I'll comment again probably where I have no business , but I expressed concern some time ago related to issues with plugins probably costing Google support dollars and if the the issues raised are not brought under control you may will find your self where Google will impose requirements you may not like. Dan Rathburn tried but don't think he had much success. Secondly: When one talks about problems and SU blame that's very generic and you have to worry memory snd system also. For a 32 bit machine , that means you can only address 4GB but SU only gets 2GB9 If you have 4GB RAM) because the way the MS memory manager works. Even if you have a 64 bit machine and tons of memory SU will still only be allocated 4 GB even though 64B allows much more address than that. Some of these strange artifacts can very well be memory issues. When you have problems watch the task manager and see and understand what it is reporting. Win xp, vista etc are not all the same. See this link if you have some spare time and want to under stand virtual memory, which is what programs get to use, and physical memory. It will make your eyes glaze over?? http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx. and the post here in of opening a 360MB SU file with Win XP pro and 4GB Ram http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39401 Thirdly:It is completely unreasonable to tag Google with any responsibility of running regression testing of any external plugin in the software drop. If you have had to do this you will know what I mean. Sorry if I am totally out of line

@unknownuser said: There is going to be some work involved whichever method you use. This work will be far easier if the building is modelled correctly using groups, components and layers. Thinking off the top of my head, what I would do if I received a 3d model with wall thickness is, go to plan view and turn off the roof to reveal all internal walls. I would push pull them back down to floor level, which will leave the outline on the floor. You would need to make sure there is a line drawn where the internal wall meets the outer wall so you do not push everything down. You could then just draw a few lines using the pencil tool and the inference engine to quickly add back the faces of the walls. I guess what may need some thought is how accurate you need these wall positions? If you need to create a wall with thickness as a single plane, you may need to create this plane central to the said wall. DAVID Spent some time on the IES site and even thought they have discussed their plan for a SU thick wall capability I am thinking that cahange is not near term for you. They make a recommendation external walls are modeled ref to out side wall location and for internal use the center line ref per your post. Suggest you post your SU model or a portion thereof if you have some proprietary issues because how changes are made will be influenced by how the model is made. I get the idea IES wants either components or groups for their model. Assuming you have the rooms presently modeled that way changing out one model for another may not be that difficult using the SU select and replace component functionally. Good Luck

[image: 0IcV_MeadowHollowContour.jpg]Okay, I am actually modifying my approach, I got a DEM of the site and modeled using Draw Contours, so it's a more elaborate model, (see images) which I would still like to apply the Google Earth image to. I will follow your instructions here, unless there's a difference with this approach. [image: 6ljk_MeadowHollowGE.jpg]

Hi folks. The quickest way I found so far: 1 - Double click on the face that you want to keep to select it and its perimeter. 2 - Make a group with the selection. 3 - Triple click the other face to select it, its perimeter and all the other edges and faces that make the sides of the thick wall. 4 - Delete the selection. Only the group will remain. 5 - Explode the group, if needed. In step 1, if you single click the face, you will need to use the Edit Menu --> Make group to create the group since the contextual menu don't show the choices to create a group or a component when a single entity is selected. This glitch has already been reported to the developers of SU. I know it makes ne sense to consider grouping only one entity since it is, after all, alone, but, to separate it from other geometries, it makes sense. See this SU file for ideas: Removing thickness.skp

i didn't understand the procedure. can anyone please upload a video?

Hey Gaieus, I think we will be able to manage that. I'll keep you posted and if i'll get back to you if we have any questions.

Many thanks honoluludesktop I have posted a request for such plug-in in developers forum. Hopefully somebody answer it.

Hi, I have figured out what was causing the problem. When using Windows 11 and Chrome browser, the right-click rendered a truncated (worthless) menu. It seems MS has cleverly disabled right-clicking on any other browser EXCEPT for MS Edge. Imagine my surprise.

What I do is make the bezier on a temporary working plane(rectangle or circle) at z=0. (but the z value could be anything). you can actually do beziers on a vertical plane too. Click starting point, then click ending point, then go back near the start to place the control points and watch for the prompts saying "on face", or edge, midpoint or endpoint if you have other lines on the working plane. Then set your control points sequentially as you please until the bezier ending point. If you wish to do scaling, Fredoscale seems to work better for non xyz plane orientations, since it will align with the working plane.

@gaieus said: @infopro said: Am I nuts do you think? Definitely. But I like the idea nonetheless so don't worry! Thank you for the confirmation.

The 5 year old thread is alive!. I was taunted for going the sketchup path some 8 years ago. Totally abandoned my Max workflow but that took me to a new level in my designing career. I know, Im far from the best in the “rendering” area but Im able to make the decent renders that convince clients. Now I end up using both though 90 percent of what I do revolved around SU. I rarely touch Max,only when I need some high quality renders, or when I need to pass a task to some Max user colleauge and finally when I face SU’s limitations in poly count and other things. Finally some of the best stills and animation renders in the Architectural industry are done in Max. I say we cant do away with Max until our plugins or SU itself has "all" those capabilities. Gone are the days that were given a week to produce a nice decent render.Were literally given hours to produce something convincing. This is the edge of SU over Max.

How about India??? because sketchup usage hasn't been at peak here as compared to other countries...Moreover there are no training centres for the same to the best of my knowledge

Thanks for the explanation, Jeff

Just a wild guess, but could be the axis of the site model and the inserted model be 90 degrees apart? However, have no idea about the random order of sides.

See the thread on Cloud.rb and See the thread on points_cloud_triangulation. Do a search in this forum. I am not sure what the triangulation script is officially called. And I think these are used together to form the contoured surface. Something about doing this in manageable chunks so you don't choke the engine. Maybe this helps as a quick response.

Cool thanks for the basic apple tutorial Jeff.

Jackalvn I don't recommend using the tapemeasure tool 'trick' on the unedited escalator because the handrails etc will scale and be too low. Edit the escalator's group. The central parts of the escalator are 'modular'. You can remove perhaps the upper 7 of these. Then move the top part of the escalator down, snapping it onto the corner of the topmost remaining 'module'. At this point the total rise on the escalator is about 9mm too small for what you want [4200mm] - as it is made for use in feet-and-inches NOT mm. Now use the Tapemeasure tool and pick 2 points to match the vertical height of escalator as currently modeled [~4191mm ?] and immediately type in 4200; answer 'Yes' and the group will scale so the escalator's height is now 4200mm. The few millimeters difference on the handrail height and the steps is not significant for a SUp model.