A question -

Is the surface an actual material you're copying? It looks like galvanized metal panels with a print on it.
Or is that just an effect created in the rendering?

@unknownuser said:

Better vertex manipulation and control, including soft selection.

Texture layering and blending

UVW Mapping

Better selection tools (Select ring, select loop, freehand selection window, select all in bounds/crossing bounds toggle, etc.)

Snap/Inference on/off toggle

Keyframes and animation timeline

Animated texture support

Support for Spherical background images directly in SU

But if all this shows up I'll have to ask myself why I paid $800 bucks for modo.

I'm curious -

is this image the endpoint or is it a 'picture' of something you might build or have built?

The series of doors seemed to be an end in themselves. Nothing about them suggested you had any intentions beyond the image.
(I have to express a minority opinion here - I thought the door 'detail' image was a mistake - I thought it detracted from the rigid minimalism of the other images and it seemed to me that the color was too interesting and attractive.)
And I didn't expect to like the next things - the blurred images, but I do, in fact quite a lot.

But again, nothing about those images suggested they weren't complete as is.

This suggest something different.

I'm curious because I'm asking myself some of the same questions.

I started learning modo because I want to convert some earlier sculpture drawings into 3D models. Originally I saw the software as a good 'modeling' tool but as I'm getting (minimally) more proficient I'm finding myself less interested in it as a transitional phase. In fact I have it in mind now that I might create a gallery for myself in SketchUp and then people it with a dealer and an assistant once I reach the ability to do basic character modeling in modo.

Of course, I guess I'd then have to create some buyers also ...

There is an early 20th century American painter who devoted most of his later career to painting the effect of moonlight on snow covered roofs. I did a quick search on Google last night after looking at your images but couldn't dig up his name. I'll try again.

I think you're mining real interesting territory here. The second day time render is a great improvement - bringing in a warmer, more yellow light and introducing the railing into the picture so the viewer sees the depth of the snow were real smart decisions. Also adding the Fall colored trees to the right of the house ties the whole color scheme together.

The only criticism I have is the line of snow against the patio edging seems too straight and perfect to me. The snow would have had to fall with no wind and at a perfectly regular rate to get that kind of line. I'd mess it up a bit.

Really great work. The word Art is beginning to float around these pictures.

I'm on the fence about DOF in larger images. Often it seems to put a blurry object too close to my viewpoint and I find that distracting. The tree to the left in this image is an example.

Also, the DOF effect is only realistic when you're looking at the item that is in focus (the house in this case) but when you turn your attention to something else in the picture the effect reads 'wrong'. If I turn my attention to the tree in real life it doesn't appear to be out of focus because my eyes make the necessary adjustment. The fact that the picture doesn't do that makes DOF seem to be just an 'effect' and not a very successful one.

Some way to diminish the intensity of the items surrounding the target image without making it look like there's vaseline on the camera lens would seem to be a worthwhile challenge.

Very nice. I like the first one best, without the moon. I think the moon distracts.

Yes, please clarify.
I haven't had any issues but I'd like to be on the look out for problems I haven't yet encountered. Forewarned is better than surprised.

And both modo and SketchUp are actively working on Collada support so hopefully the pipeline between the two programs will be improved -
http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=39580&show=collada%20beta

Very happy! I've been working on a project for one of the NY department stores with a large SketchUp model they supplied. Even after stripping it down for them I was having a hard time moving it around. Just opened it and it spins like a top!

Could you describe how you did this?

Thanks again all -

This issue is forcing me to delve a bit deeper into the nature of lines / edges and how SketchUp sees them vs how modo sees them. The triangles I'm dealing with are not coplaner (think of the rectangles on the side of a curving helical band - the rectangles can 'bend' because they're made from two triangles) so I realize now that none of the conversion tools will work. But I can import the mesh into modo and then manually delete the triangles. modo can deal with a 'bent' plane in a way SketchUp can't. It can handle the resulting mesh with no problems except when it comes to making a UV map - then it hiccups. But the handrail mesh I'm working on has thousands of triangles so manually deleting them isn't realistic.

I'm going to have to work around the UV issue from another angle other than trying to delete the triangles.

It's all a learning process.

Thanks for the replies.
I tried the export to DWG idea - no luck (but definitely an inventive suggestion).

I guess I'll have to learn my way around Blender (groan!).

I look forward to a future in which all file formats translate all other file formats without difficulty.

I use a ruby from 1001bit tools to extrude railing shapes while not losing the correct orientation of the railing. The ruby generates a very clean mesh but it's triangulated. Does anyone have any experience converting triangles to quads? I want to take the railing shapes into modo. Modo can take them as triangles but it's happier, especially when UVing, if the mesh is all quads. Any advice at all would be appreciated. On other forums I've learned that both Blender and Wings3D can do this but I haven't yet figured out how and I find Blender to be a bit hard to master.

TIA

@unknownuser said:

Judd = bad

Hmmm .... sure can't agree with you there.

Why just sell them as Vue or Max components? Why not offer them in the home market? Bring in someone to do a simple set of construction documents and charge for the whole package?

Love it. It's so distinct, so unlike other images. And so cold. Don't make it too symmetrical.

I'm curious about this -
My (rather underpowered) computer -

AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core 5000 2.6 GHz
NIVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
1GB PC2-5300
2GB DDR2 PC2-8500
32 bit Vista Home

My results -

No textures or shadows:
72 frames in 7.228 seconds
Average frame = 0.100 seconds
10.00 frames/second

With textures (1 wood texture on the whole group):
72 frames in 30.46 seconds
Average frame = 0.423 seconds
2.4 frames/second

With shadows on:
72 frames in 34.9 seconds
Average frame = 0.485 seconds
2.1 frames/second

I'm going to upgrade the video card on this computer in a couple of weeks. I'm limited in my options because it's a HP Slimline so I can only use a low profile card. But no matter what it is, the memory available for the GPU will be increased. If I understand the situation correctly (which is doubtful) I should see better scores on the texture and shadow tests because it's the GPU that's handling texture and shading, right?

I invite anyone who is actually knowledgeable about such matters to correct me if I've totally misunderstood this issue.

Gaieus -
Those are impressive numbers. Could you tell us which CPU you have?

Thanks

I look forward to your tutorial about exporting SketchUp to Pepakura if you ever get around to it.
What file format did you use?

I'm curious about the seated figure. He has a mask on and black gloves. Is he a killer? Jack the Strangler? What's with him?