Body/object marbling craze

Haven’t seen the like in Sketchup - it’s where you dip something and the film on the surface pertains so you get a complete coating of any design you choose.

The added advantage in CAD would be that you could make it highlight any edges joining surfaces and even make better solids out of them as a ‘seam coating’…, it could also be a way to get components working together, the ‘print’ matches up the ‘nuts’ and ‘bolts’ and could be named after each one’s purpose or position which would become a highly visible aspect in close up but just look like texture at zoom extents; tiling a word effect like,
could ensure anything copied and pasted retains some vital information for ease of remembering/understanding file operation history…

Is there anything like this…?

This does not make much sense. The word “pertains” is not the correct word.
But it sounds like a rendering operation. SketchUp is a modeler, not a renderer.

Generally, you are trying to express multiple ideas, in a very long series of sentence fragments. Please edit and use shorter concise proper sentences.

‘Pertains’ is the term used when the cuticle grows with the nail and has to be scraped off to prevent possible long term effects that distort normal growth - it is an exact term if not specific to the CAD world.

If people are interested in this - check out the online videos of marbling - solve for Sketchup.

I can’t understand from your description how this marbling would be used in SketchUp. You don’t seem to have a good grasp of how geometry in SketchUp works to create solids. Show us some graphic examples of how this would be applied.

It is poorly expressed.
However, I suspect the OP means ‘glazed’ ?
I deduce the following…
Let us assume you have a container of poorly mixed liquid - this is a ‘marbling glaze’.
It will adhere onto the surface of any object that is dipped into that liquid.
It’s a common way to decorate objet d’art…
Now let us assume that the SketchUp user has an object [e.g. a group of geometry] and he dips it into a container of the said liquid [textured-material]…
The textured-material’s ‘paint’ is applied onto the object.

The SketchUp equivalent is ‘painting’ the object using a textured-material…
However, applying materials onto a ‘container’ like a group precludes any ‘mapping’.
But with a little effort, if the material is applied directly onto the object’s faces, then it can be ‘remapped’ using the built-in tools.
There are also several ‘UV-mapping’ tools available [and some about to be released] which allow this ‘re-mapping’ to be done more effectively…

I posted in ‘Feature Requests’ and pointed towards ‘marbling videos’ - for the sake of clarity.

Glazed is like painting something - the videos all show the solid being dipped - something I seen referred to as marbling where the [texture] layer pertains to the body, yet the added effect in Sketchup is that incomplete solids would have their flaws highlighted [as bleeds] and so could be instructed to heal over this for <0.xmm gaps.
In so much users would have a dual benefit - the texture effect would look stunning and be completely unique, while the ease with which components are sured up by selecting the finish as the solid’s shell could even be a boon for the 3D printing industry.

Here’s some easy to find search results,

A plugin would absorb that effort as a universal solution, it is made to save a singular effort in every instance so people can load any of potentially infinite designs and then enjoy the prospect of their heightened allure leading to more business than just basic texture fills would attract…

So my deduction was correct: at least to some extent…
Unfortunately your link to your original ‘marbling’ videos was not attached,
So your supposed clarity was lost !
Also, unfortunately in English your misspelled word ‘craze’ means something that is far away from the intended meaning of ‘glaze’ !

Unfortunately it seems that your translation software is being somewhat ‘effusive’ in its output…
Or your original sentence structure is too long or localized for simple translation ?
Looking through your other posts I see similar issues.
Perhaps using short simple sentences, which then transpose into in English, would be more productive ?

I think you are looking for a UV-mapping of materials solution…

Nah - all my terminology is ok - craze means fad means trend,
…it’s that ‘marbling’ appearing in videos more often recently that would have anyone looking for it along the lines I suggested via my further detailed description, it did not already appear in the forum discussions - so I surmise there is no previous connection with Sketchup, so there’s no context to put it in or SU vernacular for it.

No reason why it couldn’t feature though, so a request to that effect.

There simply was no link initially, ‘marbling’ should yield many search results - among them ‘dipping’, ‘coating’, ‘aqua-graphics’, etc., the context I used it in - my explanation which was decidedly outside the Sketchup glossary ought to see readers simply typing ‘marbling videos’ into a search engine - all becomes clear.

Or if not - “then transpose into in English”…

If it was simple, it would have already been done.

My description isn’t for Sketchup [users] to extropolate from directly into a usable plugin, it’s for someone who develops Sketchup to determine a way to go about it and extrapolate from in their own more comfortable language.
My grasp of geometry isn’t going to help you one jot unless I type it all out & then hope upon hope, you grasp it in the way I do when you create solids and wonder in the way you do what I’d do to cover them in the effect but where you successfully realise it as a feature developer, which I am not…

It was unfortunate that you did not manage to attach an explanatory video.
It is also unfortunate that you used the word ‘craze’ without further explanation - using a word like fab/trend/etc might have helped.
Also when you apply a paint finish onto the surface of an object - such as ‘marbling’ - it can be thought of as a ‘glaze’ - hence the necessity for disambiguation…
The use of italic words does not help the legibility of your text [a few commas to separate your clauses would also help legibility]…
You are the one trying to communicate your ideas with us…
We are all trying to either help you, or respond in a useful way…
Currently you are not being clear enough for a useful outcome.
You are just not expressing what you’d like to do sufficiently clearly.

I despair…


Sorry, but this is an obscure (or perhaps medical) usage of “pertain”, regardless of whether it is familiar to you. No ordinary dictionary lists this usage, so you can hardly blame the folks here if it confused us.

Also, as applied to finishes, “crazed” means having a network of fine cracks, which is not what you mean.

It is simple if you don’t quickly scan read it and then pick at a personal shortcoming you have about others ability to use the language in a way that suits their purposes - I’m very clear about it as I have seen those videos and mentioned them as a guide to this feature request, and reckon that would be a great thing in a program like Sketchup - start from the top and read two lines and you have a good idea of what is outlined - nothing cryptic and no ambiguity, if this has failed, read it again until the context of what ensues is also clear…

‘Pertains’ was the word used and deemed sufficient for an NVQII student and I’d hardly rate that above GCSE qualifications - a thesaurus would have given ‘adhere’ as an alternative, but why use reputable sources when you can post trivial gripes about it at the poster like all there is to do is engage in this back & forth expecting clarity when in fact you should stop yourself knowing that that is likening yourself to the person trying to unmuddy a puddle by swirling a stick round in it.

If there’s a very rigid syntax - where is it listed as required reading and then described as mandatory in all future posts on this forum?

If anyone has any interest in the actual feature request - please just accept I’m keen to see it realised, my part in [requesting] it is already played and I hope those videos are inspiring and the process of developing it is easy enough with the know how required.

Whatever else anyone wants to mention from this post is largely a distraction and ensures nothing has been done about the feature itself.

I will not engage in any more of this posting to respond to a comment about words, synonyms and etymology, etc., as it has achieved nothing and highlighted just how much an insignificant thing veers off topic if brought to the fore.

No, but there are forum guidelines:

It will just not happen as a native feature. (SketchUp is a modeler, not a renderer.)

Please read this thread, from the SketchUp Team:

There have been at least 3 plugin developers, in this thread asking for clarification. We just wanted to understand. And, indeed, were thinking that this idea could be realized in an extension, as rendering scenarios are not a core feature.

There are external rendering applications that can be used with SketchUp. I suggest you look to them, try some out, and then make your “crazy” feature request to one or more of them.

1 Like

Thanks for helping me realise I don’t actually care if this happens or not.

It’s an idea - I threw it out there - I thought…, …transpires I simply threw it out.

My experience to date and continued use of Sketchup saw me attempting to make a component interact with another, the result would be one subtracted from the other and I tried for a long time to get that final shape right which included using the Solid Inspector² plugin that analysed what would prevent items being a solid manifold…, it still required a lot of manual effort and so this idea based on ‘hydrographic printing’ technique came to me, I have since shared that idea here on this forum - for my part I will now forsake it as possibly the spanner in the works preventing it from being realised.

I’m not concerning myself with the how & the why - you’d only see me publish something that does the job if that were the case.
It just hasn’t read like ‘asking for clarification’ - rather it’s like I’ve intentionally offended people’s understanding and use of language and they displayed this affront to them in a return of fire - which reading my initial post that was without a clue about who in the world might read and respond could not have been the case and so should by default have been the foremost consideration - in my opinion.

The fact is that it’s still no more clear than it was despite all this thread’s posts because I only set out to say, “those videos”, “Sketchup components undergoing that process”, and I couldn’t begin to make it more succinct while single words were being held to account out of their original context, each spawning a post of it’s own.

Feel free to copy & paste - I’m sure there’s a lesson here…

So this is the crux of all your long posts?

There are already tools to do this. The Subtract tool in Solid Tools or Intersect Faces would be used by most people for this purpose. What’s wrong with using them?

Again removing a few words out of their context -

I tried for a long time to get that final shape right which included using the Solid Inspector² plugin that analysed what would prevent items being a solid manifold…, it still required a lot of manual effort and so this idea based on ‘hydrographic printing’ technique came to me, I have since shared that idea here on this forum<<

Had any method worked off the bat - & they didn’t - I would not have later had some concept spilling over into a brain festering forum.
Those models are far too complicated and had no need for the ‘texture’ aspect of this request and simply not really anything to do with this idea, but when it came to me it was based on that experience & I straightaway thought how far beyond my skills it would be, so I searched for it first and when I couldn’t find anything, I suggested it could be made for Sketchup rather by someone who developed features.

Consider there actually are no long posts here - unless you want to discuss something off topic.

It only remains to say that existing features and plugins still required scaling my object up 100x before I could begin addressing the matter of finalising a solid that would successfully subtract/intersect.

An idea that ‘auto heals’ a component and where texturising it offers up a way to usefully label it at that stage can’t really be a bad thing - please [only] pursue this as the crux of it.

Any perceived length in posts is the process of me dealing with matters that essentially do not apply, I could just ignore those posts, but the thread will likely die tapering off deemed futile. I cannot have made more effort to keep eyes and mind on the matter in hand and as posts keep coming, I surmise there really is an interest in it’s development - the last thing I want to be is an obstruction to that.

So, forgetting the technical / coding issues for a moment…
Please explain, using short clear sentences:
what it is you expect to start with,
and what it is you expect to have at the end of any processing.
Including intermediate steps.

For example:

I have a SKP containing a solid group.
It consists of quad/triangulated facets.
I select it.
I run an extension which emulates ‘dipping’.
I choose a textured material from a list.
That texture is applied onto the faces within the group.
These are UV-mapped for a consistent result over the facets.
Perhaps I can choose the ‘dipping’ direction etc, or adjust the UV-mapping later…

That is a “proper brief”, from which someone can comment constructively, or even evolve a solution…

You’ve essentially summed it up, initially I’ve barely edited, obviously it lends itself to a wider range of applications and so more elaborate descriptions of those may follow;

The forum however does not load a webform with a ‘feature request brief template’ to begin with, so as inductions go, or have gone, I would recommend that should now be the ‘1st post detected - insert template as post header’ proceedure.

I have a component
It consists of any component
I select it.
I run an extension which emulates ‘dipping’

  • e.g. see ‘hydrographic printing’, ‘marbling’, ‘swirling’ videos.
    I choose a textured material from any list [of images] and adjust for scale [/tile] options [and transparency].
    That texture is applied onto the faces within the group - it automatically heals edges that would disqualify some intersect & subtract operations.
    This should automatically define a UV-map as far as I can deduce - options for manipulating this would then be presented in a dialogue if at all possible/required.
    Choosing the ‘dipping’ direction, insertion point or adjusting the UV-mapping would be like using ‘move’, ‘rotate’ and ‘orbit’ - perhaps a thumbnail of a preview with camera positioning, and a slide adjustment for those parameters once the component and it’s graphic are in readiness.

It would emulate the person physically dipping an object but with infinite redo previews until ready to commit.

[Although all usage of this feature will], obviously just a plain colour or repeat pattern is equally, if not solely intended to simply ‘heal’ the solid, & where a well placed detailed graphic is as much/only for it’s aesthetic ehancement

  • What would be a great help is if a comparison to anything with e.g. more regular intervals after setting absolute [required] dimensions could even suggest remodelled shapes; this is typically a join that doesn’t seem to have anything wrong with it - the suggestion would not look different, but it would conform to a regularity about that point/edge, and if Sketchup was saying something about it, it would be “I can calculate what this suggestion is and does, but the original was x things failing to come together about this point/edge” - so healing it in this way would give a draft version upon which to apply better ways to achieve it.
    Things like the Fibonacci Sequence & Golden Section would be incorporated into that healing effect…

Here’s my components that gave rise to this idea,

I created a profile for the part seen moving in the animation,

…and eventually [“don’t ask”] made it fit the stationary object.
I’m making videos to demonstrate how a prototype will need to be built and therefore why a manufacured solution resolves many issues before they manifest as problems and so I need well finished components that do not animate with any perceived flaws - up to this point all had been going smoothly, but I got there eventually - must have been on my mind still though, because it was almost a month ago since I created and animated that part. The dipping videos are something I saw much earlier in 2016, if not before that.