Hey there! why don't you send me an email and we can chat about what you need. [email protected] It will probably be a few days before I reply FYI.

@LearnEverythingAboutDesign sending now

Happy holidays!

Thanks Gery! I don't see any Auto Title Translation option. I don't know if that is part of the new dubbing feature. The options are greyed out in KZbin Studio..... So are you seeing the title translated as something else?

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign Yes, some english titles get translated some do not. So i thought it's an option for the uploader. Your titles get translated since the 4-1 turbo flange video. Before that one, everything is normal. I've set english (US and UK) in my google account languages, nonetheless some titles get translated.

@@GeryS. Strange for sure. KZbin turned on Auto Dubbing which is supposed to translate the audio into other languages. its an On or Off thing (that is on by default). I will keep digging but i haven't changed any upload settings other than the option recently saying its not AI generated content :)

Awesome, let me know how it turns out! The idea behind it was the old wooden interlocking puzzle. I printed a few of those but they are very tricky for kids (and adults) so went this route. The puzzle makes some interesting building blocks though. www.printables.com/model/1110492-interlocking-star-puzzle

​@@LearnEverythingAboutDesignCan't or good. I'll put a pic in the discord

Sorry about that! At which step did it stop working? If it was the extruded surface you can try to extrude it down more so it goes through the other surface. The surface trim tool can be picky. Also feel free to share it with me. [email protected] if you want to send me the f3d file. Ill be offline for a few days but will have a look when i get back. Another thing you can do is extrude it as a solid as a new body and use the boundary fill tool with the flange and the new body and select all the regions to keep.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign Thanks for your response. I did try to extrude it lower as I figured it might not be touching the body below it, but that wasn't it. Not 100% sure what step it was at, but I know it was when I was following along in the surface steps. Anyway not a big deal, it was a great tutorial anyway. As you mentioned there are a few ways to do it.

I did a review when they first came out in this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5y5d3h5nM1lotk What i have found is that beyond a simple shape they just didn't work....

you can email me [email protected] and i can give you the plasticity file.

In the form, the green line is a symmetry/mirror line. While i can manipulate either side of it, the model has symmetry. With a form body that is the way to keep a smooth transition across that mirror line. If i was doing this with a surface i would create a midline curve and use that as a tangent direction and then mirror. But with a form if you don't have that symmetry applied there is nothing driving the curvature direction at the midline and you would get a seam when you mirror it.

Glad to hear you found something that works for you! Let me know if you have any questions. And i wish you all the best as well!

Thanks Brian!

No problem!

You're very welcome!

Thanks for watching!

Hey there! you sadly aren't going to like my answer.... It can't be done (in Fusion). There is an add-in called Exact Flat but its expensive. Other programs like Inventor and Solidworks(top license option) have a flatten surface feature. When you flatten a complex shape like a fender there will be a color map to show you areas that stretched more/less from the original design. You can then take that shape and export as a dxf. Typically this is done for fabric for composites or to make decals. Sheet metal in Fusion (aside a bit from the lofted flange option) is not made by forming, but by bending. So it can only deal with single axis bends and not complex forms. For what its worth Solidworks, Inventor etc don't convert complex shapes to sheet metal either. They flatten a surface "skin" of the part. Sorry!

It is, you can design parts for 3d printing. I have several videos in Plasticity for 3d printing, but "like Fusion" is tough. It is built on the same back end but Plasticity is considered a "direct modeler". So in fusion or inventor you create a 2d sketch, dimension it, then turn it into a solid. You can go back and edit that sketch and the solid updates. In Plasticity the curves (sketch) you create isn't linked to the solid. Once the solid is created you use direct modeling tools to increase its size/shape (with a few exceptions). There are tools like "Dimension" that have some limited ability to change the size/location of a feature like a hole but in general this is not the workflow of Plasticity. I would check out some of the videos I did like kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIaraXysjdKimqc so you can see a bit more about how Plasticity is used for 3d printing and decide if that works for you.

Glad you liked it!

yeah. there is only so much you can get from a paid promotion which is why i always mention it. The otter is impressive in several areas but where Creality struggles the most is the software. It is made for 1 click users and lacks options that others have. I did a series with the otter if you want to check that out. kzbin.info/aero/PLBDfGh8A8kXVa9q97y1rq_2vdplnmCH2v Happy to try and answer questions. On this channel we are also a revopoint affiliate and have worked with Shining 3d. I will try to be as candid as I can on the good and bad.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign wow, thanks for the great reply! So say if I'd like to get the highest detail scans possible for a handheld device that I want to modify for 3D printing in batch. Ie scan once, improve, reuse often. So am willing to struggle a bit with post processing, prepared for a learning curve to cope with weaknesses in software. Would the Otter fit that bill? If for the same money I could have better software suite but not having the required fine details in the scan to begin with... or is e.g. the Shining3D Einstar up there in terms of scanning fidelity? I hope that makes sense, sorry english is not my native language PS would professional grade scanners from a few years back make for a viable option if bought used? Or has quality increased dramatically in recent years.. thank you!

@tdplayert A few things to consider and ill give you a bit of info here. The Scan Otter, Revopoint Miraco, and Einstar Vega (and maybe others) have multiple depth cameras. This to me is a big advantage. This means they can scan larger objects and smaller objects. Most other scanners will have one set of depth cameras meaning they have a fixed range/object size where they work best. So for my money I would start there. Some scanners do really well with small/fine detail objects but bad at bigger stuff. While other scanners do great with bigger objects but really struggle on smaller stuff. So first step is to really think about object size you want to scan. You will notice lower priced scanners that are meant primarily for "medium" objects have a larger value for their accuracy/precision. next is price. how much can you spend. That puts you into a few brackets. Under $1000 US. Under $2000 US under $500US. The Vega and Miraco series scanners are both wireless and offer processing on the unit which helps limit the computer resources needed, but they put you near that $2000 range. The Otter does a great job but is wired to a computer (unless you pay more for wifi6 bridge/wireless accessories. What I will say is that the otter has done the best at shiny black objects than any other scanner I have tried. The downside again is being wired to the computer and also the software. On your other topic of editing the mesh. that in itself is tough. In most cases you can scan, do a bit of "processing" like smoothing, removing details and print. But if you really need to edit a mesh that becomes tricky. Most cases you are either designing to fit a mesh or reverse engineering that mesh. I think that might be your most challengeing part. Most scanners do a pretty good job and I would suggest just looking at a few videos and seeing if they have downloads of the meshes. That way you can get a feel. I have done videos for the cr ferret and otter for creality. On revopoint I have videos for inspire, mini2, miraco and metroX

@LearnEverythingAboutDesign thanks again, and for your time. I was simply assuming it would be possible to edit a mesh in e.g. a 3d design software like fusion360 so i've learnt something! It seems it is hard to find any unbiased reviews also e.g. on reddit but between the lines I'm getting the impression that the Otter is really quite OK, and if the software is the weak part but I won't need to upgrade my pc and it will eventually get the job done then for my scenario it seems a reasonable tradeoff. I will mainly be doing smaller stuff. E.g. take a joystick apart and scan the components that make up the handle but in maximum quality, for 3d printing. I've read some negative cimments about the Miraco and Vega. But again unsure if unbiased... it's difficult. But your replies have helped, I really appreciate!

@tdplayert In addition to videos here i have a few mesh videos I did for Autodesks YT channel kzbin.info/www/bejne/aavalo2eiJqtmcU kzbin.info/www/bejne/r32qopKHf6p4q9Esi=yYdz6h5doivk2bsF They might give you some extra insight into working with mesh models in Fusion. In general its tough because usually a mesh model is a conversion of the file from which it was designed. So a solid cylinder has a true arc but the mesh version is made up of a lot of triangles. You cant just change the diameter of the cylinder. I have seen neg and pos comments on every scanner there is. I haven't used the Vega yet but I can't fault the Miraco. I think its a great unit.

You're welcome! Let me know if you have any questions.

@LearnEverythingAboutDesign ur insta id pls❤️🫶

@LearnEverythingAboutDesign ur insta id??

You're welcome!

Glad to hear that!

Great tips! and 100% to the end for a part that will be manufactured. This part actually does have those features CNCd on them. They weren't done in a tumbler. In a video that I will be releasing soon doing a CNC part I mention this when adding chamfers to the part. Most of the time you call out "deburr all edges" or something on a drawing.

Why do you hate me ;) I think make with the CAD sketcher add-in or booleans in the mod stack it would be possible but would be tough (for me).

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign i'm a believer in "blender is better" so anytime i see a great piece of work being done on CAD i ALWAYS offer the challenge to do it on blender. funny enough everyone whos an "engineer" has always FAILED at this lol yet i model in blender without problems (i made a functional power rangers morpher recently that the customer was told was "impossible" using nothing but blender) i would love to see you do it in blender though nothing wrong with a friendly challenge ;)

Sadly none of my videos are click-bait so someone needs to search for constrained orbit to find a video like this one...

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign Hey, I commented 5 seconds in the video. You explain some stuff but one key element was not really clear... like that middle clicking that needs to be done purposely and also it doesn't work always because...who knows. The orbit in Fusion is the worse of all I think. Best is in Lychee... not sure how they made it so intuitively but there works best...

@@zaelu I haven't used Lychee. You can check the user preferences. The Constrained Orbit type generally has the pivot point fixed. Free Orbit type lets you pick the orbit position. Fusion changes the default settings from time to time. There are also other shortcuts than the default fusion one. When i switch between Inventor, Solidworks, Fusion, Plasticity, and Blender they are all a bit different..... I think I might like Plasticity the best.

thank you!

could you email me the file in the current state where it won't let you thicken? [email protected] Not too much i can answer without checking it myself sadly.

Which keys changed? I know the frustration! Since I teach i generally leave everything as default, but in Plasticity you can configure the shortcuts. When you use F to find/search for a command. right click on it and you can assign a new shortcut if you want to.

No dumb questions! The radius. Think about if you had a complete circle with 10mm diameter (5mm radius). When you apply a fillet with a radius value what you are saying is to apply a true arc to the edge selection with tangency to the faces around it. Depending on the angle of those faces you will get wider or narrower width fillets with the same radius. The fillet option "Chord Length" is a way you can define the width of the fillet instead of the radius value so even if you are dealing with a part that has a changing angle between faces, it will keep the fillet the same width. Does that help?

Happy to hear it! Were you having alignment issues/tracking with teh Pop3?

Probably won't because i don't think desktop 3d printers are the right choice. I have made one for my mountainbike but in order to secure the phone properly it needed to be ziptied . Making one like a quadlock just wouldn't work well with desktop FDM printers that most people want to use. For a road bike it might be ok but still very inferior to what is available on the market (which still has issues)

Great! Glad it was helpful!

The area on the fender has a little spot showing up in Forms that is really just a graphics thing. It might not show up on your end as forms has been updated a few times. But the general idea is that when edges are parallel and "flat" they can often times introduce some ripple effect in the adjacent faces. We have to remember that we are controlling a cage (CTRL+1) which ultimately drives the smooth surfaces. and if two adjacent faces of the cage or on the same plane with each other, the smooth curvature has to fight a bit in those areas. So much of forms comes from playing around and having time using it.

@LearnEverythingAboutDesign honestly I can't visualize this answer you gave ☝️☝️, do you have a paid lesson that explains this. Cause I am self taught/beginner, even at 8:25 I didn't really know why you used straight function.

@@ahuchaogudestiny9342 Its a tough one. I have done a few videos in the Forms Mastery playlist on this channel. The problem is that its very subjective. Sometimes you get graphic glitches that are nothing to worry about. other times you get issues that you have to address. I have 2 videos on Star points/transitions in the forms playlist. Also if you are looking for car modeling i think this series is much better/more complete kzbin.info/aero/PLBDfGh8A8kXW2KBn0b7pMsH5q6FLfSYql I do have a forms for absolute beginners course on my site www.learneverythingaboutdesign.com car modeling is not a great first try at forms as its pretty complex.

​​​@@LearnEverythingAboutDesignsir I prefer a private lesson so as to be cleared on areas I didn't really understand. For example in this 8:25 why make the edges straight cause I don't see how it relates to the flaring in and out of that face.

@@ahuchaogudestiny9342 just before that timestamp we talk about how the shape goes in then out which causes the curvature to go in then out. I really would suggest you check out the other series if you are interested in car modeling. Have you been through the forms mastery videos? or the freeform course on www.learneverythingaboutdesign.com/ ? The wrx videos aren't the best to learn forms on. they are good if you have some experience and are running into problems you are trying to fix. Starting with simple examples is the best approach. The forms mastery series on this channels covers nearly ever tool and has examples for you to do along the way to practice the skills.

I am not the original designer/creator of these, I have no idea who is. I personally don't mind but I would just do a quick search to make sure. I have heard them called impossible cones before.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign I've seen many all over the internet being sold. I'm not sure who the original creator is. I guess if i customize them it would be ok to sell.

After the trial no you won't be able to. Revopoint sells the LITE version. if you bundle with a scanner or even just by itself they offer a discount. www.revopoint3d.com/products/quicksurface If you buy the SaaS license its around $500/year. If you just buy it outright as a perpetual license i think its around $2000. I will be doing more content on the LITE version soon and hopefully that will help decide if its worth it. It does a lot more than just align to a coordinate system, that is just the question i get asked the most :)

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign thanks for your explanation; mine is just an hobby, so i can try to search it cracked😂

When i model car bodies and actually a lot of assemblies I do them as Multibody part files rather than an assembly. I don't believe Sketch Picture is available in an assembly. Even in a sketch or layout sketch... The best option is probably to add it to an empty part and insert that part into the assembly... There are a lot of little things like this that SWx does that makes you do workarounds sadly.

@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign very interesting. Any reason for doing multi-body models rather than an assembly? Great tip on an empty part with a picture in it! Thanks!!

@@scottgarriott3884 I don't really like the way Solidworks builds assemblies. Fusion for example is all done in one file and it keeps track of where things are in a timeline (like the feature manager). So if you move something you either have to capture its new position or revert it before it lets you say sketch on a face. Fusion also lets you fillet multiple bodies across multiple components at the same time (if you want). Building an assembly of components that relate and rely on each other is just easier in a multi-body part file. It isn't without its own problems though. When you build your multibody part you can then save each body as its own part file and build an assembly at the click of a button. This is done as a feature in the feature tree. Everything comes into an assembly in the correct place. Mainly since i deal in creating ground up designs that multibody approach works for me. If a design is using off the shelf parts then it can be better to do an assembly first. bottom up vs top down.

If you use Raise Degree for example that will put the control points/grid on the surface and you can pull those. It is just using the mesh as the initial snap to control its position. So Raise Degree and Rebuild Face are 2 ways you can "expose" the control cage and use tools like Move to adjust it.

I haven't noticed any stability issues on my end. meaning crashing. Is it crashing on you?

I totally get it. It seems like the Studio license doesn't pack much punch. There are some differences on import/export and certainly some specialized tools. I know the price comes mainly from the fact that Plasticity has to license xNurbs. If you look at buying the xNurbs add-in for say Solidworks its $700. To buy it for Rhino its $600 i think. Plasticity has integrated it into the program directly rather than purchasing an add-in and negotiated the price. Just something to consider. I can guarantee you the price jump from Indie to Studio isn't a money grab as I am sure they make less money on Studio than on Indie.

Awesome to hear that! I hope the other stuff works. Really the main thing that has changed from older versions of Plasticity is the right-click to confirm. It used to be a double-click and now its a single. Most of the core shortcut keys are still the same.

Yeah. With a more prismatic shape its a bit easier as well. I used this one cause it was a little odd with no great references.

Great! I have been meeting with QuickSurface now for a few weeks and do plan to do a lot of content on the channel for the Lite version. The Pro version will likely be in courses on our site but still up in the air.

No the mesh doesn't cut the body. The form body snaps to the mesh. So the more resolution you have in your form, the more points snap to the mesh. A lot are not needed except in areas that have a lot of change in shape.

​@LearnEverythingAboutDesign does it just snap automatically when you get close enough or is there a setting? Been designing stuff for awhile now, but now that I have a 3D Scanner, I want to create some body kits and such for the models.

@@RC-NW When creating a form you can use the FACE tool and enable snap which lets you draw the new form body on a mesh. When moving using EditForm you can enable snaps (although this is a pain in my opinion). The tool used to pull a design to a mesh is PULL. This takes the control vertices you select and pulls them to the reference mesh. There is also a MATCH tool that can be used to pull edges down to a reference surface/solid/edge.

​@LearnEverythingAboutDesign i knew about the match thing, but looks like it doesn't work terribly well. Thank you for the rest. Exactly the info I was looking for and presented how I asked for it. Cant afford to buy these things from others lol.

@@RC-NW kzbin.info/aero/PLBDfGh8A8kXVvKBJ4UudhVLKlPdumAg5P that playlist goes through everything from the scanning to part design fyi.

Sure, just the controls will be different. I have a bunch of car modeling tutorials on the channel using Freeform modeling In fusion, but I have modeled cars in fusion, inventor, and solidworks with similar curve methods. There are benefits in CAD programs in that you have constraint systems for the curves. So instead of blending a "normal" line at the mirror/midline area with a spline, you can actually apply a tangent constraint.

do you mean for an injection molded part design? There is a lot that goes into making something water proof. looking at IP ratings and figuring out your requirements is step 1. Having something that can be submerged vs something that can just take a little rain requires very different levels of design. I have made some SLS Nylon parts that have been able to be submerged for a short time even using 3d printed gaskets, but repeatability is an area of concern.

In my case, yes, it has to be able to keep the liquids in and be refilled

And taken apart and rejoined

@@jogon9649 How do you plan on manufacturing it?

What ever is cost effective way of getting the seemless finish I want, translucent yet neon type of material, willing and happy to discuss with you

Great! Glad it was helpful! I did a follow up video showing how to model the shark as well kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWfIlJmgncloeNE

There are companies working on mesh to solid conversion tools but in general the tools are expensive and the process is time consuming. If you just want to 3d print then you can take the mesh and do that. But if you want a CAD model made of solids or surfaces, that takes a bit more work.

Glad it was helpful!