Thanks Csaba, will try that....

Using animation for batch export is a useful trick. Notice that often (always?) you end up with a duplicate of the last image. Also, there is a bit of a technical (not really technical, more like bery unlikely you'll come across it) bug in the way shadows update from scene to scene. If you have geometry that hides and shows from one scene to the next and your scenes don't have shadow information turned on, but you have shadows themselves turned on, then the shadows won't update correctly. If you think you might be in that category, I can explain better and I have a little model that shows how it works (or rather, how to see the bug in action). But batch export is great and a huge timesaver! Oh and also, you can set your fps and time per scene to whatever is easiest for your brain. So the example given above is great. I tend to set 1 second per scene and then 1fps. Chris

Looks really nice. I'll play some more with it tomorrow when I'm awake.

@gaieus said: V-ray wouldn't be much friendlier that is true! one of the easiest render engines you can use is Indigo. it is an unbiased render engine, meaning that it simulates light exactly as it is in real life. generates beautyful results and is extremely easy to use. but it will take many hours to clear up, depending on the amount of reflection in your scene (that is the price you pay for unbiased...)

well whatever there works..i wanna release one more thing on 3d warehouse before i quit is what i mean...with credits of who made what etc...

Use the Bezier Curves by Fredo6 and Free Scale Bend by Fredo6 Shape bender by Chris Fullmer [image: tfe8_courbette.jpg]

Theres a quick summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmack's_Reverse#Depth_pass

Those scripts will work perfect. Thanks!

Hi Anssi, Thanks for the response. This is a decision that has been taken by those "higher-ups" in the company. I have to hope that they know what they are doing. Powerdraft will replace AutoCAD LT (used by the majority of our staff) and Microstation V8 will replace the full version of AutoCAD. As I understand it AutoCAD was originally created for Engineers not Architects. Microstation, ArchiCAD etc were built from the ground up for Architects. Whether this makes any real difference in use I have yet to see. With regards to BIM software I am not quite sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it makes sense to have software that can generate 3D data from your 2D data input. In theory this should make producing 3D images a lot simpler and less error prone. I have heard that Revit is a very clever piece of software. But it does not have (as some try to claim) a magic button that can produce professional 3D results. I have also heard that practically no-one outside of the demonstration team can use it in a productive manner. (OK, I may be exaggerating a little here, but you know what I mean) The management of my company do not want their Architectural staff wasting valuable time trying to learn and understand lighting, texturing, composition and the hundreds of other issues associated with creating professional 3D imagery. They want their Architectural staff producing working 2D CAD drawings that generate actual income! I think they have a very good point. Most of the 2D CAD operators I know do not seen to understand (or find very difficult) the concept of 3D. Management can't presume to think that just because some staff use Microsoft Word every day that automatically gives them the skills to become a great novelist. They may not even grasp basic spelling or grammar! Or just because someone can use Microsoft Paint they will also be expert users of Adobe Photoshop. The skills required to produce professional 3D results, seems to me, to require a great deal of dedication to learning a range of skills well beyond the normal requirements of most 2D CAD operators. It also requires an active imagination and what I can only describe as an "eye" for being able to visualise a 3D image. Quite simply, not everyone has this, no matter how good the software. Anyway, I would appreciate reading any further thoughts on this subject. Regards Mr S

@remus said: @gaieus said: "Duh" +1 Its strange how you just dont notice these things after a while. Maybe the triangles are another solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. They don't disturb me, either, but if the feature disappeared, I doubt if I would notice. Anssi

@scottminor said: So, I probably should have posted in here, but I guess that's why I posted in the "newbie" forum...haha....i'm a newbface. Never mind. I merged the replies and deleted your double post. Both gentlemen have good suggestions above. You can, of course, "hand stitch" anything any time but it's certainly time consuming in most of the cases (sometimes however it gives a fairly speedy result rather than playing around with plugins). How about attaching the model file, too?

WHy not just installed SU 7 free instead of the viewer?

One subtle and frustrating anomaly of Sketchup that applies to textures, is the behavior of custom axes. If you build a rafter on a roof plane and then group it or make a component, its axes will align with the default axes, which means the axes will not follow the "length" of the rafter. However, if you use the axes tool to change the axes to follow the roof plane BEFORE grouping or making the component, then that component or group will inherit the new custom axes when it is created. This is good. HOWEVER, textures do not seem to honor the custom axes. You would expect that if you changed the axes and then applied a texture, that the texture would be aligned to the new axes. IT WILL NOT. It will still align to the default axes. This makes for a very confusing behavior. Components honor custom axes when being created, but textures do not. However, textures will honor the COMPONENT's axes, but only if applied after the component (or group) is created. This can lead to some maddening behavior when editing, applying, and anchoring textures on components that have been rotated. It's hard to explain in a post, but I will try to build a sketchup file that demonstrates this weird behavior and post it later.

Yeah, Shaheen, the .3ds format is a mesh format. Its not a "solid" format. And SketchUp is not a solid modeler.

That sounds like a job for a plugin although I'm not positive that it could be done. You might want to post your question in the Plugins forum instead.

Well, if you don't mind the work, turn it into a component then add jambs and other details. [image: DwUy_temp03.jpg]

Sure! With high poly (billions of polys with easy orbiting), multi core, 64 bit, proxy, animation and hdri support and a fix for the shadow bug (actually, a WYSIWYG, real time PR renderer will also be added) They are now writing the exporters for Max, Cinema4D - even Vue - and all because they will be toys compared to SU.

HI folks. While waiting for a fix in SU 7, I tried this workaround: 1 - I draw a circle centered on the origin. 2 - I add a "Point at center". 3 - I delete the circle. 4 - I hide the point. 5 - I add the required Screen Text. This gives me a minimalist file that can be used as a template, if required. Just ideas.

May I also bring the "SketchUp Quick Reference Card" into your attention? It is very brief (one page) but lists all the mod keys for every tool as well (in case there would still be something to be surprised at)

Coen what wine settings did you use to get SU to run?