Overview

For Impact 2019 R2 we undertook the investigation and development of several graphics related quality and performance issues, with the aim of delivering a noticeable improvement in the short to medium term. This document serves to summarise the relevant changes made and any future work we’ve identified.

Impact Graphics Workflow

To understand the issues reported and the improvements we’ve made it first helps to identify the role graphics play in a typical Impact workflow.

By “graphics” we are typically referring to any artwork which would ultimately be printed onto the finished packaging. This artwork may be as simple as logo or a complex graphic design that covers the entirety of one or both sides of the packaging.

While it’s common to store relevant artwork as documents alongside an Impact project, the motivation for placing artwork as a graphic upon a structural design in Impact is to visualise the final result as a 3D representation, offering a quick virtual proof and limiting the need for a physical mock-up.

The graphic workflow starts with artwork being placed upon the 2D design layer which is then assigned a suitable board material and folded into its finished shape in 3D. The resultant 3D model may be captured in a 2D snapshot, to then be exported or featured in a report or assembly instructions, shared as a 3D PDF for convenient remote viewing, or exported in a common 3D exchange format for rendering in a third-party application.

Until now it was not uncommon to see quality loss at each stage of the workflow, with speed and file size also being a growing concern for larger designs and more detailed graphics.

Known Issues / Fixes

The following outlines a range of issues related to graphics handling commonly reported by Impact users. Many of these issues have now been fully addressed as part of the work undertaken in Impact 2019 R2, though some may be further refined within future development work, as discussed at the end of this document.

Blank or Low Quality Graphics Placing Artwork into 2D Layers

Description:

Most often artwork being placed in Impact will have originally been generated and supplied as an Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf) or Adobe Illustrator (*.ai) file, typically featuring a mixture of vector entities and print quality embedded images.

For Impact to display graphics it currently requires them to be converted to bitmap images, which involves a process of rasterisation or sampling, resulting in the original artwork being represented by a number of pixels.

The physical size of the original image and the resolution (DPI) it is sampled at affects the resultant quality and more specifically the total number of pixels. The greater the number of pixels, the greater the amount of memory required to represent it in an open drawing.

As Impact is currently a 32-bit application (see also ‘Future Developments’), this has historically limited it to accessing up to a maximum of 2 GB of process memory. The upper limit for adding and displaying a single graphic image was therefore around 6,000 x 6,000 pixels, based on the memory required to hold this amount of data. This was the case even on the most powerful of computers, meaning with one or more large and/or high quality graphic images added to a design layer, they could appear blank, either to the user editing the design, or other users later viewing it.

Though an image with 6,000 x 6,000 pixels can in some cases represent high quality, when stretched over a larger design area this same image could instead appear pixelated. Therefore, if nothing else changes, offering an increase in the total number of pixels sampled from the same source image will reduce quality loss.

Fix:

This problem has been tackled in a number of ways, some of which offer wider benefits:

1. Impact has now been made to be Large Address Aware (LAA). While still a 32-bit application for now, with this development alone Impact is able to access double the available memory. That’s an increase to 4 GB on a 64-bit o/s, or 3 GB on a 32-bit o/s. This alone provides a greater tolerance for larger graphics (more pixels!) to be shown in 2D design layers and 3D models.
2. The single biggest improvement that has been made involved reworking of the 2D graphics handling engine to allow images to be loaded, not only at higher quality, but faster and more responsive once placed. This also has a positive effect for all downstream graphics-related processes.
3. To complement the increased memory now available and the general performance improvements to allow handling larger graphics, an additional quality mode has been added to extend beyond the original Low (1,024 pixels), Medium (2,048 pixels) and High (4,096 pixels) options. The new option, Very High (8,192 pixels), offers 4x the pixel count of the previous High limit. While the Custom DPI option does allow for even higher pixel levels to be reached, this new Very High fixed option represents a quick and convenient choice in achieving higher quality graphics.

Benefits:

1. Higher quality representation of artwork can be captured; in some tests up to 25,000 x 25,000 pixels was achieved for a single image, a 1,600% increase, with no increase in file size¹
2. 400% faster PDF/AI conversion to bitmap image. This is time taken after selecting a source PDF image options (quality and crop) in the Add Graphics wizard, but before the preview is generated allowing the graphic to be placed into the design layer.
3. Significant performance improvement in the responsiveness of pan and zoom operations when one or more large graphics are present in a 2D layer.

¹Refer to recommendations on working with source artwork most effectively.

Impact 2019 vs Impact 2019 R2 2D Graphics Comparison

In the below example we compare two samples of the same PDF source. For Impact 2019 (bottom-left) we’re seeing the quality offered by the image sampled with the High setting - beyond which Impact would previously often become unresponsive. It’s clear that in the fine detailed areas we can clearly see blocky, pixelated edges, even without zooming too closely. By contrast, the sample taken from Impact 2019 R2 (bottom-right) allows us to sample at significantly higher quality, in this case a custom DPI (300), with the extra pixel data providing a much sharper image.

Original reference image

Impact 2019 – “High” quality (4,114 x 2,132 pixels)	Impact 2019 R2 – “Custom” quality (14,047 x 11,417 pixels)

Low Quality Artwork on 3D Folded Model

Description:

As mentioned previously, the Impact graphic workflow is split into a series of steps, starting with an image being copied from the source artwork and placed onto one of sides of a 2D design, following which that design is then folded into a 3D model.

The way textures are generated for 3D models not only has to allow the selected board material to show through areas with no artwork and transparencies, but also support cases of multiple pieces of artwork being present on each side of the packaging. Previously, generating graphics for the 3D model introduced a further resampling of any graphics present in the 2D layer. While this was another source of quality loss against the original artwork, limiting the size of the 3D texture produced was done with performance and stability in mind. Even with quality options similar to those for sampling graphics for 2D placement, i.e. Low (1,024 pixels), Medium (2,048 pixels) and High (4,096 pixels), the highest 3D quality option did not cater well for larger designs.

Furthermore, as 3D model creation offers separately controlled quality settings, it was often the case that users didn’t take note of which option they were using, and wouldn’t necessarily identify the reason for lower quality 3D models being generated when compared to what they had seen in their 2D design’s artwork. This was especially true if they did not use the 3D wizard, as the quality option would then be limited to whatever was last used.

In some other cases, high quality 3D folded models could actually have been created, but a user’s individual workstation settings, which are responsible for controlling the display quality of 3D layers, were then not optimally configured and would limit any textures shown.

Fix:

This problem has been tackled in a number of ways, some of which offer wider benefits:

1. As with improvements seen in 2D graphics, the increase in available memory due to making Impact large address aware (LAA) offers similar benefits to 3D. It’s with this new freedom we’ve been able to deliver higher quality all the way through to 3D model generation, and so the previous limit of High 3D quality (4,096 x 4,096 pixels) has also been lifted. We have now added a Very High (8,192 x 8,192 pixels) option, offering 4x the previous attainable 3D texture quality, and a further Unlimited option, which passes the 2D placed graphics directly through to the 3D model, maintaining the highest possible quality.
2. Changes to the way 3D textures are now generated means reduced quality loss regardless of texture size, so even 3D models generated with the same quality settings previously available have the potential to look better, especially if the graphic images in the 2D layer are higher quality to begin with.
3. The 3D quality options have been made more accessible, so no matter how a 3D model is created it’s clear what texture quality will be applied. The default option for new installations is now Very High (previously, Medium), which should remove this common bottleneck, though it will be remembered if a user chooses to lower this.
4. Now, when generating a 3D model, if the workstation 3D quality setting (maximum texture size) is lower than the target resolution a user is trying to achieve, a warning is provided that directs the user to address this or ignore, thereby avoiding creating higher quality models than their current settings can display, or their machine can handle. We’ve also lifted the default texture size workstation setting for new installations to 8,192 pixels, again aligned with the new default Very High 3D quality option.

Benefits:

1. Higher quality representation of artwork (Very High and Unlimited texture options) now achievable through general improvements to graphics handling in both 2D and 3D, while maintaining stability.
2. Reduced quality loss when converting 2D graphics representing artwork into 3D textures, especially noticeable if any scaling needs to be applied.
3. Speed improvements in the time taken to create a 3D model. For the same design and same quality source artwork placed in the 2D layer, we’re seeing a 60% reduction in processing time when comparing between 2019 and 2019 R2. This was tested with both models being created using the High quality texture mode. In fact, it now takes as long to create a Very High textured 3D model 2019 R2 as it previously took to create only a High quality model in 2019, while offering 4x the detail.
4. More consistent results as users are made aware of the quality settings in use and if they are compatible with their workstation.

Impact 2019 vs Impact 2019 R2 3D Texture Comparison

Low Quality 3D Model / PDF Exports

Description:

Since the maximum quality we can achieve during export is limited to what is available in Impact, everything leading up to this point has an important role to play in preserving quality. The various improvements to graphic handling in both 2D and 3D therefore mean the 3D content we are now exporting, whether that’s within snapshots, animations, 3D PDF or 3D models for external render, offer considerable benefits on their own.

While we are planning on some improvements to address any remaining quality limits seen during 3D output, some of that will have to be deferred to later releases (See ‘Future Developments’). Having said this, it’s apparent that the changes made so far already deliver drastic improvements.

Fix:

Indirectly improved by streamlining the graphics pipeline throughout Impact, leading up to export.

Benefits:

As higher quality 3D content is now achievable in Impact to begin with, all exports have the potential to generate higher quality textures. In some cases, as shown below, even when compressed to be smaller than content produced by previous Impact versions, we’re still able to deliver higher quality overall, with the texture compression being kinder to the output generated.

Before vs After:

Example 1: Large design with lots of solid colour space and also high detailed text and barcode areas. Previously the 4,096 limit meant only around half the pixels could be effectively used and both Impact 3D model and exported 3D PDF suffered.

Original reference image

Before - Impact 2019 – 150 DPI and High 3D texture quality, exported to 3D PDF without compression (to maintain best quality), 5.19 MB

After - Impact 2019 R2 – 300 DPI and Very High 3D texture quality, exported to 3D PDF with compression, 2.91 MB

Example 2: Again, a very large design but this time with lots of fine text details. Since the source artwork was a raster file it wasn’t possible to control the quality on placement, so Impact’s internal scaling was relied upon which was previously sub-standard in such cases, and often meant the higher quality the 2D graphic, the worse the 3D texture could look… made worse by the export to 3D PDF, as shown here.

Before - Impact 2019 – 3D PDF, with compression, 0.5 MB

After - Impact 2019 R2 – 3D PDF, with compression, 3.0 MB

Recommendations

In terms of getting the most out of the various graphics quality improvements, the following recommendations should be considered. We’ll also explore some of the new options and workflow changes that have been introduced to help users work effectively with graphics in Impact.

Suitable Artwork File Formats

While Impact supports a wide and growing range of image file formats, for the production of artwork it’s likely Illustrator will be used, so a PDF/AI file should be available. PDF and AI files are generally of a mix of vector and raster (bitmap image) content which will naturally be featured at high, print-ready quality.

When adding a PDF or AI file Impact offers the user with various quality options for sampling the original Artwork content. This gives us the potential to pick a suitable resolution for the design we’re going to place it over. When adding graphics from raster image file formats, e.g. JPEG, Windows Bitmap, PNG, TIFF, we’re currently stuck with importing them as is, which might either be higher or lower quality that Impact needs for 2D and 3D use.

We therefore recommend that PDF or AI files are used for sourcing the placed graphics, the suitable quality of which is discussed below.

Recommended 2D Graphics Quality (PDF/AI/EPS Artwork)

As mentioned, with Impact now capable of handling higher quality graphic images in both 2D and 3D, we’ve lifted the previous limits and introduced a new Very High option in the ‘Image Options’ form, which is presented when adding graphics from an PDF, AI or EPS artwork files, i.e. Postscript sources.

Let’s now look at the available ‘Image Size’ options (Low, Medium, High, Very High, Custom) in terms of resultant graphic quality and how to select between them. 

While it is possible to select the Custom option and enter a specific Resolution (DPI) value, this doesn’t actually tell us how many total pixels we are going to end up with. Looking at that another way, assuming the size of the image shown below is 1”, we’re going to have 300 x 300, 200 x 200, 100 x 100 and 50 x 50 pixel images.

As artwork is produced at 1:1 scale and often to the extents of the packaging, its physical size will vary greatly. While for printing it's common to be looking to achieve a consistent quality, i.e. fixed DPI value, at a level which prevents the human eye from detecting the individual dots/pixels, Impact has to concern itself with the total number of pixels that will be generated, as it’s this total value (physical image size multiplied by how many pixels will be sampled from each square inch) that governs file size, memory and overall performance when dealing with that graphic image.

Below we see a carton and countertop display both of the same quality (300 DPI), but each requiring a different number of pixels to represent them. The smaller carton being only 9 x 8 inches results in 3,027 x 2,740 pixels to deliver high quality, the display is much larger at 38 x 39 inches, which results in 11,623 x 11,793 pixels needed for the same quality.

If we instead decided to apply a fixed limit to the number of pixels across both designs, e.g. 8,096 x 8,096 (Very High), the smaller carton would receive 900+ DPI, and the display only 210 DPI. This means the carton’s graphic is larger and more detailed than perhaps needed, yet the display’s graphic quality is lower than our original target.

A rule of thumb would be to aim for around 300 DPI, but also keep an eye on the number of pixels. If you look at the updated ‘Image Options’ form for 2019 R2 you’ll notice that the Custom option is still available, allowing you to dial in on a specific resolution (DPI), however parts of the form will now turn red, along with an accompanying warning, if the chosen custom resolution value pushes the number of pixels in the width or height above the equivalent of the Very High quality option, known to be a safe limit. 

The reason this is a warning or instruction and not a fixed limit is due to how performance will vary from workstation to workstation, including system specification (O/S, CPU, RAM and GPU), but also GPU configuration, drivers and availability of those to Impact (See ‘Additional Notes’).

We have seen some test workstations capable of handling 20,000 x 20,000 pixel images and greater, but we’d strongly recommend users limit themselves to 12,000 x 12,000 pixels or less, remembering that the previous limit in version 2019 and earlier before Impact became unstable or showed blank images was around 5,000 x 5,000 pixels.

It should be noted that if you do use one of the fixed ‘Image Size’ options, such as Very High, as well as telling you the number of pixels this will result in for the current design, it will also update the ‘Resolution’ field to indicate the DPI value that this represents based on the actual artwork extents.

New image size option Very High	Example of custom resolution warning when exceeding Very High pixel levels.

Linked vs Embedded Graphics

When graphics are added to 2D design layers, regardless of whether the source artwork is located on disk or within the Impact document repository, they can optionally be linked back to the original artwork (recommended), or a copy can be embedded within the project, both of which have their advantages and disadvantages.

Linking graphics back to original artwork results in a minimal and almost negligible increase in project size when saved. The notable downside is that if the source artwork is later moved, deleted or renamed, the link is broken, and the artwork will appear blank unless then relinked or replaced. This is far more likely in the case of a file on disk, which is one reason why use of the document repository is recommended. It should be noted that a further advantage of linking to artwork rather than embedding is that it provides the option of placing a specific version of artwork, or always the “latest” version should it ever be updated.

Embedding a graphic on the other hand copies the image data into the Impact project as TIFF file, helping to preserve its editing capabilities and transparency, however that means the size of the project when saved will pay the ultimate penalty, especially for high quality and/or physically large graphic images.

The Add Graphic Wizard provides options for loading from File or Document, each of which provide link options:

• Load from File - the choice is simply to tick or untick ‘Insert a Link’; so link or embed respectively.
• Load from Document (enabled only for saved projects) – always inserts a link, but provides its own tick choice for whether or not to ‘Link to the latest document version’; so link to latest, or link to this specific version respectively.

Looking at the Add Graphic Wizard, we see a legend to indicate the varying types of link and embedded image files and documents.

In summary, our recommendation is to place artwork linked to documents, meaning smaller file size and the knowledge this source is most unlikely to be deleted, moved or renamed. It’s then up to the user or the specific workflow as to whether to link to the latest or a specific version of a document.

Optimal 2D Workstation Options

So far, we have focused on getting graphics into the first part of the workflow which is placing them into the 2D design layer. Overlaying the graphics representing the artwork against the design structure is of course useful as it allows us to check the register of the graphic and make sure the design structure was not accidentally modified or ignored by those producing the artwork.

We don’t necessarily need high or print-resolution graphics to be available in the 2D layer in Impact, but it does give us our first chance to see what the graphics look like before we create or update our 3D folded model. It’s therefore important that we can see them as they are, and this is not compromised by the workstation’s 2D quality settings which are configured in Impact.

From the View > Visibility menu (when viewing a 2D layer) we can access various options for what is displayed on the 2D canvas. For graphics, we want to pay attention to the Others node.

Here we can see two sliders controlling the quality of the Perimeter (edges) of an image, and overall amount of pixel data we will show at any one time at the current zoom level. 

• The Perimeter Quality is used to determine how accurately we crop non-rectangular images, i.e. how much detail is generated to represent the angled edge of an image to avoid it looking jagged or stepped.
• The Image Quality slider simply limits the amount of pixel data we are showing relative to 100% (Highest).

As 2019 R2 is much more efficient at rendering images on the 2D canvas, unless users face specific performance issues when panning or zooming with images placed and visible on a drawing, we suggest both these settings are set to their ‘Highest’ option.

It’s important to note that in the past Impact would use the full sized image at all zoom levels, even if there weren't enough pixels in the display to show all the detail. For instance, you may have an image of 8000 x 8000 pixels, but the on-screen graphic may only take up half of your 1920 x 1080 display! This was very inefficient as Impact would have to down-sample the images in real time to draw to the screen, using a low quality resampling algorithm to maintain reasonable speed. 

Impact now resizes and caches copies of the image at various sizes at the time of placement, and automatically selects the best one for the number of pixels shown on screen at the current zoom level. This increases performance while actually improving graphics rendering quality on the canvas. Zooming in will eventually give you a sense of the actual image quality as this will take you to the highest quality mipmap, or original/non-optimised image.

Optimal 3D Workstation Options

Most often the ultimate goal of placing graphics into a design is to visualise them against a 3D folded model. As with 2D layers there is a risk that users may be try to create and view 3D models with textures of a higher quality than our current workstation settings allow. While this won’t stop them being created, depending on their purpose it may be inefficient to do so, or may simply provide a false sense of the quality limits that can be achieved. Most notably, the 2D graphics quality may be significantly sharper and more detailed that can be seen on the 3D model.

While selecting an appropriate 3D model texture quality setting is critical, so too is getting the workstation options set up correctly to see them as intended. The 3D workstation settings are found in Options > Environment > Workstation > 3D.

These settings are provided to allow each workstation to show 3D models at the best level it can support while still remaining responsive. Note. The topic of 3D workstations performance options is more involved and complex than this document is intended to cover and is already documented in great detail in the Impact help guide and other resources. An important thing to note, however, is that these settings are not specific to a user’s saved Impact profile. This is because that user may log in at a number of workstations with different capabilities, most notably related to the workstation’s graphics card.

One 3D performance setting of particular interest is the ‘Max. Texture Size’. This option allows you to specify the resolution of on-screen textures. Higher values will give improved detail, but users may notice a slower response time. Lower values will therefore give a quicker response at the expense of texture detail.

As of Impact 2015 (v9) the default maximum texture size for a new installation was 4,096 pixels, i.e. 3D textures larger than 4,096 pixels in width and 4,096 pixels in height would be limited to this level. However, for workstations upgrading to Impact 2015, 2016 and even 2019, this value may have remained at the even lower value it was previously. Needless to say, it was possible, and quite often reported, that users faced problems where nothing they did with regards to changing either their 2D graphic or 3D model texture quality settings had a positive effect on the results they were seeing in the 3D scene.

Impact 2019 R2 has brought some improvements to specifically address this in that now, when a user is generating a new 3D model, or updating an existing one, if the texture quality chosen is higher than their workstation’s 3D settings are configured to allow, they will be warned as follows:

If the user chooses not to use the 3D wizard, then a convenient but suppressible message appears before the model is created with the following options:

• Automatically update the workstation’s ‘Max. Texture Size’ to meet desired texture quality and continue to create or update the model
• Ignore this time and continue to create or update the model

Recommended 3D Texture Quality Settings

Assuming the graphic images are placed in the 2D layer at a sufficient and expected quality, we can now look to optimise the texture quality settings for creating and updating 3D models.

3D texture quality affects how much pixel data Impact will carry across from the 2D layer for each face (inside/outside) of a design. At this point it’s not possible to gain quality as we can’t create extra pixels from the already present 2D graphics, but we can lose them when converting that into a 3D texture by not using a suitable resolution.

Effectively, Impact captures the graphics placed over a 2D layer from a top-down view, while cropping them to the design’s cut extents. In doing so it will further sample the graphic at the chosen 3D texture quality. This new image capture representing the design’s artwork is in turn layered and displayed in real-time over the chosen board material and any other print finish effects that have been selected, e.g. varnish, foil.

Note, after having placed a graphic image it’s possible to review its specific pixel count within the Graphics tab of the Impact Explorer as shown below. This may provide some guidance over a suitable 3D texture quality to select.

As a reminder, the 3D Texture Quality options available previously within Impact were Low (1,024 pixels), Medium (2,048 pixels) and High (4,096 pixels). 2019 R2 introduces both a Very High (8,192 pixels), and also an experimental Unlimited mode. Very High is of course 4x the pixel count of the previous highest setting. Unlimited then actually removes any limits on down-sampling – at least up to the level of the workstation’s Max’ Texture Size capabilities and current value - trying to preserve the best quality available, but with the result of potentially very large 3D textures.

It would be easy to imagine that if we have placed a graphic image sampled from PDF/AI artwork into a 2D layer using the Very High quality option giving us up to 8,192 x 8,192 pixels, that we should only ever need to use the same Very High quality level for the 3D texture when converting a design to a folded model. However, that assumes only one graphic image is placed over the design. While this is most common workflow it’s not always the case.

Where a single graphic image is featured on a design in the 2D layer, Impact will at least focus on sampling this area specifically when generating the artwork for the 3D texture. It doesn’t matter if that graphic is covering the full extents of the design, or a single panel. This helps to avoid further reducing the quality of the source image by not spreading the available pixels across potentially blank space.

On the other hand, in the cases where you may have multiple graphic images placed to the extreme edges of a design’s extents, Impact then has to distribute the available pixels more widely. We may also have a mixture of different quality images to contend with. Depending on the quality of those images, you may have to use the Very High (8,192 x 8,192 pixels) or Unlimited options for the 3D texture quality to be close to maintaining an overall high quality, i.e. with a greater pixel distribution. It should be noted though none of this is an exact science due to the way source artwork can optionally feature bleed margins and crop/page boxes, meaning the 2D graphic won’t necessarily have the same physical extents as the 3D texture that is generated from it, as evidenced below.

The Unlimited texture quality mode was added to allow those users with more powerful workstations to access the full potential of Impact and limit the resampling of the 2D artwork when creating a 3D model.

If that same artwork were added into the 2D layer with a custom DPI above the limit of Very High (8,192 x 8,192 pixels), then the Unlimited mode is the only way to unlock this extra detail.

It should be noted that unlike linked 2D images, high quality 3D textures are very much responsible for an increase in the saved project size, so if the 3D layers and models are to be saved it’s best to only use the highest possible settings when the design needs.

A further word of warning with the experimental Unlimited mode. Impact can now handle the generation and display of much larger graphics in 2D layers, in some cases shown to be 10,000’s pixels, however the cost of rendering that same level of pixel data on a 3D model is much greater. Therefore, we’d anticipate Impact becoming unresponsive if the Unlimited mode is used on 2D layers with one or more very detailed images whose combined size is greater than 12,000 pixels. In that case the Very High option would be recommended instead.

To try to educate and warn users to prevent Impact becoming too slow or unresponsive a new warning has been introduced when the Unlimited mode is in use. The same message is displayed in both the 3D wizard and as a warning dialog.

In summary, if placing one or more high quality textures in the 2D layer it would be our strong suggestion to use the High or Very High fixed texture quality options for 3D models.Unlimited would then only be used if you are not getting acceptable results. In the future, we would hope to offer better performance for the Unlimited mode, and it may even become the default, leaving the 2D graphic image quality to directly dictate the 3D texture quality achieved.

Future Developments

During this graphics handling development cycle further investigation has been made into more radical and longer term changes, including some that may appear in the next major release, Impact v12. As ever, balancing improvements with intuitiveness/user familiarity and stability are always constraints, though we believe the following are viable future developments.

• Native Vector Graphic Support – handling vector graphics will avoid the need for rasterisation, both improving speed to place them, minimising memory usage, and improving quality of images and 3D models textures.
• 64-bit Impact – accessing more memory lifts the limits of the amount of raster image data Impact can generate and display, so even in the absence of further refinement graphic handling capabilities would be improved. The same is true for general 2D and 3D performance and the LAA update for Impact 2019 R2 goes some way to prove this.
• Export Texture Resolution Alignment – While several improvements have been made to the graphic quality and 3D texture quality in Impact, when exporting we are still applying some legacy texture limits, quite notably to 3D PDFs. This work would therefore align our 3D export options to the new texture quality options available.
• Resampling Options for Raster Artwork – when adding graphics into the 2D design layer that are sourced from raster / bitmap images, these are currently placed at full resolution, with no options for down-sampling. Should these images be physically large then Impact may be unable to use them effectively. Along with a wider rework of the Add Graphic Wizard and related image options that will also benefit artwork sourced from PDF and AI files, we will be offering new quality options for raster images.

Additional Notes

In addition to the above changes, the following improvements and recommendations should be noted.

• 3D Export Archives – It’s recently (as of the Impact 2019 release) been made possible to add 3D exports to an archive, offering a single file output which includes compression. This is especially useful for sharing 3D models which can result in multiple texture files, some of which may now be very high quality.
• Purge Unreferenced (3D materials) – During Save, Impact has the option to purge any unreferenced materials within a 3D layer. These materials get created along with a folded model, though not necessarily deleted along with it. Though previously off by default, the option to ‘Purge Unreferenced’ materials is now enabled for new projects.
• Graphics Card / GPU Drivers and Affinity– It’s one thing having a suitable workstation specification, but for Impact to use it effectively a few things need to be considered:
  • Are the drivers up-to-date - Both the workstation manufacturer and graphics card manufacturer will likely release new and updated drivers aimed at improved performance, stability and compatibility. It’s worth checking yours are up-to-date and can be effectively utilised by your system and Impact in particular.
  • Is Impact using the GPU – in the case where a workstation has more than one GPU, such as some higher-powered laptops, there’s always the chance Impact will default to your battery powered friendly on-board graphics card / chipset. You can confirm this by checking the Renderer details shown on the 3D Driver tab of the Visibility options, found via View > Visibility when viewing a 3Dlayer. In the below example we see ‘GeForce GTX 1650…’.

     

    

    While Impact attempts to steer a workstation into utilising the dedicated graphics card option, if this isn’t working automatically your graphics card may offer a utility to manage this as a global or program specific preference, an example of which is shown below. Here you can see the NVIDIA Control Panel corresponding to the above featured graphics card.

     

    

• Improvements for nServer and WEBcnx – All the graphic related improvements made to Impact are also available in nServer in the same release. While WEBcnx doesn’t at this time rely too heavily on nServer for graphic handling, WEBcnx 2019 R2 will introduce a new artwork proofing module called LiveProof, allowing high-quality graphics to be automatically registered onto existing 3D models viewed through WEBcnx, and even allowing basic 3D folding within the updated Lens 2D/3D HTML5 viewer.