This is what happens when I have time to draw… obviously I wish I had more time. Or at least a job where something like this might be useful.
Here is the official NaviSet tutorial. If you were stumped before about how to use it this should help more than the previous work-in-progress videos.
I’m working on basic copy protection for Naviset Export, but don’t worry, the next update won’t be just that.
In addition to that, I’m planning to move away from Paypal payments, and I will also make some interface improvements and I’m thinking of making an installer.
I have re-compiled the plugins for Navisworks 2016, and verified that the scripts function in 3ds Max 2016. To download your update, revisit the download page given in the post-purchase link. If you lost it, email me using the contact information I provided with the old plugins.
Minor/Major bug fixed. Owners can visit the download page to get it.
It was kinda dumb… basically the progress bar was getting overloaded on occasion. If you don’t want that, please update. I’ve tested this one a bit more and everything should be fine now.
The NaviSet Transfer plugin for Navisworks has been updated, correcting a set recording issue that I missed back in March.
The Timeliner Import/Export plugin and script is also now available to users, with basic support for the default Navisworks timeliner task types.
Well, the important part anyway. I’m still working on the Timeliner plugin. You can animate construction sequences in Max without it though. Just remember to open the Timeliner tab and click “Export to Sets” before running NaviSet Transfer. After that, it’s just a matter of making your Timeliner based sets show up (or disappear) in the order that they’re supposed to.
The tool is best suited for people with intermediate experience using 3D Studio Max and Navisworks. In Max, you will want to know how to set animation keys, use the renderer, and run scripts. In Navisworks, you will want to know how to work with Revit files, create sets, and use the Timeliner.
This report is actually a month old, but I’m resuming work on it so I figured I’d go ahead and talk about it.
Since completing Breakspace a while back, I’ve felt kinda blue about game development. I had fun making it, but the game itself was kinda boring and not very popular. I thought I’d have better luck making something I’d like to play. I enjoyed Mario 64 a lot, so I decided to make a 3D platformer, but with the player in the role of the monster instead of the hero.
I had quite a few false starts. Here they are in order:
I’ve updated the material converter script. The old script was made in April 2011, and supported the Architectural materials that existed then. But as development of Revit and Max continued, new material types were added, and the script didn’t know how to account for those. So you would have situations where if you use something like a painted metal, the script wouldn’t do anything to it, and on export to Blender it would be one of the unnamed mystery materials that we wanted to avoid in the first place.
This script will not try to account for every material type. Instead, regardless of material, it will apply Standard and give a random color. Like the previous script, it will generate multiple materials with the same name but different colors. This error will be fixed upon OBJ export from Max, so if you just want to standardize your materials, export and import the OBJ after running the script.
If you want to bring the model into Blender, even though Blender now supports FBX – export to OBJ anyway. Like Max, FBX supports multiple materials with the same name and different colors. OBJ does not, and will combine all the multiples.
I’ll see about fixing that moving forward. Until then, the workflow is unchanged, and you have a slightly better script.
That workflow is:
- Export from Revit to FBX
- Import FBX to 3DSMax
- Drag and drop script onto scene, this will automatically run the script
- Export from Max to OBJ
- Import OBJ to Blender
Someone asked the CGTalk community why more people in the computer graphics industry don’t use Blender. He made nice videos to go along with it. It’s definitely worth a watch at least.
The answers are really good and I agree with a lot of it. Thanks to my own trials with it, I had somethings to add to the discussion too.
In short, more people don’t use it because it isn’t good enough to replace what they already have. Usually, the cost of the software is no object. In fact, the price of 3d software today is substantially smaller than what it used to be. Even in my case, as a relative outsider, the cost of Autodesk’s software is not an issue because I just use the license purchased for me by the company I work for. The Architectural Suite has Max in it, the license permits home installations… so I effectively have Max. End of story. That’s the case for a lot of people.
So the fact that it’s free doesn’t really add enough incentive to combat the shortcomings.
Blender’s shortcomings are:
- The UI is weird. * Though in my opinion its alright.
- The features are unpolished or unfinished. Even simple stuff like layers and the application of materials and modifiers to multiple objects could use some serious work.
- Everyone is trained to use established software, so companies look for people trained to use established software.
There’s much more in the actual thread itself, including a discussion over why does it matter?
As artists and professionals, we don’t particularly care to marry our software. We use whatever gets the job done. Some people use Blender for a particularly well done feature – like UV Unwrap. Some people use it for everything. Some people don’t use it for anything. Its no big deal, and I doubt the Blender Foundation itself really cares if the industry adopts it as some sort of standard tool or not.