I'm hoping one or two people might take a look at this model and tell
me where they see any Z-Fighting because I can't find it.

The model is of "Loganville Water Tower" which is entirely White on
top and Turquoise on the underside and legs. I have a single image
from which I "replicated" the Logo (because the image is blurry .. but
I used the correct Font).
I did not texture any parts that are white because it would be a waste
of file size IMO to texture it white.
The Street View imagery is not very good but is good enough to
determine the colors. So I just used a SU color to texture the legs
and underside. I suppose I "might" be able to create a colored texture
from the Street View imagery, but it won't look nearly as good or
realistic IMO.

I'm looking for any advice/suggestions as to how I can overcome the
failed review in this case.
PS> I have already made the same arguments in the Tell Us Why We're
Wrong option.
BTW - This model was uploaded After 2 others that have not been
reviewed yet .... I'm not sure why this one got ahead in the Que. ??

Loganville Water Tower
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=de43eec0cbd2ade075...

If I had to guess, the Z-fighting appearance is a side effect of the
horizontal wires joining the legs of the tower.  The width of the wire
is below the threshold for geometric compression, and the effect in
Google Earth is that the wires sort of "flicker".  Have you gotten
your appeal response back yet?

One of your other two models has been accepted and should go live
soonish.  The more recent one is still in the queue.  In general,
you'll get feedback for models that aren't accepted fastest; we don't
provide feedback about accepted models 'til they actually go live.
(This prevents sadness when a model meets our criteria, but fails
processing in a later step; we're not telling people "hey, your model
is great!  It'll go live -- oh, wait, sorry, no it won't.")  Also,
models take longer to judge when there are duplicates, or when it's
hard for the primary judging team to tell whether the model's good or
not.  Either of these things send the model to a secondary queue.
These two effects are why you'll occasionally get feedback for models
out of order.

-- Allison

On Nov 5, 9:54 am, SnowTiger <inspec...@hometech.on.ca> wrote:

First of all, nice water tower!  Did you receive an e-mail back about the "Tell us why were wrong" appeal?  Sometimes they can be a little slower at that. I don't see any z-fighting or any reason to keep this out Google Earth.  I would imagine that once it is looked at by human eyes it would be accepted.

DavenportGIS

Also, I thank you Allison for the explanation.

I have already appealed but shortly after that, I edited the model
after creating a color texture from the one of the two identical
(viewpoint) photos I have of this tower. The Street View imagery is
hazy and not suitable for creating textures, nor does the Get Image
(or whatever it is in SU that accesses Street View) does not apply
textures to curved surfaces very well, nor when placed on a flat plain
does it Project very well (or at least the result is poor).

But now after revising and re-uploading, it has failed yet another
review for Incomplete Texturing.
There is Nothing left to texture.
The top of the tank is White. I NEVER paint anything that is white ..
I leave it as a natural surface that is white (to reduce file size and
because any time I have edited a white image .. it ends up Blue).

Here is the image I created my textures from.
http://garycoombs.com/Photography/Loganville/slides/CRW_7839.html

So tell me, what is a person supposed to do with this white part at
the top ?
It is worth trying to create a texture that would hopefully look White
and have those little metal seam flaws ? That would be ridiculous.
BTW - my other water tower is also white and passed the review Before
the review process was revised. Does this mean it will now be removed
from GE ?

If it fails yet another review this time, I'll scrap it altogether
because it isn't that important to me anyway.

The downside to removing the other one is the loss of 2 Ratings
(thanks to those that Rated that model). But I somehow lost the MID on
the original.

In general, you should use the following plan when a model isn't
accepted:

1)  Check to see if there's anything that should be done to bring the
model in line with Google Earth acceptance criteria, and edit those
things first.
2)  If the model is still rejected, and it's clearly a reviewing error
(the most common being "unable to verify existence of building" where
it's the fault of the age of the Google Earth imagery, or "incomplete
phototexturing" where it's impossible to phototexture the surface -- a
roof, where the Google Earth imagery is of poor quality, or a wall
that connects to the next row house on the block, for example), appeal
the review.  During the appeal process, the reviewer will go to some
length to look at things like Panoramio photos of the building to
check its position and phototexturing, things that aren't accessible
during the initial review.  In case of doubt, you can link to photos
of your building to add information for the reviewer to use.
3)  While appealing the review, leave the model alone.  Deleting the
model and re-uploading it, or editing the model, after you have
appealed a review causes more work for the review team (they now have
to answer two questions, one of which is obsolete), and has a good
chance of not resulting in the outcome you'd like; last review wins,
and it would be sad if you appealed the model and had somebody go take
a look at it and accept it, only to find out that your later edit hit
the bulk review process and got rejected again.

-- Allison

On Nov 6, 8:20 am, SnowTiger <inspec...@hometech.on.ca> wrote:

The last time I uploaded (and deleted the previous upload) was in part
because I somehow lost the original file with the MID. I know that I
should have used the warehouse Edit feature to have avoided that.

But now even after creating a custom color/texture from one of the two
photo images I have to work from AND after using the Satellite Image
for the Top of the Tower .. which is White, I have failed the 3rd
review.
This time for Incomplete Texturing and Model Incomplete ... I give up.

There is nothing that needs texturing that isn't already ...
especially anything that is White.
Furthermore, one fact is for sure .. the model is absolutely complete
without flaws, short of the fact that I didn't create the cross cables
to limit the geometry.

So I will just leave it uploaded for those that want to see the tower,
even though it fails to meet GE's requirements.

 I looked at your model, nice work!

I see that the under-side of the horizontal members are open and the
inside faces aren't textured.
That may be what they're referring to as incomplete.

I had a similar problem with my water tower "if it can be seen it
needs to be textured" no matter how insignificant the surface is.

Hope this helps

Roball

On Nov 7, 7:07 am, SnowTiger <inspec...@hometech.on.ca> wrote:

You make a great point regarding significance/insignificance of
surfaces.
In fact, I never even considered those surfaces but that may well be
what the reviewers were referring to. I only wish they had a way to
identify those areas that they believe ought to be textured. In fact,
it would be great if Google could Texture all Untextured Surfaces with
some generic Google Texture that stands out like a sore thumb ... i.e.
Florescent Orange or something.
But then that reminds me that we can do this ourselves (as I learned
this summer from a post .. but forgot).
We can Group and model, and then Paint the Group with a Bright Color
and then Explode the group to find all previously untextured surfaces
to be now brightly colored. I'll have to remember that for the future
and get used to using it regularly.

I did finally get my water tower approved this week after a third
review and appeal. I think there might have been a misunderstanding of
the tower's colors to begin with, along with those untextured surfaces
you mention.

Thanks to Google Reviewers for approving my "Loganville Water Tower"
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=9c4721861fe59f8875...
AND
the "Campbellford Fire Hall & Water Treatment" facility
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=25abd5f46375f5ba75...