@roland joseph said:
@unknownuser said:
maybe I should move forward to asking questions at the SketchUV and Thrupaint threads
Yes, I agree, this is something I will do as well.
....and no I wasn't fooled by the images. If I thought they were renderings I would be too jealous to talk to you.
....
I know the feeling 
@roland joseph said:
I think the methods you are using are great.
thanks... maybe I should move forward to asking questions at the SketchUV and Thrupaint threads... I guess my method is good but my problem is how to properly use those plugins then.
ps: just to be sure, the 4 four pics of curbs are PHOTOS I found at Google, not ultra realistic renders by me
in THIS model I was able to run SketchUV to texture the curb. However, for some reason, SketchUV fails me for this task 90% of the times.
rendered
I don´t know why SketchUV usually fails on me for Tube Mapping.
I have this curb which to me seems to be made purely of Quads, and still I get an error message!
For the same curb, ThruPaint is ALSO failing me... (edit... and now I solved it... it was not connecting textures correctly between faces because it was a tube... I was able to delete all bottom faces, and then it got it correctly)
@roland joseph said:
@unknownuser said:
the divisions between curb pieces
I don't know what you mean I guess. The curbs that exist now are identical to the curbs you see in my drawing. Maybe if you showed me a picture.
here, curb pieces... and the divisions between the pieces, which are visible
@roland joseph said:
@unknownuser said:
more than that! The dirt somehow also goes over the asphalt! Awesome.
I start with the google image. I clean it all up as you suggest but then I enlarge it to anywhere from 8000pixels sq. to 15000 sq. pixels so that I can paint-in the detail which includes dirt, grass, curbs, sidewalks...etc. Often I just saturate or accentuate the features that are alrerady there. Grass is never uniform so I add a few different shades or I simple saturate the various shades provided by Google. I then import the image into my engine cause it can handle images at that size. I might also cut out a section covered by the image and ad mesh and a separate image or paint...
thanks, very interesting. However, I wonder if I could use this method, because unfortunatelly, the areas I usually work with have VERY LOW resolution at GoogleEarth/GoogleMaps.
are you able to work with this kind of imagery or is it too low res for your method?
https://goo.gl/maps/IUpcF
@unknownuser said:
i.e.curbs sidewalks, shoulders...etc to get extreme detail. You can achieve a very realistic curb, sidewalk result with Round-Corner.
@unknownuser said:
By the way, you should be cutting the curbs/sidewalks/shoulders and medians right into the terrain with tools on surface and then pop them out to height with "joint pushpull" or "normal pushpull".
which is the method I usually use. As I said, the problem is that the curbs then must be a continuous concrete piece (like in the images you showed). You paint a seamless concrete texture. But there are no division between concrete curb pieces, which is how usually they are done here.
it serves well, as you picture shows, but for extra photo realism, the divisions between curb pieces is what I want... and a texture can´t be properly mapped with SketchUV or Thrupaint in a "joint push-pulled terrain"
These are very nice Roland.
But I see your curbs are very "edgy" and "continuous". Which is how I also did them (I could avoid the "edgy" part by using the bevel tool, but not the "continuous", because that needs either modelling individual curb pieces OR texturing the curb, which becomes difficult if it´s irregular, with curves, slopes, etc (but I am learning to use the ThruPaint tool)
But for your style it fits very well, also for very big scenes. I wanted a more photo-realistic result for scenes that may show it closer up.
I am specially impressed with the Docks images.
That part which is a mixture of grass and dirt, both in the middle and also behind and under the houses... is that Google Earth terrain (and you photoshopped to remove the original trees and shadows) or is it a texture you create from scratch at Photoshop?
edit: more than that! The dirt somehow also goes over the asphalt! Awesome.
@fabtins said:
Thank you gentlemen! I guess that answers my queries. As i said in my first post i m pretty much a newbee when it comes to extrude tools or for that matter sketchup in general. I hadn't known that the shape of the flat face had any bearing on the profile in the rails(Thought it was just supposed to be that i.e., a flat face nothing more) or that if we divide the number of segments of the curve edge then it affects the number of ribs as well. Thanks a lot.
Incidentally, the 'four pointed star' thing wasn't my production. I was merely quoting what line of terms TIG had used previously referring to example 'A'. Note that y'all, if you will. As you deftly pointed out Aceshigh, the rectangle term is 'indo'-european AND assuming I am an Indian, i'm the last person to harbour any doubts about what a rectangle(a polygon enclosed by four sides at right angles to each other) or a star(a polygon with sides cutting each other so as to form a star shaped figure)mean.
well, yes, it was just that we were all quite baffled since you were mentioning the 4 pointed star but all we saw on your SKP file was a rectangle
I do not doubt for a second that Indians, who excell in mathematics since antiquity, can differentiate between a star shape and a rectangle. What I was wondering was if perhaps you were from some part of India where only some local dialect was spoken and not much english at all, so the TRANSLATION (via Google or something else) was problematic.
But as you can see, later on I moved to the theory that you had used a star bitmap/texture on that rectangle face, and expected the extruded rails/profiles to have the shape of the texture. (this CAN actually be done, with a plugin that "cuts" a shape following the patterns it recognizes in the bitmap)
Yes, that would be my guess too. However, there is no shape like that at all in the file he shared with us. He used the rectangle as the shape.
So I can only guess "four pointed star" is a weird Google Translation from "rectangle" in his original language, whatever language that is. (probably not indo-european)
I can´t think of another reason for him to say he wanted a four pointed star shape when there is none in his Sketchup file.
IF textures were not embedded on Sketchup files, I would think that he had a 4 Pointed Star texture on that rectangle, and expected the plugin to extrude the shape of the bitmap...
edit: hovering the mouse over his nickname, it shows his name (Pranjal) which I guess is from India. There shouldn´t be such difference from Hindi to english for his word for "rectangle" to be translated as "4 pointed star".
So I really do not know... maybe there was a four pointed star bitmap on that rectangle?
@pbacot said:
I've used a texture with the divisions. Thrupaint did mapping OK. Don't know why it wouldn't work, given the geometry is easy to make regular with quads.
well, I had tried SketchUV, not Thrupaint. But since you talked, I tried Thrupaint... it worked on the file I tested. (edit, it failed before, but I discovered there is a continuity error in the line of the file I uploaded, I only noticed when getting close-up).
I will make more tests and will report here later. Other people can benefit from the experiments.
Marginal probably has no time in his hands, but it would be awesome if this Plugin could be improved...
Hi, how do you guys model curbs in Sketchup?
At principle, for simple curbs, it sounds easy. The problem however is extracting decent renders with this simple modelling.
Some requirements for good curbs:
1 - be roundish at their edge. Ultra sharp 90 degree angles, specially at concrete curbs, look fakeish on renders
2 - have divisions... because curbs are hardly ever a "continuous" piece, but actually several concrete pieces fit together
Round their extra edge is quite easy. Even if it´s a complicated curb following a curve or slope (or both), we can select the outer edge with some good selecting tool (like the one from the SketchUV) and apply a RoundCorner plugin at it. There will be a problem with it that I will soon describe... because it looks decent enough if you would use a simple texture like concrete that you can´t see the seams even if its badly mapped...
Now the divisions... I can think of two methods for it. Either use REAL CURB GEOMETRY PIECES and put them together (however, this gets pretty complicated for complicated paths like curves/slopes)
or
Use a good texture which already has the divisions in it. Then you can use a BUMP or DISPLACEMENT map and those divisions will really look good when rendering.
Problem: MAPPING such texture, so that the divisions are correctly positioned.
I tried to use SketchUV for that but it never worked right for me with tubemapping or other methods, even when having apparently all quadfaces.
Using Sketchuv plus textures with bumpmap would be the best option imho, because then even very complex curb geometries could be used, by having a face and using FollowMe or ProfileBuilder.
Unfortunatelly, I did not succeed at using FollowMe or ProfileBuilder and applying correctly a curb texture along a complex curb.
Finally, a third option that I can think of would be to generate a good curb with FollowMe or ProfileBuilder and then somehow, create divisions along that curb each x meters, and in those divisions, somehow, subdivide them all and maybe scale them down so they look like the spaces between curb pieces connections, or paint them in a dark color as if they were shadows from those connections?
behold... using a different face shape... it resulted in different rails and profiles!
@fabtins said:
I've used the '4-pointed star' shape in this sketchup file sir. This shape, i've scaled and there are adequate gaps but the results are drastically different. The mesh formed isn't at all the same.
Also there is the persisting issue of mesh design. It's still rather plain compared to the elaborate and realistic design formed in your tutorial.
Thanks
4 pointed star shape??? You mean, a RECTANGLE? Like you selected the Polygon Tool Shape and input 4 for four sides... which obviously results in a square? Then you scaled it so it became a RECTANGLE???
you know... I do not suppose is just a coincidence that the shape you used as a profile... the "4-pointed star" (also known in indo-european languages as rectangle) is the same shape actually used as a PROFILE in the rails, as shown in this image
well, now I do not know. I created several cube groups by myself (did not use Chris Fulmer's plugin).
And Component Comparison still did not work.
Exploded the cube groups and created the groups one by one (instead of multiplying a group). Still did not work.
WTF?
Oh ThomThom, I wish you had more time to improve this plugin, the potential is so great.
And I have a problem with it... hope you can help or tell me what's wrong.
Your plugin DOES NOT WORK with Chris Fulmer's LOOSE TO GROUPS plugin.
I tried it with several models and before writing this post, to be sure of what I was going to write, I created a 1x1x1 cube and multiplied it.
Then I run Chris Fulmer's tool and it surely converted the cubes to objects. They are absolutely the same.
Your plugin however doesn´t recognize them. 0 definitions replaced!
Any idea what may be happening? Why does groups created by LOOSE TO GROUPS are not recognized by your plugin? There must be something "deep down" going on!
"select only"???? That looks like a submenu from Selection Toys, but I don´t remember those options. Maybe an old version of Selection Toys?
@pilou said:
And SU4' to components by SuForYou?
If you don't want deformation just draw equal surfaces
Click the image for animation
[attachment=0:1rak1dzq]<!-- ia0 -->su4.gif<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:1rak1dzq]
Hi Pilou... this looks like an interesting plugin, but if I had to draw thousands of squares it would be even more work, right?
SdMith sent me a PM some 2 days ago with a special version of his panelization plugin, to make waffles (in an alpha version)
I answered him with some tests and an idea which seems, to a non programmer like me, that it could make it MORE REALISTIC and EASIER to do! And also better to use (to replace components)
thanks SDMitch. It works... well, mostly flawlessly. I had an expiring timeline, so I ended up doing it by hand, but it was not the first waffle ceiling I was required to do and I know it won´t be the last, so I am sure I will have opportunity to use your plug.
You are right that I can replace the component... HOWEVER (:() your plugin creates new instances of components where the shape is more complex, so in the end, to replace the component for a better one, one would need to replace hundreds of instances in a complicated ceiling, and edit them by hand to match the shapes...
first example: all the "full" waffles (80x80) were created upside down, while the ones that are smaller, cut, etc, were created correctly
now I created a half meter border around edges (which is how it really happens in real life). It mostly created a correct waffle ceiling. In red, places where for some reason it did not create the waffles (which is actually a good thing, as you will read below).
Also, I replaced the standart waffle with mine... but as we can see, there are tons of different component instances which are not replaced.
the good news is that you shouldn´t break your head thinking how to make irregular shapes. Because waffle ceilings should NOT have irregular shapes.
they are created with moulds and the moulds cannot have irregular shapes. At maximum, they can sometimes be rectangular, like 1/2 or 1/3 of the full size in one direction
look these images... in most of them, there is a single shape. Where there would be irregular shapes, there is a continuous flat ceiling instead of the "waffle" hole.
round shape on the bottom left... they do not follow the shape...
in this image, on the left, a "half" one
My suggestion, which would make the plugin perfect and also solve the problem of hundreds of different component instances which would make too difficult to replace them all:
the plugin creates 3 or 4 sizes of waffles "moulds" (1, 3/4, 1/2, 1/3) based on the main size given by the user. (maybe user could check mark which sizes he would like to use, since in some buildings, a single size will be used)
It then does a "best fit". Where none fits, the plugin create a face covering...
here, graphically explained
1 - the two molds on the right cannot be placed there
2 - here, how the plugin should place the 1/1 molds... where the mould doesn´t fit, it´s empty
3 - it tested the 3/4 mould, both up and sideways. Only left it where it fit entirely.
4 - it tested the 1/2 mould
5 - where no mould would fit (I actually didnt even test the 1/4 mould), it would cut the ceiling face and "push pull" it to the same level as the bottom of the mould... resulting in image 6.
@pilou said:
@unknownuser said:
I have attached the Alpha version of the plugin
Where is it ?
in my PM 
rethinking it, I should not have posted his PM to me without his authorization. I will edit it and only include my part of the PM. 
@sdmitch said:
Will take a look at Ceiling Generator. Shouldn't be that difficult to make the panels components.
but not all panels are square or rectangular (i noticed it some hours ago).
Well, maybe using ThomThoms GROUPS TO COMPONENTS followed by COMPONENT DROPPER?
EDIT: gee, its your own panelization plugin I was thinking about SDMith!
Just need to figure out a way to correctly divide by ceiling single face into quads to place the components there...
EDIT 2: tested the panelization plugin.
first... instead of multiplying the component and resizing it, it created thousands of different components
second... the results were totally unpredictable.
