3D to 2D Hatch

[l_tony]

Hello everyone!

I've been looking for ages for a solution to the following problem:

I have a 3D model and in order not to make huge 2d detail drawing, I would like to flatten that 3D structure to a 2D scheth with hatches! I mean I would like to keep the solid-like appearrance but to be a 2d. The structure is too complex for me to hatch each and every single block to be the color that I want. Also hatch takes a lot of time since it cannot find all of the edges sometimes. The solid needs to be perfectly sliced to the surface of another solid in order to create the edges needed for the hatch (and visually esthetic). But this is time consuming.

I have tried:

- flatten

- flatshot

- sectionplane

- print to dxb

All with differrent settings but to no avail 😞

Thank you!

[steve216586]

Can you post the drawing? If you have tried all the listed techniques but stilll don't get the result you seek, it is hard to visualize what else might be giving you problems without seeing the object.

[l_tony]

So this is what I want.

Picture 1 in a simplified 3d model.

Picture 2 is a flatshot of that model. I then created the hatches by hand in order to have the look of the 3d model.

Picture 3 is actually part of my work. As you can see not all the edges are very well defined.

So how cand I maintain the colour, the solid-like (the fillness) of the 3d model while transposing all to 2d?

Thanks again.

[steve216586]

Well, I guess the only thing you haven't tried is the combo of Solview and Soldraw. I prefer those methods although the ones you listed are more recent additions to AutoDesk 3D. I seem to get better results using the SOL commands.

Here is a decent tutorial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEc3Qu8xiBc

Let me know if you have any questions with this procedure.

[l_tony]

I forgot that I also used those two commands aswell. It does not help me.

Is there no way to "image" a 3d object onto a flat surface? I just want a screenshot of that object, a freeze-time of that object and put it all on a piece of papier. I mean if autocad can do the flatshot and the flatten well, why then can't it also project the "in-between" the lines, the fillness of that object? It's a simple ortho projection!! I don't know lisp, maybe that woul've helped me out.

Thanks again, but I am still looking for a solution.

[steve216586]

I think your solution is going to be using something like Studio 3dsMax.

[dgorsman]

Thats more a function of a visualization software like Maya or 3DS MAX than a drafting software like AutoCAD.  Have you tried printing to an image using one of the rendered visual styles (either applied to the viewport or in the plot dialog), then referencing that image in to the drawing?

[l_tony]

Just for fun, I have tried publish to image, but, really, you cannot work with pictures in a detail drawing. I need good quality, not that jpeg or png; also I need the geometry.

I do not own 3ds Max nor Inventor, however I don't see why this 3D modelling software allows me to project only the wireframe and not the whloe solid onto a 2d plane. Heck, I learned to do this by hand in my first year at university; the autodesk brain-geeks can't do that? (I mean they did -the mesh- but I was referring to the whole)

Thanks for all of your help but unfortunatelly this thread is going nowhere.

Cheers to both of u's!

[dgorsman]

Right tool for the job.  Inventor can't do P&IDs, Raster Design makes an awful spreadsheet application.  AutoCAD is a Swiss Army knife, not a k-bar or a scalpel (and I know which one I'd pick to trim my nails with).  Creating "pretty pictures" is the domain of visualization software.

Out of curiosity, shouldn't the piping program you are using have tools to flatten/create drawings already?

[l_tony]

In a 3d world design, if you create a 3d part, why not show it off to your client. I mean gone are the days when only the super companies had the access to powerfull wrokstations to render 3d wireframe drawings, which evnetually went to full 3d show-offs. Now even a student in his bedroom can create powerfull presentations. So why not this 3d modelling software does not have a simple output tool (output because the drawings are output data from the software that the client uses and it is awed if it has "pretty pictures")?

To answer your question dgorsman, the software that I use here only creates wireframe orthographic drawings. I then export them to Mechanical to annotate all of the parts since Plant3d is weaker in this part. Sorry 4 the delay, I only answer from work.

Cheers!

[dgorsman]

Those days aren't that far gone.  Until only a few years ago, submitting a "pretty" rendered-style drawing would end up with you getting laughed in the face based on either hardware limitations or work procedures.  Those work procedures are still in place for the most part - most companies want technical drawings in black-and-white line drawing technical presentation, since they survive multiple printing/faxing/photocopy cycles far better than color drawings.  I'm in the same industry, brought up similar items in the past, and I can tell you the number of times clients will say "Yes, thats pretty.  Now put it back to our standards so we can accept it."  We're only recently getting clients and supervisors to adopt such things as Navisworks Freedom as well as rendered images/basic animations.

I can't really see such a feature being added to AutoCAD in the near future when there are many other AutoDesk products which do this far better, and clients still demand technical-style drawings.  You can submit a product request, just be realistic with your expectations.

[l_tony]

You are very much right about what you said. Of course the black and white technical drawing is still the basis of all product design in this 3d modelling world. When you give to a manufacturer you give him 2d annotated drawings; 3d is a plus and not-that-saught-after. It has an impact in the fre-feed and feed phase of a project.

The thing is I made a number of drawings for a couple of projects in which, for concept selection I had my 2d drawing but it also had an isometrc view on it. Now, one day our client was at our office and saw the beautifull 3d model and asked to put in on paper, replacing the wireframe isometric view. Thus my search has begun since all of my 400kb drawings suddenly went to 6mb drawings, each! (from 400k to 6mb it is quite a leap for only a general arrangement drawing).

I, however, still say that autocad should have that solid 3d projection-to-plane. Think that then you can also use that command to export your little 2d part and use it in a wrokflow sheet, as an icon if you can, as a symbol in a PFD, as a cover page for your project presentation in ppt, and so on.

[steve216586]

"I, however, still say that autocad should have that solid 3d projection-to-plane. Think that then you can also use that command to export your little 2d part and use it in a wrokflow sheet, as an icon if you can, as a symbol in a PFD, as a cover page for your project presentation in ppt, and so on."

I typically create cover page and ppt "pictures" from my 3D drawings all the time. I don't get laughed at nor do the presentations look "cartoonish". If you dive into applying materials and rendering with AutoCAD, I think you would get a very realistic view of your work. I have even drawn a complete fluid handling system with Stainless and Polypro fittings and equipment and applied a background .jpg of the client's facility where the unit would be located. You really couldn't tell that it wasn't a photo real of the system as it appears today after install.

The key is to make sure all projected planes match and the lighting and color hues match real life effects. The drawing can be rotated as needed to "fit" into the background perspective. It take a little experimentation and if you are new to the process of rendering, I would look up as many tutorials as I could and test out what they present. Expect to put some real time of your own into this on the side but it can be done quite professionally without using a third party program.

[l_tony]

Yeah, for basic rendering simple acad is ok (and I believe that if u delve deeper into it u can achieve what u said steve). But if there is a need for an exthensive presentation for a project, then a specialised software must be used. So a company that does not have that software licence will contract another which has. Howeveeeer, IF one of the employess has advanced knowledge in 3d modelling, and has at his fingertips basic acad, then why the heck should the employer spend thousands of $ for a presentation when he can make money off that piping/mechanical designer/3d specialist emplyee? 🙂 Economics has a big part in todays projects; actually it has always been a big part.

Anyway, if it were to be a big project, such as a new rafinery, then I guess that we would've had the support of a specialised 3d rendering company. But for the rest of the project I can do without them.