The color is way off, which is distracting, but as for the model itself, the texture orientation on the windows bothers me even more. I assume they're wood -- although the render texture isn't convincing -- but I would take a little time and align the texture with each portion (jamb, sill, header, etc) of the window. A little chamfer wouldn't hurt, either -- just too sharp looking right now.

All that said, it's not a bad render -- those just the things I would recommend doing next time.
Thanks for posting it.

As you said, your model has 170,000 verts and 60,000 is the maximum. You need to break the model into multiple parts and make sure that they have the same origin -- component origin vs. model origin can cause problems for this.
Last thing about importing multiple parts is that you CAN now use multiple materials in each part, define them once in the CryEngine, and apply them to each new part you import. That saves a lot of time.

Good luck.

@unknownuser said:

A machine that will give the correct answer to every question asked of it.

I believe my wife already accomplishes this...

I usually search directly from google using operators.

From your example, try something like:

"plugin managers" site;sketchucation.com

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but a lot of people don't know how to optimize a search.

At a guess PS might have opened it at 72 DPI but also increased the pixel size to account for this.
DPI is only really relevant when matched to a set size (8.5"x11", for example).

If you had a 1920x1080 image exported then at 300 DPI it would make a 6.4"x3.6" image. If PS shows it as 72 DPI then it would be a 26.6"x15" image.

In PS you can then adjust the DPI and the size of the image will adjust accordingly. It's the number of pixels in an image that matter -- not the DPI.

Modelling looks great -- but scratches and wear on the trucks and deck wouldn't hurt.
Great job!

I'd add that deselect-all can be very useful, as well as a hotkey to back out of a group that you are editing (for when you're really zoomed in, so you don't have to zoom out and click outside of the current group).

I love sketchup, but I have to think your friend is basically right -- in that AutoCAD is needed (or similar) but not that sketchup is JUST a toy.

Layout is no substitute for serious detailed drawings. Maybe you can do them in LO but it seems more oriented towards making it possible to document a sketchup model than to replace traditional 2d CAD. With the understanding that I DON'T use layout but have only experimented with it in the past, I would compare LO to photoshop before autocad. Both let you place drawings and add text, lines, etc. LO is just optimized to use SU files.

CAD is still required for its speed, accuracy, XREFs, blocks, and interoperability with other software and consultants.

Sketchup, to me, is more for marketing and exploring design ideas. Possibly even exporting back into autocad, but the line quality for this is so poor I would just use it as a template and draw over the SU linework. No disrespect to SU, but it's still just a hammer and I have to deal with lots of screws and bolts.

or you could just take a picture of an open magazine and model your own pretty quickly.

I would assume 'base maps' means textures to establish UV mapping size/location. Placeholder textures that can be swapped later for better, more accurate ones.

Richard, is that about right?