Bart Rammeloo

Dear all, This is way off topic, but in case you would be interested: Maxon announced Cinema 4D R9. Check their website for more information. Cheers, BaRa

quote: Originally posted by NickB: BaRa: http://www.nemetschek.net/news/greco_review.html I see what you mean, but I cannot find any comment on VectorWorks being equal to or better than Rhino. It is compared with Rhino and Form.Z, and said that there are certain equal parts, but that's about it.

Where did you find that claim - the rhino claim, I mean. Cheers, Bara

Can't think of a way to do this, actually. At least not without a lot of fiddling.

My 2 cts... We need better navigation tools, both in 2D and 3D. Most 3D apps can make use of the 3 buttons of a 3 button mouse to navigate through space: Left for rotating, middle for panning, right for dollying/zooming - all in combination with a modifier key. This is how most other 3Dapps handle their navigation: 3 keys or tools, nothing more. In the current implementation of VectorWorks, you have the regular shortcuts and tools for 2D navigation (ctrl-1. ctrl-2, v, c, ctrl-4, ctrl-6, space bar, arrows, scroll bars plus the tool icons) that also work in 3D. For 3D navigation, you have 4 tools (represented by icons) that can be combined with modifier keys. There are simply way too many keys and options, which results in a cluttered interface experience. Another thing that needs to be solved is the perspective view. Right now you can modify the view area by draggin the perspective view handles. Please replace this by (a) a four-view system (perspective, plan, front, right and so on) (b) a correct perspective window. Right now you have no idea of the camera settings you're using. You can change the viewing angle by modifying the perspective viewport, but have no feedback on how much it has been changed. Anyway, the whole 2D- and 3Dnavigation system needs a rehaul. The points above are just the highlights of the current situation. Cheers, BaRA

Hi Ola, Scaling can be found in the Cinema 4D preferences: Edit > Preferences > Import/Export > VectorWorks Import Good luck, BaRa

There are two types of libraries included in the installation of Cinema 4D. You can find both of them in the Mat-directory. The basic one is, well, basic, and of no use for architectural visualisations. The other one's in the SLA-directory, and makes use of only internally generated and controled shaders (formerly known as the SLA plugin - smells like almonds - but nowadays included in the base package). Although the SLA types are very good, they're of no real direct use either (for arch. viz., that is). The VW-C4D plugin CD contains a bunch of directly applicable material presets for buildings and their surroudings (including earth, skies, slates and so on). If you don't have that CD (though you should when you decide using C4D professionally), you can always download free shaders. For starters, you could check Deepshade ( http://www.maxon-computer.com/deepshade ). There also a listing of free and commercially available textures on Maxon's site: http://www.maxoncomputer.com/resources_browse.asp?catID=4 On CGTalk (where you can meet a lot of professional C4D users) you can find a user-composed listing of possible material resources for C4D: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=54657 - this is a more general listing for general use. Keep in mind that although the material system is very different from what you know in RenderWorks, it is also much more powerfull, and in most cases, it doesn't take too much time to reproduce the RenderWorks material settings you're looking for with C4D's material system. Good luck, BaRa

Try checking the scale of the VW import in your Cinema 4D Preferences.

No problems here. I had another user on the phone yesterday with the problem described above. I made him trash (a) all the plugin parts related to VW in the C4D plugin directory and (b) all the plugin parts related to C4D in the VW plugin directory, © made him launch the plugin installer again, this time SELECTING the C4D folder (installation target), (d) made him put the correct plugin parts in the VW plugin directory and (d) made him rebuild the workspace in VW. Worked like a charm. All the other users (around 20 with the new plugin) never reported the described problem. Cheers, BaRa

Hi Biplab, I see the logic, but I think we might be better of without it. After all, the solid addition of the tapered extrude and the surface seems to produce the same geometry as the tapered extrude in itself. At least, that's what the user sees. So I would prefer to have just the tapered extrude as a result of the protrusion. Cheers, BaRa

Yes, I did notice. It's not the only strange thing in the VW 3D environment. When I start to look at the result of certain 3D commands and tools, I fail to see the logic. As an example, try the following: (a) draw a square and "Create surface from curves". (b) Use the protrusion tool to extrude the NURBS surface. You end up with a Solid addition. © A solid addition has a construction history, so double clicking it should give you access to the way the shape is constructed. This is where it starts getting awkward, because when you double click, you see that this specific Solid addition contains: (1) the original NURBS surface and (2) a tapered extrude. The tapered extrude has also a history - double click it and you'll find a rectangular NURBS curve. So VectorWorks seems to: (a) extract curves from the NURBS surface. (b) use them in a tapered extrude. © add the tapered extrude and the NURBS surface together in a solid addition. However, for getting the correct shape, you don't need the original NURBS surface anymore, and you don't need the solid addition. So the questions are: what is the original NURBS surface doing here? Why do I end up with a solid addition and not simply with a tapered extrude? Why doesn't VectorWorks just trash the original NURBS surface and give us only the tapered extrude with a NURBS curve as a source object? This is just another example of the strange ways 3D is developing in VectorWorks. A pitty, because 2D is a REALLY strong point in VW. It would be nice to have the same strength (and the same logic) in 3D. Cheers, BaRa

Double-clicking on an associative hatch ... been using too much ACAD lately? Double-clicking on a surface (when it's a polyline or polygon) gives you access to the vertices, regardless the surface finishing. So while the idea of modifying the hatch like you describe might indeed be great, double-clicking is not the best way to achieve that. I do agree with the first post. Give us the option to move and rotate hatches just like we can with gradients and image fills. It will only make VectorWorks more complete and give us a more consistent user interface. And while we're at it: selection based on the name of a hatch would be nice ... Cheers, BaRa [ 06-29-2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: BaRa ]

Hi, Do you mean detailed model or complex model? The reason for asking is that a complex model could do without the extra complexity of a Corinthian capital. However, if you need detailed columns, then the best way to do it is by mapping a bumpmap on the rough shape with RenderWorks or another 3D render application. Cheers, BaRa

RenderWorks is essentially a raytracer, and as such doesn't use OpenGL. It uses the processor, in this case the G5. Cheers, BaRa

Actually, Rhino, VW, and a couple of other 3D modelers all use SMlib as a NURBS kernel. So technically speaking, they're all capable of doing the same type of stuff. As far as I know, Form-Z uses another kernel. The stuff that bothers me with form-Z are the selfintersecting roundings. They frequently fail. VectorWorks has less problems with that. Before the NURBS functions in VW, there wasn't a doubt that Form-Z was better at 3D. But now, everytime I meet form-Z users and show them what is possible, they all are very impressed. I have no problem whatsoever of using the Form-Z tutorials in VW. It's not a one on one translation (their internal logic differs), but it gives the same final result. About the STL: not really an option for me, because it doesn't support anything else than geometry. It's all very well if it's an object in one piece, but the VW to C4D exporter supports material categories, so for most models, this method is a better solution, if it weren't for the incontrolable tessalation. Cheers, BaRa

I personally would rather have better control over VW's material system than HDRI and GI. Both can be faked without a problem, but you're nowhere without a good material system. Cheers, BaRa [ 05-04-2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: BaRa ]

Because RenderWorks is still an entry-level visualisation solution. How do you think RenderWorks would be able to compete with the high-end products that have GI and Radiosity, and still maintain its price? There are enough solutions available for radiosity. Cheers, BaRa

Because VectorWorks support for OpenGL doesn't go that far. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Cheers, BaRa

This would indeed be a very welcome addition to VectorWorks. You got my vote. Cheers, BaRa

Why do you want to determine the face normals of your poly's? It makes sense in 3DMax, but I don't see why you would want to do it in VW. Cheers, BaRa

Don't try this in VectorWorks - the 3D navigation and manipulation tools don't allow you to model this within an acceptable timeframe. This is not a job for a CAD package like VectorWorks, but for a visualisation package or industrial design solution. Think Maya, C4D, Rhino, etc. Good luck, BaRa

I read your description a couple of times, but failed to understand what you mean. It's probably my lack of understanding decent English. Could you post a couple of screenshots or other images to make it more clear? Thanks, BaRa

well, it's still a techboard, isn't it? It's nice to show results once in a while, but the main goal is technical support. Rather ask at the guys over at CGTalk to open up a section for VW. Or you could also post it at www.cgarchitect.com. Just my 2 cts, BaRa

Dear Chris, Andy and Katie, (a) Although Maxon and NNA are owned by the same company, they are still two seperate companies. C4D is a rendersolution, as is RenderWorks. Both companies want to sell their own solution. You can't blame Katie for this. She actually can not do anything else than pass the buck, because NNA hadn't anything to do with the development of the plugin. Maxon (and a third party) are responsable for the plugin, not NNA. Katie is right, you should contact Maxon. (b) I understand the scaling problem. I did some tests a while ago, and I seem to remember that using centimeter (both in VW and in C4D) solves the problem. © Before you jump your gun about those arrogant Europeans trying to force the Metric system on you: the scaling issue will be solved in the next plugin version. It runs fine in the current beta-version. I'm not allowed to tell you when it will be released, but it's coming. (d) What email address are you using to get in touch with Maxon? Did you get any replies at all on this subject? I'll pass this on to the guy responsable at Maxon for the plugin. Kind regards, BaRa

Take a look at Subdivision Surfaces in Maya. It's not inprecise at all. It's a semi-NURBS surface controled by a polygonal cage. This means that you can perform polygonal extrudes, cuts and so on, but still end up with a mathematically precise organic surface. And it can be converted to "real" NURBS, which in turn can be exported to IGES. Of course, if that is what you want, you might as well buy Maya ... which costs around $2,000. Cheers, BaRa