Jump to content
AutoDesSys Forums

bmeissner

Members
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by bmeissner


  1. Des,  Yea, it was back from when I was trying to do the same thing with Zdepot.   I still have everybody's models that were submitted then,

     

    Not sure if I can put them up without permission.  

    Here is the list of people that contributed back then.

     

    Bart Hays, Dan Manoim, Stefan Dewachter, Gary Moad, Justin Werner, Roger Rios, Bern Meissner, Chris Lawes, Bo Atkinson, Guy Manley, Maher Sami and Jamie Radford.

    If any of you guys give the go ahead, I will submit your models with credit to you.

     

    Anton,  if your wondering,  I ran out of time to be able to keep up with it.

     

    Cheers!

     

    ¢£

     

    Hi Chris,

    please feel free to upload my models. They were meant for sharing back then, and this has not changed. I've just looked the folder up… that was in 2004. These models are now considered "vintage" ;)

     

    Bernd


  2. Bernd, 

     

    This may not be a good or possible workaround for you, but have you tried using Windows/32 bit?

     

    No, I haven't, and I don't have a single 32-bit Windows installation in my whole office. I'm primarily working on Mac, and have a few Win 7/64 Pro systems running either via Bootcamp (for CAD) or Paralles (for some DTP and Office apps). However, since FormZ in its latest incarnations still doesn't export hierarchically structured STEP files (independent from OS or working units) it doesn't matter that much. It just confirms that using 6.7.3 still makes sense, it isn't as "outdated" as it sounds. Yes, this version is getting older, but so am I and my computers ;)

     

    Bernd


  3. My hope always has been a STEP export which keeps hierarchy information intact, I've already asked for that ever since STEP support has been introduced in FormZ with version 4 or so. It's an industry standard for exchanging smooth (analytic) geometry, including hierarchy and object names. The format supports it, FormZ still doesn't, at least 12 years after introducing STEP.

     

    In my case this would entirely solve my problems with exchanging data with other applications (IronCAD, Polytrans, etc.). I'm still one of those "dinosaurs" modeling in FZ and rendering in EIAS, however, initially good geometry export to EIAS has been pretty much unusable for years. Currently I'm going the route via either STEP through SharkFX to FACT (loses hierarchy, but Shark doesn't support that anyway) or STEP through Polytrans to FACT, which would work perfectly if the hierarchy would be written into STEP files. It isn't, and STEP (and SAT) export is pretty much broken in 8.5 anyway. So I'm still using 6.7.2 for most of the work…

     

    Bernd


  4. Hi,

     

    two years later, and the STEP exporter is still broken. Just upgraded to 8.5, first test should be if FormZ finally exports to STEP with group hierarchy intact, and – bummer – it exports nothing. After searching the forum this thread came up, and the problem seems worse now.

     

    1. Yes, I've set units to millimeters, and my objects are all within 150 mm from the origin. Result: no STEP file is exported. Setting the working units to meters (with objects that small!) creates a STEP file. Still without groups, of course.

     

    2. The export options dialog has "facetted" as the only selectable option. Who on this world would even consider using STEP (and SAT) for *facetted" exports? If I recall correctly, I've reported this bug already with version 7, years ago. The exported geometry is smooth, though.

     

     

    Not exactly a successful first test of the new version… :(

     

    post-66-0-33867300-1506012979_thumb.png post-66-0-62253800-1506012980_thumb.png

     

    Bernd


  5. Andrew,

     

    I'm well aware of a target group of people (and you belong to it) who really need to stay current with the feature set, supporting web 2.0 to 4.97 [mobile/facebook bio interface]. The cloud is made for you ;)

     

    I'm representing a different, maybe (in the long run) dying group. Our products still are PDFs mostly done in printable layouts (I'm writing user's manuals). I have customers who have QM systems prescribing certain versions of software, in order to guarantee working print output etc. Regarding such tasks, an example for a useful (!) upgrade making me happily pay for it would be a working cross reference technology. Well, InDesign still doesn't have such a thing, I'm using 3rd party plugins for that. So what of the typical CS toolset Illustrator/Photoshop/Indesign/Acrobat came after CS4 that I might want? They even KILLED content (Acrobat 3D anybody?) I was happy to have!

     

    So… no subscription for me, paying things I don't want.

     

    Bernd


  6. As soon as Adobe announced CC I invested in the product and the stock. 

     

    Don't like cloud?

     

    Please, fax me the reasons....   ;)

     

    No need to convince you of anything, I just have a different opinion. Investing in the stock most likely was a good idea, since any subscription model is made especially for business and shareholders, not the users.

     

    I'd support or accept any voluntary subscription model that means "upgrades as long as you pay". I just won't do that for a subscription model that means "your software and font licenses expire as soon as you cancel subscription". On that day my cool and flashy Muse made website will appear in Times Roman, because my Typekit license is revoked. Sh## happens… ;)

     

    Bernd


  7. What, you don't think reliance on an internet connection, someone else's storage, and a fee based service is the way to go?

     

     

    Your picture of the drug addict pretty much nails it. I've "frozen" the status on most of the computers here in the office, ALL of them running permanent licenses of the Adobe CreativeSuite and other software. I've been self employed for about 22 years now, starting as a one-man show, running a small business with several employees now. I know and have experienced that there can be periods where running monthly costs can almost "break your neck". Under normal circumstances, this means no money and more work for a certain duration. But if this happens with a software subscription model, they'll take your tools after the first unpaid month. Means: bankrupt within four weeks, because you can't work any longer. There is NO WAY I will ever depend on such a model. Most people today underestimate the costs and the risk.

     

    Oh, and regarding the Creative Suite: they've stopped adding features I need with CS4. However, I do have boxed permanent licenses up to CS6. I can live with that for a couple of years :)

     

    Bernd


  8. Hi Bernd,

     

    Bezier Import is supported via Illustrator format, but Exporting is not.  However, if you Export DWG, you can then open that in Illustrator and maintain Bezier curves...

     

     

    So this is still the same status as with v7. My tests with DWG were only partially successful. Guys… you're SOOO close to vector export as it should be, time to go the last few meters, isn't it?

     

    I'm currently quite happy with v7 hidden line renderings, less flaws and rendering errors than in v6, and the option to have two different line weights for interior and silhouette lines is also fine and long desired (directly from the modeling window, not from Layout, though). But then the bezier curves remain stuck (more or less) in FZ. DWG is a crutch, not a solution, only working in a few cases, and creating lots of weird shapes sometimes. I really want that bezier export feature. Since 1996. Just in case I missed to let you know ;-)

     

    Bernd

     

     


  9.  

    Bernd, 

     

    I don't care if it says Newbie above your name, you are still a Senior Member in our book...

     

     

     

    I know that you know. However, preserving and restoring old things (guitars that is) is my hobby, so this old name plate just nicely fits me. Will get replaced one day for sure :)

     

    Bernd


  10. There are several ways to do it. Object doctor can do it, if the maximum number of points isn't below the number of points needed to fill that gap. It might also be a problem when the newly created face is (or would be) not planar. Other methods: if there's a defined outline, select this to derive a face, which you can stitch to the object. Or you can draw such a face using a point snap. I'm sure there are still more ways…

×