I'd almost be willing to bet the sample settings under the render layers for your scene is overriding the total samples under your overall render settings.

Why that guess? The layer samples box is active under your samples settings.

Go back to the scene settings and set samples for your layers to 0 (use main settings for each layer), and try giving it another shot.

Quote - Anyone know how I can tile the image acroos the background instead of having a huge image?  

Input>Texture Coordinate (Generated, Window, or Camera) plugged into Vector>Mapping, which is then plugged into the vector socket on your image texture. X and Y scaling settings should do the job. Other adjustments of interest are Z-rotation and X and Y location.

Speaking of which, you might already have your mouse buttons assigned as some hotkeys. Might want to check your mouse settings under the control panel (or Logitech menu).

It's possible you setup hotkeys on the mouse for some other software, but put settings on a global menu rather than a per-software menu.

As for something that might cause behavior like this in Blender? The one I could think of is "Auto Perspective" in prefs, if it's on try unchecking it.

Quote - ps not knocking wings used it for a while its a nice solid modeler, just not enough shorcuts

Pressing the Insert key and then defining your own in Wings 3D doesn't work? Also keep in mind user defined hotkeys are context sensitive as well. (One defined in vertex operation will be different than one defined in edge, with the exception of some non-mode specific tool menu items or whatnot being hotkeyed.)

I only have a handful of my own I added. And for something like a repeated vertex snap-to operation, having your own hotkey works wonders. (Instead of going through the absolute--move menus, I just hit N or something like that.) I think the dialog also warns you if you're changing a (default) hotkey that's already assigned. The help menu can also give a list of assigned hotkeys, if you're wondering what's what or forgot the ones you made up.

Quote - maybe screencast was too close to the edit

I freestyle it. Probably my 3rd or 4th go while I'm explaining it. Close to livestream as you'll get and light or no edits. Mistakes may not look the best, but other users of the software will run into the same so why not use those as an opportunity to learn? Hopefully this way isn't too boring either. I've watched other tutorial videos that appear well edited or rehearsed, and despite conveying something of interest I still end up falling asleep halfway through.

Quote - but why didnt you set up IK for the model?  only takes a min or two

I could have used IK (even within the action), but actions give more precise control in some cases. Not to mention they make it possible to have complex sequential movements set to a single dial. IKs may move multiple bones, but not timed in a specific order. Drivers are used to pass info between some things (and damn they're handy!), but this tutorial is more about action constraints as applied to a mechanical model than anything else.

Quote - so much to learn so little patience rofl
why cant knowledge come in a bottle ............ like BEER
have fun, if its not fun get paid for it

Yep. But I wouldn't mind getting paid to do something fun, however if it's fun enough it's hard to ask for money. Any donations are gladly accepted though.

I know how that goes. :)

There's probably a plugin somewhere that makes it all simple, but unless you know where to look...

Might have to model the wall as two pieces. Model both the wall with appropriate kind of hole cut into it, and the piece of the wall that gets blown out. Fit the two togethter seamlessly, and then do the fracture just on the stuff getting blown away.

May also want to use particle emitter to make some extra debris, and hide your various bits and chunks to be emitted off the visible part of the scene. That should give more variety than the shard shapes the voronoi fracture makes.

There might be a better solution, but that's the one I could think of off the top of my head.

Classic.

It's been a long time since I messed with Bryce. But if classic Bryce stuff can be achieved to some extent in DS, and Bobby is going to do it in Terragen, then I'm going to have to try it with Blender Cycles.

I just tested SVG import in Blender 2.69 to see whether there is anything wrong. It works, but in my case I find anything imported in that format is really really really tiny. So try selecting the listed SVG item after importing in the outliner and scaling up by 50 or so. Provided there isn't anything wrong with the SVG itself, there should be something there.

Thanks Nicola678122!

I remember these planes being popular in the airshow circuits back in the 1980s. (The James Bond movie is what really made them famous other than their size and decent performance.) It was also the star of a fun MicroProse "flight sim" game I played a bit as a kid. Seems there's some still around and flying (Red Bull has some), but not quite hyped as much as they used to be.

Some parts of my version of the model I made could be considered mixed bag. It seems the interior layout varied quite a bit. (Probably kitbashed, with avionics picked out by the various people or companies that built them. I think the last versions are all electronic inside.) Hard to figure out which references to use with such inconsistencies at the time I modeled it. So I might have the controls from one version with instruments for another. But I like the way I have it since it "looks cool".

I'm considering doing at least one more revision to the Blender version but I'm not sure how long it may be if I get on it again, so it's likely worth downloading this one. If I do work on it again, there may be some support rails for the canopy when it opens, rigging for the instruments (driven by custom properties on the panel they're in?), better remote layout for the existing rig, and maybe a bonus hi-res texture for the exterior.

I've also found Blender has some things that seems like a big cluster-fudge until you get a grasp of how some things are useful and then it makes sense. Being able to re-arrange your window layout is one of those things that easily throw people off until you get a feel for it.

However I still do some things outside of Blender. For most object or component modeling, I go with Wings3D because it has a faster workflow for that task. (Some Blender people don't get that though.) It's because of how it changes selections, has a fast way of doing user-defined movements/operations, and lets me re-adjust view mid-operation so I can see how far I need to extrude or whatever. I also prefer the sticky view adjustment (no finger cramp on MMB) and how most hotkeys seem more intuitive too. (Like how view is snapped to planes, X puts me in X view not trying to delete which is redundant to the delete key.)

So most of the stuff I do in Blender edit mode is adjustments after importing. Blender is great for animation and rendering though. Automatic weighting is excellent and UV mapping almost idiot-proofed. And some of the modifiers make a lot of other things easy once you understand what they do.

Thing is, you'll be competing against Shapeways and similar businesses in providing this service. How does it compare in detail and cost per volume unit of material? (Then again, maybe you're willing to offer some services they don't. Stuff like extra finishing or machining applied to surfaces of a model. That might be a selling point.)

More details... I'm sure any artists that may be interested would like to know. :)

Neat. The model looks really nice. Can't tell if lights have any internal reflectors or not though, that's the only thing cutting down some of the realism given the level of detail on the rest. (Might just be the materials used though.)

Geez... I usually don't bounce around this forum so I'm late to the thread. And what others have said so far is good, here's my take on it:

Wings 3D: This is among the best for making your base mesh. I find it has the fastest workflow because how selections and user-defined operations work. Not to mention it's possible to re-position your view while performing some operations, etc. In some ways it's KISS (not the prettiest looking program), but some of its aspects leave me wanting when trying to do similar stuff other modeling apps. Wings is good enough to "spoil" you if you get used to it.

Sculptris: If you're not worried about edge-flow or topography and simply want to define volume and form, this is where you should look. It parallels sculpting with clay and provides a different approach to modeling than box/edge/vertex modeling. (Z-brush and sculpt mode in Blender also offer the same workflow aspects.)

Blender: This is what I like for UV-mapping (it almost does all the work for you), texturing (not too hard to paint things), rigging and weight mapping (auto weighting is awesome and weight painting is easy enough), scene staging, rendering (Cycles is hard to beat once you get a feel for it - almost feels like cheating if lighting and materials are ok), and compositing. It has a modeler which isn't bad, but you have to get a lot of plugins to do many things other modelers may do on their own. Yet I find it's useful to learn its modeler for adjusting stuff brought in from other programs. The dynamic topology of sculpt mode however is good enough that you might not need to bother with Sculptris. Also it's modifiers and spline tools are good duplicating or arraying basic components made elsewhere. (One might make something like a complex tank tread in Blender, but the basic parts that are put together to make it can be modeled quickly in Wings.)

When it comes down to it, you only need two programs to get started in 3D. Not to mention you don't have to spend any money for them. A Wings 3D and Blender combo is what I'd recommend to any beginner. (Get to know those, and same or similar concepts apply in commercial software.)