Topics created by Bruce Watt

You're not the first and I'm sure you won't be the last. This is a very common mistake.

Agreed
With SU now having tag folders the list of tags can be quite extensive in a large model.
Highlighting the tag of the component you have selected would be huge help and save A great deal of frustration.

Thanks for your replies,

I am on windows, so perhaps the mac version is ok

I think something is amiss here.

shadow settings amiss

So for me, London would the best option, not sure how to change this setting, or even if this will correct the issue I am seeing. very odd!

EDIT
ok! I see now! 👍 You have to add a geolocation map to the file to reset the shadow settings. Once done it seems to correct the issue I was seeing.

Many thanks

Thanks Dave for your reply,

There is not any imported 3D object.

The file saves ok but displays the error.

I did a saved as, under a new file and still got the same error.

I decided to just ignore the error and gave it the weekend too sort its self out. By the power of the unknown ( although MS seem to be updating my machine quite regularly at the moment) I have come back after the weekend and started up my machine and I can not reproduce the error in either file.

Many thanks

I don't remember whether the default is checked or unchecked, but that box has been in Model Info for a long time!

Thanks for the replies,

Cotty
Tigs 2D tools is very good thank you.

slbaumgartner
Using Tigs 2D tools it looks like every line is a group with individual lines. so I can see how this may bloat the file size.

Using profile builder every single segment of the line is a component therefore hopefully this will reduce the bloat.

Normally SketchUp shades surfaces as if the light source is at the camera. It does not cause shadows to be cast, regardless of settings. The "use sun for shading" instead shades surfaces as if the only light source is at the sun position. When shadows are displayed, this can produce a more realistic look because you don't have shading from one light source and shadows from a different one.

Thank you, That is very helpful.
All the best

Thanks Tig,

Well not sure what I have done but I have profile builder 2 (PB2) working again with Skup operating as normal.

What did I do... well not sure really, however when I reinstalled Skup on Windows 8.1 some weeks ago now, I think I must has install PB2 from a different Extension Warehouse account and then I transferred my assemblies across to the library folded within PB2. I thought I was working with the paid version but was not and yes it did screw things up within Skup when PB2 expired.

I found a old email from the extension warehouse advising not to store assembles within the aforementioned folder which I was.( not sure if that relevant to my issue)

I deleted the .rb and BP2 folder, ( well moved it out of the way somewhere else) logged onto the other warehouse account, the one I purchased it from and installed it and all looks to be ok ( I had to reset all tool bars for this process). I have moved my assembles else where as instructed. so I think everything is working again.

It was strange how it screwed up Skup though.

Thanks again Dr Tig.

Or try these ones, Bruce. I made them last week in Xara which has some cool options for altering line types....

DASHED-light.style

DASHED-Medium.style

DASHED-Heavy.style

@pbacot said:

This sounds a little like ThomThom's Edge Tools. That's if "extended to its boundaries" means the boundaries of the face. I always have that icon "Split faces into multiple pieces" in my basic toolbar.

pbacote understood perfectly what I was talking about, thank you. I have this set on a shortcut and use it so often I forget its not part of native SU. Thanks again for being my memory bank and thanks to ThomThom.

@Box,

oh! that's good, that's very good.

Donation made, Thank you Fredo6

Sorry for giving you news you didn't want but I'm happy if it saves you time.

I'm not sure if it will have an impact but you might experiment with Transparency Quality settings in the Face seetings under Styles>Edit.

@dave r said:

Notice you've got both the label text box and the arrow selected. The select initially as a group now in LO2015. That's why the grips are way out there like that.

There are some subtle nuances now with the Label tool. If you want to resize the text box and not modify the shape of the arrow, double click on the arrow. Then single click on the text box and you'll see the resizing handles where you expect them.

Got it! Thanks Dave.

Dave is NUMBER ONE!!! when it comes to quick (and accurate) responses! If we could grant medals to sketchucation contributors, he's top of my list!

Thank you Rich & Dave. I had this exact problem yesterday & I hadn't appreciated that you could type in a scale for inserted bitmaps.

Hello Dave

@dave r said:

[attachment=3:3cdzjik2]<!-- ia3 -->jpp.png<!-- ia3 -->[/attachment:3cdzjik2]

A question for you, Bruce. What would your expectation be for the way these corners get handled? They don't appear to be correctly done although I don't fault the tool. It appears that JPP did what it was asked to do.

%(#0000FF)[I would expect the plugin to at lease read my mind and perform the operation correctly. 😆 I agree its a difficult one. Perhaps various corner operations can be made as an option to the plugins. Its not until you stop and think of exactly what and how the operations performs that the complexity is revealed. My clients think that I just tap the keyboard a few times and the compute generates the building drawings.]

[attachment=2:3cdzjik2]<!-- ia2 -->jpp2.png<!-- ia2 -->[/attachment:3cdzjik2]

This seems more correct to me although the joint between the angled portions and the horizontal part, although correct for what JPP is supposed to do, is probably not the way it would be built in real life. The horizontal and angled surfaces have been extruded the same amount so to join them you would have to miter them at half the angle between which is exactly what JPP did.

[attachment=1:3cdzjik2]<!-- ia1 -->jpp3.png<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:3cdzjik2]

Maybe this is better?

I expect that no matter what modifications were made to JPP or Shell, there'll always be geometry that will be problematic. There will always be some things that require the judgement of the user.

Agreed, I am just pleased that someone has thought about this more than i and provided a plugin that makes my life easier.

All the best

Thank you for your help, That all make sense now.
Many thanks.

Also, look in Plugins Index under "tomot", author.