A. Export with pre applied Textures/Materials and add properties in UE4?
B. Export without Textures and Add them later in UE4?
3.Import to UE4 via Datasmith.
Question:
1.What is your workflow if you need changes in your model after you have already set up the materials and Lighting in UE4. Say there is a change in design of your doors and windows. Any suggestions?
I’m thinking of isolating that part of the model in skp, but maintaining its skp world position, Export and import it as another datasmith file, and hopefully it follows that same position similar to paste in place. Because as far as I know, UE4 is not that good at inferences/snapping. I could just try this out but I’d like to know your thoughts and suggestions.
I think Sketchup needs to coordinate this with UE4, maybe have some streamlined connectivity/bridge in between the two.
or I just don’t know what i’m saying because I am very new to UE4.
I kind of more into UE4’s Animation controls. I’ve tried Twinmotion. I don’t like its lighting and material editor. It also has limited Animation controls. I’m into keyframes. But I’m also looking forward for the twins 2020 release. See if there are other improvements other than what we saw from their trailer.
Seeking guidance to use Unreal & SketchUp together.
I can’t find the SketchUp Exporter plugin for Datasmith anywhere. I just decided yesterday to check out Unreal rendering – perhaps at an awkward transition time? Is Unreal now pushing TwinMotion and removing SU / Unreal support? Nevermind, I found the plugin. I guess there was a delay between the release of UE 4.24 & a compatible exporter plugin.
I did a quick test of TwinMotion (my first time rendering) and it was indeed a very fast & easy, one-click sort of thing. But out of the box it seems as oversimplified as UE does overly complex – I guess I need to learn more about TM, its plugins, its options, and its roadmap for the future.
Ultimately I want to explore my architectural models with physics collision & game-style controls (or VR).
I’m just venturing into this workflow and I’m encountering the same issue that @JustinTSE outlined a while back. Whenever I import my sketchup model into Unreal via datasmith the scale seems to be way off. I am essentially trying to make a white model with no material in sketchup and then send it to unreal to add textures and render the looks I need. The image attached is a 12’ tall window that came in as part of the sketchup model (from the 3D warehouse) with a 1m x 1m texture imported from Quixel Bridge and the cube is a ureal engine primitive cube with the same texture applied. Either the model is coming in absolutely massive or the texture/UV mapping information is not correct.
Does anyone have a workaround for this? I’m using sketchup pro 2021 and Unreal Editor 4.27.2
If you have no texture applied to the object in SketchUp then there is no UV mapping associated with the object, the default is very small. Try opening the SketchUp file and applying a random texture to the surface of your object, then update the link and re apply the texture you want in unreal.
This is the behavior in TwinMotion, but I believe it’s similar.
If I can expand on this: just apply a (white) image texture in SketchUp 1000x1000 units (mm’s) so its easy to accurately scale your textures in Unreal.
I’m encountering a major hurdle in my SketchUp to UE5 workflow and I need some help.
I have compiled a huge library of models for my job in SketchUp and I need to get them exported over to UE5. When I export each model over however, using the Datasmith plugin, it breaks down my simple SketchUp groups into hundreds of different StaticMeshActors. It’s as if each individual face is being converted into its own StaticMeshActor.
I have also tried to export the models as an .obj directly from SketchUp to UE5 and that gave me virtually the same result.
I also exported a few models as .obj files from Inventor to UE5 and those worked a lot better, but that option is going to be much more time consuming than exporting more customized models from SketchUp.
Is there something I’m doing wrong here? Is there a different, less time consuming way to go about this?
If I remember correctly, Datasmith splits the object into connected clusters.
If you want the same hierarchy like in SketchUp; better export & import as obj or fbx. In Unreal you have to check ‘combine meshes’ so faces are combined into one object just like in SketchUp.
Hi David ( @Rogue_Creator ) I am part of the Epic Games datasmith team and will have a look at your issue. Its a “design” issue and we would like to host a zoom call and discuss possible options. Can you send me an email at pierrefelix.breton@epicgames.com I will setup a call with myself and our dev team to discuss this.
The Epic Datasmith SketchUp extension is permanently changing the current working directory into the %ProgramData% path. This is a huge NO-NO! It is affecting other extensions and native file browser dialog behavior.
The SketchUp startup cycle purposefully (after consultation with extension developers) was changed in the 2014 release to set the working directory to the User’s Documents path.
If your code needs to change the working directory, it should do so temporarily using the block form of Dir::chdir so that when the block returns the previous working directory is restored.
Otherwise your code should be using absolute pathnames for calling file operation methods.
In addition, your extension is using global variables. This is poor etiquette in a shared coding environment. There is no good reason to have any of your code running outside your EpicGames namespace.
Use of global variables pollutes the top level ObjectSpace causing “noise” that no coder or Rubist needs to see when calling the #global_variables method.
Please use only@vars or @@vars within your own namespace modules.
* Just because very old examples or extensions had used them (and haven’t been updated) does not mean it is okay to use them. If your extension went through Trimble Warehouse review it would likely fail because of using global variables.
I’m six years from when you posted originally…but when you exported from SketchUp to Unreal Engine, and wanted to edit the materials and textures once it was in Unreal, did you find it easier if the objects were: grouped, components, or exploded objects?? I’m having an issue with putting materials on the surfaces and the entire object being painted with the material rather than localized on the surface intended. Any solutions you know of for this instance??
Question to the dev - is it better to export “groups” from Sketchup into Unreal Engine 5 or to “explode” objects before exporting to Unreal Engine? I’ve had a great experience exporting and direct link with Datasmith extension, but when I exported from SketchUp to Unreal Engine, and wanted to edit the materials and textures once it was in Unreal, would I find it easier if the objects were: “components”, or “exploded” objects?? I’m having an issue with putting materials on the desired surfaces and dragging it on the surface, the entire object is being painted with the material rather than the material being localized on the surface intended. Any solutions you know of for this instance?? Much love!
I am not sure that anyone from Epic is on this forum or watching this thread. If you want to talk to them, you might want to reach out on their channels…
