Regarding the cloud issue, I wouldn't model the interior. I think the texture is ok. What I think needs to be done is simply to break up that exterior a bit. Right now, relative to the scale of the people the glass panels on that building look really really big. So my assumption is that there should be some more mullions in there (maybe smaller than the main ones you showed). So I'd put those in to break up that facade. I think that would help a lot.

I'm not sure if it'd work for the view you have but sometimes if you do a real light transparency you can get away w/ showing some more depth w/o being able to see enough detail to know that what you're seeing is just the inside of a box rather than a modeled interior. Your view is probably to close for that little trick but if it's at a distance this will sometimes work.

-Brodie

PERFECT!

thanks a ton

-Brodie

I'm sure there's a ruby that does this but I'm not sure which one it is.

I'm importing an AutoCad drawing so I've got a bunch of lines but no faces. I'm looking for something that would essentially take all of those connected lines and make faces from them.

Thanks,

-Brodie

Just what I needed. Thanks Thomthom!

-Brodie

I'm doing a building elevation in CAD that I'm going to put some color onto and shadows. My thought was that it might be quicker to model the elevation is SU real quick, turn off the edges, and darken up the shadows to photoshop in later (as opposed to hand doing each shadow in cad).

However, I'd like to get the perfect 45 degree shadows as if they were hand calculated.

Does anyone know some good settings to get this effect (location, time, date, orientation, etc.)? It doesn't have to be perfect but really close at 1/8" scale would be great.

-Brodie

First of all I don't care what the building looks like if they'll give me gas for $3.08!

Beyond that...erm...let me nit pick at you with whatever comes to mind...

1. the grass texture in the front would be ok at a distance but being so close i'd find something a bit different. Maybe more realistic or maybe more fake but different. Real is easy, check out the components/materials forum sticky for places to go. cgtextures.com will probably have that. More fake might look better given that the other vegitation you've got isn't going for the realistic look. In that vein maybe a solid color desaturated a bit or an idea I've wanted to try is to use some prisma color markers to color some grass and scan that in and use it as a texture. Same as a solid color but it'd have some variation and more of a hand quality to it.

2. Look at some different skies. I've found a lot like the one you've got that come across a bit dull for some reason. See if you can find one (or make one) a bit brighter w/o too many big puffy clouds. This can be hard as people taking pictures of skies love big puffy clouds which can distract from buildings.

3. The pricing sign stands out a lot and probably shouldn't. I'm not sure what you're focus is but it probably isn't that. Part of the reason is that it's so close and it has so much detail but also it's the color. I'd edit the image to saturate the color more to fit in w/ the bright colors you've got. It looks to "real."

4. Camera position. If your focus is the building I think I'd reposition the camera and avoid the above problem altogether. I'd position the camera closer to the building a a bit to the left so that the hanging price sign is in the very upper lefthand corner of the screen (still edit the saturation btw). This gives you a bit of a perspective shot of the building and the sign shouldn't detract so much but you still have that hint telling you exactly what the building is. You could probably get away w/ changing the field of view from 35 to 40 too and be ok. Maybe see if you like 2 point perspective better or not too although I didn't see much difference.

5. Entourage. Play w/ different veggies, cars, and people. A lot of this is preference and the look you're going for. The default SU stuff isn't bad, it's just a particular look. Other stuff you might try... Try turning the cars and people into monotone colors (all black or all white) w/ transparency. This gives you a pretty cool rather professional look which comes across less cartoony. You can do the same w/ the trees as well (not sure it looks as good w/ the shrubs though). Check out the 3d warehouse for more shrubs and whatnot. There's lots of stuff on there.

just some thoughts. hope this helps some. In general, I'd say that you can definately do straight SU output as your final presentation but it takes some work. Make sure you're using the right tool for the right job. That means don't try using SU to go for realism. Instead emphasize the sketchiness. A 'rendering' doesn't have to look real to look good.

I'd also show this to some non SU people. I tend to be more critical of stuff that uses default SU stuff but that's partly a bias from having used SU for awhile now. To me it just screams "I used SketchUp!" but you've got to go to some other people outside of our little realm to get a more objective opinion on that sometimes.

-Brodie

@philem said:

Need a little help guys,

I got a new laptop about a month ago for work, I downloaded and installed the latest version of Sketchup.
I am working on a small presentation for work, the file is only about 1.8mb, but the programme has started lagging, I have Sketchup on my desktop and there is no problem, I have a CAD programme on the laptop and it runs fine.

I have the latest drivers for the video card .

Any tips on how I can get the speed up a bit?

The laptop is:
ASUS Notebook F3Sg Series
Intel Core 2Duo CPU T8100@2.10GHz 2.10GHz
2.00 Gig of Ram
32 Bit operatping system.

Nvidia GeForce 9300M G video card with 259Mb memory

When you say you have SU on your desktop and there's no problem are you speaking specifically about this particular file? Or in general SU runs ok on your computer. It may help to provide the specs of your desktop and the skp file if that's possible. I'd try the other advice given first though as those are both crucial regardless of what the problem is.

-Brodie

It all depends on how you're going to use and develop the model really.

The advantage of groups is mainly so you can move and manipulate a bunch of things as if they were 1 thing. If that's useful to you then group them.

Components, so far as I can tell have precisely the same advantage as groups and work pretty much the same way. The added benefit is that if you have a bunch of an object, you can make 1 of those a component and copy that component around to all the others. Then if you change one it changes the others. This also saves on file space (but doesn't mean that your 'rendering' is any faster).

W/ both of these you can also use Outliner (Windows -> Outliner) which could help in organization and easy modeling if you get real detailed.

-Brodie

See if this is what you're getting at. It's not an exact fit but just a quicky. I selected the whole ring.
Copy (control + C)
Paste (control + V)
and scaled down the pasted ring
Scale (S)
80% (.8)
Then I just moved the send ring inside the first one.

As I said the 80% didn't quite match up perfect but it's pretty close if this is what you're looking for.

-Brodie

Silver Ring 2.skp

Business Building:

I think this is your best one of the 3 both modeling and design wise. It seems to be the most developed in both areas. The main critique I'd say design wise is that those projecting elements seem pretty far out there. They might be possible in the sense that just about anything is "possible" but they aren't that likely. From inside the building you could get the same effect w/ 2' rather than 12'. From outside they're cool but not terribly integrated. To sell something like that they'd have to really be essential for the whole design. For example they'd make more sense if the opposite were present, that is deep rectangular cut outs in the building which could serve as patios or some such thing. Also if the tops of the projecting elements were usable or some sort of green space that would provide a nicer view for the upper floors they'd make more sense.

In the final image you did a good job w/ the glass and 'reflection' but you should throw some shadows in there as the back wall doesn't read very well.

hope these critiques help. Please keep posting as these or other images develop!

-Brodie

Future School:

Again, detail will add a lot. Right now I see mainly a brick wall w/ punched windows. That might be what it is but what it's missing are things like window frames, mullions, cornice, base, etc. The details will not only add to the realism but it's also where design meets real life. The top of a building is going to have to end somehow. You can just cap it off w/ some metal flashing or you can add some stone or patterns, etc. but there will be something up there. And brick buildings often don't just meet the ground and stop. Often you'll see some limestone or something that handles the ground better than brick as that will be where all the water is pooling up, guys are running into your building w/ lawn mowers, bushes are growing, etc.

The 3rd image is probably the best. The first sort of looks like a section but not really. Unsure of what's going on there. The 2nd really shows off the big glass box w/ no detail which detracts. Most detracting in the 3rd is the big glass building in the back w/ no mullions. It should have some mullions and transparency to the glass to give it some depth. Right now it looks more like clouds painted onto a building than reflections. The transparency will help that even if it's not enough to really see that it's a hollow building.

-Brodie

Shopping Mall:

It may very well be an interesting design. I do like the curve a lot. But the next step would certainly be to add some more detail. Right now it just doesn't read very well. I'm not sure the curve works or if that's glass (the colors are pretty vibrant) or what exactly is going on in general w/ the building. Hope that isn't criticizing the model itself too much but it's hard to separate the two too much if you know what I mean.

Of the 3 images I think the 2nd one is the best because it feels less like a straight sketchup output. I'd keep the monotone but I'd sharpen it up though so it reads better. In general all of your lines tend to look quite thick which adds to the cartoony look which I think detracts from your designs a lot.

Since you specifically mentioned the design aspect of it, as I already mentioned the curves are interesting. The main critique then, i'd have is that they're just sort of applied onto a boxy warehouse sort of building. I'd find a way to integrate and unify the whole design a bit more.

-Brodie

Really cool animation. I think it's a really great idea to render a model as a...gasp...model! Very fun and still gets the point across, especially works well for a cubic building like the Pavillion.

Regarding the objects around the model, my only critique would be that they seem a bit random. Ideas running through my head would be to put the model on more of a polished desk in a nice office. Sort of as if it were an office piece for some CEO type. Or perhaps on a work table in a wood shop w/ a drill and nails around, maybe a table saw in the background. Or for those of us who built stuff like that in architecture studio, I'd like to see it on a drafting table w/ scattered debris, pencils, plans, rulers, and maybe a dude head down passed out on one end of the table w/ saliva dripping for the corner of his mouth onto a pile of old eraser shavings. I think many of us could relate to that scene!

-Brodie

@roger said:

This deserves a caption.

"C'mon help me find the lawnmower, I know it is out here somewhere."

Yeah, I'm sure you can imagine the geometry on that! There's a staggering of different types of tall fountain grass that were requested. The largest is 4' high. I tried 2d follow me components first but they're in big groups and didn't look right from multiple angles so I had to find and alter all 3d components. Pretty cumbersome even before you flip shadows on.

-Brodie

Are you looking for critique on the designs themselves or on the modeling (or both)?

It would also help to know, in either case, the purpose (either what the images are being used for / shown to or what the purpose of the buildings are)

-Brodie

@johnsenior1973 said:

@dale said:

Isn't Sandbox only in the Pro version?

It's in the free version as well.

Yeah, I think that went free w/ version 6 but I could be wrong on that one.

-Brodie

I think what's being overlooked here is that there is one very important feature besides Layout and 3d exporters that comes w/ the pro version of SU. I think of SkethUp Pro as a statement about myself. It tells people I'm important and affluent. My friends find me to be more cool after learning that I have the Pro version of SU. SU Pro heaps burning coals upon the heads of my enemies.

It's the same reason people buy big diamond rings, Nike shirts, and scuba gear.

-Brodie

Thanks for posting your machine specs. I was just getting ready to ask when I read that. It's encouraging to know that you can do really exceptional work w/o a beast of a computer. I'm actually running the same thing except an 8800 graphics card.

How about your file size 30 Mb is a big file but not terribly unreasonable once you get into a lot of detail. Any special tricks on saving space?

-Brodie

@spunky said:

I know... I thought so too. Here is a picture of the actual clinic. I love St. George, but there landscaping is sparse and at times rather boring. I put shadows on all plants and trees, sharpened and blurred a bit here and there and then lightened it up a bit.

Hrm...not bad but the sky could use some clouds, take out the manhole cover right in the foreground, and that guy getting out of the jeep is totally unrealisic. Not bad materials though aside from the asphalt.

oh wait, it's real.

-Brodie

@cleerssen said:

here's one of the files that "shakes" as you move throught it. Worse when you rotate or pan around it.[attachment=0:1cfcv5ax]<!-- ia0 -->block-14_10x.skp<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:1cfcv5ax]

Yeah, that's a tricky problem. Remus is right. When you pan around the shaking is the computer trying to figure out which of the faces to show. Exploding the whole thing solves 95% of the problem leaving just a few areas where there are 2 surfaces on the exact same plane.

But I'm guessing you have the geometry grouped for a reason (?). If so then I think you may want to at least try grouping differently. For example, explode the roof and group it all together as one entity instead of 2 seperate groups.

No matter what I think you're stuck w/ doing some TNT style exploding, unless anyone else knows a fix.

-Brodie