OT: DONE WITH FINALS! (and my CAD final project pic!)

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Jonathan Bond, May 8, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.

    Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.

    http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg

    this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and I'm
    not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S bend
    thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.

    http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg

    If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me post
    it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)

    Jon Bond
     
    Tags:


  2. Panda

    Panda Guest

    cool - whats ur degree?

    panda

    "Jonathan Bond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    > gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    > up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.
    >
    > Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    > required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.
    >
    > http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg
    >
    > this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and
    > I'm not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S
    > bend thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.
    >
    > http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg
    >
    > If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me post
    > it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)
    >
    > Jon Bond
     
  3. Jon Bond says:

    >Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    >required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.

    Looks good, JB. Ya may want to up the polygon count on that bulb, though. ;-P I know, ACAD doesn't
    let you do that too easily...

    Steve
     
  4. Mark B

    Mark B Guest

  5. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Jonathan Bond wrote:
    > Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!!

    You keep on going on about your "finals", but I thought you were only in your first year.

    I only had to pull an all nighter (it was
    > that or wake up at 6... not gonna happen!), but I'm all done.

    Wow, all-nighter in your first year. I guess your exams actually count towards your degree then. We
    only had to pass ours to qualify for the following year, so we spent our revision period in the pub.

    Ah, the halcyon days of doing FA work, having 5 months holiday a year and getting to the pub for
    opening time...

    --
    a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

    b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
     
  6. Peter R .

    Peter R . Guest

    On Thu, 08 May 2003 10:12:01 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    >gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    >up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.
    >
    >Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    >required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.
    >
    >http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg
    >
    >this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and
    >I'm not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S
    >bend thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.
    >
    >http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg
    >
    >If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me post
    >it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)
    >
    >Jon Bond

    Err....I don't know how to tell you this nicely.....you screwed up the shadows...I would've
    err....oh well...

    Hope you passed, though...

    Peter R.
     
  7. El Barista

    El Barista Guest

    bomba wrote:

    > You keep on going on about your "finals", but I thought you were only in your first year.

    Here in the States, finals are the end-of-the-year exams, in contrast to mid-terms.

    -will
     
  8. Peter R. wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 May 2003 10:12:01 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    >>gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    >>up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.
    >>
    >>Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    >>required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.
    >>
    >>http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg
    >>
    >>this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and
    >>I'm not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S
    >>bend thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.
    >>
    >>http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg
    >>
    >>If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me post
    >>it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)
    >>
    >>Jon Bond
    >
    >
    > Err....I don't know how to tell you this nicely.....you screwed up the shadows...I would've
    > err....oh well...
    >
    > Hope you passed, though...
    >
    > Peter R.

    There were 3 other lights illuminating the scene ;)

    You don't do the shadows yourself, thats something that autocad does automatically - I just had to
    make sure the light bulb in the lamp had a light actually shining from it, thats about it.

    Jon Bond

    Judging by most other people's, I probably got high 90s or slightly above 100. The rendered image
    doesn't do it justice.
     
  9. Mark B wrote:
    > JB,
    >
    > Here are mine...
    >
    > http://www.carolinaat.com/mark/images/3d09b.jpg
    >
    > http://www.carolinaat.com/mark/images/3d10b.jpg
    >
    > I got an A+
    >
    > Just joking of course...they are mine but it took many years to get to that level. Yours is WAY
    > better than when I started building in 3D....Back in 1990 I started by struggling to build a ball
    > and a box.
    >
    > Good job!
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >

    I'm taking advanced CAD at some point - my final project is probably going to be an animated Blur or
    some other interesting full suspension bike. My original plan was to have a bike with the bulb
    confined in the hub shell, no rim or spokes, but some of their requirements (stupid ones) wouldn't
    allow me to do it, so I had to scrap that idea. If it was more than a half credit intro class, I
    probably would have spent a lot more time on it.

    Still, I'm not a fan of autocad 2002 for 3d ;)

    Jon Bond
     
  10. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    El Barista wrote:

    >>You keep on going on about your "finals", but I thought you were only in your first year.
    >
    >
    > Here in the States, finals are the end-of-the-year exams, in contrast to mid-terms.

    Righty-ho. That'll be another term that you've taken and twisted the meaning of...

    In the UK, finals are your final exams in your final year. They usually constitute a large part of
    your degree, or in the case of Oxbridge, 100%.

    --
    a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

    b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
     
  11. Jonathan Bond wrote:

    > Still, I'm not a fan of autocad 2002 for 3d ;)

    Use your studend discount and get a copy of Inventor! you will LOVE it, I promise.
     
  12. Ad.

    Ad. Guest

    On Thu, 08 May 2003 16:23:01 +0000, Jonathan Bond wrote:

    > Still, I'm not a fan of autocad 2002 for 3d ;)

    Just be glad you didn't have to use AutoCAD R12, I remember being very thankful for the new 3D
    stuff in R13 :)

    Distant memories now though, haven't done any CAD or 3D stuff for years.

    Cheers Anton
     
  13. Michael Paul

    Michael Paul Guest

    "ClydesdaleMTB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Jonathan Bond wrote:
    >
    > > Still, I'm not a fan of autocad 2002 for 3d ;)
    >
    > Use your studend discount and get a copy of Inventor! you will LOVE it, I promise.
    >
    Forget about anything ACAD. It's so 90's anyway.

    Use your student discount and pick up a copy of the student edition of either Pro-Engineer or
    Solidworks. SW is quickly taking (may have succeeded by now) market share away from Pro-Engineer but
    any machine shop or design firm worth anything uses these packages in favor of ACAD. I know at SDSU
    the student version of Pro-E is only 100 bucks and it is a wonderful package. Solidworks is good too
    but I learned on Pro-E so I'm just sort of fond of the way it does things.

    michael
     
  14. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Jonathan Bond" <Jonath[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    > gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    > up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.
    >
    > Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    > required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.
    >
    > http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg
    >
    > this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and
    > I'm not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S
    > bend thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.
    >
    > http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg
    >
    > If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me post
    > it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)
    >
    > Jon Bond

    OK, so this is only a jpg of a 3d representation of a fictional lanp. But a potential
    commercial product.

    1. Of what use is a very clear lampshade. Light ends up going where its not needed.
    2. pic 1-What is the different shade wallpaper about? light blue and dark blue bands
    3. More light on the arm to show the definition of the structure.
    4. Clamp mechanism? Thumbscrew or some such. Missing?
    5. The light on the bottom shelf doesn't appear to be aligned with the angle of the lampshade/bulb.
    It may just be the angle shown, tho
    6. Highlights along the arm. Or is it flat black paint?

    A good job gets the A. Attention to detail gets the A+.

    Pete
     
  15. Pete wrote:
    > "Jonathan Bond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    >>gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    >>up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.
    >>
    >>Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    >>required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.
    >>
    >>http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg
    >>
    >>this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and
    >>I'm not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S
    >>bend thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.
    >>
    >>http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg
    >>
    >>If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me post
    >>it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)
    >>
    >>Jon Bond
    >
    >
    > OK, so this is only a jpg of a 3d representation of a fictional lanp. But a potential commercial
    > product.
    >
    > 1. Of what use is a very clear lampshade. Light ends up going where its not needed.
    > 2. pic 1-What is the different shade wallpaper about? light blue and dark blue bands
    > 3. More light on the arm to show the definition of the structure.
    > 4. Clamp mechanism? Thumbscrew or some such. Missing?
    > 5. The light on the bottom shelf doesn't appear to be aligned with the angle of the
    > lampshade/bulb. It may just be the angle shown, tho
    > 6. Highlights along the arm. Or is it flat black paint?
    >
    > A good job gets the A. Attention to detail gets the A+.
    >
    > Pete

    The design part of the lamp was like 99.5% of the grade, they just wanted to make sure you knew how
    to render.

    1. The shade looked kinda blah in autocad rendering without something interesting for the shade -
    hence the blue glass.

    2. Just the way autocad arranged the lighting on the wallpaper - they provided it, and they provided
    the lights that cast the odd shadows.

    3. I did the best I could, but the arm is so complex that unless I had a closeup view of it, it
    just looks strange no matter what. They wouldn't let me submit a closeup view - pretty stupid if
    you ask me.

    4. The clamp was theirs - the lamp mounts via a mounting peg. They provided the clamp.

    5. Its the angle - the bulb is actually on a 15 degree angle. They provided design specs that didn't
    match up very well with the table they had for the rendered image.

    6. Matte paint - in retrospect, a plastic texture would have looked nicer in the rendered view, but
    not as nice in real life.

    This was a half credit class, and pretty much a joke. The lamp I made was more involved than they
    expected, and I ran out of time (ok, I felt like going to sleep because it was 6AM), so I didn't
    spend too much time on the rendered views. They just look nicer than the massive collection of lines
    you'd see if I sent the CAD view ;)

    Jon Bond
     
  16. Peter R .

    Peter R . Guest

    On Thu, 08 May 2003 16:20:36 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Peter R. wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 May 2003 10:12:01 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Oh yeah baby, I'm done!!!! I only had to pull an all nighter (it was that or wake up at 6... not
    >>>gonna happen!), but I'm all done. Of course, its a nasty rainy day, so no biking unless it clears
    >>>up, but I need to pack anyway, and get my last ride in tomorrow instead.
    >>>
    >>>Here are images of my CAD project. The first one was the one I sent in, it was pretty much a
    >>>required view, and unfortunately it missed a lot of the intricate stuff I did.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view1.jpg
    >>>
    >>>this one shows off the stuff much better. Yes, I went way overboard, especially on the arm - and
    >>>I'm not happy at all with the connection between the arm and the shade (the whole part from the S
    >>>bend thing to the attachment part on the shade, the attachment included), but it came out OK.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.geocities.com/simsburynedc/view2.jpg
    >>>
    >>>If you want the CAD file for a better view of it, I can send it along, geocities won't let me
    >>>post it (even renamed as a .jpg - wily bastards!)
    >>>
    >>>Jon Bond
    >>
    >>
    >> Err....I don't know how to tell you this nicely.....you screwed up the shadows...I would've
    >> err....oh well...
    >>
    >> Hope you passed, though...
    >>
    >> Peter R.
    >
    >There were 3 other lights illuminating the scene ;)
    >
    >You don't do the shadows yourself, thats something that autocad does automatically - I just had to
    >make sure the light bulb in the lamp had a light actually shining from it, thats about it.
    >
    >Jon Bond
    >
    >Judging by most other people's, I probably got high 90s or slightly above 100. The rendered image
    >doesn't do it justice.

    Not wanting to piss on your parade, there's something decidedly fishy about it. I tried it with a
    real lamp (same structure) and 3 lightsources. I guess there's a bug in the program then.

    Congrats anyway.

    Peter
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...