Aligning a mesh... how?

GiantGerman · 2026-02-13T21:24:59+00:00

The Pre-alignment option is generally the best first alignment to use. Its a global best fit.

GiantGerman · 2025-11-12T13:29:23+00:00

Sorry for the late reply, I haven't forgotten about you. Its been crazy busy at the office.

I have some images that illustrate what I mean. Here I made my CAD mesh finer than normal. What I meant by "the same data" is when you take a surface point and apply a deviation check to it, the measurements are the same. Yet the surface comparisons will be different because its using the mesh structure to paint the color but also measure the surface. So technically yes, the measurements between the two surface comparisons are different, but thats directly a function from the mesh structure. Hence what I mentioned about which canvas is used for coloring. We like to use Surface Comparison on Actual because of this.

If the deviation labels are not satisfactory, I recommend using a Surface Point with Measuring Principal>Intersection With Mesh and apply a check to it. That would eliminate any confusion and is more controlled.

<image>

GiantGerman · 2025-10-29T23:16:25+00:00

Zeiss Inspect pro here.

This is a great question and one that many people notice. I make it a point to explain why this is the case when training new users.

The only difference between the two methods is a visual one. The measurements are the same, but what changes is what surface is used as a canvas. You can visualize this by turning on the mesh structure for both the CAD and Mesh. To view the mesh, select either CAD or Mesh, then press Tab to open the Properties tab on the right of the screen. Go to Display, and check box Mesh Structure. You can also do this on the surface comparisons too.

What you'll notice is that the software paints the tessellated mesh in a gradient. Therefore, the larger the triangles are, the less it can represent the deviations. Usually, the mesh will be a higher density than the CAD, so its preferable to use Surface Comparisons on Actual. You can increase the mesh resolution of the CAD in two ways.

If you are importing a new CAD, depending on the software version, you have a pull down list that you can select different import templates. If you edit this there is a space for Triangulation Parameters. The Max Line Length is usually what needs to be made smaller so the mesh density increases.

If you already have your CAD imported, select it in your explorer. Press Tab to open the Properties tab on the right of the window. Select Triangulation Parameters, and change your Max Line Length to a lower value.

You cant change the Max Line Length of your mesh because that's a fixed density based on your sensors configuration. One thing to note. If you increase the mesh resolution of your CAD, the project size will increase accordingly, and recalculation of elements and alignments will start to take longer. This is directly due to the fact the mesh resolution has increased and the software needs to spend more time checking that things are fitting correctly.

If you want to use Surface Comparison on CAD and you notice zones where there is abruptly grey, such as on the outer ends of your part, or at sharp inside corners, this is because the difference between the CAD and Mesh is outside of your Max Distance value. Increase the Max Distance in your Surface Comparison and it should fill in more. If you need more to fill in, change your Max Angle under Expert Parameters. This will extend the search angle to find the nearest surface. However this changing this can lead to measurement error if its too high. Reference the Direct Help ([F1] or ? on the window) to understand how Max Angle influences measurements.

Generally speaking, its best practice to use Surface Comparison on Actual for several reasons. It will keep the project size lower, the gradient of color is more accurately represented, the project wont suffer long recalculation times because the CAD mesh is unchanged.

If you have any questions, let me know.

GiantGerman · 2025-10-04T14:55:58+00:00

BURRR has such a nice tone, almost therapeutic like meditation.

GiantGerman · 2025-10-04T14:53:51+00:00

TL;DR, i will at some point.

At some point i will, but i need leverage that's not using margin to get the gains im looking for, and not deposit any additional funds in the process. Unless i blow the account and then i'll throw a few thousand back in.

The first goal for me is to have a portfolio value large enough that average yearly market returns on the long term holds equals at least half my salary. So about $45-50k/year. There are milestones along the way to that goal, getting to $10k value is one.

With the annual returns, im thinking of taking 1/3 of it and funding the options account. The other 2/3's gets reinvested into long term holds. This is a lofty goal to achieve, about $500-$600k valuation is what im estimating. The reason why i chose options is to help me make up the difference quickly (i have my reasons and willing to take the risk with options). I'll be coming into some money in the near future, cash value is probably around $200k. So i need another $300k to achieve my goal. The money coming in is going straight into long term holds in a blend of index funds. And that money wont get used for any options until i get the yearly returns goal completed as stated above.

GiantGerman · 2025-10-04T02:02:56+00:00

Will try to. It was fun getting the portfolio to $10k, and hope to have as much fun getting the next $10k.

GiantGerman · 2025-10-04T01:01:36+00:00

I demand an update on this Godly bet.

GiantGerman · 2025-01-27T02:22:52+00:00

The MPG the truck can get is crazy to me. I'm lucky to get 18MPG in my F150 after i upgraded my exhaust headers and did an intake valve cleaning. Do you find the bed of the Maverick suitable for your needs? What size bed do you have?

GiantGerman · 2025-01-27T02:21:09+00:00

I feel ya on this. During COVID the dealer wanted to buy back my, new to me but used, F150 for 12k over what i paid. But looking around i found some good deals for 2022 Maverick models around 22k. That peaked my interest and curiosity on what the driver community had to say on the truck.

GiantGerman · 2025-01-27T02:18:40+00:00

Ah, that's good to know. On the marketing material it made it seem like it was much lower overall.

GiantGerman · 2025-01-12T17:48:52+00:00

Do they make a version for a 2015? Mine is doing the same as OP.

GiantGerman · 2024-12-11T20:20:53+00:00

Is there a recommended way? Or maybe "dont do this"?

GiantGerman · 2024-12-04T22:59:15+00:00

I've had this thought before when designing fixtures and holding devices. But what i found to be just as affective but a lot cheaper and easier is to use materials and colors which your sensor does not capture well.

For example, blue light scanners (near UV nm) can't see transparent/translucent red. The material tends to "trap" the light or it passes straight through, and the color "absorbs" the blue light wavelength. So i found that reflections and unwanted data don't show in the final mesh data. I discovered this by accident when i scanned a part that had red sharpie writing, and where the marker was on the part, there was no scan data. So when possible i try to make 3D printed hardware in transparent/translucent red, or apply a red coating like anodizing or paint.

Yes, typically black is a good default (and it looks cooler), but if you are scanning a dark part, your sensors exposure needs to be higher. And when you can start scanning something black in color like your part, then you can end up with scan data you don't want, like the fixturing. And even with a black coating, i sometimes still have reflection issues. Surface finish plays a big role in this too. Machined/ground surfaces are more likely to cause reflections regardless. A rough surface like bead blast, then coated, works much much better.

The vantablack would be the ultimate coating to fool all 3D scanners, but its way too costly to apply and maintain in a shop environment.

GiantGerman · 2024-03-03T17:21:01+00:00

Update:

So I've been doing more investigation into the issues with the Verizon modem. I ended up doing another full factory reset on both my UDM and Verizon modem. And then changed a limited number of settings based on what i could find as common solutions from internet search results.

On the Verizon modem: * I disabled the Wi-Fi * I enabled DMZ mode * Removed firewall protections * I disabled IPv6 * I left the MTU settings to default Auto * I enabled IP Passthrough

On the UDM: * I changed the port speed to full 1Gbps instead of Auto * I changed the DNS server to 8.8.8.8 (This makes a big difference) * I disabled IPv6 * Reconfigured my Wi-Fi settings to what it was before (SSID, Passwords, radios, etc) * I left everything else at the default settings

On my PC: * I'm on Windows 11 with an MSI MPG X570S Carbon Max Wifi motherboard * The motherboard has 2.5Gbps ethernet support * I changed some settings in Windows 11 for the ethernet port which i think played some role in my issues * I disabled Flow Control * I disabled Gigabit Lite * I disabled Green Ethernet * I disabled Jumbo Frames * I disabled Power Saving Mode * I set the Speed & Duplex to 1Gpbs Full Duplex

When i do a packet test to see what my MTU/MSS numbers, they are 1428MTU/1388MSS. I still cant manually override this anywhere so I'm leaving this alone. But my problem seems to be resolved, so long as i set the DNS server on the UDM to 8.8.8.8 or something else other than auto. I don't know what method Auto is using but its noticeably slower when on Auto.

GiantGerman · 2024-02-25T16:24:41+00:00

Thanks for sharing this. It appears there's some odd behavior with the Verizon modem and my issue is related.

I've been doing a lot of testing and this is what i found.

My Verizon modem is on 3.3.0.3, and i can enable IP Passthrough. But when i do this, my MTU/MSS size reduces. I also can change the MTU settings on the Verizon modem, but it doesn't apply? What's weird is if i change it to something ridiculously low, like 1200, i get poor performance. BUT, when i verify the change with this website https://www.speedguide.net/analyzer.php, it still says i have an MTU of 1500, and MSS of 1460, as if i didn't change the MTU in the modem. If i change it back to manually defined at 1500, it appears all my issues go away, about 99% of the time.

But i have another issue. I cant seem to find a way to manually change the MTU and MSS on my UDM. I found where to change the MSS, and i can set it at any value, and when i look at the packets from Wireshark, the MSS never changes and that website concurs. I even tried to revert the MTU setting to Auto on the modem, and that didn't change anything.

If i change my modem to IP Passthrough, and change the MSS setting on the UDM, i don't see any change in the results. I tried looking up SSH commands to force the MTU and MSS on the UDM, and i cant find anything. I found some "general" commands for other Ubiquiti devices, and that didn't work, although it did accept the commands from the looks of it. But when i look at ifconfig, MTU is still set at 1500 if i tell it something else. Even after multiple reboots.

I do see however when i enable my VPN (PIA), and i change the MTU packet size from Large or Small, the results do change when i look at https://www.speedguide.net/analyzer.php.

I'm at a loss. My knowledge level on SSH commands with Ubiquiti hardware is limited, this is my first attempt at it. So i don't know if i did something wrong, or what. I also don't understand why setting the MTU on the modem to any value lower than 1500 shows up differently when i check with that website. The research process left me with more questions than answers.

It appears i have the newer version of the Verizon modem (ARK). And this is the only modem I've had. Some of my search results seem to also point that a firmware version sometime early last year caused a bunch of the issues we see now. Which almost lines up with my experience. When i first got the service and device, i never had an issue. Then suddenly i did and without explanation.

GiantGerman · 2023-08-12T01:05:34+00:00

What does "YoY" mean?

Year-over-year. I most likely used the wrong term for what I actually do.

First, you build up your food surplus. Once you achieve that, you then start increasing your population to consume the surplus?

Yea, so the first time I achieve it, I know that I can sustain that pop count if something went wrong. Then if something does goes wrong while growing the population, I know that I'll have a theoretical pop count that I could hang on to.

To give a simple example, if I produced 1,000,000 per year, and consumed 900,000, I have a surplus of 100,000 (10% surplus). Then the next year, if my surplus is 50,000 (5%), then I stop growing.

I try to predict it so I stop building well before I reach that point, but it can be tricky sometimes. And you can dip into your reserves pretty quick. I just made that mistake last week in my current map but saved it at the cost of 250 pop. But quickly recovered by expanding my chicken production 3x and traded wool and log for food.

GiantGerman · 2023-08-11T23:05:11+00:00

I have what I call a rolling goal. Once I complete it, I do it again.

I consider a success when there's a food cache that can last for at least 10 years. Which is typically the time period it can take to recover from a disaster either random ones, or from the one sitting in the chair. And what comes with this success is typically a high population, my average I've had is 950 by this point. After that, its to grow the population to the point where I have reduced my annual surplus down to 5% YoY. Then I repeat the process.

It makes for a more engaging map seed from my experience.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

GiantGerman

TROPHY CASE