Base camp was not encouraging... when he does post, the things he says have not been encouraging... so I can only base my opinions on the information available.

Well, that and the track record -- which has not been stellar. Which combined with the fact that it looks and sounds very much like "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", leads me to be a bit pessimistic.

I would love to be optimistic, and that is more my normal state -- but I have seen nothing to give any hope.

Best,
Jason.

@jbacus said:

Whether you think of SketchUp as a toy or not, performance is really the key issue here. "64-bit" just isn't a technology which delivers the kinds of performance improvement you're looking for. Wouldn't you rather have our development team working on stuff that will make a material difference for you?

I absolutely would like to see the team working on stuff that would -- however there are 2 parts to that:

1. As yet I don't see that they are working on anything that will make material gains to me.
2. I've demonstrated clearly that I know precisely what 64-bit support will mean, and I want it still.

Look, here's the thing, part of the reason I've been so aggressive towards you is you tend to cop an attitude of superiority... whether you mean to or not.

What I mean is comments like this:

@jbacus said:

"64-bit" just isn't a technology which delivers the kinds of performance improvement you're looking for.

I know precisely what I am looking for, and I know that 64-bit will deliver it. To say that I don't and it won't is insulting to my intelligence. Furthermore, you often say things dismissive of the intelligence of SketchUp users on the whole... we get enough of that from outsiders -- we don't need it coming from the top guy of the SketchUp dev team.

I resolved that if you would continue to treat us as idiots, then I would treat you as an idiot as well. I don't need excuses from you, I will help pay to keep your software in business based on what you do, not what you say... you will not be successful in convincing me to do otherwise.

So I suggest you use your time to write new code rather than post on forums arguing why we don't need XZY feature... I suspect if you did, you would find that alot more material gains would be made.

Best,
Jason.

To clarify -- I'm always interested in performance benefits for all users... but Sketchup being what it is, and being limited in the ways it seems it will always be, it would seem to me that the most profitable outcome (for everybody involved) is to give developers the most robust platform (and 64-bit would absolutely be part of that).

One thing that doesn't get mentioned in your posts (perhaps because this doesn't occur to you) is part of the reason 64-bit support is not being clamored for by more developers is SketchUp's ongoing public perception as a "toy" -- therefore, many 3rd party developers won't touch SketchUp. The 32-bit limitation is certainly part of that perception -- and I think more developers would be attracted to the package if some of the development "bottlenecks" (like 32-bit limitation) were rectified.

However, most importantly, I cannot imagine a long-term strategy where Trimble benefits from SketchUp remaining 32-bit... Therefore, I think you are hiding something. After all, the most damning evidence is that going 64-bit is not that hard, for most software companies it is really more of a question of "why not" -- meaning, even if there is no tangible gains now, it is future proofing. Your inane resistance indicates that there is a much more compelling reason (to you) to not do it... one which you are not sharing with us.

Best,
Jason.

@thomthom said:

What we can (and should do) is let them know what feels slow - then let them work out how to address it.

Right, so here's a utterly basic one -- when I work with large files it takes 10-20 minutes to save and open them (forget auto-save it would keep me from being able to actually use the program).

I would like the time to save and open my files to take seconds not minutes... oh, and before the lame excuses start, no other 3D software has the lengthy open and save times (for the same files).

Best,
Jason.

I really get irritated when you keep making it sound as if there is no reasonable need for 64-bit SketchUp... just because you don't see yourself needing it, does not mean there is no legitimate need for it.

In my particular instance it has to do with the Maxwell stand-alone plugin. Which does run within the SketchUp 32-bit process. However, thanks to Maxwell support of huge textures (like Arroway), MXS referencing (which can hold massive geometries like you would find in trees), Pretessellated Displacement (which can generate GBs worth geometric data), and Maxwell Grass (which can generate GBs worth or geometry at render-time) you can easily run out of memory.

These are all features which make the use of SketchUp (with all of it's inherent limitations) a bit more tolerable -- Maxwell makes it possible to do visualization work far beyond what SketchUp would normally be able to produce and do it all inside SketchUp... however there is that absurd 4GB limitation which holds the users back.

I know that this is only one case -- but I'm equally certain that there are many other similar cases where 3rd party developers would very much welcome the capability to work within the SketchUp process (and still have access to more RAM).

Now, since we have established long ago that SketchUp is mostly a platform for better solutions at this point -- what type of weak platform ignores the needs of developers so blatantly? The answer is: one which I will not financially support.

Best,
Jason.

If this is correct (and you would hope sales dept. would know the facts) then I will definitely be upgrading to 2013.

Best,
Jason.

On the subject of mastery -- over the years I have learned alot from the most rank amateurs... likewise I have been astounded at the idiocy of the most well tenured "masters".

The problem as I see it has several layers. But being a "Master" (or "Expert") is essentially a meaningless position... mostly because it is based on 2 things which have little value in the rapidly shifting world of technology. Which is to say "Mastery" is basically an opinion others form about you, and that opinion is based on past performance.

What I would say is past performance only indicates what you knew then -- but in today's world what you know today is rapidly becoming obsolete... if you are not constantly gaining new knowledge/skill you are actually loosing ground. So past performance is really not a very good indicator of the value of an instructor in any type of technological setting.

This is made worse by the fact that many people choose to "rest on their laurels" once they achieve a certain amount of success -- choosing to "stick with what got you here" is a common mindset. That mindset will ultimately lead to mental stagnation and eventual putrification... and in today's world that can happen in just a few years.

I think a wiser course of action is to listen to everybody equally, and approach all who offer advice with an equal amounts of gratitude and skepticism.

Another thing to consider in this instance is successful teaching is its own distinct skillset -- one which is not insignificant in value. If somebody can successfully teach others even the most basic of tasks, then it is of much more value than a person with high level of personal output that cannot successfully explain how he arrived at the result.

However, it should be said I have no particular opinion (favorable or otherwise) on this book or author.

Best,
Jason.

Fair enough, I dropped Photoshop and After Effects after CS2 (and switched to alternative software)... so it was just an semi-educated guess.

Best,
Jason.

Everything in Maxwell revolves around geometry -- so if you create the emitter in such a way that the geometry dictates the light will falloff in a specific way, it will.

That said, the converse is also true, Maxwell is Unbiased and as a result there are not many non-geometrical ways to manipulate light direction/bounces/shape.

Probably the only extra thing to say here would be that you can use a greyscale texture to mask anything (including an emitter). This can fake the appearance of a light that would be difficult or impossible to model (for instance, you can achieve soft-box effects using a simple plane with a masking texture on the emitter).

Best,
Jason.

True emitters emit light from their surface(s) based on the normal direction (front side of faces in SketchUp).

IES materials are not true emitters -- they must be applied to a small sphere and the sphere itself will not emit light.

The reason is: IES is not a light so much as a recording of a real-world lighting fixtures falloff -- that recording was made inside a sphere filled with sensors. So we use a sphere to "play-back" the recording of the original lighting fixtures falloff.

Because of this IES "lights" are best used off-camera -- where you can see the results of the lighting fixture, but not the fixture itself (which does not exist). If you intend to use the IES on-camera then you will need to do some trickery/extra work with another emitter to "fake" things to "look right". However, in Maxwell the intention is when you need to see a light fixture on camera it should be fully modeled and made with appropriate materials (meaning emitters/reflectors/etc.)

The advantage of IES is it will render faster (Maxwell does not need to calculate extra bounces, etc. due to fixture geometry) and still provide the complex falloff characteristics of a fully modeled light fixture -- so they are useful, but like I said, use them off-camera.

There are a ton of IES threads on the Maxwell forum and you can easily find them by doing a search.

Best,
Jason.

For continuous tone greyscale/color images (with no graphic elements) the human eye cannot perceive differences above roughly 180 ppi (DPI is dots per inch for printing, PPI is pixels per inch and is used for computer resolution -- these are not the same thing and should not be used interchangeably).

300 ppi is a normal recommendation for print destined project (seen close up) however this is only appropriate if there are high contrast elements (read: lineart/text/graphics) -- if we are talking photographic elements (renders) only then 180ppi is the max you need. For projects containing lineart/graphics/text 400 -600 ppi is actually a better target than 300 ppi, which is a sort of a baseline for crappy paper.

Ideally you would set up your print destined files in a page layout software and send to printer as a PDF so the text and graphics would stay vector (and thereby be rasterized at the printers maximum resolution -- typically 1200-2400 ppi) and the bitmap elements (your renders) would not need to be any higher in resolution than is needed (the aforementioned 180ppi).

Best,
Jason.

I'm pretty sure all they did was port the After Effects 3D engine into Photoshop for this.

Best,
Jason.

PM me a link to the SketchUp file (and any MXMs you are using) and I'll take a look -- there are too many possibilities to try to guess what could be the issue.

Best,
Jason.

There's no one thing that can make a render more realistic -- it is more a combination of many small things that will make the difference. A few things to be aware of:

• Pay close attention to how the objects exist in the real world -- if they have have rounded/beveled edges make sure your model does too. Any geometric details you add to the model Maxwell will make use of.

• Materials are a huge part of success in Maxwell -- probably the most important thing really. So use/create MXM materials whenever possible -- the current SketchUp plugin can only produce "quick-and-dirty" simple materials for the most part.

• Textures should be a part of nearly every material -- even if it is a simple metal it should still have a bump and/or roughness mapping texture (not to mention anisotropy)... almost nothing is uniformly smooth in reality.

• Use high quality IBL whenever possible -- the Physical Sky/Skydome solutions are usually too homogeneous to give the subtlety of real-world environments in your reflective surfaces.

Best,
Jason

Just to reiterate what I said on those threads:

@unknownuser said:

These are free MXM sets made for the Arroway textures sets of the same name -- these MXM's will not work without the appropriate textures, which can be purchased at http://www.arroway-textures.com/

Directions for using these MXM files:

1. Unzip and place the MXM files into the same folder(s) you have the unzipped Arroway textures.

2. The full-rez MXM sets will only work with the full-rez (png) textures... these will most likely not work properly with the free sample Arroway textures you get when you purchase Maxwell as they are not necessarily the same images/resolution.

If you've got the full-rez Arroway textures in the right folders (with the MXMs) then the only issue could be you may have old files which have the wrong naming convention -- meaning in the past Arroway changed the naming to include an extra zero. Which I also already mentioned there as such:

@unknownuser said:

Also, during testing it was found that the naming conventions of the Arroway textures have changed at some point in the past (adding extra zero's, etc.) and users who have purchased older versions of these sets may find that some MXM's do not automatically find their textures -- the remedy for this is to use FastStone to rename a copy of the textures (keep the original versions unaltered in order to preserve links to any pre-existing materials you might have).

Best,
Jason.

You have to follow the directions in that post precisely to correctly install the materials -- if you read carefully you will see there are 2 sets of materials. The SketchUp (SKM) materials and in another post (linked in that thread) MXM material for Maxwell which the plugin will automatically switch out.

I won't repeat the instructions here since they are very comprehensive in the other thread(s).

As for your interior -- you neglected to mention that you have a Skydome based outside light-source, therefor from a exposure/lighting standpoint it is not the same as a pure artificially lit interior. Disable the Skydome and get the exposure set properly based on your emitter (make sure it is at the proper real-world size and intensity)... after that you can re-enable the Skydome and set its intensity to fit the rest of the scene.

Best,
Jason.

Most likely the camera exposure values are not low enough -- for interiors you generally want an EV of 5-7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Aside from my Arroway materials there's not alot -- if you don't already have the Arroway materials get them here (you'll need to own the full-rez textures): http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=38528

Other than that I'd try turbosquid.

Best,
Jason.

Having done my fair share of graphic design over the years I would have to say it is a pretty poor graphic designer who works/thinks so rigidly... but I'm hardly surprised. The world is full of people who treat "suggestions" as "rules" because they can't (or don't want to) think for themselves.

Of course it may not be entirely their fault -- the quality of education for most graphics designers is pretty low... I've had to "re-educate" dozens of them over the years and all came to the conclusion that their "degrees" were all but useless pieces of paper (and wasted money/time).

Best,
Jason.

CTRL + ALT together work with all 3 mouse buttons to slow the camera movements (rotate/pan/zoom).

Best,
Jason.

Right click on any group/component and you can find it under "Maxwell".

Best,
Jason.