And people wonder why I stick with Version 6.

There are 2 ways to fix this.
1- If the line segments form a straight but divided line, delete them and draw a single replacement line. Make sure you snap on the endpoints where the line started/stopped, and the face(s) should reform.
2- There is a Ruby called WELD.rb It can (but not always) make the lines a single entity.

@xrok1 said:

i guess you need to plan ahead next time .

You got that right!!!!

There can be a problem with the entity info count. The count is correct, but you may have copies on invisible layers, or, duplicate coincident copies that look as only 1, which is very difficult to find.
So if the count seems wrong, start hunting.

To correct coincident copies, you need to delete a suspect. If it disappears, hit [undo]. If it remains, it was a duplicate. Do it again. In my early drawings I have had as many as 7 instances coincident, due to my inexperience then.

One very difficult situation to fix is where you have multiple copies INSIDE the group or component envelope. The only way I know of fixing that is to open the group/comp and rebuild it line by line. Deleting co-incident lines does not always work, and this condition is a major cause of faces that do not form. You have endpoints that are very close together.

@tig said:

It's a while since I wrote it !

As I recall if finds ALL 'raw' Geometry in the Model, and inside every Group and Component-definition and puts it onto 'Layer0'... but any Groups and Instances are not changed.

That may be a problem. I'll try it later.
Thanks....

Last night I converted about 300 groups into 1 component in 1 swell foop. It also showed I had about a dozen almost identical groups with a common very minor change in them, that did not convert, as expected, but they would be hard to find otherwise.

I did this by selecting ALL, and converting. After the conversion to a single comp, only those unique groups that did not convert remained highlighted. Note: it is not necessary to highlight any of the multiple groups, except the single any one group to effect the conversion. All same groups in the model will convert. I have not tried testing with layered and visible same groups yet, but I will.

Now I will try to figure how to convert those similar groups into the same single comp. I think I know how, but I haven't figured out the correct sequence yet.

(edit added) I just noticed that my old 43mb+ file is down to 31mb, and I'm not done converting yet. And it saves faster too. Bonus.

@tig said:

This script defaults all 'loose' geometry and any geometry in groups or component definitions to Layer0. The layers of groups or components are NOT changed.

.

Just d/l'd but not tried it yet. I think it will solve a problem I raised long ago to revert all selected group/comp internal geometry to layer0.

I have a question.
Does it revert ALL groups on a visible layer, or only selected groups on a visible layer?

The reason I ask is because there are 2 conditions I employ that uses crossed layers within a group.

1. This is where the object(s) within a layered envelope group is on layer0, and the documentation is also within the envelope group, but is assigned to a separate "documentation" layer. That way I can chose to make visible both the object and its doc by making both the objects and doc layers visible. By turning off the doc layer, ALL such documentation for all groups on all layers is invisible. By turning on the doc layer, only those object layers that are turned on will display their relevant documentation. This dramatically reduces clutter and gives the documentation more utility.

2. In a similar way, in complex models with many layers that contain subsets of a major object, I will place each subset object (on their own layer) into an envelope layer on its own layer.
   Imagine an airplane, with fuselage, wings, engines, landing gear, etc. I number my layers hierarchically such as;
   1.0 fuselage
   2.0 wing
   2.1 wing airfoil
   2.2 wing flaps
   2.3 wing engines
   3.0 other stuff
   So, Wing grouped objects on layers 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 are contained in an envelope on layer 2.0. The raw geometry is always on layer0. Then I can make visible/invisible the whole wing by turning on/off only layer 2.0. And I can still turn on/off any other part of the wing. It's a bit easier and quicker than using a layer manager.

So if your pluggin reverts all groups/comps raw geometry to layer0, that would screw me up royally.
But if it only reverted selected groups/comps, that would be of great use to me cleaning up old models that had all details on layers eschewing layer0. That happened in my early SU days coming from ACAD.

That looks like one MEGA great Ruby. Now it will take a week to learn it.

I loaded it into my /plugins and all I get is an error loading; can't find base.rb

Can't find it anywhere.

and 10 minutes later..........

Never mind. Found it in TT_Lib.zip

And it works.

After 3 tries, it converted a dozen same groups to 1 component. Exactly like I asked.

Thanks TT; great job.

I'm updating a few old models from my very early SU days, when I preferred defining groups instead of components. Now I'm paying in spades for that error. Same with my mistake in not using Layer 0 and assigning layers to internal objects, but that is another story.

I have a building structure of vertical beams and cross beams, basically long narrow cubes with nearly no detail. There are 3 kinds, about 400 of cross beams, 40 verticals and a few dozen same shape, different length beams. All are copies of groups. No components. I need to make them components, so I can tinker with some common details within the 3 types. If they were components, that would be easy. Hence this post.

Is there any way, or is there any script, that would allow me to select a bunch of same groups and replace them with a single similar component?

Sounds like a good idea to me, as I run into this a lot, and I use extensive layering and nested groups/comps. I keep hiding/unhiding ("H" key shortcut} but like said, I need to see some parts, even if shaded, visible as reference during my drawing operations.

David, you need to put this thread or the initial idea on the "suggestions" thread.

My only concern is how would you control the visibility?

@gaieus said:

@thomthom said:

...
Ever tried to undo a wrong stroke with the pen..?

Or with a girlfriend?

English teacher remarks to young Johnny that his spelling and punctuation has improved considerably.
Johnny say "I had too. My older sister caught a major screaming session with Mom & Dad when she missed a period."

@unknownuser said:

@paulside said:

Come on, Own up, how many of us have tried to orbit a jpg !

i try to orbit everything on my computer after a long SU session.. web pages etc...

it's like jumping on a trampoline for a while.. once you get back on solid ground, it takes a few minutes to readjust..

Like the famous Indian explorer, Binder Dundat, I have a 2D graphics app for GIF animation creation. [Orbit] does not work in that. Pity......

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

My Spacebar doesn't deselect - disappointed.

You right : I was no precise!
That deselect "tools" !

Deselect selected is of course clicked an empty space

[ctrl]T deselects all. Sometimes you cannot see empty space to click on.

That was my "Duh" moment after more than a year of using SU and frustration with deselections from inside my models.

Another "Duh" was using the [extrude] tool to quickly "select" (highlight actually) faces to reverse or delete. Just hover the tool over the face (NO clicking) and using shortcut keys "D" = delete, "R" = reverse face to either delete them or reverse them. Very fast that way for multiple faces. Gaieus gave me that one. There are other tools and functions you can use as well.

@ecuadorian said:

I changed the thread title in order to collect more "Duh!" moments here.

A couple of minutes ago, I just realized that the "Move" tool has a rotate function incorporated when you select a component. Just hover your mouse over any of the six faces of the bounding box and you'll see four red crosses. Select any of them to rotate your component around its center.

Another "Duh!" moment brought to you by a SketchUp newbie. I guess it's time to read the 887-page long manual from start to end.

Keep in mind the [move] tool rotate is a bit different from the [rotate] tool.

With move/rotate the 4 selection grab points (red +) are inset at mid point of the sides of the bounding box, BUT the actual axis of rotation is only perpendicular to the centroid of the bounding box selection face, regardless of the objects actual shape and mass center. The [move] tool can ONLY rotate groups and components, no other objects.

The rotate tools selection point is anywhere on any selected object(s) (anywhere in the drawing) and the rotation axis is perpendicular to the face at the selection point. If you need to rotate the object on an axis not perpendicular to the selection face, you need to place the protractor on a parallel face then [shift] move and then [click] the protractor to the selection point and complete the rotation. Otherwise you will need a temporary face to force the axis alignment for the rotate. The temp face need not be on any actual face of the object, but as a safeguard, group it first to avoid merging. To aid in placing the protractor center correctly, place a guide line in the desired axis of rotation, passing through the temp face. Place the protractor center on the intersection of the guide line through the temp face and complete the rotation.

I love to draw technical stuff; airplanes, boats, houses, etc. But I am more into the details of the internal fabrication, than just a simple outer view. I have gone though several versions of ACAD 2D and then into ACAD 2 1/2D (they call it 3D, but it isn't), and was totally baffled by the so-called 3D interface. Never got a good render of anything, especially on my big cargo airplane concept, and it took forever to get anything right. Books and tutorials were no help either.

I tried TruSpace, also a dud in the interface area. And a few others that lasted maybe 10 minutes on my PC.

I subscribe to ZD-Net and 2 years ago they had a brief ad for SU. It looked interesting so I loaded it and tried it, without any tutorials to start me off.

In less than 2 hours just playing with it, I accomplished more than I could with ACAD in 2 weeks. By the end of day I had a decent 3D view of my big airplane, for the first time. I now have over 300mb in 15 files of that airplane as I design the internals; landing gear, fuel system, passenger cabin, cargo deck, cargo handling components, etc. All fit back to the master drawing, and each drawing is details on some set of internal components of the airplane.

Yeah, I know SU is a sketching tool, but with some tradeoffs I use it more like a 3D CAD.

Plus there are dozens of drawings of other stuff. One of the latest was a rendering of my main bathroom reno, which worked wonders in explaining to my contractor what I wanted, and to the cabinet maker.

Then I had to revamp our laundry area, as the new front load washer and drier would not fit in the space where the 28 year old top loads went. I carefully measured the space, and played with 7 options to place the W&D and move the laundry tub and shelving. I showed the "boss" the options and she said "that one". That one also showed an interference of 1 inch with the furnace relay box mounted on the side, so I had to move it to the inside, well before delivery. Then I completed the plumbing, electrical and shelving layers and from that made my hardware shopping list. I attach the SU file of that, and a photo of the laundry area, with some minor shelf changes requested by the boss and a view from the SU model at the same angle.

Next is the kitchen. With SU I can quickly depict many ideas and alternatives, for the boss's approval, then flesh out the final choice for the contractor and cabinet maker, rather than trying to repeatedly explain what is wanted, with restrictions and problems/suggestions to work around.

All you need to start is a very careful measurement of the area to make the basic layout, with at least one layer to show the existing for comparison. Taking photos of the existing helps a lot. Then get measurements of the various cabinetry and appliances you will need, and make simple outline groups/comps that you can place or move about. Make a layer or 2 for each alternative so you can quickly compare one to another. Then all you need to do is pan and zoom and display/hide layers to describe them. When the final layout is selected, add the plumbing and electrical components (on separate layers) for a real virtual fit and fiddle before anything starts up. Even paint schemes can be placed on layers to play with. Try all that in ACAD.

SU-6 file SU drawing of laundry area revamp with various layout options and final layout with details.

Mice, for some time now have more than 2 buttons. My new Logitech MX-600 has 11, 9 programmable via the Setpoint S/W. However, any of those buttons act the same in almost all apps, and a very few apps allow for some redefined buttons within the app, exactly like SU's keyboard shortcuts.

However SU does not allow mouse button shortcut redefinition. It should.

I know that is tougher to do than KB shortcuts, as different mice do different things with the extra buttons vrs. a very universal KB key set. But that can be circumvented by simply listing a set of (say 10+) button numbers and allowing SU to learn what each and every mouse button does when pressed, then allowing an SU shortcut redefinition for that button.

@d12dozr said:

@jgb said:

Now if only SU allowed mouse button shortcuts, I can make use of the many extra buttons on my mouse without interfering with other apps use of those buttons.

Ditto that! heads off to Wishlist

Good idea, good thing I thought of it. Kidding.... Posting it there now.

@dtrarch said:

Real and available stand alone fuel cel module.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=opecoblog&PostId=92903
http://bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/

100 MW that will fit in a parking space.

No info on cost but looks very interesting.

dtr

I checked into this "BloomBox". Nowhere does the inventor divulge what fuel it uses. In fact he says in different articles that it A) uses solar energy, B) emits no CO2.

The only thing that is constant in any report is that it uses sand (cheap), is stackable (innovative?), and costs a lot.

Well, Fuel cells do not use solar. Fuel cells combine oxygen (from the air) with a fuel, either hydrogen or hydrocarbon based in the presence of a catalyst. If the fuel is hydrogen, then yes, no CO2 emissions, only pure water. ALL hydrocarbon/oxygen reactions produce CO2 and other gasses, as well as heat. That is Chemistry 101.

It uses sand. So does your computer. Sand is mostly silicon. He uses a wafer made of sand and some catalyst material combined in his proprietary way and that is the fuel cell reactor. Big deal. ALL fuel cells use a wafer or matrix of some kind with a catalyst to enable the reaction.

ALL fuel cells stack their wafered reactors to multiply the power output. Some are big (like Ballard Power) and some small, like his. The size itself is not the issue, a wafer can be just about any size, governed by manufacturing and cost considerations. And stacking is fundamental to achieving desired power output.

The fact it costs a lot does not surprise me. But if sand is so plentiful and cheap, why does BloomBox cost a lot?

So when they come clean on how a BloomBox actually works, what fuel it uses, its efficiency and life cycle costs, plus why his is better than, say Ballard, then he may have something to sell.

@arjunmax09 said:

I'm using Google SketchUp Pro 7.1 If I want to constrain the movement of a group over an axis... i use the shift key while movin' it up, right or left [ i.e. the x,y, z axes]... Sometimes this shift function fails.... is there a way to fix this???.... i'm uploading a video of my problem...

Apart from what seems to be a gluing problem, there is another instance that SU will seem to behave as you stated.

If you move any object(s) along an axis (locked by an arrow key) from origin to destination, and the destination is off screen at the start of the move, when you pan during the move to see the destination, the axis lock is lost. To regain the axis move, you need to move the object(s) back on axis (this should be a dotted axis line) and then hold down the shift key for the remainder of the move.

To avoid that, for long moves, orient your view such that you can see both origin and destination on screen, then as you approach the destination, zoom in for finer placement.

@unknownuser said:

Set middle mouse button you want to use as orbit to Middle-Click in the Logitech software.

On my mouse (Logitech Revolution) the software allows me to assign keysstrokes to the middle wheel left and right button as you are requesting.So for example I push to the right for Move and to the left for Rotate.

Dylan; I wished I had read that first part more carefully back then.

I sent this problem to Logitech Support and they suggested to reinstall with an updated driver. To make a long story short, that didn't work.

Then I started playing with button settings, and Lo & Behold, assigning wheel down to "Middle Button" worked.

I am now a happy camper, in this instance at least.

Now if only SU allowed mouse button shortcuts, I can make use of the many extra buttons on my mouse without interfering with other apps use of those buttons.