FULL Lumion 10.2 Pro Serial Number Reading Tooll
Ainoha Sistek
Hello. I designed a neighborhood including in room designs (furnitures etc) in SketchUp. I am trying to export it to lumion program for rendering. But when I tried to import it from Lumion, lumion is freezing and stops working. I tried smaller file, they works fine.
There are a few ways you can reduce file size. The best way to reduce file size it to model smartly from the beginning. Assuming you do not want to remodel anything, there are two simple ways to clean things up a bit.
The first way is to use the purge unused option in the Statistics section in the model info window. This should get rid of any unused assets that may have made their way in to the file while you were creating it. The next thing I would recommend would be the cleanup extension by ThomThom (Extension SketchUp Extension Warehouse). This extension is a more aggressive way to clean up a model so be sure to back up your file before you use it.
If you are willing to do a bit more modeling, you can reduce file size by using components for objects that repeat in your model. You can save even more space by reducing the number of sides that you generate with the circle tool when you create a circle. This is especially helpful if you plan on using a Push/Pull or Follow Me tool, as it will reduce the number of faces created later on. Finally you can save on space by only importing what you need from the 3D Warehouse. There are many highly detailed quality models on the warehouse, sometimes you do not need all the details that a component comes with. Do not be afraid to strip out excess detail you do not need.
I have not had a chance to look through the entire model yet but I have noticed you have a massive amount of raw geometry that could be made into components. The next thing I noticed was all the components that you have inside your building. If you need all that detail you should clean up some of the components you are using. Not everything has to be ultra detailed. If you do not need the furniture, scrap it. I will keep looking and see if I can find anything else that you might be able to re-work to shrink the file size.
After takin the past hour to take a more in depth look at the file, I can say that the biggest thing that you can do to shrink the file size would be to reduce the complexity and number of components you are using. I would strongly suggest that you pay careful attention to what you are importing into your model, too many high detail components will slow down any computer and create a bloated file.
Hello,
I know this is an old topic, I would just like to add something if someone stumbles upon this (as I did).
CaseyG, making components is indeed a very good practice, and it will for sure lighten sketchup file.
However, mrblythe here had problem with Lumion, and in that case, it will not matter at all if your geometry is exploded, groups or components, polygon is polygon as far as Lumion sees it, and it can ony be helped by deleting something.
HNY Its not that its a complex issue per say. I don't work for Enscape, but if I did and only had X amount of hours to work on new features and this one feature is only applicable for one of the four programs, isn't even used by everyone using the program, and there's already a process (although tedious) to convert the mesh, I wouldn't list it as a high priority to add to the software. That's not to say I don't want it because I think it could be super useful, but I'd definitely rather have a reworked video editor right now over more mesh tools. Also, Lumion is the cost it is because it has the developmental resources behind it. You can't expect a program that's 60% cheaper to have exactly the same features as the more expensive competitor.
Tearch I can follow your train of thought, but i still believe its a matter of either underestimating the gain it could have for the quality enscape can give or an overestimation of the complexity to implementet it. If i worked for enscape i would always aim to work on features where you get the most "bang for the buck" in terms of work hours. And i do imagine a reworked video-editor would be months of work, GUI-design and coding as opposed to enabling an alternate geometrypipeline which already exist inside Rhino. Vray is now under the same banner as Enscape, and Vray has always used the Render mesh from Rhino, so the knowledge is there. The code might even exist.
Regarding Lumion i was surpriced to learn last month that Enscape that enscape and lumion is now very similarly priced. So either you have a great deal on your licenses or i am getting scammed. Actually thats in part why im trying to get the rendermesh-thing into enscape:
So i wont have to convert back to Lumion. We moved because of Lumions steep pricing earlier.
HNY I just checked pricing this morning just to get the figures correct. I compared the cheapest prices of both programs to gain 100% of the features of both not taking into account license type (because the type of license doesn't affect the features of the program). That leaves Lumion pro at $109 a month and Enscape (yearly fixed license) at $43 a month.
I agree that the gain to Rhino users with that feature would be great. Contrary though, and I don't have Enscapes stats, but based on the forum activity Rhino seems to only make up 13% of Enscapes user base, if only 75% (being generous) of Rhino users use meshes regularly enough to use that feature that feature is only applicable to max 10% of their user base. Compare that to a updated video editor which at least 75% of users would use and I think the scale of impact verse the time dedicated to the feature gets tipped totally to one side. Now if it is only a few lines of code added to the software then I'm all on board to add it. But Enscapes recent track record of choosing features to be added, completely implementing them, and in a bug free way is not good. So I am very wary of asking for niche features to be added when the big ones don't even seem to tackled at the rate they should be.
Tearch I see we individually get influenced by our own perception (naturally). I'm surprised to see your estimate of the video-feature usage, since I know loads of Enscape-users (from work and school before that) but very few who uses the video-side of the software. In our office we have approx. 20 users and only one guy who prefer Enscape for video. I've made lots of videos in Lumion and a few in Enscape, so I do share your view on the video-editor needing an update. I was shocked that I could not make more than one clip in a file (without having to save and load them all the time).
I do think you may also be misunderstanding which feature I would like to see. Everybody who uses Rhino sees the render-mesh without ever using "a mesh". Its simply how Rhino makes Nurbs and other surfaces visible. I just want Enscape to use the same faces as rhino does, and not make its own translation.
In regards to the video editor, the current one is terrible so its no surprise that someone would choose Lumion over Enscape or just not making a video at all. I haven't exported a Enscape video in years because its not worth the effort but I totally would if the editor was fixed. The 75% assumption was assuming that the editor was usable and maybe 75% is higher than the actual number but no doubt the number is higher than the entire Rhino Enscape base.
On the subject: It not a "tool" im looking for. When you draw a simple cube in rhino it will be a certain type/category of geometry. Most likelya cube would be an extrusion. More complex shapes will be difined as a polysurface. There are many ways to create shapes. Common for all is that rhino needs to make a mesh version in the background for you to see it in the viewport at all (except for wireframe mode). It is this "rendermesh" that I wish enscape would just use. Because if they did, other tools would be part of enscape "for free". The "applyedgesoftening" command which started this thread is a simple tool which can add a fillet or chamfer to an object, but retains the original logic, making alterations possible down the line. I normally use this for concrete with chamfers, couches with fillets or just normal wooden objects to give edges specular highligts. (if you have used 3dsMax or blender, this is how many modifiers keeps stuff non-destructive)
But for some reason Enscape makes its own translation from polysurface to a set of meshfaces (to my knowledge all GPUs need a set of meshfaces to shade anything). Enscape reads meshes just fine. It just chooses to make its own for the polysurfaces. So what i see in my rhino viewport is not the same geometry as Enscape shows. The reason i refer to it as Rendermesh is because rhino has a command called "extractRenderMesh" which makes the shading its own object.
Your collective voices have not fallen on deaf ears and I can add that it's certainly not a forgotten topic, at the moment though it is unlikely that this will be implemented before beginning next year. Once there'll be any additional news to share I'll make sure to do so here as well.
Great stuff - I look forward to playing with it when the initial bugs makes 3.5 an option. Unfortunately we are currently hit by the "converting material from version 3 to version 4" loop when working in our models.
I'm sorry to hear that and be assured that this is an issue which should be fixed rather soon actually, we already gathered all the info from users affected in order to reproduce this. I'll share more news here in the near future once I'm able to!
7025e2c3df