CompuServe Thread

changes in 3ds4c2

13 messages in this thread
#192597From: Greg HartSep 26, 1995 8:46 AM
I can't seem to find any memos on the flaws and inhancements made to r4c2. Is there any recording or posting of the changes in the new realease. I just recieved my copy and was hoping some of the problems Ive been having in the IK will go away. When I create multiple follow objects in a complex chain of mechanical parts the first selection will work until I create the second and then the first will go screwy. Also when I start the IK some of the parts are at the proper 0,0,0 cooridnates and some of the orhers are 270,270,0 and oher values. Is this due to the way the parts were made, positioned? Is this a prob with r4 and corrected in the r4c2? Thanx! Greg Hart "*"
#192630From: dave aguilarSep 26, 1995 12:37 PM
forwarding to the right crew. hang tight. this is news to me too. -dave
#192684From: [F] Grant Blaha [Adesk]Sep 26, 1995 4:33 PM
>> I can't seem to find any memos on the flaws and inhancements made to r4c2. << The c2 release added the 30 day authorization code, essentially a registration reminder. That's the only change, no bug fixes or enhancements. We didn't make an announcement or posting about it because there is no reason for anyone to want it if they already have r4c1. >> When I create multiple follow objects in a complex chain of mechanical parts the first selection will work until I create the second and then the first will go screwy. << Do these two selections contain some of the same objects in the chain? How do your expectations of how it should work differ from what actually occurs. >> Also when I start the IK some of the parts are at the proper 0,0,0 cooridnates and some of the orhers are 270,270,0 and oher values. Is this due to the way the parts were made, positioned? << Are you taking about rotations? It looks like degrees you are listing. If this is the case, then I have an answer for you. Objects will have different initial orientations depending on what viewport they are created in. This happens because 3D Studio is keeping track of "front", "back", ect. when you create, for example, a box. When you create a box in the top viewport, then its "front" is going to be rotated up. If you want to force everything to have a 0,0,0 rotation, then use the Object/Modify/Reset Xform command in the editor. If you do this, though, 3D Studio's notion of Front and Back will change for that object. -Grant Blaha [ADESK]
#193267From: Greg HartSep 30, 1995 1:56 AM
Hi Grant I just read about the modify/object/xform in the Inside 3dstudio book last night by accident. I was refering to rotations. Tomarrow I will be able to test the xform out. I think that will do the trick. Reguarding the second part of the chain going screwy… The second set of objects are in the same chain. Im building a complex assembly of, Ill say poles to keep it simple and there all hooked together in a rectangle with a diagonal cross member going from one corner to another with a sliding member inside it. Its difficult to explain the motion except that it folds up and the first vertical member remains stationary. The left vertical pole rises and the two horrizontal members pivit up along with the diagonal piviting and the sliding member stays in place attached to the bottom and sliding along its parent diagonal during the collapse. This is hard to follow. It must be cause its hard to explain. Any who… The diagonal member works fine following an end fitting on the bottom of the right vertical pole. the left vertical pole follows a fitting on the left end of the bottom horrizontal member. When I connect the left vertical to follow the bottom left horrizontal fitting the diagonals stop responding correctle. they no longer slide nor stay together properly. Maybe my rotation angles have to be loosened up a bit. I dought this makes any sense with out an example. I dought Im making any sense at 12 midnight. If it does make sense or not let me know. I will be doing more testing tomarrow. Thanx… Greg "*"
#193604From: [F] Grant Blaha [Adesk]Oct 2, 1995 6:24 PM
I think the simple answer is that you can't overlay two IK chains on top of each other without having one IK chain overide the calculations made for the other. Other than that, maybe you can upload just the objects you are trying to IK and I'll try to give you better advice. -Grant Blaha [ADESK]
#194824From: Greg HartOct 10, 1995 11:36 PM
Hi Grant… I have never uploaded anything to the group yet. Ill give it a try probably this weekend. The last time read anything on uploading it seemed like to many rules and I dont want to rub anyone the wrong way. Is there any clean procedures (txt) files to download explaining how and where to upload files??? Thanx Grant I appreciate the help.
#194916From: [F] Grant Blaha [Adesk]Oct 11, 1995 1:03 PM
Hi Greg, Uploading is very easy when you are using CIM, and is well documented in Cim help system. Just upload the prj file to the 3dstudio library section with the keywords "for autodesk review". -Grant Blaha [ADESK]
#196653From: FKA ArchitectsOct 23, 1995 1:37 PM
Where IS the c2 update, anyway? I didn't see it here in the forum…. Maybe I just need to look harder. (here at work we just got in c2, I'm still using c1 at home)… Thanks!
#196665From: JEFF RIETEROct 23, 1995 2:40 PM
PMJI, What is the story on the whole c1, c2 patch thing? I remember hearing about it after r4 came out but never recieved anything and my dealer was sketchy. I was just curious what impact it has on things b/c obiously i've managed ok without either one. Jeff
#196706From: Robert C. RitgerOct 23, 1995 7:55 PM
FKA: C2 is the current shipping version but it differs from C1 in only one way. C2 requires that you call in for an authorization code before your first 30 days of use expire. If you are running C1 you actually have one less hassle than current buyers. 🙂 BTW, please post your name, I'd hate to tell you how I could pronounce FKA <G> – Bob Ritger
#197031From: FKA ArchitectsOct 25, 1995 1:28 PM
<< C2 is the current shipping version but it differs from C1 in only one way. C2 requires that you call in for an authorization code before your first 30 days of use expire>> That's it? You mean there's really no reason a person running c1 would WANT to get a c2 patch, which would only make my system require an authorization code? heh… If that's ALL they've changed, I'll be happy with c1 at home (I've already done my job and registred it! <g>) <<BTW, please post your name, I'd hate to tell you how I could pronounce FKA <G> >> Sorry – I'm Jerome Kalisz, here at work at my FKA account… Thanx!
#197103From: Robert C. RitgerOct 25, 1995 10:48 PM
Jerome: You weasel! Didn't recognize you behind the company name. I thought it might be you from that deep baritone voice. <G> I can think of no reason in the world why anyone with R4 C1 would want to switch to R4 C2. – Bob Ritger
#197299From: FKA ArchitectsOct 27, 1995 7:50 AM
<<I thought it might be you from that deep baritone voice. <G>>> Wow – didn't realize it came across the forum so well… and I didn't even include a WAV file! <g> Anyway – baritone is my upper range. I'm a true bass <g> Well, I talked the firm I'm working at to go 3DS, and putting me into a position where I'm managing their computers & network while I develop the graphics capabilities. Right now, I'm just starting to play with getting the ntworked PCs to recognize each other in 3DS… they're not, but, then, it was only yesterday at 5:45 PM that I starting trying to connect them, and never HAVE read that part of the manual… until later today, that will be 🙂 Well, anyway – the REAL upgrade I'm looking forward to is the one everyone else is looking forward to, as well – need I even say its name? Heh, heh. Take care! -Jerome