The interior is going to be a challenge which makes it all the better.

Ok these rendered images had a space scene in the background but for some reason they didnt export when saved, strange but i hope you get a better understanding of the scale and the work that has yet to be done to the interior, will update this sunday evening and look forward to your opinions and critisism.

After seen Marians WIP of a spaceship in the forums and featured in catchup10 edition i couldnt resist in attempting a starship of my own, so i did a little research and found a few articals of ships what may look like in the future to reach even the nearest stars, i stumbled across a right up in the Focus science magazine and i came across a few images of what they may look like and how they would be powered, so i based this model on an image and made a few modifications, iv being modelling this for the past few days and may i also mention iv started the interior, would love to hear your taughts on this WIP and if possible some advice, after all its my first spaceship/starship

oh yes i modelled 2 versions but remember its early wip

I'm going to play with this for a few days, see what can be done with it, it looks like fun

@mike lucey said:

Looks like you guys are joining up all the dots They say a 'plane' in the article, but so is the X100. Did anyone read my article on the X110 in last month's CATCHUP

Yes of course, trimbles x100 is exactly which they are mentioning as the plane in the post above, I don't know if you agree with me but I'm convinced

Didn't I mention this in another post, it is very like what Trimble provide, 3D scanning, my theory is Trimble have a plan where SU and their 3D scanning capabilities become combined, we have seen the IOS maps soon to be released, the screen shot above of googles new maps is very similar to the IOS maps, in fact they are extremely similar, I believe Trimble and google are working together on this project and SU was required by Trimble as a bargening chip, it's just a theory

That would be very useful in SU, looks like SU

@michaelv said:

@iichiversii said:

Just another taught, or should I say question, if you were to create the same Model twice at the same scale, 1 made with tris and the other with quads would the number of polygons in the model created with tris be greater than the 1 made of quads, or would I be completely wrong?

I don't know but here what I think:
1- It depends on the program, and the rules for creating the polygons
2- It depends on what is important (level of resolution, where) for each type
3- Why is the "greater" important? If it's to assess speed, it also will depend on speed of treatment, if you have less quads but they take longer to be treated, then no gain in speed right, so what is really the worry about the number?

It's of no great importance, the size, just a quest for a better understanding of topology and the pros and cons of quads and the difference between them, that's all, I myself needed a better understanding of good topology and hopefully this will help others who seek a better understanding also in the future

@phil meadows said:

A functional Millenium Falcon.

Didn't some crazy inventor create a life sized Replica of th Falcon in his backyard, I'm sure he made a speederbike hybrid which functioned as a hovercraft, not only is he an inventor but a star wars fanatic

Just another taught, or should I say question, if you were to create the same Model twice at the same scale, 1 made with tris and the other with quads would the number of polygons in the model created with tris be greater than the 1 made of quads, or would I be completely wrong?

A remote to shut the woman up, ooh the joys

Thanks lads, I finally understand the term topology, cheers for your help

@unknownuser said:

Blender for example has a command during edit mode to "convert tris to quads", and as long as the arrangement of your triangles from sketchup is based on quadfaces, the conversion works very well.

So in other words proper planning and perpetration of tris in SU, converted to quads in blender can create good topology?

@unknownuser said:

But why are you burying this topic in the board issues forums? Should go to SketchUp or similar

Sorry wasn't sure where to post

Iv being researching the term topology, but not understanding it completely, from what iv gathered so far is quad based meshes are better than tri based meshes for topology, and as we all know working with quads in SU when creating organic models is a no no, SU splits quad meshes into two triangles. ( yes Rich I know, Blender).

Most 3D modelling software allow us to work with quads and effectively ie blender, 3D Max, and the list goes on. If you import a quad mesh into SU like I said about SU converts that mesh into two triangles, so there for its no longer a quad, this I understand so far, so I have a question, if I were to create an organic model in SU using tri meshes which I would have no other choice, Is there a way to convert to quads for use in other 3D applications resulting with good topology?

Also could someone give a breif example of good and bad topology of the same model so I can understand it better, thank you

My research of good topology continues

So I take it what ever changes are coming will be announced in da coming wk, I hope this goes in our favour

Looks great and well done, can we see a painted version?

Said I would add another post to this to get it bk up there with the new topics, looks great

This is fantastic, I want it...