3ds Max :: Distortion When Rotating Linked Geometry?
Oct 4, 2012
I have a robot model, and because he is a robot, he has a simple FK link structure. All the fk links work fine, except the wrists. when i rotate the wrists i get a skewing of the geometry of all the children below the wrist, and in the rotation gizmo on screen.
the are no link constraints in the hierarchy panel, and it is definately something to do with the fk link because if i unlink the wrist from the forearm it rotates normally.
the children rotate normally indepant of the wrist collectively and individually
I'm having a real issue with Revit that I can't get my head around or find documentation on.
I have a model setup and linked a DWG file. The DWG is a topo survey drawn in real co-ordinates. The DWG is linked center to center then then I moved and rotated it to suit the orientation of my new building in Project North. See image 01.
I've then aquaired the co-ordinates from the DWG.
I've change to True North and rotated the view. See image 02
All seems to be OK. If I detach and re-attach this DWG using the shared co-ordinated it ends up in the correct place so I've started work on my model.
However, I've noticed that when I close and re-open my model or force ther DWG to reload it shifts position and rotates so I have to detach and reattach. See image 03
Is there a way to rotate the plane you're working on on the fly? I have (what is supposed to be) a 2d floor plan with multiple elements that have non-zero z values, a lot of which apparently cannot be exploded, or sliced (after turning them to surfaces), or anything else. I tried to simply "stretch" the non-zero z vertices down/up to the xy plane and the whole object moves up or down instead. (I'm also using a LISP routine by Lee Mac to do the actual flattening after the fact).
So, what I want to do is simply draw in the 2d geometry necessary to project the object onto the xy plane, and then delete the extraneous 3d lines/objects. However, I'm working on an isometric view (to make sure I'm drawing them in at z = 0), and AutoCAD apparently thinks I want to draw "walls" (yz plane) instead of "floors" (xy plane), if that makes any sense.
Is there some button I can press to change the working plane on the fly? Why AutoCAD wouldn't have this sort of functionality when a much simpler program such as Visual can do it (just by hitting TAB you can swap between the xy, xz, and yz planes).
Alternatively, flattening geometry that does not want to be flattened?
I'm using AutoCAD Map 3D. I had some geometry that I needed to convert into a shape file, so I selected on the shp layer "New Feature from Geometry". Everything converted to join the shape layer, but now it is all connected. I want to move/edit individual polygons but when I go to select one it selects all of them.
I've noticed I can "create new feature" one at a time, but I'd really like to find how to unlink them after I've converted them in bulk.
On one part, I have a bore hole drilled on a curved surface so the hole is actually an ellipse.
Now the other part I am trying to constrain together is the pipe that will be welded into the bore hole; so that is a simple circular pipe.
The issue is that the pipe has to be inserted 0.25" above the interior of the bore hole to allow for room for the weld. In order to do this I have tried to create a plane attached to the 3D ellipse and then constrain the pipe to be 0.25" above that plane. The problem is I cannot seem to create a plane attached to the 3D geometry; I cant even find a way to attach points, or pick the center point of the bore hole.
How to create a plane on 3D geometry and link it to said geometry. I'm using 2012, if that is necessary information.
My designer has created an Illustrator file on his Mac that has linked images. When he sends me the all the files and I open the ai file in Illustrator CC on my Windows PC, I need to re-link the images. One image can't be found at all.
However, if I open the file in CS4 it finds the linked files no problem.
I found an old thread from 2011 about the same problem and the mod reported it to the devs, but as far as I know no solution has ever been offered.(maybe in cs6? we are still using cs5)For one or two layers it's no problem to do it manually, but with say 40 layers with corresponding linked layers we need a better solution.
how to use the polar coordinates filter but why is it even though I follow the tutorial exactly, when i go to apply the filter I can't use it along with many others. would this be a software issue? maybe have to download filters or sumthing?
I'm using CS3 on a PC. I'm using the wave filter to distort an image. writing down all the characteristics ie, # of generators, wavelength, amplitude, scale ect. Is there anyway to recreate that EXACT wave pattern on a particular image once I've left the program? It seems to generate another algorithm even if I input the same numbers.
Also, I'm distorting an image at 72dpi as a test. When I replace the image with an exact replica at 300dpi and apply the wave distortion, I'm unable to get even remotely the same results. the wave patterns are much tighter. I've moved around all the characteristics with no result.
How do achieve this effect. I want to create tv distortion, but not in the form of noise. Like when things get stretched, distorted, and look all jagged horizontally. Very similar to when you are losing a video signal.
How do you get the arced text without it distorting the text itself. the tops are bigger than the bottoms of the letters. So your font isn't the same anymore. I am just trying to do a simple arc like cheapo cd label programs do. Straight letters on an arc. Is there a circle text or something i can do?
I recently installed an upgrade from CS2 to CS4 on my Vista laptop. It is fully registered and updated. I seem to be having an issue with Photoshop. Any file I open, jpg, psd, pdf, etc. opens with lines and squares all over the image. I can't quite figure out what could be causing this. I thought maybe video card, but it too is current. I have included a picture to display what I mean.
I remember seeing a video tutorial on fixing lens distortion but I don't remember that video is and who did it. how to fix lens distortion in Photoshop CS4? I shot the photo with a widen angel 24mm Nikon lens. The picture looks somehow distorted.
I'm creating some website banners. They're beautiful. When I save them and open them, they look great. When I link to them on the web, they look awful. They're distorted - badly. I've rebuilt the images several times and each time, I get the same result. Is this a resolution issue?
recently ran into some trouble when rigging a character. I selected the character geometry, added a skin modifier, and attached all the CAT bones and muscles that I had created for my character.
The problem begins when I try to rotate the CAT bones in the rig. If I rotate the torso bone for instance, and then press undo, the mesh sometimes pops back but the CAT bones remain in place.
Another issue is that after I reload one of my earlier saves in which I had applied a skin modifier, the rig becomes highly distorted.
I'm new to Photoshop. Currently, Im learning Photoshop through Adobe Photoshop CS6 Classroom in a Book. I found out that the camera raw plug-in seems weird.
This is the original photo.
When I opened it in Camera Raw, the color of the photo distorted. ( I didn't do anything on it yet. )
Is it caused by software problems? Or did I accidentally tick something in the Setting/Preferences?
Here are two crops of a banal subject, our dryer and its circular control knob. Both done the same way, but look at the difference. First result, with size 1876x1419, which is reduced for this post, is obviously a distortion:
I wasn't surprised or upset to see this distortion, since I'd seen it many times before. It's easy enough to remedy: just Perspective Crop again. This time the image was 1871x1000, which is much better:
Photoshop, we have a problem! Why can't this be corrected?
I'm working on a chart that displays and names a couple hundred color swatches. I have all of their color data in a table, and I want to arrange them by hue and lightness, so I applied the Rec.709 coefficients to my data. This arranges my colors into a natural gradient--except for the reds, which have some glaring misplacement. why .709 coefficients do this, or what coefficients I should use instead?
Why would images print significantly smaller than designed (I'm referring to the ruler size, NOT the screen size) when the pixel aspect ratio in Photoshop is set to square pixels and 300 dpi? Does Premier or AE reset PhotoShop pixel dimenions on the sly in the Master Collection?
We have a summer intern designing business card size (3.5" x 2") inspiration cards on an old laptop that was used for video production with with the CS3 Master Collection and a CS4 Production Premium upgrade.
The 3.5 x 2.0 cards print out at about 3 3/8" by 1 15/16" on every one of the half dozen different printers we've tried them on, including FedEx Office locations and several different Lexmark office printers. Image size is 1050 px by 600 px, i.e., 3.5" by 2.0"
When we lay out a number of cards on an 8" x 11" sheet and save it as a pdf, and then open the pdf in Photoshop and measure the image sizes, each card clearly measures 3.5" by 2" but still prints in the distorted 3 3/8" by 1 15/16" size.
The smaller print problem persists if we save the images as tif, jpg or bmp. Opening the files and resaving them in CS5.5 doesn't work either. It's a problem with both the CS3 and CS4 versions of Photoshop on that laptop.
It looks like something is forcing the pixels into a smaller rectangular shape but I don't know where else to look to try to fix it.
Our CS5.5 Master Collection Photoshop is doing the same thing, only not as much. I'd like to be able to print the cards close to actual size. The problem persists for 5.5" x 8.5" bookcover designs too.
I'm doing some post production on a CG project, but now that I'm finished and try to save the finished PSD document as a jpg file, the saved JPG image appears both darker and filled with artifacts. And by appear, I mean it actually is.
I have never encountered this issue before, and it ruins the whole image.. which I've spent alot of time on. Im using CS6 and I can't really say I've touched any color profile settings,
Ive taken a pano ( made from 4 images). The image is very warpped where photos join. Ive tried clone tool to move sections of the image up or down but it doesnt really work too well.how to remove teh distortion from this image, its very clear on the horizon.
Image is no way near finished but gives you an idea of my problem.
For several years I've had excellent results with VideoStudio 9 & my trusty old Sony Digital 8 Handycam. But not so with my most recent project, where the rendered image has vertical distortions resembling pixelation. The film is watchable but disappointingly irritating! Raw footage played directly from the camera onto the TV/into the computer is crisp. I re-processed the footage through Windows Movie Maker, importing the .wvm into VS9 to burn the disk, with the same outcome. A knowledgeable friend suggested that .mpeg drivers in VS9 might have been overwritten/corrupted by another programme so I reinstalled & went through the full process for the 3rd time, again with the same result. The only hardware/other known changes have been a new flat/widescreen TV and computer monitor.
hi all i have a epson 7800 printer that i print onto canvas 99 % are ok as i do landscapes,sunsets ect i have started doing photos onto canvas people email me the image at 300 dpi then i edit image in photoshop cs3 the problem i have sometimes it looks distorted not all the time sometime they send me a image that is 2x4 inches dpi is 300 when i blow it up to 20x16 inches or bigger it does not look right i know the image should be bigger that they send me is there a way round this so when i blow up a image it looks like it has not been distored i am ok with photoshop as i am learning new tricks evryday any info would be great
i just bought a new wide-angle camera, and there's this common issue that occurs in all wide-angle lens - whenever i take portrait/group shots, people who stand at the edges always have VERY "flat" faces.
