Ah, you guys are actually right that I don't have to project the texture. I thought anything that was curved needed a projected texture. In this case I just painted the texture normal and everything looks as expected. Thanks all for the help! John

Hmm it seems that the DWG/DXF exporters can handle only so much data, beyond which nothing gets exported. Thanks for your attempt to help Anssi but I can't post as Intellectual Property presented in the model is sensitive. Thanks for your attempt to help but I fixed the issue by cutting back the amount of data. Perhaps the advent of windows 7, and therefore more ram, will alleviate this issue somewhat??......

@anssi said: I have to disagree on this Great looks like we both go back, many years. (how time flies) I used to create my own menu system so I could actually use the program. I recall v2.5 came on 6 floppies. I finally quit using it around release 14. I always thought the AutoCad Users Group was there really only for Autodesk to test their buggy releases, while at the same time charging its customers for that privilege. But the more important question is why are we still producing 2D drawings for construction in the 21st century? Some of my students ask me that question. My response is, because that's the way its always been done. Hopefully some day in their lifetime some CHANGE will occur.

Thank you guys I did find that there were several double lines in the cad file. Unfortunatley this is a project with multiple people working on it so I am getting work from people of varying skill levels. I also am unable to download plugins to this computer because it is a work computer and I dont have admin rights but I will get these plugins for my own laptop. Jim, you helped me A LOT!!! THANKS I have been banging my head trying to get this working.

Thanks, JamesD. Actually, it's not the response I was looking for because that means I have a machine-peculiar problem. Arrrrgh

thats what i like to hear

Well, "enamoured" is also a good word. I will use it then.

Bugsplat is a little program (not from Google) that tries to get useful information on a crash before Sketchup is completely closed. So the Sketchup developers may have some hints in the bug report where the error might be.

i am aware that tools on surface will do this, but i don't know how to do it with tools on surface? reading the manual now.

Ok. Lets try this Still Life Workshop at: Rendering Workshop - Still Life

By popular demand I have replaced this Exterior Houses Workshop with a Still Life Workshop. (You can still upload your Exterior renderings to this Workshop if you have made one) The Still Life workshop is at: Rendering Workshop - Still Life [image: file.php?id=36541]

@gaieus said: Hi Bart, That's the dreaded "clipping issue". See if anything here helps: http://sketchup.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=36261&topic=9042 i see. glad its not just me. i first encountered this issue today. thanx for clarifying.

The BEST solution is to export from Layout7. Its renders are far better than from Sketchup directly and you can specify a line weight without having to use custom styles.

@unknownuser said: i should also add that while i fully understand what's going on here and this isn't a SU measurement bug, i'm not the best at typing/verbally communicating what my brain sees. maybe another forum member could explain what's happening in a better way than i have? i tried the precision thing and your were right. putting it back to 1/16th repeats the chosen measurements. would appreciate that very much if somebody did, but you have been more then helpful

did you update your videocard drivers?

[image: DL1R_Capture.JPG]

@gaieus said: Textures (especially high resolution ones) always affect SU performance but you can always go on modelling in monochrome mode (even better because then you can see if incidentally you have some back faces outside). As for what is the better strategy, it all depends on the model as well as the user/taste. I personally tend to get to a phase where my model is "almost" ready before I start texturing. thanx man you probably saved me from a future performance headache

@kwistenbiebel said: I hope the Japanese version says 'Banzai' and the Scottish version 'Skeeeeeetchuuuuup'

Talking of Precision Measurement! The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates designed the US railroads. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with this?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' asses.) Now, the twist to the story: When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRB’s. The SRB’s are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB’s had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRB’s had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything... and CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else

@davesec said: do you just draw a giant square on the ground and fill it with grass? Yes, that's what I did. And the trees are simply part of the background photograph.