Here's a couple views from a recent project. I haven't had much opportunity to use SU for a while so this project was a treat. Pure SU with a little post work in Photoshop.
Comments/critique welcome. Thanks.
Wyatt
Here's a couple views from a recent project. I haven't had much opportunity to use SU for a while so this project was a treat. Pure SU with a little post work in Photoshop.
Comments/critique welcome. Thanks.
Wyatt
Awesome. I knew there was an easy solution. Thanks for the help.
There is probably a really simple answer to this, but I haven't been able to find it. I'm getting a new system, and need to migrate SU 6 Pro and all my components, materials, etc to the new system. (I run 7 Free occassionally but I'll just reinstall that version.) I'm sure I can simply copy all my plugins, etc to a back-up disk and resave them on the new, but what's the best way to get 6 moved to the new system? If I uninstall, can I download a new full version of 6 and get it relicensed?
Wyatt
Solo (and others),
A few posts back you said that the Quadro cards don't show much difference in performance from the GTXs. The tech guy at my office has recommended a PNY Quadro FX580 512MB card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133273 in the new system he's ordering for me. Can you explain a little more about why you would recommend the GTX280 over a Quadro graphics card? Is the Quadro better for non-3d applications?
FYI, The new setup will be an Intel Quad Core I7 920 w/ 6 Gigs DDR3 1333, running Vista Business 64 bit. I use SU, PS & Indesign CS2, and Autocad 08 (soon to be Civil3d), usually with more time spent in CAD and Photoshop than SU.
"The Google Earth Plugin does not yet support this browser.
Supported browsers on Windows currently include Firefox, IE 6, and IE 7."
I'm using Chrome. That's funny.
I agree with Modelhead. I would expect a facility like this might have 4-6 lights per field (2-4 along the outfield fences and 2 along the baselines somewhere near the dugouts). The renders themselves look good, and the atmosphere definitely feels right. Now you just need some SU people watching the SU softball from the bleachers.
I've done something similar just by trial and error in Photoshop (dual monitors help a lot). Eyeball it close in SU by placing your camera as close to the same location as the photo was taken, export the scene, and overlay in Photoshop (or another image editor). Once you get the SU scene reasonably close, you can skew or distort the exported image or paint/mask it to make it match up "perfectly." I remember the post that Gaieus mentioned about using the photo as a watermark and aligning the view with that in SU. Unfortunately that proved just as, if not more difficult for me than the manual alignment in PS. Please post your results when you get it done. Good luck!
FormFonts.com has great grocery-type models. There are a few free ones that may work for you, or you could subscribe and have access to lots of material.
Thanks for the update. I love this script!
Wyatt
Check out Daniel Tal's presentation on SketchUp & AutoCAD from 3D-Basecamp. http://sites.google.com/site/3dbasecamp2008/all-sessions-2008
He gave lots of great tips to simplify your CAD file and set it up once you get it in SketchUp.
Wyatt
Hey everyone. I've read this thread with great interest. I ran several tests over the weekend with the City model. Now I need someone to tell me if these results are good and how to improve them.
Specs: Windows XP SP2, Pentium 4 CPU, 3.6GHz, 2GB RAM latency 2 (see note below), 512 MB NVIDEA GeForce 8600, HA & FF on, 4x AA
(Frame Rates averaged over 3 trials)
Scene 1: 45.6 fps
Scene 2: 49.6 fps (I think it's interesting that this scene displayed faster than #1.)
Scene 3: 27.9 fps
Scene 4: 10.4 fps
Scene 5: 1.4 fps (52 seconds)
Scene 6: 0.5 fps (134.1 seconds)
Scene 7: 0.2 fps (350.2 seconds)
With AA turned off, the results were virtually identical, except 1- and 3-seconds slower on Scenes 6 & 7.
I ran more tests with an additional 1 gig of 3-latency RAM (which somehow totalled to 2.69Gb...thought that was strange) and processing speed of the model was actually a bit slower even though my total RAM was more (ie Scene 1: 44.9 fps vs 45.6). I guess the different latencies dumb themselves down to the slowest RAM. Can anyone confirm this?
Subjectively, I'm not impressed by my computer's performance. But maybe I did better on the benchmark test than I think I did. Regardless, I'm not sure what changes would improve performance the most: processor, RAM, or graphics card. Adding RAM is easy enough. I'm discussing with others in my office the possibility of swapping my GeForce 8600 graphics card for a 512 MB Quaddro FX 1700, but I don't want to do that if it won't help. I use SU, Photoshop, and AutoCAD, often simultaneously. I don't use other rendering engines at the moment. Any advice?
Thanks!
Wyatt
Thanks Alan. I was trying to edit the component in its base file. When I insert the component into a new file, explode it, and resave it from the component browser I'm able to turn on the face-me features. It seems like there are some added steps there that slow down the workflow, but I'll live with it. Thanks again for the explanation.
Wyatt
Back to something that Remus & Gaieus said early in this thread...
When creating a new face-me component, I don't have the face-camera option available in the original file that is saved in the Components folder (call this the Base file). I only see that option if I add the component to a new model, explode it, and create a new component in my new model. This is time-consuming to edit each component after I've inserted it into the model. I've looked at components I've downloaded from users on this forum and those that come with SU. These base files are strictly geometry (not components). Some can be inserted correctly as face-me components, others not. There is nothing unique (that I can see) about the files that work as face-me's versus the one's that don't. There's got to be an easy fix for this, but I sure can't remember/find what it is.
Thanks for the help.
Wyatt
This may be a silly question, but why would you want to delete all the faces? Could you not just turn the model to wireframe mode? I'm curious about the application for such a ruby. Thanks for posting it Matt.
Wyatt
The ruby is called DashedLines. There are tutorials for making styles. Search this forum.
Wyatt
There's a ruby on Smustard to create hidden lines. You could probably build a hidden style with Style Builder too (pro version only).
Wyatt