Posts made by chippwalters

Sometimes, when I'm editing a polyline(?) which has more than one line segment, I end up destroying the 'singularity' of the polyline, and it 'shows' more vertices than before and ends up being a number of 'separated' lines segments instead of a continuous line (sort of like this continuous run-on sentence ).

While I understand one can use the 'weld.rb' script to fix this, is there a way to fix it natively from within SU? I notice for instance that weld.rb doesn't always work, especially when connected to no smooth faces.

Thanks, Chipp

Yes, that's much clearer, and simple as well. Thanks a bunch for doing that. The reason I want the camera pos, is because I want to light a scene for a Podium render, and I'm used to lighting scenes with a 4 view and camera being shown.

TBD tells me there's a way to do this via a Ruby script-- I may check that out too.

Thanks a bunch for spending the time to enlighten me. It is VERY appreciated!

Wow Richard, that is ingenious. Thanks a bunch for your clear and concise explanation!

Yep, that does work for extruding a path-- though a bit convoluted. Perhaps SU can accomplish this simple task in the next vers?

I did talk to TBD and he says there's an easy way to identify the position of the camera using Ruby. So, I'm off to figure that out

Thanks everyone for your generous and helpful support!

Gaieus, what I meant to say was 'fillet'.

rsw, yes, exactly. How did you do that? When I extrude along the face path, it doesn't close the top of my mouse. Do you hand stitch?

Pagan, I tried to download your .avi twice, but for some reason my WMP won't play it. Says it encountered an error and had to quit. Some special codec perhaps?

Rodentpete, I did as you suggested, and now I have the 'fillet' but it's open on the top. Any way to force it to 'skin' the top as well?

Thanks everyone for the many answers to this. For some reason, the email notifier didn't kick in and I only now went and looked here. I'll check the various techniques out and get back to you!

OK, I looked at it. Thanks for doing this, but while I understand how to find the target, and the height offset, I'm not sure I follow the rest of your construction. You have constructed several polygons. Which came first? TIA.

Nevermind about the extrude curve thing. It appears the CurveStitcher plugin will do the job.

Huh. Didn't know about shadows not projecting below sealevel. Thanks for that. Podium didn't seem to mind and rendered just fine.

What I meant by extruding a path, was actually taking a path, and offsetting it, and stitching the polys in-between.

Yeah, sorry for leaving it on. I was rendering in Podium and wanted the shadows! BTW, do you know if there's a way to extrude a curved surface, or a curved path? Thx.

Wo3Dan,

Here one:

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=3bde59bd2cb2eb715953c2937bcaaf81

I created a shape using 2 intersecting surfaces and now I want to create a radius at the top. Is this possible?
Model:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=846c15f6e39cad2ad08ab9931a7b465a

Tom,

Thanks for that! Thought about it and I think one part may be wrong. The height of the camera is not necessarily the same height as the horizon, is it? For instance, a camera could be pointing up, no?

After thinking about it some more--the camera's pointing has nothing to do with it's position. Maybe you are correct. I'll check it out

Wo3Dan,

I also found many of your other tutes valuable, especially the one on aligning a polygon face perpendicular to an arbitrary path in space. Thanks!

I hope no one minds me backing up to a more philosophical level. IMO, there are several factors which go into creating a great rendering, and one of the less mentioned factors, is design. The 'design' of the render (2D, figure ground, color, brightness, hue) and just as important, the 3D design of the model being rendered.

Though not absolutely necessary, a great design helps in creating a great render. I believe one of biebel's tools he uses to create wonderful renderings is the overall design of what he's showing. Just as anyone with a camera can certainly take photoreal pictures, those with the 'eye' for it, take more interesting, and usually better, ones.

Back 100 years ago when I was an industrial designer, I could always draw better pictures of designs that interested me versus those that didn't. I look at other very proficient 2D and 3D artists, and many times it is their designs inside the drawing that make their renderings 'work.'

Thanks Wo3Dan, those tutorials very helpful. I can deduce then there is no way to 'show' the camera position from an existing scene unless one previously set the camera to specific object's postion. IOW, you have to create an object first, then set the camera position to it.

Thanks everyone for the help here! Much appreciated

Was there anyone who could answer the question about how to show a scene camera's positon?

Thanks again.

I'm using SketchUp Pro. I assume once I put the 4 views in Layout, it's not a great interface for continuing modeling-- is it?

Stinkie,

A very interesting subject. Judging a renderer by the quality of it's users renders. I, too, agree with what you say-- for the most part. But, I do find it interesting Biebel and maybe 1 or 2 others have really been able to push Podium to the photoreal level. I wonder how much of it is Podium and how much of it is the artist (I have my own ideas;-)

So, the thought becomes, how does a rendering package, like IRender, woo the render geniuses, aka Biebel, into their OWN fold. I would imagine Biebel, with his sensibilities, could create much better with IRender than what is currently in their gallery. Though, who knows.

The real fact is, many of us use vendors galleries as a measuring stick, and make purchase decisions based on what can be done. IMO, this is the reason for the success of packages like Podium and e-on's Vue as well. Just a single look at 'the best of the best' tells serious users what a package is capable of.

Thanks for the escape trick...seems like the answer was already in the question

The 4 views I was asking about were 4 simultaneous views.