@david. said:

@charlie__v said:

@david. said:

My 3DConnexion SpaceNavigator doesn't work with 2018. Seems like this happened with 2017, too. I currently can't connect to 3DConnexion.com to check for updated drivers.

David,
I updated my 3DXware to latest and it did not make my SpaceNaivagtor kick on in SU 2018. (& yes this happened w/SU 2017 as well....a later update from 3DX ware did support 2017)

So: I copied over the Folder: 3DxSketchUp & 3DxSketchUp.rb from my 2017 SU Plugins folder.

File path for 2017: C:\ProgramData\SketchUp\SketchUp 2017\SketchUp\Plugins

**SU 2018 did not have a Plugin folder in the following location so you will have to create one.

File path for 2018: C:\ProgramData\SketchUp\SketchUp 2018\SketchUp\Plugins

C

Charlie,

That worked for me. Thanks!

Oh good......because I just now noticed small typo on the file path to 2018......fixed now via forum edit.

@dave r said:

@pbacot said:

Very nice! Dave Method?

Thank you, sir. Yes.

@dave r said:

For Charlie V.

Thanks for the hidden line image Dave, and very nice model & skp render as usual.
(I have to search “Dave Method” now)
EDIT: Dave Method
https://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=68150
Nice tut Dave.....tx

This table reminds me of a desk and chair at my local US Post Office.
Mainly the chair, as it has the stretchers only about a quarter of an inch from the floor. (makes it unusual to me anyway)
And maybe I just haven’t seen it very often, I see the stretchers on this table on the floor. (assuming I am using “stretcher” properly)

C

@dave r said:

Thanks Charlie. I'm glad I don't have to do a lot of the kind of modeling I did on that front plate. There are over 262,000 edges in just the front plate component. Ugh!

And I almost used the word “dense” in place of “detailed”........in my above reply......LOL

@dave r said:

Thanks all.

Charlie, will this do?

I simplified the vise on the right by deleting some of the details in the castings that wouldn't show. The front plate is just a shell because the rest of it wouldn't show anyway.

Yes that will do..........very detailed from my perspective, I am always amazed how you and others model these shapes in SU. (Specifically the cast parts in this case)

Great stuff....thanks for sharing.
Charlie

Very nicely done Dave!

Can we please see a wireframe of the vise(s)

Charlie

@tig said:

To force the final [purple?] tenon to lock firmly into the mortise...

Make it with a central small tapering horizontal cut along its length, make it widest at the visible end.
Make the tenon-mortise's cross-section so that its external end is slightly bigger that its start size.
After the joint whole is assembled, you can then drive a glued wedge into the tenon's exposed cut.
Over size the wedge's length so that after its firmly in and all is set, you can trim off the excess exposed end of that wedge and finish everything neatly.

Now all of these connections are locked in all directions ?

TIG,
Thanks....& Aha....much like an Axe handle wedge, to keep the axe head from flying off.

And also goes to dh's thinking on butterfly joint as final "lock".

I only tapered the tenon's mortise 1° which actually seems like a bit too much? (maybe not)

Please see GIF
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: I should have properly thanked Fredo for his Animator plug-in used to create the GIF’s in this thread ......so Thank you Fredo, for all the magic you have done with the Animator plug-in!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SKP file

@davidheim1 said:

Very colorful and ingenious. Thanks for taking the time to model this. But it doesn't look as if the tenons on the brown part can be fitted into the mortises in the purple and green parts. The tenon fitting into the purple part works, but I don't see a way to get the tenon into the mortise in the green part. The long tenon on the purple part will prevent the other pieces from rotating into position. But if you make the purple tenon butterfly-shaped, then I think you'll be on to something.

Dh
I was thinking the brown and green get assembled as a unit first. (Rotating both so tenons could “fit” together)
Then, brown and green assembly slips over the purple parts (long)tenon and lastly brown/green smaller tenons engage purple part.

I’ll see if my Fredo Animator plug in still works and try to post a video of assembly.
If not, ill just put a few scenes together to demonstrate what may be lacking in my verbal assembly description.

And yes, butterfly shape on purple long tenon would definitely make is a true locking tenon.....just don’t Know how that is possible in this configuration.

C

EDIT: UPLOADED .gif

@davidheim1 said:

An elegant alternative, Charlie. If there's a way to shape the tenon like a butterfly key, then you'd have a real locking joint.
Thanks for taking the time to work through this.
Best,
dh

Thanks dh

I started to wonder if the "lock" in lock tenon was maybe taken a bit too literal?
So I made a second attempt with that in mind...... IDK....maybe the upper & lower part of leg get "rotated" to fit together and then slipped over tenon? (just a carpenter here, and not a master woodworker)

C

draft 2 SKP

I'm certain my geometry is off as to rake angle's/etc.......that said; I had a go at it just for fun as to what the "lock tenon" might look like.

SU file....Lock tenon

@kmam said:

Is there a way to get the dimension strings to stay attached to points on the model and to also have a model stay centered in a view port when you update the view? I update the model as we go through steps of design and have to reposition the model in the view, rescale the model and then reposition the dimension string. Is there a way to not have to do that every time because that makes it not very useful as a tool for projects.

Create specific scene(s) in Sketchup model(s) that are linked to your Layout file.

Make sure you select the specific SU scenes for each LO viewport, once you have done this the model will remain as you have it in the LO viewport. (Unless you change the location of the model in SU)

ALWAYS update SU scenes and be sure to SAVE the SU file for revisions to behave/update as expected in LO.

Following the above brief description should:

Maintain all dimension points to SU model. (Highlighted dimensions will indicate any “loss” of connection)

Maintain model location (in you case “centered” or however you specify) in LO viewport.

Maintain scale (as long as scale is set per LO viewport & specified scene is maintained )

@kmam said:

I want also to be able to place the dimension strings at a consistent distance from the edge of the model. Is that an option?

At this time I am unaware of any setting to “pre set” dimension strings though turning on grid and grid snap may be a solution for you. (Adjusting grid parameters of course)

C

Joe,
What little I know about these things is you will want vector graphics wherever possible. (Lines/text/etc)
The photos is where the dpi will come in, and as I recall that can be complex to understand. (For me anyway)

I noticed the “m” in .com is either clipped off or a layered item is “over” the “m”

C

Change default material for back faces........then........use Thrupaint to paint back faces in new default material?

Edit......or use TIG's code

@dpressm said:

I can not use the pan tool to do this no matter how much I try. Essentially I want to rotate my view 90 degrees.
Thanks

I see you mention in another thread you are using layout to document your project.

You can rotate the viewport 90º in Layout. (No need to rotate view in Sketchup model)

C

@rodman100 said:

Not from your image but something similar...

OK.....thanks.....I'm glad you said that, as that was going to be my excuse.

@rodman100 said:

a bit lo-res bit might be useful.

I Think this will be fine, thank you very much.

Charlie

Folks, I have never been any good at creating tileable textures, and today is no different.

I just spent about an hour fooling with this in Photoshop Elements trying to make a tileable texture.(and failed miserably)

Is it even possible from this small image?

TIA

Charlie

I'm 90 minutes from "path of totality" in SC. w/friends in same path, have plans to visit, but as Pilou pointed out.....hopefully clouds will not spoil.
Have purchased a number of proper (ISO) glasses to pass around for anyone unprepared.......but given the media exposure i would be surprised if anyone half paying attention would not be aware by 08/21/2017.

Here's to clear skies to all in the path!!!

I think if you are trying to duplicate what the Leica laser is doing, you would need to "replicate" what the laser does automatically.

The laser must be "fixed" in place and "shoots" let's say target #1on a wall, then pivot the laser tool (vert/horiz/etc) and shoot target #2 on same wall.
The laser takes both lengths recorded, and references the angle of pivot to report the "height" (if vert/assuming plumb wall)

You could easily do this in sketchup using a fixed point/protractor/tape measure tool, but the distance from the wall and the elevation of the laser tool must be known. (Assuming you are trying to replicate laser info)

You likely know all of the above and more, so I think to help answer your question more specifically, can you provide a simple example of what you are attempting? (Is this for something like photo match?)

Best regards,
Charlie

@brettsichellodesign said:

I have attached details of formatting in excel. Though I have not imported the formatting into LO.

I see the Excel file has generous cell width compared to the cell width in LO table.
Maybe try expanding the whole LO table width and see if the decimal point issue in column "F" resolves itself?

Just a guess.

Charlie

@pbacot said:

if you have linked scenes and want to put unlinked SU model views into the same document?
You can't use unlink can you? And besides this has to be done for scores of references each time? Probablly better to just use an image.

It is not 100% clear to me what exactly the OP is trying to accomplish. (Not being critical)

I do know "unlinking" a SU model causes a file "prefix" save of SU model.

So, and based on OP workflow.........seems to me...... if he unlinks the "primary" SU model reference in LO (now unlinked SU model is also unique/separate from original file w/(automatic) assigned prefix to SU file)

Any modifications to original SU model/file will not affect "unlinked" SU model file........but....of course the original file, if modified will no longer be updated in ANY LO viewports.

Now....here is where it gets interesting.......if OP is working with the original SU file and "sends to LO" any revisions/etc. and then further "pastes" from another LO file to the original LO file, it would seem a new (active) link to the SU original (pasted) file would be created.

Effectively having the live viewport(s) limited (isolated) to the "pasted" viewports from original SU model

IDK......seems really muddy and fraught with potential negative implications.....just my two pennies worth.

Charlie

@bobrsta said:

I have been using the "send to layout" button, where a new LO file will open, I fine tune the orientation, usually select "hybrid" render option, then copy/paste that view into a different layout document where I do the annotation, creating a "detail" sheet of annotated views. The purpose of this is to document issues with the particular project for reference by the site construction team (I use SU to model custom home structures and MEPS assemblies for contractors).
Bob

Bob,
If all LO referenced viewports are "linked" to the same SU file, there is no way to individually isolate (turn off viewport update).
This in my opinion is great, because.....well....you know why.

I think to comment further, and for others to better advise, maybe post an example of how you are constructing the LO file you wish to isolate viewports from updating. (Potentially could be done via "unlink")

C