very nice. playing with them now in a cabin project.

How does one get a tree[d] tree into SketchUp?
I'm running Pro 7.? or 8...

are you sending the same model that is already linked to your LO file? are a different one?

Is this your workflow?

1. You are working on a SketchUp model and LayOut file simultaneously.
2. You make changes in the model and save it.
3. When you go back to LayOut you see the warning symbols that the model has changed?

Does this behavior happen if update the entire LayOut drawing by using File>Document Setup>References?

The problem of taking too large an image for low quality is reduced with this update - I like that I can go back and grab more terrain an imagery at a later date as needed.

For my needs, this works better.
Perhaps Google can add rotation / skew / etc. to the 'grab' process - much like those pins on material / texture adjustments.

@unknownuser said:

Yes, I was referring to using the Layout line tool over the model.

I don't know if it remains snapped after rescaling, as I set my scale before drawing. I would be interested if it works.

I know dimensions will move and update if / when you zoom in and out of a model... not sure on other graphics.

@krisidious said:

I can't wait to be doing all my construction documentation in SketchUp... (waits patiently)

I'd be interested in seeing a sample of your finished drawing...

Kris -
see here for construction document examples:

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15911&start=165

I usually save a 'presentation' version of my model and strip out all scenes, layers, components, etc. that are not needed. I link this to my LayOut drawing, and proceed with detail work.

@pmolsen said:

The "Get More Imagery" Google Maps replacement for the old "Get Current View" from Google Earth is even worse than I foreshadowed in my previous post. Not only can the view not be rotated to line up with the building, the imagery has the Google copyright notice splattered all over it. How is one supposed to use it to texture built-up terrain with writing all over it?

With that backwards step plus all the other bugs introduced in V8 I cannot see any benefit in using it at present.

I like the new way of getting terrain and imagery. Much easier than in 7.?.

Running Pro8 the logo is in the lower left hand corner and the imagery copyright is in the lower right.
If you do not want it in your model - can you grab an area larger than you need and crop it out?

As for rotation - once in SU, unlock both the terrain and the image and you can rotate, copy, move, etc.

FWIW I usually bring my model into my terrain for presentation, and keep the model file lean and as simple as possible.

@aerilius said:

Sorry, I promiss, I quoted from pitrak and didn't edit the quote. I have no clue how that happened
Now I corrected it, hope that's fine

No worries!

@aerilius said:

@bmike said:

questionable implementation

I think you meant:

@pitrak said:

For me it's not so much about the lack of new functions (we have rubies for that), but about the poor implementation. Dynamic Components in 7 - great idea, questionable implementation - and now back edges in 8.

@the pixel artist said:

Hope this helps. Best of luck!
Adrian Alan Brown

very cool technique.
bookmarked for future needs.

film and stage? you can add a physical camera and then manipulate it?
i like the triangle idea. and thanks for the link to the online calculator.

@unknownuser said:

bmike
i was trying to make a point...you know...an analogy between and old hammer and a new one related to sketchup? you get that right?

basicly trying to compare a (really) old hammer with a new one like the ones in the picture. You still use old ones like that in the picture too ?

but sorry about my mistake in the hammer analogy

no, i get it.
i still use tools that were designed 100+ years ago and have changed very little (hand plane, hammer, saw, etc.)
i may use modern versions, or classic tools, depending on what feels right and what fits the task.

i don't see much of the criticism leveled at sketchup here as fair.
use the tool where it works, but don't be upset at your hammer because it makes a poor screw driver.
and if you find yourself driving screws, and the screwdriver plugin for your hammer just isn't cutting it, it might be time to invest in a new addition to the tool box. my hammer doesn't seem to mind when i pick up the pliers or the saw to get the job done.

that said, there is certainly room for continued refinement and improvement.
the question is - what does google (who makes the tool) view as important...?
and if the sketchUcation 'community' feels otherwise - how to lobby effectively for change?
and, if the hammer doesn't grow a sliding screw driver tip and a folding saw with the next release - what is the plan for moving on?

@unknownuser said:

And for me SK it's like an hammer, i just used to do what an hammer is supost to do, the problem is that it's a wood hammer, like my grand parents had, that's heavy, making me more tire, that start's to hurt in time with all the wood splits, and sometimes the heavy metal head falls off making me trying to figure out ways to put it back. Now in the XXI century i just wanted a new hammer for doing the exact same things, but in aluminium to be lighter, with rubber to grab more comfortably, and with a smaller a more precise head. Instead i got my old hammer back, but with ductape and painted in other colour...I think right now this is the best analogy tha can be done between sketchup and a hammer.

you don't use hammers much, do you?
aluminum hammer?
smaller, more precise head? maybe - for finish work. but if i'm framing, i'd want a heavier, well balanced head.

even within 'hammers' there are specific hammers for the job.
framing hammer, finish hammer, roofing hammer, etc. etc.

but a hammer with an aluminum handle - no thanks. my elbows and hands hurt just thinking about it.

i'll take (and use) one of these:

and a host of others with wood handles.
no duct tape required.
hammer is a simple tool designed to do simple tasks.
but with the right simple tools, folks can build amazing things.

@unknownuser said:

I just think certain requests aren't being thought through to the end user. It's not as simple as adding more features while maintaining intuitive tools.

+10000

Which is why i was so confused by the whole point of wanting to stack on functions to a pretty basic concept that is push pull.
Could it be smarter? Sure, as long as it remains intuitive to use.

@unknownuser said:

@bmike said:

vector push pull is very cool... but i think it would be a hard sell on packing all those options into a single ..

ok, so I'm confused then. Earlier you were saying that you want to pushpull a line. All you're going to get from that is a rectangle which is easily accomplished by the rectangle tool or drawing three more lines.
There are other cases where tig's tool does more than that but you're saying it's too complex to add to the base tool?
Basically, I think you're saying to allow pushpull to draw rectangles and while that might be neat, I don't think it's going to be implemented or even necessary.

no, i'm not trying to argue.
someone posted about push/pull / extruding a line.
i understood this as pulling on and end point, dragging the line out into space.
i see now that we are hung up on 'extruding' a line into a sheet of surface.

yes, if you were to 'extrude' a line you'd get a rectangle, and should just use that tool.
i'm not asking for this as a feature.
i understand how to get there, or to get a curved sheet by using vector push pull.
i was simply commenting on what i thought i read earlier.

personally i'd like the tools left alone, with incremental improvements and options for layering on features that make sense for an individual workflow.

and yes, thomthom - exactly. a plug in directory / management system, along with a strict UI and coding standards guide so clicks and icons and workflow all follow similar logic. naturally there will be outliers to any official 'system' - but having 'certified' plugins and a central repository (maybe divided into categories - much like smartphone app stores).

duplicate post!

@unknownuser said:

@bmike said:

am i missing something with this super push pull tool?
if i want to 'extrude' a line - don't i just grab the end point and move it?
if i want it to be an extrusion i need to lock an inference to vertical, left, right, etc?

Oh, you mean the rectangle tool? That's already in core sketchup.

Tig's extrude edges suite includes vector push pull which allows you to do things that the rectangle tool can't do. But, there's more setup involved which I don't think belongs in core push/pull

(again, don't get me' wrong. I personally woldnt mind more complex operations within the base tools but, they are no longer that simple so I don't think you're going to see it happen to sketchup)

vector push pull is very cool... but i think it would be a hard sell on packing all those options into a single tool.

fredo and tig and thomthom's tools (and others) are very welcome additions - but IME beyond the beginning user's knowledge base. i usually show a few of them in the workshops i teach - to whet the more experienced students appetite (and give them a link to this forum!)

30% of the folks i teach have a hard enough time installing a basic plugins package into their plugins folder! 10% of them can barely navigate to their programs directory and locate various folders aside from their 'Documents'. 2% have a hard time remembering where they saved something...

so, more complexity - sure - so long as it is layered on a base program that does not overwhelm the core functionality of the program.

am i missing something with this super push pull tool?
if i want to 'extrude' a line - don't i just grab the end point and move it?
if i want it to be an extrusion i need to lock an inference to vertical, left, right, etc?

i agree on a multiple face or curved surface push pull - but that needs to work in specific instances - JPP is a fairly complex ruby in its implementation.

as someone who teaches workshops for a specific application of sketchup - i certainly welcome more powerful tools, but if i need to tell a student too many of these things - 'right click, option, ctrl, left mouse, wiggle your toe, click, end command' - sketchup loses at its core what makes it so wonderful - simple tools to start, with (semi)consistent approach to modify those tools.

Bought and paid for my upgrade yesterday.
I'm using LayOut more and more, so the minor tweaks there are welcome.
Solid tools are also welcome.

And I really like the new 'back edges' view. Seems to be quicker than XRay in many situations.
I do like the new 'Get Location' feature. I've only done 1 grab with it... but might make workflow a bit easier.
Overall seems a bit speedier than 7.xx? that I was running, but I can't back that up with facts.
I don't do much rendering aside from simple materials and sketchy output that I'll fotosketch... so for me - anything that speeds up native SketchUp processes and makes walkthroughs / Layout / etc. easier I like.

So far the few plugins I use are up and running, with the exception of the SimLab 3d PDF exporter. Getting a runtime error on it.

On the griping about 8 issue:

1. Personally I think SU should move to an open platform model.

2. Keep the base program simple, with modules, rubies, plugines, etc. easy to use and to customize for each niche / industry. (and a central app world type model for distributing - might be a way to integrate Google checkout with 'certified' plugins. PRO might be base + architecture pack or base + rendering pack or base + landscape pack.

3. LayOut - its underated, and sometimes a bit underpowered - but has some nice potential. I am starting to do construction docs with SketchUp and LayOut - so speed boosts in LayOut would be huge, as well as smarter tools for cutting and detailing sections in my SketchUp models). Split it off from the modeling portion of the program, so my above idea might be base sketchup + architecture pack pro(plugins, tools, etc.) + LayOut = $495.

4. Avoid bloatware and feature creep! I have AutoCAD and a host of other programs that I can use to work in a bloated, non intuitive program if I want. I like that in SketchUp there are basic tools that are fairly easy to use, and I can tweak those basics with rubies / plugins.

5. Is Stylemaker necessary? I wonder what the user base is for it. I'd rather see it be phased out and resources devoted to other concerns within the main program.

6. Dynamic Components... such promise. Any chance there will be more meat here, with easier (and more elegant) to use toolbar / palette access?