It depends on if you want to have a texture or a object (like a standalone face as a fence).
For making materials the how-to's above are correct.
If you want to have a "standalone-object" like fence, people, tree whats-of-ever you'd have to do it like this:
Nice! (Nice!)
May i ask why you did use corel painter?
I prefer corel draw to illustrator, but i didn't find corel painter very handy- at least compared with sketchbook pro (autodesk).
I expect, you draw the watercolor-effects in painter- but why not in photoshop itself?
Probably corel painter is merging colors watercolor-like when you draw different colors over others?
@simon le bon said:
A house under the sign of the squirrel seems to me.
From my point of view it always depends on the clients likings, the concept and the environment.
The house itself is a very nice, cosy, diversified concept fitting great onto it's site.
The trees and the landscape as well fit the overall "embedded ito nature" concept- if that's what it should represent.
Therefor my vote goes to no. 4 but keeping no.3 with you as a "model visualisation".
Maybe the POV of no. 4 should be a different one.
No. 2 is different but nice as well.
Btw, likings of presentation really differ between countries, cultures and continents.
Probably Canada is closer to America concerning this (i hope you don't mind me expecting this)
as eg. Europe, where visualisations are presented very differently.
No. 5 and 6 are a little bit overdose and as said maybe a bit out of scale as well
If no. 5 was showing a little more of the environment and wasn't completely covered with dark, shady trees all around
it would be a nice one too.
The road towards the garage seems to be a bit narrow- hard to get back down the hill backwards..
You say it's located at the west coast of canada- with a view opening to the sea??
Anyway, i would show more light, maybe show trees and so on one side, light and view down the slope on the other..
Hi,
i'd like to present this model i was working on as a personal practice for architectural visualization.
Based on "House in Wakakusa" by Masaaki Okuno, changed in several parts by me.
It's not completely done, (what i wanted to achieve in this project) but i don't know if i'm going to continue on this.
(There should have been more interior details etc.)
It was modeled entirely in SU and processed in Vray for Max for some reason.
As all could be done in SU except the environment (which could have been added later as well) i thought to post it here.
It's just the pure render output, no postprocessing and no populating with people etc.
I know what i'm gonna watch next weekend!
Nice model, maybe some texture improvement on the asphalt, tires and bumpers, then it will look really nice!
That simple. 
Nice flowing and great poly modeling!
Yep,
twisting glass is a different story, eg. if you have a look at the "Elbphilharmonie"
Quote: "The windows themselves are a masterpiece of engineering. Never before have glass panes been separately marked, coated and then shaped at 600° C with millimetre precision. The curvature of each pane depends on the particular area of the building."
Necessary? I don't know..
Yes, i love the lattice plugins, i use latticemaker / latticizer for all windows at least in the early design process. It's great what you can do with it.
And i can get to quite good results building something, eg. a skyscraper and use "twist" on it. (Even if the glass gets twisted which results in hard-to-produce-in-reality elements, but it looks good and it's alright in the designing process)
Like this (early stage render)
But what about having a selection on faces, eg. of a lofted surface, and "attaching" one certain component to each of these faces, no matter if they are sheared, large or small, bend, whatever. The result would be a smooth surface in the look of the base component.
Even if the ability to change the base component later and change all "morphed" instances at the same time would be lost it would be a great tool- wouldn't it?
@mitcorb: I'm not sure how to understand what you mean, but bezier patch sounds good
I downloaded the training edition on tgi3d amorph, it's quite limited in vertices but that's ok.
After the first yippieh came the oohh..
As seen on the image or better the attached skp-file the warper can give nice results- but "destroys" components as well ("full" method). Only the "affine" method keeps components intact and morphes them somehow- but the result i would consider veery good.. Not really usable for me at least..
Maybe there is no way to eg. have some "reference points" of a component which are placed onto according points of a certain face- and all elements of the components are stretched etc in relation to the reference points. (I think this is somehow how FFD, twisting etc work internally(interpolating)).
But doing this and keeping these objects "linked" to it's basic component is the problem- maybe this is even out of sketchup's possibilities..?
I could live with it before and for sure it would be great to see some of these "extensions" in another SU release. It would really be
Who doesn't dream of a program that is simple polymodeling like SU and has the power of rhino, max and maybe some other features from somewhere..
..at least i do.
Exactly!
That's the point, too bad it's there and not here
It's this feature, the warper object with a group of components.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dodRTudzEJw
Maybe it's time for investing some money..
At least when i need it it's good to know that is there.
@unknownuser said:
And see also all this thread
I did (a couple times )- and downloaded the ceiling grid ruby as well to see if i maybe have misunderstood sth..
Hm, but i don't know how this should be doing the job.
My post was written while you did post this link btw, therefor my post was an answer to yours before.
Another image to make it a little clearer:
If i did it the way you proposed..
@harnstein said:
the problem then would be that you'd be left with as many unique components as you had faces.
..or am i wrong?
Hi Pilou,
the problem then would be that you'd be left with as many unique components as you had faces.
I meant if it would be possible (somehow) to make changes to a group of components eg. twisting
but keeping their "base information" of one copied component intact?
Like if you have a component which you can scale but still is the same as the unscaled original one..
-edit- The goal would be that you can draw a shape and "fill" faces with one component. And if you make changes to the component all components in the whole shape change accordingly.
Even if it would only work on a base of a eg. four sides only component which is placed on a four sided face according to it's edges / vertices would be great
Just an idea. Having something like Rhino's paneling tools in SU.
It would be great..!
I came across this thread of 2010 about parametric modeling http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=289&t=30749 which was very fascinating at that time and still is.
Quoting Jeff Hammond from there
@unknownuser said:
I should note though that I wasn't using grasshopper which is more in tune with this topic.
I was using rhino's paneling tools. If you want a sweet ruby idea, download the paneling tools manual and check out some of the example functions.
(on a phone but I'll try to get a link)
Edit:
http://wiki.mcneel.com/_media/labs/panelingtoolsmanual.pdf.
i was thinking about making a wall of components and adding a "modifier" like twisting to it.
Result is shown below, not a surprise.
Would it be possible to make eg. a wall of a number faces which are instances of one single component or are made into instances of one component- and then get twisted, ffd'd or similar while keeping it's reference?
Or would it be possible to have eg. a wall consisting of faces, which (maybe must) have the same number of edges, faces and vertices and "apply" some component to each face. Like it's stretching each element of the component in relation to the size of it's related elements of each face?
Another level or will it just stay a dream?
Just a dream.. 
Yep, that's what i do.
Open component / group (for sure selected all components which are going to be different and made them unique first) select wanted edges and use the move tool.
I have a personal 3d model library where i take eg. a window from and use this technique to "scale" it into place. Works fine even if you have complex geometry like all this little details of an aluminium or steel window.
PS: A "select sub-group objects" plugin (to move all edges of eg. a window at once) would be great, but a little handcraft is alright as well.
These pictures were taken from this thread http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=289&t=30749 about parametric modeling in SU.
If you have a look at other 3d programs, or. eg. grasshopper for rhino, you'll find that these results were archieved with the use of an "attractor" in conjuction with "chained" elements.
I cannot explain this in detail (i didn't how anyway ) but if you're interested just give it a look.
I find it very interesting as well as it gives you designing opportunities which are very hard to achieve by hand.
Good luck!
@anarchist86ed said:
well flipping it works, but it feels dirty.
Anyway, new problem. I have half my model mirrored, but I need to make changes to one side and not have it on the other. How do I keep the mirroring, but disable making changes on the opposite side of the model?
As Dave stated you could make one side unique, but then it won't be mirrored (as an instance) anymore.
(The result are two independent components)
If there are some changes like adding elements to only one side, you'd have to exit the mirrored component and add these outside to the component.
If you want to make changes to one side itself, then you have to make it unique.
@pbacot: Yes, i will definitely change my handling of elements / layers and therefor "Default Layer Geometry" comes in very handy.
@mac1: Thanks there are projects i could say these are my own design only, but to give credits honestly, this one is based on a design by Masaaki Okuno Architects (House in Wakakusa) as well as i've changed it in many parts. I did choose this one to test some visualisation methods- and i love japanese architecture! (But there are some really strange elements sometimes..)
I was as well surprised about the filesize, there are components used almost wherever possible.
There are no obsolete layers / elements, no big textures and libraries got purged...
It's probably just the amount of data / elements (many objects beveled etc..)
Not a big deal, this one's not going to be uploaded to the warehouse or sth. (at least because there are some parts not modeled as they will not be seen later). Maybe i'll post the results in the gallery then..
The bad thing about eg. scaling components is, that if you have some more complex geometry (eg. even beveled edges), it will shrink / expand everything in relation to the scaling center..
Ok, i understand.
I'll keep that in mind for the next project.
Thanks
-edit- Now, after this i by chance came across this thread about the same: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=42572&p=378567&hilit=explode+plugin#p378567
Good morning,
and first of all thanks for your effort
and second i want to apologize again if someone got me wrong..
English is not my mother language, maybe i missed the fine nuance of making jokes
at least in a written way. I'm a friendly and polite person.
None of the things i said, what made me smile or gratulating for 500 posts was ment to be unfriendly.
Just nice.
I am reading and listening, trying to understand what people tell me.
I stated that maybe i have misunderstood something in the answers.
Thank you for this link to google, i did read that before but honestly didn't put that much importance into the notes.
I did not know that layers only toggle visibility- or where the difference would be compared to other progs.
I'll find out later.
Finally, at the end of the quotation it's describing my problem.
It's not a big deal in SU but causes problems when being exported, but there are ways to overcome this as well.
I know that the sample file i proposed was carrying errors- it was on purpose to show the problem.
I tried to explain the problem as precise as possible, because i don't think attaching the project file would help.
Here it is with a problem discription included.
It's zipped because it's file size was 5,5 mb.
120218 japan house.zip
Could you please tell me what you mean with "raw" geometry or what may be the rest ("fine" geometry)-
i interpreted raw geometry in the context of this thread as being lines and faces not grouped together.
I don't know how i can explain the problem any further right now, if there are still some questionmarks left
please tell me and i will try to explain.
Niko
PS: I can move all elements of layer 0 nested in groups which are on other layers by showing one layer after the other, selecting everything and use "putonlayer". It works and it's ok, as i said. Being able to show elements of a unhidden layer, even if they are nested within a group of a hidden layer, would be beneficial anyway.
PPS: Please don't mind the roof drainage or any other wrong parts of the model, they will not be visible at the end.
Sorry,
i didn't want to show off, don't get me wrong, i just wanted to clarify that i know how SU works..
I think, i know..
I think it depends how you like to work or how you are used to it (or maybe how the office wants you to work).
I, as stated, do it as well like this- draw everything on layer 0 and later put everything in place.
I have no raw geometry at all, that's the problem btw.
Maybe i have misunderstood sth. here.
I have a model with many objects on many layers. I made some minor changes, added bevels etc.
Overall it was quite a lot in the end. And finally i found out that new geometry was created while layer 0 was active.
The result was the problem i was asking for help with.
Anyway, i solved it now by using the mentioned plugin..
I just wanted to know if there is a workaround for this.
Thanks for the help so far, if there is any additional solution please let me know.
Thanks, but that's not the problem.
Made me smile
I'd consider myself being somewhere in the advanced SU level..
Didn't you run into these problems as well before?
Just be able to tell SU not to hide elements of a unhidden layer even if they are nested in a group which is on a layer which is hidden?
The main problem here seems to be that i can't really explain what's the main problem, right?
Btw, happy 500 (posts)
