TurboCad into Terragen - or alternative to TurboCad for use with Terragen

Started by EdBardet, December 29, 2013, 08:56:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

EdBardet

I have been experimenting with ways to get objects from TurboCad into TG. The objects themselves are no problem. Fully textured objects cause problems. Using Poseray as an intermediate works on solid colored objects but only handles one color on textured objects, none of the details (like wood grain). Has anyone found a good method? I use TurboCad to produce detailed plans for the construction of the objects(Ships, Shipbuilding) I want to show off in TG.

Does anyone use another, free or cheap, cad product with Terragen?

Thanx,
Ed

Oshyan

Do you know if the textures you're working with in TurboCAD are image-based, or procedural? Poseray can process image-basted materials on objects, but there's no way to get the procedural textures in an OBJ unless TurboCAD itself supports export/rasterization of those textures. I think your starting point would be seeing if *any* other program can load the models as they appear in TurboCAD. If yes, then there is probably a way to get them to load in TG, but if not, then it's a fundamental problem of what TurboCAD is actually exporting.

- Oshyan

TheBadger

Wouldn't any other autodesk modeler import and convert it, or any of the big 3D packages? I just downloaded Autocad student. So Im interested in this discussion. I got it installed but have not opened it yet. People keep suggesting I should learn this autocad stuff .

It has been eaten.

Oshyan

Why are people suggesting your learn AutoCAD? It's useful for hardcore architectural design, i.e. accuracy, but unless you're actually trying to design real-world buildings or mechanical parts or something, it's not going to help you...

- Oshyan

TheBadger

I was left with the impression that modeling is better, do to tools. And that complex repetitive things would be easier. Im currently modeling a scale of the acropolis and other structures found during the roman greek era, in as much precision as Maya is letting me. I finished a model of a temple from another location, where I modeled the actual stones of the walls with edge loops. It was tedious.
I have be told several times that auto cad is best for hard surface modeling.

I just want to have a look and see what I could make of it.
It has been eaten.

EdBardet

Oshyan - I'll follow up on that. I'm sure some are procedural. In my naivety I ass/u/me that the procedurals were somehow converted when exported.
Ed

Kadri


Michael i don't know what others think about this but in all of those years i am in 3D (20 years or so) i haven't heard anything like that.
Autocad's need and strength is like Oshyan mentioned. For better modeling in standart 3D to advice Autocad??? Are they Autodesk employers?

Others could give you different advice, but what i know is Maya isn't much for indıvuals.
More for bigger groups,scripting for many new features, shaders ,character animation etc.
For faster hard surface modeling i hear mostly Lightwave(with LWCad like plugins especially) Modo etc. like applications.
For organic modeling Zbrush ,3DCoat etc.

These debates are very old. Every software has it strengths and weaknesses.
I heard nobody saying that modeling is Houdini's strength for example.
Maya is not the best in that aspect.
This is my self observation so others may not approve it and there is nothing wrong with that.

But Autocad? That is strange whoever said that.
If i want a vehicle to drive wherever i will, i wouldn't buy a bus.
If everybody bought another program for anything that is hard to do in his own program we should own and know all what is around.
I for one would not do and could not do that even if i had the money.
(Everybody knows the elephant in the room . I certainly tried something along that line a long time ago!)

These lines are more for the guys who told you to use Autocad actually Michael.
Pwew! Maybe i am getting old...

In the end it is a preference you use what you find the easiest of course. So maybe you will find it easy.

Not sure about from where Ed comes. If he has a Cad background that is quite another thing.
From Cad to Lightwave ,Modo , Maya is not the same thing as the other way around .
Curious what you may say about that Ed actually ?

EdBardet

Kadri-

I use TurboCad for Boat design and pattern prep. I want to include 3D objects from there into TG scenery, since building photorealistic terrain and scenery in TC is #$%$#.  I can get objects in as solids or wireframe, but am stymied on getting the textures along with them.
Ed

TheBadger

Oh guys, Im really mental! It was free to download so I did not care too much.
I confused LWCad with autocad. I thought "Cad" was the brand. but "cad" is a general term? And auto, or LW, or turbo, is the distinction/brand? Yes?  I thought cad was the software because every time I hear it on TV or when I was at school, so on, no one ever differentiated. All anyone said was "cad".

Stupid me.

And kadri, you were one of the people I was thinking of when I decided to install autocad I thought "LW"-cad was just a way to get the two softwares to work together.

Like I said it was free. So no harm no debt. I'll probably just uninstall then. I would probably buy MODO right now if I could afford it. Or lightwave based on the use it gets from people here. But I can't afford them now. So Autodesk I must stick with.

Kadri, ON maya I can't agree with you that its not for individuals. I need everything that it does and I use all of it. I just wish modeling was a little lot better.
I am modeling the city of athens at its peek in the ancient world. Roman era. (a historian probably would argue that was the peek time, but its funner to think about for me). Both a ruined version like you might see now (but not so ruined) and a like new version. Its taking a long time. IM following schematics and photos pretty closely.
It has been eaten.

Oshyan

CAD = Computer Aided Design. It is a class or type of application, like Mudbox, Zbrush, and 3D Coat are all 3D *sculpting* applications, or Terragen is an *environment* modeling/rendering application (although CAD is actually more technically and specifically defined; CAD programs are specifically oriented toward actual practical, functional product, industrial, and architectural design).

What I see is you casting a very broad "net", trying to incorporate or try a lot of different things. This is good to a point, but I get the feeling you're looking for "ultimate" solutions, and perhaps that you think maybe there are good/great solutions you haven't heard of or tried yet. I can all but guarantee you that isn't the case, there certainly is no magic bullet, and most of the time what you are familiar with and can get your hands on (e.g. Maya) is going to serve you better than trying to find some other better program and then learn it to equivalent skill level. IF you're starting at zero with no experience, then learning the "best" tool for your particular needs is a good goal, but what is best is highly debatable and subjective, and given your broad interests in modeling and rendering I would venture to say that in fact no one tool is going to be "best" for all you do. You either need to accept the sacrifices inherent in the tool(s) you have selected, or get fluent in a lot more different packages (very time consuming and challenging).

But mainly I just want to communicate that I think you're aware of all the actually applicable, useful options at this point, and have probably tried many - if not most - of them. There is not likely to be some much better application out there that you aren't already aware of. If you hear of some new thing and it sounds like just what you need, that's worth looking into, but the best way to do that is *not* always just to download it if it's available, this can be more time consuming than necessary when often just looking at the feature list or forum discussions will tell you if it's generally used for your kinds of purposes. So basically, if you like what you have (Terragen, Maya...), that's a fairly well-informed decision at this point, and a pragmatic one as you pointed out, due to cost. Someone who knows their tools of choice extremely well is generally going to be more productive than someone with a "better" tool who knows less *about* that tool and how to effectively use it. So my advice is to make the call ASAP as to whether you're OK with Maya as a modeler and if your decision is yes, then stick with it, learn it inside and out; if your decision is no, settle on a different option quickly, and learn it inside and out. And most importantly, know that no matter which software you decide on, it won't be good at everything and you'll be frustrated sometimes by its limitations.

- Oshyan

Kadri


Thanks Ed!
I wish i could help.I don't use any Cad program.
The best shot in the dark is , see if your program does have UV mapping features.
If nothing works directly you could in this way at least map your textures much more easier.

Kadri


Quote from: TheBadger on December 29, 2013, 08:42:53 PM
...
And kadri, you were one of the people I was thinking of
when I decided to install autocad I thought "LW"-cad was just a way to get the two softwares to work together.
...


Yes that software had nothing to do with Autocad. Sorry for the confusion Michael!


Quote from: TheBadger on December 29, 2013, 08:42:53 PM
...
Like I said it was free. So no harm no debt. I'll probably just uninstall then.
I would probably buy MODO right now if I could afford it.
Or lightwave based on the use it gets from people here. But I can't afford them now. So Autodesk I must stick with.
...


Wait and see where you go and don't buy anything unnecessary.
I like Lightwave for example but there are guys who hate it etc.


Quote from: TheBadger on December 29, 2013, 08:42:53 PM
...
Kadri, ON maya I can't agree with you that its not for individuals.
I need everything that it does and I use all of it. I just wish modeling was a little lot better.
...


No problem at all :)
There are friends here around that use Cinema4D for example and are so great at modeling i wish, 
just to be on the same ground to speak about modeling, that i was using it too.

Kadri

Quote from: TheBadger on December 29, 2013, 08:42:53 PM
...
I am modeling the city of athens at its peek in the ancient world. Roman era.
(a historian probably would argue that was the peek time, but its funner to think about for me).
Both a ruined version like you might see now (but not so ruined) and a like new version.
Its taking a long time. IM following schematics and photos pretty closely.

That is pretty ambitious, especially for a first project Michael. May it be easy! Curious how it will look  :)

TheBadger

Its good thoughtful sober advice Oshyan! Not just for me but anyone

Truly my main anxiety is productivity rather than something that is the "best". I worry a lot that Im too slow, that things Im working on are taking too long, that others would do it faster, and that they will always be faster. Its not just competitiveness, its bread and butter.
I believe what you wrote is true, but even so, I know I will always have an eye out for something to help me get an edge.

No mater what, though, I will render things in TG. Ed is right to try this. Its a good idea. HE could even make a ship yard and port in TG, to place his models. That would be something! Go for it man!.. I think your the first in these forums to ask about cad and TG though, so you'll probably be the ground breaker on this subject, ED.

Sorry if I hijacked!

QuoteThat is pretty ambitious, especially for a first project Michael. May it be easy! Curious how it will look
Its not as big as it sounds at all. Just very repetitive and tedious. I have to model lots of buildings. But they are mostly similar to one another, the temples all demonstrate the same "sacred geomety" and the houses are largly similar to one another. I should before long be able to reuse parts. and speed up my output. The worst part, and only bad thing about modeling, remains having to UV map everything I make!
It has been eaten.

Kadri


Ed i downloaded Turbocad Professional 20.2 64 bit trial.
There are file formats that does look encouraging  like Obj,3ds,Dae SKP etc.
I tried 3ds (first loaded in Poseray,then exported it from Poseray as OBJ)
and it exported all surfaces but when i load them in Lightwave or TG3 they look wrong.
Not sure but if you can attach UV maps to them it could work.
You can even assign new UV maps from Poseray for any surface if you want for example.
(Material tab+Remap(you can choose different methods there))
Another program with more options is obviously better.

Jo had some knowledge with Cad programs if i remember correctly(?).
Maybe he or other Cad users will chime in.