@chris fullmer said:

Sure, how do you have the paths defined. Obviously they are edges in SketchUp, but do they have a property assigned to them that makes it clear that they are the animation path? Or are they in a component and the component is labled as the animation path, or anything along those lines? I'm just trying to determine how the script should know which edges to define as the animation path, which end would be the start and stop, etc.

Chris

Thanks Chris

The way I see it is:

The start position of a mover (flatbed) is known from its last destination and the finish positioned by the animator and set with the animator controls.

There is an established relationship between the mover and the path (center to vertix?)

A path, a uniquely named component, gives up its vertices to provide intermediate start/stops.

Paths can be hidden as the coords of its vertices are part of the path json type object.

Essentially an analytical animation but I think it should have some realism at bends with one or two vertices and rotation. I can also add easing in and out at no cost to performance I think.

The load (the coloured boxes) will be temporarily added to the mover (flatbed) component so it moves as one.

Attached is a pic of the mechanism to make and test the animation.

Grateful for any input - code, ridicule ... - thanks.

Anyone interested in helping me with extracting Sketchup data needed to animate these yellow flatbeds with JavaScript along the paths shown?

Thanks

@roger said:

... before making corrections to the model and doing a photo real render.
.

The barrel will look more metallic in that?

In my mind it is pointless tinkering around. Building and allied industries and consultants need a complete change of approach, getting rid of paper oriented processes and rule of thumb allowances. Only then can a proper transition be planned to accommodate the reactionary majority.

Don't you think?

Can I ask what you made the gif with Jim?

@honoluludesktop said:

Look here for a quick lesson. You can substitute any kind of grass. Be sure to also read two posts down.

You can foresee the future?

You could try out cgScenes - a first step in introducing more expansive hierarchies for scenes, layers and components. It doesn't do any more than Sketchup but does it in one small but re-sizable window. It is the precursor to the bigger project outlined in the Nameset scrapbook - link in signature.

Yes raytest seems to be the way forward. The idea of boxes moving seemingly out of control should be appealing to Kellyites. Can anyone offer some snippets or further ideas about this?

Load = boxes to be moved,

Name adds a new stage to the route.

None for positioning movers or run empty legs.

First - box to be moved

Number - number to be moved, or

Last - to be moved

Each name is a computer object that is able to store information about itself.

The location of all the boxes and movers are recorded at the beginning of a session.

The process for each stage is to:

Name it

Select an object in SU display; move or rotate as necessary

Select menu item to save the key and index

Mover = Selection

Name adds a new stage to the route.

Destination adds the final position and rotation (transformation) of the mover for this step.

Putting paths, turns and pauses aside for the moment, I think there is enough information in the model transformations and the key/index pairs to animate moves from one 3d point directly to another.

I not quite sure how picking will work but perhaps raytesting would be a good basis. I need to look into that.

@driven said:

what does #arity mean??

disappointingly - the number of arguments - but I don't know what the -1's mean on your list.

What fun!

The image of the girl on the bed looks like it could use some attention.

Very envious of your skills.

You need some power points ?

its got a ring to it

Correcting previously wrong procedure.

John (driven) kindly made a Mac version which you can download from here

Helps manage scenes, layers and components in a single re-sizable automated interface.

Thanks again John.

It seems I should have used the original plugin post, so I will do that now, as the topic has come to the top.

John (driven) kindly made a Mac version which you can download from here

Helps manage scenes, layers and components in a single re-sizable automated interface.

@Al Hart

This is not about the mechanics but the role of advertising in relation to Google's stated philosophy and my own proposed method of working. This was discussed at some length in the topic around Solo's post but wandered off into usual wishlist stuff.

My discovery of Google's Interior on line in my view reinforces what I wrote then and perhaps it is time to revisit the subject.

All this has a bearing on the development of the technical aspects of Sketchup.

Thanks

At first sight they look very similiar. Both are designed for the web, have a toolbar, links to open groupings and select objects and, looking at the source code, reliance on HTML and Javascript. The first is Google's, the second my own solo venture.

Although it seems both are being developed towards the same end I think Google's is actually far closer than mine to invoking the kind of fears quoted below.

@solo said:

I honestly hope that your idea never reaches reality for my own selfish reasons, I love modeling with SU, I like being creative, I enjoy sketching in 3D, I enjoy pushing SU to it's limits and if your concept ever gets implimented it will be a very sad day for 3D artists and a fantastic day for untalented, lazy designers.
Link

Let me explain.

At the root I want to get rid of summaries needed to overcome restrictions of paperwork (and computer metaphors of it like Excel). To do so I work with objects as 3D versions of the real things or at least the names used to identify them.

A building can be seen as an object say in the context of a street but here it is more useful to consider it as an assembly of the objects that defines it. If design is to be free from paper constraints, models of objects need to be assembled from bottom up, just like bytes in computer programs. But unlike bytes the objects are purchasable.

So I see Google's intention as a way to advertise, made more attractive with some interaction. My intention is to introduce a way of working where non creative elements are mechanised to help create and manipulate collections of objects, as opposed to current design processes that are contorted by paperwork metaphors and square foot allowances; a way that could well be funded by consensual advertising.

Thanks for your support, driven; I really look forward to Mac compatibility.

So now I have mechanisms for setting and retrieving the properties of movers and boxes to be moved, the next task is to start building routes.

Edit: Last section deleted as revised by following post