Can you post the model? I'm not sure what you mean by shaking I guess in terms of a SU model.

-Brodie

@edson said:

i have a slight problem with combining SUp's output with entourage in postprocessing. the contrast is too noticeable. what about using some good 3D SUp trees instead of images?

Yeah, I'm not sure I can disagree with you. The primary reasoning behind photoshopping the trees in there was that there will be 6 views going all around the building. W/ the 6 views I could set up the trees so 1 view looked good but then the next view wouldn't look quite right.

-Brodie

Totally agree w/ what everyone has said, this looks really good. The grass and background/midground looks amazing. The foreground low-poly trees look...well, low-poly, but what do you expect? Very nice

-Brodie

I think I misread that from a distance. The second perspective makes it more clear that what I thought was pavement is actually a large rockbed in between the viewer and the building (right?). Nevertheless, it still seems an odd condition for trees to be growing from.

I feel like I'm playing one of those picture games in the dentist's office where it says there are 6 differences between these two photos...

Can you tell us exactly what you've changed from the first render to the last? I noticed that you've zoomed in which was a good call. And I think the whole thing seems a bit brighter too which is an improvement. What else is in there that I'm missing?

-Brodie

Here's a WIP of a SU model I did post-processed w/ some trees and sky. As it's still a WIP I'd love some critique. I've got to do a number of other similar views so advice is welcome.

I will say that the foreground, midground, and background are all pretty squeezed together which I don't like too much. The reason is that the client is wanting essentially a worms eye view (or as much as we can get w/ the large fountain grass being planted in front of the house) to best show off the roof overhangs.

I don't think anyone's mentioned this so I will. You might relook at how the foreground trees meet the ground. It looks like they run right into the sidewalk area. Might look less pasted to have something at the base. A little mulch, some grass, rocks, something like that.

-Brodie

Regarding ATI/AMD it would be interesting to start hearing some feedback as to whether the 'old' issues still exist or not. However, at this point I think for SU users it's still risky to run out and buy an ATI card even if they're 'better.' You can buy a card w/ uber framerates and clockspeeds that'll make you dizzy but if you can't pick the face of a wall it's worthless.

-Brodie

@sky2779 said:

hi all.i found that there would be some problem using ATI video card.something like there are some problems when you chooseing the face.
is there anyone have the same problem?

Ya, that's pretty common w/ ATI cards. I had the same issue. You can try different drivers but that didn't work for me. I ended up having to turn off Hardware Acceleration (basically the same thing as yanking out your ati card and throwing it at the wall but less satisfying). I ended up buying an nVidia card.

-Brodie

@sorgesu said:

what you are describing was a bug an SketchUp 6 several releases ago. Are you certain you have the latest updates? Make sure you are working on the most current version.

I'm running 6.4.112 I just tried Help -> Check for Updates and it said I'm running the latest. Is there a later version than this?

-Brodie

Nothing, sad to say.

Hrm...little more info as the problem persists...

The problem is occuring w/ some 3D plants. I played around a bit and the shadows work perfectly (both cast and received shadows from and on the plants respectively) in monochrome mode. I think they worked in color mode as well, but when I turned textures on the shadows disappeared (only the plant shadows, all other shadows in the model remain). Then if I turned off the layer my building is on the plant shadows came back on.

So my guess is that it perhaps has something to do w/ the complexity of the model? Maybe after it has to compute so many shadows it just tries to conserve its energy by turning the shadows off the more complex parts? Does that make any sense? I'd hoped that it was only a screen problem but exporting a jpg resulted in the same issue.

Any other thoughts?

-Brodie

I've got some components in a model that will cast shadows but not receive them. Anyone have a fix for this? Is it normal or is there some sort of setting I'm missing. In the Model Info box, they are set to receive shadows by the way.

-Brodie

Interesting about the directory. Basically it's an animation that may very well be used promotionally to show off the architects design via his website. I would think that would make a good enough candidate to get ahold of ol' Neil and maybe spot him a couple bucks. Anyone got his number? I seem to have lost it somehow.

Seriously though, anyone have any idea on how to actually go about paying the royalties then or perhaps to get my paws on this directory? If I find out I'll report back but if anyone has any clues or links they're appreciated.

-Brodie

PS. too bad about that lady w/ the kid on youtube. too bad she got off scott-free that is. Posting videos of your kids on youtube should be a felony under the People's Right to Not Make me Gag Act 1997 established by the quasi-famous Gray vs. America's Funniest Home Videos case.

I've got a project that the client is wanting to do a quick animation for w/ a particular Neil Young song in the background. I think I know how to do that software wise, but what I'm really wondering is if anyone knows how to do that...er...legally.

-Brodie

Does anyone know of a good place to find some good photos I can use as a background to photoshop (funny how that's become a verb, eh?) in post-production? I'm looking for something fairly flat w/ a good treeline and sky.

-Brodie

What software did you use to create the animation by the way?

Very professional and well done. You officially make me sick, I hope you're happy!

Regarding the circles, I like it just the way it is. Plot, if you rewatch it you'll see that the tie in is with the circle around the trademark checkmark (lot of marks there). That connection is made in the beginning and I think it's made again in the end if I recall.

-Brodie

Regarding the screen resolution, the same has held true for me as well. I have 2 monitors. One is set to 1600x1200 I think and the other is 1280x1040ish. I ran the test on both and got the same results. I didn't even mention it because I thought maybe I was crazy for assuming their should be a difference.

Conclusion: SU is wierd and defies the laws (sketchy) physics.

-Brodie

Thanks to both of you. I'll take another look at trying some transparent 2D vegies. What do you think about the ground? Leave it as is or try some sort of texture?

Richard - I think you're right about the car. It's always looked a bit funny to me as well. The darker shadows will help as well. Seeing it at a low resolution has actually helped a lot. Sometimes I like things a bit too subtle and then they aren't picked up in the final product.

Mateo - I prefer white people as well (hrm...that doesn't sound right ). Right now the image is so light though that they blend in too much. Maybe after I darken the shadows and play around a bit more I can get that to work though.

-Brodie

I'm working on a residential project. The client is looking for a full model of which one or two views will be used for merchandising. He's looking for a black and white image w/ a "tinge of color."

The main problem I've been having is trying to find some vegitation that looks right. I want to keep the look fairly abstract so real 2d images don't seem to work. It seems like maybe some good 3D shrubs and flowers would be good but I haven't found any that look right. Any thoughts?

Any other comments/critiques are welcome as well, although it's not quite finished yet.

-Brodie