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.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
Advertisement