jldaureil

Hello everyone I am working on an object with which I encounter some difficulties for the display It is a perforated metal plate. I create the perforation from an image with a specific software. This software generates a .dxf which consists only of circles (smooth) I import the .dxf into 6.7.3 formZ then extrusion circles and boolean difference with the plate. The principle is simple but on my old machine is already a little long. Once obtained the object (smooth) I also do a facetted version. (without triangulation) FormZ 673 displays well both objects in wireframe (it is very fluid in openGL and much less in native) By cons I do not display the surface in interactive shaded for the faceted and the program tells me that I do not have enough memory to display the smooth ... On FZ 8 I display the shaded work of the faceted version. (not the smooth version) Render Zone rendering is slow on FZ 673 Can someone explain to me why I have so much trouble with an object (quite heavy) but no more than other files I'm working on? What strikes me is that when the complexity is distributed in a large number of objects it is much more fluid whereas a single complex object (from the topological point of view) is much more difficult. Do you have the same difficulties on FormZ 8.6 with a recent powerful machine? I thank you in advance someone has time to open the file to tell me ... Jean-Luc PS I am changing the design ... I manage to make a rendering that I can then use as a transparency map to visualize the result PLAQUE Bison.zip

Thank you Christopher Ok not sure to understand you about "shaded" Shaded render in Z6.7.3 does not support the rendering of the environment I guess you're talking about interactive shade (OGL) in version 8 And yes a reflexive object logically reproduces the defect (looking from +x axe by default) I confirm under Z6.7.3 at least

Hello everyone I work with Formz 6.7.3 and I noticed a problem with a map hdri used as environment light, environment and background. The problem is a deformation at the join (spherical mapping) (on the + x axis by default of set limits) visible when rendering the background. I thought it came from the formz version So I tested the same thing with formz 8 But the result is the same. See the attached image The image comes from the following site which is really great: https://hdrihaven.com/hdris/ Do you reproduce the problem? Do you have any idea where this may come from? Did I make a setting error somewhere? Can you tell me the address of an image for which the problem does not arise? This is the manual page that corresponds to what I'm doing http://www.formz.com/manuals/renderzonerendering/!SSL!/WebHelp/formz7.php

? Thank you very much !

Hi Hans That's exactly what I look these tow last days. Fortunately the partner who works with TEKLA structure (Trimble) can export in .skp a very clean geometry when I get it back in FormZ By cons formz does not give the impression of wanting to take the turn of the BIM ... It becomes penalizing in my case In my activity I delayed the adoption of a BIM platform but I will have to make a decision So I looked very closely at the RHINO + VisualARQ + Grasshopper solution This is particularly interesting.

Hello I would have liked to know if there is a way to import a .ifc file into FZ For example, does anyone know of a solution to convert an .ifc to another format (IE .sat) and then enter it in FZ? jl

Simple question what are the latest version imported in FZ6.7.3 and in FZ 8 Tnks JL manual online doen't indicate versions http://www.formz.com/manuals/formZ85/formZ_Pro/!SSL!/WebHelp/formzpro.php

Hi I've created a simple file to isolate that question as you can see faceted objects converted from the smooth nubz loft presents irregularities (pink circles) (to be compared to the clean faceted version constructed with c-mesh (under Z673)) I do not understand exactly why this occurs... Ztech, can we have an technical explanation ? TEST smooth.fmz

good This is the way I followed .. I derived all the faces and then I started to rebuild progressively by rotating the "non-aligned" faces BUT for a reason that I do not understand happened to the face on the following image, firstly the derivative face do not produce facets (with 22.5° angle for max normal angle I get 48 segments than 24) like the others and secondly when I want to rebuild it (nurbz degree 1 in V) facets ares in slight rotation. If I want to be clearer: I use two sources that are perfectly aligned (circles 24 segments at 22.5° for Max Normal Angle) When I perform the tight loft the facets are lightly turned on the resulting nurbz I still have 24 segments (the first segment perfectly at 90 °on the word grid) but each angle that I can verify by converting the object varies slightly (around 15 °but not exactly 15°) (always with 22.5° for Max normal angle in my exemple) This curious phenomenon explains why while these geometries are very regular one obtains faces not aligned in direction V (longitude) and thus these series of triangles between the stitched surfaces ... it's recurrent with parametric geometry in FZ but that's also why converted faceted objects are never as clean as if they were built directly faceted. Finally, in Z8 if we convert without triangle on fringe scheme, we obtain shifted grids (which will probably have to be triangulated) I have the impression that I am confronted here with a fundamental limit of the facet creation algorithm. (Which explains why the scheme with triangle one fringe is selected by default)

I derive 3 versions faceted (3 resolutions) from a complex smooth object (initial modeling in solidworks) (Import in formz gives solid smooth) The main object is a circular dome. I wanted to do that in Z8 to get a mesh without a triangle. But I do not understand exactly how the mesh algorithm works Here is a synoptic of the parameters used Z6.7.3 = Max Normal deviation (point density and facets) When I open the file in Z8 The software creates as many faceting schemes as I have variants perfect ! It converts the parameter Max Normal deviation to normal angle tolerance Z6.7.3 = Max Normal deviation (point density and facets) Z8 = Normal angle tolerance (Surface tolerance and Edge tolerance) Under Z6 Max Normal deviation is perfectly predictable for example 15 ° exactly produces a circle of 24 faces (logic 360/15 = 24) By cons Z8 for Normal angle tolerance at 15 ° I get 36 segments For 10 ° I have 54 segment instead of 36 under Z6 Do you know why ? Thanks JL File Lien du téléchargement https://we.tl/t-uEtul5a4bi

Hello vva MAGNIFICENT ! (your work...) because actually the file is not clean ... I'm going to clean all that. THANK YOU !

Hello everyone I am confronted to an IGES file which saturates my memory of my machine at the opening at the time of the construction of surfaces. The file is 143 MB uncompressed heavy ... I'm not sure why until I open it ... Would there be a charitable soul who would find time to open it with a powerful machine? (in any case more than mine) ... I can only offer my eternal gratitude in exchange and entrust the model to Anton later ... JL Lien du téléchargement https://we.tl/t-ULwslvPYNq 1 fichier SKYLOOP.zip

hi Brian What do you design to use software as different as VectorWork and Shark Pro / Ansys Spaceclaim? I have not made a decision but I will look closely VectorWorks in the coming weeks. Your offer could appeal to me ... On the other hand no chance that I go towards Shark ...

thank you R2D2 I pursue different goals. Regarding the retopologie, I look at the tools at my disposal when I work on complex objects that I use as symbols. Typically these are cars. I made a Nissan that I use on current projects. Currently I am in the process of cleaning a Ferrari 812 superfast file as part of the construction of a garage for a customer who owns (among other things) the car. (for the time being, really a super car) I recovered a file skp (3d wharehouse) not badly drawn but as often with a topology not terrible. It is certain that it is not vectorworks that can be useful in this field ... On the other hand, it is the layout of Formz 8 that does not correspond to my current workflow and the disappearance of the draft and its layout (if I summarize: layout only in hidden line, no rendering hybrid raster / vector, disappearance of the scale view + difficult to draw in 2d before / after modeling with possibilities equivalent to draft Z673 a kind of autocad light ... I will begin a dedicated discussion) All my problem is to know if Formz 8 will evolve to find the possibilities I have in Z673 in this area (without necessarily put in place the Z673 draft ...) (it can go through an evolved version of the layout 8 but the work seems huge to compete with solutions like VectorWorks and others) I'm looking either to replace the draft FZ673 by an alternative draft such as Drafsight (Dassault System) that I have already used and which corresponds to Autocad Lt (There is no question that I use Autodesk software, I spend here on the reasons but I can explain if necessary). It will replace the draft FZ673 without providing a real evolution. Either I turn to a solution BIM Archicad (or rather Vectorworks more economical.) The investment is not the same and it is a bit complicated for me because I mainly make new houses or renovation projects (small sizes though) but several simultaneously at different stages and different nature. I do not necessarily need a software capable of managing very big projects and therefore complex to learn and use .. I do not intend to change the 3D modeler a priori. So if I summarize, either the Z9 layout becomes a real production tool (that of sketchup is a good example of the way forward?) or Autodessys finds an organization with a third-party publisher, or we must each find (tinker) the solution that suits him best (a bit like you with vectorWorks ... Today it is clear that among all the polarities that exist in the world of 3D Autodessys seems to have been strongly influenced by the sketchup star ... One might even think that if Formz could once be perceived as Rhino's eldest one (newbie) could now almost say that he represents a kind of Sketchup clone. When we know his history, we can regret that he did not find a way to keep his unique originality. Yet other lights shine in the sky, big 3D platforms like Maya and others (RIP Softimage), the software for sculptures (Zbrush, 3dcoat ...) and all the software of industrial CAD (solidworks, catia ...) What attracted me at the very beginning (3.5 for me) was precisely that Formz was a little at the border that these galaxies: draw precisely with ease, manage many geometries and very varied, combining almost all geometric classes available (primitive, mesh, curves and math surfaces: nurbs patch (today named sub-d) metaballs etc etc .. capable of mastering situations as different as architecture design organic modeling ... and even a little autocad in bonus ... The strength of Formz has always been its variety, perhaps it was also a little weakness: difficult to deepen each area and at the same time modernize the code to evolve. I do not dispute the quality of work done for simplicity and ergonomics but I regret that this was done at the expense of the depth of options of tools and software in general ... To integrate Vray is undoubtedly also an excellent proposition that some have asked here a decent ... I'm sure many of you find this great, and you're right but it remains that Formz already had a very high level rendering engine. For my part I can not thank Ben Dean enough for giving us the Maxwell Gateway which remains a fabulous rendering engine whose results compete without shame with those of Vray. What reassures me is that the code Formz is modern today and that I suppose all our grievances are technically feasible. To conclude, let's think about what happened at Newtek. A break was created between the leaders of NewTek, creators of LightWave, and the main programmers of LightWave 3D about a complete rewrite of Workflow and code LightWave 3D. A break that led NewTek Vice President of 3D Development, Brad Peebler, to leave NewTek and form a new company called Luxology. He was joined by Allan Hastings and Stuart Ferguson, main developers of LightWave, then by most of the LightWave programming team. They created Modo. Evolving in the continuity is the challenge for Autodessys

Hi Allan So these are the first preferences and maybe the second windows platform. It is necessary that the people who have problems of stability do first the test without preference (and personally in phase test on Z6 I do not have an active preference) Then it would be interesting to know if all windows versions are impacted in the same way ... Not easy because you do not run multiple WIndows on one machine. This assumes to have a heterogeneous park ...