Request for Advice from SketchUp/Google Earth GURU's re: Model Not Approved

[SnowTiger]

Of all my uploaded models, one of the better ones (in my opinion) was
denied following a Review.
Not that this makes it right, but I have Approved 3D Layer models that
have Z-Fighting and Alignment issues.
The latter of which is one of the reasons I chose the method I did to
model this specific model.

The model in question is called "Durham Street - East Side - Madoc,
Ontario" (which I admit, is a bit of a long-winded title) and is found
at http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ff4d3eb60568342828fcc7a38769d2df

The reasons provided for this model being denied are listed as
follows;

1/ Incomplete texturing ............ I can't find that ... although I
see places that can be better covered i.e. bottom of shed wall.

2/ Terrain too built up ....................... ??? Really ? I have
only provided enough to accurately represent the actual terrain
whereas Google's Terrain is wildly inaccurate in many places
throughout this town.

3/ Model needs to be divided into separate models ........ I can live
with this but problems may arise (see below)

4/ No reason
given ..................................................................Say
What ?

After having many problems with model alignment, both from GE .kmz
conversion as well as lousy cloud-covered terrain imagery, and because
all but one of the buildings are attached to each other, I chose to
make a single model.
This way, if and/or when I have to re-align this model, I have a
reference to line it up with the streets and sidewalks.
The individual building that could easily be uploaded on its own,
happens to be the main reference point for the alignment and
positioning of the rest of the buildings (or building) in this model.
Without this individual building's reference, I have no way to see if
the rest lines up with the street (as was the case for all of the
buildings on the opposite side of the street for the same reasons).
The other side of the street was done with individual (or 2 bldg)
models but I had one "heck" of a time lining these buildings up due to
imagery and definitely because of GE's converter in the case of the
corner building on that side of the street (I think .. but then the
rest of that side of the street doesn't line up properly either).
The problem with the opposite side of the street is that because the
terrain is complex, it is extremely difficult to line up adjacent
terrains, especially when I can't see due to poor imagery and due to
the .kmz rotational issues that are still present.
So while I can separate the corner building from the rest, I do need
the terrain for it to accurately reflect the real terrain and to match
up adjacent models.
Also the sidewalks do in fact stick well above the street in reality
but there is not a big dip mid-way down in the middle of the street
(as GE displays).

If I have to separate each of the individual stores (break up the main
structure into smaller pieces), it is going to be a nightmare to line
up and the individual models will look like crap in the Warehouse when
viewed separately (at least until approved for 3D Layer AND only if GE
manages to produce kmz's that don't move them all over the place.

PS> I have a couple other models for this town that are not yet
completely textured. Their terrain is Much More built-up, again due to
inaccurate GE Terrain. Otherwise, people from this area that look at
the models will surely comment how the elevations of buildings do not
look right (it's a small town .. everybody knows who I am here).

In the end, I am relying heavily on the terrain I create to ensure
things line up and are properly positioned in relation to each other.

Any and All help and suggestions are Welcomed here.
I'm looking for the best possible outcome with the least amount of
work.

[SnowTiger]

I just want to revise one statement.
I mentioned that the individual building is the anchor or reference
for the rest on this street when in fact, its closest neighbor is
actually the reference for all buildings on this street (those that
are attached to said neighbor and reference for the individual
building) because you can't see any of the other buildings in GE
Imagery to line anything up.

I would also argue (whether or not it is legitimate) that the total
number of Faces, Geometry and the model File Size are all well below
the maximum permitted or what I thought to be within Google's
acceptable criteria. Even though the total model file sizes (both .skm
and .kmz) are 2mb's, I hoped it would be acceptable considering I
accomplished the whole street within that file size.

Anyway, I want to clarify that I am not at all upset about Google's
decision, but I am a bit perplexed about what my options are/where
that would be better "in this case". Especially when they have
approved 2 of my models that later proved to have Z-Fighting (which I
could not see until they were already on the 3D Layer). Even those
have been approved, I WILL voluntarily fix and re-upload because it is
important to me to have good and accurate models ..... even if of Ugly
Buildings !!!

[GaryM]

> The reasons provided for this model being denied are listed as
> follows;
>
> 1/ Incomplete texturing ............  I can't find that ... although I
> see places that can be better covered i.e. bottom of shed wall.

I didn't see any untextured surfaces either, but some of the roof
textures are mis-scaled. Since you can't see roofs there because of
the clouds, you'll have to get some oblique shots from the ground,
rectify them with software, and make some tiles.

> 2/ Terrain too built up ....................... ??? Really ?  I have
> only provided enough to accurately represent the actual terrain
> whereas Google's Terrain is wildly inaccurate in many places
> throughout this town.

Might help if you tapered that terrain platform into the underlying
terrain and textured it with the "clouds" so that it blends into the
imagery (such as it is).

I'd try those things, resubmit, and if it gets bounced again use the
new "Appeal" feature. All in all its a nice model.

[SnowTiger]

To be honest, I can't believe that I didn't even notice that the
terrain doesn't already taper into the GE Terrain.
It amazes me how long I can look at something and still not see
something so evident such as that.
Thanks for pointing that out. I will correct that right away.

I'm not so sure of the texturing of the terrain though. My intent was
to show those areas that are Paved versus those that are Gravel. Quite
a few of those still in my town, especially where buildings have burnt
down over the last 20 years (the voids).

But I do have to agree that the roof textures are terrible, having
used the satellite image in this case (as would normally be done). The
clouds just make them look lousy.
I'm sure I can get some photos of some of the roofs, but I wonder "Is
there any problem with using SU Textures for the rest of the roofs" ?

I fixed the shed by editing its textures a bit as well as sinking it
down in the ground a bit more.

Thanks again GaryM.

[GaryM]

I've used SU's stock textures for roofs (or siding) once or twice,
when it happened to closely match what was on the building. But
usually those stock textures give an artificial look. So I make my own
tiles, either from shots of the actual building or from photos grabbed
from web sites of (say) roofing manufacturers who make that type of
roofing. Usually get a better result.

[matthiasbasler]

My 2 cents:

- 2 MB is OK for such a model, 1.5 MB would be better though.

- The "generic" roof textures are fine imho, except for the middle
building where it shows stripes only. Reapply the texture.

In general, export your model to KMZ, rename to .zip and have a look
at the images folder. This often reveals the reason for a model being
big. In your case I find some very distorted textures and some
duplicates. I'd consider deleting and reapplying the textures in
question.

- There are two untextured faces: One being the floor between two
sheds, another being a face inside the building complex. You may
delete the latter.


Hope this helps.

[Google Guide Bruce]

Hi Snow,

There are two primary reasons this model was not accepted. The first
is due to the artificial platform that you built under the model. The
building model should intersect with Google Earth's terrain. In cases
where the terrain is sloped, you can build a "skirt" around the model,
but when doing this, you need to blend the "skirt" into the
surrounding area, and, use Google Earth imagery as a texture.

The second reason is because we prefer to have models split into
individual buildings. There are several reasons for this. One is that
a business owner may want to add metadata to the model about their
business. Currently the metadata would be associated with an entire
block. Also, if a building were to change (be removed, remodeled, etc)
having individual buildings makes it easier for someone to update the
model.

I hope this helps. Happy Sketching.

Bruce

On Jun 9, 6:50 pm, SnowTiger <inspec...@hometech.on.ca> wrote:
> Of all my uploaded models, one of the better ones (in my opinion) was
> denied following a Review.
> Not that this makes it right, but I have Approved 3D Layer models that
> have Z-Fighting and Alignment issues.
> The latter of which is one of the reasons I chose the method I did to
> model this specific model.
>
> The model in question is called "Durham Street - East Side - Madoc,
> Ontario" (which I admit, is a bit of a long-winded title) and is found

> athttp://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ff4d3eb60568342828...

[SnowTiger]

Hello Bruce

I appreciate the explanation.
However, there are a few important issues here.
One of those is that the terrain, albeit only slightly sloped, is in
fact sloped in the opposite direction from that which the GE Terrain
slopes.
On the other side of the street, the Village Square was designed with
a Stepped Floor to compensate for this mild slope (which is in the
opposite direction to this side of the street).
The slope on the subject side of the street is measured at 5' drop
from Durham street to just beyond the back end of the Super Dollar
Club store (South end of model) i.e. sloping down to the East.
On the north end of my model, the ground also slopes down in reality
but even as modeled, the back end of the Bowling building (North End
bdlg), is already almost 30 inches (scaled) below the GE Terrain even
with my terrain. My terrain also is trying to compensate for the big
dip in the street in front of the Super Dollar Store which doesn't
exist or we'd all need 4x4's with an off-road suspension package here.

The next issue is that it is practically impossible to situate any of
the buildings on this street with any accuracy without having
something to reference.
As anyone can see in the satellite image, there is only really one
building from which to work on this side of the street.
You can see the result on the other side of the street, which looks
like crap at present. I hoped to avoid this and then have something to
reference the other side so I can re-upload those models (which are
also grouped .. accept there are gaps where buildings have burnt
down).
I have modeled all my models in such a way that IF and when Google
considers updating this imagery and terrain data, I can upload revised
models since I have grouped the terrain separately so it is easily
deleted prior to re-uploading. After all, I thought it was our
responsibility to maintain the upkeep of our models ?

While I realize that all terrain can't be modeled everywhere, it is
going to make a big difference (to me anyway) on how this is all going
to look in the end (with only 8 more models left to complete and
upload .... at least 4 of which won't need any terrain modeled. But
this downtown area is what most people will ultimately look at I'm
sure because the rest is just houses.

I have another model I'm working on in this town (further East, that
sits almost 8 feet below the street and sidewalk. It's neighboring
building is 6 feet above the street, yet GE Terrain is flat. I have no
choice but to model terrain if I want it to look even remotely
realistic and avoid the local criticism. Otherwise, I know people
around here are definitely going to comment about "my" inaccuracy ....
after all, it's a small town with small town talk and attitudes. Many
hear haven't even heard of GE yet. Something I intend to soon rectify.
But not before getting a head start on the modeling otherwise I may
lose potential business opportunities re: modeling (elsewhere but
nearby).

To use GE Imagery to texture this terrain (or to not cover it) makes
it all look even worse in my opinion and that of many locals who have
already viewed my collection when I show them uploaded together (on my
computer). I asked for their opinions and found they concurred with
mine. Using GE Imagery to texture roofs when you Can see roofs makes
total sense to me but not when you Can't see anything but clouds.

With regards to business owners and associate meta-data, I realize
Google has business listings and associated icons which show in GE
that anyone can use, but I thought I had the control over what changes
are ever made to these models. Furthermore, I was under the impression
that if any of those store owners wanted to have changes made to these
buildings, they might have to come to me ...... since I'm trying to
earn some money ultimately ....... and no one in this town saw fit to
invest to this date so instead I chose to go ahead and upload these
few models to basically advertise my abilities to those in 2 cities I
am presently pitching to.
If I have misconceptions about this .. then so be it .. but it will
certainly change my ultimate goals and future of my 3D modeling.

So ultimately, while the explanation you have given would normally
make perfect sense, to me it makes none in this case and only makes
for a poor argument IMO.
And yet, I have spent the better part of this day going over this
model trying to make it better, having listened to the advice from
others in this forum (as Google suggests), as well as from Google's
information which btw - my model meets the criteria according to my
interpretation with exception of any untextured faces .. of which I
haven't found any although I have corrected two images by distorting
to compensate for GE's Terrain rather than add yet more built-up
terrain (which would more accurately reflect reality in reality).

So ultimately when I stated in an earlier post that I was not at all
upset about all this, that this is a good learning experience ... I am
now. And now debating whether to delete the whole town so I can model
it the way I want for myself only. While this may sound childish to
many, to me it's a matter of pride. If I can't make it look real and
right, within reason, it's not worth my doing. And I do understand
that sacrifices must be made for the sake of GE in order that you/they
can facilitate the many models that will ultimately get uploaded over
the months and years to come. But I'll draw the line there if it is
just going to look lousy. And the other side of the street already
looks that way.
Bottom line: I'll continue as I deem fit, re-upload and take my
chances and decide my future after the new review.

[GaryM]

Er, Bruce, that information about individual buildings v. whole blocks
is somewhat surprising and disappointing. I've made a number of models
comprising entire blocks, or half-blocks if there is an alley. They
have all been blue-ribboned. There are 2 good reasons for doing it
that way. First, the buildings are always common-wall, and if they are
done individually, those invisible common walls must remain untextured
or use false textures. Second, most blocks have a few uninteresting
buildings which modelers will forever ignore, because by themselves
they are boring. Doing the entire block at once assures that the block
is complete.

I hope my models don't get bounced now because I've made this
admission!

[SnowTiger]

First of all, I apologize for "rambling" last night and basically
"whining" about the work I have in front of me.
Furthermore, I must point out that I was and am aware that Bruce was
not criticizing anything but rather stating the facts of the
particular matter.
So to anyone who may have been offended or taken-back by any of my
comments above including if not specifically Bruce, I Do Apologize to
you.
I won't make excuses for why I went off like that.

GaryM - I appreciate your remarks which support my "speech".

Okay .... It seems I have more to learn about Google Earth 3D Geo-
Modeling than I had originally anticipated.
Geo-Modeling is very different from SketchUp Modeling (for other
purposes). Many of the techniques are the same but the desired outcome
is different.
There are things I will simply have to figure out and learn to
appreciate to participate in this opportunity (re: 3D Modeling Cities
and Towns in Google Earth).

I am in many ways, a perfectionist who will not settle for anything
but total satisfaction (based on my own impressions).
I will liken this to when I learned how to Water Paint.
After making my living and supplementing my living (for a few short
years) from Oil Painting, in which I preferred to paint photo-
realistic scenes, learning the true art and nuances of water painting
was a challenge ... but only because of my way of looking at things.

In oil painting you paint from dark to light colors (dark colors first
and the light colors over the dark colors). Plus because I liked to
produce realistic images, it was necessary to paint strictly within
outlines (not beyond a building's edges for example) creating nice
crisp edges.
But with water color painting, you start with light colors and then
built it up with ever-darker colors.
Furthermore, the most appreciated style (it seems) is a very "loose"
style of painting where one intentionally overlaps edges and leaves
blank areas etc.
This was a very difficult concept for me to grasp and even more-so for
me to appreciate.
It's an ADD-thing I guess.

As it turns out, learning to geo-model has a similar learning curve.

Anyway, since writing my book, speech or whatever you call it (above),
I have given this matter much thought and have also since received a
detailed explanation which further describes what Bruce was eluding to
above.
I am still left with many questions (all of which I'm sure I'll find
answers for in this forum or SketchUp Sage etc), but I'm sure I'll get
it figured out sooner rather than later.
I really do want to be a good (or even great) 3D Modeler like so many
of you folks, which means I have to continue to remain humble for
longer than I anticipated.

Again, I apologize for appearing emotional when really I'm just upset
to learn that I have more to learn than I ever thought.

[matthiasbasler]

In addition to what GayM said about blocks (where I fully agree) there
are several more reasons why sometimes blocks or half-blocks make more
sense than a lot of simple buildings:

1.
They are FAR easier to maintain.
History has told me that models in teh 3D warehouse have to be updated
from time to time, f.e.
if Google changes any exporter/conversion algorithm to produce
artefacts that didn't exist before or when the terrain changes or when
a building gets re-roofed or ...
Doing like 5 uploads (adding texts and metadata) instead of one would
be a pain.

You will understand that it is far easier to check/correct 50
buildings than approximately 300.
Not only for me but also for Google when reviewing the models!

2. Buildings in one block can share textures, like generic roof or
stone textures. This increases model efficiency, since the texture
doesn't have to be downloaded dozen of times.

3. If a street is built from several adjacent houses it can (and will)
happen that some are accepted, others rejected. This looks ugly and in
this case I'd rather have them all rejected.

4. Sometimes the buildings require some "artificial terrain" to
compensate for strong local terrain differences not reflected in GE.
Splitting this up in several buildings is nearly impossible, at least
a huge overhead ... and I don't want to waste my time.

On the other hand I agree that block models containing larger gaps
should be avoided and that outstanding buildings should be modelled
separately.

The arguments about business metadata doesn't make much sense to me
either, since
a) the uploader writes the description. If I know the description fits
for a whole block - fine.
b) any metadata from google is not attached to buildings, but to map
locations (at least currently)

In the end this should imho decided on a case by case basis.

Up to now creating blocks has not earned me rejections and I REALLY
hope it won't in the future. Thanks.

[SnowTiger]

Hello GaryM and matthiasbasler

Would either (or both) of you be interested in collaborating with me
on this model OR at least allowing me to email the file to you to get
some advice ?

I have made several corrections to textures and have eliminated "some"
of the terrain and made it taper into the ground again (turns out I
deleted that prior to uploading). I have even edited a few textures to
make them better. But I have not yet re-uploaded anything to the
warehouse.
I could upload it as it now is if that is easier than having it
emailed to you.

I just think I'd have better success with this (in less time too) if I
am able to correspond directly with pro's, rather than trying to work
it out in the forum

If either or both of you are interested in helping me with this, I'll
be glad to agree to any terms re: Credits.

Being new to Geo-Modeling, I have tons to learn and I know you both
have lots of experience with all sorts of model types.

Alternately, if you have any additional advice for me that you can
post here is fine too.
At this point, I am considering uploading as 2 models. One model with
the connected buildings and the independent building uploaded by
itself.
This would at least reduce the overall model file size(s).
I have also figured out how to delete the GE Terrain and Imagery from
the model to reduce file size as well (thanks to one of GaryM's
replies in another thread I started a while ago).
The reason I am thinking of going about it this way (contrary to
Bruce's recommendations) is because of the way these particular
buildings are assembled with overlapping walls etc. And I already
deleted the inside "shared" walls, so I'd have to redraw and texture
them again.
Mostly because of the terrain situation.
But again, having experienced eyes go over this with me would be a
great benefit to me and hopefully ultimately satisfactory to Google.

Thanks for taking a moment to consider this proposal.

[GaryM]

No need to email it. If you upload it to the warehouse I'll be happy
to DL the KMZ and look at it with SU.

[matthiasbasler]

> Would either (or both) of you be interested in collaborating with me
> on this model OR at least allowing me to email the file to you to get
> some advice ?

I'd prefer if such things stay out of my private email account and in
this forum instead. Here a lot of people can care about it - whoever
has time.

P.S. I'd recommend to turn on the history feature for your models so
everybody can see whenever you have uploaded a new version of your
model ... and what you did change. (You turn it permanently on in you
model detail page.)

[SnowTiger]

Hello again matthiasbasler, GaryM and everyone.

I appreciate your help and thoroughly understand re: private email
addy's.

I have since revised the original model fairly extensively with
regards to the terrain (amongst other things).
I have also broken it into 2 separate models. Which works out well
considering I inadvertently deleted some of the original files from my
hard drive (Doh !).
I also eliminated the GE Image and Terrain to help reduce the overall
model file sizes.

I am hoping Google will accept the result. I don't agree much with the
Meta-Data argument, especially when and with exception of the store
(building) called "Wilson's", there are at least 2 separate business
per building. One has at least 4 separate occupancies. So no one would
ever be able to separate their information from others anyway, other
than in Google Maps or the like. Furthermore, if any of these store
owners wish to have specific info associated with my models, I'll be
glad to include it ... for a price (as was very reasonably already
offered to them).

The only thing I'm not sure about at this point, is whether or not I
have eliminated the "Tiling" of textures other than those which are
intended to be tiled. But I believe I have successfully done so. If
anyone cares to check for me, I'd be grateful.

The model "names" and respective links are as follows;
Madoc Bowling
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=93a1e2f2343ec88b783925986aa2cd01
and
The O'Flynn Block
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=4a2ff761885c339f783925986aa2cd01

[GaryM]

Snow,

I DL'd the SKP for the Flynn Block and took a look. You got the roof
textures fixed, but there are still quite a few distorted textures
elsewhere --- the insides of the recessed doorways, sides of the
pediments at the long storefront roofline, sides of the pediments at
the ends of the molding below the Wilson's sign, front edge of
Wilson's roof, and several other places. Looks like you push-pulled
them after texturing the fronts, so you got distorted textures on the
new faces created. Noticed a few other things:

1. There is a floor under the garage at the NE corner which could be
deleted.

2. The Wilson's sign is a component with 7 faces, but it only has a
1.5" reveal. Probably not worth the necessary geometry. (I have a rule
for my own models for GE, that nothing smaller than 1' gets modeled
unless necessary to close a poly elsewhere). That's up to you, of
course.

3. The Wilson's facade texture is not rectilinear. You straightened it
out in SU, but that wouldn't work if it had to be stretched different
amounts in both directions. (GE seems to be happy if at least two
sides are parallel, but gives goofy results if there are no parallel
edges). Safer to correct perspectives on all textures in Photoshop
(Paint Shop Pro in my case) before importing. Just an aside, but you
also wanna be sure to save all textures in a non-compressed format for
editing. So if you have to edit a texture, edit the non-compressed
original, then save as JPG. Every time you open, edit, and save a JPG
again, it gets recompressed, and the quality declines more every time.

That platform is still sitting over 3' above the terrain in front. If
it is supposed to represent a curb, you might draw a horizontal line
8" down from the top (standard curb height) then make a shallow sloped
skirt out into the terrain, textured with the "clouds."

I wouldn't take Bruce's advice and separate all the bldgs tho. That
makes no sense. End up with a bunch of unnecessary geometry.

[SnowTiger]

Hi GaryM
And thank you kindly for the detailed review. Much appreciated.

I think there are a couple things about texturing GE Models that I
lack significant understanding about (I'm sure you'd agree).
From that which you have explained re: Distorted Textures, I'm
beginning to get the idea that projected textures that result in
stretched pixels, are simply a no-no ?
While this method of texturing may well be fine for SketchUp Modeling,
it appears that it is Not recommended for GE Modeling. I have gotten
very used to texturing this way and because of this I often use
Projected images.
I have seen spots on several of my models once in GE that show up as
White (appearing untextured) that were textured via this method.

What is your recommendation for texturing these types of locations
(such as the recessed doors) ? Make Unique Texture sampled from an
adjacent wall ?

I believe your rule re: things smaller than 1' is a good one. I can't
agree more.

I'll have to take a close look at the front of Wilson's a bit more to
understand what is going on with that .. not sure I follow but I'll
surely figure it out.

The Curb/Sidewalk issue is a tricky one. And of course, my lack of GE
Modeling experience makes it difficult for me to make good choices
yet.
I agree the curb is high, especially at the South end, but that
particular location high mostly due to the inaccurate GE Terrain (i.e.
dip in the road).
However, there is a significant slope from front to back of these
buildings. Especially on the South end where in reality, the elevation
difference is actually 5' from front to where I had the original
terrain terminate (now mostly deleted).
So I'm not too sure what to do here. If I reduce the front curb very
much, it will mean much of the back of the buildings will be below
GE's Terrain (as is already the case for the East end of the Bowling
building model where 24 to 30 inches of wall is now already below
grade.
While it is probably impossible to tell from my textures (without
having seen them prior to editing), but they would require a fair bit
of distorting to make the back of the building level with the front.
But maybe I'm not following you on this point. Are you basically
suggesting to essentially "hide" the exaggerated curb by adding sloped
terrain over the road (or at least towards the road) ?

Thanks again GaryM. Your help and advice is always greatly appreciated.

[SnowTiger]

Okay.. I see what you mean re: Front of Wilson's.
Wow .. I have no idea how I managed to do that but I know it has to be
fixed.
It seems the more I do the worse it gets ... at least for now.
Anyway, I see what has to be done and I'm on it now.

As far as texturing goes, I wish there were allot more, or more
detailed YouTube videos regarding this particular aspect of geo-
modeling. There are tons of videos for everything but that it seems.
In fact, I only learned about using "Make Unique Texture" the other
day .. and it was only when reviewing an unrelated video.

If there is anyone out there that is familiar with making YouTube
videos, please create a "detailed" model texturing video for those
like me who are apparently inept with this aspect of modeling.
Again, what works in SU, doesn't necessarily apply in GE.

[GaryM]

> I have gotten
> very used to texturing this way and because of this I often use
> Projected images.

Why? Why go to that trouble to apply a texture to a planar face, when
you can apply the texture directly?

Usually I crop and scale the texture image to the same proportions as
the face it will paint, before importing it in SU. So it snaps right
into place.

> What is your recommendation for texturing these types of locations
> (such as the recessed doors) ?  Make Unique Texture sampled from an
> adjacent wall ?

Those types of faces are usually the same material (same brick, same
type of windows, etc.) and the same scale as the rest of the wall.
Many times you can just paint it with the same texture you used for
the main portion of the wall and position it so that the desired
portion of the texture is visible. I often also make a tile from one
of those main textures, i.e., a column of brick, which I can then use
for short wall segments like the doorway recesses. There is an art to
making tiles that tile smoothly and without creating artificial
patterns, however.

>Are you basically
> suggesting to essentially "hide" the exaggerated curb by adding sloped
> terrain over the road (or at least towards the road) ?

Yes. Possibly beginning from a curb line drawn about 8" down from the
top of the sidewalk and sloping shallowly out into the street. Perhaps
using segments drawn from the vertices in the terrain geometry to the
"curb line." Those faces would be textured with the "clouds," of
course.

[SnowTiger]

Hi GaryM

You are a valuable asset without which I'd be totally lost.

It is very important to me that I learn to be a quality modeler. I
think there are already enough so-so-quality models in GE. I don't
wish to add to that ... any more than I already have.
I think it is fantastic that quality modelers such as yourself
(GaryM), gaieus, picturepainter and matthiasbasler and several others,
are willing to share the tips, tricks and maybe even "secrets" that
allow others to share in this great art medium with some hope of
matching your abilities some day.

Thanks ever so much.