Group or Component
-
Thank you all for your detailed explanation, much appreciated.
@jql said:
...
I Use groups for:- Walls, façades, roofs, floors (all the big parts of the building that don't repeat but I need so I can organize the project I'm working on and distribute to layers that can be made invisible/visible and also that I don't need to make a Xref from
....
JQL
JQL, in your experience, what is the advantage to Group walls, facades, roof, floors etc. versus making them also components?
- Walls, façades, roofs, floors (all the big parts of the building that don't repeat but I need so I can organize the project I'm working on and distribute to layers that can be made invisible/visible and also that I don't need to make a Xref from
-
@tandem said:
Thank you all for your detailed explanation, much appreciated.
@jql said:
...
I Use groups for:- Walls, façades, roofs, floors (all the big parts of the building that don't repeat but I need so I can organize the project I'm working on and distribute to layers that can be made invisible/visible and also that I don't need to make a Xref from
....
JQL
JQL, in your experience, what is the advantage to Group walls, facades, roof, floors etc. versus making them also components?
To Answer that I'll quote GussNemo
@gussnemo said:
As I previously stated, I know one advantage of a component is that changes made to one affects the other. But in order to differentiate between the two one would have to be renamed, and in doing so the component link between the two would be broken.
This is not always an advantage. It is actually very dangerous if you don't know what your doing.
If you're not designing simple things you have a long way down the road until you are able to predict you'll have to repeat a part of a building, for instance.
Thus I use components only for repetitive things or xrefs.
Imagine yourself designing an housing high rise. You have a floor plan where every shop is different to each other and different from the entrance of the building. Why use components? To Xref? Then OK!
What about floors? Are they going to repeat? Then ok you have to design the floor as a component! Xref it too so you can have someone working on it! If the floor repeats itself then everything inside it will also repeat itself, why use components inside it if not to xref or use stuff from a library?
But be careful! If wall#1 is a component, and if you use wall#1 in another different floor and if you edit it, you are editing wall#1 in both floors messing up one of them without noticing.
I tutor sketchup to architects here in portugal and I must say that I find this so dangerous that I always tell them this:
"If you don't know if you're going to create a group or a component, then go for group, it's less powerful and thus less dangerous. You've been warned!"
On a side note, it's also easier to convert a group into a component than the reverse, have you ever wondered why?
If I was tutoring woodworkers, I'd definetely follow your rule! But let's face it, usually, when you model an cabinet, aren't you seeing all of the cabinet? Then if you miss making a component unique you'll immediately see the mistake.
Now imagine yourself modeling a table inside a kitchen, inside a floorplan, inside a building.
Now imagine there are 20 different kitchens where the table will not fit all. You have to think of it as I think of walls... Better to make a group of it, or at least, the non repeateable parts of it should be groups. You can always turn it into a component later if you need to.
- Walls, façades, roofs, floors (all the big parts of the building that don't repeat but I need so I can organize the project I'm working on and distribute to layers that can be made invisible/visible and also that I don't need to make a Xref from
-
@unknownuser said:
If I was tutoring woodworkers, I'd definetely follow your rule! But let's face it, usually, when you model an cabinet, aren't you seeing all of the cabinet? Then if you miss making a component unique you'll immediately see the mistake.
Not at all. It really isn't any different than working on a building model. Often I can't see the copies of the component other than the one I'm working on. You can watch my tutorial videos and see that.
As I've said many times, since I only use components I am well aware when there are multiple instances of them in the model. I don't have problems with missing the Make Unique step when it is needed. I can't think of the last time I forgot to make components unique before making changes to one or a set of them.
For my work flow, using only components works best and I've never seen a case where I'd have been better off making a group. But that's for my work flow and the sorts of things I draw. I have done architectural models as well as models of medical devices and other things. Still, I prefer components in those cases as well.
That said, folks should decide for themselves what works for them and their workflow. I don't tell others they should only use Components. If groups work better for you, that's just fine. I won't try to change your mind.
-
@jql said:
Here's more:
So you have to define first what you want to do and, as you don't specify your field of expertise I will give my example too:
I Use groups for:
- Walls, façades, roofs, floors (all the big parts of the building that don't repeat but I need so I can organize the project I'm working on and distribute to layers that can be made invisible/visible and also that I don't need to make a Xref from
I Use components for:
- Repeatable parts of the building like, knobs, sanitary ware, kitchens, floors, columns, elevators
- Doors, windows and their respective holes are components for me (double cutting components method you can read about in Sketchucation somewhere)
- X Refs of the whole house/building if it is part of a large urban plan, staircases, kitchens, bathrooms or any special rooms that I like to have a colaborator working on externally or I want to isolate to create special documents for
- Entourage proxies/models like cars, trees, people, furniture
I hope this helps even further,
JQL
@JQL: My field of expertise, before retirement, was as a cable splicing technician. But my use of Sketchup dealt with only personal projects. Several years ago, my wife saw a picture in a magazine of a wall shelf she thought would fill a spot in our kitchen, and asked me if I thought I could build two of them. I'd built small projects like these before and thought I could do so again. But from past experience, I knew anything I drew by hand was going to be messy and not very accurate, so I went looking for a free drawing program that would help me create accurate drawings for my project. And I discovered Sketchup.
At that time I learned enough about Sketchup to create a model of the shelf my wife saw in the magazine, one that I could work from. Today, I'm using Sketchup to create models which I can import into Bryce 7.1 Pro, Wings 3d, or GIMP if post work is needed. Though if I had another wood working project, I wouldn't hesitate using Sketchup to create an accurate model which I could print out and follow. So I guess you could consider me a hobbyist when it comes to using Sketchup. A hobbyist who realizes there is a lot to learn and can only be done one day at a time.
I really appreciate all the input I've received on this topic. I received practical information I couldn't find in any of the books I have or in any of the video I've watched. And if I have more questions, not found in books or videos, I know I can come to this site and find an answer.
-
@dave r said:
For my work flow, using only components works best and I've never seen a case where I'd have been better off making a group. But that's for my work flow and the sorts of things I draw. I have done architectural models as well as models of medical devices and other things. Still, I prefer components in those cases as well.
Maybe it's all part of evolution.
Components are better but dangerous but once you know what you are doing and have the correct workflow, I guess Components serve all purposes.
I guess I'm still not there yet, though I can see the usefulness.
Thanks
-
I've seen how making entities into components saves time if you have multiple entities, but I've also seen how making entities into components can cause problems IF you don't know what you're doing.
As I stated in a previous post, my wife wanted a wall shelf she saw in a magazine, and I knew my drawing skills were very weak. So I looked for a drawing program which I could use to make working planes. And that's when I discovered Sketchup. Sketchup was new to me, so in my usual fashion, I looked for videos, books, and whatnot, to help me learn how to use Sketchup.
I saw how using components could save me time because the wall shelf was going to have duplicates of some parts. I also read about layers, and thought I understood how they were used. Long story short, I now see the mistakes I made in creating my first project, because I didn't fully understand that ANY changes made to a components, either on layer 0 or on any other layer, caused a change to be made to the duplicated part. Because of my total lack of understanding on the use of components, and layers, and the difficulties I experienced with my first contact with Sketchup, I almost deleted it from our computer.
I didn't delete Sketchup, I did use it to create another project. And because of this recent project I now have more knowledge in how to use Sketchup. And I feel certain there are other projects which will need Sketchup in the future.
-
My $0.02.
Components and groups serve most of the same purposes.
Rule of thumb...... One such object in a model can be either a group or a component; whereas 2 or more copies of the object must be a component, especially if you may change its geometry later on.
Grouping components can have an advantage over making a bunch of components a component.
If the bunch of comps is a comp, then you can copy it multiple times, and any (and all) edits of any one is applicable to all.
But a group of comps has an advantage over a comp of comps, in that the comps in a group can change positions, orientations and other attributes without impacting any other group of the same (or more or less the same) set of comps in it.
Example.
In my airplane designs for (say) a landing gear assy. all the bits are comps.
But the overall assy of these comps is a group. That way I can show the LG in various conditions of retraction, extension, compression and angles of deployment, with the various comps, such as hyd cylinders, struts etc. "mechanically" linked.If I change the length of a hyd. cyl. or tire diameter, then that change ripples through all the groups in their various positions. However if I change the extension of that cyl. (and adjust the relative positions of the other comps) then only that group is affected.
I do this a lot to visualize complex moving parts and their relationship to other parts at various positions of movement. If an interference shows up at say, the 3rd position, requiring a part to be modified, all the same other parts in the other positions change as well.
I put each of the groups on separate layers, as well as some of the parts on separate layers, so that I can easily see/compare positions.
I can explain this further if anybody wants.
-
JGB that is all true, however, if you use a component of components rather than a group of components you can easily make copies and Make Unique the ones you want to behave differently, while still retaining the benefits of components.
-
Box
Yes that is true, but if that unique comp is indeed unique, it makes little difference if it is a comp or a group.Goto the Warehouse and look at my model of the AB-609 Tilt-Rotor. Notice the multiple copies of components/groups for the engines and props or cabin in different positions, and the layers that control the visibility of those groups. Those overall groups could be unique comps, but to what advantage?
-
Great thread...
-
Interesting how a rather simple question can lead to such a lengthy discussion. One which doesn't have a definite ending. There doesn't seem to be a wrong or right answer, just different approaches to the same end. Producing that which is seen in the minds eye.
-
@jgb said:
Goto the Warehouse and look at my model of the AB-609 Tilt-Rotor. Notice the multiple copies of components/groups for the engines and props or cabin in different positions, and the layers that control the visibility of those groups. Those overall groups could be unique comps, but to what advantage?
What I learned from this thread was that as Dave pointed out, if you make a mistake and delete a unique component there will be a copy in the component browser, with a group that would not be true.
-
@gussnemo said:
Interesting how a rather simple question can lead to such a lengthy discussion. One which doesn't have a definite ending. There doesn't seem to be a wrong or right answer, just different approaches to the same end. Producing that which is seen in the minds eye.
So far this is only 1 page....
Other "simple questions" have gone on for many pages.
That's the beauty of SketchUcation.
-
@jgb said:
Box
Yes that is true, but if that unique comp is indeed unique, it makes little difference if it is a comp or a group.
Those overall groups could be unique comps, but to what advantage?Components have many properties and uses that groups don't have.
Components can glue to, cut through, they can be worked on in another file and reloaded, they can be saved for latter use and placed in libraries. You can copy a component off to the side, scale it up, work on it and delete it and your original has been edited too. When you make an array of components they are all the same until you choose to make them unique, so you can make a motorway of streetlights but only make a few fall over, then if that motorway is a component you can make a second one, make it unique and change a few more streetlights.My point may not be relevant to your specific model but there is simply no advantage to not using components that I can see, with the possible exception of having to click the dialog box to create it.
Looking at your tilt model, which is BA-609 not AB-609,you have three cabin interiors which could be copied off to the side so that you could work on them comfortably without them being stacked on top of each other. The various tilt positions of the rotors could be laid out for display. Basically if you have only used components you can explode the model easily so that you can dissect its individual parts while retaining the original intact. Then any alterations you make to the exploded parts are repeated in the original.
I may be wrong, perhaps there are benefits to nesting withing groups rather than components, but I have yet to hear of any.
-
You should bullet that list Box.
-
In terms of efficiency components win without a doubt.
In terms of multi-app data exchange the groups win.
Horses for courses.
That being said there's a 51kb file somewhere on the forum by Alan Fraser the is heavily component-assembled that completely buckles SU.
Use with care. I did lots of tests with the 3D tree pack I made and in the end kept the branches as raw geometry.
When I had 4 components of each branch type arrayed, scaled etc SU performance dropped. When I exploded and made all the branch geometry 1 component SU was fine.
Components are great but heavily nested arrayed components can causes issues.
-
Yes indeed, deep nesting can cause problems, but to the best of my knowledge those problems are not reduced by using groups rather than components.
-
It's not about solving a problem but preventing them.
A cube could be 6 square faced components wrapped as a component then arrayed. Then wrap the array and array the arrayed component etc...
That's a problem.
Try making a sphere from the minimum amount of faces as components. SU chugs.
As I said components are great. But application needs to be considered.
-
I'm not questioning the fact that using too many components can cause problem, I'm just pointing out that the use of too many groups can be just as troublesome but without any significant benefits.
My only point being that in my own personal view it may as well be a component even if there is only one because it has useful properties besides being able to multiply.
The discussion is about the advantages or disadvantages of one over the other, rather than the potential downside of using too many of either. -
Point taken.
Advertisement