Little country church

[Allan Chesney]

That looks good! Only problem now is that it looks as though there should be an arched doorway - what do you think?  Then a view from inside the fence, so you see the door and base of the steeple.
Probably a background image too would improve it too, so that the sky does not go down right to the fence and a few headstones in the background!
Then you will need some bells chiming from the steeple!! 
Actually that can be done too - using the movie option. Be prepared for some long render times if you try that one though!!

Allan

[the cad man]

Are there nice arched doorways in the catalogues?

  ..wait...MOVIE  Were do I get started on that?

As for the backgrounds, I am unable to access the folder with the backgrounds in order to see the sizes and proportions that I'd need to match with my own photos, otherwise I'd be using much more appropriate background photos.

Too much Allan...slow down...I'm only one man! 

Gaz

[the cad man]

I added my own (TC) doors...I think you're right Allan..the arched doorway looks a lot better, what do you think?  Hey, that makes 100 posts...Full member!!   

Gaz

[Allan Chesney]

Yes - arched door is much better!

Re Arched Doorways: Any door can be easily arched. Select from the Shape dropdown on the Basic tab - much easier than making and importing and easy to have the door partly open for effect. You may want to source a nice shaped door image though as the arch just crops the image, or use wood panelling.

Movie:  Turn on the Animation toolbar - it is probably off, or go to Tools / Animation.

Backgrounds:  Size does not matter really, (except for load time) but square is best with the horizon slightly above centre. Anything below centre will be under the Terrain, so can be any colour but usually just the normal foreground of the photo. See http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,2256.msg10171.html#msg10171.

Too much Allan...slow down...I'm only one man! 

Why do you think I mentioned movies - that was to slow YOU down.   

Congratulation on the promotion!!!

Allan

[the cad man]

Thanks Al,

I'm finding TFP to be very versatile, but learning how to create the different effects is a very steep learning curve.  Being made by IMSI I expected it to be almost identical to the tools in TC which I'm comfortable using, but unfortunately it's quite different.  Never mind, new day, new challenges...

Gaz

[the cad man]

Okay Allan,

Here's my challenge for today...I've been experimenting with roofing, I'd like to draw the typical Aussie station house like the one below, but I'm struggling with combining a Dutch gable, a two step roof and a bullnose verandah into the one roof.  Is it possible in TFP?

Gaz

[the cad man]

Forgot to thank you Allan for the mini-tutorials, I've now got a pretty good grasp on reshaping doors within TFP so I don't have to make them externally...I love how we can open the doors to whatever angle we like...I assume we can do the same for windows.  Cool!

Gaz

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Garry,

Is it possible in TFP?

Everything is possible in TFP!!!      (well almost!!) 
Have been very busy the last few days and it is nearly 2am so I will answer your roof questions tomorrow (ie later today!) maybe in the other post on the subject - looks like you are getting there anyway.

Windows are not openable like doors but if you really want one open, you can just resize a door and elevate it, adjust the frame size glass etc. as in the example below. You need to have the wall's door sill turned on though, to provide the bottom frame.

Allan

[the cad man]

Everything is possible in TFP!!!      (well almost!!) 

Windows are not openable like doors but if you really want one open, you can just resize a door and elevate it, adjust the frame size glass etc. as in the example below. You need to have the wall's door sill turned on though, to provide the bottom frame.

Of course! A neat cheat!  I wouldn't have thought of that.

Gaz

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Garry,

I missed commenting on this one:

Being made by IMSI I expected it to be almost identical to the tools in TC which I'm comfortable using, but unfortunately it's quite different.

The original FloorPlan 3D (up to version 11) was made by IMSI and was usually bundled with TurboCAD. Sadly the technology on which it was based, reached a development plateau and adding additional functionality became too difficult.  So ... from V12 on, it was replaced by TurboFloorPlan that is produced for IMSI by CadSoft, who produce Envisioneer. TFP is the 3D part of Envisioneer, but the latter has complex 2D plan drawing capabilities taken from the 3D model. This explains the differences between the two programs.

Bear in mind too that TFP is always automatically drawing in 3D, not converting 2D into 3D. For this reason alone it has to be different. You can actually draw your model directly from the 3D view but it is hard to get the sizes and positons etc correct. You can also open a second window and as you draw in 2D you can see it in 3D - this is ideal if you have dual monitors. For architectural drawing it is infinitely quicker than TurboCAD, which is why many do the model in TFP and do the construction plans from TurboCAD. Exports from TFP can be edited etc in TurboCAD - See Jacks training video's if you need to do that (http://3dhousedesigns.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32&Itemid=27
).

However, as you said, the way of doing things in the two programs is certainly different. I can understand TFP as it is so simple (think objects,  not lines) but with TurboCAD I have no idea where to start. 

Allan

[Doug.S]

I can understand TFP as it is so simple (think objects,  not lines) but with TurboCAD I have no idea where to start. 
Allan

Allan, here is my conceptual thinking about TCAD or similar:

- Think of constructing nearly everything unless you can find a pre-built model to insert or program has default starter objects/shapes
- CAD programs are basically lines in 3D space that can be extruded/pulled/dragged into the third dimension to generate surfaces...think of dragging a circle to make a cylinder or dragging a rectangle to make a box shape
- complex 3D curved surfaces possible
- Boolean tools available; usually work well but sometimes cause problems in models
- you "assemble" basic geometric shapes to make an object
- arrange objects in 3D space to create a large object (house) or a scene (a house with a fence, sidewalk, etc.)
- You can have and mix 2D and 3D in one or many views or to print
- CAD comes with easy to use dimensioning
- CAD usually has texturing and rendering and can make animations
- CAD has easy ability to radius or chamfer edges or corners or blend odd shapes together
If you have tried SketchUp it is similar; tho not really a typical CAD system; it is specialized for architecture and has a unique tool set.

With detail at the minuscule level you can do/create just about anything but it is less about drag'n'drop predefined complete objects; more of grow your own.

Others may agree/disagree or have different opinions and rightly so as it depends on the program and what you are trying to create; what the final end product and purpose. For example most CAD programs can output for manufacturing; nearly direct drive (or output a specific file type) to run machines to build/cut/bend/trim/etc. the 3D object from real materials.

So you start from what you want to create, draw lines, make shapes, assemble shapes, render views, make dimensioned drawings, output to printers/machines. It is more flexible and basic rather than prefab.
Want a door in CAD; draw all the pieces/assemble (group); put into scene (and save it for another future use)

If you think of CAD in same way you create objects in TFP by extruding floor shapes or assembling bits and pieces into a chandelier....you are on your way....only need to learn which CAD tools do what....or are similar to TFP tools.  There are many more tool choices in CAD to provide a huge variety of capabilities to generate any shape you can imagine....so it may seem like a big task. But think of the first time you tried TFP; you start simple and learn new tools as you need them.
And there are usually some help files or tuts too.

It really becomes a question of need. If you want to do/design/create something and your current tool set is insufficient, then maybe you need/want to expand into CAD.  Most 3D/2D programs now can exchange data/shapes/objects so they work together most of the time but there are proprietary file formats.

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Doug,

I understand the concepts of CAD and have had CAD programs since I first had a computer. My problem with typical, all encompassing CAD programs, is that my mind works in pictures - useless at maths, hate reading but can draw or paint anything I can visualise. Computer programming was part of my work, but I only really pursued that because I liked to make animated graphical interfaces.

I think this visual mind is why TFP was so easy for me. Icons were a picture of a wall, door, window etc, in Properties the object was visual and changed as dimensions changed, so my mind absorbed it instantly. No guessing at what booleens were, what extruding would do, it was a window or a door or whatever but totally customisable.

No question either about anything else I wanted to make that is not already there. Just think 'what does it look like'. Essentially it looks like 'a cylinder on top of a cube', so that is what I do, put a cylinder on top of a box and adjust the sizes a needed. Of course I could open TurboCAD, draw a square, extrude it, draw a circle and extrude that, arrange them and then export them and import into TFP, but I can't see any point when I can do it very visually in TFP.

Obviously it wont do everything, notably three way curves, although I have done that too using the Terrain.

So I see my visual mind is part of the problem I have with the usual CAD programs. They usually have rows of colourless icons and I have no time to learn what they all do. The latter is the biggest problem - time. TFP is so quick for the things I need to do, so I consequently have no interest in trying to learn some other way.

Maybe one day I will have the time and inclination! 

Allan

[the cad man]

I deleted the TC windows and tried making some within TFP, so here are the latest updates of the little country church...I  think the windows do look better.  The moon in the night shot is a 3x3 metre Targa image dropped in as a billboard elevated 16 metres up in the sky from a photo I took of the moon a few nights ago.

[Doug.S]

Something interesting in comparing the day/night scene renders...

What I see in the night image is repeating patterns in the stone walls; but not in the daylight render. Wondering why? tho they are different views

And a curiosity...in daylight view, the tops of the short walls that help support the main walls, have roof shingles on their top surfaces?  I would have thought they would be all stone surfaces.....but I am not an expert and could be very wrong? But they look odd to me.

And in the daylight scene I can see thru the tree, but at night it looks like it is all full leaves; not seeing black sky? Again a different view so I may be wrong?

[the cad man]

Hi Doug,

In the night sceneI used a much broader angle of view, 20 degrees, so the pattern is much more noticable.  The pattern reapeats the same in the day shot but because I used a 40 degree viewing angle I could be much closer to the scene and the pattern isn't so obvious.

Yes you are correct in that there are roof shingles on the angled faces of the buttresses, it keeps the rain from entering and damaging the stonework and is common on (usually larger) stone churches, and on the one I was using as inspiration for this drawing.

I think you're right about the tree...Im not happy with the night shot of this build and when I get a chance I'll make some changes to see if it'llcome out a bit better.

Thanks for your observations.

Gaz