Looks really nice. I'll play some more with it tomorrow when I'm awake.

Indeed, that would be the "average" use; to end up with one object and delete "unwanted geometry". I see that you practically needed two different objects and this means two different operations - but at least can be done this way.

@linea said: Andrew, if you want to photoshop-up your SU image a bit, I do a simple process for making your roof look grassy, unfortunately I can't paste the results here as my only example is a commercial image but if you are interested let me know and I'll post a quick tut. I would certainly be interested in a tutorial. I'm working on a project with greenroofs as well.

Antonio. I like the green building concept, it's real green not just green talk. I have a Garden pack available if you are interested, just follow link in my signature. Alternatively there is Form fonts, and the 3DWH. If this is a funded project and you require specific plants and even visualisations then feel free to contact me as I may be able to assist. [image: potaoplantballt.png]

True, thanks. I amended my reply above accordingly.

Use a Style where the profiles are heavier than other edges, perhaps with line end markers. To make sure it's all 'flat' use a v.big rectangle below it all and then Drape it onto the rectangle using the Sandbox Tool. It'll form a flat copy below on the face... Move the original stuff out of the way, or hide it etc till you need it no longer. Now any edges that are faced will be thin and the problem ones shown thicker. Try drawing some diagonals between junctions across incomplete [unfaced] areas to roughly triangulate them and you should find that slowly they face and the number of visibly fat edges reduce. Delete the unneeded temp edges as you get a stable face; however, if deleting an edge removes the face(s) there's a problem with the adjoining 'faced' area - undo and retry... Zoom into the edges around any stubborn 'gaps'' in the faces or edges drawn over faces that remain heavy and don't split them - it might be that you have some small gaps or overlapping edges - heal them by drawing new edges or moving line ends so they touch another line. Sometimes overdrawing some edges is the quickest way to fix it - particularly if it's a really rubbish CAD drawing...

U can insert any component or group inside of one component or group..

Use the Bezier Curves by Fredo6 and Free Scale Bend by Fredo6 Shape bender by Chris Fullmer [image: tfe8_courbette.jpg]

@petekangaroo said: Sorry, I think I mistakedly just reported this instead of quoting it No problem - you are not the first one to make this mistake. I've closed the report. But like the others suggest above; get the virtual model from somewhere and then get a physical model made from that.

WE could hope that they change it so that more line lengths including custom ones are possible. I'd like the option to have some shorter line lengths than are currently available.

Theres a quick summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmack's_Reverse#Depth_pass

Thanks Csaba, will try that....

I just tried painting the texture using the same RGB value as the color from SU, but the colors turn out a bit off and you can see the border of the logo against the rest of the model. [image: xLK4_4.jpg]

Those scripts will work perfect. Thanks!

@caddict said: i have to say that i have been away from sketchucation for a while, and it is so great to be back...the atmosphere here is noticeably friendly the same here! we may need a little SCF-Heart smiley to express our feelings...

well whatever there works..i wanna release one more thing on 3d warehouse before i quit is what i mean...with credits of who made what etc...

Ha. Good to hear it worked. (PC's are so mysterious that often you just feel like a fresh install is the only solution )

@tobobo said: I can't wait for your posts in the Gallery. Thanks Toby! I'll post in the Gallery by the end of the week

Hi Anssi, Thanks for the response. This is a decision that has been taken by those "higher-ups" in the company. I have to hope that they know what they are doing. Powerdraft will replace AutoCAD LT (used by the majority of our staff) and Microstation V8 will replace the full version of AutoCAD. As I understand it AutoCAD was originally created for Engineers not Architects. Microstation, ArchiCAD etc were built from the ground up for Architects. Whether this makes any real difference in use I have yet to see. With regards to BIM software I am not quite sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it makes sense to have software that can generate 3D data from your 2D data input. In theory this should make producing 3D images a lot simpler and less error prone. I have heard that Revit is a very clever piece of software. But it does not have (as some try to claim) a magic button that can produce professional 3D results. I have also heard that practically no-one outside of the demonstration team can use it in a productive manner. (OK, I may be exaggerating a little here, but you know what I mean) The management of my company do not want their Architectural staff wasting valuable time trying to learn and understand lighting, texturing, composition and the hundreds of other issues associated with creating professional 3D imagery. They want their Architectural staff producing working 2D CAD drawings that generate actual income! I think they have a very good point. Most of the 2D CAD operators I know do not seen to understand (or find very difficult) the concept of 3D. Management can't presume to think that just because some staff use Microsoft Word every day that automatically gives them the skills to become a great novelist. They may not even grasp basic spelling or grammar! Or just because someone can use Microsoft Paint they will also be expert users of Adobe Photoshop. The skills required to produce professional 3D results, seems to me, to require a great deal of dedication to learning a range of skills well beyond the normal requirements of most 2D CAD operators. It also requires an active imagination and what I can only describe as an "eye" for being able to visualise a 3D image. Quite simply, not everyone has this, no matter how good the software. Anyway, I would appreciate reading any further thoughts on this subject. Regards Mr S

Hi Sam, Combine layer visibility with scenes.Make sure your workflow is this: separate what should be separated with groups (layers won't separate geometry). put version 1 of say a wall on layer 1, set it visible (but turn off version 2 - see below) and add a scene. now insert version 2 of the wall, put it on layer 2, make it visible but hide layer 1 again, add a scene. now when you switch between scenes, you can once see version 1 then in the other scene, version 2. Obviously there may be several things (like floor) that are present in each verion - they should have their own layer but always visible. Something like this - except that I made it to present different textures but presenting different geometry works the same way. http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=3168ed68fce69cf154cbada1da0df134 You can even play with scenes in Google Earth: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=569332372733870556fd3af0ddd0a84f