Radience field -> PLY file -> meshlabs -> sketchup?

But still free unless you’re generating more than $1 million/year in revenue…

Yes sadly (or not) we are over that limit.

Meh, personally I’d still be using it.

For one, the PPI credits will still be around and usable with the current version. I also don’t believe they’re going to be auditing companies for the $1M threshold compliance. But lastly: if you’re generating that kind of revenue, a) how are you doing that while still posting a workflow question like this, and b) is $1250 really that much of something to cough up? Especially considering its an operational cost that can lower a tax burden?

Do you guys not usually use photogrammetry in your workflows or modeling in general?

Companies literally have license compliance teams for that.
Trimble have internal teams and external teams dealing with it.
Autodesk do the same.

If they weren’t planning to enforce it, I don’t know why they would change it - it’s a big risk to take, both for your employer who would foot the bill and yourself as an individual who would perhaps lose your job over it.

1 Like

As Adam says its not worth risking larger fines over the money.

Currently photogrammetry isn’t part of my work flow and if I were to add it there would be a lot of additional costs to include alongside just the software (like the additional training or hire of drone surveyors etc) So maybe photogrammetry just wouldn’t be viable for the handful of use cases.

I really want to get more into photogrammetry and NERFs and I think its something the community would be interested in hence why I’m interested in discussing it here.

1 Like

I converted the super painful 7million face edge to a 300 million point point cloud, SketchUp deals much better with that and it is much easier to work with.

That was literally a single click in cloud compare to change the mesh to a point colour- the simplest thing so far!

Points are coloured too (although too dark as I made a colorspace error early on and haven’t corrected it)

1 Like

I’m aware of license compliance teams, but I’m not aware of any gross revenue policies for Trimble or Autodesk or - if I’m honest - any others. How would they determine whether or not a company generated $850,000 in sales vs. $1M if it isn’t a public company?

They’re drastically reducing the cost of the Enterprise license and probably enticing the use of the $1250 subscription with new features and better support (although their support is pretty great already). And the risk would be the employer NOT footing the bill, which - as I was eluding to - seems a bit cheap if they’re generating a fair amount of revenue and it is a GAAP expense.

Epic have basically done it to every single product they offer - I can only speculate as to why - but given that they have had to lay off a huge percentage of their staff and Tim Sweeney publicly stated that they gave many of their divisions too much latitude to not be responsible for their own income (or lack of) I suspect this is why they have made those big changes across the board.

but anyway back on topic, this is not the place to be discussing how to avoid adhering to software license terms.

So I guess if your company is only obtaining a handful of photogrammetry projects while also generating over $1M in revenue for its common services, then I get it not being something you’d have a hard time selling obtaining a license to the folks upstairs (although I would argue $1200 is NOT a big deal for a company to invest in, especially from an accounting perspective).

Anyway, my original point was its still worth getting the current version of RC, disabling the automatic update upon start, and using the PPI approach if you can. It’s an awesome piece of software.

1 Like

Wasn’t really my intent for sure. My main point was $1250/yr isn’t a whole lot of money for something that can be partially written off via expenses/deductions, and if it is then the organization probably isn’t meeting that $1M threshold, so all of this is moot.

My original point was: RC is a great photogrammetry software package - WAY better than the online providers like DroneDeploy, etc. - and that OP should have a look at the current version, which will still be usable for the next year or so under the PPI license.

1 Like

For sure.
We’d sell more software if only it was so easy :smiley:

The software itself may not be a big cost but its all the additional costs of pivoting a business towards new techniques and processes and all the extras which come with it. No point in photogrammetry software if they dont want to pay for the photos to put into it.

(Transmutr developer here…)

Does enabling “Preserve UV seams” help?

If you could send the model to transmutr@lindale.io, I’d love to tinker with it to see how we can improve, and what Transmutr v2 (WIP) does with it.

I’ve sent it over, Thanks Thomas.
I think I did try that and it didn’t help in this case. I’m trying lots of different things simultaneously and may have lost track.

For anybody else who is curious and wants to melt their machine or see what they can do with such a foolishly large mesh experiment.

1 Like

Thanks, Adam!

Just a try (some adjustments are needed in SimpleBake)

  • in Blender > Decimate modifier - from 7.5 million tris/faces to 150k tris/faces

  • SimpleBake - high-poly to low-poly

  • in SketchUp > Skimp - 90k faces


1 Like

Thanks Mihai, I was hoping you’d show up with a few tips for blender.

Merging the textures was on my list of things to experiment with , I shall take a look at those plugins at some point.

1 Like

Thank you and with pleasure, Adam! Regarding the baking process in Blender, you can easily do it with the native tools, but I used the SimpleBake addon for simplicity and speed, plus it automatically exports the FBX file with the new baked texture. And the import extension for SketchUp, Skimp, it works ok.

We sell Skimp, it’s really good. I was trying to avoid anything inside of SketchUp as it was quite hard work with 11million edges :joy:

Thanks for the file!

I can confirm that the holes in the simplified model come from the fact that there are multiple textures.
Upon import, the OBJ library that Transmutr uses under the hood, splits the model into one mesh per material. Then each mesh is simplified separately, so there are holes appearing between them.

If you find a way to have a single texture, Transmutr will import the model as a single mesh, and therefor the simplification should not produce as many holes (although I can’t guarantee that there will be none).
In our experience, in that case Transmutr should yield better results than Skimp (which tends to produce more holes).

If we were to support Gaussian splatting visualization in SketchUp in the same way we support point clouds in Scan Essentials, would you use this technology more often?