Nope, the reason there's no SU Importer in 64-bit, is because Google SU API doesn't support 64-bit yet. Not e-on's issue. You can use OBJ exporters from Google, or Collada (search Vue, SketchUp and Collada).

 See my blog post on resetting config files, then reinstall:

http://blog.chipp.com/resetting-vue-7s-config-files/

 Yep.

 Hi Paula,

The different Vue OpenGL settings would have zero impact on render times as Vue doesn't use OpenGL to do final rendering but rather to show the previews. So, no surprise there's no difference.

-C

 There's an interesting thread going on over at the e-on forum, and I posted more observations regarding creating your own cloudscapes. I thought I'd repost it here for anyone interested:

Quote - We're then stuck fighting that original fractal and I think that's partly why it's a pain in the neck for something that really "could" be so much simpler and straight forward.

Well, Not really. Just set the Detail slider to ZERO and you're not fighting the original fractal.

Here are a few cloud pics I just rendered...all with detail, feathers and sharpness set to ZERO. Most other settings are the basic ones found in the CloudPeeps Vue file. This first one uses only a Fast Perlin Fractal for density:

This second one uses a Simple Fractal with Perlin Noise:

You can see each of these are a bit different, but they both look very much like clouds.

So, then the question is "Why have a detail slider at all?" AFAICT, there are two good reasons.

1. Some cloudscapes aren't generated with fractals and because of this, they render MUCH faster. That said, adding fractal details helps these faster cloudscapes look more real.

2. Some cloudscapes, like the one below use a fractal (Round Samples) which create billowing clouds but with smooth unnatural edges. In this case, adding a bit of detail will help.

This next render (sorry these last few are only done in Preview mode as it was taking too long) shows a blobby cumulus type cloud, but the edges are too smooth to be real.

Now, if we add a tiny bit of Detail (4%), Feathers (4%) and Sharpness (4%) we can use the same exact fractal as before and it renders a much better cloud scene:

So, you can see why it helps to have features like Details, Feathers and Sharpness, each adding a tiny amount of randomness to cloud shapes-- which can be of great help to fine tune a cloudscape.

Lastly, I would be terribly remiss if I didn't mention one other factor in cloud rendering. Consider the last render. It uses a Simple Fractal with Round Samples. Now take a look at this render:

This uses just the Round Samples Noise (no fractal, just noise). This last image renders 5 to 10 times faster than the one with fractals. So, keep this in mind when creating your cloudscapes!

I hope some find this helpful.

 Geez, ArtPearl, give it a rest. Can't someone provide a freebie to the community without you having to jump all over them?

For the record, I did contact eonite regarding this product back a few weeks ago when we decided to go separate ways.. My exact words were:

"FWIW, I will plan on tweaking and releasing the little bit I did documentation-wise (the single sphere cloudball) as a freebie by me only with some sort of explanation there would not be a CloudPak by us anytime soon.

Let me know if you have a problem with this, but, I suspect you wouldn't as you never really agreed with the technique and approach I was taking in the documentation.

Because of that, I'll be sure and position it as my thinking, unless you would allow me to give you credit for function stuff - all readily available in your Rendo tutes. I don't plan on putting anything more other than a single sphere cloud in the documentation and certainly would not include any metanodes nor descriptions or theories of your metanodes and how things work."

His response back:

"Hi Chipp,

Thats no problem for me. Treat it as your thing, dont mention me.

Best,

Dick"

Cripes, what else more do you want? 

If you feel you must attack this project, please start your own thread.

ArtPearl,

No stealing of eonite's thunder, nor his clouds is taking place.

I'm sorry you really think I'd release something without attempting to give credit to those who provided help.

I had already checked with Dick (eonite) before posting this document. He personally requested I not use his name in any of it, as he has a different set of findings and approach.

That said, as mentioned previously in this thread by Dick, the main FE node is one he most generously shared with Rendo folks awhile ago.

Futherrmore, as stated in the PDF, creating clouds, one at a time, in a layered process is not a good process to create an entire cloudscape. 

As you mentioned, you have not thoroughly read the document. It is titled, "Atmosphere settings for Cumulus clouds" and has nothing to do with the FE. The point of it is to describe what the various controls do to affect clouds. Using the Gaussian Tooth layer was a very good way to show the effects directly as the original node provides a smooth sphere cloud. The idea is, once you understand what the various controls do,  you can take more control existing cloud layers you use, or apply these findings to MetaClouds.

And for the record, the original CloudPak was a collaboration between both Dick (eonite) and myself. We both put in substantial time on the project. We both amassed knowledge. We both agree we have a right to publish our findings-- and I doubt it needs policing by others who know nothing of our project or our agreements.

As I've said many times, I have huge personal respect for Dick and his skills and believe his Cloud product will set new standards for the creation and rendering of clouds in Vue. I don't see CloudPeep in anyway competing with the grandeur of his product. I suspect he doesn't either.

In fact if anything, I suspect CloudPeep would add interest regarding how to perfect cloudscapes-- something Dick has been working long and hard on.

Daveso, 

I don't remember e-on having product launch sales-- of course I could be missing something. They run a business and try and charge a fair price. This is so they can continue to improve the product, pay their programmers and make a bit of profit. This is a tried and true system of free enterprise. People vote with their wallet-- and it appears e-on has done a better job of surviving than the original Poser, Bryce, and some other 3D companies have.

This is probably because they obviously provide a product which people will buy. The last Toyota I purchased, I received zero discount-- because the model was popular, and if I didn't buy, there were people standing behind me that would. Until there is a serious competitor to Vue, e-on will continue with a huge competitive advantage for this segment of 3D.

I remember when Alias was the cream-of-the-crop and could demand whatever price they wished. But then 3DStudio/Max came along, and SoftImage and Newtek and it became clear they no longer had a competitive advantage-- so their price dropped. Perhaps some day, the same will happen with e-on, but they seem to have such a huge head start, I can't imagine it would be easy to catch up.

BTW, there are a few here at the Rendo Vue forum who take offense to such language as yours. Please clean it up.

Quote - ... speaking of special effects like Godrays. Godrays can be generated with any AP setting. In fact it has nothing to do with AP setting, but with the amount of particles in the air and the obstacles that the sunlight encounters. 

Sorry, Dick. You are wrong with this assumption. The generation of Godrays is also a function of scale of the object generating the Godrays. In the case you show, you have massive clouds, which generate the appropriate Godrays with an AP of 1. But, in the case below, there are a few columns, of a scale much smaller than your cloud, which I want to generate Godrays coming into an area. In order for them to be visibile, it is necessary to create an AP of greater than 1. The only difference between these two renders is AP settings.

AP=1:

AP = 5:

Furthermore, this image of Dax's is very difficult to render with an AP setting of only 1 (assuming the trees are real scale). Both Dax and I work a lot with Godrays without using clouds. In these cases, the scale of the object generating the Godrays is important-- and if not large enough, we need to bump up the AP setting to get the effect needed.

My point is simple. Different people use Vue different ways. You like using an AP of only 1. That certainly isn't a restriction for others. Many of Vue users pay only basic attention to scale, and end up using their eye as a final arbitrator. I suppose it may have something do to with an engineering versus artist approach. A hundred years ago in my graduate design classes, we were taught to trust our eye more than the ruler for spatial relationships. 

You are an amazing FE programmer and have skills beyond 99% of all Vue users in that regard. I have looked at your complex cloud functions, and they are most spectacular, and complex. Not something many can follow. Your skills regarding cloud generation are unsurpassed. When you do release your product, I hope you will consider keeping the Metanodes unlocked so folks can see the brilliant and methodical way you handle cloud building!

 Nice pictures, Dick. Very nice!

The AP setting was a real deal breaker for the two of us. I maintain (and still do) it's necessary to tweak AP for final renders in order to create special types of effects, and in particular distant haze, Godrays and a sense of extreme distance.

For me, that's how it's always been in Vue, and how I learned from dissecting a number of demo scene files from the past. There will be a number of such scenes from me (without clouds) included in the Vue 8 demo scenes and anyone can experiment for themselves.

While Dick's images are truly incredible, most don't have terrains associated with them. It's when you add a terrain to the atmosphere, that it all breaks apart for me. We went around and around with he wanting to maintain an AP of 1.0, for the reasons (and wonderful images) mentioned above. I wanted an AP of between 5 and 10 for other reasons, such as this image:

Neither of us is wrong-- we just approach a project differently, and with a different workflow.

I, too, look forward to Dick's new package and will be first in line to buy. :-)

 I'm pretty sure the requirements are the same as for 7.

 Wonderful images and a very nice explanation of what the Strata functions are.

Quote - images look great. Any chance you can give render times and your processor specs?

I don't remember exactly, but I created all scenes and renders in a single evening. I'm using a fairly standard off the shelf at Best Buy Intel Quad-Core: 6Gb memory desktop.

Vue 8 seems to render a tad bit faster for me than 7. As Bruno mentioned, none of the atmospheres had clouds in them-- so the renders were pretty quick. 

To get rid of noise in Godrays, I used an old trick of Dave Burdick's: up the anti-aliasing to something like 95% quality and it really helps. I believe some of the scenes above will come with Vue 8, so you will be able to study them directly if you purchase an upgrade.

 Funny. Late for a meeting yesterday, I still had to pull my car over, get out and snap this reference pic with my iPhone. :-)

In order for godrays to appear, you need to be sure and set the sunlight type to Volumetric sunlight(7) and check the Godrays checkbox (not really necessary as Volumetric sunlight forces Godrays on– but it’s a good habit and won’t confuse you later). Without Volumetric sunlight, you can’t have godrays.

I've been spending an inordinate amount of time working with godrays lateley, and will be posting a bunch of pretty nice godrays images soon, but in the meantime, you can check out my blog for the rest of the above tutorial on godrays.