**Can someone explain why AMD is not mentioned in this discussion?
SU is using OpenGL and the AMD cards are known for better performance in OGL. I have looked on the Tom’s Hardware Benchmark for workstation graphics, the AMD cards are not far behind when OGL is used.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/workstation-graphics-2013/12-Maya-2013-OpenGL-Hand,3288.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/workstation-graphics-2013/17-OpenGL-SPECViewperf11-Lightwave-01,3293.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/workstation-graphics-2013/26-OpenGL-Synthetik-GPU-Caps-PostFX,3302.html

Has anyone experience with SU on a R9 290 or HD 7990?**

Thanks for the information, the CPU chart made it clear. I will buy the i7. A bit strange that I missed the Cinebench, I regularry visit Tomshardware.com

It’s probably wiser to spend some extra money on a graphics card then a faster processor for SU. Does anyone use a AMD FX 8350 and has anyone compared it to a i7 3770k with SU?

I have looked on the forum for hardware information but couldn’t find the right information.
My old computer is end of life and one hard disk is defect,, this is the configuration what I want to replace it for:

Asus Sabertooth 990FX
AMD FX FX-8350 Boxed
Corsair Vengeance CMZ16GX3M2A1600C10
Samsung 840 series 250GB
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST2000DM001, 2TB
Seasonic Platinum Series 460 Watt Fanless
Asus HD7750-DCSL-1GD5
Fractal Design Define XL R2
Zalman CNPS10X Performa
LG GH24NS90 Zwart

My questions are:
Is it worth to spend the extra money to buy a i7 3770K with Asus Sabertooth Z77 motherboard and spend a extra € 126,-. In other words, do you notice the deference in speed when working with sketch up. The i7 is faster in single core calculations than the FX 8350, but does it help in sketch up?

Or is it wise to spend more on a graphics card and go for the Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 3GB and a 520W PSU and spend € 180,- more?

If I use my experience in 3d modelling and simulation, the HD 7950 is a better choice but does it also help with sketch up? Can anyone help me out?

I’m so sorry, yes I ment “Component”.

To start a project like this I would create 3 polygons with the exact size of the train and put them in the center of each other so that you get a cross. Put the texture you have form the side, top and front on each poly and align it wit the size of the poly.

I would start first with the center part and like Gaieus said only model the half. Now you can create a shape and pull the parts bit by bit and adjust the size every time or create a line segment and copy this a couple of times along the body of the train, use the sandbox tool to connect the lines to create the center part of the train.

Do the same with the nose, but be careful that you use the same amount of segments and that they connect at the same points. T vertices can’t be rendered.

When finished the whole shape make it a group and mirror it, if you change one side the other will be updated as well.

Good luck

I have learned, in real-time simulation, that OpenGL can only handle texture sizes that start from 6464 with equivalent steps till 10241024.
If you don't do that than it will split the textures itself into these parts, then you end up with a much higher load of texture memory then you would normally use.

I think this should be the same in SU, but I'm not a specialist with textures in SU.

There is an other free alternative for AutoCad, named QCAD. This software comes with Ubuntu and is free-ware, it saves the drawings in *.dxf format A-CAD 2000 or R12.

@unknownuser said:

I dont know why people waste money on costly CAD Software's when they can get the same results with ProgeCAD .

The reason why people buy an expensive license is the ability of creating your own tools. In AutoCad you can write in LISP since it came on the market and most of your old tools will still work in the latest versions of A-CAD. It is even possible to create tools in Visual Basic and Visual C++.

When Iworked as a CAD drawer and used A-CAD I wrote many LISP tools that saved loads of time, read also money. With intelligent tools you can automate anything, this stops you from doing the same over and over again and makes your live as a drawer a lot easier.

An A_CAD license is not that expensive at all for a company if it is a powerful tool.

You say you have to work on heavy 3D projects, if this mean that you work with SU professionally than I wouldn't recommend both cards.

SU is using OpenGL and the better option then would be ATI Fire 8700 or NVIDIA Quadro 5500. These graphic card have full OpenGL support and better drivers. They do cost a bit extra but it's worth the extra money. It doesn't matter which one you choose, they are both very good for 3D modeling and rendering.

You can check here for a review:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/workstation-graphics-charts-2008/benchmarks,3.html

Check here for SU and OpenGL:
http://download.sketchup.com/OnlineDoc/gsu_mac/M-Technical_Reference/Tech-OpenGL.htm

I think that JB has a point.

To my opinion there is no need for multi processor support, SU is fast enough and if you want to render your model just use a render tool with multi CPU support.

Wasn't SU put on the market to let us create low poly 3D models for GE? Like in real-time simulation you have to create your models as small as possible and use texturing for details. Sadly SU and GE don't use LOD's to make models even smaller in a large environment.
But what I think is strange that a tool like “dynamic components” does not fit in this philosophy.

SU is an easy to learn and use 3D modeling tool, it is very cheap compared to other 3d modeling tools and powerful enough for detailed modeling two. Ruby scripts makes it even more powerful and it doesn't need all the fancy extras you never going use. These extras are what makes 3ds Max and Maya expensive and to complex to use.

I use SU on a 5 year old single core 3 Ghz processor with only 1GB memory and a simple AGP game card and it runs very smooth, also with larger models. I don't see the need to change SU for use with multi cores it doesn't help you with speed during modeling. The GPU's today on the market are fast enough and can handle large models even with texturing.

A better solution for SU, if it isn't fast enough, would be a new function like external reference. This should be very easy to implement in the software. But the best thing to do is keep your models as simple as possible.

Henri