In law there exist the principle of 'foreground' and 'background' IP. If I take a photograph of a bottle of Pepsi I hold the foreground IP relating to the photograph, but Pepsi holds the background rights - which may become a problem for I if you wish to use the image commercially without their consent. To assume that use of the background IP without an explicit agreement cannot be an issue because it benefits the holder of the background IP is a sure way to get into difficulty. This principle can be applied to other things for example where a software developer writes an application for a client based on the internal business procedures of that company. The developer may rightfully claim copyright of the application (foreground IP - if the client did not purchase it as part of the deal) but the client may restrict the distribution of the software based on the fact that it is built on their business logic (background IP). The same principles may apply to doing visualisation work. It is therefore important that both parties always resolve this duality as part of their agreements, as alater dispute can potentially lead to a situation where neither party can use the end product as there are mutual rights encapsulated in it. One should also be aware that creating models of weaponry and certain building and installations may raise other legal issues as it may be illegal in some countries to photograph or create representations of these for security reasons.

Peter, It's just a way to transfer stuff from raster to vector. It's always going to involve some clean-up. If the original drawing isn't even to scale though it's probably useless. I'm drawing up parts of a large steel sculpture, all originally drawn accurately to scale. Vectorising the drawings is relatively effortless and accurate enough for the contractor.

Dear Jon, The engineering looks fun, and so I couldn't resist getting involved. Regards, Bob

Oh God .... not another piece of software that will take up valuable time exploring Just kidding, it looks to be a useful program and I was delighted to see a Mac version there, thanks Jon Mike

Well dwg will hold 3d surfaces but if Inventor is anything like Autocad you might have to tidy up the model a bit once you've imported it. Alternatively you could try exporting as 3DS file, the program below will convert 3ds for inventor. The workflow issue you might have, and I'm guessing here, is that Inventor (if it's similar to Autocad) might be more suited to solid modelling data, not surfaces/faces like SU. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Science-CAD/3DS-Import-for-Inventor.shtml I'm not in any way an expert on file types though, I'm sure somebody here will give you some better advice. I'm always up early, definately the best part of the day, but yes, I do have a deadline for tomorrow, not too pressurised though.

@unknownuser said: Alternatively I think Watkins mentioned using a university campus as they will have the conference facilities we need and accomodation stood empty all summer (probably a cheap bar too!). well, that is a very interesting suggestion. and universities could even support the BaseCamp (by renting the accommodations for a good price). perhaps we should even set up a competition for universities; to get the honour of housing the Base Camp Europe 2008! (we should start designing a nice poster (bosting off with all the skills that come together in this forum)... )

Funnily enough Ross, it was concept coverings that I found too. Good point about the fire rating, if the client wants this wallpaper it will have to meet regulations.

@amit raoot said: I dont know why people waste money on costly CAD Software's when they can get the same results with *****CAD . Anybody who is familiar with ****CAD can immediately use *****CAD without any training because the layout, commands, toolbars are almost same. For architects, engineers, interior designers, builders & developers. (links removed, and post edited) I know this thread is old, and I apologise for acting like a moderator, when I am not, but it really makes me annoyed when hard nosed salespeople use viral marketing techniques such as the method highlighted above. It's so easy to spot, once you know the technique. Some bloke comes in with the 'hard sell', then some 'other' (usually the same person), posing with a another's name- but almost always, just one post- ie, their first post to the forum (and with the same IP address too I may add!). This is spam of the ugliest order because it is so dishonest, and as a result, I won't be touching this PCAD software with a barge pole. Shame. As for the rest of the thread, I agree that cracked software is wrong- simply because, imho, cracking software allows the heavies to remain as the market leaders, because all those who have (illegal) copies, will be those very copies that are considered the industry standard. But I disagree with the statement about Autodesk charging so much because of illegal copies been made, as I think we are going back to the same philosophy behind Apple versus HP or Mercedes verses Ford. Autodesk charges so much for ACAD because they believe it's worth that much (technologies, R&D etc). Ridiculous really, especially for essentially what is a 2D vector application, with a bit of ACIS thrown in for a slice of the 3D experience. I'm rather pleased that Autodesk never bought Atlast software, as it may now cost thousands. It may also have ceased to exist, with the technology turning up in ACAD, Revit and Inventor (which, actually, it already has (licenced?)), in the latter two titles!

@ely862me said: so far i hate one program because i want to know it but i couldn t do anything in it it s the 3ds max I've use it professionally for an award-winning render house, own my own license, and I still hate it. And I hate Autodesk's damned extortion ("subscription") scheme. I'll take Blender any day for rendering/animation, and Rhino and SketchUp for modeling.

@unknownuser said: Rather provocative 3d women. I can't get to the site quick enough, thanks. Cheers and Beers, Bill.

That's way clever.

Thanks for the links Mike. The price is already coming down then. I'm very interested in the prospects of having diy 3d printers but the RapRep project seems still quite rudimentary The fabbers seem to be a bit further on. I've downloaded a free version of Pepakura, a free "model unfolder". Interesting. http://www.tamasoft.co.jp/pepakura-en/

Thanks Fletch I'll get into that straight away. Cheers Jon

Thanks rodent, yes that is the plan, but having a problem with it at the moment, I'll sort it asap.

Thanks for the links Mike. The price is already coming down then. I'm very interested in the prospects of having diy 3d printers but the RapRep project seems still quite rudimentary The fabbers seem to be a bit further on. I've downloaded a free version of Pepakura, a free "model unfolder". Interesting. http://www.tamasoft.co.jp/pepakura-en/

That's way clever.