@kwistenbiebel said:

Just as a side note: does anyone knows what the former @last team is doing now?
I mean, Jim Holman and the others. What happened to them? (besides lying somewhere on a beach spending the money earned by selling Sketchup ).

I imagine that as part of the terms of the sale of SketchUp they agreed not to develop a similar product for a certain period of time. I

@lewiswadsworth said:

Most of the stranger-architects writing me about my crime in teaching SketchUp seem to be German, for some reason. Like I said, who has the time for that?
?

Were any of them suggesting what design software you should be using Lewis?

Thanks Brodie, I will retry that. It wasn't originally working, but I give it anther go.

Wow Kudo's to the design team on this. I love the way the light on the magnifying glass burns up the box.

I'm not so sure that the intention is not just a marketing model that the cigarette industry nailed down. That is hook your next target market group while their young.

@plot-paris said:

can you check, if the "Enable Transparency" checkbox is activated (styles window > face settings).

otherwise, could you upload the model?

cheers,

Jakob

HI plot-paris
Yes, the enable transparency is on in styles.
I am uploading a copy of the storefront doors with texture as described. The model was started before I went to SketchUp Basecamp, and has all the trademarks of how to make a model with a huge file size, so I won't try to upload the whole thing. Hopefully this is enough for you to work with. Thanks

Storefront doors.skp

Does anyone know of a way to adjust the opacity of a texture?
I was fooling around applying jpeg images of reflections in glass as a texture to a SketchUp image, and liked the potential, but I would really like to adjust the opacity so that it was still translucent. Highlighting and adjusting the slider had no effect and I tried to use edit functions, but to no avail. An example attached,( and by the way that is one of Richards "white people" loitering in front of the store, whose reflection I have to add to the glass still. Thanks Richard)

[quote="tomsdesk"]Dale, thanks...seems I might have some right to most of the work I produce for others: except, all my work is work for hire (as I understand that phrase...and why I say in advance "you ain't payin' for the trees and such").

Does the same document you quoted have a good definition of "work for hire"?

http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol5-no2.html

This link addresses "Work for hire" issues, under the new 1990 U.S. copyright law. I believe that if you have contractually agreed not to give up your rights that you are protected. There are some AIA statutes that address this as well I believe.

Here is an excerpt from the U.S copyright law. I believe Canada is very similar.

Copyright.pdf

Great presentation Richard. In terms of software was this SketchUp / Photoshop / Maxwell / Word ?

I think that in essence this could be solved contractually when the project begins by stating within that original contract what the rights of the contractor and client are in relation to images produced.
By explicitly laying this out in the original agreement it does a number of things:

Instigates the discussion about rights at the offset of the project so that everyone understands where they stand, and it is at this point both can negotiate.
Clarifies to the client that no matter what method the contractor uses to attain the image, they still hold some rights to the image.
Lays out what those rights are for both parties.
If it comes to litigation for some reason, the Judge would have information regarding what agreements had been discussed by the two parties, which could in fact affect the decision.

I too don't think this ruling would stand up in the scrutiny of an appeal, but the lesson here is to not assume that you have rights over images you have created without actually attempting to assure that you do,

Or some nasty domestic disputes.

"What do you mean you used the milk to feed the baby, Honey what were you thinking?"

Thanks for the post. I have a feeling we will be seeing a lot of this. We now make it a habit to submit 3D images as a part of any planning application. We found that we were getting more positive responses, and appreciation for this, even if the 3D's were minimal.
We now go out of our way to provide reasonable images.

You may want this nifty little milk scanner to make prototyping fun.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XSrW-wAWZe4

Granted, but you shouldn't have winked at that big sand kicking bully's girl cause he's bearing down on you!!!!

I wish I had a few bucks to spare.

Though, as a Mac guy I can't help with Vista, I wanted to say how I thoroughly enjoyed your presentations at Base Camp. I attended them both, and learned an amazing amount from both your Irregular Terrain Session, and the AutoCad session you co-presented with Mitchel Stangl. I have a couple of site plans coming up which I will post for comment, and probably beg for help with.

Thanks again

@chuck norris said:

'Chuck Norris can chug a gallon of milk and not throw up'

That one actually is true

So, like a gallon of milk without "upchucking"

Great work!!!!!! But the one office render made me sad though. Looked like a whole bunch of iMacs in the rendering, none of which can run Podium (natively)

I had a similar problem like this once, and it was because the street level I had created was below the "real" ground plane.

Just did a little reading on the printer. It's quite compatible with a lot of software.