@chiefwoodworker said: Gai's solution may be more general but does require creating the shape away from the part. On the other hand, it is always good to have several workarounds. Well what I did was to temporarily group your face (until I moved away) then exploded it. So you can actually make the profile "in situ" initially.

Jim, that's like my problem with "save animation" that refuses to work on one of my machines. At least you have a "work around". Sometimes I loose minimized windows under the task bar, but those can be found.

thanks jason- one step further again. and i definitely will stick to DCs! wish you a nice weekend! time to hit the road

I have been around here for awhile, and I would like to second SnowTiger's sentiments

SketchUp is a 32bit application - it has therefore limitations to how much memory it can address. If you're on 32bit Windows, or an older SU version, then you can address only 2GB. If you have recent SketchUp 8 and 64bit OS then you can address 4GB. I've had some very large models - but I've never had anything consume 1.5GB!! o_O How many faces and edges does your model contain? I've only ever seen SU use that much when I was rendering with V-Ray. And that was then really V-Ray using the memory.

@anssi said: Are you quoting the price of AutoCad LT? The viewing application Autodesk DWG TrueView IS free, http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=6703438&DCMP=ILC-DWG-PUV ( I noticed that they are advertising for LT on the right of the page, while the "Download now" button on the left, in the text column is much smaller...clever businessmen?) Anssi Thanks Anssi! I got caught myself in that marketing trap, I guess... Now I downloaded the free version.

Yeah, its ok now, thank u guys! I used the Frodo Scale something like that, and it was ok. Thk u TIG, cause i saw ur explanation about the Edge Extrude and ive done the dome I need to reduce the size of my file, i could reduce the file attached but i dont know what ive done. XD The original file have 17mb, i will try to fix it This forum is really nice, i`m so glad i found it Hugs!!

Have you tried exporting via LayOut? Apparently it can export better than SketchUp.

Thanks for the lead. I'll follow the advice and see if I can work around the "features" of the software.

Also, if you draw one square for a grid, you can multiply it with a linear array in a couple of clicks. http://sketchup.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=94867

It's not in v6 (I still have it). As far as I remember, it was introduced in v7.1 but indeed has been there for a while.

Thanks for the suggestions. What I wound up doing was copying the component out from the model, exploding it, sub-dividing it into phases, and making each phase a unique component with the same basic name as the full deck. So I would up with components: Deck L1 Deck L1.1 Deck L1.2 Deck L1.3 This way I could also turn on the un-seamed deck at the end to remove the visible joints easily.

Thankyou very much Gaieus, I just went through learning the kerkythea renamed zip files, so I will remember that. cheers.

Be sure you select the correct projection, according to your model (image). Also, be sure that you have front view activated, not back view, in sketchup viewport. If green axis is with dotted part towards you, is OK. But if the dotted line is pointing at the horizon, you are looking to your model from back and that can explain why you are seeing the model that way. [image: YUBT_2010-12-16_144322.png]

Wow thankyou!

The free training edition of Tgi3d amorph might be enough for a simple structure - worth testing it at least. You can model the wavy rectangle then thicken it as needed with JPP. TIGs extrude series of plugins would also work for you in all likelihood - simple example:- [image: NrI2_Wavy.png]

If you want to bend some thing different than a cone try FredoScale. See attached example Oblique Cone Radial Tip.skp

@adamb said: Is that right? I believe the Ruby in SketchUp is the full language but with some extra hooks to support that proxy nature of Ruby objects wrt to the underlying COM stuff. How is the behaviour of the Set class different? http://code.google.com/apis/sketchup/docs/ourdoc/set.html Methods: clear contains? delete each empty? include? insert length new size to_a Compared to standard Ruby: http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Set.html [image: 0l6Z_SetClass.png] I believe it was some Googler that mentioned that it was not a full installation. Maybe they meant it was not a standard installation as they modify several methods in the base classes. And I have no idea why they did what they did to the Set class. I've been trying to get info on this for a while now. I can't find the exact thread now, but I did find report is issues when some Ruby packages where tried within Su Ruby. http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=180&t=20297&start=0#p169325 If you look at the lib/ruby/1.8/ folder for a standard Ruby install you find several classes missing. Base64 is one of them. I've not mapped out everything that's missing.

[ed] congratulation with the test result, Simon. the next step for more comprehensive diagnose then @simon le bon said: Hum! You still haven't the reply to your previous question.. what question?