cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Discuss all 3DReshaper related issues here.
Post Reply
User avatar
graham.watson
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:16 pm
Full Name: Graham Watson
Company Details: Road Science
Company Position Title: Technical Lead - High Speed Data
Country: New Zealand
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Contact:

cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by graham.watson » Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:57 pm

We have found if we mesh the same point cloud in both versions, using the 2 step method with the same parameters that the meshes are totally different.
Mesh New vs Old.jpg
Red is new version
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

sim.herrod
I have made 40-50 posts
I have made 40-50 posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:26 pm
Full Name: Simeon Herrod
Company Details: Terra Measurement Limited
Company Position Title: Scan and CAD Tech
Country: UK
Linkedin Profile: No
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by sim.herrod » Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:43 am

Graham, you're not exactly inspiring confidence in someone who has barely got to grips with 'classic' 3DR...

User avatar
gilles_3Dreshaper
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:41 am
Full Name: Gilles Monnier
Company Details: Technodigit
Company Position Title: 3DReshaper Manager
Country: France
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by gilles_3Dreshaper » Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:01 am

Hi Graham,

in Cyclone 3DR, there is a small change in the 2nd step of the 2 steps meshing workflow compared to 3DReshaper:
  • In the second step of 3DReshaper ("classic 3DR"), the parameters proposed when one enters the command are the ones that the user entered on his computer last time he ran the refine step (the second step).
  • In the second step of Cyclone 3DR, the parameters are proposed based on the value entered by the user in the 1st step.
There are several reasons for proposing default values:
  1. Setting these values can be quite tedious depending on the scanned data. With this first proposal, one get a rough idea of which parameters to enter. First value set which you can then refine or completely override in order to improve the results!
  2. Processing the same data set on different computers now gives the same result by default!
I hope these explanations help.

Let me know if, applying the same parameters in the second step doesn't give the same result of course. But this would be very surprising!
Gilles
3DReshaper Manager
http://www.3dreshaper.com

User avatar
pburrows145
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:16 am
Full Name: Paul Burrows
Company Details: Leica Geosystems Europe
Company Position Title: Scanning Solutions Manager - Europe
Country: UK
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Location: UK
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by pburrows145 » Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:48 am

graham.watson wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:57 pm
We have found if we mesh the same point cloud in both versions, using the 2 step method with the same parameters that the meshes are totally different.Mesh New vs Old.jpg
Red is new version
I am seeing an general improvement in all mesh results in Cyclone 3DR, and it certainly seems faster too.

sim.herrod
I have made 40-50 posts
I have made 40-50 posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:26 pm
Full Name: Simeon Herrod
Company Details: Terra Measurement Limited
Company Position Title: Scan and CAD Tech
Country: UK
Linkedin Profile: No
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by sim.herrod » Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:07 pm

gilles_3Dreshaper wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:01 am
Hi Graham,

in Cyclone 3DR, there is a small change in the 2nd step of the 2 steps meshing workflow compared to 3DReshaper:
  • In the second step of 3DReshaper ("classic 3DR"), the parameters proposed when one enters the command are the ones that the user entered on his computer last time he ran the refine step (the second step).
  • In the second step of Cyclone 3DR, the parameters are proposed based on the value entered by the user in the 1st step.
There are several reasons for proposing default values:
  1. Setting these values can be quite tedious depending on the scanned data. With this first proposal, one get a rough idea of which parameters to enter. First value set which you can then refine or completely override in order to improve the results!
  2. Processing the same data set on different computers now gives the same result by default!
I hope these explanations help.

Let me know if, applying the same parameters in the second step doesn't give the same result of course. But this would be very surprising!

Thank you for the explanation Gilles...confidence in installing new version restored.

User avatar
graham.watson
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:16 pm
Full Name: Graham Watson
Company Details: Road Science
Company Position Title: Technical Lead - High Speed Data
Country: New Zealand
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Contact:

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by graham.watson » Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:44 pm

Another quick one. While working on a point cloud doing kerb extraction. the point cloud has turned this grey colour and I don't seem to be able to get it back to the itensity values. It will change back to rgb though
3DR.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
graham.watson
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:16 pm
Full Name: Graham Watson
Company Details: Road Science
Company Position Title: Technical Lead - High Speed Data
Country: New Zealand
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Contact:

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by graham.watson » Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:45 pm

Sorry, should have said, that this is in classic 3DR

User avatar
gilles_3Dreshaper
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:41 am
Full Name: Gilles Monnier
Company Details: Technodigit
Company Position Title: 3DReshaper Manager
Country: France
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by gilles_3Dreshaper » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:31 am

Hmm...
Would it be possible for you to share the point cloud? So that we try to reproduce what you describe?
Gilles
3DReshaper Manager
http://www.3dreshaper.com

chrisg.cmg
I have made <0 posts
I have made <0 posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:18 pm
Full Name: Chris Gilling
Company Details: Mcelhanney
Company Position Title: Survey Tech
Country: Canada
Linkedin Profile: Yes

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by chrisg.cmg » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:41 pm

Quick questions hopefully: how do you open multiple projects at once? I can't seem to get multiple tabs going like in classic 3DR. Seems like multiple instances of C3DR will open with one license but you can't copy between them.

User avatar
gilles_3Dreshaper
V.I.P Member
V.I.P Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:41 am
Full Name: Gilles Monnier
Company Details: Technodigit
Company Position Title: 3DReshaper Manager
Country: France
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: cClassic 3DR v Cyclone 3dr

Post by gilles_3Dreshaper » Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:08 am

Hi Chris,
You're right, we decided to go to single document within a given instance of Cyclone 3DR compared to multiple document for 3DReshaper.

The main reason for this decision is that we tried to make Cyclone 3DR as simple as we could think of. And we have several ideas where tabs can be used very efficiently to something different than different documents. True to say that these ideas have not been implemented yet!

As you pointed out, the main drawback right now with this decision is that objects can't be copied/pasted for now between different instances of Cyclone 3DR. We are working on it right now and hope to provide this functionality as soon as possible.
By then, the tip is to export meshes/clouds to external format and then import to the other document...
Gilles
3DReshaper Manager
http://www.3dreshaper.com

Post Reply

Return to “3DReshaper”