Thank you for the assistance! I think its been you answering all my questions over the course of this year. I greatly appreciate your time and effort.

@calypsoart said: I have the SU export setting options set to "best quality," with anti-alising and Use View size. The "Use View size" setting exports a screenshot of your model exactly as it is visible on your computer screen. In most cases this is too coarse for printing on paper. For good-looking colour prints, you will need a resolution of about 150 - 300 pixels per inch for the print not to look too jaggy. The recipe to achieve the best print quality images exported from SketchUp is to first export a larger image than you need (about 2x is a good estimate) with antialiasing turned off (faster and more reliable), and then to resize the image in Photoshop (or your image editor of choice). This gives you much better looking lines than the antialiasing in SketchUp can produce. Anssi

No problem... He says he knows some home designers. Is the work structural? or interior?

Haha, yea interiors are a killer! But then, I try to do what I can to reduce render time - there are lots of things you can do to try and minimise this, like not using full RGB levels (white for example, I use 230 RGB and not 255). I try to keep reflective surfaces to a minimum and restrict the number of individual emitters (using multi-light and having a lot of emitter settings increases render time) but sometimes this isn't possible. On average, for an interior that has many different textures/reflective surfaces and emitters (and individual components), it's approx £20 to render 1 image to 20 SL. Anita

Probably the best solution until Sketchup are able to update or give an alternative set of options; would be to plug in to a extra monitor. I find it quite convenient to run two and move my laptop between office and home

Alright, great thanks! Makes sense

I just want to add a feature of Artisan which is pretty hidden in plain sight. @pilou said: With Artisan you must think at all the primary boxes form then subdivide them! Actually you don't have to if you are going down the route where you start with a group. @pilou said: If you fail the first boxes step that is wrong form at the end! Very difficult to make the good placement of the first level simplified mesh! If you are using the Proxy method you can always go back and forth. [image: fk1T_artisan.JPG] [anchor= goto=http://artisan4sketchup.com/downloads/docs/Artisan_User_Guide-1.2.pdf:3dhvh3q6]You can read from the User Manual[/anchor:3dhvh3q6] With this method you would always keep a copy of the proxy object and have it control the resulting mesh.

Yes, there is a new all-version compatible version in the PluginStore ! http://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=lines2tubes It is almost two months old by now !

outer shell did bugsplat, I sent in the report... will have a look at why... I'm on an older mac, but v15 and Yosemite, so it's all up to date... john

edges are measured in pixels.. so if your style has edges set to 1px and you export an image 10,000px wide, the lines are going to appear tiny in the export.. if you want to export at that size with fatter lines, increase your profile settings in the style.. for instance, if your workspace is 1000px wide and you have edges set to 1px, you'll have to make your edges 10px to appear the same at 10,000px wide. with sketchy styles, there's a problem if i understand correctly how they work.. the sketchy edges are raster images so if they scaled according to your export size, they'd look horrible/pixelated when blown up.. they'd look the same as if you exported a jpg at 999px wide then in an image editor, increased the size to 9999px wide.. i don't know if it's possible but you might have to create a custom sketchy style with really thick linework -or- really high resolution in order to export a giant JPG which inherits the sketchy style.. (like so thick that when viewing in the model space, it will look bad with way-too-big edges.. but when exported at 5x size, they look normal/good)

Turns out there were more resellers in the Netherlands who were having problems. They blame their distributor. After 3 weeks (21 days) I know one reseller that started passing codes. Later that week (25 days) mine came through.

Yes, thank you. I think the other way should work too...

Uninstalled and reinstalled, not repair, seems to work now, S

@slbaumgartner said: I worked out an analytic geometry solution using the formulas for the distance between two points and for the intersection point of two given lines. Solving is "just" a matter of algebra. However, the remaining difficulty is that the math formulation covers various configurations that have no real-value solution (e.g. attached image) and it is difficult (or at least confusing) to weed these out of the formulas. [attachment=1:2acewcov]<!-- ia1 -->Screen Shot 2014-12-02 at 9.43.20 AM.png<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:2acewcov] [image: TB93_mini-challenge.jpg]

What you should do is having a set of materials applied to a hidden part of the component, then randomize the materials applyed to the component's copies.

Hi Skalp, I downloaded your plugin last week and I really love it. The only draw back I can see is that the hatches are bitmaps in Layout. This results in poor quality print outs and large file sizes when exporting PDFs. Any chance that you'll introduce vector hatches in future, or is that a limitation of Layout that is beyond your control? I've tried using the skalp export to DXF command, but it seems to only include the section cut. It would be great if there were an option to include the objects beyond the section plane as well. Great plugin, thanks a lot!

Ahhh, yes, I changed It from inches to mm. That could be the issue, Thanks!

@zawisza5 said: Hello, I am trying to populate a TIN 3D surface with components. Within each triangle surface I would like two random components( represented by different colored dots in attached picture). Does anyone have any idea of how to populate the TIN more quickly than placing every component by hand. The TIN was imported into sketchup from ArcGIS. I produced this results[image: BnjL_DotsonFace.jpg] with this code def placethedots mod = Sketchup.active_model ent = mod.active_entities sel = mod.selection cdefs = mod.definitions.reject{|cd| cd.group?||cd.image?} faces = sel.grep(Sketchup;;Face) faces.each{|f| tx=0.0;ty=0.0;tz=0.0; p=f.outer_loop.vertices.collect{|v|v.position} p.each{|v| tx+=v.x;ty+=v.y;tz+=v.z} ax=tx/p.length;ay=ty/p.length;az=tz/p.length ctr=Geom;;Point3d.new(ax,ay,az);#ent.add_cpoint(c) pt1=ctr.offset([-6,6,0]) cd=cdefs[rand(cdefs.length)] ent.add_instance(cd,Geom;;Transformation.new(pt1,f.normal)) pt2=ctr.offset([6,-6,0]) cd=cdefs[rand(cdefs.length)] ent.add_instance(cd,Geom;;Transformation.new(pt2,f.normal)) } end I first created the six component "dots". Selected the faces then executed the code.

Thank you all for your help. Very much appreciated. Walter

No. You misunderstand the concept of copyright. If a script is published in a way that disclaims copyright [typically in the wording in its header, which puts it freely into the public domain] then you are free to do what you will with it, edit it and even republish it with changes - although doing so without making it clear it is now 'your' version could confuse others, and at least annoy the original author. A script might be published explicitly claiming copyright [or if there is nothing said to the contrary the copyright is deemed to remain with the original publisher or author - the 'owner']. In that case you may not change its contents and republish it, without the express consent of the 'owner'. However, if you make some changes and use that changed file for your own private purposes then who is to know... I suggested a simple 'tweak' to the copyrighted 'select.rb' to make it compatible with newer versions of SketchUp - it was adding a couple of lines at the start to fix an oversight by the original author, and which I an sure he would have agreed with. If any of you then decide to try that 'tweak', it's up to you, I did NOT republish the file. I trust you will not do so either. I declined to make significant changes to his copyrighted GoldenGauge.rb, this is would have meant a major rewrite and posting large blocks of code - tantamount to republishing a then much edited version of the script. I could do that for my own personal use but not post it for the rest of you, as I then consider that infringing copyright rules... However, I did make significant changes to' LiveIvy', because the original author invited users to make changes and improve the code, effectively disclaiming any copyright he might have had.