Forum: 3D Modeling


Subject: Does scale affect speed/filesize?

LPent opened this issue on May 20, 2009 · 14 posts


LPent posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 4:48 AM

I am currently designing a building and sofar I am modelling it 1:1. The problem is that the model is growing and as such the program becomes slow (Vue) to respond. I was wondering if modelling on a smaller scale (1:10) would affect the response time, and if it would decrease the level of detail in the final render?


EnglishBob posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 6:29 AM

I've never heard of object size having a bearing on render time, in any application. It's more likely that as your building develops, the polygon count is increasing, and that will slow down Vue (and any renderer). 


LPent posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 6:35 AM

OK, thanks, I thought as much. Just wanted to be sure.


ronviers posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 6:58 AM

I am not so sure. This seems more like a Vue question. I can imagine how even a vector based modeling package could be required to keep track of bitmap elements under certain circumstances.
Btw, I have zero experience with Vue, just my 2¢.

Good luck


markschum posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 9:39 AM

The total number of  vertices and polygon count will effect the program but scale doesnt matter.

The amount of detail that will show would depend on your resolution . That is if you adjust the camera to show the entire building and do a pic say 320 x 240 you will see less detail than in a pic 3200 x 2400 and that is regardless of the model scale.

Note here: the model coordinates for a vertex may be 7 decimal places. If your scale is very small you may get into issues about the number of decimal points available to fit a new vertex between two others.


ronviers posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 10:15 AM

I still think Vue could have its particulars. Easy enough to test - scale the scene down and see if it responds better.


LPent posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 12:40 PM

The reason I asked instead of test it, was that vue crashes on me when I scale down the scene. The number of polys/vert makes sense to me...just not sure if I can set the "decimal points"?


markschum posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 6:41 PM

the decimals are in the vertex coordinates, they are set when the vertex is created. You have to scale hugely for it to matter .


ronviers posted Wed, 20 May 2009 at 6:46 PM

When you adjust your scale you need to set your global tolerances so they make some sense.


LPent posted Thu, 21 May 2009 at 4:49 AM

Thanks for all the help.
But I can't think of another solution for my problem other than to be a bit less realistic in my model I guess.
I am making a promo-movie for a new to be built eco-holiday house and we want to show both overviews and details. Perhaps I went about it the wrong way and I better make multiple models (big, less detailed ones for the overview, and small, detailed ones for the zoom-shots)
That would probably make more sense anyway.


EnglishBob posted Thu, 21 May 2009 at 5:17 AM

What modeller are you using? If it's a subdivision modeller you could export different levels of detail depending on the shots required. Otherwise, having several models may be the only way to get around the problem.  You could cut up your high-poly model to use for close-ups, and make a low-poly version for distance shots.

You could also think about using displacement maps to add detail rather than polygons. There are plenty of options.


LPent posted Thu, 21 May 2009 at 5:53 AM

I am using a combination of Sketchup and blender.
I am relatively new to all the 3d terminology so where can I find some info regarding subdivisioning?


EnglishBob posted Thu, 21 May 2009 at 6:18 AM

Attached Link: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual/Modelling/Meshes/Subdivision_Surfaces

I don't think Sketchup does subdivision, but Blender does, and the Blender forum here is a good point to start asking for advice on how to do it. I still haven't started on my "Blender for Dummies" book, so don't ask me. :) Here's a link to the Blender wiki on subdivision.

markschum posted Thu, 21 May 2009 at 9:11 AM

Using displacement maps would provide lots of detail with no modelling overhead.