it might help to go into the project with the mindset of spending most time on getting good profile curves/splines which should be as precise as possible (and not necessarily 'precise' regarding real word measurements.. rather, precise in relation to the rest of the curve network.. things like equal segments per curve etc)

in other words, designing a boat hull isn't organic.

but if the curves are good, skinning the hull should be relatively simple with curviloft or similar.

just notice Gerrit posed this question at the trimble discourse.. tt doesn't know and waiting on a response from someone who might know.. would be funny if no one on the current team knew what the heck these things are for

@rich o brien said:

I was kidding.

yeah.. i still drive some people nuts though
it's ok.

@unknownuser said:

As a tool I am stumped at why you'd use it?

me too.. does it work with pens? (wacom etc.)

@martynaaas said:

Continueing topic about components, I kind of like your first try and was wondering did you draw that from scratch or can the same pattern (curved white lines) can be applied to any surface?

from scratch.. with surfaces which are a lot more receptive to having an array applied to them..
if you look at your surfaces, there are lines going every which way when in reality, those lines should be your underlying 'grid' to accept the components.

@unknownuser said:

I'm not looking to improve this in anyway, all I want is to somehow find an easy way of drawing double-curved elements that would follow surfaces of my building. Basically, turn the mass into steel structure.

hmm. yeah, i know i'm not going to be able to explain it properly but the easiest way is to start over with better surfaces.. subsequent operations on those surfaces will then be easy instead of how they are now, you're going to be fighting/hacking it the rest of the way through.

idk.. search the extension depositories for 'lines2tubes' or similar.. then just draw some lines using your surfaces as some sort of guide then tube the lines.
?

ha. sorry.
i don't really mean to drive people nuts.. it just sort of happens.
i'm probably too old now to change though

maybe their original intent was to be able to have geometry which acts like text ??

you can't snap to text.. you can't select it (only the group it's in).. text can sit on top of text without intersecting etc.

idk, somebody probably had a decent idea as to why to incorporate that type of entity into sketchup but further development on them never happened??

another idea roughly based around yours.. if you go this route, i think you'll get more usable space inside the volume?

then balconies could extend out to the steel etc.. might be sweet. (or, the entire volume could extend out to the steel instead of the (close to) hexagonal shape shown here? more of a circular building or even a square could fit inside there )

as far as using components goes (at least using sketchup definition of a component), this -or similar- is the route you'd have to go.. the outer structure consists of only a handful of pieces which then repeat a bunch of times..

you should probably be using curviloft as opposed to soapSkinBubble for those surfaces as you'll have more control..

do you have an idea of the pattern you'd like to apply? that's pretty much the most important thing at this point (with 'this point' being the point where you're asking other people to help with using components)... as an idea, here's this:

dunno, i sort of like the vertical tubes but not so much the little ones going across.. maybe print this out and draw on it to find something more visually appealing?

also.. i modified your idea some in that there's a central column that everything rotates around.. doing something like that might help make sense of the shape in your head which will allow you to better think of a pattern to divide the surface up (and it doesn't have to be exactly what i've shown.. that's just an example.. my point is more about trying to be able to imagine/define the shape in your mind as opposed to something more random.. it can look random to other people- that's fine and maybe welcome... but you should be able to understand it or know the 'secret' to it..

@wo3dan said:

Hi Jeff, the question is about 3d polylines in SketchUp, created with the 'Freehand' tool while holding down [Shift].

oh.. right.
those things.
yeah, they're weird (and that's pretty much the extent of my knowledge on what they are )

they don't even show up when imported into other applications (or the one i've tried it with)

@krisidious said:

@jeff hammond said:

Video

That is frickin awesome...

Now I'm going to have to watch all their videos... See yall in a few days.

at the very end, it shows a quick flash of the completed project and it looks amazing.

post a pic if you come across a cleaner view in the next few days

@krisidious said:

I think we would need to know the intended use to know if it was sufficient.

http://youtu.be/m4P9UqIXlgU
[/quote]

@slbaumgartner said:

Boy, without knowing the actual locations of everything it is tough to say whether that is sloped or just the beam is angled away from the camera...maybe if Jeff wants to analyze the video frame by frame

hmm.. i didn't really analyze anything.. i just happened to see it.. you're free to look at the frozen frame above or ignore it.. i don't care.

@wo3dan said:

The question is simple, but are 3D Polylines simple, i.e. manageable?
For instance, can 3D Polylines be controled by plugins? And what are they used for?
How do you apply them if you do?

a polyline is just two or more lines joined as one.. a welded curve in sketchup lingo.. sketchup arcs are polylines.

(but i might not be understanding the question fully )

from here:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/polyline.html

@unknownuser said:

In computer graphics, a continuous line composed of one or more line segments. You can create a polyline by specifying the endpoints of each segment. In draw programs, you can treat a polyline as a single object, or divide it into its component segments.

i think the one in the video is actually angled in a similar way as gilles is showing.. when trying to look at the one they're working on, it's hard to tell if they're angled or if it's just camera perspective but this frame shows the other beam in the background in which the angle is more clearly noticeable.

@solo said:

but still that looks amazing and so strong.

glue is way stronger now than it used to be and glue-lam beams are a lot faster to make in bulk.. just hide the nastiness with some drywall and paint

(though really, laminated wooden beams can be made to look real sweet when exposed too.. they're also a lot more stable than joining two solid beams together.. especially when considering we don't have nearly the access to old growth woods like they used to back in the day.. most of our framing timber is pretty much crap these days )..

it's sort of a bummer though from the craftsman point-of-view.. highly skilled joint makers have long gone under appreciated imo and even more so in the past few decades.. a lost art for the masses.

@dave r said:

What makes it look fake?

because it looks like there's not a way to assemble/dissemble it.. that's what the joint is for anyway, right?
like-- "hey bud, why don't you try to figure that one out hehheh"..
or is it inherently stronger than a traditional dovetail?

@s shepherd said:

The first image I posted is the starting position.

oops, i missed that bit.. was thinking the coincident point would have to be in the middle somewhere. the animation clears it up though.

i guess if the pins&tails line up at some point (in the middle somewhere) then it can slide together? if the angles are right?

@pcmoor said:

@krisidious said:

What I wonder is how it could actually be used in real life... Doesn't seem possible.

True....Its not possible to join them

maybe if it's printed that way?

@kaja9 said:

I use paid version (but to bo honest - didn't pay )

lol.. prepare yourself to catch

i'd try to explain the oddness of such a statement but really, this is something a person need to explain to themselves. (from my pov at least.. i pretty much only preach morals to my child )

@kaja9 said:

when it is here a BIG potential to make it a complex tool. - ANd I add - Still remaining easy and "light"...

i've had (and have) similar sentiments.. the flipside is that if sketchup were what i want it to be, millions of people would no longer like sketchup.. the tools you seemingly want are out there.. just not sketchup.. basically, if you want a complex tool, use a complex tool.. maybe blender will work better for you.