Posts made by dsarchs

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?

I can only see a person being stabbed through the back by their own hair and screaming in agony...

Nice rendering, though.

Franklyn,

thanks for posting, but to be useful in SketchUP the images need to tile seamlessly (or be made to do so), and have the most even lighting possible.

I think this is a great look. It does NOT look quite photorealistic, but that's not a bad thing. The image looks reasonably realistic but more importantly compelling and artistic. You've presented the bathroom design highlighting the intent beyond strict adherence to reality. Without looking at the image, in my mind I can still see crisp dark blue walls contrasting to an overly-bright (almost washed out) exterior and also contrasting (the dark blue) to the almost desaturated floor. Dim interior vs. too bright exterior. It's a great look.

For a long time (in art) perfect realism was a goal of painting; the introduction of cameras questioned the value of that. There had to be something you were attempting to show BEYOND a verisimilitude of reality. (For any interested here's a great essay by Walter Benjamin).

I think computer renderings are at a similar place -- now we CAN produce perfectly real looking images, but should that be the point? I think what you've done is much more insightful. Great job.

[edit]

Having said that, the TP roll is too perfect -- it looks plastic. If you want to change something that detail would help (model similar to how you did the towel).

That's wonderful! I'd been looking for a way to do that for a while -- this will be huge help!

I'll jump in with my two cents.

I use Thea at work (architecture office) and Kerkythea at home (free). They both work very well/easily with sketchup and either would work just fine for you. If you don't mind paying a bit Thea is the better program (no surprise) but you might not need it.

There are plenty of differences between the two (active development not least) but the two main items I notice switching between the two are displacement and layers. Of these, layers is BY FAR the more important. Displacement is nice, and occasionally I do use it, but it depends on the type of result you're looking for.
Professionally, the images I'm trying to get are meant to show a compelling presentation of the proposed design to the city or a client. Reasonably believable materials and colors are important, as are good shadows (especially to show depth). Either program will do that just fine. Displacement makes for longer render times and more setup. Plus, if they're overdone they look as bad as if they weren't used at all. There are some real artists who use it in their renderings but are you showing closeups that honestly necessitate that detail (possibly) and do you want to spend the extra time required? For me it's rarely worth the time.

I tend to like "pretty good" renderings, that specifically establish the desired/required lighting and shadows, and then finish in post-pro (these are some great tutorials for that). It's faster and gives you good looking results, even if it's not PR.

About layers. When models start getting very large (usually when doing detailed exterior scenes) it's really nice to be able to turn off some variation of: the grass, the cars, the trees, the people, etc. It's such a basic feature but unless I've missed it you can't do that with Kerkythea.
Instead of displacing grass, I usually either use instances (very easy to do in either program) or post-pro as in the tutorial listed above.

Basically, get Thea if the expense makes sense for your business. Since you're just getting it, I imagine you've been doing fine without it in the past and this is just a new (very helpful) area. If that's the case, kerkythea is the way to go; if it works well then upgrade and the workflow if very similar.

Longer post than I intended. Sorry.

Zapwizard, you might be right, that Cryengine is more difficult to create a game with, but for a quick architectural walkthrough -- especially if it doesn't need to have moving doors -- can be VERY quick and get really good results. I think most design professionals would be attracted to this aspect of it, even if it ends up being more cumbersome at creating full games...

Richard,

are you asking me or Zapwizard for a work flow?

I have never been able to get the component browser to work correctly. It always defaults to pointing at the default component pack (which is both useless and I don't use) despite my component path being set properly. I always have to open/create new component directory, or whatever. That works until for that model, but resets for the next. Also, why can't you just browse through directories? You can't even access a parent directory -- only go back to it if you originally came from there.

I'm sure it's something simple like setting up my template correctly, but I've never gotten around to it. It seems like basic functionality that every other program uses -- I get the impression they went out of their way to make it less useful and I don't understand why.

Richard, about the random pieces by the fence -- whenever I put something together I usually find random pieces still in the box when I'm done... I just throw 'em out. Maybe it's the same thing here?

PlayupTools works very will with the new (free) Crynegine 3 (basically Crysis 2).

I had been interested in the Source engine before, but it seems very cumbersome. You can't just export SketchUP models that you would normally make -- in my case, for architecture projects -- but instead would have to model them in a specific, and time-consuming way.

Crysis (Cryengine 3, as above) works much better, for me. As long as your normals are facing the right way you can export normal models directly in to the engine. There's a fairly strict size limit on what can be exported, so complex models usually need to be sent in several different exports, but it's not too much of a hassle. The only real difference is getting a new texture library. You need DDS versions of square (256x256, 512x512, etc.) of the textures you want to use. Once you have these, though, the process is fairly automated.
It CAN get much more complicated if you worry about optimizing models for (playing) the game engine and creating dynamic/moving objects -- but even without worrying about any of that I get good looking results that I can walk through with at least 60 FPS. That's all I need.