well the reason "e1_" is part of that's attribute's name is to control where the option appears in the component options window. with the exception of the predefined size attributes (LenX, LenY, & LenZ, which always appear at the top of the component options window), all other attributes, predefined or custom, get ordered alphabetically in the component options window. if i didn't care where the "back type" option showed up on the list of component options, i'd do away w/ the "e1_" prefix in the name. but this still doesn't explain why my B2D's "e1_back_type" attribute name is changing to "back_type" upon importation after having imported another cabinet that actually has an attribute named "back_type"...i mean it does and it doesn't. obviously there's a link here, but it doesn't make any sense to me, and i feel like its happening in error. likewise, the opposite is true - if i were to import the B2D first, i could open the component attribute window and see for myself that there is in fact an attribute named "e1_back_type"...and if i subsequently import a B1D (or any other cabinet with an attribute named "back_type"), all the instances of "back_type" in its formulas will change to "e1_back_type."

ok, after having finally come up with what i thought was a working solution, i realized that there is yet another hurdle to making a true 3-D door out of a 2-D generic door. whether i use the "follow me" tool to create the entire frame at once, or just to create individual members of the door frame (which is necessary if i start w/ the 2-D generic door), small polygonal surfaces tend to go missing on the corner pieces. i already have a thread that addresses and provides a solution this problem HERE. it turns out that the reason small surfaces go missing near the intersections of planes is because SketchUp deems them too small to render. the best working solution to this is to scale up the model (say 100x) before i extrude the frame or the individual frame members. this way, the small surfaces that would otherwise be missing if drawn at regular scale are now large enough to get rendered when i extrude the frame or its individual members. then its as simple as scaling it back down to original size and i get no missing surfaces. the problem with starting with a generic 2-D door (w/ the formulas already built into the attributes of its sub-components) is that it doesn't scale up the way i need it to in order to create my 3-D corners without missing geometry. more specifically, while i can change the width and height of the generic frame no problem, it is designed to maintain the same frame width regardless of the overall size of the frame. in other words, if i take a generic 10" x 10" frame and scale it up to 100x, i'll end up with a 1000" x 1000" frame, but the frame width will stay the same and not scale along with the overall size change. now while that's ultimately how i want my doors to work in their finished state, i need the generic 2-D door's frame width to scale along with the increase in overall frame width and/or height in order to draw my corners without missing surfaces. but in order to do that i have to change the formulas of the generic door, thus defeating the purpose of having a generic door with all the formulas already built into it. on the plus side, i decided to remove the "door thickness" attribute from my model b/c it isn't even an available option for the line of cabinetry i'm currently working on. b/c of this, each frame sub-component no longer has to be broken down into a fixed depth group and a variable depth group (this was necessary to prevent the frame profile from stretching along with any changes in overall door depth/thickness). thus each frame sub-component consists of only "position" and "size" attributes, and no longer contains 2 sub-groups, each with their own "position" and "size" attributes. this decreases the number of attribute formulas per frame sub-component (and thus the number of cut-n-pastes i have to perform) from 18 to 6. door construction now takes approx. only 1/3 the time it took me before...so not having a generic door with the forumlas built in isn't so much of a drag anymore b/c i only have to do 1/3 of the cutting and pasting i was doing before. in summary, the inability of the generic door to scale its frame width along with any changes in overall door width or height prevents me from using it without generating missing surfaces in my geometry. and changing the formulas of the generic door to accommodate frame width scaling (thus allowing me to draw corners without missing surfaces) defeats the purpose of using it to create multiple doorstyles with the attribute formulas already programmed into it.

Edges can be hidden in solid components, just as well as other situations, if you want.

PROBLEM SOLVED EVERYONE it turns out i didn't dig deep enough into the layers of parts used to compose the drawer boxes . For instance, the groups that comprised the middle drawer box component, dbox_2 (the left and right members, the front and back members, and the bottom), contained references to the top drawer box component, dbox_1. As soon as I changed all the "dbox_1" references to "dbox_2," the middle drawer box started resizing according to overall cabinet depth as it should. Obviously the same worked for the bottom drawer box, dbox_3. as you might have guessed, the reason the groups that comprise dbox_2 and dbox_3 had references to dbox_1 is b/c I created the middle and bottom drawer boxes by making copies of the top drawer box, dbox_1.

i actually figured out my syntax error a few weeks ago, but thanks for the response. i also didn't get an email notifying me that you responded to my thread...i was just browsing the forums and noticed that someone had replied. i'll have to figure that one out so that i can get back to people when they post in my threads...

ok, so i finally came up with a solution that works. i can now change the number of evenly spaced vertical partitions such that individual shelves (or sets of shelves) span the exact distance between them, making the lines that define ends of the shelves visible as they would be in reality: [image: jxkc.jpg] the explanation of how i got here and the hurdles i had to overcome would be quite verbose, so i'm just going to upload the component for you to download and play with. if anyone has questions about how or why i might have done something a certain way, feel free to ask. also, if anyone has suggestions on how to make this cabinet component less complex geometry/rendering-wise, i'm all ears. i know there's probably more geometry present than is necessary in order to make this cabinet work as i intend, but i'm a beginner, so that's to be expected...i don't know all of the ins and outs of SketchUp yet. thanks, Eric PS - how difficult would it be to add a 2nd predefined "Copies" attribute (not my own custom attribute) to the component attributes dialog box?...or is it even possible? this would make my model simpler with respect to the amount of geometry present with the component in its most basic form (0 shelves, 0 vertical partitions), if not in the amount of overall geometry rendered when many shelves and/or vertical partitions are present. W2D_shelf_width_solved.skp

thank you for the responses. i've pulled off of the doorstyle part of the project...actually, i've put the entire Sketchup project on the back burner for now b/c we've had an influx of business that i have to attend to. in the mean time, i'll research Sketchup layers to see if that's one possible solution to displaying various doorstyles at will. i'll let you know how that works out when i get a chance...