bricklyne

..........or you could use Fred Miranda's Stair Interpolation (SI) plugin which dies it all in one step or rather one action (as opposed to 36 repetitive steps); since like Genuine Fractals, it is an Automated action script. But if you really want the best results IMO and have access to both, use them against each other since they use algorithms that sort of work in different or opposite ways to increase the image size. Whereas Miranda's SI tool tends to smooth out the end result (therefore blurring some details), Fractals, on the other hand has a tendency to sharpen the end result with pronounces edges and in some cases accentuated artifacts. So what I would do is I would first double the initial image using one, plugin and then double what you get using the other plugin -all the way until you get to your desired resolution or size (in your case, 2 steps up to 18,000 and then one more to 21,000 pixels - since you're doing an odd number of steps, it will matter greatly which plugin you use first since that will be the dominant one. And that depends on your starting image and what you want as an end result. Since it's so fast I would try both and compare the 2). The end result will tend to be a trade-off or average between a sharpened image and a over-smoothed out and blurry one, and IMHO the best result - over using either one on its own. Some people I know also combine yet another plugin (like a Lanczos filter plugin) to menage trois it, but I tend to think that that's overkill. 2 is really all you need.

.....so if I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to use the Make2D command to extract lines that you can use in MAX with the Lattice modifier? That sounds a little bit like a convoluted process. Why not just imported the generated mesh into Max as an .obj or .3ds format file, and then you can directly clean the mesh up there or use the Lattice modifier directly on it without all the hassle. Why do you even need Make2D at all? Make2D is really a documentation tool more than anything, and like I already said, if it doesn't work on your mesh, then you have to convert that Mesh into a NURBS object using the Mesh2Nurb command. Alternatively, since you are already generating the geometry in Rhino using GH, just output your object as a BRep (or NURBS object) from Grasshopper and then you don't even have to worry about tessellation or mesh issues. It just sounds like you're taking a lot of unnecessary steps or weird workflow decisions; but since I'm not exactly familiar with what you're trying to achieve, it's hard to say for certain.

I'm assuming you didn't model your mesh geometry in Rhino. In which case you're right, in that it won't work. In any case, you might have to try exploding your geometry and then ungrouping if necessary (and not necessarily in that order), and then possibly exploding again, until you have single mesh faces as opposed to polymesh objects of polygon mesh objects. If the Make2D command still doesn't work, then you will have no other option but to convert your mesh faces to NURBS geometry using the Mesh2Nurb command. Make2D should definitely work with NURBS geometry. And don't forget that it will spit out the drawing in the plan view or top view as close to the origin as possibly, so if you're looking for it in any other view, you'll also not see it..

I don't think those were done in Rhino. From the looks of it, those look like Vector renders done with something like Maya's Vector render engine to produce a vectorial wireframe image. As for Rhino, I'm not sure if VrayforRhino allows one to use the Vray Edgetext (or Edgetexture) material, but the equivalent material in 3DS Max would be how you would get the same wireframe effect by rendering with Vray in 3DS Max. In Rhino, your best bet is to use Rhino's Make2D command from whichever viewport or perspective you wish, (typically with the PreserveLayers option on, and if you wish, you can also turn on hidden edges which can then be converted to dashed lines) and then to take the outputted 2D Vector image (outputted to the top view close to the origin by default) into a program like Illustrator to clean-up and get the effect you want. 2 things though; 1) Nurbs surfaces don't produce or show the isolines using this command, so you have to manually show them on the surface first using the Curve from isoline command. 2) It usually works better with Meshes, which show isolines or wireframe lattices by default, so you may either want to convert your Nurbs object into a Mesh first and then Make2D that instead. Assuming the triangulation doesn't become too screwy, that is. For a tip, it's always nice to overlay the produced vector image over an Occlusion render or Clay render of the same view to get a nice shaded effect. Oh, one more thing; if you're doing a section wire render, the best thing to do is always to create the profile of the section cut (using create Curves from intersection command between the object and the cutting plane or cutting object) and then to isolate those new curves into a seperate layer which can then be strengthened in Illustrator or AutoCAD using lineweights or a separate color (like in the second image you attached that uses red for the cut faces). hope this helps.

....that's somehow simultaneously hilarious and just plain sad. And then you wonder why they (the rest of the world) hates you (or us, by extension; seeing as Canada always gets sucked into whatever you guys do) so much. If you seriously think I was gloating over other people's problems or trying to be insensitive, or worse yet, silly, then you have nothing but my deepest sympathy. You were right about 1 thing though; it is a global matter - only you don't seem to realize just how much so, nor the fact that both Canada and the US both fall into that particular group. Whatever happens here affects the rest of the world and vice versa - now more than ever in history. If like Maxer, you're incapable of seeing the hypocrisy of expecting to see (or even hoping for) life to become more miserable for people in other parts of the world (by reactionary tariffs on their goods and services, and that sort of nonsense), simply because you can't compete with them and in the name of "fairness", then I can only but wish you all the best. After all, like I said before, ignorance is bliss - and clearly, all those uneducated people in those undeveloped squalid little backwater countries don't work hard for their living, or deserve any of what meager earnings they scrape daily. Unlike you. Right?

Glad I could help. It was, after all, the least I could do to cheer you up after all the whining about the potential of losing your livelihood to someone that just might outwork you, and out-compete you for business on the other side of the planet without actually understanding why it was happening. And now, back to our regularly scheduled obliviousness and ignorant bliss.

What the hell are you talking about fairly? Fair competition for whom? You? So its only fair when you're doing well and they're making squat or close to nothing? How does that compute? Now that they are working harder than you are, and don't have to pay as high a price for their cost of living, they don't deserve a 'fair' chance to improve their lives and strive for prosperity like you have all these years? I thought you were the one that was just decrying socialism just a little while ago. What the hell would you then call it when the market is artificially adjusted to make the playing field more level for those having a difficult time? I hate to be the wet blanket but were you concerned about fairness for the better part of the last (20th) Century when most of those "Third" Worlders were living in squalor and deplorable ( by your standards ) conditions thanks to unfair global market policies, debilitating quotas on their goods and services, along with those lovely little tariffs you think will help "even" the playing field now? The ludicrous (some would say, sweet) irony is that the West now finds itself in this unenviable position thanks to the global economic trade structure that they instituted in the past couple of centuries by first exploiting those Developing countries through colonialism and imperialism in the 18th and 19th Centuries and then through a tilted global market run via proxy through the likes of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) among others (G8, G20, G-n; were n= No "poor" country) for the better part of the last Century. Unfortunately they just figured a way to make the uneven system work for them thanks to technology (the internet) - the great equalizer, hard work, and the weak currencies they've been burdened with. And if you seriously think that using tariffs, protectionist taxes, Government subsidies and all that sort of nonsense is going to restore any deluded semblance of fairness, then you should perhaps just take a look at the Japanese economy and see just how artificially finessing their economy, their market and the export products with import tariffs, and government subsidies for their local firms is working out for them at the moment with the ever-dwindling Nikkei.

...again, where are you getting your information from? Where you involved in the development process of the program; so as to be able to unequivocally and categorically state that NO architects at all (by whatever definition you chose to define what a "real" architect is) were involved in the actual development process? You seem to be adamantly determined to believe that architects are incapable of having skills, or learning skills in professions that extend beyond their own. And no, no one is actually referring to Beta-testing as being part of the definition of designing the software. .....and if this is what your basing your argument on..... ........that's what's known in a court of law as 'hearsay'. Meaning that the person introducing it got the information as secondhand information from an unaccounted for source, and worse yet, didn't even bother to check the veracity or accuracy of the statement (or in this particular case, whether the actual phrase itself is quoted correctly {'written' vs. 'designed'??} to begin with let alone being true at all) before he brought it up. Typically not the best foundations upon which to base your arguments. .......actually, if memory serves correctly, I think it was YOU that brought it up to begin with, and made a big issue out of 'who wrote the software'.

....how would you even know that? (that no "real" architects were actually involved in the design of the software), especially with the conviction you seem to be exhibiting? I probably neglected to read the part wherein you mentioned just how deeply involved, you personally were in ArchiCAD's development process, and as such were privy to all the "consultants" involved and their contribution. And besides which, who exactly claimed that they "wrote" ArchiCAD? There's a distinctive difference between writing a piece of software (which would imply coding) and DESIGNING the software. But then again, the whole point is moot, since in your world, or as you seem to be implying, there can't possibly anyone anywhere in this planet who would happen to have both an architectural education or architectural professional knowledge, and also just happen to know a thing or 2 about software coding. I mean, that would be just be simply outrageous. Right? right. Lastly, why in the world does it even matter whether or not you believe, what you believe about it (..... or want to believe, ......or have chosen to believe....; whatever the case may be). Particularly, since you've already made up your mind about it, (based on nothing more than mere idle conjecture, and no real evidence). Hint: you can't ask people to disprove to you what you didn't actually prove in the first place (i.e. that ArchiCAD wasn't actually designed by architects). That would be like me asking you to disprove to me, my claim that little invisible green alien gnomes steal people's socks and underpants, when they're not looking - when my only basis for making such a claim in the first place, is that I "believe" it to be so. I think in such a case you would call me crazy; and rightly so.

Why don't you just use pepakura, if you know of it? Have you even looked into it? the reason Max doesn't have it is because Max is not a fabrication program. It's modeling and visualization. It's far simpler to user and more straight forward than any of all the other options that have been suggested here. It even allows you to nest the pieces once its unfolded them, so as to maximize the cutting board space. P.S. Rhino also has unfold capabilities but its a far more involving and complicated process if your model is coming in, in a non-NURBS/Rhino friendly fashion.

...... the good old "No true Scot..." fallacy in logic and argumentation. You should look it up.

........or maybe they just used, um....I don't know.....Polyboost?? ...version 3.0 even? you think?

........just been playing with it for the last hour or so. Sweet software this. Really love the aeronoise feature. very very solid release!

Ease up on the glare. It's the new solar Lens flare and can make an image look really tacky and whimsical if overused. I would also check the scale of the wood tile mapping in the Kitchen image since they look rather large. Otherwise good stuff.

...that's 1.5 RC3 that you've had for months. As in Release Candidate (3), the stage in a software's release between the Beta's and the Final release.