Jump to content

Bart Rammeloo

Distributor
  • Posts

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bart Rammeloo

  1. Don't have the movie anymore - sorry. It's just a closed loft, that's all.
  2. quote: Originally posted by Richard: WOW! This sucks, blame Apple, blame NNR, but however you cut it if the code is not downward compatable, you've lost me. Autocad is not that bad after all. Goodbye to all and good luck, cause you're gonna need it!!! Bye bye Richard. Have a lot of "fun" with ACAD. [ 11-06-2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: BaRa ]
  3. Moir? can be removed with higher anti-aliassing settings. Which, unfortunately, don't exist in RenderWorks. Cheers, BaRa
  4. Read McBride's response. If you didn't get it, read it again. "press space bar" and move your mouse. Like in Adobe software. cheers, BaRa
  5. The reason for using VectorWorks for Madonna's clip is twofold. (1) you need to have scene plans, and VectorWorks allows you to make those - it's after all a CAD package. It also allows you to build a 3D model of the scene. (2) There's something called VectorWorks Spotlight, which allows you to make technical studies of the lighting situation. If you happen to have the add-on RenderWorks, you can also make elementary visualisations of this. Exporting your geometry to Motion Builder isn't an issue - as you pointed out, you can use DXF to achieve that. The problem would lie in exporting your lighting data to MB. If it's only geometry you're interested in, then DXF would do just fine, especially since you can differentiate between different materials or object categories in VectorWorks by using either Layers or Classes and exporting one of both to DXF Layers. The point I am however not getting is why you would want to bring everything together in MB? MB is a great character animation tool, but is seldom used for it's rendering capabilites - at least not in professional productions. Most of the time you'll see it as an add-on to Maya, Max, LightWave and, in the not too distant future, Cinema 4D. Especially the last one would be interesting for you, since there exists a plugin for exchanging and updating geometry and light information between VectorWorks and Cinema 4D, which is a much better solution than using DXF. Of course, if it's not the quality of the render that you're after, but rather the (pre)visualization of your scenes, then MB would do just fine. But if you want to get accurate visuals with correct shadow, light color, falloff, material characteristics and so on, then MB will probably not be enough. Kind regards, BaRa [ 10-26-2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: BaRa ]
  6. Would indeed be a nice addition to the wall object, and completely in line with the rest of the interface. I'm all pro. Cheers, BaRa
  7. Other (higher-end) software solutions have options to automatically reduce the amount of vertices (rebuilding the curve or the surface). Of course, you lose a bit of precision, but you can set that precision yourself. It's a feature I would LOVE to see in VectorWorks. Cheers, BaRa
  8. I seem to remember that Form-Z is only capable of unfolding polygonal geometry, not NURBS. Unless that has been changed since version 4, but I doubt that. And as I recall, the same holds true for Rhino. There are a lot of apps capable of unfolding polygons. There even used to be a plugin for VectorWorks that did just that. But unfolding NURBS is a bit more difficult. Cheers, BaRa
  9. I know of no straightforward way of performing this wrapping operation in VectorWorks. VectorWorks has no deformers, unlike other applications like Maya, StudioTools and a couple of others. The other question - unfolding a NURBS surface - is even more complicated. Only a couple of really high-end CAD applications are capable of doing this - think ProE with certain modules, CATIA or UniGraphics. Cheers, BaRa
  10. What really impressed me with the G5 1.8 was the OGL speed. Real-time updating of different light sources at highest mesh quality settings, real time spinning of complex 3D models without dropping to wireframe ... Great stuff. Glad to see Apple's back in the race
  11. using shortcuts would be one option. The arrow selector can be activated by using the X-key. Using the right mouse button on windows sometimes helps as well. Getting a faster system is of course also a solution Cheers, BaRa
  12. I tend to disagree: every consumer product is sold without working properly. If it worked properly, it would not break down and it wouldn't be a consumer product. It is theoretically not feasable to produce bug-free software. Why would it then be possible to do it in reality? Your post is clearly not about Renderworks. Why post it here? Kind regards, BaRa
  13. It's always helpful to list the bugs you encounter. I do share your feelings, but you can't expect NNA to do something without having a description of your complaints. cheers, BaRa
  14. Thanks Biplab - glad to know you're "on top of it". If I understood it correctly, it's difficult to select "discontinuous" CV's (the ones that, when you would decompose a curve, would make it split)? Cheers, BaRa
  15. Hi all, There's a puzzling difference between CV selection for splines and CV selection for surfaces. For surfaces, you can easily select multiple CV's - just drag a marquee and use the SHIFT key to add CV's to the selection. But this doesn't work with curves. You can only select one CV or the complete curve. The obvious question is: why is there a difference? In my mind, it would make perfect sense to be able to select more than one CV from a curve. Anyone? Thanks in advance, BaRa P.S.: Biplab, yesterday I showed 3DPowerpack to a former PowerAnimator and Maya user. He was quite impressed. Especially the way solids behave was a hit! No better proof for the quality of what you have been doing
  16. Hi RonR, Thanks for the tip about the NURBS analysis tool. It never occured to me to use it for simple distance evaluation between simple geometry - I always had complicated NURBS geometry in mind, and couldn't actually imagine what it was good for. Thanks again Cheers, BaRa
  17. I personally like the idea of having extra modeling options in VW. But incorporating C4D's HyperNURBS in VW would actually be a step backwards. VW has a more advanced modeler than C4D: first of all, VW can use polygons (faces) with more than four points, while C4D can only handle 3 or four points per polygon. Second, VW uses NURBS as well as polygons, while C4D can only use polygons. Unlike the name suggest, HyperNURBS have nothing to do with NURBS surfaces. HyperNURBS are just a method to tesselate a polygon surface in an organic way. Granted, C4D's subdivision system is pretty good given the internal limits of the application - not every app is capable of applying point, edge or face weight. But from a technical point of view, it's still rather limited. Maya, OTOH, is much closer to VW than C4D. Maya also knows NURBS (but uses a different kernel) and can also handle n-gons (polygons with more than 4 points). Maya knows two subdivision systems: one that operates on polygons refered to as smoothing, and one that produces what is know as Subdivision surfaces. The former is comparable to what you know in C4D. The latter is however much more advanced: it can use a polygon "Cage" to produce resolution independant surfaces. It combines the advantages of polygons - ease of use - and the advantages of NURBS - C2 surfaces. Introducing this in VW would be a real asset. To summarize: I stand behind the idea of having a Subdivision modeling system in VectorWorks. But using C4D's system as a (technical) reference is not such a good idea. Maya's sub-D's would be a much better base. Cheers, BaRa
  18. This thread over at CGTalk might clear up a couple of things about Sub-D surfaces, their relation to NURBS and the implementation of the principle in different animation solutions: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90491 Cheers, BaRa
  19. He is actually missing something. Check out http://www.nemetschek.net/3dpowerpack/features.html and look for improved 3d object snapping. combine this with the move 3D command, and presto! Don't forget there's also this thing called working planes - they too have been improved in 10.5. Cheers, BaRa
  20. Mike, I tried to put a radius on the inside top edge, as you asked. Here's the result: Seems to be working on this side of the globe... A bit difficult for NNA to fix this bug if it can't be reproduced. Perhaps it's a good idea to send this file to NNA together with your system specs - OS version, RAM, CPU, VW version etc. It could help them to reproduce the error. Cheers, BaRa [ 09-25-2003, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: BaRa ]
  21. The HyperNURBS in C4D are actually nothing more that a polygon tesselator. Same thing exists in LightWave, Max, Maya, XSI and a lot of other applications. It has nothing to do with NURBS. Great tool for producing visuals, but not usable for design (where precission is required). One piece of software capable of doing such a thing with mathematical precision is Maya (another one would be the higher end versions of StudioTools). Maya has (at least) 3 geometry types: polygons, NURBS and Subdivisions. Subdivisions (or subdivision surfaces) use a polygonal grid to produce a resolution independant smooth surface, which can be converted to NURBS. This can actually be used to model production-oriented geometry.
  22. HDRI = High Dynamic Range Image. Normal bitmap have 8 bits per color channel. An RGB has a total of 24 bits, or 32 bits if you would include an alpha channel. HDRI can contain more information than 8 bits per channel. First of all, it can exceed the 256 samples of a classical color channel. Second, it's also possible to use floating point. The advantage is that HDRI images can contain more info, which is not directly visible AT FIRST SIGHT. But it would be visible if, for instance, you would change the brightness. A good link would be: http://www.highpoly3d.com/writer/tutorials/hdri/hdri.htm The advantage in rendering is that reflections still respect the "natural" intensity and contrast of light sources, which leads to more natural speculars. Another advantage is that you can easily use it as a "light map": wrap it around your scene, use the intensity and color to project light into your scene, and presto: you have a very "real" scene. It's not possible to "Fake" HDRI in VectorWorks: you would be missing the High Dymanic part of the deal. cheers, Bart
  23. Mike, I'm not sure if this would help, but if you want, you can send me the file that gives you problems. Just build the model until VW refuses to execute a blend command, save it, and send it to me. I'll see if I can add a blend or not. The address is bart@designexpress.be. Keep it under 5MB if you can. Kind regards, BaRa
  24. Have fun with your new, wonderful, bug-free and user-friendly application. Oh BTW, if you happen to find such a thing, would you be so kind to let us know what it's called ? Seriously, neither ACAD nor VW are presentation packages in the sense you describe (now that I come to think of it: none of the existing CAD-solutions produces high-end 3D visuals). Yes, there is something called RenderWorks. And yes, we all know that it cannot be compared to any 3D animation solution. It's meant for simple visuals, not for high end results. If you want high end, get the according applications. I can advise C4D from personal experience. And no, it doesn't cost a ton. Cheers, BaRa [ 09-22-2003, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: BaRa ]
×
×
  • Create New...