Posts made by Warped9

@box said:

Quite right, but take that thought a little further.

You work for ages on a rather complex shape being a just a bit messy with the idea in the back of your head that you'll just get it all finished as is because you can check it all at the end and fix the problems.

You spend longer fixing the problems than you did making the piece to start with.

I'm just pointing out that an important part of the learning process is to understand how to work cleanly so that your problems are small and easily fixable. Many times people will post a mass of complex interconnected geometry and say solid solver won't fix it, what should I do? The answer is usually, start again.

The tools are there to use, use them as an aid not as a necessity. Too many people get caught up using plugins and never learn the full basics. Far too often people ask what plugin they need to do something that is a fundamental of Sketchup.

Sorry, I do ramble on, here end'th the lesson.

No, I greatly appreciate the feedback and advice. I generally dislike having to fix something if I could have gotten it right or avoided it in the first place. I see the value of a plugin when it can do something more easily or that SketchUp won't do natively. Part of the learning process is learning how to do something in a more effective manner than previously when you achieved your goal but through a very laborious process.

@box said:

It is indeed long and messy, but things like solid inspector often only help finding the problems, you still have to repair them. Learning to model clean from the start will serve you far better in the long run.

Yes, I get that. But it is a part of learning what you missed even though you thought you'd done it right. Once you understand then you can make the effort to avoid such mistakes as you progress.

Now here is a somewhat related question. I've always assumed that the less geometry you had the better off you were. Basically if I combine two separate objects into one and intersect them then am I better off to eliminate the hidden parts that are no longer visible from the outside? Of course that leaves you with an irregularly shaped interior space and with less geometry that you wouldn't see anyway. Or is it best to just leave the hidden geometry intact and maybe not even intersect the two objects?

@box said:

Good modelling habits reduce the need for solid inspector and such tools.

Sure. All I can say is learning can be a long and messy affair.

@box said:

@tig said:

If a group or a component-instance is selected AND it is a 'solid' [i.e. it just contains geometry and it is 'manifold' - no 'nested' objects/no unfaced-lines/no holes/no flaps/no internal partitions etc - every edge must have exactly 2 faces...], then 'Entity Info' will show its volume in current Model Units.

Did you get this bit?

Yes, I got that. I'll have to check through the model to see what could be amiss. It would be nice if there were a quicker way to identify what's wrong.

Firstly, I got the Anchor Points plugin and it works sweetly. Thanks.

But, something still isn't right. I made my object a group and yet it still won't give me a volume in the Entity Info box.

@dave r said:

Yes, you must make a component or group to get a volume. Otherwise, as far as SketchUp is concerned you've just got a bunch of edges and faces.

If you want to know the dimensions of the bounding box without actually showing the dimensions in the drawing, you can use a plugin called Get Dimensions. It just pops up a dialog box with the dimensions in it when you run it with a group or component selected. I have a keyboard shortcut setup to run it. This is effective if the bounding box is aligned to tightly fit the geometry.

Awesome! Thank you all very much!

Thanks. I mention the group volume issue because I tried it on a simple cube and then cylinder. I used the rectangle tool to make a square then extruded it into a cube. I couldn't get the volume unless I made it a group first. Smae with a cylinder---I used the circle tool then extruded it into a cylinder, but I could get the volume only if I made it a group first.

I'm having a beginner's issue of sorts. At first I thought my Entity Info pane wasn't working, but after testing it is working. I understand it can give you the volume of an object, but apparently even if your object is perfectly closed it will only work if your object is a group. Is this correct? You can only get the volume of a group in the Entity Info window?

Regarding dimensions. I understand how the dimension tool works, but what if I want just overall dimensions of an irregular shaped object? I just want the overall length, width and height. You can't just choose two points because they have to be on the same axis or horizontal or vertical line otherwise it will measure the distance on an angle which would be greater than your overall length, width or height.

The free version of Maxwell only lets you do small images of your renders. I have a $99 upgrade that allows me to do large images. I'm not sure what Pro gives you.

Okay, I now feel like a complete doofus. But after persevering and trying different things on a whim I figured some things out.

You can make an HDR image in Photoshop (which I did) and merge the layers of a Photoshop file to create an HDR image. You can then save that image in EXR format which Maxwell is happy to accept. To load it (at least in the Mac setup) you don't have to tell it to load a particular type of file and to save it as HDR. You can simply load it as either JPEG or EXR and then begin playing with the settings. I found it how to adjust the intensity of the image as well as the scale and offset of the created screen map. I also figured that you can use the HDR image or the SketchUp appilcation or the Active Sky (physical sky or dome) for the illumination, reflection and refraction respectively.

Like a lot of things I kept banging my head against it until I stumbled into some understanding of how this works.

A different kind of update here. What's notable isn't the model, but the background.

Up to this point I would render my models and then Photoshop them onto a starfield or spacescape of some sort. It works, but it's basically a messy cut-and-paste method that doesn't always get the best results.

But over the past few days I've been learning how to do it more effectively. Essentially I create my starscapes in Photoshop and save them as HDR images as a .exr file. I can then load those right into my rendering program (Maxwell Render) and have my 3D model right in the scene. The end result is being able to render the model already set in the scene it's meant to be in eventually. This saves a lot of time and avoids the messiness of cut-and-pasting the rendered model's image onto another image.

I'm reasonably sure I'll get more proficient at it as I go forward, but posted here is my first effort at generating a space environment with the (unfinished) model already in it.

Okay, I can load an image under Image Based Lighting setting in Environment. It doesn't ask me to load and save it, but just imports it directly as a JPEG. I understand playing with itensity settings, but it doesn't render anything like what it should look like.

Okay, I must thick as cement or I'm missing something. I can't find anyway for Maxwell to open a file that way. Maxwell works within SketchUp and when I open Maxwell Render I can have two windows: Maxwell Fire (where my model is displayed) and Scene Manager (to manage the model and scene). I don't have a File menu telling me about loading and saving a file, unless I'm just not seeing where it is. I can't open Maxwell without having SketchUp running and then the file menu at the top is for SketchUp and not Maxwell.

I'm running a Mac so maybe it's different? I can't see where this menu is. It obviously isn't in the Scene Manager (from what I can see) because it just says I can't import the file because it's not a .sky image. I can't use Browse for MXM because then it says I's not an MXM file.

What am I missing?

@chedda said:

Hey Warped9 just find a hi res image through google that you like. Then crop it 2x1 proportions. Then open it with MR and save it out as a HDR. You can use it in the any of the environment channels then.

Doesn't it have to be in any particular format?

No, it doesn't work that way. The file also has to be in a HDR and .SKY format for Maxwell to import it. What I find odd is that all kinds of sky preset downloads are available and no one seems to have made any starfields or space scenes.

I did read of how to make starfields and such in Vue, but does that mean you have to export them from Vue into Maxwell?

There has to be a way to do this either in Maxwell or in SU, but when I search around the net I find next to nothing. I can (and have) easily create scenes in Photoshop, but it's pointless if I can't actually use them. As is I'm having to resort to the laborious method of rendering my models and then using Photoshop to basically cut-and-paste them into the scene I want. There has to be a better way.

Here's a scene I created last night.

---

I'm not sure where to post this, but I don't know where else to go.

I use Maxwell Render for by SU models. But one thing that would be really handy would be to have a starfield environment for a sky or dome for my model. I tried creating a starfield background (as a watermark) in SU but it doesn't render. I've tried downloading a star globe from the SU 3D Warehouse, but I find it cumbersome to work with given its size.

Does anyone know if there is any way to create or import a starfield sky into Maxwell to be used as an environment in place of its physical sky or constant dome?

Odd. I've download some plugins (such as Shape Bender, Autosmooth and Volume Calculator) by Autoinstall from the SketchUcation Plugin Store but I can't find some of them anywhere in the menus.

@box said:

You can transfer the contents of the plugin folder, note they are in slightly different places.

However it is better to install directly into SU13, as many plugins have been updated.
You will also need to set your plugin folders security permission to allow it's use, best to set material etc too.

Start with the Sketucation plugin store, available at the top of the page, and use that to install whatever you need as you go. think of it as a good opportunity to cleanup the plugins you actually use.

Okay, that works smoothly enough. I installed my Maxwell Render same as SketchUcation Plugin Store.

Thank you very much.

Okay, another question. I imported some plugins as well as installed Maxwell Render that show up under Plugins in 8, but it doesn't show in Make. How do I get them to transfer over?

@box said:

SU2013 comes in both flavours, Make and Pro and can be run alongside SU8
When you install SU2013 it is the Pro version for 8 working hours of use then it reverts to Make.
It is the Trimble version of SU while SU8 is the last Google version.

Okay, got it. So if I install 2013 I can then delete SketchUp 8 as redundant?

Okay, here's perhaps a dumb question, but I need to ask just to sure I understand correctly.

As I understand it Sketchup Make is the new version of what was known as previously as SketchUp 8, right? And so if I download and install Make will it write over my current SketchUp * or will it install separately? And assuming it installs separately then I should be able to keep working on my current models, right?

Also does Make offer anything new over 8?

And SketchUp 2013 is really Pro or they're ywo different things yet neither are free and are for commercial use, right?

It might sound like a silly question, but I'd rather ask just to be sure than maybe goof up somehow.

Thanks.

@chedda said:

Yeah great, brings back memories of that Flash Gordon ship the noise the dodgy effects and smoke trail. I suppose this is one case when you didn't want to smooth the geometry.

I did smooth the geometry, but something between SketchUp and Maxwell wouldn't translate. I've since learned the solution is simply to have a curve with more facets or sides. The main body on the Flash Gordon ship was done with 120 sides. For a large surface and a tight radius that's not good enough. Even 180 sides will show facets. However, doing a large cylinder or saucer like object with 360 sides will work.