poly modelling in autocad?

[Exellite]

anyone think this will ever happen? I really hope so.

 

imo the economical way of poly modelling introduced into the accuracy and ease of navigation in autocad would be amazing. I would then use autocad exclusively for modelling, but because of this boolean rubbish that we have had to put up with for waaaaay too long, I end up using max, which is painful when trying to make millimetre accurate models.

 

Are there any other 3d programs which keep the ease of use and accuracy of autocad while allowing you to model as efficiently as in max?

[Claudio Branch]

It is already happening to some degree in certain industries. Manufacturing requires a very high-level of automation, modeling accuracy and design flexibility. Tools like Pro/E and Solidworks are designed to meet that initial criteria with model translators such as Npower allowing a very clean import of these third-party models into 3D apps such as Max and Maya.

 

As far as modeling in AutoCAD goes, you are probably best off using it to quickly generate intricate sections that would be very time-consuming in Max. However, if the task at hand is large-scale terrain modeling, AutoCAD and a plug-in called EasySite offer extreme speed and flexibility over a very demanding task.

 

Modeling in Max can be frustrating if you come from an AutoCAD or parametric (Pro/E) modeling background. I happen to come from both!

 

An accurate assessment of the modeling task at hand will lead you to the appropriate modeling app or even a combination of apps.

[Zdravko Barisic]

anyone think this will ever happen? I really hope so.

 

imo the economical way of poly modelling introduced into the accuracy and ease of navigation in autocad would be amazing. I would then use autocad exclusively for modelling, but because of this boolean rubbish that we have had to put up with for waaaaay too long, I end up using max, which is painful when trying to make millimetre accurate models.

 

Are there any other 3d programs which keep the ease of use and accuracy of autocad while allowing you to model as efficiently as in max?

 

Find "ArchiCD for MAX" video training CDs (there are 2 or 3 of them, I.m not shore) and check working with snaps and axis constraints etc....you can force MAX to work like ACAD, just litlle practice. I know what you are talking about, but when you accept few rules, ACAD is a miles away from MAX.

Good Luck!

[Tay othman]

For Mixing accuracy and Flexibility in modeling ... i think autocad still primitive.

Autocad is a NURBS based models or have something called(ACIS Solids) Which are more optimized...!

 

To model flexibly...i Use the standard polygon tool modeling in maya then i convert it to NURBS the convert it again to IGES and the to DWG.this will retain the flexibility and accuracy of my model.

 

also I've header about Rhinoceros...but i didn't practice it

anyway wish new techniques in Autocad modeling

thanx

[Tommy Burns]

Not too sure what your looking for but have you had a look at microstation XM for modelling. I use it all the time and find it very fast and accurate. The booleans work no problem at all and with the accudraw tool snapping and axis constraints are simple as long as you take the time to find out how to use it properly. I model in xm and then save it as a dwg to bring into Max.

I would love to use max as a modelling program but find it too hard to get the accuracy. I do most of my changes in max though and am getting better there is some cool modelling stuff in max.

 

Hope this helps

[Hazdaz]

Poly modelling is crap. Even programs like MAX should move beyond the insane limitations of poly modelling.

[Claudio Branch]

 

Poly modelling is crap.

 

 

Care to elaborate?

 

There are alot of people on this forum and elsewhere creating very nice work using poly-modeling techniques...

[Rick Eloy]

Limitations? Hum... I don't see "insane" limitations in poly modeling. Of course, some techiniques are better for certain tasks (NURBS work great for some complex surfaces, for example), but I wouldn't classify poly as terribly limited.

[Trevor Tizard]

I have to agree with Rick. I use polymodelling in max on a daily basis and find it an extremely fast way to model accurately - with far less limitations than the likes of ADT and Autdesk Architecture.

 

The method you choose will depend greatly on what you intend modelling - nurbs for organic is a common choice for example.

 

In the end it's up to you what you choose as the best method for you, it's most importatnt IMO to have the options.

[Horhe]

Yep i also enjoy polymodeling. Fast stuff if you know your way around.

[Exellite]

Thanks for all the replies,

 

Glad I'm not the only 1 that has found it hard to make the switch from the pinpoint accuracy of autocad to the "that'll do" way of working in MAX.

 

I model interiors, nothing too complex but I still find MAX annoying (for modelling), I draw my plans in autocad first, create a new linework drawing in cad using closed polylines, then import that into max and start extruding/polymodelling. then texture/light/render in max. 2 Things I feel are sorely missed in max, which if polymodelling was introduced into autocad would no longer be a problem, are reference rotate and scaling & snap/crosshair rotation to ANY angle not just some random grid in MAX, theres many others, but I feel if these few tools could be used in conjunction with polymodelling it would make all our lives easier. Oh and inputting distance when your inside a command would be brilliant, I know about the right clicking on the move tool, but it's not the same at all, and comes with its own contraints.

 

The problem I've always had with booleon is I can't accept the amount of polys it creates, a fairly simple model can get quite a large poly count with even just a few subtractions and unisons, and then you have the problem of converting the booleon model from cad to max which brings up a whole new set of problems.

 

I really like the idea of making MAX act more like autocad, I shall have to check that out, I'll also look into the other programs mentioned as I really do need to make a change, because the way I'm working now is just no where near as efficient as I want to/could be.

 

Thanks again, some really helpfull replies there

Mark

[Hazdaz]

Why does Poly modeling suck?

 

Simple - because once you drop a model down to simple polygons, all you have is a zillion dumb faces. You can't then take that model and use or change it (easily and/or correctly) in a true CAD drawing - with dimensions and such. You lose ALL intelligence within the model. You lose all true curve data. You lose the power that Solids gives you.

 

Polygon modeling is a dead-end solution... instead of having ONE unified model of an object that then could be used and modified for CAD drawings, renderings and even CNC manufacturing, you end up with a model that only is useful for 3D renderings.

 

I am looking at the big picture problems with poly-modeling. Yea, if all you do is making "pretty pictures" of CAD models, then poly-modeling is OK a good percentage of the time... but if you look at the big picture of constructing a building, it is an extremely cumbersome format. If there are changes done to the original CAD data, it takes a lot of double work to keep CAD and rendering models in sync. Changing one, does not change the other. I know that AutoCAD had that Linking command, but I admittedly never found it truly useful (maybe I should give it another chance one of these days).

 

A simple analogy that I can come up with is that poly-modeling is not unlike taking a resolution independent vector file, and rasterizing it. Sure, that bitmap file might be "good enough" for many things, but what about if you have to scale it, or dramatically alter it?

[Claudio Branch]

Why does Poly modeling suck?

 

Simple - because once you drop a model down to simple polygons, all you have is a zillion dumb faces. You can't then take that model and use or change it (easily and/or correctly) in a true CAD drawing - with dimensions and such. You lose ALL intelligence within the model. You lose all true curve data. You lose the power that Solids gives you.

 

Polygon modeling is a dead-end solution... instead of having ONE unified model of an object that then could be used and modified for CAD drawings, renderings and even CNC manufacturing, you end up with a model that only is useful for 3D renderings.

 

I am looking at the big picture problems with poly-modeling. Yea, if all you do is making "pretty pictures" of CAD models, then poly-modeling is OK a good percentage of the time... but if you look at the big picture of constructing a building, it is an extremely cumbersome format. If there are changes done to the original CAD data, it takes a lot of double work to keep CAD and rendering models in sync. Changing one, does not change the other. I know that AutoCAD had that Linking command, but I admittedly never found it truly useful (maybe I should give it another chance one of these days).

 

A simple analogy that I can come up with is that poly-modeling is not unlike taking a resolution independent vector file, and rasterizing it. Sure, that bitmap file might be "good enough" for many things, but what about if you have to scale it, or dramatically alter it?

 

Nice elaboration. Why didn't you just say that to begin with!

[Hazdaz]

Nice elaboration. Why didn't you just say that to begin with!

 

This being a CAD forum, I fully expected most people to poo-poo the idea, rather than actually agree with it.

[Alfonso Lee]

Working mostly on visualization stuff that why I made most of my modelling with Polys in Autocad, have to admit the handiness from BIM though. Still remember building the spiral escalator back in 1992 using Autocad Rel.10 with very basic commands; I think it still work well in 2008 version without fancy gadgets. Having the same symptom finding MAX environment hard to manipulate, begin to move ahead to NURBS with Rhino3d & hopefully an ultimate solution of NURBS+BIM+VIS, a cheaper alternative to CATIA.