removing double-sided faces

[rhumbaflappy]

Perhaps you could give an example of a double-sided object. Zip a small example and attach it to a post.
That said, your best solution is to learn Blender. It is free, and it will give you exponentially greater control over your meshes and texturing. Sketchup is notorious for creating complex meshes and material solutions.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Gary,

No sir I did not launch either "8" version with Administrative privileges.

That said, I do have both 2016 & 2017 versions of Sketchup up and running.

Congratulations; if you encounter any additional issues related to the installation process, feel free to let us know.

You mention "Ruby Plugin's".

My goal is to drastically reduce polygons/triangles which are extremely debilitating when designing with Sketchup. Importing such files into MCX yields horrendous number counts.

It would help us to help you reduce the "Poly"- (aka "Polygon" aka "Face" count in Sketchup parlance)- count if you would attach here a ZIP archive of the file depicted in the screenie of your OP above; alternatively, upload it to a file storage download host such as DropBox, GoogeDrive, Windows OneDrive, MediaFire etc. and attach a link.


Regarding use of plugin Ruby scripts (aka "Extensions"): after examining your Sketchup export file cited above which you have thus far been able to import to MCX, we would be glad to offer recommendations to reduce the "Poly" count.

FYI: Certainly the most commonly used term used historically to refer to 3D model complexity is the term "Poly" count.

But in Windows DirectX rendering of 3D content, technically (and especially for FS SDK production), 3D model complexity actually incurs a greater cumulative impact on run time rendering in FPS, due to the vertices (plural) used for the wire frame of the Geometry and mapping any Materials, often referred to as the "Vertex Count".


But conceptually, it is to be expected that when we reduce the number of "Polys" / "Faces" in a Sketchup model, we would also reduce the associated count of "Vertices".

Sometimes this can be done easily in the Sketchup workspace with its default feature set.

Other times it is easier to perform such tasks by using a 3rd party plugin Ruby script which runs within the Ruby scripting language infrastructure underlying Sketchup.

Depending on what we see when we inspect your 3D model to be attached here, we may recommend installing / using such a 3rd party plugin Ruby script / extension.

That process is typically a quick install of a plugin used to install other 3rd party plugins without use of the online web traffic to log, data snoop, and profile end users that is utilized by some entities hosting plugins / extensions ...that slows down a Sketchup work session.

After that simple installer is in place, one can more easily install other plugins available in a number of file formats ranging from basic RB to RBZ or ZIP archives.

IMHO, nearly all sophisticated features offered by "Pro" versions of Sketchup can be substituted (often with better implementation) by free plugins in free "Make".


However, as Dick pointed out above, there is also a feature in Arno's ModelConverterX (aka "MCX") to remove the double-sided Faces that Sketchup creates by default.


Last, but not least, a practical re-consideration of how complex a 3D model actually needs to be for a desired appearance at run time if viewed from the aircraft camera position in- or near- the hangar stairs in question may be recommended as well.

Ex: Sometimes one can simplify a 3D model stairway with railings by use of a flat plane that uses transparency to simulate otherwise 3D solid vertical elements in a railing.

I can provide examples if needed. And again, thank you so much for your personal time spent replying to my inquiries.

James

So now that you are up and running in more full-featured versions of Sketchup, we shall await your reply with an attached / linked example 3D model showing issues in the OP.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Hello Gary and thank you much. I am uploading the project as requested.

Quick note....
1. You will find the backside of the project faceless. That was done intentionally to cut down polys as this side will be up against a side of a building and not visable.

Today I completely re-did the stairs using Sketchup 2016 only and it is named Stairs_SU_ver2016.skp located in the zip file. This version is completely un-textured.

I then loaded this same file into Sketchup Go for one simple reason. Only to texture it. This file is also in the zip and is named Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.skp.
Thank you!

Link for files

James

 

[GaryGB]

Hi James:

I have downloaded the archive linked in your post immediately above.

I can open Stairs_SU_ver2016.skp in Sketchup 2016

I can not open Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.skp in Sketchup 2016.

If I attempt to open Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.skp in Sketchup 2017, I get this error:

I believe that for the intended purposes of this threads sub-topic discussion, it would be best that you export and attach both files from Sketchup in a Google KMZ file format, as this would allow access to those here who download the example file(s) to offer recommendations based on use of freely available versions of Sketchup.

Otherwise the would-be discussion participants here may need to own a payware copy of Sketchup 2024, or have installed a special type of plugin Ruby script to convert that file into a SKP version targeting an older version of Sketchup.

AFAIK, a Google KMZ file format is version-less, and can be imported in any numeric version of Sketchup (I am not sure about "Go", however, as I never used it).


BTW: Have you ever been able to export any file format output type other than a 2024 SKP from "Go" such that you can import it into Arno's MCX ?

Thus far, when I open Stairs_SU_ver2016.skp in Sketchup 2016, I see these Statistics for the current build of the 3D model in question:

309 Faces is a rather nice improvement in complexity compared to that of the 3D model discussed in your OP above.

I would expect that the overall complexity of the 3D model may increase when Materials are mapped onto it, and we will want to compare the Statistics shown by the Sketchup dialog above, with the information provided by Arno's MCX, and MCX does not import SKP files directly in their native format; thus the need to have you provide us with a 3D model file format that MCX can import.

1. You will find the backside of the project faceless. That was done intentionally to cut down polys as this side will be up against a side of a building and not viable.

Today I completely re-did the stairs using Sketchup 2016 only and it is named Stairs_SU_ver2016.skp located in the zip file. This version is completely un-textured.

I then loaded this same file into Sketchup Go for one simple reason. Only to texture it. This file is also in the zip and is named Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.skp.
Thank you!

James

Just a quick note to clarify a few basic attributes of Sketchup which still apply to your files when saved to SKP file format:

Sketchup always creates double-sided Faces, and maps both sides with default Material "Colors": White exterior (aka "Front"), Blue-Grey interior (aka "Reverse")

As you can see, the interior of your SKP file format 3D model shows the interior (aka "Reverse" sides) mapped with a Blue-Grey Material Color on its Faces:

Sketchup 3D Model Export [Options] button, for some 3D file formats, allows one to disable double-sided Faces (and/or configure other attributes).

I shall await your reply with an attachment of the linked content in your latter post exported to an archive in a Google KMZ file format.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Hi Gary,

Little confused regarding your comments and illustration as it relates to the colored faces white versus blue. Are you indicating I did this wrong? I was under the impression that all outside faces should be white while inside faces should be blue. Was this information wrong as I was informed by others?

Your comments: >>Sketchup 3D Model Export [Options] button, for some 3D file formats, allows one to disable double-sided Faces (and/or configure other attributes).<<
For the record, I never ever check this box when exporting the file as a DAE or anything else. In other words, I never check the box (Export Two Sided Faces).

>>I shall await your reply with an attachment of the linked content in your latter post exported to an archive in a Google KMZ file format. <<

As you requested, I have exported both the previously supplied files in the KMZ format. I opened Sketchup 2016 and exported the Stairs_SU_ver2016.skp file as Stairs_SU_ver2016.kmz.

I then opened Sketchup GO, and exported Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.skp as Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.kmz. I hope this helps.

I cannot thank you enough for your assistance in this matter. The personal time you've devoted to responding to me means a helluva lot. I truly mean it. Thank you sir.

Link for files

James

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Gary,

Little confused regarding your comments and illustration as it relates to the colored faces white versus blue. Are you indicating I did this wrong? I was under the impression that all outside faces should be white while inside faces should be blue. Was this information wrong as I was informed by others?

Hi James:

Just a quick note before I catch some more Z's.

No; your use of Sketchup has correct Face orientation with assignment of default Faces color mapped White Outside and Blue Inside.

Tomorrow morning (Monday) we will endeavor to clarify better the techie details of "double-faced" versus "double-sided" texture Material mapping on both the exterior and interior of surfaces in 3D models.

Your comments: >>Sketchup 3D Model Export [Options] button, for some 3D file formats, allows one to disable double-sided Faces (and/or configure other attributes).<<
For the record, I never ever check this box when exporting the file as a DAE or anything else. In other words, I never check the box (Export Two Sided Faces).

>>I shall await your reply with an attachment of the linked content in your latter post exported to an archive in a Google KMZ file format. <<

As you requested, I have exported both the previously supplied files in the KMZ format. I opened Sketchup 2016 and exported the Stairs_SU_ver2016.skp file as Stairs_SU_ver2016.kmz.

I then opened Sketchup GO, and exported Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.skp as Stairs_SU_ver2016-GO.kmz. I hope this helps.

Thanks for facilitating ease of access by all who may wish to participate and contribute recommendations or learn from this discussion.

I cannot thank you enough for your assistance in this matter. The personal time you've devoted to responding to me means a helluva lot. I truly mean it. Thank you sir.

James

Glad to be able to help; I'll post more info in the morning (Monday).

GaryGB

 

[Airfreighter14853]

Hi all,

I'm venturing into sketchup for some fun. The model I'm working on has faces on both sides, so inside walls show up which is not really needed for FS.

Is there a way to remove this after the polygon has been made so the inside is not rendered? Cutting the polycount in half would be so fine for performance

Kindly,

Blazer

Hi,
With the models I've made using Sketchup so far, I've found that if I leave the "back" face of surfaces untextured (default 'blank') they are invisible in FS after conversion through Model Converter.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi James:

UPDATED: You informed me via a post later in this thread, you did not map the Exterior texture image Material onto interior Faces.

In light of your clarification as author of the original SKP files, my inference is incorrect, and we must now ID where Material mis-mapping occurs.

My apologies for the incorrect inference drawn from a workflow involving inter-conversion of Sketchup file formats from Go (2022 - 2024) and (2016 - 2017).

Certain Sketchup features and file formats were reportedly changed in 2017, 2018, 2021 et seq., and IIUC "GO" uses 2024 (which is directly 2022 compatible).

I suspect that either the Sketchup Go KMZ exporter or either / both of the Sketchup 2016 - 2017 KMZ importers may be a cause of this mis-mapping.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/removing-double-sided-faces.76400/post-927163

NOTE: Because James has UV mapped a Material of a color or image texture onto the interior / Reverse Faces of his 3D model, when exported as a KMZ, then imported into MCX, MCX 3D preview mode shows that the model has a texture image mapped, and thus appears to have non-transparent "Faces" inside:

NOTE: Because the 2017 KMZ import 'derived' from James' 3D model has UV mapped a Material of a color or image texture onto the interior / Reverse Faces of his 3D model, when exported as a KMZ, then imported into MCX, MCX 3D preview mode shows that the model has a texture image mapped, and thus appears to have non-transparent "Faces" inside:

The evidence for James' workflow that defeats MCX elimination of the "double-sided" attribute from an imported KMZ is seen in Sketchup 2017:

Sketchup 2017 KMZ import of James' 3D model that defeats MCX elimination of the "double-sided" attribute from an imported KMZ is seen in Sketchup 2017:

James: As you know, having a texture image mapped onto Faces on the interior of this 3D model is not needed, as you said the stairs are "up against the wall".
[END_UPDATE]

And technically, the UV-mapped texture adds to the geometry complexity of the 3D model and theoretically may impact run time local FPS. Although modern computers used for FS9 are not likely impacted, removing un-necessary Material mapped on 3D model interiors is a "FS Best Practice".

And 'besides', why not score extra points with your co-developer by coming back with even less complex geometry than his version of the 3D model ?

A "Remove All Materials" Sketchup 3rd party plugin removes mapped Materials from both Outside and Inside Faces of a 3D model, so it cannot be used here.

While alternative 3rd party plugins for detailed management of double-sided Faces in normal and "Manifold" solid 3D models is discussed here:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/ruby-tuesday-2012-06-05.263246/#post-442778

...IMHO, the best solution is to draw a new Face (ex: a Rectangle) on the ground within the project workspace, and leave it without any mapped Materials.

With the Paint Bucket Tool, Alt+LMB click on the "Reverse" side Blue color, then immediately, LMB click onto all the interior Faces of the stairs 3D model.

This will replace the default "Reverse" side Blue color onto the inside of the 3D model, which upon import by MCX, will render as a Face-less / transparent:

PS: Yeah, I know; use of Paint Bucket Tool for this infers Sketchup's "default" White exterior and Blue interior 'colors' actually are UV-mapped; go figure !???

If that is the case, it is a mystery how MCX knows to not retain those interior Faces UV-mapped by ONLY Sketchup default Face "colors" for KMZ imports.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Gary,

Your images imply the interior walls of the model were actually textured mapped. They in fact were not intentionally textured by me. In fact, here is a screen shot of the model opened in Sketchup GO (the program I used to texture) and you can clearly see the default reverse blue on the inside. I'm not sure how your versions magically became mapped on the inside. KMZ export perhaps?

 

[GaryGB]

Gary,

Your images imply the interior walls of the model were actually textured mapped. They in fact were not intentionally textured by me. In fact, here is a screen shot of the model opened in Sketchup GO (the program I used to texture) and you can clearly see the default reverse blue on the inside.

Hi James:

I would be glad to further investigate the cause of your 3D model being texture mapped on interior Faces with the same Material as is mapped on exterior Faces.


FYI: Only the default Sketchup 2017 Import Google KMX feature was used to import the KMZ's from your ZIP into Sketchup 2017 (not via a plugin).


Are the SKP files in the ZIP you linked immediately prior to the linked ZIP of KMZ files, the original project source files for those latter KMZ files ?

If so, I shall re-analyze them in Sketchup 2017 after import, following conversion with a stand-alone executable Sketchup SKP conversion utility.

If not, and the latter ZIP of KMZ files are newer than the ZIP of latter SKP files linked above, please attach / link to a ZIP of the SKP source for the ZIP of latter KMZ files linked above in your post.

I shall await your reply to this post prior to proceeding with any further analysis of available linked / downloaded files.

I'm not sure how your versions magically became mapped on the inside. KMZ export perhaps?

UPDATED: (Monday night)

I can verify based on the Sketchup Go 2016 KMZ export you attached above, that Reverse Faces are indeed correctly mapped with a default Blue color.

More on this tomorrow (Tuesday), after I see if there has been a misinterpretation of Material mapping by the default Sketchup 2017 KMZ importer.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Morning Gary,

In an effort to assist you with your testing, I am providing a download that better articulates what files are what. In other words, their origin, how and where they were saved, textured, etc.

F1 StrsOrig_SU2016.skp Original stairs modeled in SU2016. No textures.
F2 StrsOrig_SU2016.dae Original stairs modeled in SU2016. No textures. Exported by SU2016 as a DAE file.
F3 StrsOrig_SU2016.kmz Original stairs modeled in SU2016. No textures. Exported by SU2016 as a KMZ file.

F4 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO.skp Original stairs modeled in SU2016 opened in GO and saved. No textures.
F5 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO.dae Original stairs modeled in SU2016 opened in GO and exported as DAE file. No textures.
F6 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO.kmz Original stairs modeled in SU2016 opened in GO and exported as KMZ file. No textures.

F7 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO_Tex.skp F4 file opened in GO and textured. Saved as SKP file.
F8 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO_Tex.dae F7 file opened in GO and exported as DAE.zip file. Tex's exp in separate directory
F9 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO_Tex.kmz F7 file opened in GO and exported as KMZ file.

F0 StrsOrig_SU16_toGO_TexG.kmz F7 file open in GO and exp as KMZ file with "export hidden geometry" box checked.

I was glad to see in your Monday night update that you found that I did not texture the insides of the model. I felt foolish when you originally stated that. I admit, I'm not the smartest rabbit in the race but even I know you do not texture the inside of a model such as this one. Open garages, etc. perhaps the exception.

Files are here

James

 

[GaryGB]

Hi James:

I have edited my post above in an attempt to clarify the workflow you reportedly used, and to apologize for my drawing / posting an incorrect inference:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/removing-double-sided-faces.76400/post-927147


I appreciate your efforts to contribute to troubleshooting the possible source of the Material mis-mapping incurred apparently during KMZ import / export.


However, presently my available time and energy are rather limited, and my original goal when I saw your OP above in this discussion thread was to offer help to you and others who use Sketchup with resolving issues related to working with double-sided Faces.

Secondarily my goal was to address options to reduce 3D model geometry complexity via analysis of your original 3D model seen in your OP screenie above.


While I would like to ultimately ID the cause of the 'Material mis-mapping' incurred apparently during KMZ import / export when available time and energy permits, at this point, I believe it would be more appropriate to specifically address that 3D model shown in your OP, as it would properly be more "on topic".

The subsequent discussions which have ensued are certainly reasonably related as sub-topics, but would likely be best separated into a new discussion thread within the Sketchup forum.


I believe it would be preferable to re-direct the flow of this discussion back to exploring the basis for geometry complexity in your OP's original 3D model.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/removing-double-sided-faces.76400/post-927034


IMHO, we all might wish to show our work at its best, particularly when we are somewhat new to a FS Developer support forum, but now that you know this environment is primarily focused on matters of mutual interest and concern, and most of us are sincerely trying to learn and to help one another, I hope you see a potential mutual benefit to posting the actual content that is the basis of a query when it is needed to offer a properly informed reply to a specific query.

Many here are developers of FS payware and may have issues of confidentiality under NDA's in a 'perceived' competitive niche market, and others may also have issues of pride in accomplishment as a result of hard-earned skills, which compels them to prefer not disclosing the content that is the actual basis for queries here at FS Developer, especially if they are initially uncertain about how to correct their development challenge(s) at a particular point in time.

We all may benefit from sharing ideas and development challenges, and IMHO, it is unlikely lasting damage will ensue from "showing one's cards" if asked.

I suggest that it is best to disclose the actual content that is the basis of a query- 'warts and all'- as a "work-in-progress" ...that will ultimately be revised.

While Dick suggested the option of attaching an "example" of content that shows the issue you were concerned about in your OP, I propose alternatively, if you still have a SKP for the original 3D model which was the basis of your OP above in this thread, that you please attach- or link- to it here.


I do not wish to offend you, but I believe that it is best to not rebuild and attach a "different" version of a project which was the basis for a query here.

Your new build of the 3D model indeed showed a significant enhancement of the "Poly" count; but I would prefer to also examine the original 3d model.


I would then like to address that specific geometry complexity issue to "stay on topic", while incidentally determining if double-sided Faces are involved.

We can then discuss additional related issues that may involve Material mapping (and/or "Material mis-mapping"), and start new threads as needed.

We can also discuss options to reduce geometry complexity via plugin Ruby scripts- and via MCX features- to save having to re-build a 3D model.


Thanks for considering my proposed re-direction of this discussion to IMHO, more appropriately address each sub-topic in order- and in context.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Hi Gary,

I have read and re-read your reply from today. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what your trying to say. Seems to be a lot of incorrectly made assumptions on what I'm trying to accomplish here. So please let me explain further:

1. I never meant to step on anyone's toes here. Again, I'm confused as to what you were trying to say today so I'm not sure if I stepped on toes are not. If It was interpreted by someone who then PM'd you, please extend my apologies to whoever. While I have been told I'm very intelligent in certain areas, I will be the first to tell you I'm very ignorant in the area of scenery design. Therefore questions I ask may sound confusing to some. My sole intent when I posted this thread was to seek help in reducing double sided faces and other geometry from models designed in Sketchup GO. I use Sketchup GO for its ease of use. I have Blender installed on my PC but I'm totally lost trying to design in it. It seems to be that Blender is very complex and is for those who already are talented designers.

2. >>I do not wish to offend you, but I believe that it is best to not rebuild and attach a "different" version of a project which was the basis for a query here.<<
The stair set I used in my original post was simply chosen as an example because I knew it to contain outrageous numbers when examined in MCX. Somewhere along the lines of our discussions, you brought up SU2016 and SU2017 which I interpreted as being a replacement to GO as they provided more features that possibly could reduce the overall numbers. So that is why I created a new version of the stair set using SU2016. Then you requested copies of the file in KMZ format which even confuses me more. In the past when I designed in Sketchup GO, I always mapped the individual textures and exported as a Collada (DAE) file. I then would create texture replacements in Photoshop and assign them to the model using MCX. Once I had the processing done in MCX, I would finish by using MCX's "Reduce Drawcall" feature and export as a BGL for use in FS9. So your back-n-forth regarding KMZ extensions still has me perplexed. I assume there is a benefit for doing so but currently have not been explained as to why. Forgive me if you tried to explain the benefit and I failed to comprehend it.

3. >>Many here are developers of FS payware and may have issues of confidentiality under NDA's in a 'perceived' competitive niche market, and others may also have issues of pride in accomplishment as a result of hard-earned skills, which compels them to prefer not disclosing the content that is the actual basis for queries here at FS Developer, especially if they are initially uncertain about how to correct their development challenge(s) at a particular point in time.<<
Wow. Ok. I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions here but I have never, nor will in the future, have any desire to make money from what I model. I would hope by now you see how un-talented I am in this area. My designs are merely meant to spruce up some old FS9 freeware airports. Nothing more. And honestly I have found it enjoyable along the way. To design something and then see in in FS gives me a sense of accomplishment. So if your insinuating some folks here may feel insecure or threatened by your willingness to help me then I dont know what to say. I was referred here by others who expressed how knowledgable everyone was here and their genuine interest to help others. And frankly I have found this to be true. But I certainly do not wish to bring you any ill feelings from others.

If your not able to help any further then I will just have to understand. If you are able, I am attaching (as earlier requested) what I believe to be the original version which my first post referenced. You will find both the SKP and an exported Collada version. Thank you.

James

Link to originals

 

[GaryGB]

Hi James:

All is well with the Material mapping on your StairSet.skp which IIUC was exported directly from Sketchup Go:

I shall reply further to the other content in your latter post immediately above when I can.

In the mean time, please be assured that you have not stepped on any ones toes (that I know of).

Your experience working with FS9 SDK and MCX (apparently through your own learning ) shows admirable skills and attention to detail, IMHO.


BTW: The only pressure I am under at this point is time constraints due to having many commitments that I wish to keep.


As time permits, I intend to still examine the 3D models you provided, and to ID a likely cause for the 'Material Mis-mapping' illustrated above.

As I mentioned, it may have been a malfunction in either the exporter or importer used for processing one of the KMZ files.


As for Dick's admonishment to beware of the complexities incurred when using Sketchup, and to (instead ?) learn Blender:

FYI: To reduce my current stress level to learn Blender in the excruciating detail I typically prefer, I may book passage on a slow boat to China.

I understand China gives free showers to folks on Philippine boats in contested seas somewhere along the way (...just kidding, of course).


But I'm just as territorial about Sketchup forum as Dick may now be when I admonish folks within Blender forum to (instead ?) use Sketchup.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Ok Gary. Thank you.

But when time permits I would still love to know why you keep mentioning KMZ extentions. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm accustomed to exporting my work from Sketchup as Collada files. If I should be exporting out of Sketchup as a KMZ file, it would be very knowledgeable to know as to why.

My hopes are, time permitting, that you can provide a game plan for me moving forward such as:

1. Design in Sketchup 2016, or 2017, or continue in GO.
2. Download such or such plugin and......
3. Export to MCX in this, that, or the other file type extension.

To date I still have no solution for removing double faces in Sketchup regardless of the version I design in. Ive tried GO obviously, and 2016, and then 2017. All yield double faces and high poly/triangle numbers in comparison to my co-designer who can produce numbers in the hundreds rather thousands using Lightwave. One might ask why I dont let him do all the designing. Fair question. But honestly that would not be fair to him. He wants me to learn and Im hungry to do just that. Unfortunately I cannot shell out $1000.00 to buy Lightwave. And probably wouldnt have the knowledge to use it anyway assuming it is as complex as Blender. For what little I do I am very comfortable using Sketchup regardless of the version.

I also wanted to mention, so you do not feel Ive been dismissive to your previous posts, that I have spent considerable time reading in your referenced threads regarding Ruby plugins. In fact I downloaded a couple and installed them into my appdata/Sketchup 2016 & 2017 individual /plugin forums. In 2016 version software, I get errors using the plugin while in 2017 version it does absolutely nothing.

Im burnt out.

Gary you've been great my friend. Thank you. When your caught up I will be waiting here patiently for a solution.

James

 

[GaryGB]

Ok Gary. Thank you.

But when time permits I would still love to know why you keep mentioning KMZ extentions. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm accustomed to exporting my work from Sketchup as Collada files. If I should be exporting out of Sketchup as a KMZ file, it would be very knowledgeable to know as to why.

My hopes are, time permitting, that you can provide a game plan for me moving forward such as:

1. Design in Sketchup 2016, or 2017, or continue in GO.
2. Download such or such plugin and......
3. Export to MCX in this, that, or the other file type extension.

Will do ASAP.

Use whichever version of Sketchup that makes you happy and productive; I use multiple versions for differing tasks via special plugins.

To date I still have no solution for removing double faces in Sketchup regardless of the version I design in. Ive tried GO obviously, and 2016, and then 2017. All yield double faces and high poly/triangle numbers in comparison to my co-designer who can produce numbers in the hundreds rather thousands using Lightwave. One might ask why I don't let him do all the designing. Fair question. But honestly that would not be fair to him. He wants me to learn and I'm hungry to do just that. Unfortunately I cannot shell out $1000.00 to buy Lightwave. And probably wouldn't have the knowledge to use it anyway assuming it is as complex as Blender. For what little I do I am very comfortable using Sketchup regardless of the version.

The complexity and cost of Lightwave would be as impractical as 3DSMAX and other ultra high end applications for most FS development.

Blender is evolving faster each year; IMHO it is only now getting to a point of having a tolerably sensible GUI and revised feature set.

There is no need to rush one's Blender learning process, especially since MSFS 2024 will likely impose more SDK changes within a year.


Regarding concerns over purported "double faces and high poly/triangle numbers", Have you reviewed these threads ? :

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/dae-vs-kmz.261266/

https://help.sketchup.com/en/sketchup/exporting-kmz-files-google-earth

https://help.sketchup.com/en/sketchup/importing-and-exporting-collada-files

I also wanted to mention, so you do not feel Ive been dismissive to your previous posts, that I have spent considerable time reading in your referenced threads regarding Ruby plugins. In fact I downloaded a couple and installed them into my appdata/Sketchup 2016 & 2017 individual /plugin forums. In 2016 version software, I get errors using the plugin while in 2017 version it does absolutely nothing.

Are you by any chance referring to either / both of the 2 plugins for removing interior Faces cited in this thread ? :

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/ruby-tuesday-2012-06-05.263246/#post-442778


Consider as well, the use of a "Shell" type plugin:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/post-713006

I'm burnt out.

Gary you've been great my friend. Thank you. When you're caught up I will be waiting here patiently for a solution.

James

I appreciate the kind words.

BTW: If you are in Ohio, are you 1 hour ahead of me here in "Chicagoland" ?

If so, getting some rest and re-orienting the Day / Night schedule may be good for both of us.

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Will do ASAP.

The complexity and cost of Lightwave would be as impractical as 3DSMAX and other ultra high end applications for most FS development.

Use whichever version of Sketchup that makes you happy and productive; I use multiple versions for differing tasks via special plugins.


Blender is evolving faster each year; IMHO it is only now getting to a point of having a tolerably sensible GUI and revised feature set.

There is no need to rush one's Blender learning process, especially since MSFS 2024 will likely impose more SDK changes within a year.



Have you reviewed these threads ? :

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/dae-vs-kmz.261266/

https://help.sketchup.com/en/sketchup/exporting-kmz-files-google-earth

https://help.sketchup.com/en/sketchup/importing-and-exporting-collada-files



Are you by any chance referring to either / both of the 2 plugins for removing interior Faces cited in this thread ? :

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/ruby-tuesday-2012-06-05.263246/#post-442778


Consider as well, the use of a "Shell" type plugin:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/post-713006




I appreciate the kind words.

BTW: If you are in Ohio, are you 1 hour ahead of me here in "Chicagoland" ?

If so, getting some rest and re-orienting the Day / Night schedule may be good for both of us.

GaryGB

Yes. 1 hour indeed.

James

 

[GaryGB]

Hi James:

Here is the statistics shown in the default Sketchup Model Info dialog for your Original OP 3D model linked per my request above:

Other plugin Ruby scripts to consider for use in Sketchup 2016 / 2017 prior to 3D model export as KMZ ...and import by MCX:

https://community.sketchucation.com/topic/115559/plugin-cleanup

https://community.sketchucation.com/topic/124664/plugin-model-info#p293079


Also required to be installed in conjunction with the above (2) thomthom plugin Ruby scripts is this "library" by thomthom:

https://sketchucation.com/plugin/726-tt_lib


Arno's MCX may also perform some cleanup operations (-as seen in the MCX Event Log) -during import of the KMZ.

After import to MCX, you may also wish to assess 3D model geometry complexity via MCX' "Object Information" dialog box.


I believe you should also review the Blog article by ACES' Adrian Woods (aka "Torgo 3000") regarding Vertices versus Polys cited here:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-model-extracted-using-sbx.455903/post-907020

Performance Art 3: Polygons don't matter.​

https://web.archive.org/web/2008091.../performance-art-3-polygons-don-t-matter.aspx


On a practical basis, as Bill Ortiz of Lionheart Creations has shown with performance of highly complex aircraft in FS9 that "exceed FS limits", other criteria matter more to run time performance in all FS versions than just the technicalities of 3D model geometry complexity.


While IIRC you did allude to a type of hangar that was "open" which IIUC may require both interior and interior Faces to create a textured "manifold" solid, you did not clarify if the stairs in question above were to be a part of such a "open" hangar object.

If so, IIUC it is intended that aircraft are intended to navigate into- or spawn within- close proximity to the stairs.

You did not indicate whether the stairs are going to be within view of any FS9 aircraft "camera" field of view, such that the stairs actually 'need' to be all 3D modeled ...including the railing balustrade.

If not, one may use a 2D panel of transparent textured Material, that would further reduce your stair balustrade complexity dramatically.

However, that process also involves work to create a properly sized panel, and may actually be 'impractical' to do, if you and your co-developer are running FS9 on modern computers, as your FPS are likely well over 150+, and FS9 will not hiccup rendering all-3D stairs.


So, IMHO, a discussion of geometry complexity for your stair model is in this case a technicality that is unlikely to impact FS9 local FPS.

But, what's a little 'competition' between friends ? (...reminds me of Richard Pryor's joke "It's Deep Too !").

GaryGB

 

[BkdaleFS9]

Other plugin Ruby scripts to consider for use in Sketchup 2016 / 2017 prior to 3D model export as KMZ ...and import by MCX:

https://community.sketchucation.com/topic/115559/plugin-cleanup

https://community.sketchucation.com/topic/124664/plugin-model-info#p293079


Also required to be installed in conjunction with the above (2) thomthom plugin Ruby scripts is this "library" by thomthom:

https://sketchucation.com/plugin/726-tt_lib

Thank you Gary for a lengthy and informative reply. You didnt forget me.

I downloaded all (3) of the your above recommended Ruby files and installed all three into my 2016 & 2017 "appdata/roaming/sketchup/version/sketchup/plugin" directories. But when I load either 2016 or 2017, I only see reference to the "model info" plugin. Are you sure the "cleanup" & "library" plugins are compatable with 2016/2017? I read compatability suggestions referencing Sketchup 7 and so forth but I'm unclear as to that terminology and how it may, or may not, relate to desktop versions 2016 & 2017 which you earlier suggested and I downloaded.

James

 

[GaryGB]

Hi James:

IIRC, all 'thomthom' plugin Ruby scripts are compatible with versions 8, 2016 and 2017.


After installing the above (3) plugin Ruby scripts, just exit and restart Sketchup; look under the Extensions Menu pull-down.

Some such plugin Ruby scripts require a restart after installation, before they are visible from the Sketchup menu system.


In rare cases, much older (but still compatible) plugin Ruby scripts may also require manually being set "Enabled" via:

Sketchup Menu > Window > Extension Manager.


BTW: thomthom has (2) other plugin Ruby scripts to simplify installation of extensions:

Simple Plugin Installer​

https://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=tt_simple_installer

https://community.sketchucation.com/topic/132403/plugin-simple-plugin-installer/2

DropZone Plugin Installer​

https://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?listtype=1&author=0&category=0&search=DropZone&submit=?

https://sketchucation.com/plugin/721-tt_dropzone


Some related info by thomthom on installing Sketchup plugins / extensions:

http://www.thomthom.net/thoughts/2012/01/installing-plugins-for-google-sketchup/


GaryGB