Posts made by derei

Well, after f*king-up all my plugins, some of them losing some settings (somehow they just don't seem to like to be disabled), I managed to find the guilty plugin: It was the LAYERS PANEL http://sketchucation.com/plugin/751-layers_panel

Yup, great idea, good tool, dangerous tool... some dark creatures are lurking there in the deep, messing-up with the observers. I saw that the author made it publicly available... maybe someone will take it and improve it. Or maybe Trimble will think to use it to change the default Layers System after it.

@fredo6 said:

Derei,

There is a bug / limitation for close-loop contours with F-Spline. It certainly deserves a fix.

Might be the same for B-Spline with close-loop by the way.

Fredo

After MANY tries I was able to fix it. I cut the loop in two, deleted the last segment (on the part whith the glitch), then I mirrored it to make it again closed loop. After doing the same to all tree loops, the skinning went well. Can't understand why. What was different in the newly made curve...

Because I tried before only to delete the two segments (on both side of symmetry plane) and redraw them... but that didn't fix the problem. Only completely deleting half and mirroring it after redrawing the segment helped.

Curviloft is creating strange looking geometry on Single F-Spline Curve Mode. Can't figure out why.
I would appreciate any idea why this is happening.
Thank you.

Please see attached image and skp file.

curviloft.skp

@box said:

Yes it appears you have a different problem. Is your graphic driver up to date?

What the graphic driver would have to do with UNDO stack? And yes, my graphic driver is up to date.
Undo/Redo should be managed by SketchUp and many operations can be packed in one single UNDO step by the programmer of the extension.
The only other thing that comes into my mind is another plugin that gives me hard time... but I have no time to investigate, as I have LOTS of plugins and the only way to discover this would be to test Artisan by adding one plugin at a time... you can see my problem here.

@thomthom said:

This might be a result of changes made to the Observer system in SU2016. (At least the undo thing. Not sure about the BugSplats - crashes should never happen.)

Has anyone checked if there is an update to Artisan?

My Artisan is also 1.2.4 (just checked) and I use SU2015, so any Observer Changes introduced in 2016 should not affect me. Still, the Undo is nod done in one go, but it undoes every single step as you can see in my previous post.

SU 2015 x64 / Win7 x64
Have no idea what version of artisan... because I don't know how to check for the version. There is nothing in Artisan Menu to tell me the version (or I can't find it)

Hmm, this is most troubling. What do you mean by "specific to my setup" ? What kind of settings do you reckon may influence Artisan's Undo behavior?
I attached the component here.

Thanks

Component_85.skp

Well, mine seems different... a lot of UNDOs and ended up with mess...

One quick question: Artisan subdividing operation is not enclosed in start/commit operation? Each step is logged separately? I am asking this, because when I subdivide geometry and I need to undo it, it seems to have to do a lot of UNDOs, often ending somewhere in mid process of subdivision, having my geometry ruined, like parts missing.

Great model! And that texturing is really something! maybe you share with us some of your techniques

@tig said:

What makes you think this doesn't work ?
I just tried it and it was OK.
Although it's not yet 'signed' to suit all v2016's policies, it will work just fine in its 'Unrestricted' Policy [the default Policy it starts off with].

Recasting, then signing hundreds of plugins to give the full v2016 policy-compatibility is time-consuming [as you might guess], and this one is at the bottom of a long list...

I tried it in SU2015 and I got a full list of errors in console when I loaded it... i didn't bothered to copy them and report, because I assumed it just has some obsolete methods that needs to be rewritten.
But if you say that it works fine for you, I shall double check that, to see where is it coming from.

Will this plugin be updated to be compatible with the latest sketchup? It was a really good plugin, useful.
Cheers.

I just found a annoying bug when inserting a component in SketchUp 2015.

Scenario:

1. build a component
2. save the component on disk from the sketchup file
3. edit the saved component separately (just to make it look different, or whatever)
4. try to insert that component in the original file, along with the original component, or try to replace it (by using Replace Selected option in Components window).
5. SURPRISE ! - you will actually insert the ORIGINAL component, not the edited one. Whatever you do (changing original component's name, purging file, etc) won't help you insert or replace with the new edited component.

Feels kind of annoying.

@pbacot said:

Yeah it does. (not the same method as SU tool though)

Would you please tell me how, then?
Much appreciated.

FredoScale doesn't allow absolute input? I must admit, I never tried before, but as the native SketchUp Scale tool accepts absolute input (scale to 100mm -> will scale to match size, not the scaling ratio), I just needed to scale very precisely with FredoScale and it seems to not work like that.

Please confirm. Thanks

@juju said:

You can try LightUp for creating baked textures, you'll need something else for the 3D PDF though...

I tried Lumion RT (as they have a free version), but indeed i can't take the model out from there... i will look to that composer thing

I'm wondering if there is any solution to have 3D PDF from sketchup with baked textures. I know there are some options for 3d pdf from SU, but as I know, they only export the textured model, as it is in SU, no baking, no soft shadows, nothing special.

If you used something like this, please give some suggestions.

I haven't tried it, one friend told me today... I will try it, but in the meantime I want to share this with you.

As it seems, SketchUp viewer can't handle interaction for Dynamic Components... which is kind of shocking. What if someone introduces some functionality to a design/concept, whatever... and wants to show it to the ignorant client? The only possible way is to use SketchUp Make... which is fine, unless you want to keep the client away from some editing features (or layers), or whatever.

@greenskp said:

1. Just for convention. Something like... "everything does not come in default installation from SketchUp goes to the Extensions menu".
2. For people who love to install multiple plugins, do not get lost when are looking for a native tool. Something that already happens with the Tools menu.

Yeah, I feel you here... but once you start using SU in a "professional" manner - meaning that it became your "second nature", you stop dividing things between native/installed. You KNOW what you want to achieve and you go for the right tool... is's a lot about memory, this is true.. the more plugins you have, the memory will be more active in remembering those and their functionality.
But exactly here is the catch: once you know what you need to achieve, you don't consider the tool, you consider the mean of doing it. So, I need to DRAW something, is more intuitive to go to DRAWING menu, to look for my tool, instead of digging in Extensions.

Is like working in a workshop... i need screws, is better to go to look in the Screws Drawer, rather than in "shopping drawer" ... because I may shop for many things. From screws to napkins... but this doesn't make it better to keep all my shopping in the same place.

I can understand that for the new user it may become confusing, because there is not a clear structure in user's mind about what native SU tools can do and whether a plugin is needed. But once you go past this, you don't even consider the software... the software is just the environment. You focus on the final goal and you just need a tool. So, is best to have tools better organized and quicker to find, instead of navigating in submenus.

@greenskp said:

I think the plugins should stay on Extensions menu but ordered by category.

Extensions > Edit
Extensions > Draw
Extensions > Camera

and so on....

If the user likes to organize by author, the author could provide an alternative like Thomthom and Chris Fullmer does.

If Trimble include on Sketchup API that option, it will be easier for the developers to accept this workflow.

Well, this could work too, of course... it will just add a sub-menu, that will make the things a bit more complicated.
Why do you believe the plugins should stay on Extensions menu? Because there are already plugins in other menus... just not that many, but they are. People thought to put them there... and as sketchup allows this in a open manner, I believe the Extensions menu is just a convention, nothing more.