TITAN308
Member
Oh Ive been pluggin' away for 4 hours now... this is very addicting...
[Firearm Related] 3D Rendering Software?
- Thread starter TITAN308
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
If you need to do properly dimensioned drawings, you'll be looking at more the CAD side of things: Solid Works, Pro/Engineer, AutoCAD.
If you want pretty, you'll be looking at 3D Studio Max, Maya, or Blender.
If you want pretty, you'll be looking at 3D Studio Max, Maya, or Blender.
TITAN308
Member
I'm not sure I get what you are saying.
Google SketchUp works with exact dimensions, IN, CM, FT, etc etc
And you can import your files into the more "popular" software as needed.
Google SketchUp works with exact dimensions, IN, CM, FT, etc etc
And you can import your files into the more "popular" software as needed.
Last edited:
Flintknapper
Member
When used along with "Layout" it will probably fulfill your needs.
SketchUP simply uses the principle of "extruding" any 2D form you can draw, not unlike the first versions of Pro-E I used nearly 20 years ago.
In fact, you can even even rotate/examine the images you have created with nearly the same flexibility as Pro-E offered, only we used what was then called a "space-ball".
Pretty nice software for "free"...if you just need casual renderings.
TITAN308
Member
Started mapping out Project Titan 3.0 - this one is going to take a while cause I still have to do the entire rifle.
TITAN308
Member
Oh my god, I can't stop.
I should go to bed, but I keep saying - "Just a little more..."
I should go to bed, but I keep saying - "Just a little more..."
bergmen
Member.
Now you need a 3d mouse from 3Dconnexion called a SpaceNavigator:
http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/spacenavigator.html
You'll wonder how you ever lived without it.
Trust me, it is the only way to dynamically view your models. I have three of them (two for my desktop engineering workstations and one for the portable laptop).
Dan
http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/spacenavigator.html
You'll wonder how you ever lived without it.
Trust me, it is the only way to dynamically view your models. I have three of them (two for my desktop engineering workstations and one for the portable laptop).
Dan
TITAN308
Member
Oh man don't show me that stuff.
I am easily distracted.... "Oooo shiney..."
I am easily distracted.... "Oooo shiney..."
I've tried using one of those, and just couldn't get into it. I'll stick with a mouse and wacom.
I'm a 3ds max V-ray and mental ray user here as well...
bergmen
Member.
When I introduced these into the division of the company I contract with, there many long time CAD users who couldn't get used to it. Others jumped right on it and never looked back.
It takes a bit to get used to it (I kept losing the parts off the edge of the screen). I felt like a drunk helicopter pilot with blinders on. After a few crash landings and out of control spins I started to get the hang of it.
Outside of CAD systems, they are fantastic with Google Earth. I can blast from London to Miami in seconds. It makes my wife airsick to watch, I have to arrive at a destination so she can open her eyes and look.
I have a personal business/ME Workstation, company laptop on a docking station, both have SpaceNavigators.
Dan
bergmen
Member.
BTW, Titan, looks like you're doing pretty darned good as someone with no experience with CAD systems.
A quick study.
Dan
A quick study.
Dan
TITAN308
Member
Thanks man, I really appreciate that.
Yea I've never touched a piece of CAD software in my life - I am however by nature a techie (its what I do for a living). So as long as its not overly complicated I pick up on things quick.
Yea I've never touched a piece of CAD software in my life - I am however by nature a techie (its what I do for a living). So as long as its not overly complicated I pick up on things quick.
BCRider
Member
There's no doubt that Sketchup is a little easier than most to use but you ARE catching on a LOT faster than many folks. You obviously have the sort of mind that can picture this stuff and then it's simply a matter of finding a way to stick it into some application so others can see it. I believe the phrase is "good with spatial relationships". You have it in spades!
TITAN308
Member
Alright stop it - going to make it go to my head. lol
Anymore of that talk and I'll have to barge into my boss's office and demand a raise, "I R ENGINEER NOW U PAY MOAR K?"
Of course my job doesn't involve any engineering skills, but its the point damnit!
Thanks again guys, you made my day.
Anymore of that talk and I'll have to barge into my boss's office and demand a raise, "I R ENGINEER NOW U PAY MOAR K?"
Of course my job doesn't involve any engineering skills, but its the point damnit!
Thanks again guys, you made my day.
TITAN308
Member
Ok another side item Ive had on paper for a while. I wanted quite a few things on Project Titan to be unique and re-producible.
On paper I have a design for our own extended bolt catch, extended magazine release button, and safety selector switch. All show BIG dimensions like the rifle itself, the whole theme is TITAN LARGE.
Here is the bolt catch so far (the paddle portion, bout to start on the bolt catch itself):
For perspective thickness of almost all parts is 1/8th inch.
On paper I have a design for our own extended bolt catch, extended magazine release button, and safety selector switch. All show BIG dimensions like the rifle itself, the whole theme is TITAN LARGE.
Here is the bolt catch so far (the paddle portion, bout to start on the bolt catch itself):
For perspective thickness of almost all parts is 1/8th inch.
TITAN308
Member
Ah, so I figured out how to import into another model so I can put the pieces together.
Dang this is fun. lol
Dang this is fun. lol
scythefwd
Member
maya is free for personal use.. not free for commercial use. It's extendable via plugins, and it's what dreamworks uses.
Blender3d - free, its what zelda, ocarina of time was done with.
Blender3d - free, its what zelda, ocarina of time was done with.
TITAN308
Member
Yarrrrr - extended bolt catch has been successfully transferred from grid paper and to scale in a 3D model.
rfwobbly
Member
From time to time, my company deals with parts with complex shapes that we don't care to spend the time entering into SoildWorks or simply have no way to measure. We located a local company that was able to do a 3D scan very cheaply and efficiently. This scanning technology was first used in the auto industry, but has now spread to almost very other part of the nation as the dependence on 3D CAD becomes more prevalent.
The generated "parts" come in as a single JPG file and can be any physical size. We saw customers dropping off everything from handheld hair dryers to full-size aircraft radomes. It's very popular for companies to "reverse engineer" parts made 15 years ago using clay models or wooden layup forms for which no mathematical models exist.
We then took that model and after importing it, were able to add (or super detail) the special features we needed for mating to the next piece in the assembly. Cost and time are based solely on the distance between scan points. You could easily get an inexpensive but realistic rendering of a handgun with a scan grid of .040", then go back and add small details, like 1911 slide serrations or logos, yourself.
The generated "parts" come in as a single JPG file and can be any physical size. We saw customers dropping off everything from handheld hair dryers to full-size aircraft radomes. It's very popular for companies to "reverse engineer" parts made 15 years ago using clay models or wooden layup forms for which no mathematical models exist.
We then took that model and after importing it, were able to add (or super detail) the special features we needed for mating to the next piece in the assembly. Cost and time are based solely on the distance between scan points. You could easily get an inexpensive but realistic rendering of a handgun with a scan grid of .040", then go back and add small details, like 1911 slide serrations or logos, yourself.
Last edited:
TITAN308
Member
TITAN308
Member
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
It does, but I don't think it forces you to dimension things properly. I'd also be fairly surprised if it had the ability to do things like account for clearances and tolerances in any meaningful way.
Most 3d programs will let you do this by converting to an intermediate, software-agnostic file format like STL or U3D. However, in some cases the conversion process can introduce weird artifacts into the model, so be aware that after converting the model over, you may have to do cleanup work on the model.
That said, your models look pretty cool.
TITAN308
Member
Yea no tolerances type stuff, but for standard measurements its exactly as you enter it.
bergmen
Member.
The de-facto industry standard for multi-platform file formats has been either IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) or STEP (STandard for Exchange of Product model data), STEP 214 being the most common of the second phase versions. Being an ASCII file, it is something of a plain vanilla file type that can be easily read by translators. Driven by ISO (International Organization for Standardization), STEP files of common component and hardware items are easily available from thousands of sources.
STEP and IGES files are also the standard formats for CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing) systems worldwide. These CAM systems facilitate blanking patterns for sheet metal, tool pathing for CNC machining centers and tool and die fabrication. These file formats can also be imported into Finite Element Analysis (FEA) applications and other analysis tools such as FloTherm (computational fluid dynamics software).
In my work we only use 3d CAD models for geometric definitions of parts supplemented by 2d drawings that include material specifications, finish specifications, tolerances, revision levels, etc.
Dan
YankeeFlyr
Member
STEP files
Yeah, I agree, STEP214a is the most common when I download components from various suppliers.
Wish there was some interchange format that allowed the feature trees to be preserved...but then that begs the question; why do we really need a whole bunch of different formats for every CAD publisher???
OK, everyone has their own "engine"...that keeps up the competition, but let's standardize the data files!
We did it with fasteners, cross-company, and a lot of other things in "trade sizes".
(Yeah, I know that's off-topic but I had to rant...)
Yeah, I agree, STEP214a is the most common when I download components from various suppliers.
Wish there was some interchange format that allowed the feature trees to be preserved...but then that begs the question; why do we really need a whole bunch of different formats for every CAD publisher???
OK, everyone has their own "engine"...that keeps up the competition, but let's standardize the data files!
We did it with fasteners, cross-company, and a lot of other things in "trade sizes".
(Yeah, I know that's off-topic but I had to rant...)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
