Claes Lundstrom

Member
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Claes Lundstrom

  • Rank
    Greenhorn

Personal Information

  • Homepage
    www.touchcad.com , www.lundstromdesign.com
  • Location
    Stockholm, Sweden

Contact Info

  • Skype
    touchcad
  1. Had a quick look at your model. Hard to say what the problem is as the main object is a Generic Solid. From the smaller parts though, I noted that it consisted of quite a few more steps than actually required. As a general rule in solid modeling, make a proper plan how to get things done before starting, keep it as simple as possible, do as much as you possibly can in the 2D phase, be very precise during assembly keeping corners exactly edge to edge, avoiding tiny steps, very pointy joints, and leaving fillets and chamfers to the final stages of the process.
  2. Corel Draw is probably the best bet for Windows, but it's not available for Mac. AI's support for DXF has always been a bit crappy. For cutting, which I do a lot of, EPS seems to work fine. Affinity is admittedly still in need need of work, but shows promise as a budget option. The same applies to their other Adobe replacement products.
  3. I too have a lot of such issues while resisting to spend a not insignificant amount of money on AI, which I would never use for anything other than conversion. My suggestion would be to get Affinity Designer, which costs something like $60 or 70, no subscription fees, reads and writes AI and is a very close competitor to AI in terms of features. As for CNC export, it explicitly sounds like a cutter like for example a Zund, and there the solution is to use EPS as a first choice and PDF as a second choice, DXF as a third choice, and of course being vector based data only. These files are both directly usable by the two most commonly used programs, AI and Corel Draw. Remember to specify the drawing scale though, as it's exported as the VW paper scale and not in full scale as used in real CAD program formats such as DXF or DWG. The reason for this is that there is no such thing as a drawing scale in these illustration programs.
  4. Easy enough. I started with a 2D arch, converted it into NURBS, Grouped in and compressed it to get that bumper shape using the scaling handles. I then copied it and made a slightly higher and wider copy and then a second copy of the original. I then moved them apart to that the smaller versions where located on each side of the bigger one. I then lofted the curves into a simple NURBS surface. You can then experiment a bit with the shape bu undoing the lofting and modify the curves a bit until you get the shape you want. Yes it's a plain OpenGL rendering. You could try changing the OpenGL settings to get a better looking result though. The default setting is set to low for rounded shapes and never works properly.
  5. Based on my experience in designing similar large real tents, I somehow doubt that subdivision is the way to go. It's simply doesn't give the required shape control, and the movie model doesn't look like a real tent. I think it needs ordinary NURBS modeling where you loft curves.
  6. Easy to do if I understand you correctly. Just three NURBS curves lofted into one surface. All basically based on the same shape, though the one in the middle being slightly bigger in all directions.
  7. Could be, though a simple texture with transparency and bump map on a comparatively simple shape would probably be more efficient, as much of the work is then done by the video card. Solid modeling may generate huge files, which lags modeling and rendering speed. Should therefore be used wisely and with moderation. In the example, I converted a sphere into NURBS, chopped off the bottom a bit unevenly and the applies a simple texture I created based of a simple leaf shape, which I repeated randomly while making small variations in color and shape in VW 2D. Easy enough. Left picture as it looks on OpenGL and right in Renderworks, where the bumps are noticable .
  8. A much easier way to build for example a fencer is to just generate a clean basic shape, in this case the entire side panel of a car, and then trim out the opening with simple extrusions from the side. In the case a circle with a rectangle extension (add surface) for the wheel arches and a double line polygon for the door gaps.
  9. In this case, yes, but my point is that it can also be said about many other reasonable capable NURBS based modeling programs too. VW could have been so much better with just a few minor tweaks.
  10. After having played around a bit with this, I agree that lofting NURBS curves is the way to go. VW is however probably not an ideal tool for such modeling. It can be done, but it's very difficult. Doing proper proper panel fairing requires a ot of micro adjustments, and VW has two user interface weaknesses in that respect: 1/ You can't nudge any given selection of control points with the arrow keys. 2/ You can't edit more than one patch at the time.
  11. I also (often) use this rather clunky method to bypass the problem. I actually bug reported this some years back, bit was informed that it works as designed. Let's say that we agreed to disagree whether this restriction was a good thing. To me, it makes no sense to delibetrately restrict a possible way for the designer to do their job as they like.
  12. Provided that the data are accurate enough, a simply point cloud should work fine in the DTM to generate a 3D terrain model. What accuracy are they claiming ? Speaking of drones, has anybody used one in combination with a photo modeling program (such as PhotoModeler) to extract terrain data ? I assume a decent drone model such as the Phantom 4, having a good camera 4K video and is able to extract decent stills. I have used PhotoModeler and GoPro cameras to extract data used for creating boat covers (well over 200) and it seems to work fairly well, so that's why I am curious.
  13. No it's not SketchUp (have it installed somewhere but never use it as it never adds anything to my work). Besides that, my point is that it would be nice if VW could make use of the algorithms found in OpenGL for extracting edges. As an example, I imported this 3D polygon based model in the pictures into VW. All rendered in OpenGL only. No edges to the left. With edges in the middle. All colors set to white and increased the light a little to the right, and there we have a nice outline drawing at almost no effort. Imagine that we could compose those lines into plain filled polygons.
  14. Yes, I totally agree that using thousands of polygons does not work. Ideally, it would be great to have a special display mode only showing outlines, like in OpenGL but without the shadings. I use the Add Surface, Combine into Surface, Compose features a lot as I often import models looking like this. Luckily for me though, the exporting program has an option to just export the outlines, where each panel comes in as a group. The only thing I need to do is therefore to ungroup and Compose the object and job done. Takes a minute or two of minutes to do the job. So, on the wish list in VW would be to have such a feature.