@mtno said: :ecstatic: Did I miss SU 2020? Most users ever online was 1859 on Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:53 pm Based on your profile, you missed SU2019, too. You ought to hang around here more often.

I have no advice to offer but I wish you well. I hope you find something that works for you.

From Google Translate: @unknownuser said: Please tell me which plug-in is needed to calculate the materials of the ventilated facade? Please provide more specific information. Upload your SketchUp model file or at least an image showing what you are trying to do. Which version of SketchUp are you using? Your profile says you are using 2018 Free/Make but there is no such version. The correct information will help us help you.

This did not work to me. Tried everything, I can't get two toolbars to stick where the hell I put them.......

Thanks, glad to help

A Group of entities can have the same 'Instance' name as any other group of (different) entities. The Group instance name will not be unique unlike a Component. You can name your new spline instance with the same name as the original. Place the new version where you want and just delete the old one. That would be my take if you only need to replace a few instances. Not sure if there would be any other way to do it other than the Component option but of course that would not allow unique numbering/naming. Hope I have interpreted your query correctly, I so often don't!

I think you're wanting to make SketchUp behave like Revit/AutoCAD but it works differently. SketchUp needs to group geometry to keep them apart. Without groups/components you would end up with a model that is impossible to work with since edges and faces would be glued together into a gigantic messy mesh. I have been working with SketchUp since 2000 and in the past I also tried to put loose geometry to different layers but since they are connected there WILL be problems. Having all geometry on Layer0 and putting groups and components to different layers is what works best in SketchUp. As a side note, I have found that SketchUp somehow is much faster if you have grouped geometry versus loose geometry. Here is my current best workflow Revit to SketchUp: https://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=68000&hilit=+Revit

@pixero said: Wow. I use Fredo box stretch frequently but didn't know you could move the scaling "plane". That makes it even better. I guess we learn something every day... You are right. I didn't know this neither. That's why I never dared to put "level of SketchUp - ADVANCED".

@kalban said: So i tested it now with a new template, made from one of SU default templates. Problem still exist. So i'm guessing next step is to look at extensions, and see if one of them are to blame. Do that, yes. Sometimes one has no option other than to manually search for an item which is to blame. 1. Last week for example I experienced a weird behaviour within one file made with some graphics editor program. I made 10-15 files each 50-100 MB heavy (which my computer can work with). But one of them had only about 30 MB and four pages (for printing). Unlike others which could be opened in a few seconds this one always took several minutes. Weird. And when editing one of those pages - I got a terrible slowdown. Just one of those pages. I couldn't find any solution online. It looked as that page somehow restricted amount of RAM asigned to the file. Or who knows what. Anyway, things were settled out this way: I created a fresh file. Made four pages, copied items from problematic file one by one or grouped. And when I started copied items from the problematic page all were copied with no problem except one small jpg image. Just imagine, 600x400px 100KB image didn't behave nicely, but instead created huge problems and slowed me down considerably. So instead of copied it from that file, I found it on my computer, imported into the new file, resized it there, placed as it should be and that was it. Now that file and everything in it behave normally. No weird acting anymore. So sometimes even something really small can cause big problems. 2. Or look what happened to me once when working with some face-me trees in SketchUp: https://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=63003 During rotation - some trees rotated normally, but some didn't. No one exactly knew why - but eventually, I exploded that tree species component and made a fresh face-me component from exploded parts, put component instances in correct places (luckily I had marks) and now all of them behaved like good guys this time. Exploding and reasembling helped in my case. 3. I hope you will find the guilty guy in your case soon. And tell us what was it.

wow - and thanks for this lines representation which is a really nice option (for me updating is like fashion - lots of room for improvements )

Thanks the the replies. I have made a new topic, where i try to solve a different issue, that will make this topic irrelevant if it can be solved. The other topic i the reason i made this topic. i hope it makes sense. https://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=71964

Hi Dave R #1 For me as an Architect I have stopped the upgrade at SU 2018 and happy to pay for maintenance only. The things that make SU so special are the add-ons that that actually make it a more complete and usable tool. The important issue for me is to keep the Legacy plugins still working that are core to my long term use with SU. As Trimble changes modes Sketchup just becomes a different program system but only marginally better in function The good old bread and butter scripts just stop working and are only fixed at random. Thanks for all your good and generous help for the walking wounded in Sketchup. You are well remembered. [image: 4ahC_CRADLE.jpg]

Thanks so much, I have now figured it out.

@dave r said: Sounds like it has a lot to clean up. Maybe you can clean up the file before you export it to open in SketchUp and save a lot of time. Yea. But I find cleaning it up by portion speeds up the process WAYYYYY fast! And it works well too! Now my model is clean without using my "Superficial" method!! Thanks alot dave!!

Hi guys, just an update. the stupid me just realised my university has got 3d max installed. ***THIS METHOD WORKS WELL BECAUSE IT EVEN KEPT THE COMPONENTS / GROUPS FROM REVIT COMPLETELY INTACT EVEN AFTER GOING THROUGH SO MANY PROCEDURE!! ***So basically what I do is: Export Revit using Twinmotion Revit-FBX extension to their twinmotion-FBX Format from Revit itself. The problem is, the native Revit-FBX exported works well ONLY with 3D Max, but after exporting from 3D max to 3DS, the 3DS file won't show the materials on SKP. So we still need to use the Twinmotion FBX method. Open the Twinmotion-FBX in 3D Max. Check: "Smoothing Groups" when prompt under Geometry, for me it makes no difference but let's just keep it checked for now. Export the imported file from 3D Max as 3ds Format (no idea why SketchupPro doesnt import OBJ format file as well). Open the 3ds file in SketchUp. And all materials are there! Right now I have a problem: Why are there so many weird triangular-ish Lines from the import in SKP? I did select and make sure the "Merge Coplanar Faces" are checked... anyway for this, I will create another thread. Link: https://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=71936

Is that the original .stl? It has issues. As you can see from your post above the size isn't the correct scale of what you want in mm. It can be adjusted but not knowing which are (if any) the critical dimensions, I can only guess. So I have fixed the holes, easier to do than explain how, and have made the width 50mm. Try this. Holder1Box.skp

Cheers Dave, will try your sugestion this afternoon, and will report back. However when you mentioned which version I was using I realised I had seen the message before. The model was created in 2018 or 2019 Pro (At work) and that messge had cropped up there as well. I cant remember how it resolved

@dave r said: How do you plan to use the results with the section cuts? Just as images? If so, I would probably manage this mostly with separate scenes showing different section cuts and exporting those scenes to combine into one in an image editor. That seems like a good idea! Thanks!

@dave r said: @davewong said: In the case that there is, may I know what will be the adverse effect of it please? Not able to scale it? No. You'll be able to scale it just fine. You won't get a 3D printable stl file, though. I see. Thanks a lot

Interesting links but the McMaster-Carr collection appears not to have a CAD relevance.