Looks to me as if you’re seeing back face color bleeding through at some of the edges. You can amplify it by turning off edges and setting the back face color to something bright. Here I’ve set the back face color to red.
click on the B in the green circle at the top right of the forum window. Click on the person icon, then Preferences, and then Profile. Remember to scroll down after making the corrections and save the changes.
It did not work because back faces were painted, must be a bug.
Now, the question remains for me, as far as I understand.
If a client receives this file and opens it on his interior design session in sketchup, it will have the gaps, right?
Depending on what he does to his skp file, some ■■■■ will probably happen with this model.
How to avoid that?
Is collada the best format to export models from blender to skp?
Not a bug. Remove the material from the back faces so the back face color will show.
It shouldn’t have gaps but depending on their graphics card and how they are using it, the back face color may bleed through.
I don’t know if it’s the best but it’ll work. It wouldn’t hurt to simplfy it, though. If it’s to be used as entourage in a SketchUp project, it’s too large and too complex. The fine detail will be lost and the object will be more of a liability than an asset.
As I mentioned previously, the piping is way more detailed than it needs to be. No one looking at the entire couch in a room will ever be able to see that detail. That detail is wasted and is just contributing to file bloat.
Consider that your couch model won’t be the only object added to a project. You can find lots of examples of people using heavy components like your couch coming to this forum looking for help because their computers can no longer handle their SketchUp files because they are bloated with heavy components like you couch.
Even some low level cleanup like reducing the overly large texture file and cleaning up some unneeded edges and faces reduced the file size by more than 32%.
Simplifying the piping and elminating the unneed geometry on the bottom would reduce the file size even more.
well I like triangles, but that’s a lot of them you might want to smoothen a bit your couch in blender, removing half the geometry can help a lot and won’t be visible, especially with that “fuzzy” material (it’s like a dotted camo, it breaks the shapes and makes them look a bit non flat)
also, you could, in blender, reduce complexity : basically your couch is 4 parts : seat, back rest, right and left arm rest.
all the contact areas between these parts can just disappear. it’s complex geometry for places you’ll never see. also, the underside. same reason.
here is a car I used in a project, in the background. you can see I deleted anything not visible from the outside. if the things you model are to be used in context (not as the centre of attention), you can treat them as decor. like props in a movie set.
edit : well dave edited his message to say the same, lower polygon count and complexity, remove useless invisible stuff, it’ll help
often, when a designer models a piece of furniture, they will make it as a standalone. the file suffices itself, you make a couch, a beautiful couch, and you can observe it.
but the scope in witch the 3d will be used is actually important.
you wouldn’t do a 500K polygon door handle to put on a door in the background of a 4000x2000px image would you ?
well a designer paid to model door handles for the door handle company will anyway. And people will use it and wonder why their model is so slow.
Plus, exporting from one software to another often means triangles. any face will be converted to triangles, adding extra geometry.
Such hi def models are better suited in rendering tools or using proxies, at least on SU. the more elements you plan on having in your project, the more strain you’ll put on your machine with hi def models.