'peeve' I have is were instructions/drawings don't follow the construction sequence and you have to bounce back and forth between 3 or 4 drawings scattered over several pages.

[Plumdragon]

Thank you whusley :-) Just as background, when I was looking to market my paper models many years ago, it became immediately apparent that I couldn't sell a single paper kit without clear instructions! Obvious, really, but I would welcome that approach even on freebie internet downloads; for a new designer to become established he or she needs to build the groundwork, presenting as complete a 'product' as possible, so happy model makers will return. It's not about the money, it's the joy of knowing someone else is really pleased with the thing you've designed and asks "when's the next one coming out?" and, with luck, "I'll give you $10 for it!"
Plumdragon

[Plumdragon]

And keeping things nice and tidy, here's some more :)
When it comes to instructions for building paper models (and for the models themselves) a few simple additions to both will prevent much head scratching and puzzlement.
Fig.1 shows an assemblage of pieces. Each of those nodules on the end are slightly different, and the instructions as supplied don't show which direction they are orientated, which 'side' they each fit on, or even where the forward end is. In fact, all we have is a computer-generated drawing, Fig.2. The fitting of these parts is so obvious to the designer that perhaps it is not considered how the model maker, when confronted with up to a dozen pieces, is able figure out how it all fits.
So, adding 'forward' arrows to matching parts is a good idea (the builder soon 'learns' that all your kits do this) and in the case of those many nodules, a simple A B C D etc marking system is an excellent way of avoiding confusion. A simple white 'blank' where the part fits is necessary too, and surprisingly often overlooked. Small details, to be sure, but hopefully would make a build more enjoyable. It has been said (not by anyone on here, I hasten to add!) that this sort of thing insults a builders' intelligence - but as mentioned before, trying to design for a chld is a good maxim to aim for, even with the most complicated kit. Look at Airfix, it's the same simple design of instructions for a series 1 Spitfire as it is for a 1/12 scale Bentley, but I doubt a builder of the latter would be offended at the patronising child friendly instructions :)
Plumdragon

[sharunas]

Hello Plumdragon,

must say you've touched a very interesting topic.

IMHO Sometimes to create a good instruction can take as much time and effort as the model itself. Because you have to concentrate information is such way that it would be informative and "compact" at the same time.
Taking into account that most of modelers are not familiar with technical drawings or draftsmanship so I would prefer creating 3D instructions, as it is easier to imagine the final product. That is why the parts must be prepared adequately - I mean to have markings where one or another part should be glued on.

I remember when being a kid 15yr. ago or more, most of paper kits had quite simple instructions. For example a plane: had a section view with dozens of annotations and top a view + some simple sketches of a landing gear. Must admit sometimes it was rather tricky to understand where one or another part should be. And comparing models form past with current issues the difference is just mind blowing.

[sharunas]

...Each of those nodules on the end are slightly different, and the instructions as supplied don't show which direction they are orientated, which 'side' they each fit on, or even where the forward end is....
So, adding 'forward' arrows to matching parts is a good idea (the builder soon 'learns' that all your kits do this) and in the case of those many nodules, a simple A B C D etc marking system is an excellent way of avoiding confusion...

A very good remark :)

I used same technique in Maurtania's instruction. There were many long parts with minor inclines, so I also added an arrows.

[Yale]

It's a fine thing if your readers have doctorates, IQs in the stratosphere, and the ability to understand sentences of 17 clauses and 600 words. But such intelligence doesn't prevent them from understanding simpler writing, nor is there any requirement that that they read only complicated writing. So most good technical writing is at the eighth-grade reading level -- sentences of 25 or fewer words, and just one or two clauses -- even though customers will be graduate engineers. Similarly, if a child can understand your visual instructions, adult modelers should be able to as well.

[sander1942]

Well, I'm not a designer nor do I expect to ever be one but I do enjoy paper modeling and can say that there is nothing more frustrating than trying to figure out what the designer had in mind when the instructions/diagrams are unclear. Sometimes it may be just the density of my brain but there are other times when I cannot comprehend what I'm supposed to do. So it sits and I wait to see if an epiphany occurs.

I truly admire designers but the instructions must be clear as they can be if the modeling experience is to be enjoyable.

Again, this is said as constructive advice from one who does not design...not to denigrate the designers whom we owe so much to.

[Burning Beard]

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think visual instructions (diagrams and such) should be included for construction, especially if the instructions are meant for a multi-lingual audience. I really don't read Russian, Polish, or any other language other than English, so visual instructions are very valuable. Admittedly there may be some head scratching involved but that is better than a not very accurate computer translation.

Beard

[retunga]

There's really 3 ways of doing instructions. With the models that I have developed and also completely reworked I have found that building the model and taking tons of photos as one is building and then adding some text as needed works, for the simple reason that who ever is building that model in question can in fact see that it will work out.

The CAD method is also great but it really does take a hell of a long time to get all the views right, a good example is the yamaha papermodels especially the v-max model.

The 3rd option is to number the faces where they must be glued and this worked out excellent with they puzzle cube in that face 154 must glued together with face 154 and very quickly one can put a model together.

One thing designer's have as a bad habit is to do documentation. I can at least say that with my job that I was employed to do, I worked in a research and development laboratory and one had to do the paperwork so that product could be sold and go into mass production.

[codex34]

And here's me trying to make something to make 3D instructions less time consuming and you don't like em :(

If you add the time it takes to design, texture, unfold and test build a model using 3D, it takes much longer than that time to make the instructions for it in 3D.
You could take pictures, but even then you need to label and explain stuff.

I get enjoyment from designing and building models, I don't get enjoymet from selecting, exploding, rendering, labeling model parts. Others seem to be the same, it's mostly down to the time it takes, you could be doing other things.

I don't blame anyone for making 'bad' instructions, at least they tried.

[elliott]

Then don't be surprised when you don't get pictures of your models built by others, and you see no build threads or worse, incomplete build threads where the builder just gave up and abandoned the build.

[airdave]

This is all fine and dandy with models that have a small part count.
But try working with a model that has upwards of 2000 parts,
resulting in a few hundred "sub-assemblies" and you'll see why some
designers resort to the only the three view part placement diagram.

Exploded view diagrams, in my opinion, are the best option.
You can detail sub-assemblies in this manner, as well as larger collections of
sub-assemblies ...and with fewer diagrams.

The problem with paper models is that individual parts (of sub-assemblies)
also need to be folded, shaped, and attached in a certain way,
and this results in more diagrams and explanations.

An exploded view diagram of a sub-assembly, will often show you how most parts are to be handled, but its sometimes necessary to add some "sub-sub-assembly" diagrams.
Thats when it can get a little cluttered on the page! lol

I'm up to page 16 (letter size pages) of Instructions for my centurion Tank.
I'm trying to jam as much as possible into the pages, but it still has to be readable.
Comprised mostly of exploded view diagrams and sub-assembly placement
diagrams, it is taking as much time and work as creating the actual model!

Yale speaks the truth.
If you can't say it all in the picture, try not to complicate it too much with words.
Some things have to be properly explained, but short sentences are necessary.

I don't care if the diagrams are hand drawn or pulled from a CAD file, as long as they are understandable.
I've seen hand-drawn diagrams that are ridiculously confusing, and yet the designer thinks they are clear as glass.
(Maybe to you.. because you designed it! But everyone else is in the dark!)

I take photos of assemblies...lots of photos.
But I will take a photo of a part, or an assembly, from the precise angle I want to use in the Instructions.
And then I use the photo to draw vector diagrams. I draw right on top of the photo in Corel.
Add colours and shading, and create 3D models which I can then explode by taking apart the elements, or adding more details.
(Since I don't use any CAD or 3D programs, I have little options, so this is the method I have come up with)


http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l588/cutandfold/Centurion/CentTankInstructexample.jpg

[psf]

I'm glad to see it's not just me who's obsessive about the diagramming of instructions. I find that while creating the instructions is more frustrating, I like that process far more than the design of the model itself oddly enough, which is probably why I spend more time trying to do it justice.

I've made similar posts on this topic, so I'm glad to meet a fellow... instructophile? Here are some references (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/designers-helping-designers/17888-these-two-styles-do-you-prefer.html#post263526) I happened upon in an earlier topic related to this. You can see how I'm currently diagramming my models here (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/designers-helping-designers/27800-instructions-diagram-conventions-standards.html#post408073). I'm hoping to achieve a mostly text free convention.

@airdave: I really like the way you've greyed out the section that is stationary or already assembled, and those drawings look fantastic if you're hand tracing each part. That's just a brutal amount of work. I used to trace the outline of photos of my built models to make the cover pages, and stopped precisely because it was so time consuming. My hat off to you.

[Isaac]

I prefer any illustration to words. Sketches of step by step process is the way to go.

Isaac

[retunga]

What one must also look at is the type of model that is been designed and the instructions that are been made for the model in question.

Now looking at the model that I am busy working on the instructions and building at the same time is my V12 engine, now this model at the moment is made up of around 5430 + parts, now this engine has parts that will work and move, and one can also make the model a standing model without the parts moving but one still needs to make model as if it will turn to get it to look correct.

At the moment I have split the model into about 38 or so major sections that one will build and from there with in those 38 sections are major assemblies that are done to get the model to the point that it looks 100% right.

Here is two types of instructions that I have done in the instructions at this point in time to show how to put the engine together.

99% of the instructions that I have done for the engine is using photos with some text to go with it, example below:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj13/quintin_cloud/engine_1_instr_zps139b1cf6.jpg

The next one that I done is some 3D renders that show parts that need to be put in the correct order for the timing, example below:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj13/quintin_cloud/engine_2_instr_zpscbaa0bf5.jpg

The next photo is the part assembly as it is been worked on:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj13/quintin_cloud/engine_3_instr_zps021bddf9.jpg

So looking at it in my case there is no right way or wrong way of doing instructions, but one who does go and right the instructions needs to remember that that you are building that model in lets say 2 years time, you are 90% of the time going to have forgotten all the ticks it took to build the model in question.

So write my view of instruction writing is as follows "Write your instructions as if you have never seen the model and you need to build it for the first time and there is no help out there to get the model to work."

[codex34]

@airdave - you spelt tyres wrong :)

How does everyone manage the labelling of the parts?
Make it up as you go along?
start at 1 with the first part you see?
toil for hours before inventing a new name for something like 'dangle actuator'?
Label the cutting sheets before/after instructions?
Prefix sub-assembly parts by a random letter?

To me, labelling, and keeping track of what you have labelled is actually the hardest part of making instructions, making the images is relativly easy despite the amount of time it takes. Guess it's down to organisational skills.
Any handy tips? Tools?

[airdave]

Although I would normally argue on the side of correct English pronunciation...

heres what I know...
Tyre is actually a variant of Tire, not the other way around.
Although Tire is often considered the "american english" pronunciation,
"tire" is actually a very old english word
...a derivative of "tir" "tiren" and attire",
all words related to dressing a wooden wheel with an iron outer ring
and later, a rubber outer ring.
So, a solid rubber "tire" seems correct.

Even the original air filled "tyre" was referred to as a "pneumatic tire".
The spelling t-i-r-e seems to be the correct and most common usage.

Actually, if you search my posts and other places, you'll find I use both spellings.
It all depends on whom I am talking to (or directing at) and whether I am thinking about it.


http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l588/cutandfold/Monkeys/aeaace5b-7b1d-4149-bd7b-8e915ad8b363.jpg

[airdave]

How does everyone manage the labelling of the parts?
Make it up as you go along?
start at 1 with the first part you see?
toil for hours before inventing a new name for something like 'dangle actuator'?
Label the cutting sheets before/after instructions?
Prefix sub-assembly parts by a random letter?

To me, labelling, and keeping track of what you have labelled is actually the hardest part of making instructions, making the images is relativly easy despite the amount of time it takes. Guess it's down to organisational skills.
Any handy tips? Tools?


do you mean numbering the parts?

I am numbering parts, in the instruction pages, sequentially...
but I am also getting in the habit of leaving some number sets unused.

Too many times I find I have missed a part or an entire assembly, and then I have to re-adjust all the numbers to fit the part(s) in.
So now, I jump ahead (in numbers) when switching to a different sub-assembly.

After the instructions are finished, I then number the parts in the kit
based on the numbers in the instructions.

Yes, sometimes I put a prefix to a subassembly and then a new set of numbers.
This makes it easier to fix that subset if I miss a part or change something.

[ARMORMAN]

I have always went for the LCID (Lowest Common Intelligence Denominator) when making my instructions...I try to leave nothing to chance and use as few words as possible...

[Yale]

.....
The spelling t-i-r-e seems to be the correct and most common usage. ....


A repair shop back in Nevada, Iowa, some years ago had "Tyre Center" in its sign -- to me the worst of both worlds. I would have stayed with the American spelling "Tire Center," or gone completely British with, "Tyre Centre."

[at6]

I prefer instructions that show me where the parts go and how to fabricate them. Text instructions without diagrams leave me and I'm sure others in the dark and might as well be left out. Pictures need no language or translations. Thanks for designing the models we get to enjoy at the end.

[psf]

@codex34: Just like airdave, I make the instructions first and then label the parts. All parts are labelled numerically, for parts which are mirror copies of one another I tend to append a letter (something like 1A, 1B). In my diagrams the parts are denoted with circles. Subassemblies however, use the number of the prior instruction that showed that particular state and then adds a square around it. Circle means part, square means subassembly.

[herky]

This is all fine and dandy with models that have a small part count.
But try working with a model that has upwards of 2000 parts,
resulting in a few hundred "sub-assemblies" and you'll see why some
designers resort to the only the three view part placement diagram.

Exploded view diagrams, in my opinion, are the best option.
You can detail sub-assemblies in this manner, as well as larger collections of
sub-assemblies ...and with fewer diagrams.

The problem with paper models is that individual parts (of sub-assemblies)
also need to be folded, shaped, and attached in a certain way,
and this results in more diagrams and explanations.

An exploded view diagram of a sub-assembly, will often show you how most parts are to be handled, but its sometimes necessary to add some "sub-sub-assembly" diagrams.
Thats when it can get a little cluttered on the page! lol

I'm up to page 16 (letter size pages) of Instructions for my centurion Tank.
I'm trying to jam as much as possible into the pages, but it still has to be readable.
Comprised mostly of exploded view diagrams and sub-assembly placement
diagrams, it is taking as much time and work as creating the actual model!

Yale speaks the truth.
If you can't say it all in the picture, try not to complicate it too much with words.
Some things have to be properly explained, but short sentences are necessary.

I don't care if the diagrams are hand drawn or pulled from a CAD file, as long as they are understandable.
I've seen hand-drawn diagrams that are ridiculously confusing, and yet the designer thinks they are clear as glass.
(Maybe to you.. because you designed it! But everyone else is in the dark!)

I take photos of assemblies...lots of photos.
But I will take a photo of a part, or an assembly, from the precise angle I want to use in the Instructions.
And then I use the photo to draw vector diagrams. I draw right on top of the photo in Corel.
Add colours and shading, and create 3D models which I can then explode by taking apart the elements, or adding more details.
(Since I don't use any CAD or 3D programs, I have little options, so this is the method I have come up with)


http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l588/cutandfold/Centurion/CentTankInstructexample.jpg

Having built several of your models i can only say the way you do your instruction sheets is excellent.
As far as commercial models go i would rate schreibers and hmv instructions as good whereas gpm can be difficult to follow and jsc are just a guessing game as they have very few sub assembly pictures

[Plumdragon]

Thank you each of you for the input, and thanks for the links psf; very interesting! Apologies, though, for my going over old ground, but it can be hard to find specific topics on here for a newbie such as I.
I'd like to add that it's not a case of me not liking computer generated instructional artwork per se; it's badly rendered and unintelligible artwork I was referring to, and there are superb examples of well planned CAD artwork posted in this thread. Clear, simple, concise and as few words as possible. That said, a 2000+ part model is never going to be easy to translate into a simple set of instructions! There's not a lot I need to add, unless anyone has any specific questions for me....
Plumdragon