Quote form Mark Russinovick “ Pushing the limits of Windows: Physical Memory” 21 Jul 2008.
“While 4GB is the licensed limit for 32-bit client SKUs, the effective limit is actually lower and dependent on the system's chip-set and connected devices. The reason is that the physical address map includes not only RAM, but device memory as well, and x86 and x64 systems map all device memory below the 4GB address boundary to remain compatible with 32-bit operating systems that don't know how to handle addresses larger than 4GB. If a system has 4GB RAM and devices, like video, audio and network adapters, that implement windows into their device memory that sum to 500MB, 500MB of the 4GB of RAM will reside above the 4GB address boundary, as seen below”.

For x64 systems SU gets a full 4GB( Large address aware ) memory ,but because SU runs as 32 bit processes the video card etc. still gets mapped below this 4GB SU address limit as noted in the above quote. Therefore, if you have very large video memory like seen in some post ( IE two displays at 1 GB each. They have reported very slow performance.) you may very well have less memory vs what is usually allocated for SU ( 2GB with 4GB RAM installed) on a x32 system with normal video memory ( 200 to 500MB)

The SKU limit of W7 x64 for installed RAM can be as low as 2GB and up to 18Gb? ( The server class is higher) with ,I would guess, most users at 4GB.
If one wants to see their system memory use run devmgmt.msc, change the view to resource by connection, select memory and then expand. One will note your video, along with other items, uses system memory. Using the calculator in the accessories drop down allows easy conversion form hex to dec. and one can calculate the actual MB value allocated.

**The contention is be careful when you configure a x64 system and be aware of memory allocation if large video memory is planned and 32 bit apps like SU are used. Also see this link http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/5816-windows-7-64-bit-ram-issue.html for some possible x64 setup help help.

Correction / addition comments welcomed / solicited**

Several ways to do that but for me I would use the move tool and the auto fold feature of Su;

1. Draw your polygon on the face of the box as you heave shown, connect the points as you have shown, select the gon only , use the move tool to move it up and make sure you lock the direction. Toggle the alt during the move to allow the auto fold. Once you have the base you can repeat the same process for the spire with a smaller gon of course. You can also push pull this smalller gon for the spire up and then use the scale tool to tapper it.
   Just some thoughts

@dparadinha said:

Hello!
I have a skp file of 340Mb (version 8), which sketchup cannot open - it says 'failed to open document' everytime...
my system is a quadcore, 4gb ram, >1gb NV GT220 graphic board.
the file displays the site for a competition, and i really need to open it... should i download it again (could be a problem related to the download) or a 340Mb file should be open on a faster/more Ram machine?
regards,
diogo

Update for you. Have not seen any new post so assume you are no longer interested.
Purged unused materials and model size dropped to 344 MB, mine started at 360;
Edited 18( there are many more to edit) textures reducing pixel resolution from around 2500 to 1024 pixels each. File size down to 314 MB;
Purged unused components and file size dropped to 189 MB( 198,637,699 bytes). However it appears texture lost form a number of "boxes"??

I'll comment again probably where I have no business , but I expressed concern some time ago related to issues with plugins probably costing Google support dollars and if the the issues raised are not brought under control you may will find your self where Google will impose requirements you may not like. Dan Rathburn tried but don't think he had much success.
Secondly: When one talks about problems and SU blame that's very generic and you have to worry memory snd system also. For a 32 bit machine , that means you can only address 4GB but SU only gets 2GB9 If you have 4GB RAM) because the way the MS memory manager works. Even if you have a 64 bit machine and tons of memory SU will still only be allocated 4 GB even though 64B allows much more address than that. Some of these strange artifacts can very well be memory issues. When you have problems watch the task manager and see and understand what it is reporting. Win xp, vista etc are not all the same. See this link if you have some spare time and want to under stand virtual memory, which is what programs get to use, and physical memory. It will make your eyes glaze over?? http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx. and the post here in of opening a 360MB SU file with Win XP pro and 4GB Ram http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39401
Thirdly:It is completely unreasonable to tag Google with any responsibility of running regression testing of any external plugin in the software drop. If you have had to do this you will know what I mean.
Sorry if I am totally out of line

@dparadinha said:

Hello!
I have a skp file of 340Mb (version 8), which sketchup cannot open - it says 'failed to open document' everytime...
my system is a quadcore, 4gb ram, >1gb NV GT220 graphic board.
the file displays the site for a competition, and i really need to open it... should i download it again (could be a problem related to the download) or a 340Mb file should be open on a faster/more Ram machine?
regards,
diogo

I have given info herein how to open. The 4Gb RAM is not enough unless you can set your system to the 3GB switch. Even if you open then what?? All operations will be very slow and will be virtually unusable to you. There is a massive use of material files that is a major contributor to your problem like 245 files at 162,608,425 bytes. I would normally try to help reduce file size but this would require major effort and I cannot spend time on now. The only suggestion I have is to split out the three major SK_XX components and see if could help you. You very well may have to address the material issue even with them.
Let me know if you want to try and follow that route and I'll see if I can get them to you??
BTW are you the model creator? The reason I ask is because even though some materials do not show as texture files looking at the details shows them using a jpg as ref and xml to create which should be at most in the 50k range and some are as high as 3MB. Where did they come from??

Scaled your model down by 1/300, exported as dae, imported back to SU, could not see you problem.

Gaieus
Thanks will look at that.
This model is loaded with image texture files as you would guess and some as high as 4000 pix and is modeled on the inside of a sphere. Maybe that is standard but I have not seen that but usually don't do this type. Its size( 350MB) is only about 1/2 or less of the model. It has many " boxes" made but they need texture added.

16 AUG Update
One can make a new collection using the material browser. This then gives a file model material name and size folder so one can find the large contributors. The down side is one cannot print that from windows explorer but must be done from command propt if you want to print more than just file name. bummer
The file size is 160MB but don't know how that correlates to model size contribution??

Texture image question.
To reduce file size one would would to attack the large contributors first. This means for the image texture I would like to find the skm files because it will have size noted.
I cannot not find the file. Does one have to make a collection first??
Stepping texture by texture through the material editor is too time consuming

Intel p4 3.2GHZ, Intel PERL 865 Mother board, 4GB RAM, Win XP Pro sp3
File opened by by changing the Boot.ini to include the /3GB switch that allows SU 8 to use 3GB RAM vs 2GB as normally or what is called "Large Block Address Aware" WIN XP Pro is an "opt in"to enable and this is not automatic unless you manually make this change. This is not available in the WIN XP OEM version. Max RAM usage peaked at about 2.8GB and of course the orbits etc will be slow. Have not done any work on file size reduction but it appears the background is a large photo texture and if that is deleted file size will reduce drastically. This would allow work on the model without all the slowness and model size??

@tig said:

Although Sketchup is a 32bit program it can use up to 4Mb of the available RAM on a 64-bit system [version 8 has a large-address-aware option - see here for discussion http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=34299 ].
On a 32-bit system the maximum RAM that is ever used is ~3.35Mb even if 4Mb is available.
Since the OS itself and other programs that you might have running from startup will use a good chunk of that you're luck if Sketchup has 2Mb available.
I opened this mega-SKP o a 32-bit 4Mb RAM PC - it took a while to display and it was as slow as a snail but it opened. Sketchup was using all available RAN ~2Mb [I had closed all non-essential apps beforehand]...
So whilst Sketchup is not [yet] a 64-bit program it can use considerably more RAM on a 64-bit system if it's available

Agree but for 32 bit system and 4GB ram SU does not get to use all that RAM. The memory manager allocates 1/2 to the process and the other half goes to the kernel. Programs do not get direct access to the RAM but instead virtual memory is used to map into ram
FYI this is a virtual memory map of my system of Su8 free opened with no model

Here is a link you will find interesting http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx

@solo said:

I'm running Windows 7 64 bit, on an i7 with 12GB ram.

Thanks. If I understand correctly this means SU can address 4Gb ( 2^23) and the memory manager allocates all of this to the SU process where as us poor folks with the 32 bit systen only get 2GB.
BTW FYI & what it is worth I get a difference if I drag and drop the file on SU8. Drag it kicks out at a commit charge of 2.14 GB but if I open within SU 8 in drops at 3.14GB
Humm>= the 3G tunning allows the process to use an extra 1GB of RAM so it looks like SU 8 operates differently vs how you start the program??
Wonder what John B says about that??

@solo said:

Hmmm, opened easy enough.

Solo
Are you using 64 bit version of W 7 or 32 and how much RAM. I have XP( 4GB RAM) and of course SU 32 bit and playing with paging file to see If I can sneak buy and open. Have not tried the 3GT option of XP yet.
Setting PF at max the commit charge (PF) in task manager hits the 2G limit an throws an error message of cannot open file. The reason for this is the windows memory manager takes the 32 bit addressable space ( 4GB) and allocates 1/2 for processes and the other for the kernel thus the 2GB limit. The W7 64 version ,SU using 32 bits still, allows the use of 4GB of your memmory for processes and the reason you can open.
Thanks for any info

Are you possibly mis_applying projected texture? http://www.youtube.com/aidanchopra#p/c/ED1EE89D47DB7EE5/2/HHsRRLCAOm8

The last go I had was a swap of a 300GB to a 600GB. I used Acronis True Image to make an image of my disk then did the swap and could tell no difference. You may want to consider something like that. For your other drives and the files the root directory of the file allocation table is part of the disk itself so you should not have problems with the files there if you use your old disk and just reload c with XP. If I remember correctly Win XP will only go to 35Gb so you will have lots of virtual partitions for you larger drive??
Here is a link to a grahics card survey summary done by Goolge https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pdV8e-LldOEpQw6k3-ovifg&hl=en#gid=1 which way be of use in selection of a graphics card. I think Nvida has a good rep with the Su users
I am still worried so about MS's DRM raising its ugly head when you try the XP on a new machine with a differnt ID. Have you done that yet??
Good Luck

jgb
Why are doing what you are doing?
If you B gave you the PC why not give him back his drive or at least install yours just like you were using on the fried PC.
It has been awhile since I switch drives so would have to re-read but I think as a min you need to make your old drive the primary drive, this means changing the jumpers on the drive, if you switched them before.
I have my system set up to dual boot. Is that what you are trying to do and if so why?. Usually that is done for differnt operating systems. I would try and get back to an operating baseline so remove your brothers drive and just install your old one and then worry other changes you want to make later.
BTW have you looked at the BIOS to see if changes are required there??
You may run into the Microsoft Software control policy since you will be booting form a differnt machine ID. A search of the MS KB's is in order to understand that??

For a model that size I would not give up so quickly. Depending on how you have the options set in window preferences general you can have the last saved version, the version you are working on and a auto save version. If the SU application is closed normally the auto save version is deleted, it is to protest form crashes, and you will have the back up and the version you just saved. If you trying to open the backup version it will have a different file extension and can cause the error message. Check the file extension and see if it is xxxxx.skb. To open right click and open with or change the file extension to xxxxx. skp and try to open the way you normally do. Do a global search for files *.skp and see if you can find the file version you last saved.
Just some thoughts;
Good Luck

What criteria is used to determine smoothness is good enough?? RMS error or??

The ref thread seems to indicate a blender bug and in fact I had submitted a blunder bug report before their latest release along with others and supposedly the problem had been fixed. Either it was not incorporated in the latest release or they did not have the correct solution.
Try a different program to see if it is SU or Blender.

@sgtslick said:

Thanks everyone for your responses. Several options to consider and try. I'll be trying them all out and will see if I can locate the "culprits".

Strongly suggest you post your model to 3d ware house and then url here so we can find it.
There may very well be more than one problem and even if you find the " gaps" the surface may not form as you desire.

Edson
Wrapped around the axial on this so bear with me:

1. Do you have a typo or really want to go to that low resolution?
2. My NVIDA control panel allows custom setting. The lowest it goes for factory settings is 800x800 but I would not even try the lower settings.
3. You cannot use an image editor to scale what you want?
   That low resolution will result in small images dipslayed on most PC in use to day or are you focused on a print issue.
   My stupidity showing through