Usually, I chamfer a simple box by creating it, converting it to an editable poly, selecting the edges, and adding a chamfer in the 'Modify' tab. Now, my problem:
The Lego fan community has developed digital Lego parts [URL]..., which use the correct dimensions, but have unreastic chamfering and geometries (eg, an octagon is used to depict a circle. LDview, a program for viewing LDraw files is able to export these parts into .3ds (and .stl) files - links below. However, I am unable to chamfer or modify these parts using my usual method.
Ever since I started to take 2d personalised icons and create them in 3d, Ive only ever known of one method to do it:
1- create a work path in Photoshop or Illustrator 2- save it as a 'path to illustrator' 3- import this in to Maya 4- select the work path then go to surfaces> plane options box. In there, I would usually go for the poly option, with quads and create a count of the maximum faces (1000) 5- hit create and I would get what Maya's best results were and simply, tidy up and remodel the surface accordingly.
Then, a friend of mine said, why dont you use Cinema 4D to do that. He showed me the work flow, and its SO much easier. Not only does the work path import into Cinema 4D, with a perfect outline of the icon BUT you can also create a poly perfectly. With no tidying necessary.
Why cant Maya do that? Or can it, and Ive just not found the best method?
Ive attached an image. The icon to the furthest left is a FBX import(created in Cinema 4D)of a final version of the 3d icon. And the centre work path is an .ai file, created in photoshop and to the right of it, is the poly model with a plane surface on it.
Is it possible to import Lego Digital Designer files into 3ds max design 2011? I'm having to model each individual brick and it is taking forever to create my scenes. It would be much faster if there was a plugin or something to import them. The file type is .lxf.
I want to draw a wall with irregular bricks. Meaning these are old elongate bricks that are not exactly rectangular and are not all of the same length.
I am trying to add some red bricks similar to the ones shown on the house to this dirt path.
I tried adding a layer, made it an overlay, and copying and pasting the bricks onto the dirt area. That didn't work. Tried using the clone tool and that didn't work.
is there a way to make the drawings like Lego does for assembling the stuff? After you finish one step, of lets say three pieces put together, and you go to the next step those pieces are like grayed / shaded out and you know to build the next pieces in what position etc..
I'm working on some renderings for homes, and I need to plase some bricks over an arch on a window. I've got a pic of bricks all lined up, but they are straight, and I need them to bend around a curve.
I am trying to create a specific hatch for bricks and mortar. I have no problem creating the standard brick hatch but when I try to put mortar around the bricks that is when I get unstuck!
My horizontal lines and spaces appear to be okay but my vertical lines are all over the place, very confusing!!
I have attached my workings (have not yet got to the 4th line of code though!)
I'm having trouble getting my 3D lighting to look, well, believable in PS CS5 Ex. I've moved them around, tried different types of lights, and nothing seems to give me proper shadow contrast and glare and shine on my material. Here is a screen of a dining room setting I'm building (preliminary stage) by combining 2D and 3D elements.
The corner hutch on the right is the 3D piece and the two on the left are 2D. The walls, ceiling and floor are also all 3D as well.
I've been drawing with Autocad for many years now, I've just upgraded to LT2012.
My problem is with the object snaps. They don't seem accurate enough. For e.g. I'll use end point to snap to a line or a corner and it will seem to work, but when I zoom in the object or the lines are not one on top of each other as they should be.
I'm doing drawings right now and the problem is just compounding as I continue. Nothing is perpendicular or parallel as they should be.
I've created a design for a flowing graphic "wave" across an office window 20 ft wide. The only colour is Pantone #301 (blue), and there are gradients from 10% to 80%. The sign supplier wants a high res PDF to print on a flexible vinyl material. When I export to PDF, the colors change on my screen and go from blue to a grayish-blue tone.
1) If I don't do anything, but send the file, will the final output be close to what I see on my screen, or what the InDesign color palette specifies?
2) When I export to PDF, I see several options. I've tried several variations, and it does not bring the image closer to Pantone #301. What else can I do to assure I get the Pantone color?...
Here are the process and options:
- Pantone #301 is only color specified in InDesign. - EXPORT to PDF. - QUALITY - Press - COMPATIBILITY - options from PDF 1.4 to 1.7. Which is the best to use? - OUTPUT - COLOR - Conversion to Destination? or Not? Destination - many, many choices! Profile Inclusion? Not sure what that does. Ink Manager - It gives an option for "Spot to Process". Should I chose that?
When I set the opacity of a layer to, say, 50%, it will always go down one percent below, to 49% I'm not trying to be too picky here, but it's irritating when the opacity of the layer will always slide down one percent from what I set it as. So 68% becomes 67%, and so forth.
I have used Photoshop CS4 and and CS6 Beta and have never experienced this odd problem. When I set the exact opacity or fill, it will stay there. But with Photoshop CS5, it doesn't. I know it's not a huge problem, but like I said, it gets a bit annoying after a while, especially when I'm recording actions..
My neighbor brought a problem to me which I could not solve. He is running Photoshop CS3 10.0.1 on XPSP2. When he crops something at an angle, the resultant image is way off -- it is not what is within the crop mark. Any idea what is happening here?
I'm using the Adobe Photoshop CS3 trial on a Windows Vista machine - I've been using it for a couple days and I've noticed a number of times that the image in the preview window doesn't match what I get (usually after using image adjustment tools like Layer, Contrast/Brightness, or Curves - haven't noticed it so much with Filters, but haven't been using those as much yet either).
I have a bunch of wooden colour samples which need scanning for a website, but have found the scan result are usually off from the real thing. Understand that it's not going to be possible to get a 100% match, would would like to have something which is quite close to how it looks in real life.
there are text labels on the wood in white, after scanning the text appears as colour #a2b5c2 (blueish-grey), the wood itself is a dark brown but appears much lighter. have managed to find a picture of how it should look, compared to the one I scanned.
I like to set lines for cropping on the canvas. The vertical ruler is perfectly accurate. The horizontal ruler is off by alot. This is on cs4. The canvas size is adjusted to be A2 (420x594mm) The crop marks are with the ruler in inches to 16x20.
I'm working on a web page layout project on Adobe Photoshop CS and I was wondering: What effects should I apply to get a look for my top like those ones (I've got the shape)
I'm using Photoshop CS4 and am trying to cleanly select a flower. The flower has a white background that I'd like to remove; I've used the Select > Color Range. However, it still leaves rough edges around the flower's petals. This becomes apparent when I drop a black background behind the flower -- it has fuzzy edges that needed to have been selected and removed.
how to cleanly remove the background and not have the jagged edges?
I've been screwing around with beams in Revit for years and still have issues with the gaps at the connections. There is a shape handle and a structural component end. Either way, the beam decides where it wants to end. If I put two precast beams end to end, resting on an inverted tee girder that needs to have the 9" tee portion extend between the two joists, Revit doesn't like that and does its own thing. I move one, the other follows. I move both far enough away from eachother, then drag one end to where it needs to be, cool, then when I drag the other...boom...they snap together. Yes, I'm aware of the "start and end extension" in the properties window, this is incredibly time consuming and if one of the beams are switched around, I need to remember if this end was the start or end. In addition, the structural component end will go initially where it wants to, so there's no guarantee that if the parameters are correct, the beam/joist will be.
Can I remove all "rules" that beams have so I can place these correctly?
If I have a long column (100) of blocks on, say, 1" centers. I want to select block numbers 1 through 98 and copy them to another location. I enter CO, left click and hold to create a selection fence starting at the #1 end, then zoom in (using the wheel) to the last 4 blocks to accurately place the end of the fence between #98 & 99. I'm expecting to have selected #1 - 98 but find that I have only copied 97 and 98. Blocks that were no longer visible on the screen are not copied.
I made a typographic poster in Photoshop CS6 Extended (because I'm more familiar with it) and am wanting it to print in the highest quality possible. The size of the poster is 24'' x 36 '' at 300 dpi. I wanted to convert it into a vector so there would be no pixels. I've done this before with posters but none of them had any text and they turned out perfect. ou So my problem is when I did the image trace (high fidelity photo) it didn't turn out well.
Example of it before image trace:
After image trace:
The word "LIKE" doesn't look too bad but smaller words like "INSTRUMENTS" are the ones messing up. Is there any way to fix this? This poster took me a long time to make and I would hate to have to start over.
In the print Module. I tell it to Print ie: a 5x7 on a 8x10 piece of paper it prints out, again ie: 5.125 x 10.125. and the cell size I tell it should be as stated. but it isnt.
Just got a Epson 3880 printer and learning to use Lightroom 3 with it. I am trying to print a 8x10 image on 8.5x11 paper. I set the cell size to 8x10. While the print looks great it is not 8x10 (larger). Is there some interaction between the margin settings and the cell size that I need to understand?
Using a keyword search "contains all" brought up photos of pictures in which that keyword was not applied to them. I selected these photos and the keyword was not associated with the photos.
I use the histogram feature in PS to figure out how many square feet of yarn I will use in a rug that I am making (I work as a rug designer). I am running into a problem with this which is scary because my numbers have to be accurate.
As an example, I may have a 9x12 (inch--this is later blown up to feet using a transparency) drawing. In the drawing there may be 45 organic looking shapes that will be green. I use the magic wand tool and choose all of these green shapes. What I am noticing is that once I get to a certain number (not always consistent) in the histogram reading it will all of a sudden change to a different number and go to (for example) Cache 3. Because of this I have no idea if my histogram reading is accurate.
Is this some sort of memory issue? How do I prevent this from happening so that I can get an accurate heading?
I finding problems in trying to align my buttons in Photoshop with equal space between the buttons . Aligning web buttons in Photoshop.
In illustrator i have a method with the snap to point(snaps the object to nearest vertices i can then align the buttons with equal space, However the snap to layer. does not seem to be accurate in Photoshop.
Using PS CS5.1, converting a large space image to sRGB for web use does not give accurate render in actual browser. This is a common problem, but usually there are a couple of simple user errors that lead to this, and it usually means a less saturated image. This, however, seems unlikely to be user error, as I've tested it with a freshly created, sRGB image, with simple gradient, outputting it with embedded profile (non-embedded gives identical results in browser), and it becomes overly saturated.
The interesting, and probably all telling thing, is that viewing the optimized web version with Monitor Color selected in the preview gives what my browser actually shows me. Likewise, soft proofing using my Monitor RGB gives the same image as my browser.
I'm on WinXP x64. Browser is Firefox, and I've tried all three color management settings with no change, and also same results with Chrome browser.
This grad is in the ProPhoto space, converted during save for web. Color is a good match, with a slight shift, not unexpectedly. Note, preview is with Internet Standard RGB.
Same grad, this time with the preview set to Monitor Color. There is quite a saturation increase. This is what my browser actually shows me. I do not have desaturate colors selected in my color settings.
