• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent


About RussU

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Structural designer
  • Homepage
  • Hobbies
    Photography, Aviation, Music, Kids
  • Location
    Alfriston, Sussex, UK

Contact Info

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

815 profile views
  1. Hmmm... That might indicate that it was done on a 1:2500 scale? perhaps laid into design layer and then viewported in? everyone works differently, so that's likely the case. I'd be interested in seeing it though.
  2. Have you checked the title block scaling factor in the sheet border settings? Should normally be set to 1, but you may have inadvertently changed it Also check page size is correct.
  3. it can be done with two spherical "flat" renders, which are rendered laterally apart, but it becomes very tricky to configure
  4. I would imagine you'd need to render two 360's around 50-70mm apart, and send one to one eye, and one to the other. (Split image for cardboard setups) I was playing with this a number of years ago, and it's tricky to get completely right, but it is doable. You get into all sorts of little intricacies though, whether the cameras converge on a point, or always run parallel. And then when looking at 360 style images, you get into Polar merging and so on, where the camera separations reduce gradually as you look towards the up and down directions... To set it up "long-hand" would take a lot of studies and experimentation to get it right, but you'll learn a so much... Let's hope they introduce a 1-button solution.
  5. That makes a lot of sense.
  6. While I'm sure it's expected behaviour and quite normal, I keep getting caught out. When exporting a big model to DXF, I find that when I'm in top/plan I get the 2d representation of a hybrid in the 3d model. I get cross with myself, as I know all I have to do is switch to top wireframe or an isometric to force the 3d bit to export. So I find I do the export twice on a lot of occasions. I'd find it helpful in the export dialogue if we could have a "export hybrid objects as...." radio button. either 2d, 3d, or if possible, both! Just thinking out loud.
  7. There was a lot of earlier talk that the later design summit did not reflect towards a later release date.
  8. That workflow is excellent. In 3Ds for example, you frequenty pick up an object or vertex, and then look at another view while moving to get exact positioning. Takes some getting used to, but speeds you up no end. Also, what would be lovely, is if our selection handle can toggle to the behaviour of the gizmo in subdivision. It's really handy to restrict to one or two axes at any given time. Is it possible, in the new set up to have a top, side and section view open at the same time?
  9. You have discovered a bug. I did this to reproduce. Made a 50x50x50 cube. Duplicated it twice, to make three. Then corner snapped the cubes to one another to make a staircase thingy... Added solids and then the clip cube presents the same weirdness. I only got to it when I properly overlaid your geometry rather than snapping perfectly on edges. seems co-incident edges can confuse the cube. Can anyone else confirm?
  10. Can you post a file? Doesn't need to be the whole thing, just copy/paste the problem stuff into a new file. Just another thought though, OpenGL can have issues when your model is a million miles away from the file origin. Can you put a 3d locus at 0,0,0 to see how far away your stuff is?
  11. Ok... Now go into the source geometry of a cube, copy the rectangle, paste it, and then move it directly on top of the original so you have two identicals... then view the result in the clip cube
  12. intersecting Geometry? Make two identical cubes, and have them "crash into" each other and then use the clip cube.. you should see similar behaviour. When you do a solid addition to these cubes that behaviour will revert to normal. On the extrudes source poly, make sure you don't have two identical polys over each other. that'll produce the same behaviour
  13. Isn't there something to do with Apple quicktime ? I remember someone saying to me ages ago that they installed a legacy version of quicktime and it brought it back to life... Just a thought
  14. There's been some very very silly errors slipping through the net. One particular one, was if you had a beam aligned left of a control line in top/plan. when you went to wireframe it jumped to the right (and back again) It was a very schoolboy error that slipped through. We can all tolerate buggy and unusual behaviour. If it's predictable and manageable, then even better. Progress happens over time. As designers we always release iterations and amends, it's only natural. Drawing number co-ordination bug was acknowledge as "fixed but not implemented" in SP2. didn't come in sp3 or sp4. Most likely as it wasn't fixed properly or had knock on effects to other parts of the software. What's annoying though, is that it's likely to be left in 2017 now, with the fix being implemented in 2018 instead.
  15. Love it or hate it, this is where the Adobe model excels. Bug fixes and upgrades are rolled out as they occur. A big source of frustration was waiting until many fixes were collected into a service pack. I agree that the autodesk million updates and billion hotfixes are insane, but that's only when they're down to the user to download/discover. The auto-check / download and patch adobe style makes life nice and easy. This will naturally increase customer satisfaction enormously. Also... that's where beta tools could be launched. Perhaps an opt-in user choice. so those of us with patience can try the new things out, and those that need ultimate stability can stay only on gold released items. It was painful to have all the exciting new tools marred with bugs and silly untested behaviour for 8 or 9 months (with some still lingering even now!) when 2017 is about to drop off the support cycle. Personally, I'm all in favour of the software as a service licence method, both for affordability and update roll out frequency.