blueprints - again

[jhancock]

so though I've setup blueprints about a dozen times, I still don't understand why I can't get the same resolution on the viewport plane as it is in the source image. I've done the usual in configure driver with the match as close as possible option(s) but it doesn't seem to make a difference.

What could I be missing? This is in 2k8 version


Jerry

ps: I couldn't get the example screen shot to upload. It was a psd if it matters

[nzjimmy2001]

have you checked that your plane you create has the same proportions as the blueprint? eg. if your blueprint has properties 1600 x 1200 pixals then create a generic plane size of 1600 x 1200.

failing that... there are heaps of tutorials on the net for setting up blueprints. google them and you'll be set.

you should use imageshack or something like that to upload your image so we can see a screenshot of your problem.

[jhancock]

yes, the print images are the same as the plane in size. the images look great when I load them and use the view image button on the map.

[multimediaman]

The solution is fairly simple, although it can translate to a bit more work before setting your prints up in your scene...

It's a matter of how your graphics card is able to interpret stuff.

Graphics cards work best with images that are sized in squares of two. So take whatever size your blueprint is and find the nearest square of two. For example, if your blueprint's pixel dimensions were 4229 x 2552 I'd recommend scaling the image's height to 2048 (or 1024, just because I never need that much resolution to use a blueprint properly) ... then use canvas size to up the width to 4096, if your height was 2048, or use 2048 if your width was 1024.

You'd use canvas size to keep the drawings in proper proportions...

For smaller prints, like 800x600, you might as well just canvas size the whole document up to 1024x1024.

Then use the uwv unwrap feature to get the texture on the plane properly.

Quick Reference of squares of two:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192




Follow those steps, and the FAQ stickied here about blueprint quality settings within the Viewport configuration, and you should have an exact pixel-to-pixel texture shown on your blueprint planes.

[ColdFlame]

The Metalbump9 trick would do some difference i am sure about it [If you are using rather newer version of 3dsmax]
Anyways just see the attachment.The print on the left is with MetalBump applied.The one on the right is without MetalBump.
To Apply metalbump do the things showed in the pic on material editor then just choose the bluprint image file as Texture 1 then ur done.

[jhancock]

here's the image I was trying to upload. The difference is much more dramatic in the application unless you size this image to the original.

[multimediaman]

have you tried my technique of reworking the image dimensions to be squares of two yet?

[jhancock]

I am in the process now. I'm don't fully understand your method. Normally I load the blueprint and cut the views out. I am going to try to just crop it to 1024x512 since the source is 1073x324. It will take a few more minutes.

btw, the blueprints are of an Alfa gtv-6 2.5 that I had - my first Italian car. I ended up sueing Alfa under the Lemon Law. The GTV-6 was fast, handled extremely well, but just didn't work well (e.g. the right front brake siezed at 80mph in heavy traffic) Alfa gave me a Milano platinum to settle the suit (my car plus a little cash). I drove the wheels of the Milano but had to rebuild it at 50,200 miles when the timing belt broke. The belt broke 200 miles past the recommended replacement. I put high-lift cams and oversized valves in during the rebuild, what a car, almost perfect 50/50 balance with the rear mounted De dion transaxle and suspension. Even my F355-F1 didn't handle like that car. enough rambling...

[jhancock]

OK, I made it 1024x512 and at first it didn't look any better. it was weird in that if you look at the previous post, the vertical lines look better than the horizontal. When I first loaded the new 1024x512 image, the horizontals looked better but the verticals looked worse.

All of a sudden, it snapped into focus so it looks like your idea worked, thank you, but for some reason, not initially.

Here is the new comparison. You have to view actual pixels to see the improvement. The blueprint is very crisp now.

Thanks again for the tip.


Jerry

[ColdFlame]

It looks so much better now For exact quality just do what i told above...