SketchUp_an oldtimer's view

Off Topic
21

Vector linework is primarily for export for use in CAD. Hybrid also creates vector linework but adds raster for textures which vector rendering does not show.

No. I’m not. It would be great if LayOut was faster in rendering vector and hybrid with heavy models. It’s certainly much faster now than it’s ever been because the developers have been working on improvements. But, if you’re going to use it as it is, you need to work within its capabilities. This isn’t unique to SketchUp and LayOut. The point that both @bmike and I were trying to make is that while you can have loads of small details in your models, you should also be considering what value those details add to your model for the way you are going to use it.

Those ridiculously bloated bolt components are an excellent example. My deletion of all those “threads” greatly reduced the load on the model and made LayOut faster, too. And even without the fake threads, the components can still be used to get a count of the number required.

Look, I make a lot of very highly detailed models but I do that when the model needs it. I’ve modeled many bolts and other things with screw threads at very high levels of detail because they were being used for 3D printing. I would never bother to use those detailed components in a model of a house, though, because a much simpler component can communicate the same thing without bloating the model.

22

No one is arguing that, just telling you how it is. You can work with that reality, or you can struggle. Choice is yours.

I know that for me it is irrelevant if I can count the threads on a bolt when I’m doing elevations or architectural sections, nor do I care if the metal roof is properly crimped and shown with the exact radius, or if the nuts and washers are rendered with more than 8 or 12 segments. And my clients certainly don’t give a rat’s ass if I have modeled all the micro bevels on the T&G ceiling boards, or if I show the eased edges on the kitchen stove knobs…

But you do you.

:+1:

23

I get @r2d22 's mentality, or at least I have one of my own that empathizes on this subject:

My knee-jerk reaction is to model every physical property, so if I want to click on the bolt, I can count the threads to make sure what is modeled is the same as the McMaster-Carr part I used for reference (or just downloaded and modeled off of).

Sometimes I have to ask “What would [insert my sisters name] do?”, because she’s even more minimalist than me, and has an astounding ability to only focus on what matters at the time (something I attribute to here careers successes, which are annoying).

It’s fun to model the real world in a digital environment, but if it comes at the expense of my deliverables being difficult for others to use, I just have to make those bolts simple cylinders and keep the detail for the single closeup shot on the parts list.

24

100% agree, SketchUp is amazing as it is but add some appropriate extensions and it is darn near magical.

SketchUp really is a “bare bones” tool that becomes quite powerful when you add the extensions that make sense for the work you do.

25

There’s a big difference between modeling something exactly as in the real world, and modeling something with the details that someone will need to make it. For example, they need to know what size of bolt is required, but they don’t need to see and count the threads on the model to do that, it should be given in a spec sheet or annotations.

26

Regarding the treads on the bolt, I downloaded it from the 3D warehouse, I did not build it and after the first comment regarding it I removed all the treads. I totally agree that they are unseen and not needed. My mantra is simplicity, I endeavour to keep my models that way but there are areas that require more detail and I use them in details in Layout.

27

Regarding the level of detail - specifically regarding the threads on the bolts, I think I remember seeing @TheOnlyAaron with a method for this maybe with trees where he drew three versions each with their own tag and then could toggle visibility of the correct detail level for the view that he was generating. Is this an approach that could be used to have the best of both worlds for minimal effort on the component?

Edit: Actually it was Eric that did the tree and Aaron did one on a hanger

28

I’m two years younger than you
Been using Sketchup since v1 when it was by At Last Software

My biggest Sketchup files are around 50 MB and It rarely takes longer than 30 seconds to update Layout on complex models.

What model Mac are you using?

Regards
Paul

29

I use textures to put threads on bolts if I need them
The need to display stuff no one looks at on plans is a kind of disease I suffer from sometimes
The fasteners I download directly from Simpson Strong-Tie (stl files) have full threads so I use them sparingly in details, usually when my OCD kicks in

Paul

30

I love all the best practice tips I pick up from this forum on how to keep the models light and snappy for working with LO. Thank you everyone for figuring out and sharing your knowledge. I try to do the same.

With that said, as in any software, there is always room for improvement. I’m not a software programmer or developer, so I don’t know the technical difficulties involved, but as a user having worked with other software packages, it seems that they tend to take better advantage of today’s modern hardware and can easily handle very large models with very little lag.

Creative workarounds are great to know, but it’s much better when the software/hardware enable you to not have to think about workarounds, letting you focus on your designs.

One specific example in the past I ran into back between the mid 1990s to 2010ish was with rendering/animation software and the use of radiosity lighting effects. The visuals looked so amazing with radiosity on versus off, with the color of objects bouncing off each other giving a next level of realism, but the time to render cost was extremely heavy in that era of limited compute power. So I developed a techique that I even taught in university classes to not use radiosity but to instead, place a colorized omni light inside strongly colored objects (like a bright red sofa) with limited illumination range and exclude the object that it was inside of from casting shadows. The techniques worked great and resulted in at least ten times faster renderings that was absolutely critical when producing long animations for projects with deadlines.

This was awesome for the years of limited compute power, but as the years went on, hardware and software improved and in the end my technique was not needed anymore, and it was great! Today I use Enscape to do real-time renderings of my projects with zero delay and it incorporates it’s own real-time radiosity technique giving me and my clients fairly realistic results with zero rendering time for screen captures and VR, and extremely fast rendering times for animations and high-res image outputs.

In the end, I think the goal of any creator software should be to work at the speed of thought with as few limitations as possible taking advantage of the latest state of the art technologies available.

SU and Enscape has for the most part achieved that goal for me, and as mentioned in another post, if LO could somehow utilize the insane power available with the latest CPUs and GPUs, and allow designers to push the limits on how much detail they want to use or not and to make real-time vector, hybrid or raster outputs while improving stability, it would place SU and LO as a top option for many people in many different industries.

31

For this part, the making use of DX12 and Metal in SketchUp 2024 does cover that.

32

However, the render time saved might have been used to create more complex renders, according to Blinn’s law:

https://pbr-book.org/4ed/Introduction/A_Brief_History_of_Physically_Based_Rendering

33

Thank you for the interesting article.

It’s true, I think there was a time until recently when the more software/hardware power I had, my rendering times would stay about the same, because I would simply add more detail, nicer lighting, and better materials to my models. I was always willing to wait a certain amount of time for that extra level of quality.

As an architect with a need for speed and fairly accurate representations of my work that do not need to achieve Hollywood Big-screen level of quality, the ratio of wait-times divided by quality-desired has in recent years gone to zero.

Technologies such as SU with Enscape that has real-time rendering capability coupled with the latest Nvidia GPUs allow me to literally walk around my projects at will on screen or in VR, with zero rendering lag similar to playing a video game while still maintaining what I consider about 90% photo-realism in regards to lighting and materials. Which for my production needs is great. Of course I always welcome more photo-realism, especially with lighting accuracy using IES files from manufacturers, but I would not at this point be willing to wait for that extra level of quality. 90% with zero wait time is good enough for me.

I look forward to the day when LO achieves this same level of real-time no-lag on-screen and output capability for raster/vector and hybrid. To be able to work at the speed of thought without forced coffee breaks should be the goal.

In the mean time, I’m happy working with LO with the needed workarounds and best practices. I just look forward to the day LO and improved hardware makes those workarounds obsolete.

34

It’s nice to know that I’m not the only 79 year-old SketchUp user. I’ve been in the SU world since version 1, before Google bought it. I’ve had Blender loaded on my MacBook Pro 2019, and have tried to learn to use it, but can’t get past the start screen. I’m sure it’s a dynamite program and does do some things that SU is not noted for. But for 99% of my work, and like Dave R, is getting more technical. Some of the folks on this forum have followed some of my work. It does the job, it’s intuitive and, while i’ll keep trying to work with Blender, am fully committed to making SU better and more powerful.

35

I’ve not been using SU quite as long as you - only since v5 - but I’m a few years older - 83 next December.

And I’ve followed your long threads on gun turret etc and admired the results very much.

I look forward to your account of modelling the New Jersey engine room next!

I hope you have success with that too!

36

Thanks John! I never know how many people follow my endless posts. I only know who comments, for which I am grateful. Us old guys can do some pretty creative work. Frankly, it’s that work that’s keeping my brain working. My dad, after retirement, basically died of boredome.

You can bet that if the Engine Room project goes forth, I will post it in agonizing detail. I will also need help from the SU community (hear that DaveR) on how best to model the innerds of the high and low pressure steam turbines. I am contemplating making a limited cutaways of them, and at 1:48 scale, the blading will be tough to replicate. I’m pretty sure I can do what I want with the main reduction gear. I’ve already experimented in drawing the double-herringbone gearing with good results. I can’t go forward until I get my hands on those drawings.

38

Click in sequence on the scenes tabs of this SU file for ideas.

Wind_turbine_blade.skp (242.7 KB)

Maybe this technique can help you in the modelling of steam turbine blades.

39

Looks like Jean has you sorted on that so I won’t confuse the issue.

BTW if you put an @ before my username I will get pinged when you post. As it is, it was only by coincidence I looked at this thread today.

40

Great story. Keep it up young man and the art will only get better :+1: