Jump to content

Claes Lundstrom

Member
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Claes Lundstrom

  1. Fundamentals used to be a lot more complete, but many tools have quietly disappeared over the years. We have some Fundamentals licenses and the missing tools are actually quite annoying when being used to the more complete versions.
  2. I regularly and very frequently import huge image files, 200 - 500 megapixels, with no problem whatsoever. There must be something else going wrong than VW's basic capabilities. One thing to check though may be if the image exceeds 30,000 pixels in any given direction. Not sure where VW stands on this thing, but many programs have such a limitation, even older versions of Photoshop.
  3. It depends on how the shape itself is defined. First of all, it needs to be a closed shape. If the shape is twisted, it is highly recommended that you split it into triangles for the twisted part, and then convert the shape into a mesh. As for texture mapping in VW, you have to make sure that the texture is reasonable in size (if it's tiny vs the model, it can actually be hard to spot), that it's actually located on the shin, and check if it's repeated in both directions (if required). Finding and placing textures on irregular shapes can be quite tricky in most rendering programs, but especially in VW.
  4. VW is a great program in so many ways, but the NURBS modelling side definitely needs a major upgrade to get in par with what other programs can do, as well as what the underlying Siemens Parasolids engine can do. Despite doing very precisely defined free form NURBS based modelling on a daily basis, I pretty much never use VW for this type of work. For me, the ideal solution is to use a combination of programs, where the strengths of each program can be used to it's maximum.
  5. Rumours say that there are some new models in the works fairly soon. May be a good idea to check it out in the Mac media before purchasing.
  6. Transparency, yes, reflectivity, not really. The model was exported from TouchCAD to VW 2020. The transparency works but the shine is lost, and must be adjusted in the Renderworks material editor to look even near as good as it does in TouchCAD. The geometry generally works well, and so does textures, but VW has a nasty habit of rebuilding the model in a weird and random way, and for no apparent reason. This makes it more or less impossible to edit the model after importing it, at least in an efficient way.
  7. What size is it of those objects? Could it be that they are too big for Illustrator's drawing area.?
  8. Have you tried it with some other software ? Mostly to extract there the problem is. I have two or three programs to verify with.
  9. Tried sending something similar (EPSF & PDF) to Affinity Designer (Affinity's Illustrator equivalent) and it worked perfectly. Affinity Designer costs something like $30 on their current sale, and it's surprisingly good and surprisingly close to Illustrator in features. And there is no subscription.
  10. I import a lot of UV mapped textured OBJ files from TouchCAD. Works flawlessly. Would be nice if VW could have a Y-Z flip option in the import dialogue though, as many OBJ models use Y as up.
  11. Used to have a couple of script based tools for that, but they went obsolete many versions ago. Don't know why so few programs have it as it's very useful for some types of work.
  12. I use two realtime programs on the Mac, Artlantis and Keyshot, both available for Mac and Windows. So, it's not all Windows. I have to say that I much prefer realtime rendering. It's definitely the way to go in the future. You may not get to exactly the same the final rendering quality, but close enough, and you save a lot of time.
  13. It's almost impossible to say which delivers the quickest result, doing it internally or exporting. It very much depends of what type of models you are working with. Personally, I prefer using realtime renderers, as I have a super efficient communication path for what I do. The key to fast delivery is how quickly you can exchange data, and how much extra work required to prepare the model for export. It's not easy to create a seamless export from VW, even if you have a dedicated export filter. As for output quality of realtime renders, there is nothing that says that they deliver inferior final quality renderings. There are several products on the market that also delivers superb result. Artlantis is comparatively inexpensive and it delivers good results relative to it's price. My other, and more expensive realtime renderer, does however deliver top notch results.
  14. I have used it a lot over the years, though perhaps not so much lately, as I nowadays mostly do product renderings. On the plus side, it's easier to use and learn than Renderworks. You get pre-view renderings in realtime, which you don't get in Renderworks. The effect of moving lights can be seen in realtime, which is time consuming in Renderworks. Reasonably priced compared to more high end rendering programs. On the minus side, you have to organise the model in textures to get a reasonable workflow. Having to export also takes time compared to using the internal rendering features. The rendering quality is not quite top notch compared to the very best, but generating results quickly on a decent level can also be a virtue. Renderworks typically needs quite a lot of work to get really good. Here are couple of examples by Artlantis.
  15. Easy. Here is an example as VW, exported as OBJ, 3DS, and Collada. Set.zip
  16. for 2D objects, stay with these simple rules: 1/ Reduce everything to the simple basic drawing objects such as lines, circles, arcs and polygons. 2/ No symbols, fills, textures, layers, poly lines, NURBS, Berzier curves, splines, 3D, etc, unless you are sure that the receiving program is able to handle it. 3/ I typically run "Decompose" on everything and ten group the objects if required. 4/ Remember to save you work first, and don't save it after exporting. 5/ Make sure that the models actually fit into the machine area in scale 1:1. Check that both sides use the same drawing units when using DXF, as it may not be obvious when reading the files. For 3D usd for milling, be sure that you use real solids, that is closed shapes. For more simple machines and 3D printers, STL usually works. OBJ may also work. Experiment!
  17. I would not say that it's the same software, but you should be able to communicate using a number of different intermediate file formats. The very essence of their software is to import and process imported files, and not so much being a top notch modeler in themselves even though you can do some things with it. These smaller developers usually have much volumes compared to major CAD developers, so their import filters may be more flaky and fussy than stuff coming from the bigger developers. This is what I could extract from their web site: For 2D, you can use DXF, DWG, EPS, and perhaps SKP files if I read their specifications. VW does not export SVG, yet and unfortunately, but you can use for example Affinity Designer as an intermediate exporter. For 3D, you can use STL, OBJ, 3DM, 3D-DXF, VRML, and SKP files. I'm pretty sure that most of it will work in one way or another, though you may need to experiment to find the optimal file format or file formats.
  18. These types of surfaces have to be designed quite precisely to work well as the very much rely on gravity to work. Unfortunately though, I always use TouchCAD for such jobs.
  19. I have them all, Designer, Photo and Publisher. All really good. Designer still misses DXF import /export, and fonts are sometimes imported ungracefully if you don't have the exact fonts installed. PDF and EPS imports very well and in scale from VW. Surprisingly close to Adobes equivalents for a very competitive price and no subscriptions. Takes getting used to for Adobe die hards though.
  20. In the end, the preferred tools are often a question of what you are used to, and where you started working. In my case, I come from the CAD world working with 3D CAD since 1985, and MiniCAD since 1987. My conclusions are therefore: - Don't like AutoCAD style programs. - AI is pretty rubbish compared to VW for 2D CAD work and really sucks as DXF/DWG import export. Never use it. Occasionally use Affinity Designer though for file conversions. - Of all the rendering programs passing through the office, I NEVER used them for modeling, just rendering (for example Strata, Cinema, Cheetah, Artlantis, Keyshot, etc). Today I mostly use Keyshot, Artlantis and Renderworks for rendering (Depending on what it's used for as they are good at different things). - VW for 2D drafting, and 3D solid modeling. - TouchCAD for precise free form 3D shaping, model building, unfolding of panels, and image unfolding for photo realistic 3D model building. - Photoshop for image processing.
  21. Nice. Pity that 3D printing is so slow. Have had two machines so far. We do stuff like this in a different way.
  22. In theory, you can convert a mesh model into a NURBS model using VectorScript. I use this method when exporting models from TouchCAD, where I do 90% of my free form shaping. The procedure allows me to export either as a mesh or as NURBS surfaces, which can be used directly as solids. I need both methods as VW's NURBS abilities sometimes get a bit overwhelmed by the TouchCAD data. I'm however not sure how well a general purpose import features would work, as there are many possible variations in the setup of the data, whereas in TouchCAD's output is very predictable and therefore works very well. There are some other programs having such conversion features. ViaCAD Pro used to have an extension called PowerPack, which did a decent job, but apparently they have removed it due to some legal issues.
  23. Also, never underestimate the value of good textures. From a recent job I did. No, it's not real. It's about 1,2 meters and with a skin of fabrics. Good texture.mov
  24. You can for sure create textures in VW, though I mostly do it externally. I use a couple of external rendering programs, mostly because I get to the final result quicker. The enclosed example is however done with Renderworks. On you picture, a few suggestions is to use bump mapping on most with most textures. It's mostly a question of using the picture again with a different use. Let's say that you have a piece of wood. The wood picture is then used for making it look like wood, but also to add a little depth to it. In the example, I wanted a texture where the black parts where painted black, but still had that wood feel to it. Another example of bump mapping is on a varnished wooden floor. You want to see the wood texture, and that's ok. But, if you make it reflective, it quickly looks wrong, as a real wooden floor is seldom absolutely flat. A little bump map using the same wood texture however does the trick. You get the reflections that you want, but at the same time you make the reflections look a little fuzzy, which is what a real floor looks like. Another suggestion is to add a corner radius to objects being close to the camera. This creates an edge highlight that you see on almost all objects if you look closely, even of seemingly sharp edges. It dramatically adds realism to a rendering. So on your rendering, I would definitely add corner radiuses on the tables and chairs in the front. Bumps, quite a lot on the cloth parts, on the carpet, and some on the wooden parts of the chairs. Also, make the wooden parts of the chairs slightly reflective.

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...