If you put a negative value in the "Shift" field, you have to do the same for the "Water Level" (But you can put a large value, like -100, so you're sure it won't interfere)

BTW, normally a positive shift will raise the displaced face, and a negative value will lower it. I gess in your case the face is reversed, with the back face looking up. And to get this displacement, I guess in your displacement map the tiles are black and the joints white ?
Reverse the face and invert the displacement map. You'll get the same displacement, but with the shift value working normally (Positive will raise the face)

You should play with the "shift" value to fix this.

@thomthom said:

But that works by default anyway...

Yeah, I didn't know ^^
I saw a tutorial once saying to do it this way, and never questioned it...

The Skp 2sided lets you assign a different material to each side of a polygon. To be honest, I didn't even know Vray supports having different materials assigned directly in SU. So for the ceilling trick, I always used the Skp 2sided.

There is a difference between "2sided Mtl" and "Skp 2sided Mtl".

Even Duke Nukem Forever !

Wait...

@andybot said:

I don't think the displacement would render if it wasn't...

I thought so, but I found out that it does in some cases. (Even though I don't know exactly when... But it seems to be more gentle when the connected geometry is in default mat)

@rspierenburg said:

If that is the area you are looking to have grass an option would be to look at the Sketchup Fur Plugin. It creates actual low-poly grass that looks a lot better than a displaced texture IMO. Just a thought.

Rob

Yeah, and you get 20min of parsing time ! Great

Mingjae, is the grass plane isolated alone in a group or component ?
Also, you can try to untick the "Keep Continuity" option in your grass material.

http://www.rendernow.co.uk/render-farm/
http://www.garagefarm.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=28

I don't know how it's called in english. In french we call it something like "standing timber". It's a bunch of small wood planks with the fibers vertical instead of horizontal.
A bit like this but more randomly placed :

Or this :

My latest project as an architecture student.
Sketchup + Vray + Photoshop

@jbacus said:

Really, you won't. Memory isn't the bottleneck that needs widening to make larger and more sophisticated models.

We wouldn't run out of memory when rendering with Vray...

I wrote this a few days ago :

@jiminy-billy-bob said:

@arail1 said:

1. Ability to zoom in to detail without clipping plane problems

I find it annoying too, but I believe it's a technical problem, inherent to the OpenGL technology, not SU itself. Plus, if it disappears, we wouldn't be able to zoom through geometry.

@arail1 said:

1. Ability to zoom in to detail without clipping plane problems

I find it annoying too, but I believe it's a technical problem, inherent to the OpenGL technology, not SU itself. Plus, if it disappears, we wouldn't be able to zoom through geometry.

@jason_maranto said:

Yes, in modern architecture (which I often find sterile and unappealing) you find those shapes less, but in classical architecture more often in the ornamentation (which is often very sculptural/organic) than you might notice at first

Yeah, well, like you say : That's ornementation, not architecture !

I agree with you about the organic modeling without plugins in SU. But you should know that organic architecture is a niche, really. Look around you, do you see this type of buildings very often ?
And still, there are plugins

Though, I don't agree about the whole "square-boxy" thing. You can do much more than that in naked SU. We are not limited to ortho modeling, we can do diagonals, and some type of curves like circles or ellipses. And everything else is just a clever combination of these (Except organic, of course)
Just look at some modern buildings in your city, and wonder if you can do them in sketchup.

@jason_maranto said:

I also don't buy the architects POV as being the most important one here -- better general modeling tools and capabilities benefit all users equally... there is absolutely no reason to be against SketchUp developing better general modeling functionality.

I think nobody is against that !
Here we are arguing about what you said : That SU is near useless and can't compete with other 3D softwares.
My first contribution to this thread was about SU's speed.

@jason_maranto said:

I do wonder how much of that sentiment is driven by the fact that you all use it for architecture? It seems logical that your perspective would be heavily biased due to your desired output.

I would be curious what users from other disciplines have to say about this...

Given the fact that Sketchup was design for architecture, it seems fair that the most important point of view is the architects' one.

Without its plugins, SU is still a wonderful tool for developping architecture designs, though obviously less powerfull. And I would still use it for my projects.

I think its real strength is not in the plugins, but in the deep core basis. Its engine.
Plugins are just awesome bonus

(BTW, sorry for my poor english, I'm french...)

@jason_maranto said:

SketchUp is meant to be a general modeler -- not an "architectural sketching" specialist.

Well, I can't agree with that.
Just look at the section planes, the walkthrough fonctions, the matchphoto, the geo-accurate sun, the two-points perspective, the Google Earth integration, the sandbox (for terrains), Layout, dimensions, even some icons are clearly designed for architecture (Views), etc...

So yeah, it may be used for general modeling, but its main purpose is architecture.

@jason_maranto said:

Compared to what? Most of the modelers I've used currently have as good if not better usability/speed than SketchUp, and the UI are leagues better.

Well, in the past few years I tried 3Ds Max, Maya, Cinema 4D, Rhino, Modo, Blender. As I do only architecture, I also compare SU to BIM softwares like Revit and ArchiCAD. Frankly, I never managed to get the same modeling speed as SU in any of these software. The interaction engine, the groups/components fonctionality, etc...
As for the UI, I'm not only talking about the graphic interface, which could be improved, yeah. But about how the user interacts with the geometry.

Sure, SU out-of-the-box is far beyond most of the others in terms of power. But for me, it has its speed.

As always, it comes down to "use the right tool for the right job".
For years I used C4D, for modeling characters and props for video games' mods. I found it really intuitive and powerful. Then, I began my architecture studies. And suddenly, for 3D sketching, C4D became heavy and slow. Discovering SU was a slap in the face.
I still often have to use 3Dsmax for rendering purpose, as SU doesn't handle heavy vegetation. And when I do, my only wish is that I could model in it as I do in SU.

So yeah, if you need modeling power, move on to something else. I need a good and fast architectural 3D sketching software, and for that I found nothing better than sketchup.

@jason_maranto said:

OK, you tell me what exactly SketchUp does better than any other package?

Ease of use, usability, intuitive UI and ergonomy. I model a loooot quicker in sketchup than any other modeling software. I also like its precision, and the WYSIWYG system.