Page 9 of 10
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:40 am
I'm curious about your approach. With Sketchup you can build a model from plans and elevations, but you can also take a photo or drawing of a building and reverse-engineer a 3D version of the 2D image. So it would be possible to create a model just from the perspective drawing and perhaps compare the result to a model created from plans and els (which may be slightly different).
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:47 am
You could never adequately recreate a three-dimensional object from a single photo. I don't know how many photos you would need to make a correct model from them; perhaps a few as three birds-eye views ?
I would never engage a single volunteer expert in answering the hundreds of questions that arise in the attempt to master SketchUp; rather, a careful and step-by-step study of the available tutorials would yield the desired result.
One of my principal flaws in early use of the medium is that I neglected to separate my models into parts -- "groups" and "components."
https://mastersketchup.com/sketchup-gro ... omponents/
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:54 am
Ledge [to SDR's query]
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:13 am
I agree that it would be nearly impossible to accurately model a complex 3D object from only one photo. Perspective can play tricks at times and you can't trust a single view.
I also agree that components may be the single most important part of a successful SketchUp model. Anyone who doesn't use them finds that out the hard way pretty quickly.
Roderick - I looked back and I can't find what SDR asked you. Care to enlighten?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:18 am
Mies, you are getting close.
FLW's perspective indicates that the principal roof rises to a point, but I doubt that was intended. There should be a short distance from the peak of the roof to the center of the chimney. Perhaps the plan shows the hearth reaching all the way to the center point of the roof. If the chimney reaches that point, the intersection of the lower roofs over the bedrooms would intersect the chimney at very awkward angles. Even though the center line of the bedroom roofs end at the intersection to the main roof, they are implied as extending to the chimney, and where they meet should be the extent of the prow of the chimney.
There are two ways to deal with the batter. The chimney in plan could rise straight up into the lofty area of rafters going hither and yon, stopping at a break of some sort, then continuing with the batter. Or starting at the floor at east and west ends of the chimney, draw lines to topmost extent of the chimney, and divide with horizontal mortar joints and let the extent of the batter fall where it may. If it's a fraction of an inch, there's nothing wrong with that, considering how tall the thing is. Engaging the columns seems a stretch to me. That area, with the loggias, must be a flat ceiling just above door height. I defy you to figure out what it would be if it were open to the rafters; that would be a challenge!
Mies, 2 other buildings you might examine, both of which have been discussed and shown on this site, are Richard Davis House and Arnold Friedman House. Their roof designs are different, yet related.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:21 am
Mies, I suggested the bedroom floors could extend to the outermost corners of the windows with the 120/30/30 degree prow forming a ledge inside.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:16 pm
The footprint of the chimney could coincide with the rectangle bounded by the colonnades, with or without there being a flat ceiling at all or part of that rectangle.
This does raise the question, however, of what the transition between open ceiling (in the main space) and flat ceiling (elsewhere, presumably) looks like, and where that transition occurs.
As Wright designed from the inside out, where it counted, simultaneously with a clear regard for external appearance, perhaps the pursuit of this (re)creation might do likewise ?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:13 pm
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:06 pm
SDR wrote:You could never adequately recreate a three-dimensional object from a single photo. I don't know how many photos you would need to make a correct model from them; perhaps a few as three birds-eye views ?
It is possible to "scan" a building (or anything else) by taking pictures around it.
However, to achieve a minimum of fidelity, it is necessary to take many more than three photographs. Today there is software that "models" any object semi-automatically from photographs.
The process is not simple and requires some practice, but here is a good tutorial on how to do it (in this case for a small object) and what software to use:
In this other post, the author shows how he has scanned a building and used that 3d scan as a basis to create his own model (you can read it at the end of the post):
This only applies to existing buildings, of course, and is not applicable to Lake Tahoe, although it could be used for existing FLLW buildings, let's say it's a cheap way to scan a building without expensive equipment.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:52 pm
Thanks, David. Most interesting !
Now to brush up (ahem) my vocabulary. Can you point me to a glossary or lexicon of digital-art terms ? I might as well at least try to keep up . . . !
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:28 am
I've never tried it myself since I usually model buildings that do not exist, but it can be useful to scan, for example, the existing surrounding buildings of a project.
It's a subject to explore that I have stuck on my to-do list (A long list I am afraid)
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:19 pm
Well, SDR, again, if you can do it, do it. Using the rows of columns in connection with the chimney would create an unholy mess of the interior. So too ceilings other than flat over the loggias. Comparing Nakoma and Fir Tree is like comparing apples and kumquats.
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:15 pm
Right. I posted images of the Nakoma "wigwams" (Wright's term; see drawing) because they are the nearest thing, chronologically and stylistically, to the Tahoe project; note the similarity of the Fir Tree roof windows
and surrounding treatment to Nakoma -- and because Meisolus (not Miesolus) asked for material that might be relevant, specifically for decoration.
There's a note on the Nakoma main roof section which mentions "color decoration applied to sawed surface of boards." This is a useful hint, I think, as to how Wright pictured his polychrome decoration: the texture of
sawn boards would show through the paint and lend a certain rough-hewn flavor to the work ?
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:44 pm
An "unholy mess" indeed Roderick. But yet if you look at the elevation, and that gargantuan mountain of a chimney, the extents of it would line up nicely with the columns to either side of the chimney as shown in plan.
SDR- Thank you for all the pictures of Nakoma. They are helpful in trying to figure out what this incredible mess of an interior could be.
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:09 pm
Perhaps the outboard faces of the square columns would continue the batter of the chimney mass . . .
The more difficult decision would be the form of the ceiling plane and its transition to the (presumably) open ceiling of the main space. The Nakoma
sections reveal a different ceiling treatment -- and upward extent -- under each of the various conical roofs. Granted, only the largest room has a free-
standing central chimney. But even that space doesn't extend all the way to the peak of the roof.