@Rich-O-Brien said in Trees and SU's OpenGL: But if you assign the backface material with a 99% opaque version of your front face you get decent enough viewport results but your carrying an extra image. Thanks Rich, I never thought of assigning front face to back...despite using it all the time in other situations.. It does look slightly better, but as you say, there's a performance hit so I'm not sure it would be worth it if there were several high-poly veggies in the scene.

@Alan-Fraser Very generous of you. Many thanks.

@Alan-Fraser Very interesting piece of work.

I had been a member at FormFonts since 2006. I was sad to see it go but I understand the move. I prefer CG Trader over Turbosquid these days. The pricing seems so much more reasonable. Do you model the people from scratch or are you using something like DAZ to start the basic model? Best of luck on this next chapter Alan!

Fixed it. The .rb file was pointing to a _loader.rb file in the plugin folder. It's actually a _loader.rbs file. I've informed them. It's still unclear which format will become the standard for AR viewing on smartphones etc....Apple's USDZ or Google's glTF.

@alan fraser said: They seem to think you're hanging on the end of the phone with nothing better to do, just waiting to commit yourself fully to their demands. Construction industry is much the same. If I had a dollar for every time someone called me on a friday afternoon, in a panic, hoping I could get something turned over by Monday morning. A few years ago, I would do what I could to help, but now I just laugh and tell them good luck. What's the quote? A failure to plan on your side does not constitute an emergency on mine? Everything would be a lot easier if we didn't have clients that were humans, haha

I don't have much use for this myself, but to anyone dealing with geodesic structures it looks the biz. It seems quite new...Donateware. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/oaktree/geodesica/ Some YouTube vids https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzsp1DWUkWjK312s7JKdO6g/feed

You need to repaint her body map, Pete. One of those retro Space 1999 outfits would do. Great model of a Tie Fighter BTW [image: DZeG_999.jpg]

Thanks for a good words, we just upgraded for version 2.5, now brdf's have got its own colors. http://www.brighter3d.com/blog/ Best Regards, brighter3d

That building ... Ewww.

@box What you posted insults me. It's against my believes, my religion. It also violates the rules of this forum, or any other forum. I'll report it to moderators. Right now.

Thanks John; but personally I think of it as something akin to OCD when faced with redundant polygons.

Now that really is weird. It must be a bug. Thanks Jim, I never thought of importing to Layer0...but see no logical reason why that should make any difference.

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=179&t=45836&start=0

Very creative. Good fun.

@mike lucey said: Some really inspirational pictures there Alan ..... talking of inspirations. Got the attached image form my daughter today. 'Every young person should hear this story. Older folks can really be such inspirations to our youth!' GOLD!!!!!

Even the textures seem to vary from app to app. That cameraman model is almost entirely vertex-painted, but I used the standard metallic texture on part of the rig. That doesn't display either in Deep Exploration. You can see it listed at the right hand side of my graphic, but it's not assigned to any face. PS Somebody in Boulder needs to learn how to spell corrugated, too.

@unknownuser said: Thank you TIG. Now it works fine. But what are the lot of lines in the second and third picture you posted and how can it happen, that one texture is showing wrong? Did I done something bad? When you export a SKP it's likely that many of the faces will have more than three sides. Many third-party applications that will be importing the exported data expect it to be 'triangulated'. Many, like renderers, do not show the edges so this triangulation is unseen in their output. If you re-import the OBJ file back into a SKP it will include all of the additional lines needed to triangulate the faces. These can be removed manually or if part of a mesh 'smoothed' or erased as coplanar-edges... Because of the expectation of triangular faces by such apps the OBJexporter [and many other similar tools] triangulate the faces in the SKP as they are exported. In your case you have only a few faces, but there are thousands of edges. Therefore to make a face out of triangles requires a lot of lines adding to the geometry - not an issue when used in a renderer but when used back into a SKP it needs 'fixing'... An OBJ file [and several other exporter file formats] can only include texture data that is UVmapped in '2d' - positioned/rotated/scaled etc - this is because it can use just 3 UVmapping values. However, a texture in a SKP can be sheared/skewed etc in '3d' so that it is 'distorted' - and then its UVmapping has 4 values to describe how it is 'twisted' ! BUT the OBJ file format cannot include for this, so instead we have to spot the 'distortion' and make an extra 'distorted image' file and then define that for that face's texture, with a basic UVmapping set [this is because the 'distortion' is in the texture's file itself, rather than how it is changed by the face's UVmapping data in the OBJ file]. So how we detect the texture's 'distortion' becomes critical... Your 'problem texture' probably resulted when you adjusted it to align along that face - you must have added a slight 'shear/skew' to it in '3d', rather than the usual '2d' 'flat' mapping used for rotations etc. Thus the v1.9 exporter considered that texture to be 'distorted' and therefore it then exported a virtually identical image-file to use just for that face. Its UVmapping then failed as there was no appreciable 'real' distortion to compensate for. When I recoded the distortion-checker in v2.0 I reduced its "sensitivity" - so now when it sees that 'problem texture' it regards it as NOT being distorted... and therefore it uses the usual base-image file and the required distortion-free UVmapping that works just fine... I think I now have a reasonable compromise between making a distorted image-file - needed IF the image has been 'intentionally' skewed/sheared etc - and the alternative of using the base-image even when very slight [unintentional] distortions are detected [and which are so slight that the UVmapping can be assumed to be '2d' not '3d' anyway]

Thank you, very helpful tutorial.

@alan fraser said: For all you night owls out there. @unknownuser said: You can control how dim/warm you want it to go. It also has a 1 hr override facility in case you are working on colour-sensitive stuff. thank you