snipped-for-privacy@tampabay.rr.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Do people go to school to do that? It looks like to could be kind of fun. And more practical than non-flying model airplanes ;)
"clintonG" wrote in news:Ix%ag.1249$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:
I have the prog. from Punch!, it supposedly does that but I never tried that function. You can supposedly inport your own texture files, and have the prog. print out color forms that you can then glue to board and cut out.
Also, one can convert a 3D model's parts by exporting the OBJs to Pepakura and print to cover stock for cutout and assembly. But it's limited as to the number of polygons it can convert to assemble-able format. It doesn't seem to handle more than the simplest curves :( ((I was hoping to use ti to convert curved 3D objects that I could then use as patterns for armatures for clay or concrete stuff - currently trying to think up a way around that but that's another saga...))
I have no idea. Are you're planes not meant to fly, or do you just have trouble with them? I live in a home of RC plane obsession. :)
Yes, the whole thing has been blocked out as part of the package we had to submit. Frankly, I think the review process is a bit ridiculous, but the community is so super exclusive.
That's what we did, minus the hatching. We actually don't know how to do a roof on a model, and that is mostly the problem. Part of the reason that roof looks so crappy (opinions on complexity aside) is that piecing it together was pure guesswork on our part!
As far as the review process goes, we do not have to resubmit a model, so ours made it through just fine. We did have to make a few adjustments to the elevations and floor plants, and add more detail to our plans, but you're right, our model worked fine for the review. We would just prefer to have a better idea of what we are doing!
Yep, they HAVE to be physical...a bit ridiculous right? To me, they seem to want us to jump through hoops more than provide them with stuff that's actually helpful.
I appreciate it!
We're trying to come up with "patterns" for the roof pieces from a 2D roof drawing.
Without replying to each individual post, let me say THANKS for all the helpful comments regarding model building. We started playing around with our next model yesterday. The house is awful, but the client LOVES it. We don't think it has a chance of passing the review, so alas, we will be back to the drawing board. Such is the nature of working with clients with more money than taste, but it's part of what keeps us in business in this area. :) We don't have the luxury of turning down business from people whose vision may not match up with what we consider to be a great looking design.
Regarding the comments that we outsource, we got quotes for the last model and the builder would not pay for it. He prefers our models for the price, which is why we want to get as efficient with them as possible. :-)
I have used this company before for 3d "plots"
I think they also do precut laser sheets from 2d for you to assemble.
Figured out the image hosting [URL=
[URL=
Pretty impressive models on that site. I'd guess that the picture of the model you linked to wasn't a $900 model. I'd be interested in seeing a picture of the model they did for you. Post a link.
RJust load the webpage that has an image and copy and paste the URL from the browser into the newsreader document.
Figured out the image hosting
[URL=[URL=
What the hell are both of you using for a newsreader? Fred Flintstone's operating system? Or maybe a Mac?
That was the model they did for me. Here are some more pictures.
They used to state on their site that they may be able to do models for under 1,000 depending on the rediness of your file, but they have updated their website and I could not find it.
Tsnipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Interesting. I wish I could get their website to load...
[URL=
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.