If you PM me the RBZ I'll also scrutinize it... Incidentally, do you have your Preferences > Extensions Loading Policy set to 'Unrestricted'...

Last I checked, the latest KeyShot plugin seemed to be working.

@jonfar said: Will I see a huge improvement from my 750ti 2gb to a, let's say, Geforce 970 4gb? "a huge improvement" probably not but wait for the new GTX 1060 available next week anyhow, roughly on par with a GTX 980 for a list price of ~280 bucks.

Thanks. Will try that

For the benefit of others who may come across this topic: WIndows update has been quietly bundling the plays.tv app along with an update to the drivers for AMD graphics (most likely AMD initiated this, as plays.tv is a project they co-sponsor with Raptr). This app causes graphics conflicts that crash SketchUp. Uninstalling Play TV has cured the problem for many people.

@dou said: I use skt.2015 pro and in the left end of the opening welcome there is a box to disable or enable this option. I notice that you have a sketchup make version and there is no box! That is one minor difference between Pro and Make.

@pipingguy said: wow - pretty cool dave r.! Thanks. It's just a basic move thing. There's a lot of subtle options with the various tools in LO.

Maybe ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsKZpmrJkxs

I've been putting them on individual layers. Works well, especially with Tig's Section Cut Face Plugin.

@4themasses said: ...but appears to be faceted bodies. of course, what else using a polygon modeler as SketchUp... use a NURBS modeler if NURBS faces/solids are required... the right tool for the job stuff

Thanks for the replies, Cotty Tigs 2D tools is very good thank you. slbaumgartner Using Tigs 2D tools it looks like every line is a group with individual lines. so I can see how this may bloat the file size. Using profile builder every single segment of the line is a component therefore hopefully this will reduce the bloat.

Why not use Toposhaper ? It has numerous functions that can be adapted to your terrain! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ru5MnE-D_Q

Indeed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgaSj7YwXXE

LOL!!!!! I really would like to know who is giving a thumbs down on my comment. What's your problem?!? So do you think it is totally normal that such bugs are not being fixed anymore these days? One of the most basic "features" of a software that used to work perfectly fine over the last years? LOL... this world is really screwed up.

I'll PM you an example RBZ. Watch fro it in a while...

By Elisei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZPZiJT5FI0

Frankly I like the trays very much and I don't find them clunky at all. They keep the utility windows out of the drawing space and with custom trays, they can be organized into smaller groups if desired. The tray can be moved to a second screen for those who like that although I prefer to keep them on the same screen so I can use the second display for reference files and other applications. I laid out SketchUp in much the same way keeping my drawing window slightly narrower than the full screen and the utility windows stacked outside to the right. The bonus for me with the tray is gaining additional real estate for toolbars at the top.

@unknownuser said: It's not normal! if you watch a movei You can sure understand ! It's not very good to have "intersection" between objects even speedy rendering can resolve this in a fly! Some rendering engines are not so clement!

@dave r said: The answer to your question, or what I think your question is, is it depends on your photo. Match photo has some specific requirements. The image cannot have been cropped and there need to be horizontal lines running off to two vanishing points at the horizon. If your image hasn't got those, Match Photo won't be useful but you might be able to use the image as an image and set it up to make a background for your model. I frequently import images and size them for tracing using the this idea and it works quite well for me. I also noticed the requirements for the Match photo but I would say that the most difficult to me is not really to get pictures fullfilling all these requirements but rather to match them correctly (especially, as I said before, if the building is not perfectly geometrical). I also tried to import images but then it works mainly if the picture is taken exactly in front of what we want to represent and the sizing is not as easy as it seems (at least to me) or maybe I missed something. Actually, my point is: Would it be possible to create a plugin that would help matching photos but, instead of using horinzontal lines, that would use points present on the picture and in the model? The minimal requirement would be naturally 3 points but this number could increase so that the matching would result on the average of the alignment, giving less weight to each of them and reducing the risk of mis-alignment. For those using ArcMap (ArcGIS, ESRI), this is based on the idea that they use for the georeferencing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHtxbpboDro). Unfortunately, I have absolutely no clue how to create a plugin but if somebody would like to give it a try or to explain me how to, that would be great. Thanks. Tom

You guys also know that you can leave those settings blank, and what it'll do is change scenes without affecting the current settings. So you can have a scene with an active section cut and when you change to one without section planes toggled on, it will change other stuff, but keep current active section cut.