In SU6 there is no checkbox for georeferencing under Window->Model Info->Location. If you alter the latitude/longitude entry or just select a place from the drop-down list the geo location you referenced with import of the Google Earth Snapshot will be overwritten without alerting you. I had a hard time to figure out and eventually had to re-import the Google Earth Snapshot and position my model on it again. I thought I should note this because many users are still using SU6 in their native language versions.

Regards,
Lorenz
http://www.HausFilm3D.de

Hi Gai,

thanks for reviewing. I'll go ahead and edit the model and textures and see what happens with the next layer update.

Hi modelhead,

@unknownuser said:

... because they are silent most of the time (they don't talk about whether GE is standing on its own two feet) they sometimes cause people to loose interest.....not a good thing. I'd like to know what the GE metrics look like and how GE effects Google's bottom line.

I accept the frustration many people feel who started geo-modeling two or three years ago. There obviously was a lack of support and emphasis on Google's side, then. You can simply tell it from looking at gorgeous collections from modeler's that stopped publishing after a couple of month.
However, I think, the Google folks recently have shifted their attention to promote any imaginable use of linking geo data to Google Maps and Google Earth. It seems logic if you keep in mind that Microsoft and Yahoo are developing similar applications. It's a struggle about who will be ahead in collecting and hosting more valuable third party geo data. Prospects are endless with more people every day getting access to broadband internet all across the world.

I can't say anything bad regarding support by Google staff. My models got reviewed and accepted within 2-3 weeks and Google staff have replied to a couple of inquiries very fast. Implementing content provided by thousands of users every day into a graphics engine and making it 'legal' so everyone can enjoy is quite a challenge. So I don't feel my patience has been stressed to a point where it boils over, yet.

Regards,
Lorenz

http://www.hausfilm3d.de

Well, since Bruce Polderman and Allison Floyd outlined the new 3d pipeline in the official GE Blog http://sketchupdate.blogspot.com/2009/06/weve-retooled-3d-building-pipeline.htmlI figured what's causing some of the glitches with my model

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

(sketchup.google.com)

However, I have no explanation yet for these two flaws:

Upper: Fire Hall on GE 3D layer
Lower: Fire Hall KMZ as exported to local copy of GE

1.) Why there is this visible step in quality degradation on the front side texture (lower arrow)? It's just one face. The texture was photoshopped applying a couple of cloned patches with the stamp tool but all of them had the same resolution as the original brick texture. After all, degradation doesn't occur along the edges of the stamped patches. I am unable to reproduce that effect in whatever image processing software I tried.

2.) Why did the lower part of the amber sun shader geometry get deleted from the model (upper arrow)? When switching between the KML file exported to my copy of GE and the model visible on the 3d layer I get the impression any group and component is getting scaled down for a tiny amount. But that doesn't explain what happened to the geometry in this case.

Can anybody help? Thanks in advance.
Regards,

Lorenz
http://www.hausfilm3d.de

Gai,
Thanks for the suggestions and your fast reply. I'd rather edit my model and take care of other glitches as well than submit it the same way as before. Do you (or anybody else) know if there is an issue with the transparency of genuine SU materials? I could have easily used semi-transparent PNGs but at the time I worked on the model they weren't displayed properly.

Regards,

Lorenz

Hi all,

With yesterday's update another one of my models got accepted for the 3D layer.
Geotag is
52.8339889 N, 13.4072684 E

As I was aware of several flaws I never was prepared for what Google's optimization process would do to the model.

• Some faces have been triangulated in a weird and inefficient way.
• Textures on a couple of faces appear heavily blurred while the same textures are acceptable where I used them on adjacent faces. On one face the texture got blurred on part of the face but not on another part. There is no line separating the geometry.
• Semi-transparency on SU materials is gone. I applied genuine SU materials (60-75% opacity) on window panes. They are opaque now.
• One group of the geometry got partially deleted from the model. The instances next to it remained there.

Does anyone know what the optimization process is technically doing? Some of it doesn't make sense regarding efficiency. It also seems to be not consistent. Is all of the optimization atomated or does Google staff put their hands on the models afterwards? Is it wise to rework the model "the opposite direction" of what the Google process will do to it?

Thanks in advance,

Lorenz from Berlin, Germany
http://www.hausfilm3d.de