The thread for silly Alias questions...

Thank you Cyberdemon, that makes a whole heck of a lot more sense now!

One new question, is there anyway once you have added isoparms to a surface to reselected specific isoparms and readjust their position on the surface? Or should I simply undo all the isoparm placements and just redo them?

A good habit is to always make a copy of your surface and put it on a backup layer before you insert any isoparms. Once you do, that’s pretty much the end of the road since you can not undo insertion. You can not reposition (or reparameterize may be a better word) the isoparm. If you think of your surface as a math equation, when you insert that isoparm it’s tied to a specific parameter on the surface so while you can move the CV’s around and the isoparms will move, their parameter (or relative position) will still be the same. At that point you either have to rebuild your surface (which may not yield the original result you started with) or recreate it from scratch.

If you want your isoparms to be nice and evenly spaced, consider upping the spans manually on the box in the control panel, or hold the “alt” key to automatically put the isoparm at the halfway point. (Ctrl+Alt will snap to an isoparm on an adjacent surface)

I forgot to thank you for this answer!

Here’s a new one I suspect has to do with the letters U and V, but I have no idea how to diagnose it properly:

(I especially like how the result of the union command is randomly an intersect and randomly a subtract…)

The thing is, I have other of these crossed bands which union fine, but most freak out like this.

Also, I have over a hundred of them… not just these five. Several hundred, in fact.

Swift help is greatly appreciated!

Here’s a wire:

http://www.eobet.com/temp/shellsgrr.wire

Found the answer myself: I have to blindly, through trial and error, reverse every U and V direction of one or both of the shells until the union operation stops behaving like intersect or subtract.

I still have no idea what’s wrong, or when things are right, I’m just switching back and forth, modifying every shell until it works.

Gotta love Alias!

Won’t lie to you - the shell boolean tools suck balls. It’s weird, I download your file and for X 1 3 and 5 Intersect actually joined them, and for 2 and 4 Subtract worked but only if I picked them in the correct order.

The only thing I can think of is something happened with the way those were created that was different or reversed from the others, or that since they were grouped, the group is causing some kind of weird heirarchy.

If you’re still doing it you can try using the other 2 boolean commands, but yeah it’s funky and terrible and I’m not going to pretend that Alias ever plays nice with solids. I have issues even when just using Alias primatives (like punching a hole in a block)

Thanks. I’m not going to jinx anything, because I’m not finished, but so far I’ve noticed:

When you use the Reverse UV command, the little crosshair can be either yellow or cyan. However, unlike the surface orientation command, this is not an indication of which direction the UVs are (in other words, UI inconsistency, and I’ve upgraded to Alias 2012 now).

Call me superstitious, but most of the original Alias development team is gone I believe and now the desk is left scrambling to figure out what all the source code really means and how to handle it. Nevertheless it’s still a great tool… for now. But they shouldn’t wait to much longer or it’ll fall behind the curve.

What curve? Please, please, please tell me that there actually exists a viable alternative? (And please don’t say Rhino, because that’s just nowhere near anything like Alias.)

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I know of no Class A modeling software that is as flexible with degrees on curves and hulls, that has as many snapping and transformation options and modes, that allows you to switch construction options on the fly and which actually retains history, almost like a parametric modeler…

I don’t think I can go back to a software that doesn’t have query edit, extend, stretch, proportional modification, hide unselected, non proportional view scale, skins (with their implicit continuity guarantees) etc.

But then again, you discover things almost every day that makes you want to tear your hair out, like for example, just now, I noticed the fact that you cannot set a keyboard shortcut for “pick curve” even in Alias 2012. You have to use the bloody marking menu for it!

And of course, at the same time, I oh, so could live without “pick nothing”, the fucking triple key shortcuts, “zero transforms”, the lack of undo, and well, everything that I’ve been bitching about for eight pages in this very thread. :slight_smile:

(EDIT: I realize not liking “zero transforms” goes against me liking the history, because it enables the absolute tranformations, but the thing I dislike is that there is no proper interface to view and edit the local coordinate systems that this creates… it’s all spread out under the pivot, orientation and reverse UV tools and probably more that I haven’t found, because very often when I ungroup something, scale factors reset and duplications behave oddly.)

Hi
I’m new to alias and I wonder, what’s the difference between a cv curve and a blend curve?

I’m not an authority, but I suspect they’re the same thing, only degrees are handled implicitly with blend curves and there’s some faster UI options for aligning them (a normal curve you have to separately snap, use the align tool and make sure the degrees are correct).


Ok, so I’ve been (reluctantly) getting back into Alias (2012 this time), and maybe I forgot something very basic, but shouldn’t this work? Simple rail with implied curvature on a symmetry layer… yields tangency continuity… what?

Oh, and unless I’m mistaken, in 20112, they still haven’t fixed instances. I just did a duplication on a surface with history and it lost its history once the action was complete…

Look at your inputs.

You’re telling it you want implied curvature along your rail (which is what you want based on the picture) AND implied curvature along your generation curve.

This means it’s screwing everything up trying to generate curvature in those 2 directions.

Set your gen curve to free and it should let it flow properly. If you are actually trying to achieve implied G2 on your gen curve, then that’s a whole separate discussion and you shouldn’t be trying to use a monorail 1.

Right, so now I have tangency along the gen curve instead. I’m trying to get away with modeling 1/4 of the object in question, so let’s go ahead and have that separate discussion, if you don’t mind. :slight_smile:

I’m guessing I could build support surfs and do a square off them, but I’d like to hear your ideas on the subject.

Modelling 1/4 is fine - but if it’s giving you that result it more than likely means that where your gen curve is not G2 across the curve you are trying to create G2 across.

If you can post a screen shot of your 2 curves with the orthos and the CV’s on, you can probably see one CV isn’t lining up across your second symmetry plane.

Curves are made sure that the 2nd CV is aligned to the 1st. I’ve repeatedly snapped them and they seem fine.

Still, no go.

So, I remember that if the 2nd CV is normal to the mirroring plane, I only need tangency to get curvature across the surfaces.

Still no go.

As a last ditch attempt, I duplicate the curves off the failed surface, set up support surfaces and create a new square.

Again, no go.

Anyway, this was an exercise and not really needed for my final model. I’m going back to modelling 1/2 of it instead. Still weird, though.


EDIT: Going really overkill and making sure the 2nd and 3rd CVs were aligned in both corner curves, then duplicating these to form the other corner and building a square with implied tangency(!) from those did produce a proper curvature aligned mirrored surface… but man, why couldn’t it just work from the start? :stuck_out_tongue:

Right but remember when you are sweeping a curve, the rail it moves along wants to rotate that curve in such a way that may cause the CV’s in the opposite direction to no longer be where you think they will be. When you force them to, it can break the continuity along the opposite plane because of that transformation.

I model stuff in quarters all the time, you just need to make sure the curves you start with want to allow that.

Ah, right. Thanks!

So next I should go looking for the equivalent of “keep normal constant” from Solidworks’s sweep feature. :slight_smile:

Anyway, looking back to the first question of the first page is really a facepalm on my behalf. :smiley: Not since that first page have I ever needed to do what I asked about. One should really not be allowed to use Alias without taking a few courses first (which is a statement which really takes an effort for me to write, being a former interface designer).

I think I may have screwed up a setting, and I can’t find it.

When I align two surfaces, and then start moving the controlling surface’s CVs around, the aligned surface’s CVs slide alongside the edge freely (see attachment).

This differs from the behavior when I’ve straight up built one surface from another (the CVs along the edge are locked on top of each surface then), and I want to get back to that behavior.

The positional influence is 1.0, so what other setting am I missing?

If you build a surface off an edge, it uses that edge as is (CV’s should be locked on top of each other).

If you align something to an edge, and then start to move something, it will allow them to move differently as long as it achieves the requested tolerance.

I’m not sure you’ll ever get to what you’re asking, but I’m not 100% sure if I follow why you’d need to?

Because I did not know about the option I just found, and tried to achieve it manually for DAYS now:

The colinear continuity option.

God DAMN!

Why isn’t that enabled by default?

The only reason I found it was that I enabled the patch precision drawing of curves within a surface, and evaluated their continuity and discovered that they were really breaking, despite the surface coming up as green, and even the shading lining up (although with bumps which I could see in the CV mesh, but didn’t know now to straighten out without turning to manual tweaking… and hence me dabbling with various align options which enabled me to retain some of my tweaking).

The levels of complexity to be discovered behind every option in this software is just mindboggling.