Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Okay ive got my graphics folio due within 1-1.5 weeks and need to know how to use Autodesk 3DS Max 2009 to design a car...

Its the most complicated thing ive ever used =]

does anyone know how to set up blue prints on planes and convert it to a 3D shape....ive looked at tutorials still seems bit complicated just wondering if anyone is kind enough to give me a quick run down. thanks

Edited by blk_sz
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/238023-3d-modellingautodesk-3ds-max-2009/
Share on other sites

I've done a bit of work in 3dSMax, and modeling a car isn't easy. The basic run down is that you need an orthogonal projection of the car. Basically, once you have a front, side rear and top view of the car, you'll need to split each eamage and apply it onto a plane/ box primative of the same proportions. For example, if your side elevation view is 600px tall x 1300px wide then you'd make a plane 600units tall by 1300units wide and apply the image to it as a material.

I don't have too much time to go into too much more detail now, but I'll try and get another reply to you later on today.

post-45933-1222652973_thumb.jpg

  • 2 weeks later...

geezus 1 week. not much time to model a car lol!

unless u intend to do a rough job. in ur time frame i would be looking at coarse mesh + meshsmooth modeling easiest to do. plenty of tutorials out there that'll take u step by step through it.

took me about 2 weeks to do this one in my holidays back in 2004. this was using rhino3d(nurbs) and imported to 3dsmax to render.

post-2214-1223380659_thumb.jpgpost-2214-1223380689_thumb.jpg

  • 2 weeks later...

impressive work Naga! I've never been much of a modeler, as most of my knowledge is in shading, textures and lighting. Any chance I can grab the file you imported into max so I can do a bit of texture/ lighting work on it? See what I can make of it?

Edited by thegoobie
  • 2 months later...
geezus 1 week. not much time to model a car lol!

unless u intend to do a rough job. in ur time frame i would be looking at coarse mesh + meshsmooth modeling easiest to do. plenty of tutorials out there that'll take u step by step through it.

took me about 2 weeks to do this one in my holidays back in 2004. this was using rhino3d(nurbs) and imported to 3dsmax to render.

post-2214-1223380659_thumb.jpgpost-2214-1223380689_thumb.jpg

the more practice you get the faster you will be able to make the models, i have been doing it for the past 3-4 years now.

the lemans car below took 8 hours to get to this point. will spend another 5 - 10 hours finishing it off with all the finer details.

1 - 1.5 weeks to learn and get a good quality model done will be a HUGE ask.....

post-26183-1230804644_thumb.jpg

post-26183-1230804652_thumb.jpg

Edited by Whiplash

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
    • Looked it up. It sounds so expensive lmao I'd rather not. Awwwww but I just love that sound
×
×
  • Create New...