CompuServe Thread

#only DXF

4 messages in this thread
#167474From: albert waltnerApr 30, 1995 1:08 PM
I did download REALGI.ZIP and the "GI" part does seem to be appropriate for the face <Bg>. Upon reading the file EXCERPTS.txt, first there was hope and then lost hope <g>. "…can be exported for use in 3DS as standard objects…" Immediately my <weak> mental legs leaped to the conclusion that these are .3DS format files. But in the DATA TRANSLATION paragraph I read: "…can be exported to 3D Studio directly,…via DXF file format." It seems to me that the first statement creates a false hope which is <somewhat> dashed by the second. Yes, I know <I think> that some PlugIns can access DXF data but that is not direct export, the way I view <another pun<g>> it. Considering the 3DS market share, would it not make sense to output 3DS format? Did you say that you are directly involved with the Real 3D software? Just my thoughts. Oh yes, it looks interesting <g>.
#167495From: M. G. BATCHELORApr 30, 1995 2:34 PM
Albert, Read again. There is a DIRECT *.3ds converter for "normal" trimeshes. There is also very good DXF conversion for 3DS or whatever. And, you can convert the spline surface meshes to very uniform tessellated trimeshes for "normal" 3DS use, BonesPro, etc., or just export the lattice as with the RealGirl example, then RE-SKIN with Skin.axp. Ironically, this method uses DXF plus a simple "trick" as outlined in the book, to allow the mesh to be a legitimate SKIN/SLICE object which also can be parametrically mapped as if it was lofted in 3DS with coord's ON. With the "normal" DXF geometry, I haven't run across any of the usual problems, and BonesPro definitely works well with these imports….probably because the source is a very uniform spline surface, which can have mesh resolution added easily just where you need it. Regards, BILL
#167513From: albert waltnerApr 30, 1995 4:30 PM
>> Read again. There is a DIRECT *.3ds converter for "normal" >> trimeshes. Rereading sections: Support files included Data Transfer ———————– Ok, I guess I understand what you are saying. I suppose it is a case of prior contamination with documentation. One place has a general statement and another place has a sever restriction. I thought that the Data Transfer section was a clarification of the Support files included section. Now it is even more interesting, again. Thanks.
#167529From: M. G. BATCHELORApr 30, 1995 7:18 PM
You bet, Albert. BILL