Yes, .move! is great for animations for those reasons. It should not be compared to .transform! though, as they are dissimilar methods. It should be compared only to .transformation = . As that is what the .move! method is acutally doing. Chris

@thomthom said: But I do like the sound of the @tags it has available. Appear to leave more control than plain RDoc. Such as parameter types and return types and version numbering. It's sounding better all the time! Keep us advised.

@pout said: Am I correct? Is it not possible to create a toolbar, from in the ruby console, using these commands? The danger is that the console is running inside Object, and you are using local variables (cmd and toolbar.) Any other 'unwrapped' script that afterward uses the same variable names, will make those 'symbols' point to other UI::Command and UI::Toolbar objects, and you will lose access to them. (Ruby will still know what they are, and the command and toolbar should still work. But you will not be able to make any changes, such as changing the tooltip text.) IF that's OK, or your just testing, no harm. But if you want later access to your command or toolbar objects, you will need to keep them in unique variable identifiers. For example, you could store them in a Hash. MyToolbars={'FancyCommand' => cmd, 'PoutTools' => toolbar } Then later on: MyToolbars['FancyCommand'].tooltip="Select object before doing something Fancy!" See this post for more info: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=180&t=15621&p=220266#p219128

@gaieus said: Certainly a plugin would be best Gaieus, you do know that my "how to Ruby" section of the tutorial is well underway, don't you? No programming experience required: http://www.MartinRinehart.com/models/tutorial/tutorial_11.html

@honoluludesktop said: Hi Martin, I originally posted an application that did some simple transformations, and became interested in the subject. As you know I am a beginner at all of this and while experimenting, I tried to change some values just to see how my components would behaved, failed to do so, and asked for help Fine. I was afraid you overlooked available ways of getting stuff moved / rotated / scaled. I know I did when I started fiddling.

@advancecoder said: How do you execute Ruby Plugin API commands in headless mode (e.g. not opening the GUI for Google Sketchup Pro)? You Don't. I went 'round and 'round with another guy over at GoogleGroups that thought he could somehow use the engine behind Sketchup (which is Google Intellectual Property,) to write a better GUI and/or integrate it with a debugger. Anyhow, read the thread if your interested: http://groups.google.com/group/sketchupruby/browse_frm/thread/8d93e9408891fa59#

@thomthom said: Will need to do some testing. I got an OSX and Linux box... Here's a test page for the SystemColors: http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/samples/author/dhtml/colors/sys_colors.htm

@pout said: I'll have a look into it. Btw, to insert a second point, is it mandatory to first click to box in which you insert the coordinates? Or can you just type it? You can just type it in as a dimension - the line's vector is take from the current cursor position OR a second-picked point if you have done it. For [] or <> coordinates no need to pick anything after the first point is clicked.

Pauline: I split off the last posts Dan and I made. It turned into a separate discussion.

hm... I need to look into this. Check what happens with my scripts under SU6... Pauline: sorry for going a bit off topic. Maybe it's best if I split these last couple of posts into a new thread? Ok, Pauline & Dan? Edit: Now split of - as you can see.

If the rectangle has a face then face.outer_loop.vertices are always listed counterclockwise [right-hand rule]. You can test if a face and its edge are 'reversed?' too...

@tig said: better you can use Sketchup.open_file("myname.skp") to open that newly made file, with the 'Untitled' one being closed without saving Thanks, TIG. Any way to fire that extra "N" (don't save Untitled) from Ruby?

No, it will not return true in any of those cases. Having said that, if i was less lazy it would be fairly trivial to get it to check for translations and 'skews, scales and rotations' (although not each separately.)

Damn! (notice modifier at end of damn) So much to learn--so little time.

@thomthom said: And the SU developers has said: the Ruby 1.8.0 implementation isn't a standard Ruby packages. Parts has been customized for SU In the thread related to Gem installation Dan compared bit by bit both rubies and they are identical. @thomthom said: which is why I'm very hesitant to change it. I would do that if I would be sure that nothing unexpected occurs, but no-one can predict it.

Cheers, TIG -- I d/l'ed your file and put it in the plugins folder, and I'm happy to report it does exactly what it says on the tin!!!

@thomthom said: ... That's what you mean by breaking out of a loop? Bit confusing since you have the break keyword that actually breaks a loop, while next just skips to the next iteration - which I wouldn't call breaking out of a loop. A bit pedantic perhaps but I am influenced by the API typo thread. You need to break out of the loop before it finishes to start the next iteration. Sometimes you break out to break and sometimes for next, redo or retry. Found these here.

A you say, the writer of the bounding-box methods used the "classic" approach to describing 3D objects - where Z comes out of the screen = depth and x/y are width/height 'flat on the screen... This goes against every other SUp convention ! It's usual to assume you are looking at the 3D object 'in 3D' where up (Z+) is 'up in the real world = up the screen', and not looking 'from above' as if the 'ground' is the screen's surface

ah! thanks (duh on my part) Make Unique only works with 1 face selected, correct? Is there a plugin or method to do make multiple selections unique at once? (I'm experimenting with these threads) Creating an Arch -- http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=21847 UV Toolkit -- http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=18992

haha -- yes -- good point! I had forgotten about the squared aspect as well