Jump to content

2D vs 3D Symbols question


Recommended Posts

I have created a 3D symbol and am trying to add a 2D symbol to it and am having problems getting it to behave the way I want it to.

I have built a simple 3D model of a projector but I would like to add a technical drawing for 2D views.

I was able to get the 2D plan view to work, but I was hoping to also have a different 2D front elevation and side elevation display when the corresponding views are selected. Is this possible?

Link to comment

The simplest way is to 1) create the 3d model; 2) go to top plan view and draw the 2d object(s) in the correct x/y position; 3) Select the whole mess (for me dragging the cursor around the entire group of objects seems to work best) and go to the command: Modify>Create Symbol.

When there are both 2d and 3d objects the Create Symbol command will automatically know where each goes...

Hope that helps.

Link to comment

You *might* be able to do it if the other objects are 3d objects. Often this can be done by rendering in Hidden Line mode. However you will not have the ability to use 2d Top/Plan View attributes on the side views. I'd like to see an example of what you're after. That might spur some creative ideas from forum contributors.

Link to comment

I tried creating a symbol consisting only of Layer Plane objects to see if it something like what you want could be done. It can but if you need things like Layer Plane text and dimensions as part of your object these could be problematic.

As Peter suggests though you will still need to render to see the actual hidden line view.

Link to comment

The trick is to turn the 2D elevation into 3D polys or NURBS curves.

Your question reminded me of an old symbol from a couple years ago that does something similar. This was probably done w/ 2008 - certainly before you could simply apply 2D geometry to working planes.

The front face of the symbol includes some 3D polys. This could be a method to get the results you are after.

hth

mk

Link to comment
I tried creating a symbol consisting only of Layer Plane objects to see if it something like what you want could be done. It can but if you need things like Layer Plane text and dimensions as part of your object these could be problematic.

As Peter suggests though you will still need to render to see the actual hidden line view.

Well, I also think that this is the way to do it! I also use this method if I don't have time to work full hybrid with my floor plans. I then create the model out of 2D objects in 3D planes, and then I have a 3D model and all my elevations with a nice 2D representation.

Another nice thing you can do is create a symbol out of 2D screen objects and you can set it in any 3D plane you want.

Link to comment

Hi ALL...

My 2 cents...

I have not tried it myself, but here is a possible way to work 6 different '2D' views for 1 symbol...

Granted you use the layer plane method, or 3d polys/nurbs method to create your 5 different views (+1 will be top plan which can be 2D geometry)... You can just class each view differently, and therefore have control over which '2D' side is seen in which view...

A very tedious method, but it works if you for some reason have totally different graphics for different sides... And can't be bothered to model a complex shape in 3D...

This all depends of course, on the specific project and what you are looking to achieve... As there may even be an easier way to get what you want.

Sometimes, some 3D objects in hidden line render (for elevations) have too many triangulated surfaces, and you have to play with the 'smoothing angle' settings to get a close interpretation of the view, and I could understand why one would want a clean and simple 2D (elevational) view instead. If the classing method above works, you can also have a separate class for the actual 3D component as well, to toggle for different 3D views.

Link to comment
Sometimes, some 3D objects in hidden line render (for elevations) have too many triangulated surfaces, and you have to play with the 'smoothing angle' settings to get a close interpretation of the view, and I could understand why one would want a clean and simple 2D (elevational) view instead. If the classing method above works, you can also have a separate class for the actual 3D component as well, to toggle for different 3D views.

I think it's easier to make two groups in your symbol, class them for example to 'symbol - simple' and 'symbol - complex' and then, depending on render mode and wanted complexity, you can turn on the class you want. this way, you can render in good quality the faces and render in hidden line for a smooth lining.

Link to comment

The reason I said a class for each view is so that when looking in an elevation of a side, you will not see the (vertical/horizontal) 'lines' representing the other views.

If you just use 2 groups, one for the '2D' elevational view, and the other for the 3D geometry, then you will see unwanted 'lines' when using the 'symbol-simple' class.

I'm not saying mine is the greatest idea, but it should work reasonably well once applied correctly, without many if any major issues.

Link to comment
The reason I said a class for each view is so that when looking in an elevation of a side, you will not see the (vertical/horizontal) 'lines' representing the other views.

If you just use 2 groups, one for the '2D' elevational view, and the other for the 3D geometry, then you will see unwanted 'lines' when using the 'symbol-simple' class.

I'm not saying mine is the greatest idea, but it should work reasonably well once applied correctly, without many if any major issues.

I was not reacting to the 2D elevation view, but on the fact that you have to much lines in hidden render when you have complex models. When you have this, you could set the complex model off and turn on the simple model.

Link to comment
Apologies for the mis-understanding...

But can you please elaborate on the '2 models' in your suggestion...

What would each comprise of? Will they both be 3D? Please explain...

They will both be 3D, but with other detail.

For example: a window. When you want to just show it as a window as part of a general view, then you turn on the model with low detail (like just some simple extrudes). This will speed up the renderings and show well in hidden line. When you want to show your window in close up because of a detail, you can turn on the other model which consist of more objects and extrudes along path etc for the profiling. This will require more render time and show much more lines in hidden render, but that is fine because it's for a detail.

And for use with what was asked, you can use the simpler model to generate each side view.

I hope I explained this clearly.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
You *might* be able to do it if the other objects are 3d objects. Often this can be done by rendering in Hidden Line mode. However you will not have the ability to use 2d Top/Plan View attributes on the side views. I'd like to see an example of what you're after. That might spur some creative ideas from forum contributors.

A simple example:

I design home cinemas. The cad files we get from the manufacturers of the projectors have very detailed front, rear, side, etc drawings that we like to have show up on drawing plans, RCP, room sections, interior elevations, etc. I have always just built a simple box 3D and pasted the appropriate cad linework into the other views. The problem comes as we detail the project, the projector moves in space, but the overlay cad linework doesn't always get coordinated. It seems like BIM would be the perfect tool for allowing various views of objects to be overlayed on the 3D model, then have a control to switch the object view back and forth between 3D and the various 2D choices.

Link to comment

Hi Chris, If I was in your shoes (and obviously I'm not) I'd model the projector(s) entirely in 3d, then make a simple plan view 2d representation, then make a 2d/3d hybrid symbol from both. This is not a terrible task and can actually be fun if approached with some VW's knowledge and tricks.

However I'm not sure I would need to model every single divot, button, etc. on the projector(s). I mean isn't it enough to have the basic size and shape (and location and angle)? Does the client really need a photorealistic model? Can't they just look at a real photo (from the mfr)? What I'm asking is this: can the model be accurate but not terribly detailed?

I always like to consider need versus cost/time when it comes to how detailed a model needs to be created.

Even if you decide that yes you do need a really detailed model it may pay off because you will now have a reusable symbol...

Link to comment
You *might* be able to do it if the other objects are 3d objects. Often this can be done by rendering in Hidden Line mode. However you will not have the ability to use 2d Top/Plan View attributes on the side views. I'd like to see an example of what you're after. That might spur some creative ideas from forum contributors.

A simple example:

I design home cinemas. The cad files we get from the manufacturers of the projectors have very detailed front, rear, side, etc drawings that we like to have show up on drawing plans, RCP, room sections, interior elevations, etc. I have always just built a simple box 3D and pasted the appropriate cad linework into the other views. The problem comes as we detail the project, the projector moves in space, but the overlay cad linework doesn't always get coordinated. It seems like BIM would be the perfect tool for allowing various views of objects to be overlayed on the 3D model, then have a control to switch the object view back and forth between 3D and the various 2D choices.

Another thing you can do is make the 3D model of only 2D objects on planes. This way you will have a 3D model and all the appropriated 2D views. I do this with some of our houses. Just 2D objects on different planes to make the model, and then when you view the model from front for example, it will look like just a flat 2D drawing, very nice....

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...