Microsoft has put an end to your need for any third party help with:
onetouch.com - virus scanner (free at the moment)
defender - anti-trojan (always free)
xp/vista - built in firewall (or free ZoneAlarm by Checkpoint)

That was an enjoyable read tig.

Microsoft has closed the loop on virus, anti-trojan and firewall software.

Microsoft Defender - free anti trojan and spy

Microsoft OneCare - full free anti-virus scan software - onecare.live.com

Microsoft - built in Firewall xp/vista

or another free alternative firewall - ZoneAlarm by Checkpoint

With these free pieces in place the personal pc "security for pay" market can now go take a bath. Kick your Norten to the curb!

This one is in the middle.

Had a spare moment. I may have gone to far the other way. If it doesn't work let me know and I will send a few tonight.

I will thin it out for you. I'm going to be tied to my desk for the afternoon. I'll send you a revised version(s) tonight.

Try this one. The carbon fibers may be a bit thick. If so let me know I will retry.

Acropolis and the Push-Pull city renders have an unusually pleasing style. Thanks for posting, they are very enjoyable.

Interesting thoughts.

@unknownuser said:

A musical piece composed of.... nothing but silence.

The words provoked a sound for me. As I realized I wasn't getting the sound right it struck me that silence would have no sound. I didn't click on the link. I had already heard the music.

To get the record straight:

I took considerable time (many hours) first of all to experiment with model mesh. I did my best to explain. Solo ignored. I took from that that he didn't think my advise was appropriate. That would suggest that I should not continue in his thread. I posted in another thread for those who have an interest in further optimization of their models. Funny, Solo came out of the woodwork. As I suspected, he dismissed the advise immediately.

Now I'm being dogged by you.
Remind me to not put my hand up.

@unknownuser said:

you claim a superior result to Solo's

Speaking of wild claims. Back that one up!
I have posted models that demonstrate the point made in the post.

I will take this as genuine and further, put myself in this man's shoes. I'm sure he has shed a thousand tears. I understand your doubt but it is easy to be cynical.

@unknownuser said:

I suppose I do not wilt to every sob story or believe everything I read without question. I tried to be as respectful and sincere as possible.

Some things are better left unsaid.

Best of luck to you. As you can see most are willing to help. There are a few here that showed their age. Don't be thrown by it, stick with it. There is for sure a way for you to make some money. Work hard, stick close to the forum.

Good question. The models that I have been building have simple to moderate meshes. The list of advantages this method provides is growing. I'm sure there is a point of no return where the difficulties that have to be overcome forgo the effort. I haven't found this to be the case yet. I will continue to build this way for certain components. As I continue I will let you know if I hit a wall with a complex mesh.

The advantages so far:
smaller files
ability to carry more instances comfortably
faster navigation
0 rendering apparations
very clean import and export

edit: I have no need for 3d printing. It just happens that the STL is the most accurate itermediary file type.

This got started somewhere else and I though rather than continuing to tresspass in another thread I would start my own.

I am finding an unusual way to look at SU models to check the soundness of the model. It is in an effort to produce models that are cleaner, easier for SU to read, perform without unusual behavior in any renderer, can be moved to other modelers and formats and retain their integrity and will verify as solid in a CAD application. These files are as well "watertight" by default.

If you have a need to get this possessed with improving your models or if you are packaging your models for universal application I suggest you give this a try.

You need a CAD or Solid modeler and an app or service that will convert .skps to .stl. to experiment this way.

What you see below are images from my solid modeler.

The first mesh is a skp file that has been inspected.
It is a mess.

It was built this way:

half profile by hand
copied inplace and mirrored
Additional rectangle added to extend the bottom of the profile
new profile pulled along original

The second mesh is a skp file made with modified profile that was complete. (no additional rectangle required)
It is very clean, slight file size improvement, 13k to 10k

Copied inplace and mirrored
removed face
healed
pulled to length

As you can see SU has had to work much harder at defining the first shape than it did the second.
There is no doubt that the overhead required to carry the first model in SU is larger than the second.

When this is multiplied say to 100 copies there is a real difference in the performance between the first model and the second.

The last image is the same model one corner swept manually with follow-me (looks clean) on the second corner I set the path by highlighting the lines and clicked (it's a mess)

Although this type of process is time consuming It is providing many advantages in my environment.

Have fun!!

It depends on how the models are deployed. It is painful as a modeling process but gratifying in the end to have models that can easily be used for many purposes in and outside sketchup. In the end it does make a big difference within Sketchup in both model navigation and appearance. They also behave better in a renderer as they are watertight. As a side to this you are forced to work at a slower and more considered approach to everything and it is true, "haste makes waste".

I think solo may feel I have trampled his post so I will leave it with you to ponder.

@unknownuser said:

i think its more to do with SUs inability to create watertight meshes, as these are what would be needed or a solid modeller.

I'm saying SU can create watertight models. I am building them and they are more efficient in SU.

@unknownuser said:

Hebrides, surely importing poly objects in to a solid modeller is a very inefficient way of doing things, as your going to have way more faces than you need in your solid modeller.

Of course but, doing what? It happens to be the best method I have found for determining how good the SU mesh really is. It is the most efficient way to improve an SU model that is already well made.

This is very much appreciated. Thanks for your generosity.

I'm sorry...I have not used a free solid modeler so I can't point you to one. But any CAD capable software makes solids. I would expect there are some free ones.

Hopefully a free one that can open a .stl and verify that it is a solid. I have tried this with other common formats including dfx/drw but the conversion from .skp is such a leaky mess it is not easy to repair. The solid modeler will complain forever about non-primitive elements and intersecting geometry, lines not sharing an even number of faces, The solid modelers will list the primitives and let you inspect/repair/delete/ so that if your import is clean enough you need only to satisfy a few complaints and you have a solid. In a way the solid modeler is teaching you how to connect things so that it can interpret easier. It helps point you to the places in your model where sketchups math doesn't fit well in a solid model scenario. So you go back to the original su model and you insect these areas. Your inability to verify your model as solid may turn out to be the tool that you used to create the shape. Although the tool is effecient in SU, it is just not going to be identified easily by the solid engine. So I am suggesting, with some practice, your models will perform better in SU even though there doesn't appear to be any differences from the original visible mesh or the file size. This is the behaviour I am experiencing. I am building most models that go into production to emulate solid now. Everything works better.

Sorry, forgot: There are tools available if you look, that will convert a .skp to a .stl. The guys in the 3d printing business have them. I suggest this is the best intermediary conversion format I have found to experiment this way. I have to leave finding the solid modeler to you. The one I am currently using is not a matter of choice. It just happens to be in use where I work. It is not free