That is certainly grasshopper plugin for Rhino. You should save the file as native.3dm first and than export it as.obj.

That dialog has really changed the way I work. My favorite is that you can edit the segments of an arc or circle after its created.

Hi Brodie, tx the winner is http://www.architectenweb.nl/aweb/redactie/photo.asp?iNID=28741&PhotoID=229015 I think they won because of their strong conceptual sketches. We focussed a lot on the building itself. A mistake we often make. Its often better to set a design into its environment with a visionary conceptual idea. No need to render or get a lot of CAD involved. Our design has a lot of thought going into details, materials and techniques. Too much maybe. But we the jury told us they had a hard time choosing between us and the one who has won. The building itself is just a pumphouse and a hotwater barrel of about 16m. height and 22m diameter. Francois

@andybot said: That's actually part of my point - with the render engines, all that film/sensor size, lens length, aperture nonsense is all fungible. That's why adhering strictly to a 35mm equivalence seems kind of limited to me. The reason I mention conversions to different sensor formats is that if you are, say, trying to match a photo, it will very much depend on that particular camera setup, like for example the shallow dof of your mamiya. It won't work to just use the default 35mm dof equivalence. I think you hit the mark here... and part of the main reason for me bringing this topic up. Forget about us archviz artist using Maxwell Render and try to force it into real camera envelope of operation... we rarely do so, and try to "fake" it into our needs. Think of a real photographer getting into CGI in order to expand his offering and do more advanced things in his photography work. He will need a tool that talks the talk he is used too and that is all about real camera settings... sensor size, lenses, ISO, shutter speeds, aperture, shifts and more. Not referring strictly to the SketchUP plugin here... but in general. All the render engines since Maxwell Render was first introduced added some physical based / real camera workflow to their features - so there is something to it, a demand by us - the users. I actually use VRay most of the time... but with it's VRayPhysicalCamera and environmental HDRI's. I've also been testing Indigo, Thea and more for there "Camera Like" feature set and I really wanted to know what artists on this forum think about this. I'm an archviz artist first, not a photographer, but I do tend to go with physically based workflow, trying to work as a photographer does. This usually gets you the most photo-real results. I don't think it is a rule you should blindly follow, but people have been accustomed to judge designs by looking at photos! the real human eye view is, oddly, not the view we judge things according to. This is why we call it photo-real

Good.

That is correct. I hear a lot of folks use it for interiors, if they have the time to let it cook. It does produce some nice grainy results. Perfect for what I am looking to do.

Thanks, I'll check into it.

@pieterv said: In the first render the two sides of the road were two components that I flipped along an axis (mirrored) Thats what I meant. After mirroring explode the component or the group and group it again. The texture on the flipped side can have some artefacts. So the workaround you mentioned is right, although you can try this out just with the flipped component.

Adam, if i try to download 2.5a Fullversion) i´ll become only the downloadlink for 2.4d tnx Dean

[]

Hi Greetz, I would suggest Vue, which is the reference in term of software for landscape modelisation. There is an architectural bundle that might actually be interesting for you: You can check the following address: http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_archi/complete/ However, if the render quality is not so important for you and you want instant results, lumion is a solution. Hope this helps.

@tig said: If you have some Scenes when you want 'solid' people/cars and others where you want 'wireframe' use Layers and Scene-tabs. Make two Layers named SOLID and WIREF. Your people/cars should be components. Put them all on the SOLID layer. Now make a copy of all of them and put those on the WIREF layer. Switch the SOLID layer off... Select all of the people/cars [on WIREF] and use make unique on these - this way you keep a 'solid' set unchanged. Edit each person/car component in turn. Select all faces [use one of the selection-tools available] and delete them [a quick way is to use Wireframe view mode, select all edges by fence, Edit>Cut so the faces auto-delete and them immediately Edit>PasteInPlace so only the edges are left - go out of Wireframe mode to check they've gone!]. Use 'Entity Info' on these selected edges to stop them casting shadows etc and then you have what you need. By toggling the two layers ON/OFF you can have solid/wireframe people/cars in different Scene-tabs... If you move one need to remember to move the other - easy done if both layers are temporarily on while you edit... The awesome trick worked thanks indeed !

@unknownuser said: I am using Twilight to render these images. When I set "two point perspective" I can't get the image into the view. In other words it is not rendering the scene showing on the screen. Offsetting the SU image does not seem to work. @unknownuser said: Rendering 2 pt perspectives in Twilight only work if you do not adjust the scene (panning/zooming) after clicking the 2 pt perspective button. Marcus is right and, as far as I know, this is an issue for many renderers integrated in SU. You can try this little trick I found however: -Switch to "2 point perspective"; -Move nothing; -Switch back to "perspective". Now you can pan &zoom and Twilight will render it correctly. Not really the same of 2 point perspective as you will see, but at least the verticals will stay straight.

Appreciate the comments. The access to 3DSMax models and materials is a plus, as well as the DWG and Revit Families manufacturers are creating to use in models. We had a couple furniture changes on the aforementioned interior project. Was as easy as downloading from manufacturer website, except for SketchUp didn't like the files. Close competition in my test runs has been Maxwell Render and Indigo. Lighting hasn't been the easiest in either. Does anyone favor Maxwell or Indigo over the 3DSMax route?

Hi All, I had been looking for an animation tool that allows me to animate really technical stuff - I think I may have found it in Simfonia Animation Tools. It's not the easiest tool to learn but the documentation is pretty comprehensive, however, it is surprisingly powerful. This is an animation I have made whilst learning to use the tool(s) of Simfonia. The parameters of this animation are controlled by a .csv file - note how rotor blade speed slowly increases, the angle of the chopper tilts forward at an accelerating rate, the chopper begins moving forward while still rising upwards and then accelerates off screen at an increasing rate - these are all things that are not possible to control with other plugins (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm just getting started. If you can be bothered spending the time to go through the documentation I recommend checking this tool out. http://youtu.be/NA3odsY4yCk

In all recent versions of SUp the 'Entity Info' dialog should report a selected Arc's 'true length' and NOT the total of its segments. To test this change the Arc's segment count in 'Entity Info' and you'll see irrespective of if it's 3 or 999 the reported 'length' remains the same - whereas exploding into lines copies of that same arc with differing segment-counts will report their cumulative lengths as differing...

no, none that I can tell.

Pass, AutoCAD 2013 hasn't been released in Europe yet. I presume it'll be triangulated (although they may be hidden depending upon the visual style applied in AutoCAD). SKUP "solids" may be converted into real solids in AutoCAD, but I'm guessing.

Something who is some difficult is to have a "view top" And edit : you are not obliged to have component or group for give different material to a cube with different colors!

@mike lucey said: Bjørn, I also use Opera 11.61. To check out P3D, I downloaded Opera Next from here, http://www.opera.com/browser/next/ It does not overwrite Opera 11 and can be run separately. The WebGL images loaded / worked perfectly Nice to know that it doesn't overwrite Opera 11. Maybe I should give it a try then, although it looks like I'll have to make object-movies for this project, to make it more widely viewable.