Decompiling a BGL File

[kmanning]

Hi Gary and all,
I finally determined the reason for the issues or problems that I was having, being that the exterior wall texture was not showing up when imported into MCX. I should of thought about this a few weeks ago. If you recall, I posted questions using the 2 buttons in the Edit section when selecting the Paint bucket. One button says "Match Color of Object in Model" and the other is "Match Color on Screen." What I was doing is taking the eyedropper clicking on a color image of the terminal I imported of that section with the windows, and painted that color onto my model. It will paint the color onto the exterior wall but for some reason or another, it keeps turning down the Opacity all the way down to 0 after the model has been exported. To prove my theory, I've done this with another exterior wall in different areas and also the roof or top section of the building, and each time, each one was invisible or transparent. I selected a color close to the original, then use the RGB to fine tune it and then created a new color. I'm trying to remember if I created the new color when I used the eyedropper from the image, but I don't recall if I did or not. If I had created it and saved it in the Materials Folder, it might have worked. But the point is, this is where my problem started. Now that I've made another color close to the original, this time not using the eyedropper, everything shows up when I import the file into MCX. Now that I've determined this issue, I exported it into FS2004.

Well, I did run into a problem exporting this file into FS2004, but I finally figured out what to do. The problem I ran into was that BGL error, or warning message I kept getting. Here's my work flow and maybe you can tell me why I get this message when I do it one way and it be successful when I do it another.

This flow gives me the BGL error message: After I've imported my model, I click on the Material Editor. Click on ALL and click on the Texture button at the bottom, click on DXTBMP and resized all to power of 2s, clicked on the Drawcalls button and click Predict drawcalls and Minimize Drawcalls. Clicked Save Textures and saved it to a folder, closed the Material Editor and then exported my model as a BGL file for FS2004.

This flow exports successfully: After importing my model, I click on the Material Editor. Click on ALL and click the Texture button at the bottom, click on DXTBMP and resized all to power of 2s. This time, I did not click the Drawcalls button to minimize drawcalls. Clicked Saved Textures and saved my Textures to a folder. Then I exported my model clicking on Export Scenery. This time, I received no error messages and everything was successful. I do have some Z fighting, meaning that some of my faces are overlapping or I have 2 or more faces on top of another. Other than that, everything looks great. So, was there something wrong with my workflow when using the eyedropper and when using the Material Editor in MCX?

Oh, one other thing. The parking deck that you see is the same one I downloaded from the 3D Warehouse. I just selected it and imported it to this model. I don't think this would have caused the issue because I do have the KBHM file without the parking deck and gave me the same issues. But my question is, is it okay to use these models into my model?
It seems like it would since I can download and use other models, such as buildings downtown.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

I believe it might be a good idea to attach the latest build of the KMZ file which you imported into MCX, regarding which you have asked the questions in the post immediately above.

When attached to your post, availability of that 3D model KMZ file would assist others (perhaps including myself) ...to better answer your questions posted above.


FYI: I anticipate posting further info regarding your project on Monday pending inspection of your latest build of the KMZ file which you imported into MCX, and regarding which you asked questions in the post immediately above.

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/decompiling-a-bgl-file.434183/page-9#post-722050

Oh, one other thing. The parking deck that you see is the same one I downloaded from the 3D Warehouse. I just selected it and imported it to this model. I don't think this would have caused the issue because I do have the KBHM file without the parking deck and gave me the same issues. But my question is, is it okay to use these models into my model?
It seems like it would since I can download and use other models, such as buildings downtown.

If you do not intend to distribute your finished scenery package to others as either freeware or payware, AFAIK the 3D warehouse terms of use does not prohibit you from making personal private use of models in that collection.


From a purely technical standpoint, I don't think it is likely that there is anything in the material settings of the original 3D Warehouse model which is configured to impose a 'forced' "fully transparent" attribute into certain textures when imported into Sketchup.


Are you temporarily making any textures transparent on faces that you are trying to "see through" while inspecting or editing the "inside" of the presumably now "closed solid" 3D model ?


NOTE: If there are faces that you wish to "see through" while inspecting or editing the "inside" of the presumably now "closed solid" 3D model, you can:

1.) Select the face

2.) Right-click the selected face (context menu pops up)

3.) Choose "Hide"


The selected face is now "fully transparent" ...without altering its texture Material attributes.

Also, you need not zoom completely into the interior of the model in order to perform edits, since the face behaves as if it is not there (...but it actually is still intact ...while "hidden").


To restore the "Hidden" face:

1.) Sketchup Menu > View > Hidden Geometry

2.) Click the "Hidden Face" now visible as a 'gray cross-hatch pattern' to "select" it

3.) Right-click the selected face (context menu pops up)

3.) Choose "Un-Hide"


The selected face is now "fully opaque" ...without altering its texture Material attributes.



Another option is to simply toggle "X-Ray mode" on via:

Sketchup Menu > View > Face Style > check "X-Ray"


"X-Ray mode" can be toggled off via:

Sketchup Menu > View > Face Style > Un-check "X-Ray"


Hope this info helps !

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

I believe it might be a good idea to attach the latest build of the KMZ file which you imported into MCX, regarding which you have asked the questions in the post immediately above.

When attached to your post, availability of that 3D model KMZ file would assist others (perhaps including myself) ...to better answer your questions posted above.

Hi Gary,
Yes, I plain to upload that kmz file just as soon as I get rid of that Z fighting I mentioned earlier. I should have it up later today. I did wanted you to have a copy of it as well so that we can all learn from this. I've been kind of busy with other things too.

Ken.

 

[kmanning]

Hi Gary,
Here's my KBHM file you can take a look at. I have it installed in FS2004 and it looks great. I flew around the airport and it also looks great from the air. I still have one other Z-fighting I need to get rid of. My next project is to add all jetways and to build the interior from the inside. That is, you'll be able to tour inside the new terminal and look out and watch planes arrive and depart from the gates. I hope I can get some good photos and determine what height the floor and ceilings are. Let me know how this file works for you. Try reducing the number of textures and drawcalls and let me know if you get that BGL warning as I did.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

I am experiencing inconsistent results during repeated import of the KMZ file you posted above.

Have you changed the file which is attached via the link above to a different file than was originally attached ?

If you would please attach a Sketchup version 8 SKP export file of the same 3D model as was used to export the KMZ file, I would like to evaluate why Sketchup is importing / displaying this model differently today than it did yesterday.

Thanks,

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

I am experiencing inconsistent results during repeated import of the KMZ file you posted above.

Hi Gary,
I don't know why you would be experiencing different results on repeated imports. I did it twice and I got the same results.

Have you changed the file which is attached via the link above to a different file than was originally attached

Well, if you mean that is this file different from the one I uploaded a few weeks ago, yes this one is different. But I have not made any changes to this file, KBHM_New Terminal.kmz since I've exported it from Sketchup. The one I uploaded a few weeks ago is the one that does not show any texture from that exterior wall. The one I uploaded immediately above is from where I've determined the cause and corrected the problem and uploaded this one so that you would have a good copy of the new terminal. I guess I understood you correctly.

If you would please attach a Sketchup version 8 SKP export file of the same 3D model as was used to export the KMZ file, I would like to evaluate why Sketchup is importing / displaying this model differently today than it did yesterday.

I have Sketchup 2015 and I can't find version 8. When you said "attach a Sketchup version 8 SKP export file," do you mean export this file as a kmz file using verions 8 or do you mean as a skp file using version 8? I've tried to upload the skp file using Sketchup 2015 and I get the message that the file is too large.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

As described in these Sketchup KB articles:

http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/114270

http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/3000033


...Please export and attach a Sketchup version 8 SKP file of the same 3D model used to export the above KMZ file.


BTW: If the 2015 export file type pick list also offers a Sketchup version 8 KMZ file, please attach one of those as well.

Thanks,

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

Hi Gary,
Here's the Sketchup version 8 file you requested. There was no kmz in that list, just the skp.

Hope this one is the one you need.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

Thanks for the v8 SKP file; it helped to verify the KMZ was being imported correctly into Sketchup v8.


I like the detail you are adding to your 3D model.


I have attached a minimally edited version of that file to re-position the 3D world Axes for both the overall model, and for the working context of the grouped "West wing".

I also Geo-located the 3D model into alignment with the real world.

Additionally, I added a "bottom" as an extra visual guide for where the walls of the "West wing" are positioned relative to each other, and relative to the adjacent portion of the overall terminal building.

The reason for these edits follows this brief 'disclaimer':


I realize that this 3D model is being constructed according to your own artistic interpretation of the real world KBHM terminal via a work-flow which "feels right" to you at this time.

I acknowledge and respect your preference to make this model in any way that you wish, and to have fun doing it ...to your own personal satisfaction.

So, any feedback I may offer here is simply intended to help reduce your workload and minimize potential complications with any working habits in the future when modeling in Sketchup (... so things can stay 'fun').


I shall offer a few suggestions to abide by with your ongoing work on this 3D model:

* Always Geo-locate your model on a captured tile of aerial imagery "ground" via the default Geo-locate feature

* Always re-position the 3D world axes from a corner and along the base of a longer wall 'where' you're modeling

[EDITED]

* Always draw edges on the 'ground' at those 3D world axes to form a face; extrude that rectangular face to make a "closed solid"

* Always model using that "closed solid"; hide /un-hide the bottom (or walls) as needed

* Model the "Western-most" wing from a extruded rectangular face first; model its junction with the curved Terminal last

* Extrude the wall at the East end of the 'Western-most' wing to "overlap" the adjacent curved Terminal; 'Explode' its group to "Intersect"

[END_EDIT]


BTW: If you look carefully in a Parallel Mode / Top-Down Camera view, you will see that the KBHM terminal is rotated clockwise relative to the Sketchup 'default' work-space Axes in the aerial imagery tile captured via the default Geo-locate feature.

Solid GREEN = North
Dashed GREEN = South
Solid RED = East
Dashed RED = West
Solid BLUE = Up
Dashed BLUE = Down


It is possible that as a result of working with Guide / Construction / Edge lines drawn and/or "extrusions" done along the Sketchup 'default' work-space Axes (rather than from the recommended counter-clockwise 're-positioned' Axes), when you constructed the "West wing", you once again ended up with a 'skewed' result on the upper-most face segments of the West and South walls, as well as the West end and South upper face of the Skylight window array on the roof.

Additionally, I see that you once again ended up with a skewed result on the upper-most segments of the West wall of the "NE wing" and the East face of the Skylight window array on the roof.


Overall, I'm impressed with how quickly your precision is improving with each version !


I believe that by using the attached model (or at least by 'matching' its Geo-located Geometry and re-located 3D world axes "positions") while using "closed solid modeling", you may eliminate any future "skewed" faces while further editing your KBHM 3D model.


Again, feel free to do as you wish with the attached "minimally edited" 3D model, as it is IMHO, entirely yours.


GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

Hi,
I have now added jetways to my new KBHM terminal. But in MCX, I'm getting this error message - This object has over 65,535 verticies and cannot be exported to FS2004 MDL. Is this a bug in MCX or do I have to reduce the number of vertices? It says I have about 144,000 vertices. If they have to be reduced, how do I do that? I uploaded my file in case you need it.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

The extra vertices in the 'skewed' wall sub-faces and some "window frames" are probably less than 5 percent of the vertices in the model, so when fixed, they will not in and of themselves be a significant contributor to the geometry complexity.

However, you could substantially decrease the 3D model geometry complexity by fixing them, so that all your (flat) wall faces will be 'co-planar', and are able to be processed via the "Combine" feature in Sketchup to merge faces and textures.

If you do that, ideally, you might end up with as little as (1) single texture for each (flat) wall, while still having sections within the wall texture that have the image and (opaque or transparent) attributes ...you originally mapped onto them.


FYI: Right now every vertex making up the windows and wall face sections are a 'wire-frame' portion of the geometry; but when you "Combine" the windows, sub-faces, and textures, that will dramatically reduce geometry complexity and 'Draw Calls'.


If you were to utilize some of the methods I have previously suggested to you, I believe that you might even now be able to fit your model into the vertex limitations of the FS2004 compiler.

If you are willing to work with a version of your model which has fixed the extra vertices in the 'skewed' faces, I can offer you a more detailed guide to using the "Combine" features to merge faces and textures.


I stand by my offer to proceed with releasing a guide to such a next "phase" if you are sincerely interested in working with a specified version of your 3D model which will allow you to utilize and learn those methods.


BTW: There are also some work-arounds for vertex limitations normally associated with the FS2004 compiler that were previously reported by Bill Ortiz and a few others which may help as well.

[EDITED]

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/polygon-limit-aircraft-fs2004.15245/

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-vertex-and-or-triangle-limit.309789/

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/polygons-limit.434940/

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/th...-fs2004-faster-better.11352/page-2#post-76813


I won't claim to understand 'all' the intricacies of creating 3D MDLs which the above linked threads refer to.

However, I believe in light of the info linked above, I can discern that the issue with your 3D model being reported as having "over 65,535 vertices and cannot be exported to FS2004 MDL" ...may involve either or both of 2 factors regarding geometry complexity:

* total number of vertices mapped to the same texture material draw call exceeding FS9 limits

* total size of the entire model exceeding FS9 limits


Clearly you have more vertices involved in the geometry of the windows mapped to the same texture material ...than are used in any other part of the model.

I believe that to fix this, you must "Combine" the many sub-faces on your wall sections to merge them into a lesser number of faces, while also merging the many individual areas of texture mapping on those faces into a lesser number as well.


To use the Sketchup "Combine" feature, the selected Faces with all their defining Edges (and their mapped texture areas) must be co-planar (meaning all in the same identical flat plane as the face of the entire wall on which they are located).


To successfully use the Tape Measure tool to guide individual drawing and/or placement of faces iterated via a 'Move-Copy' Array, the 3D world axes must be re-positioned precisely into the plane in which one intends to be working.


Extrusions also require that the 3D world axes must be re-positioned precisely into the plane in which one intends to be working, because otherwise, they proceed along the 3D world axis currently assigned elsewhere.


FYI: Your overall model of the KBHM Terminal is by my measurements rotated 0.7 Degrees clockwise relative to the N-S-E-W 3D world axes of the Sketchup default work space in the KMZ posted above.

IIUC, the Sketchup default work space also is aligned to the N-S-E-W Geographic real world axes.

IMHO, this means you should NOT be using the existing 3D world axes shown in your current attached KMZ file for performing 'certain' modeling functions on the "West wing" (or other parts) of your Sketchup model.


Although it is apparent that you have done an admirable job modeling using local sub-object "inferences", AFAIK, some of the critical functions you may need to perform and some default or 3rd party plugin script features you may need to use in Sketchup in order to make this 3D model ready to export for use in FS ...will ultimately still require you to:

* re-position the 3D world axes precisely into a edge / face plane of a sub-object you are working on

* work with a "closed solid" 3D model

[END_EDIT]


PS: Your Jetways look good !

GaryGB

 

[tgibson]

I'm not sure why the building needs to be aligned with the world axes, unless this reduces the polygon count? It can be rotated in FS when placed, if desired. And a closed solid 3D model (and the limit on the number of vertices using a single material) are advantages in FSX, not FS9. FS9 does not use those to reduce drawcalls. However, minimizing the polygon (vertex) count and the number and size of textures is always advantageous.

Hope this helps,

 

[GaryGB]

I'm not sure why the building needs to be aligned with the world axes, unless this reduces the polygon count? It can be rotated in FS when placed, if desired. And a closed solid 3D model (and the limit on the number of vertices using a single material) are advantages in FSX, not FS9. FS9 does not use those to reduce drawcalls. However, minimizing the polygon (vertex) count and the number and size of textures is always advantageous.

Hope this helps,

Hi Tom:

When Ken makes faces (I mean ...in Sketchup, of course ! ) using edge-drawing tools, there is an increased risk of non-co-planar and/or 'skewed' faces forming relative to the true axes for a local portion of the building he is working on.

And if he extrudes with the Push-Pull tool, the plane of the extrusion will proceed along the 3D world axes, and if that is not aligned along the edges of the local building's walls, then again he will incur non-co-planar and/or 'skewed' faces forming which will therefore also be off the axes for the local portion of the building he is working on.

I am emphasizing the need to form a building which has faces which are 'square' to each other and uniformly flat in each section where faces are to be "Combined", as that function will only work with faces (and their mapped textures) which are perfectly co-planar.


Beside the fact that certain default and 3rd party plugin script features will not work unless the model is a "closed solid", during modeling Ken would be less at risk for incurring 'skewed' faces if modeling is done with primitives that are "closed solid" primitives extruded along 3D world axes precisely aligned for the local portion of the overall building he is working on.


AFAIK, Ken will ultimately need to reduce the 3D model complexity via use of the "Combine" function, as the number of vertices associated with his many windows (textured with the same single translucent material) exceeds the "vertices per individual material" limits inherent in the FS9 compiler (IIUC, from the threads linked in my post immediately above).

IIRC, Arno indicated that the FS9 compiler does internally 'combine' certain material-specific draw calls, thus if too many vertices end up with "draw calls" mapped to the same individual texture material, one may exceed the "vertices per individual material" limits inherent in the FS9 compiler (IIUC, from the threads linked in my post immediately above).


Additionally, one can easily 'remove' the bottom or walls from ones work-space during modeling by simply hiding / un-hiding them as needed.

Certainly the bottom of the building can be truly and permanently removed after finished modeling with the "closed solid" immediately before export to further reduce complexity, if desired.

However, I understand Ken plans to make the inside of the building as a "view-able" camera position (either from a slewed aircraft or possibly a modified or custom FS9 non-movable aircraft / control tower-type object loaded from a saved flight ?), so he may wish to texture that bottom of the building as well.


Hope this helps clarify my encouraging Ken to utilize a particular workflow.

GaryGB

 

[Lane Street]

And if he extrudes with the Push-Pull tool, the plane of the extrusion will proceed along the 3D world axes, and if that is not aligned along the edges of the local building's walls, then again he will incur non-co-planar and/or 'skewed' faces forming which will therefore also be off the axes for the local portion of the building he is working on.

You must get this behavior from a plug-in as that is not how Sketchup has ever worked for me.

All faces that are extruded with the Push-Pull tool are extruded parallel with and perpendicular to the original face, regardless of it's orientation to any axis.

cheers,
Lane

 

[GaryGB]

You must get this behavior from a plug-in as that is not how Sketchup has ever worked for me.

All faces that are extruded with the Push-Pull tool are extruded parallel with and perpendicular to the original face, regardless of it's orientation to any axis.

cheers,
Lane

Hi Lane:

I do indeed utilize many plugins, some of which have options to ensure consistent alignment of local grouped or component axes with work-space 3D world axes.

And to further clarify, the vertical axis extrude direction on my Sketchup version-8_M3 are not subject to modification by any of the plugins I currently use, only horizontal, and in certain circumstances; that's also due to a plugin setting.



This compels a couple of questions, as I have used some plugins for years, I do leave them active, and I had considered suggesting some plugins to Ken in order to reduce the risk for future recurrence of skewed faces.


When you use the Sketchup default ('2-point-click') Rectangle drawing tool, do you get the same result as you indicated that you get with the Sketchup default Push-Pull tool, inasmuch as the axis of local drawing proceeds relative to local edges and any faces that they form, rather than relative to the currently assigned position / orientation of the Sketchup work-space 3D world axes (...currently not aligned to the "West wing" in Ken's latest attached KMZ model) ?

Also, when inside the working context of a 'grouped' object, do you see individual 3D world axes inside that object's 'group' bounding box which may not be aligned to the currently assigned position / orientation of the Sketchup work-space 3D world axes ?

Thanks in advance for a clarification of how your (post-version-8 ?) Sketchup installation behaves.

GaryGB

 

[Lane Street]

I think you are asking if I can draw a rectangle on a skewed face, yes I can...

Starting with a skewed plane I drew a rectangle on the face with the Rectangle tool and extruded it with the Push-Pull tool, all without touching the Drawing Axis.

 

[kmanning]

Hi all,
I'm learning quite a bit from reading the information here. Gary has stated that I need to use the 3D axes in order to keep things aligned, and I'm beginning to see his point. You see, when I started working with this model, the very one I'm work on now, I did use the 3D axes on the C Concourse of the terminal building. But when I started working on the other terminal, the one with all of the glass windows, I did not move the 3D axes to that particular building, and as you can tell, this build offsets at an angle from the C concourse. In other words, since I did not move the 3D axes to this building, I cannot use the red and green inferences to keep the walls and faces aligned. So, could this be the reason that I have skewed walls and faces? With that I mind here's my first question:

1. When, or any time I work on another building that is in a different position, should I move the 3D axes to the current building I'm working on or should I leave it where I put it when I first started? That was one thing I was confused about.

I tried to find videos that discuss the problems I have with verticies but I could not find any. I have a little understanding about it, but not completely. I watched some that discuss how one should group or make components out of his work. Before I added the jetways, I had no problems installing my KBHM new terminal. So, I must have done something wrong when adding the jetways, not to mention other problems I have that Gary discussed, so let me explain how I added my jetway.

First of all, let me say that I did not design the jetways. I got them from the 3D Warehouse. When I first imported the jetway, I wasn't sure if the jetway was already a group and as I recall, I made it a group anyway before going any farther. To keep from having to import all of the jetways of the size I was using, I just made copies. After doing that and later into the project, I happen to noticed that when I made changes to one jetway, such as making it shorter/longer, or moving it up or down, the same thing occurred with some of the other jetways. But this should not have occurred if I made it a Group. This only occurs when they're Components. So question 2 is:

2. Since I made copies of the original, does making copies make them components even though I made the original a Group?

Gary, you said that if I utilize some of the methods you suggested, I can get the vertex limitations to work with FS2004. I like to get started on that. So, what's the first thing I need to start with?

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/decompiling-a-bgl-file.434183/page-9#post-722695

Hi all,

I'm learning quite a bit from reading the information here. Gary has stated that I need to use the 3D axes in order to keep things aligned, and I'm beginning to see his point. You see, when I started working with this model, the very one I'm work on now, I did use the 3D axes on the C Concourse of the terminal building. But when I started working on the other terminal, the one with all of the glass windows, I did not move the 3D axes to that particular building, and as you can tell, this build offsets at an angle from the C concourse. In other words, since I did not move the 3D axes to this building, I cannot use the red and green inferences to keep the walls and faces aligned. So, could this be the reason that I have skewed walls and faces?

That is the most likely explanation, IMHO.

However, due to the (inherent and by-design) "stickiness" of the Push-Pull tool and Move tools when the mouse cursor is passed over one's model, it can accidentally grab and drag Edges, Endpoints, Midpoints etc. (even on a "closed solid"), and "skew" the model relative to any world axes of the local grouped sub-object or overall 3D world / work-space axes.

And of course, one has to take care to repeatedly tap the Escape key to prevent accidentally 'continuing' to drag Edges, Endpoints, Midpoints etc, after a purposeful modeling operation with the Push-Pull tool or Move tools.


BTW: If one fails to immediately notice an accidental "skew" has taken place, and then one models very far past the point in the "Undo" cycle, one is < you guessed it > ..."skrewed".

https://www.google.com/#q=skew definition

With that in mind here's my first question:

1. When, or any time I work on another building that is not in the same direction as the first, should I move the 3D axes to the other building I'm working on or should I leave it where I put it when I first started? That was one thing I was confused about.

IMHO, always re-position world axes to a corner and longer side at a base of any local sub-object where working.

I tried to find videos that discuss the problems I have with the vertices but I could not find any. But since I read some of the posts just posted, I have a little better understanding about it, but not completely. I watched some that discuss how one should group or make components out of his work. Before I added the jetways, I had no problems installing my KBHM new terminal. So, I must have done something wrong when adding the jetways, not to mention other problems I have that Gary discussed, so let me explain how I added my jetway.

First of all, let me say that I did not design the jetways. I got them from the 3D Warehouse. When I first imported the jetway, I wasn't sure if the jetway was already a group and as I recall, I made it a group anyway before going any farther. To keep from having to import all of the jetways of the size I was using, I just made copies. After doing that and later into the project, I happen to noticed that when I made changes to one jetway, such as making it shorter, or longer, the same thing occurred with some of the other jetways. But this should not have occurred if I made it a Group. This only occurs when they're Components.

So question 2 is:

2. Since I made copies of the original, does making copies make them components even though I made the original a Group?

IIRC, if one copies a Component, it will remain a component (and linked to all other copies of that Component utilized within the model) ...until one manually changes its attributes.

To customize a Component while also breaking its link with all other copies of that Component utilized within the model, select it so that its Bounding Box is visible, then right-click, and in the pop-up menu, choose "Make Unique".


To convert a Component into a Group, see:

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=31439

Another term I've been hearing about is called Layers, and I like to have a better understanding about it. But I guess I should wait and take this in little at a time. Maybe the manual will explain it, if I can find one.

For now, I would suggest only toggling the "Google Snapshot" layer on and off via the Layers dialog, and to otherwise not tinker with trying to associate Groups with layers.

FYI: A Group can simply be selected it so that its Bounding Box is visible, then right-click, and in the pop-up menu, choose "Hide" or "Un-Hide" to toggle its visibility.

Gary, you said that if I utilize some of the methods you suggested, I can get the vertex limitations work with FS2004. I'd like to get started on that. So, what's the first thing I need to start with?

Ken.

I'll post further on that initial process of getting "un-skewed" tomorrow (Monday).

GaryGB

 

[Lane Street]

Geez, Gary, you...

1) post a question at 18:03 PDT

2) I reply at 18:52

3) You edit the post at 19:37 by changing and/or adding to the question.

This makes my reply look a little out of whack and it appears I didn't fully answer your question.

It also makes it harder to follow the thread as we have to continuously scroll up and down between posts trying to keep up.

When you use the Sketchup default ('2-point-click') Rectangle drawing tool, do you get the same result as you indicated that you get with the Sketchup default Push-Pull tool, inasmuch as the axis of local drawing proceeds relative to local edges and any faces that they form, rather than relative to the currently assigned position / orientation of the Sketchup work-space 3D world axes ?

This is the part I answered in my post at 18:52, I think.

FTR, I drew the skewed plane in the pic with the 3-click Rectangle tool so it would be skewed. I could have used the 2-click Rec tool and moved the plane to achieve the same thing.

That plane is turned and tilted with one edge "on the ground" so no edges are parallel to any of the Drawing Axes.

On that plane I used the 2-click Rec tool and drew a rectangle whose edges are parallel to the skewed plane.

Then I used the Push-Pull tool to extrude the "box on plane".

The extruded face is parallel with and perpendicular to the skewed plane.

At no time did I adjust the Drawing Axes.

Also, when inside the working context of a 'grouped' object, do you see individual 3D world axes inside that object's 'group' bounding box which may not be aligned to the currently assigned position / orientation of the Sketchup work-space 3D world axes ?

Yes, groups have their own internal axes. I think they will be parallel to the major Drawing Axes as a default, yet can be moved in the group.

Again, I am not an Axes expert as the only time I have ever seen the need to move them was when I needed to scale a skewed object.

I am not saying that moving the Drawing Axes is a bad thing, only that I have rarely seen it as necessary.

To me it was time (a precious commodity) better spent modeling than moving the axes.

cheers,
Lane

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

Further detailed inspection of your last posted 3D model has revealed additional "skewing" issues on all 3 wall surfaces (West, North and South), as well as in the skylight on the roof.

Additionally, there continues to be a skewed result on the upper-most segments of the West wall of the "NE wing" and the East face of the Skylight window array on the roof.

Unfortunately, all of these non-co-planar faces will effectively prevent you from utilizing the Sketchup "Combine" procedures, with which I had intended to offer you some guidance.


I am again going to recommend re-positioning the Sketchup "Drawing Axes" at a corner and long wall base of your KBHM "West wing" building section before, and during any work on that structure.

Once you have done that, you must re-model major portions of the above cited structures.

In doing that, you must also exercise greater precision in your modeling methods when placing guidelines via the Tape Measure tool, so that your resulting Guide / Construction lines will be perfectly co-planar with the flat wall surface on which you intend to use the Move /Copy / Array procedure for creating windows.

http://www.mathopenref.com/coplanar.html


If you do not do this, you will not be able to utilize the Sketchup "Combine" procedures to process the many sub-faces currently being created on your wall sections and windows to merge them into a lesser number of faces, while also merging the many individual areas of texture mapping on those faces into a lesser number.


If you do produce a 3D model that 'allows' you to utilize the Sketchup "Combine" procedures, you will be able to utilize your concept of "transparent" windows by exporting the combined texture images of the merged wall faces and windows for further processing in a graphics application.

Utilizing the Sketchup "Combine" procedures allows you the option to create a single 1-piece texture for your wall (or to instead divide the wall into several mapped 1024 x 1024 pixel texture images, as that image size is the maximum that FS9 can display).


While it is possible to simply substitute an "opaque" screen shot type of exported 2D graphic image of each side of the building as most FS developers do, it is also possible to edit the window pane portion of the wall texture image within the "Alpha channel" to still make those window panes 'transparent' on that single or several piece texture.


Using the default drawing and graphics tools of Sketchup to achieve the greater portion of this type of precise texture image creation was what I had intended to present to you and other readers here ...provided that you submit a 3D model which is compatible with allowing those methods to work.


I may be able to help you further pending your submission of a 3D model which is compatible with allowing those methods to work.


I believe it would be inappropriate for anyone but you to expend the additional time and effort to modify your existing 3D model as required, to enable further processing into a scenery object that can be compiled and displayed in FS9.

IMHO, that would best allow you to practice the methods necessary for generating a 3D model that will allow you to implement the features which you previously stated you wanted to have in your scenery object.

[EDITED]

Please feel free to request my participation (by name) again, after you have attached a 3D model to this thread, which you believe may be compatible with utilizing those methods I have described above.

Please feel free to send me a "PM" with an attached 3D model which you believe may be compatible with utilizing those methods I have described and recommended above.

[END_EDIT]

GaryGB