Message info
 
To:3D Modeling for Google Earth & Maps From:Arrigo Silva Subject:Re: Enrico Dalbosco - Saint Basil\'s Cathedral Date:Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
 

Hi to everyone!

I gladly accept the invitation of his colleague Chigirinsky to speak
of our two models of the beautiful Cathedral of St. Basil in Moscow:
the model "Arrigo Silva" and the model "Chigirinsky".

Personally I was perplexed by the fact that the GE-Committee has
recently (in mid-March 2012) accepted the model Chigirinsky on Google
Earth and then I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO PARTECIPARE IN A CAREFUL,
DETAILED AND PUNCTUAL COMPARISON OF THESE TWO MODELS.

----------
PREMISE
I would like to make some dutiful premises:
- I respect all 3dwarehouse modellers, who with their work and their
passion help make more beautiful our Google Earth
- I respect the "Google 3D Warehouse Team", and I am fully conscious
of the importance and complexity of this task, and also of the "social
function" that this task plays toward the 3D community and the world
- I respect our colleague Chigirinsky, whose models I had the
opportunity to evaluate and with whom I had some email exchanges
- I judge the "new" Saint Basil like a good model, also considering
the great difficulty that the wonderful Russian cathedral presents
- I don't fear technical judgment as long as it is supported by
evidence, and I am therefore willing to accept both any kind of such
motivated judgment on my model(s)

----------
THE FACTS
This is now the objective facts, which are found on 3dwarehouse
databases:
A) my model was officially confirmed on GE, February 28, 2012, by
"Google 3D Warehouse Team"
here are some details: Feb 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM the Google 3D Warehouse
Team had warned me that my model had some noncompliance: I corrected
those noncompliance and so my model was accepted with the standard
official message "We're happy to tell you that your model has been
accepted etc." at February 28, 2012 at 10:30 PM
B) March 19 I received an announcement from the Google 3D Warehouse
Team that my model had some noncompliance, and then the Chigirinsky
model has been promoted on Google Earth

There are some obvious deductions on facts above exposed:
1) my model was confirmed in Google Earth February 28, and then, at
that date, was deemed perfectly suitable for Google Earth
2) at the time when my model was confirmed to Google Earth (ie
February 28, 2012) the Chigirinsky model had already been published
(ie 26 January 2012)
3) at March 19 my model was rejected... how was this possible? what
happened between 28th February and 19th March?

----------
MY EVALUATION
But beyond the facts there is also a question of 'substance': IMHO the
Chigirinsky model is not superior to mine, and so the decision of the
"Google 3D Warehouse Team" seems to me totally unjustified (in
addition to being contradictory, as I showed above).

Regarding the technical aspects of construction and everyone can see
that:
- respect the weight of kmz file: the Chigirinsky model is 2.4 MB
+100% than mine (1.2 MB), and that results in lower performance on
Google Earth
- respect other kmz file parameters the Chigirinsky the model is much
more complex than mine: Edges 38,778 vs 23,670 (+64%) and so on; and
that results in lower performance on Google Earth
- respect the "native characteristic", that we may know by looking
inside the model, we can say little since the skp is missing

I find the domes very weak, and in particular I can note that:
- they are very roughly sketched in the geometry
- they are roughly finished or even unfinished
- they are often different, in the shapes, with respect to the real
ones
- in certain cases the texturization in not enough seamless
These defects seem very serious, since especially right in the domes
is the greatest charm of our Cathedral.

As for textures other than the domes, I find them very little
saturated and very dull (but this may be a matter of personal taste)
and also - and this is a fact - fairly uneven between each other, with
strong dominant of different colors, especially in the lower part of
the building and in the Holy Sepulchre (in which zone they are slight
or incomplete).

With these serious gaps and incompleteness, I do not understand how
the Chigirinsky model can be judged on a par or even superior to mine!

----------
IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON
The models to be confronted are these:
---
Model Arrigo Silva, version February 28, 2012
skp file: 2.1 MB (21,999 kB); Edges: 23,647; Faces: 8,976; Component
Instances: 205; Component Definitions: 10; Materials: 80
kmz file: 1.2 MB (1,206 kB); Edges: 23,670; Faces: 9,106; Component
Instances: 207; Component Definitions: 14; Materials: 98
---
Model Chigirinsky, version January 26, 2012
skp file: NOT PRESENT
kmz file Revision0: 2.4 MB (2,426 kB); Edges: 38,778; Faces: 11,824;
Component Instances: 573; Component Definitions: 60; Materials: 185
Note: the Chigirinsky model has already been amended past the time of
the "Google 3D Warehouse Team" decision, and so you can use the
"history feature" to locate the proper version of January 26, 2012; to
load the Chigirinsky model in SketchUp, you must use the "import
function" specifying kmz option
---

I invite you now to make a detailed comparison and analysis of the two
models and to express your circumstantial and detailed judgment - and,
please, do not say only WHITE or BLACK, YES or NO... these judgments
does not help to understand the differences, and also are too easily
domesticated... - but put into words (examples, quotes, etc. from the
two models) a more articulated and well-founded and well-documented
review.

I, for my part, set up a page of my blog where I set some salient
features of the two models at http://arrigosilva.blogspot.com/2012/03/saintbasilcomparison.html

I encourage everyone to make known its assessments, detailed and
substantiated, the community of modelers using the channels they find
most appropriate:
- this same forum
- my blog, arrigosilva.blogspot.com
- any other place that results useful for the propagation of knowledge
and opinions

Best regards to all
Arrigo Silva

On Mar 25, 9:35pm, Chigirinsky Alexander <chigirinsky....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi there everyone
>
> Here is the Enrico Dalbosco's reply published in the "ratings and
> reviews" tohttp://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=829b5c2f09a985ad63...
>
> ----------
> Since this space is almost always (alas!) left blank, I want to
> counteract the defect by writing a few lines and making two appeals,
> but firstly here I would like to point out that the model in question
> seems to me like a good model, also considering the great difficulty
> that the wonderful Russian cathedral presents. --- The first appeal is
> addressed to esteemed colleague Chigirinsky: "Now that your model was
> accepted in Google Earth, could you, please, turn on the 'history'
> feature so that the whole community of modelers can follow the future
> improvements? and - by interpreting the desire to analysis and
> knowledge of many modelers - could you also make available the skp
> file?" --- The second appeal is addressed to esteemed colleague Damo -
> who, I remember with pride, had given the first "5 stars" to my model,
> long time ago (April 16, 2008): "I really believe that the more you
> look at the model the more impressive it gets, but I wonder: this
> impression, now, has grown to such point to become bigger than my
> model?" - Best regards, Arrigo Silva
> --------
>
> Well, I should repeat it once more: everyone who will ask skp-file
> will obtain it on the personal request (despite that I still outline
> that kmz-file is open-source model).
>
> ... as it concerns Damo ... Enrico ... try to understand elementary
> thing: Damo had only 13 models on his personal account at that time.
> What do you want of him? Time flows and some persons became clever
> with the time flow then they was (not everyone however someone grows
> wiser) ...
> ... IMHO Damo demonstrates extraordinary self-development ...
>
> Sincerely,
> Alexander Chigirinsky
>
> On 23 , 17:01, Chigirinsky Alexander <chigirinsky....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Good day Enrico Dalbosco
>
> > You wrote:
>
> > "Mr Chigirinsky, please, could you turn on the "history" feature so
> > that the whole community of modelers can follow the future
> > improvements"
>
> > - done;
>
> > "and - by interpreting the desire to analysis and knowledge of many
> > modelers - could you also make available the skp file?"
>
> > - Since SU provides the import of kmz-fale now, kmz-model is "open-
> > source model", so skp-file is not required IMHO. However, I'll send
> > you skp-file on your inquiry.
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Alexander Chigirinsky

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "3D Modeling for Google Earth & Maps" group.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the "3D Modeling for Google Earth & Maps" group. To participate in this discussion or adjust your membership options, visit the forum:

- via the 3D Warehouse site: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/forum
- via Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/3dwh