Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
How's this project coming along?
This looked great! Any update?
I want to know too.
Curious as to if this project ever reached completion?
I am sorry to report that this project has been lost to a multiple hard drive failure. I had backups on an external USB hard drive, but it appears that drive got dropped at some point and was therefore not functional when I went looking for the files.
My apologies to those who were interested in this project, but at this point I have no plans to try to re-create it.
Regards,
-Mike
Oh no. I know the pain of a Harddrive failure, I lost all the models I had made in Sketch Up a few months back with no backup files on account of one (ironically the ones I was most hoping to see imported to DAZ) Terrible shame the project was lost.
I am pleased to report that I have found a backup of my files for this project in an unexpected location. Now I have to get my head back into the game and try and remember where I left off, and also verify that the backup I found is in fact fully operational. No timeline right now as I have a lot of other things going on, but I will provide an update when I have more to share. Assuming things move forward again I will definitely be looking for someone to help me test this, and also (possibly) to provide some guidance about navigating the Daz Store process.
Regards,
-MIke
No, this requires SketchUp. The tool consists of a Ruby script that runs inside SketchUp, and exports your model to an intermediate XML file, which is then read by a Daz script and turned into geometry there.
AFAIK SketchUp Make 2017 is the last official stand-alone release, as Trimble is moving toward an all on-line environment. Sketchup Make 2017 can still be downloaded but soon will be unsupported. This is not to say that it cannot continue to be used to create awesome models, and of course there is the 3D Warehouse with its immense amount of content to draw from as well.
HTH
-Mike
...aw bugger. was hoping for a better way to convert .skp files without having to buy a Sketchup licence. Wish Google would never have sold it off.
Thanks.
SketchUp Make 2017 is free. Maybe I'm missing something in your query?
-Mike
he could be referring to when there was a standard free and pro version and the standard free version didn't export to .OBJ
I just wanted to drop a line in that said I'm eagerly awaiting this too. Let me know if there's anything I can do do help.
As I understand it, the creator of the script doesn't intend to make .obj files a part of the process and will supply the ruby needed for Sketchup AND the DS script necessary to make this all function. At least that's how I read it. So, exporting to .obj isn't needed.
Laurie
OOH! Yay! I decided to pick up SketchUp Make 2017 recently to get back into it so knowing that this could be on the horizon is exciting!
really was hoping to see this actually got completed. any updates??
Thanks for the update. Still looking forward to this should it ever see the light of day. :)
I sure hope this gets off the ground. I have great interest in this and am ready to pony up whenever it's ready. I have a couple big projects this would be a lifesaver on!
The thread is three years old, so I would doubt the project is continuing.
I have recently begun thinking about this project again and have located my original source files and related materials. Given that SketchUp is no longer free, is a SketchUp importer for Daz still of interest to anyone? When I last worked on it, I beleive it was essentially functional, with documentation and then the submission/publishing process still to go.
Realizing that all of my old image links are kaput, here is a screen shot from the inital round of development, showing a model imported from SketchUp (in Daz 4.9, I believe), with a Daz figure standing on the walkway.
Regards,
-Mike
definitly, as the program I use, Pcon Planner, is Russian and now is not a good time to use software from there (needless to say I've not updated it for over a year)
Would be very interested !
Yes. It definitely is of interest to me and would be an instabuy.
A working SketchUp importer for DS would be an instabuy for me too. I used SketchUp a LOT-until they jacked up the prices and went subscription. There is a SU importer add-on for Blender which works really well, but a direct option would be even better!
SketchUp used to create some pretty messy geometry. Did that get improved?
Not really, but that also depends on how you mean that... or interpret that...
Originally, SketchUp had awful importers and exporters, which often messed up whatever was being imported or exported... mostly by "forgetting" certain edges or bits of geometry, leaving one with holes in the mesh... it usually didn't manifest in small, low poly models, but big complex models became an issue, especially exporting them.
Later, Ruby Script (plugin) creators fixed much of that, creating two fairly good exporters that were mostly free... (and as Blender got more friendly to the masses two SketchUp importers emerged that were pretty good too)...
The real problem was always that SketchUp let people create terrible topography and to some extent geometry... practically encouraging it because one could easily start making models that were a topological nightmare... they looked great... but only in SketchUp or an N-gon friendly environment.
So really it was the user unknowningly creating the messy geometry, not SketchUp.
In its defense, it was never meant to be anything more than a quick tool to hash out designs, Google bought it from @ last software and used it to populate its 3D maps with real life virtual 3D cities made by SU users via the free version and for years did very little to improve it... all the real improvement work was done by the creators of the mostly free ruby scripts... using those, it became a fairly competent modeler... but it was still N-gon based.
SU is primary an N-gon modeler and the rest of the 3D world is tris and quads and SU allows one to create very triangulation unfriendly models... most programs can't figure out how to triangulate a six sided polygon properly let alone hundreds of asymmetrical n-gons and neither can SU (even Blender ain't that hot at it)... take a nice looking entirely n-gon model and ask SketchUp to triangulate it on export and that's going to be a mess... it might come out ok and it might not... Even Blender can screw up triangulation of all n-gons... but if one constructs the model using decent quad or tri topology there isn't usually a problem...
If one doesn't know how to properly lay out decent topography in an n-gon environment (for use in a quad and tri world) there'll always be problems... plus since SU has some fairly useful extrusion tools, people who don't understand their strengths and weaknesses and often create models with tons of interior geometry or flipped normals... and add to that the fact that many people either unknowingly or forgetfully hide certain geometry (Hide Geometry function... Edit > Hide) while modeling without deleting it permanently... plus even fewer people understand that either periodically or before attempting to export, one has to permanently purge/delete all unused geometry (Window > Model Info > Statistics > Purge Unused Geometry... not something that's exactly easy to accidentally find)... that's a huge one... open most halfway decent 3D Warehouse models in SU and turn on hidden geometry (Edit > Unhide > All) and you'll find tons of invisible orphaned geometry haunting the model like sad polygonal ghosts...
The same goes with the flipped normals thing... take a random model from 3D Warehouse and open it in SU and go to View > Face Style > Monochrome which will show the model only in the default grey/bluish purple color... unless the creator changed the default style (Window > Style > (thumbnail marked "default style")... you'll probably see a mostly white model with lots of bluish purple polygons here and there (or everywhere)... those are all reversed normals you'd have never known about (default monochrome shader is white normals facing out, blue purple normals facing in)... so in programs that only render the outward facing normals, those reversed normals will be ignored and appear to be invisible geometry...
Aside from a few buggy bugs that have persisted, SU mostly allows one to create a messy model... because in SU it's not a mess, it perfectly fine.
But once one understands how topography should be set up, it's fairly easy to make quick decent models...
Please note that the above applies to SketchUp 2017 and earlier, as I don't use or care for the subscription version, which as with all subscription software that is only offered as a subscription, it's a big huge (opinion omitted due to highly profane language).
Hello again.
Thanks to all who have responded so far. Please note that I updated my most recent post (restarting this thread) with "Given that SketchUp is no longer free, is there any interest...".
The current state of SketchUp affairs is something that I want there to be no mistake about. When I originally developed the importer being discussed here, SketchUp Make 2017 was available for free. Since then, as has been pointed out, SketchUp is NO LONGER FREE, with pricing (as of the date of this post) as follows:
SketchUp Go is a web-based tool that, as far as I know, does not support Ruby scripting. Therefore, SketchUp Pro would be required to use models from there. SketchUp Make 2017 is also no longer supported (no surprise there), with the following statement (as of the date of this post) taken from the Trimble website:
If you still have SketchUp Make 2017, it should still "work". My plugin is certainly compatible with it, having been originally developed there. Having said that, it is possible that a given model on the 3D warehouse will no longer be available for download in SU2017 format, and therefore will be inaccessible to you if that is the only version of SketchUp you have.
These are some of the things that are driving my decision process, as to whether or not to resume this project. Additionally, if I restart this project, then proper development practices dictate that I must have a valid current subscription to SketchUp so that I can guarantee continued functionality of the plugin as SketchUp itself continues to evolve. This is a non-trivial expense that I have to consider, particularly in terms of whether or not I will recoup that investment, year after year, and then achieve some sort of margin that makes all of this worthwhile. That may sound harsh, but it's something I have to think very hard about.
In terms of the geometry questions that have come up, I'd like to chime in from the standpoint of having already developed a successful version of this importer for the Trainz Railroad Simulator. It's been in use for many years there, and I can confidently state that the geometry is internally structured in terms of triangles, and that triangles are used in my geometry transfer process. I will also say, however, that SketchUp models can sometimes have a large number of materials, and this can also affect performance in the target system (i.e. Daz). If you are using the SketchUp model as a static entity, I would not really expect this to matter; but if you are using it as part of an animation, it might. I say this with only limited knowledge of Daz, so please forgive me (and correct me) if this is not how it works.
My tool consists of a three parts: (1) a Ruby plugin that runs inside SketchUp, and creates an XML file that contains all the information needed to import the model into a given target environment; (2) an image processing utility that runs behind the scenes; and (3) a Daz script that reads the XML file and renders it in Daz.
The first part of the transfer process, in SketchUp, is governed by a parameters dialog that looks like this:
As you can see, there are options to deal with both sides of a given face. I also have some internal logic that attempts to automatically compensate for reversed faces when they are detected, but there is only so much you can do in this regard. The fact is that the person working with the SketchUp model is responsible for making sure that the model is READY to be transferred to another environment. My tool is not a substitute for laziness.
The produced XML file is read in by a Daz Plugin, with a very simple UI:
This plugin can (usually) auto-locate the XML file, and it uses Daz geometry APIs to re-create the model directly. So we go from this:
to this, with not much effort on your part, at least in terms of the transfer process.
As noted, my decision to proceed with this development effort will be -- in part -- based upon comments received here, both good and bad. I can tell you that there have been flame wars on the Trainz forums about how evil SketchUp is, and that I should be burned at the stake for even having dared to allow models from there into Trainz. I have also been praised by those who have taken the time to 'do it right' and have created iconic models that all seem to enjoy. The last thing I want to do is see a similar flame war erupt here, so part of my decision will also be based on the veracity (or not) of those types of comments.
Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to reviewing continued comments from everyone.
Regards,
Mike
Please note... this is just an observation or opinion of a longtime SketchUp user and neither an endorsement for or against it.
I imagine some people probably still have copies of the older versions both free and pro... (I've got both), and there are numerous workarounds to opening up newer version SKP models outside of SketchUp...
That said, from what I've seen over the years, fewer people here care about using SketchUp to make models, as opposed to taking the models available on 3D Warehouse and using them in DAZ Studio... I've tried helping people fix messy SKP models they've posted about many times over the years and the moment they realize that there's actually work involved and not some magic "Fix-it" button, they usually disappear... So I dunno what that means...
Unless I'm mistaken, the only real way to find out if a model is a mess or not is to either convert it/import it and see (in which case it is what it is) or to open it in SketchUp and if it's important enough or simple enough, try to fix it... but as I've said, nobody really cares to do that... and in all fairness, I've had to fix clients' messy models and it usually sucks... (In a couple of cases I just redid the model instead of fixing it, it was actually less work)... so even when you know what you are doing, it's a slog... technically you could fix imported SKP models in Blender, but that actually sucks even more.
I'm not trying to discourage you or anything, but I'm pretty sure most people here just want to convert 3D Warehouse models and most 3D Warehouse models are kinda messed up... That being the case, it might be frustrating for someone to find most models they convert as having lots of flaws or problems... even a great model with a lot of flipped normals could be a disappointment.
I've been using SketchUp for years and I think the biggest problem is basically what I said previously... it lets people make messy models... which really is the fault of the maker... not the program... it also allows one to make clean models if they take a little effort to learn what to do... but because it's super easy to just pick it up and model with it, nobody really bothers... or bothered... I like SketchUp, but I think the Trimble subscription thing and online only free version that can't use plugins will ultimately reduce interest in SU, especially as former SketchUp enthusiasts create Blender plugins and tools that emulate SketchUp for those that have turned away from it.
Eventually more and more people will probably come over to Blender or other free programs like Rocket 3F and SketchUp will only be left with core diehard enthusiasts.
I don't know how that works as a business model, but if they were looking to go the Adobe route they should have realized that there was never a free version of Photoshop and most of what gave PS value wasn't contributed by people who made free plugins as was the case with SketchUp... It was an industry standard taught in schools unlike SU whose popularity was drive by the community of free plugin makers.
The free version of SUmay not have caused millions of people to buy SketchUp, but it created interest in it and allowed people to become skilled at it and that created a pool of people who companies who used SketchUp could hire and therefore that encouraged them to keep using it...
The people starting out in that same position are now only faced with the very, very limited and uninteresting free online version and they won't bother to pursue the software... Blender on the other hand is totally free and now becoming more and more friendly to architects and product designers, so people just starting out will adopt it instead of SU and that's where companies will turn for skilled people.
Thats too many words and it's just my lunatic ravings, but it already seems to be going that way.
Sorry for the long (and probably pointless) dissertation on this.
Either way good luck.
Not pointless at all. Your observations are quite valid and I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts.
Regards,
Mike