@edson said:

if i am not wrong what really matters is the poly count (edges and faces). sometimes a big file behaves better than a small one because of that.

you are absolutely right, Edson.

if you have structured your model well, with components where possible to reduce the file size, even a small model can bring your graphic card to it's limits.

try scene 6 in this model for example. look at the file size (only about 130 kb). but the poly count is enormous and therefore your computer will have difficulties to cope with it...

this is interesting. I asume you figured out that the edges are bound together in a component (that you have to explode to use the edges).

your computer seems to regard the bottom endpoints of the edges as well. only way would be to increase their lengh, until SketchUp finds them too far away and ignores them.

(the only way to do this quickly that I can think of at the moment is to scale them in Z-direction downwards (lets say 10x) then create the terrain. then select terrain and edges and scale it back (0.1x)

[Edit] or you could connect all the bottom points with horizintal lines. that is quite easy for all the vertical edges are assembled in an array. now you can select these horizontal connection lines and move them down. thus you don't have to mess arround with scaling... []

you should mention that the idea for this script was born in this thread and will eventually supply us with detailed knowledge of what hardware components are best for using SketchUp.

indeed, such a script would be awesome. then the hardware testing could go to the next stage...

nice clock. has something Disney-like

very nice render.

in that image you really have the feeling of a pleasant july day, surrounded by trees. very athmospheric!

the first one is really convincing - makes me feel like I could do with a weekend at the ocean.

what happened to the windows in the second image? is the seperation in several faces with different angle on purpose?

a beautyful vessel in the third one. and I like the highlights on the waves. somehow the water seems quite solid though...

thanks for sharing. you allways succeed in setting up a whole scene - not only a model, but a real scene with it's own moode. great!

just to cheer you up...

my 5 year old laptop with a Celeron-processor and 1 gig ram achieved 1.7 frames with the cube test!

@gaganraj said:

Its funny, because even if Google manages to get an entire generation of young users, if they do not further develop the app, then its user base, as it matures, will pursue something else.

exactly, gaganraj!
and what is better than having a whole bunch of people, who use your application excessivly and push it to it's limits, reporting to you every day, giving comments, criticism and loads of suggestions of how to improve your product?

the Google guys have the best development guide in front of their noses. lets hope they make use of it!

thanks, guys, for your replies.

to be honest, I don't really know, what this cleanup is good for except for a good feeling for having cleaned up your model.

I think it especially makes sense when you have too much detail in some spots.

it is especially useful, if you decide to alter the mesh with the sandbox smoove tool.

but there is definitely room for improving the procedure. use of the "drop at intersection" tool could be a good solution. will check that out soon.

would be good to find a solution that interpolates areas with too little detail.

I am not sure, if this method is sensible (takes a lot of time).

therefore I am posting it here. I would like to hear, if you consider it as a good idea and if it should be placed in the tutorial section.

it is a (quite tedious) way to even out the triangle size of terrains

here is a tutorial SketchUp-file
regular_terrain.skp

cheers,

Jakob

@unknownuser said:

I hope them Google boys realise they've got a diamond in their hands.

hear, hear, stinkie!

(but I would rahter say, a beautyful, shining "Ruby" )

thanks, tig, for mentioning the grow.rb script.
the description sounds quite nice. unfortunately it causes a lot of bugsplats for me, but no geometry

and even if it worked... I would love to have a tool that blends in seemlessly in the SketchUp workflow, without the need of filling in information in a window...

I think the procedure, as described above, should be possible.
the tool simply has to remember all move- / rotation- / scaling-actions as long as an object remains selected.
if the "memory copy" command is executed it creates a copy and applies exactly the same alterations to it, only that it takes the last copy as the origin.
if the element is deselected beforehand, the script simply deletes it's memory cash.

so merely pressing a shortcut key executes the tool. you do not have to fill in anything, because the script gathered the information necessary while you were modeling!

I don't have any problem with it either. hope you will work it out... I'll keep my fingers crossed

you know, from the moment on, when some company sells (affordable) 3D simulation suites with 3D glasses and contact simulation (so that you can actually see and touch things), I will be using 2Live or Lively.

because then I can really go there and meet all of you.

just imagine how much fun it is to sit in a huge SCF Corner Bar, where everyone is allowed to design the place, whenever he likes.
all these people of every part of the world, wearing freaky avatars, creating chairs out of thin air and then sitting on it, creating a circle arround FredBartels who is drawing some beautyful sculptures...

but before that I am definitely not interested in these simulations...

can you check, if the "Enable Transparency" checkbox is activated (styles window > face settings).

otherwise, could you upload the model?

cheers,

Jakob

I just did some tests and found out, that the consistency increases immensly with the poly count.

some figures:

my city-model, scene 1 (3.328 polygons):

framerate differed from 53.7 fpsto 56.9 fps(maximum difference in time 0.093 seconds)

the same model, scene 2 (180.496 polygons; more than 50 x bigger):

framerate always was 2.5 fps(maximum difference in time 0.067 seconds)

here we see, that the dime was more precise than in the low poly scene...

I would very much like to see some light at the fast food counter. would brighten up the whole thing.

I just played arround a bit with the cube-test model.

• at first I achieved 18.6 fps(1.8 slower than this morning, when my computer was relaxed )

• then I grouped all the cubes, with no significant difference.

• then I created a component out of all the cubes. now I got 16.4 fps

• I made 24 copies of this component, put it in a hidden layer. now the result was 17.5 fps

now I am completely confused does anyone have an explanation for that?

@chango70 said:

Plot-Paris

Are you using a Intel Xeon processor?

no, it is the Intel core 2 Duo E6850

beautyful bum! (despite all the spikes )