Have you checked that the graphics card driver settings are set to the ones recommended by Google? Most notably Antialiasing should be set at "Application-controlled".

Anssi

If a CAD import misses faces, the reason is often that they are too small, the limit goes somewhere near 1 mm square. This can be helped by importing the file larger than the original (using, for instance, meters instead of centimeters for the impoty unit) and then scaling it back to the real dimensions.

Anssi

I just meant that this is, as I have learnt to see it, not a strict police state, but governed by benevolent dictators that look upon the small breaches of us humble peasants with a lenient eye.

Besides, some people like to post both rendered and SU views of the same models. The comparison is much easier if they are both in the same thread.

Anssi

I am again amazed about how consistent quality you get out of different render engines.

Anssi

@newvista said:

This question is for the administrator and also want to know what rest of the people think about it.

What are the rules on what type of images to post under the SketchUp Gallery and Renders Gallery?

The reason I asked that question is that I thought people are supposed to post ONLY sketchup images under the sketchup gallery. If you use anything else to make your image look better/real, then it is supposed to post under renders gallery. I was going through the sketchup gallery and I saw some images that look like they have been used some other tools other than sketchup.

It would be nice to have something like this, if somebody visits the sketchup gallery, he/she should be able to see only PURE SKETCHUP images and if somebody visits to renders gallery, he/she should be able to see all kind of COOL IMAGES done by using various rendering tools and sketchup. Thanks.

I think that is the general idea. I think the administrators are right in not being over strict about it. Who cares if some images in SU gallery are rendered or enhanced with Photoshop or even Piranesi.

Anssi

Thanks for the early breakfast guys!

Urgen provided the meal and Solo the reading matter...

Anssi

@toxicvoxel said:

Return it emediatly and get a single core Pentium.
(Just kidding!)

To be serious-the graphics card might have to be changed. Quadro NVS is a 2D card meant for stockbrokers and the like who need to spread their spreadsheets over multiple monitors.

Anssi

I have never seen SU add 3D to a file that has none, so the information must already be there, for instance the Thickness property of lines might not be zero. DWG is basically a 3D format too, and for example digital maps often come with the contours placed at the correct 3D elevations.

If you want your DWG flattened, you have basically two options: Use the Flatten command (part of "Express tools") in AutoCad, or in Pro version of SU import the file, select Plan View, turn on Parallel Projection and re-export the file as DWG from the File>Export>2D Image menu. Now a re-imported file should be fully 2D.

If this didn't help, post the DWG if possible, and someone will have a look

Anssi

@lewiswadsworth said:

Ifwe knew, we wouldn't be able to tell you. (It's called a "Non-Disclosure Agreement.")

So now we know you have signed one...

Anssi

Nige find, Gaieus, thanks

Anssi

In the one I have seen (but don't remember where-some activity park I suppose) the tube and the "screw" turned together and the screw was tightly welded inside the tube, so no leaking.

Anssi

The 3D export function to DWG exports the SU faces as 3D polyface entities, with every face as a separate entity. If you check "Edges" in the Export Options every edge in the model is added as an extra line in the export. It does apparently not support smoothing.

I don't know about TurboCad, but in AutoCad wireframe and hidden-line views the edges of polyface entities are always visible and unseparable from the faces themselves. For smoothing to work, the export would have to consist of a triangulated 3D face mesh

If you are exporting views for annotation and plotting, you can export 2D DWGs - no hidden lines pop up with them.

Anssi

@unknownuser said:

@remus said:

Thats a pretty weighty test file, surprisingly my system just about handled it, there was a second or two delay when orbiting, and i didnt dare to turn on shadows or xray, but you could work with the model if you needed to.

yeah, i guess if you have tons of patience it would be workable but seriously, i couldn't handle it.. i can rotate it ok, draw lines decently, etc.. the problem starts showing itself once you try drawing some stuff..

ex - it takes me 6 seconds to draw a sphere in a blank window.. with this drawing, it took me 27 seconds.. going off of that, it would take a full days work to draw something that would take 2hrs.. i'll pass.. (and i didn't have to rotate the model in order to draw the sphere - doing that would take even longer)

i would seriously look into some renderers to deal with all these plants instead of trying to draw them all in sketchup.. plus, the final output will look way better anyway..

The filesize went to half after purging. Still it is enormous. And as expected, it's the 3D plants that make it slow. Erase them (or replace with something simple), and it flies.

I did not try drawing in it. Before I did anything with it, zooming to extents took 7 seconds, and "purging all" took 40 seconds on my humble non-HT 2.8 GHz P4 laptop.

Anssi

Anssi

Deep Exploration can convert between the formats, but it is not free, costs about the same or more than SU. Luckily STL is supported by the Standard edition, as the CAD version is quite expensive.

Anssi

It is a feature of the "Sketchy edges" style that you are using. Smaller details fade away the farther they are from the camera. Your mullions became visible when I moved the "level of detail" slider in the Style Edit window to the far right. The fading cannot be turned off altogether, so if that is not enough, the only option is to switch to a non-sketchy style.

Anssi

If you don't do animations the Render version of ArtLantis is somewhat cheaper. I haven't tried 2.0 yet. They promise it should run on my computer, but in practice I fear that I would need to get a hardware upgrade.

Anssi

@fbartels said:

Jason,

It's kinda funny because I'm a fan of modern architecture, but the third model immediately makes an emotional connection which the first two didn't. Go figure.

Fred

I too am disarmed... It has some dreamlike, surreal quality

Anssi

It is impossible to get rid of all moiré. Using screen antialiasing helps somewhat (Window>Preferences>OpenGL)if your display supports it. When exporting still images the effect can be reduced by exporting a 2...4 times larger image than needed, and scaling it down to size in Photoshop using bicubic downsampling. When exporting larger than screen images, turn off Antialiasing from the Image export options, or SU will freeze or crash.

Anssi

Good renders. And the design no longer makes me want to add gasoline pumps on the deck

Anssi

There has often been talk about the need for a SU benchmark. That would probably stop us from arguing.

About the video card issue: If it is reasonably current, and SU can be made to run with Hardware Acceleration on, I am rather convinced that changing it is not money well spent.

I have seen posts in these forums where people who have upgraded from a mediocre Geforce card to an ultracool whizbang QuadroFX complain about zero performance gain. (Yes, agreed, when speccing for a new machine for pro SU use you should go QuadroFX if you can afford it)

Anssi