@arno see attachment for the requested examples.
As far as I can tell (at least when exporting from Sketchup), if you create a component in sketchup from what you want to be one object, it creates 2 sections:
Code:
<library_visual_scenes>
<visual_scene id="ID2">
<node name="SketchUp">
<node name="skp_camera_Last_Saved_SketchUp_View">
<matrix>-0.06891823 -0.4333421 0.8985905 36125.5 0.9976223 -0.02993635 0.06207687 3728.313 -3.122502e-17 0.9007322 0.434375 15782.53 0 0 0 1</matrix>
<instance_camera url="#ID1" />
</node>
<node id="ID3" name="instance_0">
<matrix>-0.8766083 -0.4812047 0 10084.13 0.4812047 -0.8766083 0 1417.601 0 0 1 0.3466252 0 0 0 1</matrix>
<instance_node url="#ID4" />
</node>
<node id="ID1995" name="instance_1">
<matrix>-0.7087575 -0.7054522 0 -856.1168 0.7054522 -0.7087575 0 5041.066 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1</matrix>
<instance_node url="#ID1996" />
</node>
<node id="ID2290" name="instance_2">
<matrix>-0.6204628 0.7842359 0 -986.3656 -0.7842359 -0.6204628 0 9360.148 0 0 1 0.3466252 0 0 0 1</matrix>
<instance_node url="#ID2291" />
</node>
</node>
</visual_scene>
</library_visual_scenes>
and
Code:
<library_nodes>
<node id="ID4" name="IXL-WHARF">
.....
geometry definitions
.....
</node>
<node id="ID1996" name="HGC">
.....
geometry definitions
.....
</node>
<node id="ID2291" name="Woolstore_Appts">
.....
geometry definitions
.....
</node>
etc...
And another 2 nodes, one to enclose the entire scene, and one to save the camera view in sketchup.
When the same scene is saved with all of the components exploded into their constituent parts, you only get the 2 other nodes for scene and camera definitions, and a great many geometry definitions (at a quick glance).
Attached are 2 DAE files zipped up of the same scene for the above example.
I don't know if other package exporters from Blender, GMAX, and 3DS Max to DAE handle this the same, but this is how Sketchup seems to do it.
Exactly how we get to the end result of having multiple models sharing textures/materials consistently and easilly without trolling through hundreds of parameters to ensure consistency (which sketchup is...well...sketchy at and doesn't expose to the designer in any detail), doesn't really matter:
- Load multiple models into memory simultaneously, collectively optimise the textures, and re-export them all, no problem.
- Load one larger scene of model structures into memory, optimise the textures, and explode the scene into diffrerent MDL files for individual placement, no problem.
- Using Library Creator (which doesn't have a very complex GUI so would need all that created), no problem.
- Some other clever, simple, and time saving method that I've not thought of, why not!
Just for the record, because the pushback I'm feeling from some (not just in this thread BTW) is beginning to sound like I asked Arno to
bury my sister in his back yard rather than possibly consider a feature request:
Arno saw fit to give his time (presumably from a request from the community) to have a function to aggregate many models and optimise materials/textures and export them as one model. Now, that is OK if all the models are on the flat, close to each other, or everyone uses exactly the same terrain spacing and files. All I requested was a method of doing the reverse, for many of the same reasons, and to cover the situations that don't match the criteria above.
Also, Sketchup doesn't give a lot of detail about it's materials or have a dedicated FSX/P3D plugin to play with every setting for FSX like 3DS Max has. There are a great many ways that it changes subtle details that only come out when exported and compared. Thus, MCX is the perfect tool to correct for this, and many of the features MCX has are specifically designed to overcome the shortcomings of the free tools people use that FSX never intended us to use for development. I don't see how this is any different.
If Arno has higher priorities (which I'm sure there are), or can see how this can be achieved easilly another way, then equally, not a problem.
But on that last count, I'll let Arno make that call, I don't see why others feel the need to do that for him. Given that Arno is asking me for more information, I don't see why others are taking offence at me requesting features just because they don't personally have the same issues. All of our workflows, and skills, and things we think are important in our projects are different.
I have the utmost respect for Arno and what he does for this community, and the time and dedication he puts in to creating tools that have filled long standing and gaping holes in the capabilities of the official tools. Thus, I'm also
old enough and ugly enough to handle it if Arno declines my request too. I would suggest that anyone else making requests should (if they don't already) have the same attitude. I'm sure that the vast majority of those making feature requests already do.
Regards
Braedon