So I am making progress on the RST AUBench, but getting the render to work is really causing me grief.
I created partial journals for both RAC & RST, and added lines one at a time, re-running the journal each time, just to make sure I was getting exactly the same results out of both. I managed to get to the point where I have RAC showing Floor Plan 6 and RST showing Structural Plan 6 exactly the same, ready for camera placement.
And yet, when I use the 7 lines below for the camera I get radically different results. RAC looks right, but RST places the camera much too far to the lower right, and while the target is in the right direction, it isn’t far enough towards the upper left, and stops well short of the building. Now it looked like the difference was about a 1:4 ratio for both the camera position and the target location relative to that. So I divided all the numbers by 4 for RST, and low and behold the camera position was now right. BUT, the target position was now seemingly half what it should be. So I tried just diving by two for the last two lines of the camera creation part. The target is still way too close to the camera, and is looking almost directly to the right of the target, not left and up at 45 degrees. Arg! I also tried leaving the target numbers as from the RAC test. Nope, distance from camera is better, but not right, and direction is almost 180 off, but not exactly.
So then I tried just cutting off the last two lines, that define the target point. When the RST journal was finished the camera was placed, and I manually picked the appropriate location for the target. The resulting view looked about right. So then I reviewed the journal that was created from that run, and the value of my manual pick point was 707, 387. No rational relationship to the other numbers, but whatever. I copied those lines into the partial journal and ran it and... The damn target is now down and right from the camera! WTH? But the numbers are right, because when I run the journal that was created from the combination of running the partial journal and the manual pick, it WORKS! but use those same numbers in the partial journal and it doesn’t? WTH again?
So any journal gurus out there that can help me understand what these numbers really mean? Is this relative to the Revit origin? Relative to the Revit screen? Relative to the last mouse down point? And why would numbers that worked when selected manually suddenly not work when copied into the journal?
The RAC version looks like this:
Jrn.Command "Menu" , "Create a 3D view by placing camera and focus target , ID_VIEW_NEW_3DVIEW"
Jrn.MouseMove 0 , 713 , 566
Jrn.LButtonDown 1 , 713 , 566
Jrn.MouseMove 1 , 713 , 566
Jrn.LButtonUp 0 , 713 , 566
Jrn.MouseMove 0 , 435 , 289
Jrn.LButtonDown 1 , 435 , 289
The first four similar lines place the camera, and if the values are divided by 4 the camera seems to go in in the right place. The last two lines place the target, and nothing seems to be working there.
If anyone just knows off hand what these numbers means, that would be great. Otherwise, I can post the revised RST version of the journal tonight, and anyone interested can see what they can make happen.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Gordon
I created partial journals for both RAC & RST, and added lines one at a time, re-running the journal each time, just to make sure I was getting exactly the same results out of both. I managed to get to the point where I have RAC showing Floor Plan 6 and RST showing Structural Plan 6 exactly the same, ready for camera placement.
And yet, when I use the 7 lines below for the camera I get radically different results. RAC looks right, but RST places the camera much too far to the lower right, and while the target is in the right direction, it isn’t far enough towards the upper left, and stops well short of the building. Now it looked like the difference was about a 1:4 ratio for both the camera position and the target location relative to that. So I divided all the numbers by 4 for RST, and low and behold the camera position was now right. BUT, the target position was now seemingly half what it should be. So I tried just diving by two for the last two lines of the camera creation part. The target is still way too close to the camera, and is looking almost directly to the right of the target, not left and up at 45 degrees. Arg! I also tried leaving the target numbers as from the RAC test. Nope, distance from camera is better, but not right, and direction is almost 180 off, but not exactly.
So then I tried just cutting off the last two lines, that define the target point. When the RST journal was finished the camera was placed, and I manually picked the appropriate location for the target. The resulting view looked about right. So then I reviewed the journal that was created from that run, and the value of my manual pick point was 707, 387. No rational relationship to the other numbers, but whatever. I copied those lines into the partial journal and ran it and... The damn target is now down and right from the camera! WTH? But the numbers are right, because when I run the journal that was created from the combination of running the partial journal and the manual pick, it WORKS! but use those same numbers in the partial journal and it doesn’t? WTH again?
So any journal gurus out there that can help me understand what these numbers really mean? Is this relative to the Revit origin? Relative to the Revit screen? Relative to the last mouse down point? And why would numbers that worked when selected manually suddenly not work when copied into the journal?
The RAC version looks like this:
Jrn.Command "Menu" , "Create a 3D view by placing camera and focus target , ID_VIEW_NEW_3DVIEW"
Jrn.MouseMove 0 , 713 , 566
Jrn.LButtonDown 1 , 713 , 566
Jrn.MouseMove 1 , 713 , 566
Jrn.LButtonUp 0 , 713 , 566
Jrn.MouseMove 0 , 435 , 289
Jrn.LButtonDown 1 , 435 , 289
The first four similar lines place the camera, and if the values are divided by 4 the camera seems to go in in the right place. The last two lines place the target, and nothing seems to be working there.
If anyone just knows off hand what these numbers means, that would be great. Otherwise, I can post the revised RST version of the journal tonight, and anyone interested can see what they can make happen.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Gordon
Comment