I guess I tried a little to hard to explain. This discussion started with, what should I offer as a pack. Since you seem like a serious person and capable of creating some very amazing work it would be to my advantage to have you create, as you say "decent looking models" at the seemingly impossible size I suggest.
You asked how that would be possible and without giving away the proprietary farm I suggested an approach that might be enlightening.

• Find yourself a solid modeler
• Create a simple object in Sketchup
• Import it into the solid modeler
• Try to have it verified by the modeler as being solid

It all sounds so obscure. Probably because it hasn't been explored.

Remus you would need to see it to believe it as well. I can't answer your question. I wasn't able to explain in the first place or you wouldn't need to ask. It has been my observation that if you build your models using techniques that satisfy solid model verification, they will perform better in Sketchup and in any other model application environment. They are also easier to convert accurately into other model formatts. I suggest this is worth exploring.

Well I am sorry it was a bit painful. I was a few years wondering about this stuff without a clue until I was forced into the solid modeling world. For me/us it is about "what you see is not what you get". Although surface models look great it is what you cannot see that is the problem. It is not an easy subject for me but it has become necessary to understand the differences. As you can understand it is not possible to fix something if you cannot see it. For me the whole exercise has been a revelation in my model building career.

@unknownuser said:

What a pity that a SU genius like yourself cannot master a simple screen capture software. How lucky we are though that you can tell us how great you are.

I must say that made me laugh pretty hard...a few of my colleagues here just about messed their pants.

Solo....I hope this gives you some ideas.
There are many complaints about the speed of SU and its inability to handle large poly counts. In my engine development world which has to remain nameless, the ability to carry heavy models with C++ code is based on the accuracy of the models in the world space. SU is a surface modeler designed for ease of use. It has features that require very complex algorithms, inferencing a good example.
These algorithms are built to make assumptions about the real world space. The placement of faces and edges in Sketchup cannot be described as accurate. As a result, the algorithms need to be very complex and take up a lot of processing time to make assumptions about how the mesh is connected and where each wire is positioned in the real world. As it is, SU does a better job of this than anyone. That is why it is so easy to use.
If you have access to engines that can recognize solid as well as surface models (for the purpose of accurate measurement)in the same environment you will find that the solid models are very easy to work with. Their geometry is true. The algorithms don’t need to churn through hundreds of tests on the geo in order to understand its present state and position. The state is a constant, it is accurate.
On the other hand, if you run an identical model that is not solid, there is a large computing overhead required just to figure out the true shape of the model let along its true position in the world space.
Before Sketchup can move ahead to heavy models and complex meshes it needs to reduce the complexity of the algorithms required to support complex surface models by becoming more accurate in laying down the mesh in the first place.
This is a major undertaking as we are finding out in my little part of the modeling world.
What you can’t see in Sketchup is how inaccurate the mesh really is. It looks perfectly normal. I don’t see any holes in your couch above Solo. On close inspection you will find that it is a mess. It has nothing to do with your modeling. It is a product of the tools. An easier way to explain would be to say you are not seeing all the hidden geometry. You are not seeing the geometry that the C++ algorithms see.
The (proprietary)engine that I use reveals a lot of secrets about real mesh. For example, I can take two models, both modeled in Sketchup, both look the same and the file size is the same. The mesh looks exactly the same (in Sketchup) as well. One of the models was built using the line tool only. The other with all available native tools in Sketchup. Even though the models are materially the same the model built with the line tool can be read, understood and moved with less than half the computing overhead. It has more accurate and consistent real world coordinates and so it is much easier for the C++ to digest without wild algorithms bordering on AI.
What you see is not what you are getting. In order to build more efficient models in SU you need to be able to see the mesh as the C++ would.

Thanks for looking in. My problem is very obscure as I am finding out. Either that or people just don't know you can create complex solids with SU. Just using the push-pull in a model that will eventually need to be solid is a problem. In fact, every model I have applied a ruby to looks like a strainer when converted. Ruby made models just won't float....not even close. I am back to hand stitching and with the primitive tools I am achieving solid models. Even so, model production is still a full order of magnitude faster in SU than it has been in any other CAD app I have used. My interest in this was spurred on by a need to move solids around and measure solids accurately in another BIM/visualization app. If there are still modelers out there who need to produce complex solid models for visualization and measurement they should quickly get up to speed with SU. It is a huge time saver.

@unknownuser said:

200kb medium? wow! that's low in my book, so what do you consider low and do you have any samples of medium and low components that look half decent?

Less than 100k. I'm not going to try and qualify my advise. You know yourself this is a perpetual problem and balancing act between pre-vis quality and model size. If you have the time to put together packs and you are interested in earning a living then I will leave it to you to create decent low poly models. You have got the visualization down, you are a master. I would turn my attention to building effective low poly packs. If this is something you can achieve, I do believe that this approach would help you gain some momentum.

If you are running out of ideas then I suggest you try to build some solids with SU. What you will see very quickly is the basic primitive SU tool set is still most efficient. You will be shocked by the messy, hole laden models that the SU power tools produce, i.e. follow-me, push-pull. This is even more pronounced when you rev up these tools with Rubies. What you are faced with is hard work to achieve what I suggest. You would need to set asside the power tools and see exactly what can be built to your standards with the least number of faces and edges in SU.

My opinion is subjective I will admit based on my modeling behaviour (fever) and content. I also need to be able to convert to solid (in 70% of the cases) which is proving to be possible only with careful model construction.
Regardless, a medium mesh in my libraries would be about 200K.

Solo, you are a great talent and I have learned much from you. Thanks.
The problem I have with most packs is there size.

@unknownuser said:

so far that are medium poly at about 600-800kb.

I don't consider that to be a medium mesh in SU. I really am tired of hiding these objects in another layer until it's time to shoot....using proxy's, splitting symmetricals, etc...etc. Too many hoops for me. I like to be able to see as much in context as I can while modeling without spending hours preparing them.

If you could produce a set of useful objects that are light, I believe they would sell.

Well yes it is a bit of a job...I can understand your wanting to confirm this time. You will just have to take my word for it. I have been using SU from the beginning, 6 to 8 hours everyday, thankfully weekends off. That would put my time in SU just over 10,000 hours. Believe me, once you have that many hours under your belt the whole process becomes a reflex. It is also about shortcuts. One hand on the keys and one hand on the work. It is just like playing an instrument, after hours of practice it becomes an extention of your thinking.

Here is one for you to try out. This matching couch and chair took 44 seconds to build with SU.

I take it that this is not something that is happening often although in a way I am surprised. From my perspective there seem to be many uses for a work flow that allows rapid prototypes that can be coverted and used in solid model applications.

For those who come accross this thread, I've come up with a solution and would be willing to share the technique. To some degree it is related to the way you build with SU. There are certain SU tools that are very inaccurate. But manual stitching solves the problem in these cases. I have actually been able to build models with SU that convert immediately to solid. Rubies are for sure the first thing to avoid as all that I tried create a very leaky mesh that is basically unrepairable. Dfx and drw conversion formats are also basically useless,(for those of you that are struggling with the clean-up) in-coming or outgoing they make the worst mess of all. The best intermediary file type for moving or converting SU files so far has been .stl.

Fast model building....wow, I'm impressed. Can anyone show some Bonzai models in production? Where is the money? or is it just a toy? I see SU earning money everyday. I'd like to see where the potential is for this app. Not hypothetical, real. I would be more inclined to use it if it was a money maker. For the sake of hobby, yes fast modeling is a game we can play. Tell me guys, where is the meat?

First attempt at the model above with SU, 18 seconds, at a leasurely pace. I don't get it??

I find the whole thread to be out of place and a waste of space. The fact that other modeling companies feel they need to trespass here to promote is the first sign of their weakness.

Sketchup has a huge audience. Lets face it, good or bad, there isn't any other surface modeler that works so well and is available to so many. There never will be.

If you think you can come here and convert 1000's of SU users you are fooling yourself, it is too late for that. Where were you 6 years ago??? No original thought then, no original thought now.

I am wondering if others are converting surface models to solid or watertight and if they could relate their experience.

I build models for a group of companies that offer model moving visualization apps for the construction industry. I am sorry to say that I have signed non-disclosure documents so I can't show my work...(not that you would be very impressed based on what I see here...what a wonderful forum!!)

The more complex models need to be solid or watertight. I have been using the CADSpan service to convert models to .stl as these files seem to be the easiest to verify as solid. I have also tried Magics to clean up models for conversion.

The problem is volume. I have a very large inventory of models to build and clean-up. Although CADSpan is a great service I find it is a bit slow and I am worried about the sheer numbers that I need to be able to produce.

Any thoughts/ideas on surface to solid conversions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!
Heb

I'm not a big ruby fan. Some of the early basic scripts are great but I have found those that I have tried recently a little bloated, inconsistent in the way they load, and unpredictable. My modeling skills have improved greatly and so, as has been mentioned, many rubies take longer to set-up and clean-up then my normal manual workflow in many cases.

I am also concerned with the large poly count some use to get simple things done. I used rubies everyday a year ago. I would say my use has dwindled to once a week.

Some of my favorite rubies are more for play than anything else. They don't often get into the work-flow for customer work anymore.

I appreciate the hard work of all who contribute rubies. I believe that it is probably a good idea to purchase your rubies though (from Smustard or equiv). Freebees sometimes come with more than you bargain for in headaches.

I think it is a memory issue with SU7. I have trouble from time to time now in 7 with models that didn't clip in 6. I had no clipping issues in 6 at all.

The last time it started to happen with a large model I checked processes and found about 15 different updaters and CRM .exe. They where sitting in the background and their periodic calling out was taking up resourses. I shut down the installers and updaters. I also closed any other processes that where running but not necessary.

Of course if you want your updates you need to turn them back on or reboot. So, I went out and found a piece of software that would allow me to leave all these processes in background running but inform me when they fire up and try to call home. The software is called ZoneAlarm. You can just turn the internet connection off completely or you can have Zonealarm watch individual processes and ask your permission.

I know this may be isolated but my clipping problems where CPU related not GPU.

Good looking render. Just the roof material and the post material seem to stick out. I'd be fooled if it wasn't for them.

That's interesting Alan. Thanks!

Not sure why you would want this but you only need to flip the texture once, then take an eyedropper sample. The texture can now be painted in that direction with the paint bucket on anything else. Same method works for scaling the texture.

@unknownuser said:

Its a good idea to dull the background with a image editor before you do this
blending is part of the watermark settings. The fade or blend is visible as you change it to suit.

The watermark is great as the guys have pointed out. It is also possible (without using the watermark) to just stand up a rectangle and place an image of a background on it, or any other 2d image you create.