THX for yours help

thank you for yours answers

I always have appreciated the philosophy of Google and they have been good to make all kinds of useful information belong to people, not to corporates(in terms of their mission statement). I think they are making efforts to make the exclusive format of DWG more universal. This is just start. For those who want to make this world better, they need to participate and put up with the inconvenience along the necessary change. A corporate can easily dominate a market with their enormous money and sometimes the method that the company takes along their profit is not necessarily good for the majority of human kind. Once it happens, it is really hard to make it back. I believe Google is the one of those corporates with good will. I value their idea that they try to bring the result of one's effort back to the creator(3D model and its information to the creator in this case). There are many ways to work around; you can stick to the previous version, you can buy or download a DWG import/exporter ruby plugin, or just buy the Pro version. I have benefited from all the things Google provides for free. May be, this is one small thing that I can participate to support their philosophy, having patience and shifting from old habit to new one.

One little trick you can do is to add a face with a gradient transparency png texture overlaying the original face. to create the shadow area. This is just a quick sketch to show the idea using the texture from above [image: nsi0_arch.jpg] This is the png [image: 7h36_fade3.png]

thanks for these textures

Sorry people ! Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I'll take more attention to my posts in the future. Second try: [image: beeld%20Kraan%20Grohe%20%20-%20Sketchup.jpg] [image: temp_bmlt.jpg] [image: zolder%20Schuifelaar%20take%201-2.jpg] @Gaeius: that's the second beer I owe you The renders are almost always done with MLT (I like that one a lot. Only pity it usually takes so long to render) Concerning the grainy apearance: I don't mind that it's a bit blurry. It's a great way to cover up little modeling mistakes ... I made for my colleague (it's her future bathroom you 've seen in the first renders) also a quick animation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfOWnMhpVYg Greetz Flapsyd

Best is to send me an email from the link at the top right (we cannot make it more apparent ). I start my every day with those emails arriving from there. It's exactly for these issues. [image: tCrA_Help.jpg]

Wow, just what I like. Precise answers. You guys are great. Thank you so much. Ok, I think I get it now. Sometimes, understanding computer/graphics and all the apps tools take a lot of time. Especially in this day and age when I have NONE. Thats what I like about this forum. Once again, you saved the day. Thanks again fitZ

The same thing came to my mind; isn't your model grouped by any chance? If so, just "enter" the group (double click) until you get to the individual faces and only paint those. Or attach a model (paste a link to where it1s uploaded) for us to see what1s going on.

In Chapter 8, The Apartment's Furniture, we make a bed. (Actually, a reproduction of a 1905 Craftsman magazine bed plan.) It's here: http://www.MartinRinehart.com/models/tutorial/tutorial_08.html#bed

Jim, That's precisely where it is BUT: always make sure that your "loose geometry" is "lying on it's back" i.e. on the red/green plane which is going to be the component's cutting plane with the blue axis "sticking out" of its front. The "future" insertion point will be the axis origin (and with face me components, this will be the axis of rotation).

@richmorin said: Experimentation indicates that function arguments are passed to the Ruby method as an array of strings. Well, obviously the entire formula begins as one big lengthy string, is repeatedly parsed and broken up into smaller and smaller tokens, until it can build it's param arrays to pass to internal DC functions. However it's not always necessary internally (DC parsing) for the params to be passed as string representations, to the DC formula method(s), if it was already necessary for the DC parser to convert the sub-string operands to a Numeric (for say, some logical comparison, in order to make a code branching decision.) @richmorin said: So, it seems like the Ruby method should be performing coercion on the input values. (eg, a[0].to_f). Exactly what they all of the mathematical DC functions do internally, just to be safe, before passing any values to methods in the Math module (or otherwise where a Numeric type is expected.) IF you just have to modify the DCFunctionsV1 class, for your own use, it would only be smart, to also do .to_f() coercion. @richmorin said: Am I missing something? Only that there are some DC functions that specifically use string args. (But we can ignore this for this issue...)

Make sure you have the latest version of Select Toys. http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=180&t=14975&hilit=select+toys

[blatant plug] If you fancy doing it the old fashioned way, this tutorial covers the basic method: http://www.sketchucation.com/animating-an-object-in-google-sketchup/ [/blatant plug]

Nice workaround, Chris!

Of course I'll sopt back through! Glad the video helped, feel free to come back with more questions, Chris

I have had images show up as all black in other applications if they are saved as CMYK.

likewise in mine.