Well that's the thing, I feel like I've cracked it just with the cheapo vice... let me explain my method:
I set my digital calipers to half of the width of the stock and lightly score a line each way across the aluminium. I know this will *eventually* ruin my calipers but they seem to be standing up to it as the aluminium is soft.
I line it up in the cross vice as best as I can by eye. I have the drill spinning and locked off hovering just above the surface and then I get in real close and adjust the vice tiny amounts until I'm certain it's lined up with the X on my work.
I then drop the drill a tiny amount until it only just marks the surface, and then back it off. Checking that first mark that the centre of the drill has made against the lines and then adjust if needed, or proceed if good. 9/10 I can get it bang on centre, and if it's not perfect then it's well within tolerance. The first picture up there of the off centre hole was before this new drilling setup - that made me think I NEEDED a cross vice, even a cheap one!
*I know* that this will never be as bang on centre as a mill, and it does take a long time to set up for one poxy hole but it's working for me at the moment.
Those self clinching nuts are very interesting though. I feel like I searched low and high for alternatives to tapping the aluminium, one of which was Rivnuts, and helicoils (still need a tap!) but didn't come across those, although I have seen them used in computer chassis before but presumed they were bespoke.
I like the method, sounds great!
What's really interesting to me is the rendering stuff.
What did you use for modeling and rendering?
How many man-hours to get to this level of proficiency with the software.
And, how many man-hours to produce the actual model(s) you are using??
As for the rendering, that's a different story!
I could not even guess the man hours involved in total. I work as a visual effects artist (VFX). most of my work is for TV and commercial work, which means I kind of have to be a generalist in the field. I'd say about 75% of the work I do the most is 2D compositing, so I'm usually receiving images from our more talented 3D artists and compositing them into footage etc. I did do a lot of 3D at uni though and still do it at work sometimes. It's something I fall back on a lot and I'm glad I can use it enough for what I need to do! I've been doing it for about 4.5 years now including 2 years of university and about 2.5 years of professional work.
The modeling software is Maya. The earlier images are rendered in mental ray which comes bundled with Maya. It's a very powerful renderer but you have to really really know your way around it to get results and it's very slow when you start to approach realism. The people I work with are at that level and know their way around it but It's still not my thing.
Could not count the man hours in producing the models! I'm pretty fast at modeling, but the philosophy in VFX is generally 'if it looks right, it is right' which is a big conflict when modeling things that will become real objects with real sizes. Maya, really is the wrong software for the job here! it's so unfriendly towards real world sizes. All of this makes it actually quite time consuming to model flat sheets! That's why the drawings were done in Autocad and then imported to Maya for the latest renders. I chip away at this most nights, so I'd say a fair few hours have gone into it!
The latest images were rendered in something new that I'm trying,It's physically accurate, energy conserving, perfect really. there are not tricks, hacks and workarounds like there is in mentalray.
The trick is though that they are dealt with post-render in Nuke. This is where depth of field, grade, lensing abnormalities and so on are created. I'd say I'm more proficient with Nuke than I am any other software, so the 'look' of the image is derived here. Base renders are always a little bit bland most of the time and usually always go through a beautification process. It's not to say you cant do most of this stuff directly in Maya - it's just that it's not sensible to, and a lot of the look means taking the render out of it's cosy physically accurate, energy conservative world by adding more light, grads, looks and effects. It's no longer an accurate real-world render but it 'looks better' 🙂
If you don't have access to licenses for these software most of them have a learning edition which is free to use for things like this. Autodesk are the best for it. Some just have watermarks and others give generous trials.
Yeah, well, it looks good.
I did 3D raytracing a LONG time ago... kinda miss that virtual world.
Back then it was new stuff.
_-_-
I did 3D raytracing a LONG time ago... kinda miss that virtual world.
Back then it was new stuff.
_-_-
- Status
- Not open for further replies.