Modelling a Aircraft - F9F-5
 1-10  11-30  31-50  51-70  71-89

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.11 In reply to 2036.10 
It doesn't work on my curve or I can't get it to work anyway. I tried 1 this time and still got nothing. Maybe it is a bug in latest beta ?
~Kevin~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
2036.12 In reply to 2036.11 
? I have made my example with the last beta!
Can you isolate your curve because I don't see it on your file!
And post it :)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.13 In reply to 2036.12 
It that case it must be something about my curve that is different than yours.

I created a 2 new curves in a new file, joined them and filleted them ok. The problem is now that both points on the end of the fillet have the kink when dragged around. So you now have two problem points in your curve instead of one, so fillet is not the answer in the case.

I do appreciate you taking the time to help though.
~Kevin~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
2036.14 In reply to 2036.13 
So Use Function Blend for the extremities and the other curves and you will choice The angle G1 G2 G3 of Tangency
And even play with the Bulge cursor!

EDITED: 3 Oct 2008 by PILOU

Image Attachments:
Size: 29.1 KB, Downloaded: 37 times, Dimensions: 367x282px
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.15 In reply to 2036.14 
Blend works good but still has the same problem as fillet. As soon as you move the points at each end of the blend, you get a kink in your curves.
~Kevin~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
2036.16 In reply to 2036.15 
As your curve will not be alone with an extremity, as soon as it will be blend to something, this kink will be disapear ;)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  BurrMan
2036.17 In reply to 2036.16 
you can also use "add point" on either side of the corner point, then delete the corner point in the middle.

When you add point, it can be added "ON the curve" or "ON the Weight line". You want to add it to the weight line.

Also, you're getting deeper into your model before you solve your begining surface creation. If you start to jump around to fast and to much, it will get out of hand. Just a thought.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.18 In reply to 2036.2 
Hi Kevin,

> First problem. When I switch from the top view to the bottom
> view I have to hide my top view image and unhide my bottom
> image. Is there way to switch views without having to unhide
> and hide my reference images ?

If you don't have transparency you can do that by separating them slightly in depth so that they are not stacked right on top of one another, some details here:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1710.3

If they are transparent then there currently isn't any way to have them turn off automatically, but it should be possible to set up a keyboard shortcut that would toggle a particular image on or off with a single keystroke, let me know if that would be helpful.

It is on my todo list to handle reversed view images work more easily, I think that probably the best way would be to remember if an image was placed in a reversed view or not, and if there is an image placed in both the regular view and the reversed view I will skip drawing the one that is opposite from your current view. That should make it work with transparency as well.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.19 In reply to 2036.3 
Hi Kevin,

> Problem 1. Pinching of the surface behind the cockpit.

It looks like you've built the center piece trying to make single surface match a somewhat irregular outline with a sudden change in shape near the top where it flares out.

I would recommend building a more simple tubular shape and building the flare-out part as another surface with a separate construction.

It tends to get hard to control single surface constructions if you try to build them to irregular outlines and incorporate sudden shifts directly within a single surface - try to break things like this up into more component pieces rather than doing them all at once.

It's also not unusual for pieces that are built as "separate patches" to have pinching or creases where they meet up with one another. There is some previous discussion and illustration of why that happens here:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1398.18
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1398.19


Usually the easiest way to avoid that problem is to build things as larger pieces.

Again, the main idea is to build single large sheets that are as simple as possible and then trim them to make more complex outlines.

So for your case here, I would probably try to make one longer streamlined tube initially and then cut a piece out for the canopy, rather than trying to incorporate the opening for the canopy directly into your initial surfaces.



> Problem 2. Cant join the surfaces created together which I need
> to do to create a good mesh when exporting out to my
> polymodelling software.

Typically that means that they do not have edges that are close enough.

You can see this in this case if you zoom in:





Again probably the easiest way to solve this is to have a larger single simple tube as a starting piece rather than a separated patchwork.

- Michael
Attachments:

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.20 In reply to 2036.9 
Hi Kevin,

> I've created the surface from the curves and as expected
> it has warped, buckled and twisted into all sort of unsual
> shapes.
> However the nose part of the aircraft is looking pretty good so far.

Yup, as we previously discussed if you try to make cross sections go through big changes, like pull an elongated piece out from a single surface construction, it will tend to be much harder to control and generate things like that.

So I would recommend not doing that since it causes problems.

Notice how the front part is formed nicely where the cross-sections are not going through any major changes in shape? Keep that system going towards the back, focusing just on making a smooth tube shape and do not attempt to build the protruding tail fin out as part of the same single surface construction.

Instead, get a smooth body piece built first, then build that tail fin as a totally separate construction, then they can be blended or filleted together.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.21 
>you can also use "add point" on either side of the corner point, then delete the corner point in the middle.

Thanks burrman. That is the answer to the problem !

>If you don't have transparency you can do that by separating them slightly in depth so that they
>are not stacked right on top of one another, some details here:
My top and bottom blueprints are not stacked right on top of another, however I can't model stuff in MoI without using transparency as I can't see my blueprints while modelling.

>If they are transparent then there currently isn't any way to have them turn off automatically, but it should be possible to set up a keyboard shortcut that would toggle a >particular image on or off with a single keystroke, let me know if that would be helpful.
That would be very helpful, what script do I have to enter to get this to work ?

>It is on my todo list to handle reversed view images work more easily, I think that probably the best way
>would be to remember if an image was placed in a reversed view or not, and if there is an image placed
>in both the regular view and the reversed view I will skip drawing the one that is opposite from your current view.
>That should make it work with transparency as well.
That sounds great, look forward to it.

> Problem 2. Cant join the surfaces created together which I need
> to do to create a good mesh when exporting out to my
> polymodelling software.

>Typically that means that they do not have edges that are close enough.
Yes, seems to be a problem with software as that edge was used to create the new surface so why isn't it a perfect match suitable for joining ? Possibly it springs apart due to tensions in the nurbs surfaces.

>Yup, as we previously discussed if you try to make cross sections go through big changes,
>like pull an elongated piece out from a single surface construction,
>it will tend to be much harder to control and generate things like that.
To be honest I don't believe I am asking the software to go through big or radical changes in cross sectional shape but a subtle change of curvature. However it is still buckling and twisting so I'll give this model a go with just using a tube for the fuselage and add the fin, tail hook fairing underneath and cockpit as seperate surfaces and see if that works.

Thanks everyone for your input, I'll have another go at this model as suggested by Michael.
~Kevin~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.22 In reply to 2036.21 
Hi Kevin, re: background image toggle:

> That would be very helpful, what script do I have
> to enter to get this to work ?

Use this script - this script targets a specific image name, change the name that is at the front of the script inside the ' ' quotes to target a specific image.
code:
script:var imgname = 'F9F-5 Side.jpg'; var images = moi.view.getBackgroundImages(); for ( var i = 0; i < images.length; ++i ) { var img = images.item(i); if ( img.fileName.indexOf( imgname ) != -1 ) img.hidden = !img.hidden; }


If you set that up under Options / Shortcut keys, that will allow you to toggle a particular image on or off with one keystroke.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.23 In reply to 2036.21 
Hi Kevin,

> Yes, seems to be a problem with software as that edge was
> used to create the new surface so why isn't it a perfect match
> suitable for joining ? Possibly it springs apart due to tensions
> in the nurbs surfaces.

It looks like that particular edge was fine, however the one on the bottom that is supposed to touch it does not touch it. Here I deleted the surfaces and zoomed in:






When you do a Network the surface that is generated will be kind of an average of those curves, if you have a bottom piece that does not touch the side one, then the averaging action will pull the created surface away from the side.

To fix this, make sure that your initial curve network has ends that match up exactly and then the generated surfaces will also match exactly and should join together.


If your curve network has gaps in it, then the surfaces created from them will also have gaps.


Building the main fuselage as one long simple tube instead of a patchwork of pieces would probably avoid this as well though.

- Michael
Attachments:

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.24 In reply to 2036.23 
Hi Michael

Thanks for the script, that will be very useful to me and easy to change the names for each project.

Ok cheers for the explaination about making sure my curves touch exactly to avoid joining problems later on. I wasn't aware that creates problems.

Ok
I've redone the fuselage as a simple tubular revolve using the side profile of the aircraft. I've then add the tailhook fairing to the underside of the plane and the two surfaces join Ok. So far so good. I used a two rail sweep to create the fairing underneath the aircraft and then the scaling rail.

Everytime I use the scaling rail I get a little tear in my nurbs surface just near the end. Is this a display error or likely to cause meshing problems later on ? (see attached image).
edit: Just did a check the tear does create meshing problems. I'm pretty certain the scaling rail has a bug as my curves all look good.

EDITED: 3 Oct 2008 by KEVJON

Image Attachments:
Size: 47.7 KB, Downloaded: 46 times, Dimensions: 407x640px
Size: 41.6 KB, Downloaded: 40 times, Dimensions: 500x388px
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  BurrMan
2036.25 In reply to 2036.24 
Sometimes it may help to see other surfacing models. Here's a link to a good 3dm of a nice car creation. You can download and evaluate it.

http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1408.1
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.26 In reply to 2036.25 
Thanks Burrman

I've now downloaded Mercedes and I'll have a good study of it, there may well be things in it that will help me on my project.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.27 In reply to 2036.21 
Hi Kevin,

> To be honest I don't believe I am asking the software
> to go through big or radical changes in cross sectional
> shape but a subtle change of curvature. However it is
> still buckling and twisting

Yes I've noticed that you expect for this to work, but from the standpoint of the mechanisms involved that would be considered a big change.

Maybe "radical change" is not the right word for me to use to describe the problem - really the underlying problem is when you look at a shape and use your human intelligence to match different features of it together, the surfacing mechanisms just do not have the same matching intelligence built into them so they are giving you results that you do not expect.

Take these shapes for example:



Then consider these different regions on the curves:




You're expecting for the green region on the left to match to the green region on the right profile, and the blue region on the left to match to the blue region on the right.

You'd like for the blue part to kind of stay nailed down and only the green part to sort of stretch up.

The surfacing methods just do not have this sort of subtle pattern matching between changing parts and automatically knowing which pieces to nail down and which to stretch. Instead they will just average the shapes together more evenly which will tend to produce results like you're seeing.

You can't rely on the surfacing tools to do this kind of "sub region of single curve" pattern matching between changing things for you, you have to break things into separate constructions so that you more directly control the matching. That's why the fin needs to be done as a separate piece.

Does that help to explain it a bit more?


Really your project here is not something that I would call a slam dunk to do with NURBS instead of polygons. With NURBS modeling you definitely have to break things down into components and it can be difficult to identify the components in something that has a totally smooth skin at the end.

Wanting to have an output of a totally smooth blended skin is starting to get quite similar to construction of organic shapes like a face for example, it is moving towards an area where polygon/sub-d type techniques can be easier to work with.

Similar to a car, it is kind of a somewhat gray area that I would not term is automatically easier to do in NURBS. To do it with NURBS will involve using much more of the "low level" and advanced NURBS toolset of creating all custom formed surfaces, trimming, blending, working a lot at a surface level instead of a solid level. The things that go really really much more quickly with NURBS than polygons is when you're leveraging all the solid modeling type tools which is not really the case here.

At any rate, in this case and in the case of doing a car, the strategic approach is very important, some strategies like trying to build things incorporating more than one "feature" all at once is not likely to work very well, it is too hard to control that.

I can understand that it would be cool to just draw a few cross-sections through the whole plane including several features (such as fuselage and fin both) and then just do a loft or sweep and have a perfectly formed result spit out automatically... Unfortunately things do not work that way, the sort of "artifical intelligence" pattern matching is just not in there to make that happen. You've got to break things down into components, and recognizing the components is a big part of the strategy that is needed to make this kind of model work right.

It is definitely a difficult model to work with, it is not something that I expect is going to be a really easy and quick thing to do, although once you get a workable strategy planned out it can get a lot easier...

For things that fall more directly into the solid modeling path like more mechanical parts, stuff that may have edges in it instead of a totally unbroken smooth skin, those are the kinds of things that are much easier to do with a NURBS toolset, this does not really fall into that area though.

- Michael
Attachments:

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
2036.28 In reply to 2036.24 
Hi Kevin,

> Everytime I use the scaling rail I get a little tear in my
> nurbs surface just near the end. Is this a display error or
> likely to cause meshing problems later on ? (see attached image).

That looks like the kind of dropoff that can happen if the scaling rail did not traverse the entire length of the sweep, it basically can abruptly stop influencing the scale at that spot.

Here's an example with a one-rail sweep. Here is a one rail sweep with the scaling rail off to the side:




When the scaling rail is applied, the profiles will scale out away from their normal plane until they hit that scaling rail:




If the profile is not able to find any intersection with the scaling rail, it will just stay its normal size, which may cause an abrupt change in shaping.

Since the scaling rail is applied in this manner, it is not a bad idea to extend it a ways past the start and end of the sweep so that you know the entire zone of the sweep is totally covered with it.

If that is not what the problem was, I will probably need to look at the .3dm model file to see what is happening.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  kevjon
2036.29 In reply to 2036.28 
Ok thanks, I'll double check that there is not some miniscule distance between my scaling rail and curves which is causing the problem. I've had it happen quite a bit while modelling so I need to spend more time checking those osnaps snapped to where I wanted them to.
~Kevin~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Brian (BWTR)
2036.30 In reply to 2036.29 
Just an observation.
Much of this seems to have been covered in a forum thread back in January.

Has anyone been making reference to that thread?

Brian
(One of the images I posted on that thread)

EDITED: 30 Dec 2008 by BWTR

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged
 

Reply to All Reply to All

 

 
Show messages:  1-10  11-30  31-50  51-70  71-89