LightWave - Actual resizing an object

[Elowan]

This may be an absolute newbie question but I've never had to do it before -

How does one change the actual size of an object within Modeler? I assume that it's the SIZE option but not sure.

TY

[ccclarke]

No such thing as a newbie question, just "I've never done this before. How do I do it?"

I'm not sure if this is the answer to what you're looking for, but if I understand the question correctly . . .

Whenever I need to re-size for accuracy, I make a representation of the proper dimensions using a rectangle.

I place the rectangle in a background layer, and with my object in a foreground layer, use the Size tool (Shift<H) to change it to fit within the background layer bounding box.

Size isn't the best name for this tool. Scale would be a little more descriptive.

The Size tool is basically Stretch with all axis enabled.

The Size tool is great for converting OBJ files from say ProE, into Lightwave objects. In that case, the conversion factor is 2.54%. Enter it in the Size tool numeric panel, and Bam! You have a perfectly dimensioned object. I use this all the time at work which is a huge time-saver if I want to use a pre-built 3D ProE asset and then touch it up in LW for rendering.

CC

[CAClark]

There is also a tool called Absolute Size which lets you enter values to set the scale of your object in X Y Z (independent or locked values), as well as stating how the positioning will be effected in said axis (plus, minus, or centred).

Cheers!

[Gordon Robb]

Absolute Size? That's an awesome thing. Never heard of that. Thanks Craig.

[Kojocci]

I make another layer a box which is 1m 85cm height ( human average) and then use SCALE to make my actual model fit that scale.

[colkai]

Originally Posted by Kojocci

I make another layer a box which is 1m 85cm height ( human average) and then use SCALE to make my actual model fit that scale.

Likewise, it's the quickest method for me and gives me a clear indicator of where I need to go.

[Matt]

Although Wikipedia cannot be cited for scientific or factual items in any standard documentation, 1.85m "average" height would probably be pushing the envelope a little-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_h...ound_the_world Even so I usually work on the presumption when working on say a spacecraft, that each deck including deck plating is 3m in height which I read a long while ago that that was the practiced norm for things like Star Trek. For interiors, I've been going with 2.5m in actual height.

[Andrew March]

Originally Posted by Kojocci

I make another layer a box which is 1m 85cm height ( human average) and then use SCALE to make my actual model fit that scale.

The 1.85m scale is actually based on the door frame average, a construction industry standard, since 6ft 8in can't really be called Human average.

[ccclarke]

If you read the first post, Elowan is asking how to properly scale an object to actual size, --not an average. This distinction can be important. Size Does Matter, despite what some magazines would lead many to believe.

There's a lot to be said about striving for dimensional accuracy when building real-life objects. (Science Fiction being a little looser and subjective-- generally speaking.) It's usually easier to model something right the first time, rather than try to fix it later. This was indelibly tatooed in the long-term memory part of my brain early on in my modeling career.

In school, we would split into groups and each member would model a piece of a larger object, to be combined on a Friday and rendered for the final grade after submission on Monday morning. Many students would use a photograph of their parts or just wing it, trying to make it look right.

After class, I spent most of a rainy evening driving around unfamiliar Orlando, looking for an auto parts shop. I finally found one and bought a set of cheap digital calipers for $10. (Better is the enemy of good enough.)

Calipers in hand, I was able to quickly and accurately measure the parts I needed to model, keeping their tolerances tight -within 1 mil. The next morning, I showed my group (most had never seen --or used a pair of calipers before) how easily we could accurately measure and model our parts prior to integrating them into a finished object at the end of the week. The end result being the team's pieces would match up,--right, the first time.

This seemed like a no-brainer, and with everyone's heads nodding in an up-and-down affirmative motion, I passed the calipers around for each team member to use.

As in many groups, there's often one member who wants to do things their own way, and as a result, I spent the whole weekend and nearly the entire night before our deadline, re-building the parts from scratch he had contributed on Friday, --rather using the time for posing, lighting and rendering like I had planned. Not much fun, and my grade suffered as a result.

Some of the best modeling tools aren't in the software. Every Modeler should have a tape measure and set of digital calipers available when building real-world objects, along with a camera to record textures and reference material. If you're striving for accuaracy and photo-realism, don't rely on your memory. The ability to read technical blueprints and drawings is a huge plus.

Talent is only part of the requirement of being a really efficient 3D modeler. Proper preparation prior to wrangling pixels is a fundamental element that will pay off over the course of a project.

Not everyone models to scale, but for those that do, accuracy (not averages) can make or break a project and deadline.

CC

[Elowan]

Thnx for the responses peeps. All extremely useful.

[Elowan]

Originally Posted by CAClark

There is also a tool called Absolute Size which lets you enter values to set the scale of your object in X Y Z (independent or locked values), as well as stating how the positioning will be effected in said axis (plus, minus, or centred).

Cheers!

Aha!

[3D_CG]

Hey those 6'-8" blond gals are cute...

[Elowan]

Originally Posted by 3D_CG

Hey those 6'-8" blond gals are cute...

Yeah but you're weird .

[JackN]

Was the only way I survived at FI when I came into the Foundry as a modeler. Very first item I tracked down was a scale man model for virtual set reference. Second thing I did was break out my trusty old Drafting ruler.

While I couldn't get accurate measurements from 3-view and perspective drawings, and there were no "Blueprints", I WAS able to get ratios of length and such. So even in SciFi work, on a team, you have to be as accurate as you can...

Originally Posted by ccclarke

If you read the first post, Elowan is asking how to properly scale an object to actual size, --not an average. This distinction can be important. Size Does Matter, despite what some magazines would lead many to believe.

There's a lot to be said about striving for dimensional accuracy when building real-life objects. (Science Fiction being a little looser and subjective-- generally speaking.) It's usually easier to model something right the first time, rather than try to fix it later. This was indelibly tatooed in the long-term memory part of my brain early on in my modeling career.

In school, we would split into groups and each member would model a piece of a larger object, to be combined on a Friday and rendered for the final grade after submission on Monday morning. Many students would use a photograph of their parts or just wing it, trying to make it look right.

After class, I spent most of a rainy evening driving around unfamiliar Orlando, looking for an auto parts shop. I finally found one and bought a set of cheap digital calipers for $10. (Better is the enemy of good enough.)

Calipers in hand, I was able to quickly and accurately measure the parts I needed to model, keeping their tolerances tight -within 1 mil. The next morning, I showed my group (most had never seen --or used a pair of calipers before) how easily we could accurately measure and model our parts prior to integrating them into a finished object at the end of the week. The end result being the team's pieces would match up,--right, the first time.

This seemed like a no-brainer, and with everyone's heads nodding in an up-and-down affirmative motion, I passed the calipers around for each team member to use.

As in many groups, there's often one member who wants to do things their own way, and as a result, I spent the whole weekend and nearly the entire night before our deadline, re-building the parts from scratch he had contributed on Friday, --rather using the time for posing, lighting and rendering like I had planned. Not much fun, and my grade suffered as a result.

Some of the best modeling tools aren't in the software. Every Modeler should have a tape measure and set of digital calipers available when building real-world objects, along with a camera to record textures and reference material. If you're striving for accuaracy and photo-realism, don't rely on your memory. The ability to read technical blueprints and drawings is a huge plus.

Talent is only part of the requirement of being a really efficient 3D modeler. Proper preparation prior to wrangling pixels is a fundamental element that will pay off over the course of a project.

Not everyone models to scale, but for those that do, accuracy (not averages) can make or break a project and deadline.

CC