Jump to content

Cloud Hidden

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cloud Hidden

  1. Any ideas on the cut and fill error message or the contour drawing one interval below the pad modifier?
  2. It's a huge help, and puts me squarely in the "Undecided" camp. I may need to wait till Maxon natively accommodates a fuller range of the objects that I can create in VW. Paying the money to get a less-smooth object doesn't seem like a step forward right now. Thanks for the description.
  3. I'm interested in what you learn. Every other day I change my mind on C4D. The big hangup now is the NURBS. I've played with the interface lots, and am growing fond of it, but just don't know if the things I design will work right with it. My other two hang-ups are trees/bushes and grass. I'll ask Maxon, but do you have experience with those? Sounds so stupid to say, but getting the look of truly fuzzy grass would make a big difference for me, yet it seems so hard to find. Vue d'Esprit does all kinds of landscapes, but not grass...go figure. C4D....I can't find out where and how. Same with trees--is X-frog the only smart way to go?
  4. I had wondered if one fence would suffice. You answered that. Thank you. The answer raises another question. The "hole" you mention.....what type of VW object is that? I realize that the purpose in making it larger than the pad is be/c cuts can't be precisely vertical. But I don't have a sense of if that larger hole is a pad or ???
  5. I've been able to make a pad ok (actually, it's very cool), albeit with the elevation and cut/fill problems mentioned in another thread, but now I'm stumped on how to create tiered pads, such as for a stepped footer. The manual says a control fence may overlap another control fence, but should not cross a pad. So if I have 3 pads at 3 elevations that touch each other at the point of the elevation changes, how should the control fences be placed? Also, on a sloped site where I'm doing these tiered pads, if I want to create a sloped walking path adjacent to the house, would a roadway object be the way to do it, and how would that interact with the pads and control fences for those pads? [ 08-24-2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Cloud Hidden ]
  6. I have an existing and proposed DTM. When I run the Cut and Fill, it tells me, properly, that there's 0 change be/c there has been no site modification. I use the site modifier for the first time to create a pad and a control fence. The pad is completely within the control fence. I only have one of each. I update the proposed site model, and the results look good, except that the contour for my parking area (the pad) matches the shape of the pad modifier, but is 1' lower than its elevation. Why would that be? My contour interval is 1'....coincidence or not? Then when I run Cut and Fill, I first get an "A miscellaneous error has occurred (20, 2)" error, and then "ERROR: Unable to create Cut and Fill DTM." So now I'm stumped and kinda dead in the water till I figure this out. Any ideas on how I got this result? ps. The image-storing site has been flakey lately and might delay in drawing the picture. I think it depends on the position of the moon or something. Notice how the red-line for the Pad site modifier is one contour above the pad that was created. Or at least that's my interpretation of what I'm seeing. I've been wrong before. [ 08-25-2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Cloud Hidden ]
  7. Thanks on the angle....there are so many places where things could be that I can't find half of them, even with the help and search features. Kinda like my keys in my house... The callout tool....hmmm. It behaves the way I describe in any new file from my template. It behaves the way it should in any truly new new file. hmmmmm. I can't afford to recreate my template from scratch. Any ideas on how to smack it around so it behaves in an existing file? Nothing I do seems to change the callout tool from creating 12 pt text, forcing me to change each new instance.
  8. I cannot figure out how to set default values for a coupla tools. The angular dimension tool shows decimal angles, and I want to default to degrees and minutes. If I keep doing it one by one, I'll miss one sometime. How to change the default? The text callout tool always defaults to 12 pt text. I want 9. No matter how often I select the tool with no object selected, it defaults to 12 even if the size menu shows 9. Then I have to change that instance to 9. How to change that default? I was able to do it for the text tool, but not the callout tool.
  9. That is very cool. I'm indebted to you. Thanks. I kept looking for write-only fields, but no problem that these are read/write--it's not like the script has to read them. Works great.
  10. 2-part question: 1. I'm creating a composite object in a PIO. I want to calc the area and perimeter and output it to the OIP in the same way that many other objects list area in the OIP. Don't know how to output that stuff. 2. Perim and Area require search criteria as parameters, rather than a handle. What's the typical strategy for creating something that can be uniquely searched. If I use the PIO multiple times, I don't want the Perim of the multiple occurrences...I want each one separately. Thanks for any ideas.
  11. How persistent are those values? Do variables retain values across a session or some other interval? Guess I just assumed that unless you did something special, a variable's value was just local to that use of the pio.
  12. Mine handles letters, too. I haven't found out how to increment the value with each occurrence, though. Anyone here know?
  13. Peter, where were you 3 hours ago?!?!?! Never saw that sucker in there. Ah well, it became a good learning experience. I got mine done, and it turned out kinda cool. Their's automatically increments the number, while mine doesn't. Their's also requires one click. Mine uses the point object type, so it requires two clicks. Don't really wanna rotate it, but that's what the choices were. Mine puts the parameters for size, etc in the OIP, which is good for some things. Each work, and now I know how to do one more thing. Thanks y'all, for pointing the way.
  14. I've spent a coupla hours w/ the manual and searching this site and haven't found what I'm looking for thus far. I've written a script or two before, usually by finding an existing simple one and modifying it. Trying to make my first PIO, and have no idea how to create the script. All the existing PIO's have their scripts locked, so I can't look at how they do it. The PIO I want to create is a hexagonal window marker for a window schedule...just a small hexagon with a single letter of text that can be modified in the OIP. Can someone point me to where an existing PIO script is so I can see how they are organized? Thanks.
  15. quote: For instance, VW can use NURBS surfaces, C4D doesn't know NURBS surfaces.All of my models are NURBS-heavy. Without NURBS, I would not have bought VW. Seems like that will help make my decision...
  16. Just when I was almost convinced I could do without, parella, you come along. Thanks a lot. At Dave's mention, I spent a few hours with Vue de Esprit, and it's pretty cool. Do you have an example of something you've done with C4D? You answered the question about grass, thanks. What about trees/vegetation? Do you use x-frogs or is there a simpler or cheaper solution? And the link didn't work. Do you have a link for a special price? Maxon would only offer a piddly discount off the list price of each module, but acted like it was a big deal. Made no mention of a special edition. Still don't know which way to go, but soaking in all info.
  17. quote: It seems a waste of time when you can just drop a rendered building into a real photo of the siteAgree. It's kinda fun to match perspective, time of day, etc. [Though I wish the VW "camera" could be set parametrically. I know the distance, azimuth, lense, and elevation of the camera for the photo, but I have to mess around with all the fly-by tools to try to match it, and that's a pain.] The problem with this kind of realism for me is that many of my projects are on uncleared sites. Was just on one that was so overgrown that I just left the digicam and digividcam in the truck. Made better use of a machete than a camera! On another an existing building blocks all camera angles. It'll be torn down, but not in time for the design. For those, it'd be nice to put the design into a photosurrealistic setting without triangular leaves. Need some fuzziness.
  18. quote: The intent of your rendering is very different from the intent of the link you posted.Yup, but do prospective clients understand that? (That can be rhetorical.) Maybe I just have render-envy. Though I do fret that it's a distinction lost on many people. When the "competition" was hand water-colored images, the difference was clear. But with computer images, I wonder if "looks better" becomes "is better" even though it's a completely different service and purpose. Your line about not importing to C4D and poof it's done is what I'm getting at--trying to figure out how long and twisted the path from 3D-design to photorealism is. Before I can set clients' expectations, I need to set my own. With what dave said about the lighting, and what you and he do with textures, if I could improve grass and plantings from what I've done before, it might be the right balance for now. Dunno...still learning. [ 08-14-2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Cloud Hidden ]
  19. Kevin, it was 3d Studio I've had good luck with RW and am in general quite happy with all the VW stuff. Maybe it's a function of what I came from--my prior software was severely limited. And I've received great response to the RW things like the one posted. But when the bar is raised such as with the one I just linked--even though it's just a one-angle rendering and not a design, floorplan, prints, or construction advice--I gotta either ante up or accept that my renderings will never look that good. Trying to figure out what really matters......there was a day when wireframes were the cat's meow!
  20. Thanks for the answers. I'm studying them. Where'd the clouds/sky come from? The 3ds image was all I could find at the time. Here's a dome one: 3ds dome It is real nice, and if I can make RW do that, then I'm real happy. And If I need VW/C4D to do it, then I'm ok with that too. Right now, I don't know how far each can go and what combo of tools will provide the best bang for the buck. Most of my time is and will continue to be VW for designs and blueprints. The renderings are for "sizzle." They take time and I don't charge extra for them, so they're a kind of "loss leader." Wanna avoid other software if I can. I have yet to mess with image props. Guess I should study up on them. Can I get good shadows from them. Can they be used to match the quality of the posted 3ds rendering? What about fuzzy grass? The other thing that C4D does that I really could use is QTVR. Now, if VW could see fit to include that...... I'll send the file...be interesting to see what's possible with it.
  21. I'm trying to figure out if I should or should not get into Cinema4D or similar product for improved renderings. Don't have anyone else to talk it over with, so I figured I'd try here, be/c some of y'all understand and use these products a lot more than I do. I use VW on a Mac to design round houses and clients and others have liked the renderings, be/c no one else was doing that in the little corner of the design world that I play in. But they look more cartoonish than realistic--trees have triangular leaves, grass isn't fuzzy, etc. sample VW rendering Then someone does a rendering w/ 3D Studio/Photoshop (just one rendering of an existing design, not a floorplan or any new design) and people start drooling, and understandably so, because it looks real good. Now my primary goal is creating a good design, floorplan, and prints. The renderings are just part of showing clients what they're gonna get. But.....but....it's the sizzle that goes with the steak, and something like sample 3ds rendering has more sizzle than what I can get out of VW alone. So, the question I'm facing is....should I invest in C4D? I won't be able to charge more. The only benefit is I'd deliver higher quality pictures, and appearances count for something. If I'm creating renderings that look more like the VW sample above, am I not taking advantage of some of the features of VW or have I reached its rendering limits? And if C4D is the way to go, which of their products will make the necessary, but minimal, package (remember, I can't raise my fees for this)? Is their Advanced Rendering module worth the difference it will make? Will I need x-frogs for a nice background of trees? To get fuzzy grass, do I need Shave-and-a-Haircut? Too many choices and no clear idea of which are necessary and what the limits of the base package are. And they're all pricey, so I wanna be judicious. Any insights? Have y'all found it made or didn't make a difference with your clients?
  22. The problem is the dense areas be/t the yellow, blue, black 3D polygons. The contours in that area should look no more dense than the rest of the drawing. I created 2D Polygons to match some of the contour lines from the topo. Converted them to 3D and added an elevation (1100', 1000', 960' for the 3 lines mentioned). I've checked that no poly's cross. I have 20 of them. When I create the site model, it fills that area with a zillion contour lines even when I specify a 50' interval. When I check DTM Settings and View Options, it shows data from 0 to 2000, even though my 3d polys go from 350 to 1200. When I put a tree on the blue line (3d poly w/ elevation 1000) and Send to Surface, it shows elevation of 2000. I don't get that. In fact, in all those dense areas, the surface elevation seems to be exactly double what it should be. Tried 3D Loci with no different result. Other areas also get the same dense result and doubled elevation, but I figure if there's an answer for why it happens one place, the same answer will apply elsewhere. Ideas?
  23. After taking a peek, Robert pointed out that some of the 3D Polys had points that were on different planes. Now, how that could have happened is a big mystery, be/c I only used the OIP to set the Z and didn't type any wrong numbers, but it nonetheless happened, and I wouldn't have thought that possible, so I wouldn't have looked there. Fixed them and problems solved. Thanks for the responsiveness, Robert.
  24. Sometimes I make a reference marker solid so that the drawing beneath doesn't show through. But that also gives the text a solid fill, and depending on the font used, it whites out part of the marker itself. If the reference marker is solid, the text should still be transparent so that none of the marker is obliterated.
  25. I just created a new doc and drew a round wall 17'R. Start 135 degrees and end 45. Popped a door right in the middle. From the OIP, changed start to 180. Door stayed where it belonged. Changed end to 22, and the door location moved. That doesn't seem logical to me. Do you get the same results?
  • Create New...