SrPx

Carlitos Carlitos is not a fox... but starting to doubt the lad is human...

I might sound like a 'TV shows illiterate' (not really, but that one....) but I've never watched a single Doctor Who episode... Now, if it's like the route sci fi is taking these days in every show and film, I guess you mean all that of the parallel universes (yet never proved) and multiple versions of same subject. So, we're never seeing the same fox. Then each fox doesn't necessarily have the same experiences than the previous fox, and thus, keeps jumping over the lazy dog every time as it doesn't know better. Poor fox. Now, that's a sleepy dog, too.

Well, didn't know that... Thanks a lot!

That fox must be really tired. All these years jumping non stop...

After playing a bit with your uploaded file and looking up close (quite zoomed in), it appears to me that (MAYBE) could be that when the live filters, contrast, etc are still "live" they are actually of lower quality than once merged (as looking it in detail, pixel level, the merged image seems of higher quality, even if different in colors and tones, but also less "pixelated"). In this particular image, with tons of small details (horrible for mipmapping in zoomed out, but I tested always at 100% or lower), the image previous to merging /flattening is of lower quality, so, the problem would be perhaps more in the filters and live stuff (maybe for optimization) than in the actual final merge, which indeed it is seeming to me that merges "to higher quality" but then the result is different to what you were visually controlling (which yes, can be a problem). Probably more noticeable with some images than others. And this one seems to have a combination of factors to produce that more. It could also be that ... the merge, or more likely, the filters are not considering the color profile or image depth (16 bits) fully, and the operation is happening with less range, or a different color profile (until the revamp called "space invasion", based on the GEGL library , Gimp suffered of all or most of the layer effects happening in sRGB (and dunno if 8 bits). Something similar in PaintShop Pro, if I recall well). I don't know. I tested freeing up all live stuff (no visual changes, btw), and then trying different ways of merging (always producing the problem) and also dragging the live stuff over the one background layer (on top, as is 100%) and while doing so no visual change happened, the final merge or rasterization always generates the problem. What I couldn't explain is why when I merged the 3 background layers (which should have no effect, as the one on top of the 3 is at 100% opacity and is (the 3 are) solely a pixel rendered layer!), without touching anything else, and at 100% zoom, I already saw some changes that should never occur doing that, IMO (darkening of some subtle areas). Could this be a bug? I am more and more suspecting that the live stuff is like in a temp mode not fully the final-final render and it is what is introducing this. I am not a photographer but a digital painter, so I had not noticed this as I apply filters non live or only one by one, so I kind of control it more so (but also is less of an issue when illustrating or painting). About if it happens in Photoshop... well, the last time I used it (some years ago, but not many, and I had been using it since 1995) you could happen to find some issues when using complex groups of layers with different layer blending modes and some live stuff. But I learned some tricks (typically rendering with intermediate pixels layers, and other tricks) to avoid issues. Still not gone into that with Affinity, as I haven't needed it. I don't know if Adobe has fixed those problems, though. I know I could avoid any issue with certain workflows, so it was a non-issue for me. I would always love a priority on quality of viewing, and viewing "pixel perfect" accuracy or... even if by default they set "high performance" mode on, for the mass of users, specially many people that don't fine tune stuff for professional work, but that there would be some preference settings for "full accuracy" that we could configure for viewport accuracy. Also it would be lovely to have more control over the Lanczos export (in every file format), like a slider with a preview window... or even if just the slider (we could do personal tests) as (I never remember which is which) one of the modes ('separated' or 'non separated') is too "smooth" as in, a bit blurry, and the sharper one is way too sharp, forcing some halos similar to when you went too heavy with an unsharp mask (or any sharpen filter) setting. I still can't find an explanation of why merging (ctrl + shift + e), or doing a group of them and the rasterizing the group of solely the 3 pixel layers (the 3 backgrounds) being the one on top at 100% opacity, how or why does this alters what I am viewing (the live stuff above should not matter), as this would never happen in Photoshop or many other image editors, and also, as it complicates quite the workflows. My only explanation is that it's all working for a "perception", but it is not tied to the raw pixels in the way we usually think (in most 2D raster applications). If someone can throw some light at this, I'd be quite grateful. I personally have no huge issues with this (as I said, several live filters and layer effects in Photoshop did have important "usability" issues) as I mostly paint and can do stuff "under control", but it'd be really good any improvement in this whole area.

Great! I'm happy that it solved it I had got to that conclusion by trial and error. Usually needing to restart the app to see the effect, after the preferences change. Back then I had just a nvidia GTX 1650 and the trick worked with it. Since a while I installed a RTX 3060 (in both my 3900X desktop and 12700h laptop), and Affinity apps function way more smoothly. Probably also due to vast improvements made by Affinity's developers since 1.x (if my tests were correct, already in the latest 2 or 3 versions of 1.x, but improved even more in 2.x). I don't know what is painting lag anymore with Affinity Photo in 2.5x version and this PC; I just don't see it anymore even in bigger canvases than I actually need them to be. In my understanding, with Open CL off, it still completely uses the GPU, though! (unless you set "WARP" (kind of software-only mode) , instead of your GPU model, in Affinity's preferences. I any Affinity desktop/laptop app). By deselecting Open CL it just does not use the (mostly AMD related,) advantages of that library, if I got it right. But I think Affinity software uses quite a lot the CPU, it benefits from both (GPU, CPU) components capabilities (and performance can be poor if those components are too bad), and RAM, disc, etc. I am still storing the working file and editing each project on good ol' HDDs, even Affinity apps installations are there (not ideal, I know), and yet Affinity Photo allows me to paint on large canvases with no hiccup at all (my operating system is always on a SSD).

Yepp... Each software has its own way to call things, different terms. That's totally fine, of course.

Maybe you are considering the stamp, burn, blur, etc, as brushes as well (maybe they are called "brush tools" in the manual/help, in this software). I mostly use the actual brush for painting, but in some projects I need to use those tools, too (not in "pure painting", though). And.. when using those I do really need the brush outline. Also depends on the device. Brightness, resolution, the screen's refresh rate (sadly my Eizo has the "typical" 60 hz), it all modifies the perception while working. Something that is not disturbing at all in my 12 inches Samsung tab S7 FE (due to screen size and other factors) , becomes annoying on a 24" inches monitor. For the people working mostly on pen displays it is more the case, as they are literally working over the screen, super close to it. But yep, different people have different sensitivity to it... reason why it is often included enough options for cursors, in 2D software . And more importantly, the type of use! I don't mind it at all when doing image editing (do you paint a lot? Realistic/detailed digital paint?) but it's a problem while painting. And if painting was a 10% of my activity, probably I wouldn't bother (too much). Even more, depends on the type of painting. Simplistic, bold artwork, or abstract, etc, maybe has less of a problem with this. Even in realistic or other detailed styles, if the painter uses a very different technique. But build-up or constant glazing is quite common among painters (digital and traditional painters) and that requires fast color pickup and fast painting, in most cases.

Thank you. I know about it, but it has certain disadvantages, as if, like me, you save often with different names/versions, etc, or are also working with artistic text or whatever, having the caps lock on, you need to often toggle that. Also, to toggle it for other reasons, as with most other tools it is not practical to have deactivated the tool cursor to a default cross hair. Also, the cursor that then it defaults to, is not a subtle, unobtrusive cross hair; it is a very large and thick one which is very distracting while painting (specially when painting fast). Other 2D apps I use let me choose a tiny cursor, like a tiny circle, a 3 (or the like) pixels dot, or a tiny solid black arrow. I have one in which I can even design my own cursor (I know, this would be asking way too much), and one in which I can simply lower the opacity of the outline. I think this would benefit image editing users, as well, not only painting folks like me (well I do that other kind of work, too). As someone mentioned above, people using pen displays (I have an old Huion one that works fine, although I work with my pen tablet a 99,9% of the time), or iPads/Samsung Galaxy S tab, etc, very often prefer to not have any cursor at all, as the pen tip already accomplishes that function and the cursor just gets in the way and it is too distracting. But even for them, having the option of a hovering cursor (outline or whatever) can become essential in many situations. Reason why, if I am not wrong, in the iPad Pro now it's included in their new M4 version a "hovering cursor". I don't think the path is to reduce options, but adding more flexibility in configuration, to adapt to different uses and users. So, not having the cursor outline option at all would neither be ideal. Just a setting to have the cursor outline off (for the brushes, at least), even if not activated by default, as the majority of image editing users would have a problem, then. Having the outline off and nothing else would be a huge problem for pen tablet users like me (I use pen tablets due to preference, for several reasons). With pen tablets you DO need some sort of cursor. For it to not being annoying/distracting, it better be tiny and non obstructive. Some cursors of the Clip Studio Paint software are a good example of it, specially the "dot" cursor or its tiny solid arrow. Krita has a hollowed tiny circle that is a bit more distracting, but still better than a large brush outline or a huge cross hair (which are the current options in Affinity Photo). In Rebelle, I have the cross hair, as you don't have these options there, either, but at least the cross hair is smaller and thinner (not as a good solution for cursors as in CSP, though). PaintStorm Studio has it resolved in a very elegant and smart way: You can make a good number of combinations, but mostly, that you can set a very tiny cross hair or an even smaller "dot" (it's bigger than 1 pixel, as 1 px would be too small for higher resolutions than 1080p, and even for that one). The often so called "dot" (3 to 5 pixels, I believe) being a good choice for certain screen resolutions and density, and the tiny cross hair for screens where you need to see it more. And even more interestingly, unlike any other app that I have purchased, you can set the opacity of the cursor outline! 😎 Make it has subtle as you want. I have it set as 5% in the slider bar of PaintStorm preferences, as a way to have a cursor that is not distracting at all, but which you can clearly see still it over any background color (it makes an invert depending on the color it's over, as most cursors, but when too faint, like below 5% -for my screen and brightness- it could become not that comfy to work with it). That said, I can of course paint with the current outline or the cross-hair. I prefer the outline in Photo, as it is still better than the large cross hair. Thanks again, though.

What I extract is that Gary Marcus (psychologist and cognitive scientist) strongly disagrees on the capability of AI to end up with a conscience in the sense that we have (well, science have not been able yet to fully fine tune the concept of what the human conscience is, a bit presumptuous to think we can "build" one). Also, some consider that Geoffrey Hinton is not the 'godfather' of AI, or at least it is a shared crown (Turing and Yann LeCun (who, btw, disagrees with Hinton about conscience, etc)). And these two (Hinton and Marcus) have been disagreeing on the emotions and awareness possibilities in AI for 30 years. If Geoffrey is after a particular agenda, is not something I could find material about. But what is clear to me is that they both agree on one fact, which was what I first heard from Hinton some time ago, and with which I also totally agree: That this Pandora box is more dangerous than we think it is, in the sense that we are not a civilization that can act fast enough controlling well the bad (human) actors handling dangerous and nasty stuff. It is specially important when a tech is this level of disruptive (I'm kind of "old" and I don't remember something similar in my lifetime). Indeed, these actors tend to be much faster than our good policies (one of the reasons why I get beyond shocked hearing people denying the need of very strong regulation, ASAP). It's clear to me that he is absolutely right about the risks (and that he truly saw those risks coming and so left Google due to it), not so much in the capabilities he attributes AI to end up feeling emotions or having an actual conscience, even less when he is attributing some of that to current "AI". But about the risks, IMO, he's right on the money.

Really cute and well done designs.

I find it curious that he is upset (I am, too!) about what Adobe made to the Adobe Stock's contributors but still completely fine with Midjourney and etc, while in a way that's even worse... Yet though, the moment where he compares driving with making graphics, and how important is to do all the process, to go all the way, work on the details, enjoy the ride, etc, I think that part is stellar (and almost poetic ) , and not mentioned often enough in these conversations. Indeed, one of the main reasons why actual human made Art will always be better than a prompt. And it is interesting to know about other people with a long experience (I don't know this person's career, but it seems so from what he's describing) in design or any related graphic field, daring -confidently, even- to use other thing than the Adobe Suite. I for one don't find any serious problem using the Affinity suite (it is actually comfy and lovely, these days), or Corel Draw suite (super pricey, also in updates, though). Both very powerful and well designed. But I can see the complications for anyone having clients needing full native support of the Adobe's formats (to support very specific features), full integration with certain pipelines. Still, a good designer/illustrator/etc (usually, though not always) can chose the kind of work and clients. Anyhow, not a problem for a bunch of us.

@MmmMaarten & @Affinity Rat Well... I believe I read initially that the idea is to do it actually in Blender or the like (and that he has previous experience in 3D Studio Max. The UI is super different, but 3D is 3D... If I made that transition, anyone can... 🤣 ). But right now he is preparing the blueprints, solely (and for that you can use Affinity Designer or Photo). Unless I understood it very badly. It sounded to me like he was a bit lost in the project and wanted help from forum members who knew a bit about 3D. It would make no sense to try to make a 3D model In Designer or Photo. Indeed, IMO the main problem with this project is very "2D". It is that there are (apparently) no Yamaha 33 blueprints (freely available, or even to purchase). So, it makes the project really difficult, if the intention is doing it with some accuracy in relation to the existing boat. That and one thing not "typical" in non-ship related 3D projects ,which it is understanding a lines plan for a boat. They're not your regular orthographic projections plans. Hence why I attached in my last post a few links about that, from people that have worked in technical drawing making ship plans. As I myself have no familiarity with the very specific and particular ships' line plans. If it'd be just about 3D modeling a piece (or anything) with a front, top, side, bottom view, and counting with the blueprints (or just modeling from imagination), it'd be a really easy project (even if time consuming). And also very easy to explain how to extract and prepare the blueprints (the only part to do in Affinity, maybe later on for textures, too) to be used later on a 3D scene in Blender. @Affinity Rat I suspect that these two boats are too different... Being a different ship design... I suspect the hull curves might vary a lot (not trying to sound pessimistic). As mentioned earlier, the only true solution is finding the Yamaha 33 real blueprints. But after searching in Google the other day, they're surely very hard to find. One last suggestion about this: Maybe in miniature and replica ship modeling (mostly traditional, but also some digital) communities, I mean, mostly forums, that's where I would directly ask (after doing a forum search) if someone knows or has the Yamaha 33 ship blueprints. You would be surprised how much info these people have, information and references that even one being reasonably good searching in Google, are very hard to find in hours or days [ I know as it happened to me with some historical "tall ships" from 1800, but my projects were about illustration], or simply, are never, ever found. And yet these people often have them. This happens to me also with the forums dedicated to historical battles and the like. Very good sources for an illustrator or a 3D artist. If nothing of the above goes well, in the current situation, I believe the best solution is to count on the side, bow, stern and top view of the boat (and for top & bottom I mean the ones you had initially, as I don't know if we're reading the Norlin's map correctly in that regard, besides... it's another ship!), and going the photogrammetry path for the hull's exact volume and surface: Making a lot of photos. Like going all around it and also from below, like following a path, need to cover all angles!, it is like a camera surrounding it by all areas (360º...well, actually half that sphere). If you leave areas out, there would be inaccuracy in the generation. Taken around your boat when the tide is low and you can see her fully. I have just made a extremely quick search but already found the (probably) main free solutions currently for photogrammetry. But you need to understand it as a solution to have first a dense vertex cloud (obtained automatically from photos and one of these tools), a very dense 3D mesh that wouldn't be usable for anything, so, in a second step, you would need to "retopologize" (if Alfred reads this...) it with any 3D modeling software, for example, Blender. That simply means creating a low polygon count wire frame over that very dense mesh, this "low" polygon count mesh will be your actual boat's hull, but now kind of a pretty close hull surface to what your boat really has. IMO, quite good for a replica or miniature (unusable to make a technically functional physical boat that could actually sail). Indeed, you can do this with many objects (a hammer, a chair, etc), often used to do quick meshes, but the retopology is what makes sense to have meshes that you can actually use for something. A dense vertices cloud like the meshes that the photogrammetry tools export (as STL, OBJ files or whatever), just as is, is not very usable for anything (be it rendering, or modifying it, etc). This is what is made in games over super high density ZBrush sculpted models, in the game and film industries. A nice and easy tutorial from CG Boost explaining retopology in Blender: Your "dragon" is the boat just exported from a photogrammetry tool. But before retopology, you need get "your dragon", so you need a photogrammetry tool ( I listed below only free ones) to get a dense 3D mesh out of many photos (as many as you can) you would have to take, as a very first thing. Free photogrammetry tools below. Maybe it's just me, but I'd try Meshroom, I believe I had some past good experience with it, but I dunno if I remember correctly. Anyhow, it's a tool that many recommend. Colmap is mentioned a lot, too, and Regard3D could work well, I haven't tried it : Meshroom : https://alicevision.org/#meshroom Colmap : https://demuc.de/colmap/ Regard3d : https://www.regard3d.org/ Beware, very often these apps do need a nvidia GPU (ie, Colmap has a cuda and an non-cuda version). As usual (also with Affinity apps), for graphic work it is way better to have a nvidia card, even a low or mid end one (as much as I love AMD for my CPUs). As it happens with most software, 2D, 3D, video, etc. While it's almost irrelevant in gaming. Edit: Still, I've got to insist that finding the real, actual Yamaha 33 full blueprints should be the way to go. Plus then you would just have to do some modeling in Blender, or etc, no need to learn how to use a Photogrammetry tool (kind of easy, tho), neither doing the retopolgy thing (a bit more complex).

I have absolutely no idea... I'm just a 2D/3D game artist (with the soul of a traditional painter). But yeah, my first impulse is as well just using Affinity Photo (or Designer in the pixel persona) and copy (into a new file) each view in the usual 4 internal walls (a hull is symmetrical, so, only need one side of each). But read below, the thing has its nuances...! I have dug a bit more, and, no surprise, it is an entire universe of its own. Of course (I suppose) the idea here is not to know about how to design a ship that floats, the water lines needed depending on the type of boat and its speed, make the math and physics calculations (I'd have to live 5 lives to become an engineer of anything, and still) and know every nomenclature and freaking standard, but instead I understood that the intention is to model a nice digital replica of your ship (maybe later a small 3D print, and anything digital use). Just for the aesthetics and as hobby project. So, you need 1/200th of the knowledge the folks linked below have about it. Indeed, my conclusion is that without actual line plans, actual source data, can't build anything too accurate to your boat. Making many photos of many angles could serve to later on produce a 3D model with a photogrammetry software (covering all angles and the more photos the merrier, I guess), and then build on top of it a correct mesh (wireframe), more or less adjusting to it (like what is done with video game models, called "retopology"). That'd be probably a 3D artist (like me) approach with a hull for which I have no real plans/blueprints. And yet I'm guessing the one above could be enough (if it is really similar to the Yamaha 33). Because after reading certain forums posts (down below) from experts, maybe what you have is enough data. But you say it's not the exact same ship... sooo... So, a Rhino tutorial (like anything here, you can just translate it to a similar workflow in any 3D software. What can be done in nurbs, can be done with cage modeling with a subdivision modifier with preview on (like in Blender or 3DS), just less accurate but fine for a replica "aesthetic" model): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxFcjsCIeo0 Several of the tools linked by FraGar are nurbs based, like DELFTship. That tools seems to be loved by many ship modeling people. Some other tutorials about this thing, and a lot of info that can help in clarifying everything or most of it : 1) This one is 8 years old, but IMO explains well key aspects of the tool (DELFTship). Surely the current version is much better : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCOmPcBZv58&list=PLHclbV_s1lAvKIFT0lPxmdK1Yg4oIqGvP Some serious stuff, using Maxsurf (forget about purchasing that unless Bezos is in your family. It's just a very interesting tutorial to understand the process) to generate the boats. It's a webminar, and explains the sources to build the hulls. It even mentions 3D scan data, I think (I suppose there are systems to 3D scan such huge things, but can't imagine how, lol. Probably with cameras... But photogrammetry software (there are very cheap options) that I mentioned before is the "poor man's" "3D scan" way). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v-BeeF4qsY 2) This below is super interesting (not about software, but the plans) as it explains the line plans interpretation in a practical way, which is what I really would need (to understand what's going on). Linked to the exact posts that I think clarify it the most. In the reading order that I think would be best. IMPORTANT: the images might take some seconds to load, wait a little bit, as those are crucial : Explains the important part of a base line that helps establish the grid: https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/steps-when-drawing-lines-plan.65524/#post-907455 Describes the element names, helps to understand later, and know what is what : https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/steps-when-drawing-lines-plan.65524/page-3#post-934317 https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/steps-when-drawing-lines-plan.65524/page-3#post-934318 Explains most of the process, very clarifying (the video he links at start, I don't think you need to watch it, it is just explaining what's a front view, a top, how to operate in technical drawing): https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/steps-when-drawing-lines-plan.65524/#post-907346

This has the lines (curves) I mentioned. I would set up my four planes (would take the top and bottom view from somewhere else) of reference with images I would crop in Affinity Photo (for example) out of this image (btw, I always wondered why is it not needed a top view in these blueprints...probably thanks to standards, or something). And then it is just a bit of patience modeling vert by vert or using splines, nurbs (btw, several of those apps in those links use nurbs) or etc in Blender. But....! I am experienced in Blender, and it is a software that has a lot more options for many other things: it can feel overwhelming to some. So, FraGar has a very solid point, specially if some of those free apps (I know zero about them), OR the paid ones, as most seem inexpensive, have already some kind of hull templates by default. Like, for example, who knows if the Yamaha 33. Or, it already lets you start a project of such "boat type", with already the right hull, then, problem solved. In any case, it is a lot of work, as you would have to model all the interior rooms, furniture and items (not needed if only for external view renders, though). Again, if any of these apps have templates or sample mesh parts for those, it might make things easier. True that Blender has the maximum flexibility as you can model literally anything. But it is mostly for people willing to spend a lot of time learning it, or, having deep 3D experience in other packages (but the UI is quite different to most). It is immensely capable at this time. But very happily, totally free, open source. [ My best advice for someone willing to do something in 3D (or till some point, in 2D animation) in Blender, and really, any 3D app, being 3D such a humongous field, is to just learn what you go strictly needing of the program for your specific project, maybe only watching one free video tutorial about basic, general interface. Then basic video tutorials for the things they really need to do, one by one, but not more. A project based learning. That's how I learned Blender. It is not the ideal way (the ideal is going to CG Cookie or the like and doing an entire list of video courses, in order, while applying what you learn daily), but it is how I learned just because I had more fun so (I needed that as I hated the UI differences with 3D Studio), and IMO most people gets bored or lose their patience, so it is important the fun and passion factor. It is essential. ] FraGar's solution might be much more practical for this case. Note, if you pick a software that exports as DXF, OBJ (my typical favorite) or VRM, you would always be able to export to Blender and further edit the meshes on it, for very detailed customization or something, or to make outstanding realistic renders, or animations, etc. BTW... in that list of 50 tools for designing boats, Blender is listed in number 9 (it's alphabetically ordered, that means nothing, so). In the other link with 8 tools, it also lists 'non boat specific' design software, like Fusion (great for anyone doing 3D printing and pieces in general, as well, easy interface) and Solidworks, which is used professionally to design almost anything (objects, pieces, etc) in a technical way. Of the short list, I specially liked (in just a fast skim-read, LOL) DELFTship and Autoship suite (paid solution). Apparently the second one is used professionally for boats design. I have no clue if any of those would count on a list of hulls/boats templates of known ships by many brands (ie, Yamaha). That would be a great solution, even if it's a paid app. I'm of the kind that prefers to model everything by myself (with Blender and/or Wings3D), but not in what is technical drawing; not CAD. In any case, that would be as you say, that'd be a total "act of love", as such project would require many hours. The usage of Blender is more similar to what people make (these blueprints are needed for that, also, it's how I found a lot of that material) when they do replicas of historical warships (like the HMS Victory). They can't really be super accurate as with manual work at that scale very high accuracy is impossible. At least with boat models that you can hold with both hands. Modeled by software and then 3D printed is neither 100% accurate, at all (again, unless we're talking very high scale), as current home 3D printers, even the best online services, have some limits with high end detail (I'm talking about small and medium size 3D prints), and have other problems depending on the material of choice (the problems with supports, etc). Even while 3D printing is way more accurate, for me those don't have the "soul" of a hand made replica. They're still great, though. But the key here is what would be the intention to make this. Many of those boats specific apps include all sort of physic calculations, and many data essential for a boat to actually function correctly in many sailing aspects. Blender won't do any of that. If it is only to make nice renders, animation, 3D printed replicas, or as a multiple angles reference for illustrations, a comic, etc, Blender for that is ideal. But it does not even have essential measuring tools (you can set general units in mms, inches, etc, and there's an addon that allows displaying measures at all times, I use it for my 3D printing, and there are ways to adapt Blender, but it is not a CAD app...), like FreeCAD or many others have. It is a tool for film, video, animation, games, not for CAD. For anything more technical oriented, I'd use the specialized apps. And even for "just the renders", it could be smart to start in one of those, specially if (as there seem to be there no blueprints easily available of the Yamaha 33), then export as DXF, VRM or OBJ with materials/textures (no materials with dxf) to import into Blender and do there the renders and some custom modeling stuff. BTW, I guessed the boat type as saw in one of your photos the Yamaha brand little logo on the hull. Then -around those years- the appearance only fully matched with the 33 (not the 30, 26, 30-1... so many models ). Even found a manual online, super detailed about the boat (but I guess you have one). But I believe there are no plans/blueprints like required, in it.