As a recreational user, I like to keep track of my, for now, 20-odd model’s likes, views and downloads.
For the postings that total more than a thousand downloads, using the portal, I have to dig to find the daily figures, requiring half a dozen clicks for each data point.
If I had my druthers, I could obtain the info just by looking at the individual panels that I can I access
by using the “settings” option that is accessible directly through my user page via the 3DW portal.
If I remember correctly, this possibility disappeared following a revamp that occurred in the last year or so…
As a recreational user, I like to keep track of my, for now, 20-odd model’s likes, views and downloads.
It’s great when manufacturers put stuff in 3DWarehouse. I did modeling for another architect who wanted Marvin Modern multipanel sliding doors, and they were a very new product. I thought just in case, I’d check 3DWarehouse, and what do you know, they had them as dynamic components no less. Absolutely made my day.
(Edit: You can see the end results in another post here)
A number of issues has already been mentioned. For me it would be an asset if a click on an image would do the same as a click on the title.
For me also the ‘products’ tab does not do anything extra. Whats there or in the other tabs is hit and miss, where i find things more often outside the products than inside. Real problem with many ‘products’ is their origin: factory production models with an overload of triangles, way too heavy for production of any working model. It might be easy to change a solidworks model into a 1/1 skp, it does not make a workable model this way. Besides too many of these have holes, sometimes very difficult to find.
I would also recommend to skip the black tab ‘you have searched enough after a short time’. I have clicked the thing away unnoumerous times, because one never knows the title or tags of what one needs, (language, misspell, etc).
Preview images: many tech items are way too small in the preview to see what it could be. See nuts, bolts and many others.
Try to get rid of most of the models made in the google period for google earth.
Try to implement an idea of the scale of the model. A category of models are not 1:1 but ‘something’ else, not declared.
Also i would like an indication of ‘solidness’ of items or parts of them for 3d printing.
3D Warehouse is a great idea, stepmotherly managed. If its presentation layer and backend algorithms were tended to with attention to detail, its end-user value would rise noticeably.
@kellyp – I am available for constructive input. if you want, please message me.
I understand other people’s needs for simple models but that is not the exclusive.
In my case I only search for models that have huge detail. I don’t have need for simple models as those I can model fast. Models with very high detail, that I can use on photorealistic renders, are hard to model.
Do not forget that you have now partnered with Vray and for rendering those photorealistic imagery that help sell Vray, simple models won’t do.
The thing is about quality and how to filter quality models on search an how to separate high poly from low poly on search results.
For both high poly and low models I’ve seen models with holes, exports from 3ds that are not correct, models with bad texturing, reversed faces, unneeded layering, geometry that is badly grouped, materials with no names, geometry that is far from origin, wrong scale and so many other issues that are harder to fix than modeling your own models, that I realy given up.
Also, the tricks people are using for displaying models are really off putting, models are being presented by renders of other models, when vray proxy models are being presented instead of full geometry leading people to download something that can’t be used for anything, huge number of variations on the same model are endlessly being copied and republished, models rights are not really guaranteed.
For photorealistic rendering warehouse becomes a waste of time and eventually a liability rather than an useful asset. For low poly modeling that you can use with sketchup, I don’t even bother.
I think the easyness of publishing a model is what’s in the root of everything. There are no guidelines, you just need to login and hit a button and suddenly warehouse is flooded with junk. If it would be possible to automate fixing of the models that are being submited… I imagine the creativity the methods behind producing bad model is so high that this will be impossible.
These issues also happen with manufacturer models and even at least those should have publishing rules.
Manufacturer models often serve no purpose, they’re not really low poly as they are concerned to have some fidelity to the original models, but they are also not high poly, as they can’t risk overweighting a sketchup model. They are average poly. In the end they serve no real purpose. Sketchup won’t handle them well anyway as they are higher poly than they should, and rendering will also work badly with them.
At the same time, they probably aren’t fit for advertising as they will be shown in the middle of all 3D warehouse junk.
If I consider the time I need to use in 3D warehouse to filter good stuff from bad stuff, I honestly waste less time modelling my own models and less money buying models from professional sites for rendering.
So, if I were Trimble I would create guidelines for submital, even if they would be optional. People submitting models would then choose if they would submit quality models, either low poly or high poly, or send their models to the non ruled wasteland.
If people would opt to submit their models under the critaeria set by Trimble for low poly and high poly quality models, these models would have higher search rates, better chance of being found as they would be better described and would be fit for specific needs of people using warehouse.
As in extension warehouse, these guidelines should be followed by some sort of inspection before publishing. Eventually certification of some modelers could lead to a new professional activity for modelers that are able to create quality models and that would akowledge what a quality sketchup model means and the differences that should be taken into account between high poly and low poly quality modelling, or even average poly if that’s something that is really worth it.
That would allow a preselection of what you aim at as a model producer and what you aim at as a 3D warehouse user. Ultimately this would then lead to an effective place for 3D warehouse in the 3D modeling market and a much better experience to all.
That bench model you shared is an impressive example of bad modeling.
Even so, that doesn’t mean that big models are bad and small models are good.
It just means that small models should be as optimized as possible and nicely modeled, without waste.
It also means that big models should be as optimized as possible and nicely modeled, without waste.
Thus, exactly the same rules for highly detailed and low poly models.
Having a simple bench untextured and having the same bench with bevels and unwrapped textures of 4k size is fitting different use cases.
I have no need for the first and a high need for the second.
However what most sages here usually advocate, for what I’ve been reading, is that big, highly detailed models are bad while low poly non photo realistic models are good. I don’t agree with that and I hope 3d warehouse developers can understand my point.
I’d be happy to talk to you. I am both an end user of the Extension Warehouse as a design-builder and also looking to create a presence as a vendor of hardware for other design-builders in our specific industry of masonry heater building to make it easy for them to do design work with our products.
You can PM me and I’ll send contact details.
Kelly, is there a place (site) with recommendations for modeling techniques or standards for low or high poly models that work best with SU? I haven’t posted a model yet, but I am working on creating clean low poly models. Not always easy to eliminate all random lines or hidden geometry though.
Is it possible considering the time involved to have an evaluation period or prequalified models in a separate menu that have been properly vetted?
I would be interesting in helping.
If there is more vetting, perhaps users can simply upload what they want for private use, and have vetting for “public” models to be found in a search.
People also use the warehouse to share models of whole custom projects specifically for clients and other colleagues to see, not just generic object or product models.
I for one, would vote for more Manufacturer models. As for the low poly versus high poly…I think that comes with time and knowledge. You live and you learn. I uploaded some decent models but I know they could be better now that I have progressed a little.
And I agree…It’s often less time and hassle to redraw a model from scratch than it is to modify someone else’s model…
So my 2 cents…But I do enjoy the Warehouse models…they give me ideas.
I will only add a couple of extra info. High poly quality models for rendering have a huge market. They are often sold. However Sketchup can hardly handle this. Even for rendering purposes They have to be carefully handled, usually via proxy models which are simplified placeholders of those models, replaced by their full versions at render time.
These high poly models are also possible to convert into low poly via model polygon reducer algorithms. The reverse isn’t true.
One of these poly reducers for Sketchup is Transmutr by @jiminybillybob :
@Whaat 's Skimp is another:
It would be interesting to integrate this kind of tech into 3d warehouse and allow us to crunch high poly models and import their original and proxy versions.
The model of mine, which gets the most activity these days, was described by a Sage, while I was trying to overcome an obstacle using this forum, as going to be “killed” by the feature I was looking to incorporate in it, rather than using a “skin” to keep the poly count down. Without it, I’m certain it wouldn’t get a fraction of the “foot traffic” it now enjoys.
What I mean by this is that I agree with the notion that a model’s “weight” isn’t necessarily inversely proportional to its appeal.
I might be considered one of the advocates for low-poly modelling but I don’t see the situation as as simple as that. High detail has its uses, but far too often I see modellers preferring polygons to intelligence. Most Warehouse models are used for display or entourage and not for actual manufacture. So it is more important for them to look right than to actually have every nut and bolt in glorious 3D. Best of the content creators are able to achieve stunning realism by combining low polygon count with great materials and texturing.
That is definitely true. I was not aiming at the usefulness of the advices sages overall give. It is useful and particularly so with all the bad modeling practices that, naturally, novices are prone to develop.
I also aknowledge that a high poly model which is poorly modeled is way more damaging than low poly ones.
So, overall, I actually agree that if people are going to create bad models, they might as well be lighter…
Even for manufacturing, having a standard bolt fully modelled is not needed. A standard bolt can be a circular representation with a leader. It’s standard after all, so we just need to reference it.
For photorealistic screw heads I have a small 512px texture with 9 different screw heads and each head is a hole cutting component that I fit in place when I need it. In those cases we don’t need to model anything that isn’t visible.
I have tutored Sketchup for many years and always showed toilets from 3d warehouse and how most of those simple design toilets had more polygons than the whole house models with terrain and context that we would build.
So, maybe, what I’m saying is that the first guideline for a good model is not polycount, but for which purpose has it been modeled.
Layout/architectural/2D symbol entourage?
BIM level of detail 200, 300, 400?
Dynamic components or Live components.
… I don’t know what else I can think of.
True! A Philippe Starck toilet … supposed to be simple, clean geometry … and there’s a 100 triangles for a single plane that could be done with one quad.
Yup, some have all the internal piping, with thick walls, and all holes for screwing them up to the wall, and screwing the seat, including bevels on all corners. Some of them are clearly 3DS imports at wrong scale and even miss faces or triangulation.
Rectangle, arc, eraser, push-pull, move up and scale bottom face, line, push-pull the top face for seating, make component and they are done. Faster than writing this…
Sometimes I want some of that accuracy, at least exact size and mounting locations when it comes to CDs. This Geberit tank system is completely buried in the wall so it’s invisible, but it’s nice as a test fit. I like 2D CAD drawings from the source to be sure of dimensions, of course.
You have more detail in the toilet than on the window. I also mount those Geberit tanks and never had to do more than mark the button and overall size of the tank. I certainly also don’t need the inner pipings of the toilet, they usually have flexible mountings. Also mounting marks shouldn’t be needed as Geberit structures can be adjusted. Then there’s taps and towels there. With 10 of those sets in a building won’t you hinder Sketchup’s fluidity. And what about Layout?
Drawing does look good though. Congrats!