Fitz, Select View > Toolbars > Camera. You are probably need to substitute the existing tool sets. When you import your file, make sure that the correct import scale option is selected.

Thanks, but didn't work. Maybe I am doing something wrong. Will try again later tonight.

Addenda: Think I got it. Before you save the skp, change to front view, parallel projection, and zoom all.

I created a component out of a image (2d people), then inserted it into a model, the blue box around the component was several times bigger then the component, making it difficult to work with. How do I size down the blue (bounding?) box.

Doesn't "Window > Soften edges > Soften coplaner" work for you?

Dave, Thanks. I have never tried centering the photo image from side to side. Maybe it would facilitate positioning blue axis on a building edge.

The numbers are examples of the pixel size of your photo, and no, the model was constructed with match photo. Because blue is not on the building, it took some effort to locate the building planes. I had to guess at the building dimensions (I think I used about 300 feet high) to build the model. The attached file shows how to eyeball the model with match photo. Select "edit match photo" to see the geometry, along with the match photo construction lines.

The vertical in SU

Search for photomatch on this site, and google for ideas.

After you create the SU animation with scenes, export it as a avi, then open it with Windows Movie Maker. It comes with WinXP, but I don't know about Vista (perhaps can be downloaded from MS). From there you can add titles, special effects, audio, and then export it as a wmv

file.

Here is a sample (although needs better foreground) with IDX. Did anyone mention SU's watermark, or photo match (sort of).

Hey Dale, you forgot to talk about Top View, IBM's (when it was still made in America) character based, multi-tasking (sort of), cut and paste between applications, user interface. Best computer keyboard layout brought to us by the makers of the Selectric.

I downloaded your image, and while not sure that I understand the geometry, did a rough line up of the perspective as follows:

Get the size of the jpeg (say 800x1000), measure and calculate the horizon to top (say 950). Create a blank document (800x(2x950=1900)), and paste the original jpeg at the top. Now the horizon should be in the center of the new jpeg. Open SU and photomatch with new jpeg. Should be easy to adjust the perspective parameters to line up with the image.

Anyone know if there is a geometric problem with doing it in this way?

Guess you need the dimensions of the building to do the balance of the photo match. When you are done, export and crop the image.

My belief is that clients are best served when the presentation is organized. In a meeting, verbal presentation with boards (or powerpoint), and bound letter size documents. When computer info is submitted: video built on SU animation, and/or powerpoint, and/or pdf document. I provide a user controlled model only when it is requested by the client.

But, presentation style is personal, and I believe that any other means of presentation will work as long as the presenter has strong beliefs about what they want to accomplish.

@chris fullmer said:

@honoluludesktop said:

A entity can only be on one layer.

Yeah, but groups and components are entities. And a group entity can be on Layer 0 and all its contents be on Layer 100. Or its contents can be split up on all sorts of layers.

I wondered about this; by (my) definition, entities are primitives. That is they can not be broken down into more basic elements. What do you think?

@chris fullmer said:

@honoluludesktop said:

Groups can not share surfaces.

That sounds mis-leading to me in that they can have faces in the exact same 3d location. Maybe they can't share entities sounds better in my mind.

Tried it. Couldn't make two groups share the same surface. However, two components can share the same space.

@chris fullmer said:

@honoluludesktop said:

A component instance are entities that comprise a component definition.

I'd reverse the order of these. First comes the definition, then comes the instances (sort of). The definition is aptly named because it is the base "definition" for the instances. The definition is what is shown in the components browser. Once you select the definition to insert into the model, you then have an instance inserted in the model. So all components are instances (except the definition shown in the comp. browser).

Let me think about this. An instant is part of the model, a definition is data noted in the component browser and outline.

@chris fullmer said:

@honoluludesktop said:

• Component properties are common to all instances.

Instances actually can have different properties than the definition. The X,Y,Z location, any changes in scale, and materials applied to the outside of the instance, are all properties that are saved uniquely to each instance.

I was thinking of the things that an instance of a component share with other instances of that component.

@chris fullmer said:

@honoluludesktop said:

• Component instance comprises of its definition.

Yes, as a a starting point. Like I pointed out above, the instance when inserted into the model is an exact copy of the definition. But scaling it, applying a material to it, or moving it will change properties to that instance. Oh, and all these properties can be changed without making the component unique or different than its definition.

S***, when I scale a component, it scales by itself, but each instance's common surface, can share common property (like color). So we have properties that are shared (like color), and those that are unshared (like scale). Is scale a property, or should it defined in another way?

@chris fullmer said:

@honoluludesktop said:

A scene (among other things) is a collection visible layers.

A scene is a collection of visible layers (among other things)
And I would love to detail all those other things, because I think that scenes are much more useful than many people realize. Its all in the "among other things" that there is some great functionality.

Perhaps too complex for elegant definition?

In fact in SU, a surface can have n edges. What I was trying to say is a surface must come with edges.

In the jump from 6 to 7, production system, no problem; home system, graphic problems. Primary difference in machines are the graphic cards. In the home system, OK graphics in 6 became a problem in 7 (no driver update issued, but older chips so probably no support). In any case, for now, found a work around.

I did as you did, had problems, and did the following:

As part of a fresh installation of SU7, it is good to create a "OldPlugIn" folder in the SU7 plugin folder, and copy SU6 plugins to it ("OldPlugIn" folder). Then, as you need them, move each from the "OldPlugIn" folder to its correct location. Helps to identify problems, and get rid of unused plugins. Also install the SU7 plugin that came with the system, and erase their counterparts in the "OldPlugIn" folder. Don't know if there is any difference, but it sounds like a safe thing to do. Only problem, is you have to restart SU with every copy.

Revised: 2/19/09

As a beginner, the following took me almost a entire day to understand. It helps me understand my model, and especially scenes of the model. Please correct, where wrong.

My understanding is that in concept, SU has no lines, only the edges of surfaces, except when surfaces are removed and their edges are not, or a unclosed edge is drawn. That the "line" tool's function is to create edged surfaces.

A entity is a SU primitive.

•   A entity can only be on one layer.
  

A edge is a 2D line entity in 3D space.
A surface is a edged 2D plane (entity) in 3D space.

•   Adjoining surfaces share common edges.
  

A layer is a non spatial location of lines and/or surfaces.

• One layer is always active (visible).
• The active or component layers remains visible.
• Other layers can be visible or not.

•   New and merged entities are placed on the active layer.
  

A group is a unique collection of entities within a model.

• Groups can not share surfaces.

•   A group is a model entity (?).
  

A component instance is comprised of component definition.

• Component's definition include SU entities, and their properties.
  -- Properties are shared (like color) or unshared (like scale).
• A component instance is a model entity (?).
• Component's shared properties are common to all instances.
• Instances by selection can not share common entities.

•   Instances by definition can be placed anywhere.
  

• Exploded component's wholly overlapped entities are merged.
  A scene (among other things) is a collection visible layers.

Anyone care to expand to include materials, etc.?

In any given scene, you can reassign individual edges to a layer that is turned off. So it shouldn't be difficult to make a topless box with selected edges in a "off" layer.

What do you mean by: "I use hidden layers now, but it doesn't work if camera is oriented to show both inside and outside." That, it doesn't work if you look down from the top as in the below?

Also, I think, skp2dxf via free DoubleCad XT. SUs aligned, parallel projected (2D) scenes are exported to individual work sheets. They can then be cut and passed into separate 2Cad instances, each then saved as a dxf (worked in 2Cad pro beta). But, easier to pay for SU pro.

Box.skp

Tom, Sorry to ask, but what is a 2.5D tree? Are those 2D, face me trees? Thanks.

Daniel, Currently, I design and build my models with a Cad application then Dxf them to SU for visualization and presentation. The original model is assembled from blocks that translate as SU components. All changes to blocks are via the Cad application, that are then individually Dxf's to SU (minimizes redo work to the block/component in SU). In my case, the elevations are complete before the model is ported.

Have you ever used SU's scenes to create 2d elevations (parallel projection, aligned view) 2 Dxf for use in your Cad program? What are your pro and cons on this? Thanks.