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.
Manufacturing?
Layout/architectural/2D symbol entourage?
Photorealistic rendering?
BIM level of detail 200, 300, 400?
Dynamic components or Live components.
Game assets
Low poly
… 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!
Man I go both ways…I get that you may need only a “place holder” in your model but at the same time once you get into a BIM/BOM situation you may require more detail and at that point which is the lesser of the two evils? Mounting bolts, washers, lock nuts? What is included in the manufacturers product versus what is a consumable you need to keep on the installers truck? At the end of the day it is not going to make too much of a hill of beans BUT are we looking at communication? Or just a placeholder with an assumption?
You tell me…
What we usually suggest is models that are as detailed as you need. You don’t need a 10mb door knob on every door for an overall house render, you would want a highly detailed door knob if you are doing a render of a single door. Both have their uses.
How many knobs are we to model then? Simple knobs that are not realistic for high detail renders or detailed knobs which will burden your building?
In my case I build proxies that work for sketchup and realtime rendering and then those proxies render high poly versions on offline rendering. The system works but it is complex and each renderer has it’s own proxy systems.
That does make my point there is a need for high and low poly models and you can’t always know how much polys you need.
Bad modelling is, therefore, not related to poly count.
Which is why we generally recommend downloading to a separate model space to clean up before use. This allows you to use high and low poly model that you have optimized for you own use. None of us have ever said you shouldn’t use high detailed models when appropriate.
Then we agree.
This is great news!
I’m an interior designer and I use Sketch Up every day. I spend about 6-10 hours per day drawing on Sketch Up. I use the 3D warehouse constantly. I try to use as many existing and easily sourced items as possible. So when it comes to presenting to our clients we can virtually sell the furnishings and lighting right off the screen. I don’t want to spend time having to draw lighting and sofas (although I sometimes do). I know some of these items are too large but the details help the final image come alive and look realistic. I notice some models are completely off-scale - sometimes 300 x larger than true scale. Or the models are defective in some way. Or just very ugly and badly drawn. Also in my library or collections I have 2 separate files I’m forced to go to now. I don’t understand what the purpose is really - it has something to do with licensed models vs unlicensed?
This is frustrating when I’m looking for a model. I’ve noticed some manufacturers are starting to have an available sketch-up download of their furnishings and lighting. This is helpful and more companies should be encouraged to do this. If it’s in my model I’m selling their product.
Clients don’t have to go into a store and question whether are not it will look good or fit in the space. I’ve already created a scaled drawing of their home with every detail to imagine themselves in it. This beneficial to the companies. I wish they would make Sketch Up models of all their products.
Lastly over the past year or so I can no longer download 3D models from the warehouse directly into my drawing. I did this for years and now I have to download it separately and save as it’s own file. Right now I have about 50 individual models littering my desktop (which I will delete later). I have to open each file, copy, paste, then close, it asks if I want to save the model, I say no, then it takes about 10 long seconds to close. If I try to download it onto my drawing whether my file is big or small it may take up to 5-25 minutes for it to appear on my image. And it also doesn’t matter if the 3D model is big or small.
The search can deal with the polycount, file size etc to some degree but determining the appropriateness / quality usually requires closer inspection, which can be painful and probably the main reason I generally avoid 3DWH. Using the detailed page & 3D viewer is usually necessary but far too slow for quick browsing. Perhaps an option for a wireframe or xray view would be a helpful gauge??
Clearly the amount of jumbled and duplicated clutter is a headache – is it practicable for new content be more strictly catalogued and verified?
Also i’d really appreciate being able to share models privately for professional use via 3DWH (I know this isn’t the point of 3DWH but it is used in this way and it adds to the clutter).
I think 3D warehouse should have be double sided:
They can perfectly live side by side with search filters.
I see similar themes in some other responses. When using Sketchup for Schools on Chromebooks, pulling things from the Warehouse can be very problematic due to size etc. It would be great if there was a specific place to look for items such as doors and windows that would work well and be simple enough to not crash the model.
3D Warehouse is great and handy. My biggest frustration is the initial search for an item brings us to the ‘Products’ page instead of the ‘Models’ page. It took me months to figure that out(!), maybe combining them would be better?
if 3DW can ever becomes the “google” of 3d contents will be great. Those turbosquid sites are crazy $$$$.
