@tig said:

The native 'Offset' works just fine - within its own limitations.

.....

okay here is another one, this time I'm using line segments that were drawn from scratch rotated about a center point, not an exploded arch.

So is it the arch that is causing this error or is it the offset tool? I think the later is the culprit.

As in the previous graphic, the middle line is the original the outer and inner line are the offset ones. They are not connected.

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

Huh? Never had issues with the offset tool.

@tig said:

:? Some clear examples of Offset's inaccuracy please...

i'm seriously going to try ...

but Olav is absolutely correct.. the offset tool does not properly deal with arcs..

Actually it is worse then only arcs, and to make it clear I am not posting this because I'm trying to bad mouth anyone or Sketchup as such, I am trying to bring some serious issues to light, that seem to just been brushed off with the lamest ever argumentation for too long.

@ TIG, I understand where you are coming from and I have seen much of your great work and effort to make this tool into something useful.
Please try and see my criticism out of the perspective of a every day user who usually never has the time to even go on this forum to discuss any issues they encounter in their every day work life.
I have looked at some of your plug ins and know that you do things different as it is done in sketchup using the native tools available. and I also know you and many others do a great effort to improve this software where it lacks functionality. You write plug ins to make it work or else if all was just good enough you would not even have a reason to do anything. Right?

So please Bear with me for the time being and I will provide more issues and examples where I see the need for improvements. And again I'm NOT asking for more plug ins scripts or more buttons to clutter up the interface.

I am also fed up with work- arounds where there hasn't been a fix for years.
I believe Sketchup can with it's simplicity stand up to any high priced CAD program out there if the core functionality was there. I have worked for years with Sketchup in a fast paced environment and have delivered my part accurate and to satisfaction for my customers. I have done so much research and I have been reading endless hours in this forum on how to work around issues that just occur.

I have lost many hours of my life working with sketchup, but have also saved many hours not working with other more complex software.
To me it is just crazy to see the potential and and for years only read lame excuses why nothing can ever get to the better; why known issues never get fixed. For years on end the only thing I hear is there is a work around... Oh it would not be sketchup any more ... and so on. The worst response I ever read here is "why would you want a cluttered up interface"

I actually think the Interface the simplicity is key to ketchup, I think many others have already learned and implemented simpler interfaces to their complex software. I would not complain about anything if the core of Sketchup would just work (accurate and satisfactory) if issues that are being brought up had been taken serious and fixed.

I'll post some more, to me, obvious fails of Sketchup in this thread and I'm sure a thorough job on the programming side can solve these unnecessary issues.

@tig said:

:? Some clear examples of Offset's inaccuracy please...
You shouldn't make sweeping statements about something like this without some backup

You type in a value or snap to something that is a known distance off, like a guideline...
It is that distance offset.
If you are later measuring offsets on 'arcs' remember that they are 'segmented' and you must measure 'square' to these lines, not from their vertices which will not provide the true offset as this is the 'miter diagonal'...
That is the only source of measurement confusion I can think of... but then that is mis-measurement... and not the application's inaccuracy ?

Which as far as I know is fine for most expected uses...
It's not for designing the innards of swiss-watches or whole city-suburbs but at normal 'building' dimensions it's just fine

Well let us just pretend you never encountered what I'm talking about so here is an example:

[off:ywwrl90u]@jeff hammond EdIT -- the thread was bumped at this point.. conversation is now 9 months later than eli's post[/off:ywwrl90u]

The offset tool is not just a wee tad off, it is way off! And I see no reason why it should not be just fixed. Even if I use this as a conceptual tool only, there are underlying errors that one does not catch right away, only way down the road. I say the programming of the core of sketchup is just straight out sloppy and does, in many cases, not follow geometrical accuracy.
These issues should be honestly sought out, admitted and disclosed to anyone who considers using it to make a living.
By playing these errors down or ignoring them nobody is helped. What it boils down to is deception and who want's that? (the easy to use design tool, but some things don't count on)
Why is it so hard to admit these issues, which indisputably exist and try and work to fix them?
The units are precise enough just the execution of some commands lack performance; why? I just don't get the whole discussion there is no two ways! A command either performs geometrical correct or it does not. If it does not why not fix it?

"SketchUcation Community Forums have always been and will always remain free both for Free or Pro license holders of SketchUp."

So that is the promise here right? As of today I've noticed that having my ad-block active I can no longer see images posted by others.

I assume, that this website and the forum is ad-sponsored. Right? So in reality this website and it's content is not free?
You are making me use up my already small bandwidth by forcing me to de- activate my ad block extension.
I don't want to see your advertising nor do I want to see any other advertising on the web, so I will keep my ad-block active at all time.

Just one Question, if I signed up for premium, and payed the $50 annual fee, would I still have to disable my ad blocking extension?
Because I would rather pay the annual fee then having to sit through the advertising garbage.

@solo said:

After more consideration I would like to repeal my original conclusion and come out in support for this idea. I would also like to expand on it and suggest they do it bigger, Texas size this model, maybe even consider Texas as the location as we have way more land available in order to accommodate many more people in bigger communities. We have the most guns already here, lots of like minded people not forgetting many weapons manufacturers already established. We have Alex Jones here, Governor Perry, George Bush and Ted Nugent who would serve as evangelists with glee. It will also help towards the hurt feelings here when Texans learned they could not secede from the Union, why secede when you can withdraw into an Amish type community with enough weapons to start another civil war right?

It would be great for America as this way we would have the most dangerous nut cases in one fortified place, similar to a mental asylum. I'll be moving however as I would like as much distance from such a gun lovers Nirvana as possible.

Yes Solo, come on over to to California, we need more sane people like your self here.
And also let Texas secede or become North Mexico for that matter.

@macker said:

Real circles, curves & arcs that aren't faceted unless you choose them to be. Yet still with the ability to choose x number of snap points.

Exactly, this is long over due! And before anyone cry's out to many commands, this feature can be packed into the existing circles commands as an option. Or it could be part of the construction lines,(circular and arched construction lines) to be able to get precise intersections of circles, without having to make circles more complex.

And while we are at it how's about fixing that offset BUG when offsetting arches?

@skwatz said:

@desertraven said:

@gaieus said:

No, Zorro2 will use the section plane as a cutting plane and that is always flat by nature. I cannot think of another plugin that would perform such a cutting operation now (this does not mean it does not exist) and of course, a manual intersection may be extremely tedious with complex geometry and/or lots of nested elements in groups/components.

Some boolean tools may make it easier but still, nested things can be an obstacle.

Maybe it is a good idea to create SU models with cleaned up geometry in general as a code of good conduct. That way you can, via boolean subtract, make any section of any shape you wish.
Also I don't understand why in SU version 8 they have not gotten it together to fix the section tool so that it makes filled up solid section or sections with a hatch pattern??
Why we need another plug in for this basic function, which already exists, is beyond me!

the reason why sketchup doesn't fil in the solids is because is doesn't is is a solid!
not even when you work with the boolean substract.

you draw lines and sketchup conect them with planes.
i can't be solved to my opinion, otherwise you need to change the fundaments of sketchup.

if you want a progame that works with volumetric and 'real ' boolean use 3ds max or autocad.

keeping your model clean is true but not easy at al, and when you use groups (like me) slicesing them is a hell of a job.

so...
Thx for this great plugin !!

Dude, you are completely wrong or you are just not doing it right, the last time I did a section with boolean subtract, there were faces in the section!
Also it is very easy to keep your geometry clean by just paying attention to what you are doing and not being sloppy and lazy. (I constantly get models from other companies especially architects, that are just F>U>B>A>R> because they don't even care to learn their S*@t.
And No sir I'm not going to buy 3D MAX or any other tool just because sketchup is a "half assed" software that just needs some fixing.
Sketchup has all it needs to be an outstanding tool, there are just some things that never got fixed and I'm not talking about adding more commands and buttons, just fixing what there is already would be a leap into the right direction.

c below

@marian said:

@desertraven said:

To be completely honest, none of the great samples shown in this thread would be possible without Plug-ins and painful long hours of recreating surfaces over and over again (work around's) until it fits. Right?

And you think that with other 3d apps you do it differenly? They may have all the plugin functions integrated but you still need patience and hard work to make cool stuff, in fact much more patience and hardwork to just learn the UI.

There is nothing wrong in having a simple and friendly interface that is augmented with mostly FREE plugins. Why would it benefit you to have a cluttered UI with all the possible tools and maybe just use 10% of them, instead of having a flexible UI?

Please? When was I asking for a cluttered up interface!!!!!

@ken28875 said:

Hi Ken that looks very impressive. Can you give us a rough run down of how you created this masterpiece in SU? Can you even move around in that massive scene how many tris? How is this structured (Components, groups)?
What plug ins did you use most and what were the biggest challenges using SU to create this?

@gaieus said:

The reason they ask for the exact steps (especially if you can reproduce the error) is that this way they can identify the bug (if there is any) which causes it. There is actually a lot going on under the hood and only a few errors generate a popup like this.

@desertraven said:

Also does anyone know how to actually contact Google support? ? ?

If it's about the bug issue, here is the trouble shooter:
http://support.google.com/sketchup/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1678675&page=ts.cs

Ha ha all they had to do is produce some errors of their own, most issues are not new but never corrected.
This particular pop up window is completely useless! Just fix what you guys know is wrong and we'll all be good.

@arcad-uk said:

@desertraven said:

Would you rather have it stay the shitty tool it is with huge a potential just because some minor glitches can't be taken care of?

Looks like you wasted your money buying the pro version...

With regards to its huge potential, have you read the DUH thread? What that demonstrates is even with a simple interface there are tips and tricks which can dramatically simplify the drawing process even for experienced users. People are becoming increasingly lazy, they expect the computer to do everything for them with one click because they can't be bothered to learn to use the basic tools. Result is we end up with a screen full of buttons, which inevitably becomes counter productive as you try to find the right one and then remember the usage process.

Yes SU can improve but it needs to be the core functionallity and bug fixing rather than adding an overload of toolbars for the creatively challenged. True arcs would be prime example of a step forward and it could be done without adding a new tool.

Duh, you calling me lazy? Just kidding,

All I'm asking for is more muscle, precision, and some mayor glitches, that have been lingering for years, to be taken care of.
Please, again, I don't want more buttons just for the functions already in place to actually work more flawless then they do as of now.
Also, again, My plug in folder is full to the brim with fixes for stuff that should of been integrated in to the commands in the first place.
Anyone who does serious work with sketchup knows that you need allot of work arounds to achieve the obvious.
Anything but a square geometry becomes a challenge thanks to those stupid constraints.
The push -pull creates redundant and unasked for faces.
There is much to fix that has never been fixed with the excuse of work arounds and plug ins which clutter up the work-space with extra buttons and a filled up plug ins folder.
And due to the fact that there are so many plug ins only tells that there is allot missing and/ or going wrong.

@jim said:

3.2 is the version actually installed. The 3.1 is just an oversight in the setup script.

So is this project abandoned? What's going on here? Btw, do you mean by an oversight that it was not fixed?

@tig said:

The attachment limit should be 4Mb
But a ~2Mb file seems enormous for a single solid object anyway
A zipped file will be considerably smaller than the original.
A single manifold [or at least hoped to be so] solid object that is ~4Mb would be extremely complex
A single object that is manifold is unlikely to be anything like that size !
I am perplexed...
Have you purged it ?
Assuming that it's as 'trim' as you can get it... can you post a single image of it so that we might envisage its complexity from that, before we go any farther down this path...

Why PM it?
Posting it for all to see is likely to get a broader response...

I purged and cleaned the file to the bare bones. 1 material; 1 group; 1 layer; 1 style;

what I can do is to isolate the area that is causing the trouble and reduce the geometry.

I did 3D print the object in question, and yes, it is very complex (organic shape), clean geometry save for one little area that SU just won't let me fix. Actually it's even more bizarre that Sketchup keeps fixing the problematic area to the worse.

I was able to manually fix the area so that I was able to get it 3D printed.
Meanwhile I tested your plug in and it does in fact cut off loads of time on less complex buildings.

I also want to say at this occasion, that the "Solid inspector tool" and now the "Solid Solver" plug in are one of the best and most useful tools ever produced by the SU community.
Thank you so much for all your effort and in believing in making SU a powerful tool.

@gaieus said:

No, Zorro2 will use the section plane as a cutting plane and that is always flat by nature. I cannot think of another plugin that would perform such a cutting operation now (this does not mean it does not exist) and of course, a manual intersection may be extremely tedious with complex geometry and/or lots of nested elements in groups/components.

Some boolean tools may make it easier but still, nested things can be an obstacle.

Maybe it is a good idea to create SU models with cleaned up geometry in general as a code of good conduct. That way you can, via boolean subtract, make any section of any shape you wish.
Also I don't understand why in SU version 8 they have not gotten it together to fix the section tool so that it makes filled up solid section or sections with a hatch pattern??
Why we need another plug in for this basic function, which already exists, is beyond me!

@tig said:

@desertraven said:

Hi Tig, I've a model that can not be solved by your plug-in. I don't know how to attach an image to this post. But maybe I can send you the file in question. Can I contact you via email?
Raven
There is a clearly shown 'Attachment' tab below the typing-pane when you post/reply... Attach a SKP onto you post from there. You can attach many file-formats. An image is likely to be relatively useless compared to a SKP. Have you tried thomthom's 'Solid-Inspector'? This tool will 'highlight' the varying issues that prevent 'solidity': but then you have to fix them manually - or with another tool lkie SolidSolver. So... TT's tool might help you identify what makes your object 'insoluble' and thereby a permanent non-solid

Do you understand the basic concept of what makes a 'solid' ?

I do think so ....

unfortunately the limit for attaching a file in the PM option is 2MB my file is 4 MB.

If your SKP is 'confidential', and therefore not for public-gaze, then you could send a PM and attach it to that.
As you are trying to 'solidify' something it's unlikely to be too large, the limit is 4Mb, but if it is first purge it, then if it's still too large zip it to get it size down...

"Do you understand the basic concept of what makes a 'solid' ?"

I do think so ....

unfortunately the limit for attaching a file in the PM option is 2MB my file is 4 MB.

Cheers

Raven

Hi Tig, I've a model that can not be solved by your plug-in. I don't know how to attach an image to this post. But maybe I can send you the file in question. Can I contact you via email?

Raven

@arcad-uk said:

mi wish: That SU doesn't become bloatware because some people don't get it's lean efficiency. If I wanted it to perform like AutoBad, ArchiCAD, Solidworks or 3D Studio that is what I would have bought not come here b*tchin about it not doing the same job.

Well then who would oppose to sketchup becoming more powerful? Really?

Would you rather have it stay the shitty tool it is with huge a potential just because some minor glitches can't be taken care of?

I'll tell you, I like the ease of use and the clean interface that Sketchup offers, but I would really appreciate if they put some more precision and muscle into it.
I'd even pay 1000 bucks or more.

And just FYI, Autocad and all the other CAD software out there aren't flawless either, overpriced and overloaded to say the least.

SU has the chance to become a working lean asset. I hope they keep it open for Rubi plug- ins, but they should realize it can't rely on those for ever.

I hired a team of programmers and hackers to merge Sketchup, Skulptris, Moi/Rhino and V-Ray into one nice to work with streamlined application.

That way we will get ease of use, real curves, highest precision, procedural mesh modeling and stunning render quality in one package. I'm also inclined to integrate occlusion culling in the modeling window to help manage vast size architectural projects.

Also the emphasis will be on few tools and an intuitive interface.

I'm still looking for a name for this BEAST.

Maybe Raven 3D ?

I'll keep an original Google SU 8 installer and a not updated version on one of my many computers just for the sake of old times.