tom kyler_dup1

Yes, it is possible by exporting models with the STL export option. STL stands for 'stereo lithography' and is the most common file format used by 3D printers. There are a few others like VRML and PLY, but STL would be the way to go from Vectorworks. When you export a model via STL in Vectorworks, you'll get a dialog box with a slider that affects the number of polygons your model has at export time. In general, the more polygons the model, the finer detail you can get in your "print". But if you have mostly flat surfaces, then this isn't a problem and a low-polygon model will be adequate and save on file size. If; however, you have curved surfaces, then a high polygon count would be desired. A good way to check your export is to use a STL viewer. You can download them for free from the internet. For Macintosh, try the following: http://www.ripplon.com/StLviewer.html This will basically be how your model will be printed and if there's any problems, you can usually find them at this point. For Windows, just try a google search on "STL viewer" and there will be plenty. In addition, try the following site for more info: http://www.xpress3d.com/

they're not quite what I want. Form_Z has an option that essentially constrains the curve to the "Z" value (the "in-screen" dimension when in ortho view) of the first point. So if you began to draw a line in orthographic view and say you began the curve by snapping to a point on another curve...all the other points would maintain the same "Z" value as opposed to drawing the remainder of the points on the working plane. Of course I could rotate and move the working plane around to somewhat accomplish the same thing, but it doesn't work in all instances, especially when snapping to points on different curves....sometimes you want the points to align when in the orthographic view, but not align, in say..plan view, but when you snap to a point in ortho view, they become coincident. [ 06-23-2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

You know pang....I didn't even pay attention, you don't have to use the "exponential" option when extruding to path. You can always use the uniform scale and use a value other than 1 there to make the extrusion taper larger or smaller.

When in an orthographic view, it would be nice to grab a nurbs vertex and move in the X-Y plane relative to the screen, and not have it move in the Z-value when snapping to other 3D points. A lot of nurbs modeling is done with image underlays and it's important to move the points in the plane of the screen only. I've seen this as a preference in other programs.

I think the direction you need to go is to use the "Create helix-spiral" command. You draw a straight line and then invoke the "create helix" tool in the model menu, and it will draw a spiral around the straight line. You can then specify different beginning and ending radii in the object info palette to get the spiral to get smaller as it goes up (like string going up a christmas tree" Then you can draw a section...maybe a circle or rectangle, (but make sure your section is the smallest section in your spiral shape" and then select the spiral and your section and invoke the "extrude to path" option. In the object info palette, you can change your extrude option from "uniform" to "exponential" and then type in a value greater than 1...maybe 3 or 4. The end result is a shape that spirals up and gets smaller as it spirals up. There are a few things that might crop up, but if you experiment with the values in the object info palette, you should get it.

Sorry about that, I use too many 3D programs I think. It would be the loft tool in Vectorworks. I'm just used to calling it the skin tool from Electric Image Universe, which is a nurbs modeler. In fact, you can go to their website, www.eitechnologygroup.com and go to the support link and download their online manuals (they're PDF format) there's two manuals, one for their animation system and one for their modeler. The PDF for their modeler (which is nurbs based) is very thorough and will teach you many concepts about nurbs modeling. some of the stuff won't apply to Vectorworks because their tool set for nurbs is a little more robust, but about 90% of the materials apply and the principles of proper nurbs modeling abound throughout and will help you immensely I believe, particularly the section titled "3D tools palette" [ 06-18-2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Hello pang, are you describing something like a vine wrapping around a cone, where the vine gets smaller as it wraps around the cone? The "solid part" as you describe it would be on the outside of your glass cone? and is your glass cone an inverted cone? like a teepee?

This might be a issue for Biplab. In other nurbs applications, the nurbs curves have a control point, and a "knot" or interpolated point which is on the curve itself. Creating curves using control points is a little more intuitive than using interpolated points, but to "create surface from curves" requires that U and V curves intersect at interpolated points if I'm not mistaken. If that's the case, then drawing curves using control points and having the interpolated points show on the curve (to snap to) would be helpful for creating successful U-V curve networks for creating surfaces.

Propstuff, modeling strategy definitely plays a part. As far as your filleted cylinder goes, I'm not sure you'll have success creating a single editable surface using seperate surfaces, it's a real fight. I was able to use the polyline tool (fourth mode) to create a cross section of a filleted cylinder, the go to plan view and duplicate array (polar) to create 8 total sections. You can then use the skin tool (select eight consecutive then check the "closed" option) to create a single surface with editable points. For now, I've quit trying to figure out how to combine surfaces and am trying to create complex surfaces with more control U and V curves instead.

That definitely helps Biplab, I'll admit, many of the surfaces that I've tried to join have indeed been trimmed. I did re-order some of my operations and have since had more success with the connect/combine tool. I guess I'll have to adjust my modeling strategy. [ 06-17-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Propstuff, "show vertices" option doesn't exist for nurbs curves, just surfaces. The number and placement of verticies is crucial to getting nurbs and those connect/combine surfaces to work properly. It would be great to be able to snap to verticies on curves if I could see all of them at once, that's what I'd like to be able to do.

VW is finally becoming a great modeler, and I find myself using it for primary modeling more and more. Since I use other applications for rendering and animation though, It would be helpful to have a render mode that shows wireframe polygons. I can do shaded polygons of course, but that takes a while. What I'm interested in knowing is the tesslation of my nurbs surfaces to control the polygon count. It would also be helpful to have a little more control over tesslation other than the 4 "3D quality" settings. I know that VW has always tried to simplify things for their users, but maybe a "advanced" mode or tab with finer tesslation control. [ 06-17-2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

It would be nice to have a preference to "show points" for nurbs curves even when they're not selected. This would allow more accurate creation of curve networks for creating nurbs surfaces since successful use of "create surface from curves" requires nurbs curves with intersecting points.

This will go into the wishlist section also, but pertains to 3D. Really complex nurbs surfaces are best accomplished (most of the time for me anyway) by "create surface from curves" To successfully create a curve network with U and V curves that can be made into a surface requires curves that intersect at "points" It would be very helpful if there was a preference to "show points" for all the curves on the screen at one time instead of only when they're selected. This would make snapping to these points quicker and easier than using the cursor hints. [ 06-17-2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Azizg, it's highly unlikely that you'll find many IGES file downloads on the web. The IGES standard goes way back and has much use in the CAM industry. There's not many options for importing DXF into VW, so I'm sure you're doing it right. 3D DXF files will always by polygonal in nature because the DXF format doesn't support nurbs surfaces. About the only import/export format VW has that will support surfaces is ACIS (commonly called SAT). You might find a few ACIS downloads, but the proliferation of DXF models on the web (as well as 3D studio *.3ds) is due to the fact they they are just 3D polygons and very easy to read into a 3D application. For me personally, I don't try to import much into VW in the way of 3D. DXF works great for 2D drawings, but importing 3D will end up being 3D polygons 99 percent of the time.

I think sweeping a polyline would be the best solution for representing a round cushion with a button in the middle. I try to avoid "pushing/pulling" verticies if I can. If the cross-section is consistent around the sweep, then you should be able to represent the curved edge (fabric pull-down over foam) by drawing it in section. You can also do a sweep for the button.

I agree propstuff, I've been experimenting too, and have found inconsistent results with the combine/connect tool. I fully understand the tool and how you can specifiy tangency matching for edges as well as iso-parms...and I also understand the order in which you select edges or isoparms affects the final shape and how they're connected. I've gotten it to connect surfaces that are touching as well as surfaces that are not touching using the 'blend' mode. But it won't seem to work on the simplest of surfaces. There must be some more information regarding the degree of the curves, or maybe the alignment of the U or V edges or the number of iso-parms or points that is affecting the ability to connect surfaces. Maybe we can send some examples to Biplab and get some input. I feel this is one of the last areas to figure out for me to really go to town with nurbs. Biplab? [ 06-15-2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Granted Kurt, I've been trying to get a decent render solution since MiniCAD 5 myself, including the Strata route (who here hasn't) and I am thrilled with the process VW as made as well as the improvements to Renderworks. What I've gotten tired of reading is the "bitchin" as you put it earlier. The nature of the posts soundly reflect a lack of respect, consideration or understanding of the scope of work developing a software product. Competition is fierce, I agree, and as a consumer, you have the right to be demanding, but to imply in these posts that Nemetschek is ignoring users or couldn't care about user's input is to imply that you know Nemetschek's business better than Nemetschek, and that is a slap in the face to the employees that bring you this great product you don't want to leave. (See Andrew's response post above) It shows a lack of respect or consideration and is unprofessional...period. That's what I'm tired of. Make your wishes known in the "wish list" forum, it's that simple

Sorry to hear that propstuff. I've had real good success with filleting and joining surfaces, I come from a nurbs modeling background as well as a mathematical engineering background and it helps me model (that and tap dancing through numerous VW workarounds). The power is there in VW, but successful nurbs modeling means abiding by the mathematical rules. And I caught a post by Biplab saying ...."We didn't want to have a large number of commands to create NURBS surfaces." Unfortunately, to really get nurbs to do want you want them to requires a bit of understanding of what's going on behind those commands. Connecting nurbs is very numerically sensitive. I think a good book on modeling nurbs in vectorworks is in order.... [ 06-14-2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Propstuff...the "connect/combine" tool will allow you to connect surfaces together, not just lines. When you use this tool you'll have several options (9 times out of 10, you'll use "tangency matching". Once the surfaces are connected, they will be editable as a single surface. For example, let's say you create a half a surface, say a hood scoop for a car and then mirror the other half...and then let's say that there's a visible seam between the parts and adjusting points isn't really practical at all. Then you use the connect/combine tool and you'll get this option for "tangency matching". and VW will make the seam tangent (or seamless) and create a single surface for your editing pleasure. Furthermore, if you then select "create interpolated surface" then you can manipulate the surface much more easily. Complex surfaces become a snap. Enjoy! [ 06-14-2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Kurt, you've mentioned twice that you cannot see how it would be tough for VW to implement a better rendering engine. I must ask, have you ever written C code to produce a front end interface for rendering libraries. Have you contacted lightworks to find out how much their licensing fees are? Have you done marketing surveys and statistical analysis around the globe to determine ROI on implemented CAD features? Have you ever installed a 4-cylinder engine AND a 8-cylinder engine. I don't think that VW ignores it's users, it's all about money. Nemetschek will determine what is or is not a golden opportunity, based on research, user feedback and market analysis. I wish Renderworks was a little more full-featured myself, but I've been using it since version 8 and each version has gotten better than the last, yet I'm more excited about the 3D powerpack development than the rendering engine development, and if I had to choose because of limited resources at Nemetschek, then I'd leave the rendering development on the back burner. Personally, I don't need radiosity, neither do the other 3 architects I share office space with, nor the contractors that read our prints. That's 4+ that don't need it...3 architects and 1 engineer that buy the latest upgrades everytime they come out. I've found more users that don't need it rather than do. So, I ask you, how many people in your survey of Vectorworks users want radiosity? And if you think VW went down the wrong road, you can always switch to something else. [ 06-14-2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Alexandre...couldn't you just script that, if I'm understanding you right... Use the pull down to set the active class, then toggle that class on and off by making a command plug-in and setting a keyboard shortcut to it? And Hunter, are you talking about classes or layers, you reference both with your first post interchangeably. How about right clicking (or option click) on an object and getting a menu choice to "hide this layer" or "hide this class" (the class or layer of the selected object). Of course this just turns them off, you'd still have to go to the dialog box to turn them back on, but it's a quick way to turn stuff off to set those saved sheets you talk about. [ 06-14-2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Biplap, in regards to an earlier inquiry about features that Rhino has the Vectorworks does not, net surfaces comes to mind, where you have x-number of U curves and Y-number of V curves to create a surface. Essentially, I'm trying to create a shape with a beginning cross section and an ending cross section of totally different shape and different planes but with the same number of verticies. In addition, I also have two "guide curves" which would be V curves in thise case. I have not found a tool in VW that would handle this kind of case. Loft surface comes close, but just one guide rail won't do for this object. [ 06-13-2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

Here's one I use all the time, and it's hands-down the easiest, most intuitive way to hide stuff temporarily and quickly. I can send it to you if you want. It's a vectorscript plug-in that I put in my 'object context" menu using the workspace editor, so i can right click (or option-click) on an object and get an option to "hide selected" and that one item goes away. Or you can select multiple items and hide those also, or you can even select one item and pick "hide others" and everything else goes away. I then right-click on empty space and get an option to "show all" and everything reappears. It's great for quickly hiding stuff temporarily without having to change attributes all the time. [ 06-11-2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]

kerpez, here's what you need to do. Basically, you're going to create a thin surface...and then give it some thickness using the shell tool. First, you need to create a half a washer using nurbs. I did it by drawing two nurbs arc ( concentric with each other of course) and then using the skin tool to make them into a nurbs surface resembling half a washer. You then duplicate (or mirror) that half of the washer. Then go to a side view and using the 2D rotate, you can rotate the new half of the washer (essentially bending it) Then once you've got the angle you like, select both surfaces and go to model > add solids. At this point you can select the fillet tool and fillet the "bend" lines (one on each side of the center hole) This will then give you a bent washer surface, but with no thickness. This is where it gets tricky though. In your object info palette, the status of the object will be "fillet". To reliably add thickness to your washer (or seat) I select the object and then do a 'model'>'convert to nurbs' and then ungroup the whole thing. I then have four nurbs surfaces. I then select the shell tool and set the thickness to a small value (having trouble with larger values) and then thicken up each surface one at a time. You can then select the four "thickened" pieces and 'model'>'add solids' to create the finished washer. It looks like you just put that washer in a vise...and hammered it over. If you decide you need a thicker washer, then you can convert the whole solid to nurbs surfaces, ungroup, and then thicken up the back surfaces again, but then things become more tricky....but doable, I've created a really thick washer with the inside and outside edges radiused to soften up the look a bit. If you need to go that far, just ask. Good luck [ 06-10-2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: tom kyler ]