Do with the information? The only thing I will do as a direct result of getting an answer is having the wikipedia page changed. After all, we want wikipedia to be as accurate as possible now, don't we? I should mention that I am developping a SU plugin that involves using the CGAL library (Minkowski sums, boolean operations, envelopes...) and though knowing weather SU uses CSG is not imperative for my project it certainly helps me have a better understanding of how SU works under the hood.

Thanks! That helps. I was finding that as I moved the cursor around the circumference, the midpoint of each facet was displayed. I don't think I've ever seen the midpoint that corresponds to the axis orientation, but I'll play with it some more. Dave

No problem! New members often post twice because they think their first post failed... from now one you should have no such doubts...

Unfortunately there seems to be no API access to 'StyleOptions'

@tig said: There are many commands that only appear in [context-]menus IF certain criteria are met Yes, I knew that, but I thought that in the general preferences there should be all possible entries independent of the model or the selection. So the general preferences are not as general as I expected... good to know

thanks TIG Your tool drapoints worked... another help please.....how to apply any one Typical style to my all scenes created in model..or i have to go in each scene & change the model style.......?

The SketchUp Web Exported will orbit a model and take a series of shots of it from a predetermined number of positions. It ought to be possible to tweak the code and get it to do multiple such passes at specific heights, in order to get what you want. You'll find it on this page, heading the Viewer Compatibility section.

If you have two or more faces that are facing in a very similar direction, you can also right-click on one of them that looks ok, choose Texture > Projected, the sample that face (Paint Tool + Alt) and paint onto all the other faces. This will line all the textures up automatically, so you do not need to adjust each one.

If you do actually need fancy text effects like this in geometry, rather than as an imported images, then the best way of doing it would probably be to use CorelDraw or Illustrator, convert that text into segmented curves, then import into SU via dwg format. Shape Bender will work...but only up to a point. Corel/Illustrator tutorial here.

You're welcome and post your results.

@unknownuser said: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=14773 I had seen it, but after reading the last comment didn't give it try. But I think 10$ is nothing compared to the time I spent on "Intersection with..." so far anyway. And Bool Tools - just bought it - seems to be a good piece of code.

FWIW, I didn't have Use Maximum Texture Size ticked when I imported your image. As to what you did differently, before, I guess I don't know. It's possible that instead of setting the length of the material by clicking on the right edge of the rectangle, you clicked on the far horizontal edge and the rectangle wasn't the right width. Might be possible to deconstruct the SKP file to figure it out but since you've now got it sorted, don't look back.

The functionality of a DC can be affected by the way it is added into you model's SKP. Did you load it from its original downloaded SKP file via the Component-Browser, or Import or Drag+drop or Copy+Paste it etc ? Try the first way and see what happens...

LOL, how did I miss it? Thanks.

@centipede13 said: How did you make your own texture? What TIG said. Or take photos of real boards.

Thanks Alan. I know my way around SketchUp, but I'm a total nitwit in how to count faces etc. I thought the file size/number of faces/navigability were all very much related to each other. My main goal to reduce file size (or better, if I understand correctly: reduce the number of faces) is I don't want to wait 30 seconds every time I click somewhere or move the camera. If it doesn't matter a lot for the navigability of the model, I will indeed stick to my first idea to extrude the entabulature in a separate group. About the column: it is really not that complicated. Much less than I would want it to be anyway. It's a reconstruction, so the idea was to make a "simple" model first and then replace these raw capitals etc later on with very detailed components, modeled from the real remains. But thanks for the link, I guess it might be an idea to project the details as an image onto the simple capitals in stead of making an actual 3D-version. Same for the frieze. Cheers!

There's a useful discussion here, with a link to another tutorial using Thom's UV Toolkit plugin.

@mitcorb said: You could intersect those rectangles with your mesh and delete the unwanted protrusions. However, this obviously will affect the regularity of the mesh along the trim planes. That's what I did and cleaning up is real work when the curves have a lot of segments. But I found out that I can use Tapermaker to get the two missing curves. Edit: For the record. Everything can be done with EEbyRails. The "Profile"-Curve is just "Melding-Profile" curve, too. Awesome, TIG! [image: idVZ_2.png]

@gaieus said: The general workaround is to scale the model up by 10 or even 100 temporarily, do the follow me (or other) operation then scale it back.....In any case, scaling is the trick. Correct - that was successful . Thanks for your help [image: penndishcorrected.jpg]

If the image lines are say 1 pixel thick when you zoom out they'll vanish - but then of course thin mortar joints in masonry can't be really seen from a distance either ! Try making the fully black lines in the image 2 pixels wide and see it that helps... You can imagine if the images lines were 10px wide you'd probably see them ! Edges/profiles are in a specified pixel width, irrespective of their distance from the viewer, so an edge is say always 2px wide no matter where it is in 3d; but images have a total fixed pixel width, so if you move far enough away they will become feint or invisible - if a whole image occupies just 10px 'on screen', but its 'real' size is let's say 300px, it needs to be 'down-sampled' to fit into the 10, so detail is lost ! ... The converse of that is that multiple edges when seen far away can look like a 'black=blob' because they all become 2px each, fitting into a small screen area of a few pixels, leaving no visible 'gaps' between each other !