Hello, and a *huge* problem with hidden faces.
-
@gaieus said:
Ok. If it is too big or complicated, just an example part of it is quite enough.
I don't think so.
You have 2 layers:- Layer 0 : It's too late for it. Already cut...
- Second one : The tiles. The first group is the tile itself. The second is one side of the roof (made with copies of the first). The third is for corners (with bigger copies of the first).
Thanks if you can help !
- Layer 0 : It's too late for it. Already cut...
-
OK, I am confused now. None of the tiles seem to merge into the roof face - so what exactly do you want to cut here?
-
I want to merge tiles themselves, and after that a modified roof with tile.
But I'm thinking about that. I think that the way I'm working is not good. The tile is too well done. The aim is to have few faces.Never mind. I have an idea, I'll make the changes tomorrow evening, well, as soon as possible actually, and I'll post the result here when it will be done.
Thanks again !
Teto. -
Well, you can (somewhat) "merge" the tiles by exploding the components but I am still unsure what you are up to. You mentined normal maps. Have you seen this plugin?
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=33183 -
@gaieus said:
Well, you can (somewhat) "merge" the tiles by exploding the components but I am still unsure what you are up to. You mentined normal maps. Have you seen this plugin?
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=33183Yes, I've found it, thanks !
However, I don't think it's the best tool for my issues here. (I'm using xNormal).Anyway, I give up. Sketchup is great when you want to make simple houses or walls, or things like that, because it's very fun to use, or to sculpt, and you produce surfaces, not solids, and it's what a game engine wants. And I'll continue to use it for that (things that don't need LOD).
BUT, when you want to decrease number of faces (for LOD), it's simply impossible because XSI or Blender can do that only on mesh (solid volumes). I tried many things, spent 2 days but found nothing about "changing polymesh made with skins to closed volume". For example, when you import .obj (collada doesn't work well) in Blender, the option "decrease number of faces" is not available.
Of course, I could purchase the pro version. Well... I'm poor, I'm not a student nor a pirate. So...
That's annoying, because for the moment Sketchup is the best modeling tool I ever used.
-
I think if you approached the whole thing differently, it could be more successful. I hope you will find a good workflow that integrates SU as well - I can hardly give any wise advice here as I am not using those programs so do not know what is really needed.
I have also created normal maps and displacement maps from real geometry in SU and successfully used them in 3rd party apps to add some realism without heavy geometry.
-
@gaieus said:
I think if you approached the whole thing differently, it could be more successful.
I did. And it was successful. But since I wanted to use the model elsewhere, epic fail.
You'll find below the model, to see the new approach.
Of course the model is not finished. For a good reason... Unfortunately.
-
@teto42740 said:
BUT, when you want to decrease number of faces (for LOD), it's simply impossible because XSI or Blender can do that only on mesh (solid volumes). I tried many things, spent 2 days but found nothing about "changing polymesh made with skins to closed volume". For example, when you import .obj (collada doesn't work well) in Blender, the option "decrease number of faces" is not available.
Of course, I could purchase the pro version. Well... I'm poor, I'm not a student nor a pirate. So...
A mesh may be a solid or not, but usually it just means a collection of connected polygons, just like what you use in SU. If an object/group is "watertight", ie closed, in SU it will show up as a "Solid group" in the entity info.
It can then be used with the Solid boolean tools (only Pro version?)Although I don't use XSI or Blender I find it hard to believe that they can't poly-reduce a polygon mesh.
My workflow is to export as 3ds in meters, set to maintain UV, and then import into LightWave.
What happens then is that all the UV mapped meshes, like terrain etc gets imported as a lot of tris that do not share vertices.
A simple Merge Vertices/Points command solves that problem Now it can be polyreduced, SubD'ed, LOD'ed or whatever.
Have you tried similar tools in XSI/Blender? -
@teto42740 said:
@gaieus said:
I think if you approached the whole thing differently, it could be more successful.
I did. And it was successful. But since I wanted to use the model elsewhere, epic fail.
You'll find below the model, to see the new approach.
Of course the model is not finished. For a good reason... Unfortunately.Clarification requested.
Unless I totally missed some thing the first vs second models you posted are completely different. The second model shows the tiles with both a concave and convex sides up which is typical. The first model does not. Can I assume the second model is correct? If so can you post #2 without the intersections so I don't have to create it or sections there of?
The reason I ask is the tile components are showing as solids in your model and would like to check to see what the free version solid shell option can do for you.
Secondly are you trying to make a realistic model or just one for the Cryengine ? The reason I ask it is typical the tiles do not intersect as shown in the second model -
Yes, probably. I'll try to find solutions, and I come back here. Thanks anyway!
-
If the second model is OK with you that is what counts ,so do not let me put you to extra effort if not needed.
FYI: Reason for question is my experience base is seeing clay roof tile install with a pan tile ( concave side up ) and the cover tile ( concave side down) which then covers the channel between two of the pan tiles to make it water poof. However, in my preliminary search I think there is a tile one can buy which is basically the two ( pan and cover made as a unit) and they have a key lock feature which then locks adjoining neighbors and would make it look like your last model. In addition, it looks to me the shell tool in SU 8 free cannot be used on a global basis ,but just two components or group at a time. I was hoping this would act like an ambient occlusion filter that could be applied globally which then allows one to eliminate internal structure. I think Google targeted this tool to building models for Goole Earth and it could be useful there.
-
@mac1 said:
If the second model is OK with you that is what counts ,so do not let me put you to extra effort if not needed.
FYI: Reason for question is my experience base is seeing clay roof tile install with a pan tile ( concave side up ) and the cover tile ( concave side down) which then covers the channel between two of the pan tiles to make it water poof. However, in my preliminary search I think there is a tile one can buy which is basically the two ( pan and cover made as a unit) and they have a key lock feature which then locks adjoining neighbors and would make it look like your last model. In addition, it looks to me the shell tool in SU 8 free cannot be used on a global basis ,but just two components or group at a time. I was hoping this would act like an ambient occlusion filter that could be applied globally which then allows one to eliminate internal structure. I think Google targeted this tool to building models for Google Earth and it could be useful there.
Many thanks for your experience. Anyway, I think I'll stop using sketchup. Someone in another forum told me that the way how the datas are stored is a pure mess and other softs like Blender "don't understand what's going on". This issue means that it's completely useless for what I want to do.
I've searched an alternative, and I think that I've found it : FreeCad, for architectural and industrial design, and Sculptris to make high-definition (for normalmap, specular maps and so on). It's sad, because how Sketchup's modeler is working... Just perfect.
Thanks anyway for your help !
-
@teto42740 said:
Someone in another forum told me that the way how the datas are stored is a pure mess and other softs like Blender "don't understand what's going on".
Are you sure that "someone" knew what he was saying? And not only wanted to put SU down because he does not understand it or because of snobbery?
We've seen a lot of occasions like that.
-
I don't know. But for the moment nobody was able to explain me how to do. And the guy told me that he spent almost a day to try having a good conversion, without success. I googled that problem and found nothing.
So...
Everybody here is working with sketchup, and only with sketchup. An example, why are there renderers especially made for Sketchup ? Why other modelers don't read natively sketchup files ?
Maybe I'm wrong, but if after 2 weeks I don't have a solution about a problem, it's because there a big problem. If someone can show me how to export sketchup files (that I can modify after), be my guest !
Many thanks for you help anyway, again.
-
@teto42740 said:
I don't know. But for the moment nobody was able to explain me how to do. And the guy told me that he spent almost a day to try having a good conversion, without success. I googled that problem and found nothing.
Well, if he tried unsuccessfully to convert your model I believe he had some problems. It's full of problems and modeling errors.
First of all, everything is modeled backwards, ie all the faces are flipped so that the backfaces points forward.
In my second Modeler/renderer, LightWave3D, they will be invisible by default, unless I tell them to be double-sided.
It's a good rule to always model with frontface faing outwards.
Second, your model is made from a mix of groups and freestanding lines/faces. That is not at all a good way to model in SketchUp. And it is way to complicated/detailed with lots of errors and unnecessary edges/faces.
You should have modeled one pane as a component, complete with all the details, thickness etc.
Or made two different, one top/convex and one bottom/concave.
Then you could just Move/copy hundreds of them. When you want LOD you just edit/simplify one component and all the panes are changed at the same time.
Another problem is that you have given the material/color to the Layer instead of to the faces. I don't think that will export well.@unknownuser said:
So...
Everybody here is working with sketchup, and only with sketchup. An example, why are there renderers especially made for Sketchup ? Why other modelers don't read natively sketchup files ?
I don't know why you assume we all work with only SketchUp? I have used at least 10 different 3D programs, and now I use mainly SketchUp and LightWave, because it causes the least problems and best results
I'm sure a lot of the SU users are using other programs as well.
And several programs can now read skp files.@unknownuser said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but if after 2 weeks I don't have a solution about a problem, it's because there a big problem. If someone can show me how to export sketchup files (that I can modify after), be my guest !
Many thanks for you help anyway, again.
So if you can't find a solution in 2 weeks you blame it on the software and not yourself?
Strange!
Yes, there is a big problem here, but I'm afraid that that is not because of shortcomings of the software, but more of an attitude problem?BTW, here's a couple of very quick examples.
-
teto42740
Couple fact toids for you:
Blender had a plugin that imported SU and then one of the later revs ( 2.5??) they tried to make SU import to Blender native and created a bug. I and several others wrote a bug report, its been some time ago , so don't know if it is fixed yet;
In your original model the basic cover tile ( had no pan at that time) was a solid but when you encapsulated that item it then reported as non solid. So you could have used the outer shell approach to make the classic pan / cover combo show a above and it would be " water tight". You would then what to make that a component. Then after converting all the groups you have in the original model to components you could replace with that combo. I have not done that yet. The concern of course is to not get in a mode where a bunch of those would have to be unique
Your original model has some 198k+ edges that can be decimated to a much lower value ( MeshLab comes to mind) but getting the model correct form the start will help in the long run.
Good luck you way very well be back. -
@bjornkn said:
Well, if he tried unsuccessfully to convert your model I believe he had some problems. It's full of problems and modeling errors.
First of all, everything is modeled backwards, ie all the faces are flipped so that the backfaces points forward....
It's a good rule to always model with frontface faing outwards.
My bad!
I was pretty sure that the faces had a good orientation. I was aware about this, and was sure that my model was modeled forward. :facepalm:@bjornkn said:
Second, your model is made from a mix of groups and freestanding lines/faces. That is not at all a good way to model in SketchUp. And it is way to complicated/detailed with lots of errors and unnecessary edges/faces.
You should have modeled one pane as a component, complete with all the details, thickness etc.
Or made two different, one top/convex and one bottom/concave.If you open my first model, you should see that my first test was made as you said, basically (except that it is modeled backwards, of course).
@bjornkn said:
I don't know why you assume we all work with only SketchUp? I have used at least 10 different 3D programs, and now I use mainly SketchUp and LightWave, because it causes the least problems and best results
I'm sure a lot of the SU users are using other programs as well.
And several programs can now read skp files.Pleased to hear that. But as nobody answered me about that for few days, I assumed what I wrote. My bad, again.
@bjornkn said:
So if you can't find a solution in 2 weeks you blame it on the software and not yourself?
Strange!
Yes, there is a big problem here, but I'm afraid that that is not because of shortcomings of the software, but more of an attitude problem?If you posted just for these lines, and the fact that you have skill (with image and no explication), well, keep you lines, and your skill. I may want your help, not your skill. Thanks.
I note that you didn't post until I wrote "Sketchup sucks!". Strange.@mac1 : Thanks, you were very helpful.
Anyway, I'll test few things with BASIC shapes (cubes...) and try union, decimate, and so on, under Blender. If it works, I will be pleased to continue on Sketchup, really. Thanks everybody for you time, I appreciate.
-
teto42740
Here is the first step using ideas I discussed before. http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=5763d41196ce8b4048da91396cd7935f
What I did was exploded portions of your fist model to get to the basic tile which was solid. I created two then to make an s tile component. At this step you could " merge the two ( like in your second model) and use the shell tool to make what I think you want. I then converted all the tile groups you had to components ( use plugin for that), used the outliner to select all those and then in the component browser selected the s tile and did a replace selected to get to the model shown here. The coin is assigned a layer so turn those off and you will see areas needing some work. I would probably make those over lap components unique, trim to fit ,but since I almost never complete a model for someone learning finishing is up to you if desired.
Good Luck -
@teto42740 said:
If you posted just for these lines, and the fact that you have skill (with image and no explication), well, keep you lines, and your skill. I may want your help, not your skill. Thanks.
I note that you didn't post until I wrote "Sketchup sucks!". Strange.Well, if you look back 3 days ago I posted some tips about merging points and solids/meshes etc.
Didn't download any files until today though.
If you read my last post again you'll find lots of explanations on how I would approach modeling such a roof, using components etc. I don't think the modeling of such simple pans should need any further explanations?
-
And if you read back further you will see comments about the OP approach. As usual there are more than one way to do models in SU and info to OP should not be filtered by one view point.
Advertisement