Processing Issues and how to fix them ...

[gestaltR]

Hi guys,

since a while I have a model in the Google Warehouse which causes
processing issues again and again. It is the Öland bridge in Sweden:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=620c5e3cd0f877c095161ee4cd36aeb1

To get rid of these issues I tried to reduce the complexity first by
including more parts of the bridge as components, then by reducing the
complexity of the componets themselves, and finally by splitting up
the bridge into four separate models because I thought the bridge
might be too long (though I found other accepted models even bigger
than my bridge model).

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=9cfe9c359c6ff54f132781476d9f183d
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=13bd20ca0fb2a2c8132781476d9f183d
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=6fcd132905d12ff4132781476d9f183d
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=a37f9b11eb7d63b3132781476d9f183d

Furthermore, the textures aren't particularly huge in dimension or
file size. All these things didn't help, even the smaller models cause
processing issues.

Can someone please help me with this problem, since I'd love to see
the model on Google Earth after having spent so much work and time on
creating it.

Cheers,
Christian

[Stuart Welsh]

You need to reduce the polygon lines where they are not needed i.e.
under the bridge the bridge structures. etc. without it deforming your
model. Also does the model have a bottom face that no one ever sees?
if so get rid of that too. Finally reduce the phototexture sizes of
the images, which in turn keeps the overall size of the model down to
a minimum. Keep checking your work as you go by going to file
statistics and keep an eye on the polygon faces count. It needs to be
Google friendly simple-moderate at best.

2010/1/17 gestaltR <chrisc...@googlemail.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "3D Modeling for Google Earth & Maps" group.
> To post to this group, send email to 3d...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 3dwh+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/3dwh?hl=en.
>
>
>
>

[SnowTiger]

Hello Christian

As you are likely also aware, there is a limit to the amount of
geometry re: Faces that a model is permitted to have .. that limit
being maximum 6000 faces.

As is stands, your model has 16,792 Faces.

If you delete the Underside/face of the Street Lights horizontal
member, that alone reduces the faces to 16,389 faces .. basically 400
faces.

Any Components that can be modified this way will have a dramatic
overall effect.
You could also do the same for the horizontal member as you have for
the vertical members (eliminating another 800 faces).

Another way to reduce faces and overall geometry (further reducing
the file size too) is to re-create the Arches which presently have the
default 12 segments/faces.
If you changed those arcs to say 5 or 6 faces/segments, it would
dramatically reduce your model and would likely not be visibly
noticeable.

It's a great looking model so it is well worth the additional effort
to make it meet GE's requirements.

If after trying these things you are still having problems with this
model, let us know and I/We can see what else might be done to help it
out.

[gestaltR]

Hey guys, thanks a lot for your help.

During the last couple of hours I first simplified the model as you
told me to. In the end, after keeping getting the same processing
error again and again (Model extents error. This model occupies a
geographic area which is too large or is otherwise incorrectly
defined. We suggest breaking up your model into smaller models (if you
think it might be too large), or copying your model into a new file
with a new geo-location snapshot, and then re-uploading.) I decided to
remove the lanterns completely, though the error message points at the
geographical size. So, is there a geographical limit (maximum extend
in kilometers or something like that) or is the problem just the fact
that I removed the previously imported google earth snapshots? Here's
the link to the reduced version with about 4000 faces:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=f1ed2edd3f295efd644cd76a911a70cf
What's the maximum number of edges per model? Where can I find a list
of these restrictions?

Thanks again,
Christian

[Peter / G3D]

20.000 faces, is top ...

-----Mensaje original-----
De: 3d...@googlegroups.com [mailto:3d...@googlegroups.com] En nombre de
gestaltR
Enviado el: miércoles, 03 de febrero de 2010 22:53
Para: Map Your World - 3D Modeling for Google Earth & Maps
Asunto: Re: Processing Issues and how to fix them ...

Thanks again,
Christian

--

[Stuart Welsh]

It should pass now however its a good procedure to remember to hide
the ugly polygon lines once finished in order to show pure textures.
The streetlights would have taken it over the limit due to the tubular
faces however they can be added to it as a separate model later on. Oh
and make sure to componentize them which reduces the file size.

Stuart

[gestaltR]

Well the latest bridge model was just a test to see what I'll have to
remove to avoid the processing issue, but now I get this new error
(This model occupies a geographic area which is too large or is
otherwise incorrectly defined.). So is it the pure geographic size/
extends of the model or is it because it's incorrectly defined? What
does 'incorrectly defined' here?
Does it make sense to split the model up again like I did before? I
mean, the Great Belt Bridge model is also split up into four models
(http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?
mid=876863f2669fdc0181b0d56f7467d8ca) and got accepted.
Christian

On 4 Feb., 00:04, Stuart Welsh <stuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It should pass now however its a good procedure to remember to hide
> the ugly polygon lines once finished in order to show pure textures.
> The streetlights would have taken it over the limit due to the tubular
> faces however they can be added to it as a separate model later on. Oh
> and make sure to componentize them which reduces the file size.
>
> Stuart
>

> On 3 February 2010 21:53, gestaltR <chrischn.f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys, thanks a lot for your help.
>
> > During the last couple of hours I first simplified the model as you
> > told me to. In the end, after keeping getting the same processing
> > error again and again (Model extents error. This model occupies a
> > geographic area which is too large or is otherwise incorrectly
> > defined. We suggest breaking up your model into smaller models (if you
> > think it might be too large), or copying your model into a new file
> > with a new geo-location snapshot, and then re-uploading.) I decided to
> > remove the lanterns completely, though the error message points at the
> > geographical size. So, is there a geographical limit (maximum extend
> > in kilometers or something like that) or is the problem just the fact
> > that I removed the previously imported google earth snapshots? Here's
> > the link to the reduced version with about 4000 faces:

> >http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=f1ed2edd3f295efd64...

[gestaltR]

Good news, I modified the bridge and split it up again. Now, the first
three of four parts don't cause an error, but the smallest and
simpliest fourth part (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?
mid=3c99e5e8da24b6d7a7c78cdfba72f35e) still causes a processing
failure, which is:

"Internal 3D Warehouse error. The model you submitted experienced an
error while it was being processed. Unfortunately, your model cannot
be included in Google Earth. If your model wasn't built using the
latest version of Google SketchUp, we suggest downloading it and
trying that instead."

Since I built all my models with the same version of Sketchup and it
is actually now a simple and small model, both in size and dimension,
I wonder what causes this problem.

Cheers,
Christian

[SketchUp Guide Allison]

Hi Christian,

It's showing up as an encoding error on conversion to an internal
format. This is kind of a strange error. Here's the things that look
nonstandard about your model:

1) Presumably as a result of breaking the long bridge into several
pieces, this model is now quite a long way from the origin and the
ground plane. The transformation between rectangular and spherical
(lat/long) coordinates for Google Earth may introduce errors, here; I
realize it's going to be a pain to align, but you might want to re-
origin and re-georeference it.
2) The street lights and posts are small 3D objects, and may be
running into vertex compression issues. To test this, delete them and
see if the model still fails processing. If not, you can put them
back, but make them 2D flats.

Good luck,

Allison

[gestaltR]

Hi Allison,

here's what I tried after reading your suggestions:

I further reduced the complexity of the street lamps and finally
removed them completely - without any change in the error message. I
think it can't be caused by the lamps since all the other parts use
the same lamp component without the error.

The next thing I tried was to reorient the model by adjusting the
axis. No success. The thing about the origin is, that when I started
building the entire bridge model, the western onramp (the part that
causes this error) was the starting point of the model and therefore
the origin. Shouldn't be the other end of the entire model cause an
error due to orientation/geo-reference?

Then I began a new empty model, loaded the adjacent bridge part,
copied the old "faulty" part into the new model and adjusted the
faulty part to the correct other part. Again the same error. The
strange thing here is, that the new model is situated partly below
ground/sea level in Google Earth, which is weird since I aligned it to
the other correct part of the bridge.

At the moment I don't know that to do now and I'm really confused
because the other parts didn't cause an error.

Thanks,
Christian

On 4 Feb., 16:50, SketchUp Guide Allison <allisonfloyd+...@google.com>
wrote:

[SketchUp Guide Allison]

Hi Christian,

Given the nature of the error, it's not all that surprising it's only
happened to one of your segments; it's more surprising that it
happened at all. Essentially, what's going on is that you have some
geometry that's gotten corrupted in a way that our system can't
interpret it. (This is not terribly helpful for figuring out which
part.) It's aggravating, but at this point you may be reduced to
sequentially deleting parts of the model to figure out where the
offending geometry is located, and then re-modeling that section.
Depending on how deranged of a suggestion that sounds, it might
actually be easier to start the bridge piece over from a clean SU
model. Load the rest of the bridge into the model as components,
rebuild the broken bit, then delete the components again.

My apologies for the headache.

-- Allison

[gestaltR]

Hi Allison,
I haven't started reducing the faulty part yet, but I've tried
something else:
First, I just loaded the adjacent viaduct part of the bridge (http://
sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?
mid=f4c26aa73a4dbed0a7c78cdfba72f35e) into a new empty sketchup file.
From there, I loaded the empty file with the part of the bridge into
Google Earth with SketchUps 'Place Model' button. What I saw was a
completely misplaced part of the bridge, as it was rotated slightly
and moved southward by like 50 meters.
But when I go to the 3D warehouse, select the viaduct part of the
bridge and click on the 'View in Google Earth' link, it is correctly
positioned in Google Earth.
What's wrong here? Is the model at the right place when you other guys
load the viaduct into Google Earth?
By the way, I got the 'Model incomplete' status message for the
viaduct part and the two other errorless parts of the Ölandbridge. Is
that due to the missing faulty fourth part?
Cheers,
Christian

On 5 Feb., 16:47, SketchUp Guide Allison <allisonfloyd+...@google.com>