Offline
installed per instructions - fail. uninstall, close SU, open SU, get warning to install, install per extension manager - looks ok. close SU, open SU, get error ^^^^^^
as a note, i've checked my login on web site - ok so any internet calls "should" be working (in case this is an issue retrieving "getMyPlugins")
V5.0.1 is broken
Extension Errors Report
SketchUp: 25.0.660
OS: Windows 11
Ruby: 3.2.2
Extension: SketchUcation (5.0.1)
Error: ArgumentError (invalid byte sequence in UTF-8)
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:805:in `block (4 levels) in getMyPlugins'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:804:in `each'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:804:in `block (3 levels) in getMyPlugins'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:798:in `each'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:798:in `block (2 levels) in getMyPlugins'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:796:in `each'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:796:in `block in getMyPlugins'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:751:in `each'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_dialog.rbe:751:in `getMyPlugins'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_loader.rbe:99:in `<module:SCF>'
c:/users/USERNAME/appdata/roaming/sketchup/sketchup 2025/sketchup/plugins/sketchucation/scf_loader.rbe:13:in `<main>'
C:/Program Files/SketchUp/SketchUp 2025/SketchUp/Tools/extensions.rb:197:in `eval'
C:/Program Files/SketchUp/SketchUp 2025/SketchUp/Tools/extensions.rb:197:in `require'
C:/Program Files/SketchUp/SketchUp 2025/SketchUp/Tools/extensions.rb:197:in `load'
C:/Users/USERNAME/AppData/Roaming/SketchUp/SketchUp 2025/SketchUp/Plugins/SketchUcation.rb:173:in `register_extension'
C:/Users/USERNAME/AppData/Roaming/SketchUp/SketchUp 2025/SketchUp/Plugins/SketchUcation.rb:173:in `<module:SCF>'
C:/Users/USERNAME/AppData/Roaming/SketchUp/SketchUp 2025/SketchUp/Plugins/SketchUcation.rb:17:in `<top (required)>'
yeah, not a fan of live components. as a "component factory" it has value, but for many of us doing complex work where dynamic components can be rapidly adjusted, scaled, etc. the DC need a lot of love which it's not getting. what would also be nice - letting non-pro users use DC but no option to peek inside or adjust anything other than exposed parameters. but i'm thinking somewhere someone got the idea of the potential for charging people to generate a "live component" and download it - voila! instant money maker... eeerrghh.
ok, so adding a parent component which controls the copy and rotate, i just need to add the parameter selections in the parent and pass them to the (what was) the original component (now the child) and it seems to be working. appreciate the assist. this is an annoying feature... 
so, with the array approach, it's holding steady on simple (no edge) geometry rotated, but the face shrinkage continues to exist. anyways in case anyone is interested in the DC - cut openings phenomena...
yeah, i do the paired front and back. then added those as an array (per your guidance), but yet another level of indirection to try to prevent weird results when doing simple rotations? lol. i keep trying to use the cut opening, but it's really only sufficient for the simpliest stuff. using them in something like structures where i use copies of framing members (for example) it's been painful and not reliable. esp when the cut opening only works on a face and not (at least) a group, so the odds that the face and associated geometry will properly scale (and reset) etc is a crap shoot really.
thanks i'll check out your component
@pcmoor said in Copies of Cut Opening Component, Not Cutting the Opening:
For DC, embed in second cutter (parent is a cutter as well)
turns out cutting things which subsequently need to be rotated is not reliable... 
so back to using individual components to create it...
i was hoping the cutting components in an array would do it, but then it's getting confused on rotations and trying (or seeming to) glue itself. changing to "any" didn't do it either, and left weird disconnected geometry on angles vs the 90° i was trying to set. anyways, this is what it looks like after i created with with sub-components to build the board...
as an fyi - i make make a component, then my cutting component, manual add it to the face on the primary component, it cuts. then a copy (m + ctrl to copy) that one also cuts. so something is wrong with the dynamic component use because the same copied set of attributes (whichever one says this one cuts) should be carried to the next copy(s) as well..
acomponent.skp
something to do with depth... with the flat version - cuts on a flat component - ok. one depth versions, first one cuts, second does not.
non-dynamic - copies cut as expected...
acomponent-nodyn.skp
so, after how many years of this functionality seeming to not be working, it seems like it's still not working.
a simple component with a pair of cut opening components (back to back). the first set of the copies - works as expected. second (and other copies) nada, zip. the components are there but the cutting is missing...
so, are cut opening components not support in dynamic components?
i've seen people recommend a paid-for tool (VisuHole) but that doesn't seem to be workable in a dynamic component.
attached is the component. routed absorber frame.skp
yeah i think keeping the disclaimer a bit more succinct - the first sentence, skip the next two, and keep the rest plus you might include the user assumes all liability for the use of this report blah blah blah.
also, my plates are never that shiny what do you wash them with? 
seriously though, spend a bit of time setting the reflections. almost everything in the room seems to reflect... leverage settings like blurred reflection on surfaces which are not polished. and in general, i'd just turn down a bunch of the reflection levels.
@medeek said in Medeek Engineering:
you would think that after years of refining the code we would slowly arrive at suitable load combinations and stick with them.
yeah, but then without so many conflicting standards, where would we be? all those jobless standards bearers would be out on the street making mischief... lol
yeah, definitely depends on the gear a content creator needs. many will simply need a good computer, possible a good music keyboard or two, good video monitors, good audio monitors, and fresh air. many would fit into a 9x11 room but more would be better in a 12.4' W x 15' L due to best ratio for acoustics assuming 8' H ceiling.
i sorta did a long while back wrt leaving space to allow me to use an i-column or steel post, but not actually requesting one thanks!
here's my DC components i typically use - not as smooth but the idea of the flushing to ends...
example DC units.skp
the smooth curved units need "0" ends to meet flush to straight legs. meaning one more beginning and end arc segment. in my example using 8" and a tight 90° it becomes apparent. the ovla and round duct joins on perpendicular ducts looks good, the rectangules ones (as you've shown) still need some love to get to meeting flush. overall a good start!
might be useful to have a dialog option to enable users to add basic info - select type, enter model #, H-W-D, and/or maybe select similar product type and re-size to "simulate" pending adding an actual model.
i know for me, given space constraints on uiltity rooms in recording studios, having the equipment sized correctly (as simple boxes) is much more important than the detailed looks when configuring the approximate systems layout for the engineers to refine later.
simpler is better for the model. same when you get to things like decoupled collars, etc where it is possible to get crazy with geometry whereas i think most would be interested in a) good models w/ schematic options in wireframe mode, b) fairly accurate calculations/stats on flow and frictions, and c) parts list...
looking good. also - there is some "clumping" of members on the left-hand side of the right-hand chase. likely due to having a second change and the sizing of the middle truss members (maybe instead a long one and clumped one, make two even one as i think this is how they would be manufactured)
