Looking ahead to SU 8.
-
a simple one that i really wish they'd fix - (or maybe my technique is wrong.. if you have a way of doing this, please share!
)inferencing while rotating doesn't work right.. i feel like i should be able to rotate this cube and have it's corner end up on the line.. can't do it though because i can only rotate in degrees of 0.0 instead of freely.
[flash=640,385:jftx8ijz]http://www.youtube.com/v/q_UIu84_89g&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6[/flash:jftx8ijz]
-
Sketchup->model Info->units->angle snapping (turn it off.)
-
oh man, i was so hoping that was going to do the trick but nah.
i have my angle snapping at 15⁰ so i don't think that's going to matter anyway.
likewise, i have my line snap set to 1/2" but i can still inference to an infinite amount of points regardless of the length my line will end up (it could be 30 27/1024" for instance)..
i dunno, try a quick drawing like i've shown in the video and you'll see that the inferencing system won't grab the line.
-
Damm. As a crappy workaround you could place a point on the line, but its not the same as being able to infer straight on the line goes in search of feature requests
-
This is old, guys. You cannot snap to an edge that is on the rotation plane when rotating. Too bad, I know (it would make modelling a whole bunch of otherwise hopeless geometry).
-
yeah Gai, i've been using su since v4 and noticed this in either 4 or 5.. i figure i might as well wait till v8 before i start asking for someone to fix it or to see if i'm doing something wrong
i have a way to deal with this if need be but it's 6 or 7 extra steps.. sort of a momentum killer when you're in the middle of drawing..
[actually, i think this might be solvable via ruby.. can ruby do trig functions and/or a²+b²=c² type of stuff?]
-
@unknownuser said:
actually, i think this might be solvable via ruby.. can ruby do trig functions and/or a²+b²=c² type of stuff?
Yep, ruby can do trig functions. What did you have in mind?
-
I believe ruby can do all sorts of calculations but my knowledge is lesser than my belief.
-
@remus said:
@unknownuser said:
actually, i think this might be solvable via ruby.. can ruby do trig functions and/or a²+b²=c² type of stuff?
Yep, ruby can do trig functions. What did you have in mind?
Something along these lines.... [that's just the way i think it could happen
... but it does kill two birds with one stone.. in SU, it's also a lot harder than it should be to draw a set length in between two other (non-parallel ) lines...
-
I think you need to get your calculator out jeff
-
Hmm, i wonder if a rotate tool could be written that could infer on lines. Perhaps put a [req] in the ruby forum?
-
@remus said:
I think you need to get your calculator out jeff
haha.. i don't want to think of it in terms of the above but i think that's how it breaks down mathematically.. really, i just want a cpoint dropped at the intersection (point B in the drawings).. maybe there's another way to obtain this?
here's my current workaround.. [but damn, can't google just make inferencing work here
]
-
@plot-paris said:
- Layer Grouping. you select a couple of layers, click right mouse button and choose the option 'group layers' (or use the same keybord shortcut you use for grouping geometry). now you can still switch on or off the layers within the group separately. but if you switch off the whole layer-group, all the layers within will be turned off at once. when you unhide the group again, only those layers will be made visible again, that were switched on before...
oh, and you can expand/collapse layer-groups in the layer window to make some space...
Along this same line, how about the ability to created sub-layers. By that I mean layers that would appear indented under the "Master" layer and be able to collapse to the Master Layer. Unchecking the Master layer would also uncheck the sub-layers.
Structure 1
....Structure 1 - Beams
....Structure 1 - Windows
....Structure 1 - Walls
Structure 2
....Structure 2 - Beams
....Structure 2 - Windows
....Structure 2 - Walls
etc. - Layer Grouping. you select a couple of layers, click right mouse button and choose the option 'group layers' (or use the same keybord shortcut you use for grouping geometry). now you can still switch on or off the layers within the group separately. but if you switch off the whole layer-group, all the layers within will be turned off at once. when you unhide the group again, only those layers will be made visible again, that were switched on before...
-
Re features in free/Pro.
Just want to point out that there are lots of price points. Design Workshop priced at $0, $100 and $500.
Photoshop costs either an arm and a leg, or $100 for Elements.
AutoCAD wants your firstborn. You pay shipping (private jet only).
-
you know, what would be really helpful? if SketchUp supported import of dwg/dxf drawings with lineweights and colours, faces and text.
I fight with understanding an imported drawing almost every day. because every dotted line, no matter whether very thin and in a light gray or thick and red... everything is reduced to a black mess of lines.
I always have to print out the drawing in order to understand what I see in SketchUp. so even from an environmental point of view it would be a good idea
I know this is asking for a lot, because linewheigt isn't supported in SU yet and different text sizes, and styles aren't a strengh of it either.
but it would make architects life so much easier... -
Turn on Colour by layer and Edge colours.
-
Sometimes the solution is so simple
-
thats true. still doesn't solve the line weight problem though. and dotted lines don't work either. and import of fillings would be nice as well (you know, a face with a standart hatch texture instead of importing hundrets and hundrets of hatch-lines... stuff like that.
basically, I want to be able to look at an imported drawing, as if I were looking on it in the CAD application itself...
(and of course thats more a dread than a request. for the changes to SketchUp, however useful they might be, are quite large)
-
two really useful things (I will write them again, even though I think both were mentioned before - but they would be so easy to implement and so useful):
the ability to change axes for groups as well. at the moment you can define component axes. that affects the bounding box as well.
for rectangular object even an option such as 'align axes to geometry' could be useful.the second thing is an option to switch between 'world axes' and 'object axes' orientation.
imagine you draw a group or component, then rotate it at an odd angle. if you now enter this group and start drawing, and want to stay at a right angle to the geometry, you have to refer to inferencing, because the red/green/blue axes point another way. if you now switched to 'object based' axes orientation, it would be a lot easier to draw in this particular context. and creating groups/components would result in their bounding boxes being aligned to the actual geometry (as opposed to today, where they are aligned to the world axes...)what do you think?
oh, and another thing just popped into my mind:
introduce the option to right click buttons to define specific tool parameters. that keeps the UI simple whilst giving us a whole new world of options.
in addition to that holding down your left mouse on a button could expand a 'sub-button-bar'. that would be very useful for a lot of rubies (half my toolbars are fredo's at the moment. imagine you could collapes all tools on surface to one button...) -
@plot-paris said:
the ability to change axes for groups as well. at the moment you can define component axes. that affects the bounding box as well.
for rectangular object even an option such as 'align axes to geometry' could be useful.the second thing is an option to switch between 'world axes' and 'object axes' orientation.
imagine you draw a group or component, then rotate it at an odd angle. if you now enter this group and start drawing, and want to stay at a right angle to the geometry, you have to refer to inferencing, because the red/green/blue axes point another way. if you now switched to 'object based' axes orientation, it would be a lot easier to draw in this particular context. and creating groups/components would result in their bounding boxes being aligned to the actual geometry (as opposed to today, where they are aligned to the world axes...)what do you think?
Advertisement