Always Face Camera Non-Component?
-
I like the always face camera feature but I think it should not be limited to component instances.
Is their a plugin/extension/addon around that can set nested groups of a components to face camera?
-
The 'face_me' property of a component-definition applies to each of it component-instances.
So any such component-instance inside a group [or another component-definition] should still face the camera ?
If the container component-instance has the face_me property that also turns to face the camera ?I have tested it an confirm this is the case...
So what else might you expect ??
-
Is the face_me attribute applicable to only components?
I don't want the containing component to be a faceme. Nor do I want the innards to be components.
I want a single component which contains grouped faceme objects.
-
Yes... the 'face_me' property only applies to component-definitions.
BUT then their instances can be nested inside other groups or components.
The 'container-component' can also have a 'face_me' property if desired ??What else do you think you could apply 'face_me' to ??
There are only three possibilities - components, groups or images...
The latter two will only 'face_me' when they are nested [wrapped?] inside a 'face_me' component-definition's instance
-
I know how components and nesting work.
I was trying to establish if the face_me attribute is unique to components. Or could be applied to non-components too through ruby?
I know your thinking. WTF is his problem with nesting?
My problem is that i want one level of comp. I don't want that component to be faceme. but what resides inside it to be faceme and not components.
-
@unknownuser said:
My problem is that i want one level of comp. I don't want that component to be faceme. but what resides inside it to be faceme and not components.
That is not possible.
Only Component-definitions can have "face_me" behavior.
You can't add behaviors to raw geometry.
Can't see how it'd work... the raw form would destroy itself as the parts were mangled up !
-
That's a shame.
Groups should be able inherit this attribute. I see no reason to make this exclusive to components.
-
Personally, I don't see the point of Sketchup::Group(s) as they, too, have definition, which allows multiple instances of definitions.
Maybe SU will deprecate Sketchup::Group some day.
-
Groups are a great way of isolating geometry without intruding into the component browser.
-
The main differences are once you edit a Group it instantly becomes unique and any other instances of it do not change, but when you edit a Component all of its instances change together [unless you use 'make_unique' on it first, to make another Component]; also Groups never appear in the Components-Browser, but Component Definitions do - even when there are no instances [provided that the model hasn't been purged] - whereas a Group that is deleted is gone forever [at least if it has just one instance]; also under the Outliner you can access both Groups and Component-Instances equally...
Groups and Images are really a 'sub-set' of Components, with differing properties, use the one that suits your needs - often a Group or Component are little different, so what is the main issue with a face_me-Component versus a face_me-Group, or face_me-Something else ?
I understand that Groups do not clog up the Browser...
But often it's a bit like going to the deli and saying you want a sandwich - you want the ham-sandwich, but you want cheese in it instead of ham
So... that'll be our "cheese-sandwich" then sir?
-
I don't want to have to make components unique.
I think, as a workflow, bloating the component browser with more and more tweaked variants a bit redundant. Especially when the ony attribute I need to visualise is the face_me element.
I want to access that attribute however I want to deploy it.
So, it is a case of who stole my cheese.
I'll use Blender.
-
@anton_s said:
Personally, I don't see the point of Sketchup::Group(s) as they, too, have definition, which allows multiple instances of definitions.
Maybe SU will deprecate Sketchup::Group some day.
groups are fast
(fast as in workflow fast)
-
It's one of those situations where making a tree structure in the Component window would reduce the group/component argument. Not erase it but reduce it. By that I mean some way of reducing the number of or filtering out some components.
Makes me wonder if an aftermarket Component Browser is possible as a plugin.
D'oh, forgot about interloide's one. -
@box said:
It's one of those situations where making a tree structure in the Component window would reduce the group/component argument. Not erase it but reduce it. By that I mean some way of reducing the number of or filtering out some components.
Makes me wonder if an aftermarket Component Browser is possible as a plugin.
D'oh, forgot about interloide's one.maybe just a new definition of what they are? (not new-- just a new way of explaining them?)
i'd use components all the time if i didn't have to deal with the additional dialog.. (then further- what you're getting at.. managing of components)
anyway:
groups are to prevent stickyness when necessary (like- if sketchup didn't have automerging of geometry, i'd hardly ever use them anymore except when simply making a selection set)
components are for what they do.
i mean, that's basically what it boils down to for me but probably not any clearer to explain them that way.. i do think (fairly strongly) they both have their place in sketchup though and don't think it would be too wise to eliminate groups from the program.
Advertisement