Right click on component and/or group, or selected components and groups, and "Make All Unique". This will make unique all selected components, and their nested components.make_all_unique.rb

TIG, Thanks for the mini lesson. I hadn't known that you could use next if in that way. Unfortunately (for me), I also have problems visualizing the code levels within {} and require do end to do so.

Thanks again, hdt

TIG,

WOW, how compact can you get. Can you explain the code?

1. What does next do?
2. Why is it necessary to test for d.image??
3. What does [1..-1] in d.instances[1..-1].each mean?
4. If I modify Sketchup.active_model.definitions.each to Sketchup.active_model.selection.definitions.each, will the code work only on SketchUp selections?
5. Does Sketchup.active_model.definitions.each locates all component instances, and groups in the model; including the nested ones?
6. Is ; to indicate new line?

Thanks, hdt

Here is a free viewer you can link to in your email.
http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/download/gsuviewer.html

Or, could it be that your component axis is far off to the side? Atempt a "zoom all" to see.

Try this, beta v0.03. Right click components and/or groups, and "Make All Unique". Post if problems, or you find a better solution.make_all_unique.rb

That shouldn't be too hard to do.

You can't mean "right click reverse faces" since that is a hard wired command. What does the reverse ruby do?

If you can draw, or move your component to the desired origin, this will rotate the component's z axis on its origin to what ever you can point to.

<delete>

When converting Cad dxf files to sketchup, the original Cad file units must be converted to Sketch units. I erroneously assumed this to be the case within SketchUp. That is not the case, and the reason I have deleted the post.

Don't most render applications include "render ready lights" that can be inserted into SketchUp?

@3dmodellers said:

@honoluludesktop said:

It appears to me that SketchUp will forever be linked to its roots, that is a easy to use architectural building modeler.

I think it would be even easier for architectural modeling if curves are introduced (A sketchup newbie still thinks that the curves are real till he sees the 'input sides' option. By that time he has already spent 3-4 days into sketchup and gained some level of proficiency). Also, import and export to and from other softwares would be seamless and it would not split the 3D max models into ten thousand triangulations.

While it has little to do with SketchUps roots, many of the curves in the Architectural built world are segments of straight lines. Curved masonry wall, curved building faces, etc. Even concrete, which is considered an organic material, is built from plywood, or steel sheet forms.

As an Architect, I have not had any problems with the absence of curves in SketchUp. I like the price, its ease of use, its support base, and the user programing language.

I was a beginner once, and too crossed that bridge, but the problem with maintaining 2 versions of SketchUp databases (one with line segments (free,) and one with curves (pro)) is real.

@3dmodellers said:

@honoluludesktop said:

It would double (I think) the physical size of every new model in the Warehouse, and on Google Earth. Wounder if that could be a problem?

I think the size of the NEW files would actually be smaller. Suppose with the CURRENT sketchup if you have a curvy architectural model worth 10MB, then with the NEW sketchup the file size would hardly be 4MB.

I recall the subject of my quote regarded going from 32 to 64 bit hardware. As follows:

@honoluludesktop said:

It may be the reason that Google has resisted the move to a 64 bit application. It would double (I think) the physical size of every new model in the Warehouse, and on Google Earth. Wounder if that could be a problem?

However, if Google provides curves, along with curves of segmented lines, provides both free and pro access to one database, ease of use, low cost, etc., what is there not to like about curves? Nothing.

@alan fraser said:

....Not forgetting, of course, that you can get a perfectly satisfactory result simply by using image mapping. In this V7 file the moulding has been taken right around a nominal 12' x 12' wall. The total number of faces for the entire thing is 111...as opposed to the 70,000 in the original single length.

Very nice Alan,I would not have thought to make the beaded image with a thick, blurred circle. It even looks OK at an angle to the viewer.

A 160m megayacht? I give up, what?

Can't, be related their anticipated purchase of Hulu.

Some of those plants look like plumeria trees. Very nice. No need for wind screens? Can't tell you about the roof gardens rendered useless by the wind. I also don't care for decks adjacent to apartments, takes too much effort to maintain. But the garden is definitely a plus feature for public housing. Nice work.

@escapeartist said:

........Perhaps the second question may be more philosophical with regards to an architect's motivations, but if your client handed you a portfolio of North U.K. sod-roofed cottages as references would you present an earth-bermed Frank Lloyd Wright?

Thanks for posting the pictures. As for the above question, I suppose it would depend on how hungry I am. If you are not a builder, I suggest that you go to one that has a turn key operation with Architects on staff.

While you are the Client, the Architect is additionally responsible to the City and State to provide a viable, legal solution. Are your request doable in your location in terms of building codes, etc.? Will your request require R&D not covered by standard fees? If not are you willing to pay for the R&D? The typical architects is typically ill equipped to pursue R&D, and depend on their association with manufactures to advance the state of the art. I can't speak for others, but my work is more about art, within the parameters of what I know about build-ability.

What Box says below is also correct. In addition each Architect has his own area of expertise, are you talking to ones that are knowledgeable about your notions?

I once (20 years ago) tried to build a shop in Phuket using historical forms, carved wood, etc. and was told that it would cost at least 10 times as much. The contractor somehow did the entire project out of plywood, etc.

Nice looking work, I see that you had better luck then I finding someone to build your vision.

How about some pictures?

SketchUp is for sketching the way AutoCad is automatic.>_< Just joking.

Currently the free, and pro versions share the same model database, adding curves to pro, would change that, and free would no longer be able to access pro models. There are programing workarounds that could overcome this, but this would complicate sketchup's inventory, it's development, and the flexibility of it's application.

Because of the value SketchUp free has for Google Earth and the Warehouse, IMO it will continue to be the focus of SketchUp's development. Google would have to be convinced that curves are required to advance those uses, for that kind of change to be made to free. It may be the reason that Google has resisted the move to a 64 bit application. It would double (I think) the physical size of every new model in the Warehouse, and on Google Earth. Wounder if that could be a problem?

Sketchup, like every other applications, will eventually have to be rebuilt from scratch in order for it to keep in step with computer technology's improvements. At that point, who knows what will happen.

As for push/pull, it is a feature that is part of Ironworks, a modeling application that was built on a modeler that included that feature prior to SketchUp. I wounder what Goggles patent is based on?

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

64 bit application. It would double (I think)

(I think) the bit rate refers to the width of the data stream....so now the bus carries 64 passengers insted of 32...lol Don't think that would change the model size...just makes it quicker to get to them...is that confusing enough..

Not the model size (number of entities), but the physical size of the file. Hmm...did I mean byte? Every byte is twice as long. This was a problem for some, when computers went from 8 byte to 16 as storage media was the "floppy disk", and 10mb hard drive was standard. Actually I'm exaggerating about ancient history, but you know, do we learn?