I have used auto-dimensioning occasionally in the past in a solid modeller (Solidworks) and found it generally made so many dimensions that I didn't want and had to remove, that it was easier just to make the ones I wanted. Admittedly, it was in the 2003 edition, so I guess things will have improved since then.
You might find it easier/quicker to do the dimensioning in Layout rather than SU.
Also have a look at Cutlist.rb here (http://www.box.net/shared/m9ryf1l0ni). For drawings, your Pro version has Layout which is what I use for workshop drawings of woodwork projects
Chris
Johnny,Gai,
Thanks for that link.
Chris
Chris, Wo3dan,
Thanks for the "formalisation"!
Gai, having made this little discovery for myself, I reckon I shall actually use it for a while - at least until I forget about it in the excitement of a new plugin.
It's probably a well-known thing but I can't find any reference to it..
If I use the polygon tool to draw an N-sided polygon, I can use the Move tool on at least one vertex to scale the polygon uniformly. If I have pulled it into a "cylinder" I can use this feature to make a tapered form.
The number of vertices that respond in this way, varies according to the value of N but not in an obvious manner. Some shapes have several vertices like this , others only one (there is probably some sort of formula that describes it but I don't know what this is).
If the Rotate tool is used to swing the polygon round, then the "scaleable vertices" can change.
I wonder if there is some sort of formal description as to what this is about?
Chris
Gai,
That is indeed impressive! Thanks for the link.
Chris
Thanks guys for the suggestions. I think the problems do arise largely from Sketchup's distaste for small stuff as it definitely went better when I scaled the things up. I also need to overcome the expectation that it will behave like a full blown solid modeling CAD program as in truth I am not going to be using these drawing for any manufacturing - just as a guide to what goes where. The nature of the project is such that a lot of it will be done by youngsters on a trial and error basis any way.
For anyone interested, I attach the models.
Chris
I have been driving myself slightly nuts trying to draw sprockets for use in a "supermileage car" transmission. (It's a lightweight vehicle to be built by my granddaughter's school for entry into a competition to see who can do the best gas mileage). There is fairly heavy use of bicycle componentry including chains and the sprockets which are giving me problems. I want to draw them faithfully so have calculated the correct Pitch diameter etc and set out a proper tooth profile (this is probably overkill and where it starts to go wrong!). So far I have come up with a couple like those below but they have taken longer than I would like.
The two shown have been done in different ways - the small one by creating a "tooth and socket" pair, shaping the top of the tooth then array copying it around the Pitch circle. This has promise but the tooth and socket pairs don't match exactly, leaving tiny gaps that need to be filled in and that takes quite a while. I am sure there must be a better way but so far haven't found it. The larger one, I made as a single piece but still found gaps that needed filling and then I started to shape the top of the teeth one at a time but that is just too much like hard work, so I gave up on that approach.
I'd be grateful for any pointers!
Chris
Your circles may be rough but I like your rendering - what did you use?
Just one word of warning re using many segments for circles. Depending how you use them, I have found it all too easy to make a very heavy model when using a number like 96 segments. For example I used such a circle to cut a multitude of holes in a component and all those faces added up to over a 1MB in no time.
Chris
Remus,
Yes, indeed you are quite right - just tried it with a big photo and it is as you say.
Chris
On my Mac, using a copy of your image - just dragged off the page in Firefox - I see very little difference between the SU image and image sent to Layout from SU. There is a very minor degradation but nothing to complain about and nothing like as bad as your example. I am not using max texture size - have you tried without?
Chris
@juan974 said:
hello,
i need a plugin like line2tube.rb could be named "line2sectiontube.rb" see attachment [attachment=0:17hxeeii]<!-- ia0 -->KIOSQUE_BERTRAND.pdf<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:17hxeeii]
i need to transform all the green lines to tube square 40mm.
do you know a plugin doing that?
thanks
Profile Builder from SMustard - it's a paid plugin but very powerful and very useful. I use it a lot for a wide variety of sections, moldings etc.
Chris
@unknownuser said:
(agAin, I'm on a phone so....)
chris, I guess you are using the correct two profilebuilder files if you can get it to work in the user library.
Have you tried putting the profilebuilder files in the MacHD library AND removing the user library plugin folder altogether?...(not even an empty folder-- which will still cause certain rubys to break).
Jeff,
You are right - thank you. Even an empty plugins folder at the user level is enough to cause things to break. Moving everything over to the top level and deleting the user level folder has worked for me. Now all the tools and icons are there and functioning - great result! I quite thought I had tested this arrangement but I must have become confused by all the shuffling back and forth I have been doing.
Chris
@unknownuser said:
Fwiw, I have a few of the recently mentioned rubys in this thread and the all work fine with su7.1.
Projections, booltools, profile builder, bezier spline, all are installed in the main library plugin folder and I have no plugin folder in the user library.
Again, the user library plugin folder is not there with a fresh SU install and these type of problems begin upon installing podium( which creates a user plugin folder) or by the user creating a plugin folder there.
If you insist on keeping a plugin folder in the user library then you're going to continue having these problems. Google doesn't put it there so why make it?
Jeff,
I have tried installing Profile Builder as you suggest but to no avail - it is not to be seen. The manual makes explicit mention of this "The plugin may NOT work if installed to the following directory: Macintosh HD/Library/Application Support/Google Sketchup 6/SketchUp/Plugins" and although I am using SU7.1 (5803) rather than the version 6 mentioned by WHAAT,it makes no difference. The other plugins you mention will work in either place albeit missing some toolbars/icons or actual tools as in the case of Fredo's BZ tools.
Chris
I have been running into the disappearing icons/tools thing on my Mac (SU 7.1 and Snow Leopard) and have discovered that the problem (for me at least) is the mere existence of a second Plugins folder at the User level. In my case, the Podium stuff turned out to be a red herring. I do need the Separate Plugins folder because I bought the Profile Builder plugin and for some reason it has to live there rather than in the main system level folder.
Just temporarily deleting the user level plugins folder restored the tools and icons I had been missing. Thankfully, because I really want both the Profile Builder and the Bezierspline tools, I found that I can install the problematic tools which disappeared in the user level folder and they work OK - in my case these were Fredo's Bezierspline tools and Bool Tools.
Chris Fullmer's Component Stringer?
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=23616&hilit=pluginl
I don't see this tape bug in 7.1 on the Mac (build 5803)
Chris
Not really in the spirit of doing it from the basics but the plugin "Bool Tools" from Smustard really helps with deletion of unwanted geometry. It costs $10 but you soon save the time to make it worthwhile.
Dan,
That is a terrific link - thank you for sharing it. I had been using the hobbithouse site for wood pics but the samples are small and so scaling/tiling issues abound - although it is an outstanding site for most other purposes requiring wood pictures.
@dave r said:
Most of the woodgrain materials that I have that are any good are hand drawn. The face grain boards are drawn 8" wide by 8 feet long so I can pick out different parts for the pieces I'm painting.
Dave,
It would be really good to have a blog entry/tutorial from you on this subject. Alternatively, perhaps you could point to something that may exist already?
If you were to take decent photo of plank 8 inches by 8 feet, how would this differ from a hand drawn version (in SU terms)?
Chris