Offline
Hi!
(Sorry about the late reply.)
I'm glad to hear people still find this plugin useful, thanks!
I'm still developping this plugin (and other) from time to time but its all experimental code and no estimated time of delivery..
Your best option is Skalp, in my opinion.
Best regards/
Joel
@unknownuser said:
Apparently SU2019.2 is due to be released next week. SketchUp API C++ compatibility will be deprecated in favour of C in this update. There's a new feature for you. I hope the developer leveraging C++ know about this and are ready to release updates to their extensions.
Uff!! This had me worried and made me have a look in the release notes. 
I dont think it is as bad as it sounds. It is only the C++ modelreader (or exporter might be its name ?) that is being deprecated. I doubt many developers are still using that anyway.
edit: ups! Guess I was wrong 
Interesting stuff indeed, and nice job Icehuli!
It looks like you are wrapping a lot of Ruby-communication-code into C#.
Does it work well ? How is the performance ?
Ive read the UnmanagedExports-package puts a bit of overhead.
Was rather old info, I'll be intreseted to know if it has been improved.
I'm working on a similar project with a WPF application.
In my project I use a different pattern in using a C++/Cli "Bridge-layer" with a C++/cli ref-class that subclass the WPF app. Then I can use that class to communicate with C++ as normal through exporting the required functions.
This means off course writing the bussiness-layer and Ruby-Communication layer in C++,
and (for the most part) only using C# for the front-end.
I had some problems running the application if I did not put the assembly in the same folder as Sketchup.exe. I don't want to hijack your post but it would be interesting to hear if you have any experience with this.
The solution I found is to handle the event when the Appdomain cant locate an assembly.
AppDomain ResolveEventHandler
This SO-topic has some code: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1373100/how-to-add-folder-to-assembly-search-path-at-runtime-in-net (msarahan C++/Cli version a bit further down).
This requires a longliving Application though.
I could also possibly explicitly load the assembly, and then use reflection to create an instance. But it becomes quite complicated when I want to use a C++/Cli ref class as subclass.
I wonder what the policy is regarding putting dll's in the Sketchup folder ?
Ah yes, the repeating pattern problem.. I know what you mean. Been there..
Well it's possible to reposition textures, rotate and resize them to create variations. Also 2dBoolean will pickup multiple textures/materials and you could apply same amount off pushpull to them all.
But then again, you might want more flexibility then what premade component-patterns can offer so your current workflow might be more convenient.
Are you going to apply this to a flat/2d face first, and then smoove ? Then Hatchfaces plugin with crosshatching and using a material should create the pattern. I think (?) anyway....
Take 2 on this.
Looking at Box gif there is still a lot of manual Labour involved deleting leftovers.
Also using visuhole one must create the surrounding boolean-geometry as a stencil every time to fit a face (no ?) . And when done move the resulting geometry back to the face/floor ?
I wonder if this workflow could be improved somehow...
@unknownuser said:
I figured that tiles that are cut become unique components (or exploded) so I would have to extrude one by one, and that's impossible with floors, it has a LOT of planks.
Im not 100% sure what you mean here, but you should avoid creating single planks when tiling!
Because, then you must make every Component unique when cutting it which will increase filesize and it will fill you Component window pretty quickly making a mess.
Its probably a better idea to create some kind of tilable, premade larger pattern that you can place and copy around on the faces (it looks like you did that on your picture, hence the confusion when you said they are individual planks).
If you could accept simple and not so detailed planks, you could perhaps do a 2d Component that you use 2dboolean with extrude-mode. For a quick test you could try the provided skp file.
Visuhole might be the way to go, I just provide another solution in case you have overlooked this possibility..
Good luck!
Ahh ok, sorry my misstake.
The plugin only works with 2d geometry. It is possible to work with the plugin and 2d Components that gets extruded afterwards (there's an example in the manual) by manipulating materials and different pushpull distances. However that might be to much of a hassle for you, so you might be better of using the inbuilt boolean features of Sketchup.
Or maybe have a look at SDmitch panel-plugins.
Hello!
Since it looks like your components are flat/2D, I have to recommend my 2dBoolean plugin. It will intersect Components with faces and delete extras.
SketchUp Plugin and Extension Store by SketchUcation provides free downloads of hundreds of SketchUp extensions and plugins
(sketchucation.com)
You could maybe try 2dBoolean for this. To me it looks exactly what you want.
A Picture might explain better.
Note that the Component instances are flat (2d).
Me too, same as baz. Check forums every day, but havent poststed any for a while.
I think there are still a few lurkers around..
@unknownuser said:
You might want to check out 2DBoolean by Joel G. Just the thing for this operation.
I thought so to at a first glance. But then I looked closer at the Picture and it does look like the metal-net is inside the volume meaning a 3D boolean is needed. 2D-boolean plugin only have algorithms for working with planar (face) intersections.
I don't think you have any other alternatives then winding up your own intersection formula using Groups and sorting out geometry if you are not going to use PRO version boolean.
@Rv1974 when you say "overlapping" faces where you refering to Z-fighting where non-intersected faces lie on top of each other ,as Driven has shown ?
Cause the first Picture show intersected faces which would mean a whole different thing, and dare I say quite more complicated algorithm...
Otherwise Driven's boundingbox tests idea might work.
@unknownuser said:
it might be easier to achieve this considering a volume, instead of a surface
and since your letters are 3d, you might consider transform them into solids
I agree.
However I think Rv1974 is after a general purpose face overlapping detection.
Thought about it during lunch, and can perhaps be solved if looking at face vertices winding order and comparing those with adjecent faces in the plane. Or maybe not
I don't have time to work on this though.. But an interesting problem.
ok..
Looking at your Picture again I see that the faces are all "simple polygons" without holes. So this oneliner wont work. I overlooked this fact.
I have a feeling this is not so simple to solve since we don't have any reference to compare with (?)
It's easy to visually see the letters and how they should be formed, but in code it's just another polygon with the same properties as it's neighbours.
I don't have time to dig deeper into this right now, maybe later..
If the geometry isent grouped the result would be randomized unless you find a way to put mindreading into code..
Another way to put it is finding out if a face has a hole, but it wont be foolproof..
But it would only be for visual purposes ?
Sketchup.active_model.selection.grep(Sketchup;;Face).each{|face| face.material = "orange" if face.loops.length > 1 }
@unknownuser said:
If you need to do that algorithmically, then, you can divide the global bounding box containing the group of edges and the group of faces into a 3D grid (for instance 20 x 20 x 20), as a set of BoundingBox objects. Then you can once mark each BB-cube with the faces and edges with respect to the conditions:
- a face has one vertice in the BB-cube or an edge intersecting the BB-cube
- an edge has one vertex in the BB-cube or intersects the BB-cube
These tests are normally fast, since based on built-in methods of BoundingBox.
I really like this idea.
Edit: removed nonsence I previously posted, missread the algorithm. Looping egdes and faces is only needed once to mark BB. Although one would have to loop each boundingbox per entity (worst case) to find the correct BB to attach to ? So to many bounding box divisions arent to ones advantage ?
20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 boundingboxes.
Edgeintersect boundingbox is presumably a Point in volume calculation ?
Meaning for each vertice first test if in rectangle X/Y(4 tests) then if inside Z (2 tests).
6 tests X 2 vertices (worst case) leads to a worst case of 96 000 tests per edge..
Solution might be to add double sweepline approach in boundingbox ranges. Per each BB column first test if egde fall within X and Y, and then proceed. If so then proceed in columns ( each BB in z-axis ). But maybe this is what you had in mind already but forgot to mention. I might be stating the obvious..
If 2D, sweepline-sort, perhaps with binary search Array and sort by X or Y.
Boundingbox from faces could be used as bounds..
I suppose the faces bounds coordinates would have to be sorted as well, not making it optimal..
If 3D I don't know. Faces could be standing straight up and sweepline would miss it..
Even if you sort roughly, you are gonna cut down the calculations a lot.
n faces * n edges is a bad algorithm. But for 100 edges and faces you shouldent get such a hit anyhow ?
That's nice but..
@unknownuser said:
I also need to transform the face to ground level. The reason is I will need to do some panel optimization. So I need the shapes on ground level.
I gather this information as he actually DO want the face to the ground to do something with it there. Maybe I'm wrong this time as well.
Edit, sorry missed the part in the code where one can edit the plane. Your code seams to work for the purpose of getting the plane correct!
Delicious tool!
I'm with Jiminy on this one.
Even if you could create fast algorithms in C++ (or whatever) that calculates this, there still remains the question of adding dense geometry in Sketchup at instant feedback speed. Don't know if that has been resolved in latest updates ? Working on old version 