I'VE ALMOST HAD IT WITH TRYING TO UNDERSTAND DC's!!!!
-
-
DC's are half the reason I bought Pro 7 and gave up very soon after the purchase. I figured I was just too dense to get it.
-
phew... now I feel much better that you guys are of the same opinion....
I like that idea about selection a face and applying a group of settings to come up with what's require: Goh's 1001bit tools does a similar thing and it works well for me.
Maybe I just drop the DC thing all together.
-
I concur with ArCAD's experience - the way DC's are deployed completely hampers their usefulness.
I have plenty of programming experience, so found the maths side not too bad and managed to create several DC's that I thought would be useful....
....until I looked in my Components toolbox - "Part#1", "Part#2", "Part#3",..etc...
...which I then rename as "Part Small", "Part Big", "Part Huge" etc. and then try to remember to drag the right one into the model so that I don't then end up with another new series of #1,#2,#3... (except that I will anyway if I alter any parameters "on site").
I think, at best, they can be used as a kind of templates for quick construction of regular "non-DC" components. But as has been pointed out already, SU is so fast to model with, that I may as well have just built "Part Small", "Part Big"... as separate components in the first place.
To be more useful, I would like to see something like...- Only ever one definition (visible?) in the component toolbox.
- A new native component attribute "Suffix", visible in the Outliner - e.g. for a component called "Nut", we could add "M3","M4" etc. according to parameter values - purely as "aliases" to help us see what is what and for use in reports, but not changing the DC definition in any way.
- "Variants" itemised according to their parent definition and sorted by parameter values in reports. So I can quickly see that I have used 25 M3 Nuts, rather than having to check each "Nut#x" component individually to see see what parameters it has.
In principle, DC's have a lot of potential - but I doubt it can ever be realised unless the implementation is thoroughly overhauled.
-
Well this turned into a surprising thread. I hadn't expected so many experienced users to be having issues with DCs. I guess someone needs to grab hold of this aspect of SU and give it a real good shake to give us a more useable format.
I did have another play yesterday to create an inclined beam and realised that DCs are really lacking some basic shape modelling commands such as add and subtract, but with SU's solid modelling this must now be a realistic prospect?
-
yeah, naming your parts and using materials (i use colors named as needed "lumber_stud", "machine_bolt" etc then replace if used for rendering later) is key to making the reporting work well. then i import to excel and run some macros to remove extraneous values and summarize (DSUM DCOUNT etc) to create the materials list. it would be nice to have the reporting take families of groups and report directly though...
it would be cool if DC had a "record macro" function. but some more functions (like % (mod)) would be nice plus parent's parent referencing (as well as inserting of Ruby code
) -
@arcad-uk said:
Well this turned into a surprising thread. I hadn't expected so many experienced users to be having issues with DCs. I guess someone needs to grab hold of this aspect of SU and give it a real good shake to give us a more useable format.
Let's hope.....
-
@gullfo said:
it would be nice to have the reporting take families of groups and report directly though...
Glenn, I'm no Exel wiz but could you achieve what you need with a pivot table?
-
I do use Excel currently but i'm thinking a built-in solution for SU would be nice
-
Hi All,
Where would I find a list of functions that could be used in DCs? Or a guide to the maths being talked about here? I've built a door DC but had the problem of it resizing things I don't want changed when it adjusts, but it looks like there are ways to stop that happening. I'm patient enough to work out formulas (actually enjoy excel stuff), and I figure if i can get what I need done in a week of working on the DCs, it still beats forking out on another program (not that I can find one that I like, or that has libraries I can use anyway)
I'm hoping Trimble add a decent 2d drafting component and object library tools that way there is nothing I need elsewhere. At the moment I'm only searching for another program as my first project done in Skp Pro 8 took way too long. the windows on the house took 2 hours alone. Don't talk to me about the gutters, I think I have geometry stuck under my nails still...then the engineer wants changes and the ceiling heights are going up, all that starts making it like digging sand with a tooth pick.
But as shite as they seem to be, DCs may be the thing I need to get into... and having 'group and layer it' tattooed on the back of my eyelids.
cheersAndy
-
Andy - If you open the Window>Component Attributes dialog there is a tab at the top which when clicked will then give access to a list all the functions. Additionally you can go here...
http://support.google.com/sketchup/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=108144
for a more detailed explanantion.
As I've mentioned previously I gave up on DC's. My solution is to build individual non-DC components which can be quickly edited to suit a specific project e.g. a window where you only need to carry out two stretches 1. to change the overall frame and 2. the casement.
Good luck with your endeavours. Let us know how you get on!
-
@andrew jones said:
Where would I find a list of functions that could be used in DCs? Or a guide to the maths being talked about here?
Here's a good starting page...
http://support.google.com/sketchup/bin/topic.py?hl=en&topic=22496
-
Thanks ArCAD / Jim,
I'll have a good go at them an see if I can't get something happening. If it's just a matter of maths skills, then it can't hurt to stretch the ol' brain a bit. Might keep alziemers at bay...
-
@andrew jones said:
If it's just a matter of maths skills, then it can't hurt to stretch the ol' brain a bit. Might keep alziemers at bay...
If it were me, I would just take a daily dose of coconut oil and do the little extra modeling.
-
@unknownuser said:
@andrew jones said:
If it's just a matter of maths skills, then it can't hurt to stretch the ol' brain a bit. Might keep alziemers at bay...
If it were me, I would just take a daily dose of coconut oil and do the little extra modeling.
it's not so much math skills (depending on what you're trying to make) rather it's figuring out the syntax(?) in order to make the things work.. if you're ok with making spreadsheets then you'll be ok with creating DCs..
dunno.. making DCs can be kind of fun if you're nerdy like that..
@andrew.. if you bump into any problems, make a thread showing where you need help.. i'm sure some people will be glad to assist
-
Well . . .anything to stave off the Alzheimer's. For me. . it's crossword puzzles.
-
@unknownuser said:
Well . . .anything to stave off the Alzheimer's. For me. . it's crossword puzzles.
ha.. i'm into crosswords as well.. nytimes (i don't mess around with sunday though
, usa today, and the onion's weekly xword.. -
Thanks Jeff, I have tried that before but didn't get far with a solution. I thought everyone was in the same boat as me or either thinking I wanted someone else to do my work. I'm sure the penny will drop at some point.
-
DC's, a great way to waste a lot of time figuring out only to realise the original method of actually modeling it in the first place is ten times faster.
-
I spent something like a month (making 4 hours of video training) teaching most of the ins and outs of DC's in my SketchUp Pro training series -- which got very little traction (almost non-existent)... I think both DC's and Layout are very cool things (and I thought I taught them very clearly) but the demand for that information seems to be so small as to not justify any future tutorials on the subjects.
Don't get me wrong I think they need to be re-worked and I've made my fair share of suggestions about them (and Layout)-- but they are much more useful than they are given credit for...
I'd rather spend my time teaching things that people actually want to learn -- I make these things to get paid, but I also really want the information to be used... it's kind of like that old saw about "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?".
If nobody watches these things then I'm just some guy who spends alot of time talking to myself.
Best,
Jason.
Advertisement