Jump to content
AutoDesSys Forums

¢hris £und

Moderators
  • Content count

    1,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Everything posted by ¢hris £und

  1. ¢hris £und

    Is FormZ working on M1 Macs?

    Imagix, Tech made a post recently where they mentioned that they are working on squashing some bugs related to the OS Big Sur version. Beyond that, fZ appears to be working through Rosetta2. Big Sur has made a number of under the hood changes where undoubtedly some of those will conflict with previous code. Once those are squashed, Look to Rosetta2 first. If you are looking for a native version, prior to that post, they did note that they could compile their code over with little issues, many of the components that they rely on have not been compiled over. Without these components, there is little sense. Think ACIS. The engine that is used for smooth modeling. Or, the Rendering engine LightWorks (though, I personally doubt this one will ever be ported for reasons outside of ADS' control.) Off the top of my head, I can't think of others, but as with most development these days, there are multiple dependencies. All or most of those dependencies will need to be compiled over too. How long that will take, it is anybody's guess. That being said, these bare-bones base models appear to be pretty damn impressive. While I do think there is a bit of hyperbole both with Apples marketing and with pundits, if one takes into account the market segment they belong in, they are impressive. One can hope that this is enough to shake those dependency devs into action if they consider what is potentially coming down the pipeline. ¢£
  2. ¢hris £und

    FormZ Free and QuickStart Tutorial 2…

    Bernd, I understand! I stuck with 6.7 until 8.5 came out. At that point, I pretty much made the transition. I still miss a few things from the old days (notably the C-Mesh.) Though some bugs still need to be ironed out, the current versions are better once you get used to them. And, yes, it takes a bit to make that transition. I am not sure why they consider an oval to be only in the Pro version (maybe in Jr?). but that would make that tutorial completely sensible. Agreed, controlled rounding would also be nice. Definitely check out the tips and tricks page if you haven't already. http://www.formz.com/fzsite1219/manuals/TnT/index.htm#t=Front_Page.htm And Pay attention to how it handles guides... This tripped me up for a while. http://www.formz.com/fzsite1219/manuals/TnT/index.htm#t=Add_temporary_guides_while_drawing.htm&rhsearch=guides&ux=search Cheers! ¢£
  3. ¢hris £und

    FormZ Free and QuickStart Tutorial 2…

    Bernd, Ah! Apologies for not actually looking at the tutorials to understand. By looking at the images you posted, are you selecting the face and then scaling it? When I try that, it messes up totally. I was able to do it by i-scaling circles and using snaps. Couple of things to note, however. I didn't follow the steps of the tutorial. The tutorial should be re-written for the free versions. Also, I have to set the snap options so that "Give guide snaps priority" is turned off. When it is on, I get more of a random placement when I try to snap to the nodes of the structure. With this in mind, draw your circles (without the insert option) Distort them as you wish. Then make sure the new oval is sitting on the surface of the structure. If the free version has the "imprint tool" go ahead and imprint it. The free version may not have the imprint tool. You have to get a bit more old fashioned with it and use some of the boolean tools. Support also gave me a pointer of setting my snap tolerance to a larger value (20 instead of 10) which helps with what I thought was a bug. The numerical accuracy also needs to be fine in comparison to the scale of the objects you are dealing with as well. As that can perversely affect what you are attempting to do. ¢£
  4. ¢hris £und

    FormZ Free and QuickStart Tutorial 2…

    Bernd, Update 4: There really isn't a bug. My snap tolerance was set too small. Too, my project numerical accuracy was set to a crude value relative to the size of the object I was working with. ¢£ Regard the below notes as null and void. There appears to be a bug with the interval snap. When selecting to define the center of the scale is a part of the object to be scaled and selecting the starting point is also on the object. (snap options interval should be set to 4) The interval snap will work when one of those two is snapping to something else. Oddly, drawing a "tool" to those intervals works just fine too. So, you can draw your snapping tool first, then operate as you think you should. Though, admittedly, this a bit mickey mouse, especially since you are having to jump through hoops in the first place. Update: it appears to be an issue on circles and ovals. the snapping/i-scale tool works as expected when working with a square, rectangle, arc etc... Update2: You can use the starting point to initiate the i-Scale. the intervals will work then. Update3: it does work to use the center of the circle and its starting point.
  5. ¢hris £und

    Non-destructive workflow

    AC1K, Santa, I don't know at this time. What I can say thus far is that the Python SDK is still in the works. Though, the last time I looked, more of the documentation was more filled out. Which is good. Not sure if the Python SDK is capable of it or if it would require the C SDK. I haven't programmed in C for many years, and do not know how far I would get back into it. There are many smarter people here than I. Since fZ isn't a non-destructive modeler it would probably be challenging. One could probably make it so that it was editable for the duration similar to other tools. I do not think the python SDK has any kind of interface to things like modifier handles etc... Haven't seen anything like that yet and the old FSL didn't have that capability. Regarding something similar to Grasshopper, there was mention of it some time ago by Tech. Not sure if that has changed or not. If it is still in the plans, I imagine that it will have to wait until the Python SDK is essentially complete. As I presume, it will create python code (not necessarily though.) ¢£
  6. ¢hris £und

    Brighter Shaded Work display

    Drop some channel values for the White/Grey you have. My display does not look nearly so dark. ¢£
  7. ¢hris £und

    facetted arc segments

    I think they merely genericized it by making a tool. Since this tool also takes care of other use cases. Remember the day when we had to manually do this with Bo Atkinson's BoA Constrictor method? ¢£
  8. ¢hris £und

    Mac OS BigSUR With Issues, Render Zone Not Working

    Tech, Thank you for the update! ¢£
  9. ¢hris £und

    Mac OS BigSUR With Issues, Render Zone Not Working

    Des, I am pretty sure I did not get anything special. I was actually on fZ 9.051, The App noted that 9.053 was available, but the Web Page is showing 9.06. At this point, since the web page version was dropped less than 24 hours of my original post, I have to assume that the software check database is independent of said webpage/link. I suspect, something didn't get updated. What or where, I do not know.
  10. ¢hris £und

    Importing 3rd party models

    Justin, If you happen to have a DWG that fZ slows down a lot on. Could you send it to me? I'd be curious to see what is going on and if there would be a work around. ¢£
  11. ¢hris £und

    Mac OS BigSUR With Issues, Render Zone Not Working

    If you goto the "help" menu in fZ then drag to "check for update". It will give you the link.
  12. ¢hris £und

    Mac OS BigSUR With Issues, Render Zone Not Working

    fZ 9.06 dropped yesterday. fZ noted that it was 9.053 (the one computer was on 9.051) but the download page notes that it is 9.06
  13. ¢hris £und

    Polymesh Problem...

    Douglas, Ok, using your construction method, I am seeing the same results. Of which, the seams appear to have no effect. Doesn't make sense to me either. If these are the types of shapes you are looking for, I think I would use the Revolve/Faceted tool do directly derive your shapes with the poly count you want. Translating from smooth to faceted seems like extra unnecessary steps. If on the other hand, you are only showing these shapes as a "dumbed down" example of what you are really trying to do. Not sure what to tell you without seeing the specifics. You may want to email tech support directly on this, as it does appear to be odd behavior. And the forums are kind of unmonitored these days. ¢£
  14. ¢hris £und

    Polymesh Problem...

    Douglas, The only thing I can think of is that the algorithm that is doing this goes face by face and doesn't consider the adjacent faces. Firstly, how did you create the original objects? Revolve? When the "No Grid on Planar Faces" is turned off, I note that there is a point forced where the seam of the revolve is. If I turn that option on, it goes away. Second, try upping the angle tolerance to the point where it breaks to the next value. for example, 5 faces around can be as high as 124. One thing to note, using the revolve, the "No Grid on Planar Faces" probably had the most effect. but weird thing, my aberrant points prior to selecting this option are not in the same place. This is Why I ask how you derived the original shape. ¢£
  15. ¢hris £und

    manual project backup trigger via hotkey

    You should be able to use the key shortcuts to "Save" and "Save a Copy as". Or am I misinterpreting your request? ¢£
  16. Quick update, found the related page. But they do mention it is no longer supported on the ipad. http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/TreeSketch.SBM2012.html
  17. Here is what I dug up for this... doesn't look to be for iPad any longer. Or at least, I don't see any mention of it. http://algorithmicbotany.org ¢£
  18. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    Doh! Sorry for the misinterpretation! Yes, I agree with the last sentiment! Too, it has to do a lot with familiarity. Some people are extremely capable and efficient with hard-side modeling in Modo because they never knew better. And they will always beat somebody like me simply because I already knew formZ by 10 years roughly by the time I attempted Modo. Regardless, they are both great tools. I just think each leans heavily in the direction they want to. And justifyingly so. ¢£
  19. ¢hris £und

    Forum User Numbers ?

    CJ, not sure about the numbers, but yes you can message other users'. If you go into the users' profile, you can message them from there. ¢£
  20. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    Alan, I still don't think that there would be anything to be disappointed about. To do hard-side modeling in Modo really takes a lot of extra effort. And even then, is only for visualization. Can't really create tool paths with its output. from formZ, you can. On the other hand, as mentioned above, its visualization capabilities are gorgeous! ¢£
  21. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    SJD. I suppose it depends on the intent of modeling. For me, my intent is for the purpose of manufacturing and or construction. While I have done numerous hard-side models in Modo, I think formZ is far faster and efficient to do so. You always have to deliberately put in extra geometry to keep things flat. My preferred methods of modeling are SDS and NURBS. Modo definitely is better for SDS but doesn't even attempt NURBS. If I want to do a Character these days, I will undoubtedly use Modo. Though, I have done plenty of character modeling in formZ as well. If I want something more precise, fZ All the way! Sometimes I use a mix. I will Rough a shape out in Modo, then bring it into fZ and convert to NURBS for that manufacturability. While it is true that Modo is capable enough for 3D printing, it isn't capable enough for other CNC type construction. Visually, the SDS smoothing algorithm is phenomenal. but for any kind of output, including 3D printing, it is reduced to a polymesh. Not unlike a poly-DXF. Another aspect is, with formZ, it has a ways to go to catch up to Modo in terms of SDS and native rendering/surfacing and overall visualization. It remains that it has the capability to do so. I think it would be much harder for Modo to attain the manufacturability of formZ. If on the other hand, your intent is merely and solely for visualization, yea, Modo is hard to beat. Oh, and its interface is pretty great too. ¢£
  22. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    I too use Modo, and have been doing so for about 15 years, maybe a little less. For certain things, it does a better job than fZ. However, I think fZ outshines it in most modeling tasks. I do love it's surfacing and rendering capabilities, however... Wow! ¢£
  23. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    I am not necessarily opposed to using it. I do agree that a good video or videos that cover it would go a long way. I may even find that I have full use of it. Though, as Alan above noted, I don't produce 2D drawings so much any longer. Should videos come out for it, I will watch them with interest to see if it would be of value. For the little that I have poked around in it, at this time I don't see the need. Fully expecting that I am missing something. I still wonder though about what their intent for it is and to see if that matches those users who want to use it. As there does seem to be some disconnect. It may be too, with a good set of videos that the intent gels with those users too. But, I honestly don't know. Even though I don't use it, I fully understand the need for those who do or want to. I also haven't explored fZ-Free or Jr. I know from the top that there are features of Pro that I would very much struggle without. In my past, I was a flat pattern designer (there I would build construction documents) and even to this day, I don't think I could manage without the unfold tool. Though I still desire improvements on it. I do occasionally get models from SU users, and like 3DS Max, I have a hard time understanding how much the models suck. I don't necessarily think that the apps are not capable of precision work, I just suspect that the workflow doesn't encourage it. Which drives me nuts! in fZ, it is easy and fluid to do precision work. (albeit, I do think some of the snaping can use some more work, I suspect there needs to be an order of operations hierarchy or something) For me, scripting is still the #1 desire. The full API is coming, and I am looking forward to going beyond the little teasers I have posted. I am not sure if Free or Jr. allows scripting. If it does, I presume that they would be limited to their toolsets too. ¢£
  24. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    One thing to consider, most if not all of Mathew's videos are relevant. There have been some changes and additions since then. Most of which I feel are obvious as to how they work. I will admit, however, that I would like to see an in-depth set of videos on the Draft/Layout App. One thing I wonder about it is if ADS' intent for it is a bit different than the user's expectations. Admittedly, I don't use it at all. For, when I want to dimension, the main app does what I need. That aside, I fully understand other users' needs are different than mine. Out of curiosity, however, I would like a full treatment of videos just to see if it would be useful for me. Later this fall, when my time opens up for me again, I am willing to put in the time to help other users and ADS out with what I know. Admittedly, though I have used the software now for about 25 years, I don't know it all. There are tools I have never touched, and more I touch very sparingly. My modeling skills are strong, however, in certain areas. Maybe I will even improve my presentation skills. ¢£
  25. ¢hris £und

    what's new webinar

    That about sums it up for me. I can do the editing when I put my mind to it... but my presence downright sucks, if it wasn't obvious by the Coke bottle vids I attempted. When things slow down for me, I do still intend on putting out some fZ/Python tutes... though. ¢£
×