@daredevil said:

@eric_j said:

Hello

Apologies if this has been asked and answered elsewhere....

Is it possible to embed a fixed offset function - or variable offset, for that matter - in a dynamic component?

For example, I'd like to be able to have a complex curve in 2D with a similar curve offset so that when X or Y is scaled on the main curve, the perpendicular distance on the offset curve stays the same.

Can this be done? Does it need scripting?

Thanks for any thoughts...

EJ

With DC, you can copy, move, rotate and scale a shape but you can't make an offset.
If you need to do this dynamically, I think you must script in Ruby.

Didier

Thanks; that's what I suspected....

Hello

Apologies if this has been asked and answered elsewhere....

Is it possible to embed a fixed offset function - or variable offset, for that matter - in a dynamic component?

For example, I'd like to be able to have a complex curve in 2D with a similar curve offset so that when X or Y is scaled on the main curve, the perpendicular distance on the offset curve stays the same.

Can this be done? Does it need scripting?

Thanks for any thoughts...

EJ

Hi Kate

The "Submit" button on the page where I'm supposed to enter my machine ID to get a license code doesn't seem to work?

http://www.activateshaderlight.com/

Do I need to enter a 16 digit code number first? How do I get that?

Thanks for any clarification.

Eric_J

Thank you for all the helpful answers.

I ended up working in LO. Used the pencil tool to draw over the section and filled it in. It's also possible to duplicate the page, render it with vectors then explode the rendering. After that, it's a matter of deleting lines, joining lines and adding fill. A little awkward, but ~~doable, more or less. But if you decide to alter the view...

For some reason, moving the filled section away from the plane in SU didn't work when I tried it the first time, but maybe my tinfoil cap needs a new battery. Or antenna.

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

I'm not a newbie, but I am a moron - and the forum doesn't seem to have a "Moron's Corner" -

I've tried to start one. It keeps getting pulled. Mostly cuz I was the only one posting.

Well, maybe it's better this way. Morons and genuises can learn from each other. Or something.

@pmiller said:

Or, if you are careful about consistent inside face orientation (as you should be), just make a style in SU where the inside faces are black. Voila, your section cuts will appear solid black, not hollow.

OK, so that's brilliant. Waaaay, waaaaay too simple.

@jean lemire said:

Hi folks.
Another possibility is to use a real cutting surface.

Yes, that works, but again, locating the section plane is critical.

Anyway, these are good suggestions for future work. Thank you all again!

EJE

I'm not a newbie, but I am a moron - and the forum doesn't seem to have a "Moron's Corner" - so I'm going to post here...

I'm trying to figure out how to get a section in LayOut to have a filled-in section cut. That is, I want to have:

1. A simple black-and-white line drawing that shows visible elements in elevation
2. A grey or black fill in the walls, floors, roofs and other elements that are cut through.
3. Parallel projected and drawn to scale

Like what you can do with a pencil and poche in 1/10th the time.

I've already tried grouping the section cut and using the lines to make a mask, but that doesn't seem to work.

Alternately, I suppose I could replace all textures with a solid white material and make the mask grey or black. Then I could display "with textures" and maybe the mask would display as dark.

That means I'd need to have two separate models. One textured for perspectives and rendered images and one white-textured for line drawings in LayOut.

Or composite the mask with the LayOut View and try to get the fill to exactly line up with the linework. Could waste a lot of time trying that one before giving up. So I thought I'd ask if anyone has done this?

Hopefully I'm missing something simple?

Thanks in advance.

@gaieus said:

Hi guys,

Section plane visibility is a style attribute and without updating the used style in your scene, it will not be "sticky".
.....
If you want to turn off section planes globally, simply update the used style (that would be the second choice). Here I rather chose to save as a new style so that you can see the difference (coming below). So in this case, my Scene 1 still displays the section plane while my Scene 2 does not (as I first turned visibility off and then saved it as a new style).

If you have a look at my Styles dialog > In model, you can see that I indeed have two styles now (one with section plane visibility on, the other with off).
....
Since it does not seem to be a bug, I took the liberty to move the topic under the main LO forum. If anyone still finds bugs, please, let me know and I will move it back.

Hi Gaieus

This may not be a 'bug', but it's driven me crazy (not a long commute). Practically, it means that one ends up with Styles named Floor Plan 1, Floor Plan 2, North Elevation, South Elevation, Perspective 1, Perspective 2, etc. It seems that the whole idea of Scenes is that ALL attributes that are set in a scene would be imported into LO. Now, when a Scene is selected in LO, one has to also apply the Style saved with the Scene.

This means going back to SU to 'fix' something that wasn't broken until it went to LO.

Hopefully I am missing something?

EJ

OK, I got it.

It seems to work in relation to the handle that was just dragged. So if you pull a handle on an edge, you can only enter one value, for either the width or height. In order to enter horizontal and vertical dimensions, you have to drag from the corner first.

Not obvious, but it does make sense.

Thanks EJE for the fast reply....

EJE

Does anyone know if there a way to accurately size the viewports? The information bar at the bottom says, "Type values for precise manipulation," when I type in dimensions, it returns, "Invalid string." Sometimes it will let me enter a scale value, but never a dimension...

What's the deal on this? I'm using Layout 2.1.5803 .....

TIA

EJE

@xrok1 said:

i think someones thats seems to try to burn everyone that tries to help should NOT be helped. so do everyone here a favor, throw your Sketchup disk in the garbarge and shove your pencil up your... ear!

@Gaieus

Thank you for your apology. It's easy to personalize a discussion when the issues shouldn't be personal, and certainly your English is much better than my .. well .. anything other language. When one designs a building, certain stuff has to be intuitively obvious to everyone, so most of us understand user interface stuff. But it looks like I didn't communicate well, either, so my apologies. And I'm not blaming anyone but myself for my printer hardware situation. My fault there.

@pbacot

Thanks for your comments. In fact, I think that drawing over a print is a good way to go. SU is great when it comes to tweaking the perspective and field of view and casting shadows. Hopefully I'll be back when I'm not quite so tense and I'll be more personable.

@xrok1

Is that is your favorite thing to do with a pencil? Perhaps you could demonstrate with a video tutorial. Thanks for the suggestion, but maybe another time.

@ All

Actually, what StyleBuild could do is allow the user to generate architectural styles. Insert generic doors and windows. Click on "Colonial Style, and the windows are divided light double-hung numbers. "Mediterranean" and they're casements. "Ranchburger" gives you aluminum sliders with no casings.

Etc.

If it did that, it would be more than a dust collector, I think.

Later.

@gaieus said:

Eric,

I don't know what you are ranting about with Chris and his valid statement that you don't need to use style builder to model whatever you need to meet the deadline. To tell the truth, I may only have opened it like about 3 or 4 times altogether during those (almost) three years it's been out.

If you have a deadline to meet, model it in SU and use any of the default or pre-made sketchy styles and don't bother with an "addon" that you cannot make use of at this very tight moment. People survived without StyleBuilder much before it was available and could build great models without these fancy effects.

As for declaring that the app shouldn't have got out of the door based on the mere fact that youcannot grasp it within 15 minutes, is so to say a bit bravery.

I agree with the first two paragraphs.

But for you to imply that I am somehow stupid because I did not grasp the non-obvious in 15 minutes is another part of the software equation. "The customer is always an idiot and needs training and we're always right" attitude is arrogant and infuriating. Given what it does, SketchUp is a great program and it makes very complex tasks quite simple. I've had few problems learning how to use it. It is very good, but it didn't get that way by assuming the customer needs training for the simplest of things - that's Autodesk's approach, apparently. Unless the real intent is to get the customer over to UTube, which is another possibility.

But no, it is not "bravery." Stating the obvious is common sense, because the "experts" rarely do.

Obviously, I don't run Google, so what I think - or what you think - is irrelevant, really.

BTW, Gaieus, what is the best style of architecture?