A shot in the dark here. Sorry don't read German.
My guess is you have not set windows file association such that it will open a skp file with SU 8. I have Windows XP sp3 hope 7 is not that different. Open up widows explorer tools, folder options, file types and associate skp with SU8. Make a short cut for Su8 to shown on your tool bar and then you can open either ???

TIG and Chris
Thanks for the replys!
I did not make myself very clear sorry.
I have created a spread sheet that solves the problem for my use but did not put the logic for the five cases in it. I am not a ruby programmer and thought a plugin would be more useful for the number of folks who have posted this question in the past plus thinking this is a capability any 3d model program should have. Given the fact the ref URL has c, lisp, etc code examples I thought it may be easy to create a plugin. I'll leave it up to your expertise if that is a reasonable thing to do. If have found doing this manually and using the interpolation scheme Jeane Lemire ( I think ) gets problematic for this case because one winds up trying to interpolate in two dimensions.

TIG:
The five cases are from the ref and the only ones I can ID also. The range of solutions for solving the quadratic equation in the ref give you the info( sign and magnitude of u) to make a decision on where the line segment lies and if there are intersections and how many.
One wants to keep the line segment for L1 the same and you can either rotate or do an x,y,z move of L1's vertex as I did in the skip. I tried solving the problem for rotation( theta and phi) using the standard form of the line in space( intersection of two planes ) I get a trig equation in two variables I cannot reduce by the standard approaches.
Thanks again !!

There have been a number of posting related to intersect of two lines when the intersect point does not occur at snap point. Given the fact SU professes to be a 3d model tool this seems to be a very basic capability it should have so why not a plugin? The link http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=2ccb7e7f6ae21ba29f30f02514717f00 is a model of the test geo , a spread sheet calculation solution and URL to the math backup. Anyone game ????? BTW the two test lines are form a previous post related to drawing the shortest d between the two

Go back copy and read the directions TIG has provided for his plugins. Your skp file has the geo as curves but the plugin wants edges. As noted bove explode the curves select the edges and then group each set seperately. Then select those two groups and run the extrude edges by edges. I have not used these much but it looks to me you may want the extrude edges by rail. If you follow TIG's direction you will be ok

Not in your business line but when researching for my own help found this http://www.legalzoom.com for some things. Maybe it can help?? Think the first decision is time and material, fixed price, cost plus etc. Do you have to protect from liability etc

I agree with TIG;
From a different engineering view.
You think CAD is more accurate but what about all the other errors of getting the line laid down on paper and the paper variation itself and the accuracy of the person doing the scaling and the errors in possible multiple prints?? In my 34 1/2 years of Aerospace engineering I have approved 100's of drawings and cannot remember one time I relayed on scaling of a drawing or accepted that in the shop. If manufacturing needed some missing info there was a formal system set up to get that question answered by engineering and if necessary this was followed up by a new drawing release. If I had a question setting down with the designer on the drafting board ( yes I am old)or on the computer was the way go. Over the years we progressed from drawings on Mylar to totally paper less system but the drawing release still follows a basic approach of initial PDR level, then CDR level then final build release. During those phases material and process, manufacturing engineers and manufacturing review the drawings to make sure the item could be built ( Or new processes , machines etc would be developed / bought), stress / dynamics, thermal, QC, procurement , test, customer+ their consultants, our worst case analysis, reliability etc. would also get in on the sign off. 3d drawings are useful for assembly level but I question that across the board just because of the complexity to create them. How would you like to make a 3d drawing of a PCB board and where would you get the info. on the potentially 100's of parts required to do that. Yes manufacturing needs that for pick and place but given the lead time on parts ( some times a year or more) the final config. may not be what you draw so now you have QC rejection to deal with and a redo on your drawings. Or you have a separate generic library , two to support??
The point is don't assume 3d is the way to go until you understand all the problems. For your engineering use it maybe

From your OP image it looks like the roof truss does not extend to the garage end which I question. However, I assume this will probably require permit and code compliance but again it is not clear if this will be condition space ( code requirements different) which I think it will not be since it is an add on. I would first find your the local requirements , if any , in regards to code. Even a visit to the local codes and inspection office ( city engineers) may get you some helpfull input before going to the expense to hire a PE. Some of those offices will even have hand outs showing you what the design requirements are for their local area. These may have the regional climate conditions factored in. My guess is a beef up in some of the beams will be required

Check out the key caps you have in the fonts you are using or possibly change fonts such you can find a symbol you want. You can use that to add symbols but not the exact one you have in the OP unless you want to make a special font. Look under start, programs, accessories, system tools and character map. For your fonts it will show the code to type for the selected symbol. Examplt http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=2d79c340445bb6b89f30f02514717f00

Please post your model if the above suggestions don't work. Other wise we are in a guessing game.
BTW check to make sure you are not in a different context than shown lines

The image shows three separate corner configurations. Why not use the power of components to your advantage and make three corner connectors. Given the fact the component definition is invariant under move, scale and rotation you should be able to use these in a number of different loactions without the intersection etc each time??

See this ref http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e095bSztLs&p=4EA4466179F2B044

Check out make_components by Matthieu Noblet. It has a minor bug. You have to include a line in the selection

Change in SU 7. Place axis then scale??

@greatoe said:

@mac1 said:

Experiment. I took two sets of lines separated by 48" meeting at 90 degs ( lke a side walk corner), calculated what the two radii have to be to maintain the 48" separation throughout the arc, drew the two corresponding arcs, measured the distance at each seg and all checked at 48" and all met at the same center point. I then connected lines to the outside arc to form a rectangle with three 90 deg corners and the one corner arc, welded that and used the offset tool for the 48 " and get the same correct result again compared to the inside arc previously made. I also measured the separation through out the arcs and the center point again.
The only conclusion I can infer from this a possible error in using the arc tool and making sure you get the tangent inference ( magenta)at the tangent points
FYI the math
Form inside corner to tangent point is 2.41421 *d where d is the separation ( for 90 degs) and of course form the outside corner it is that value +48.When you draw the arcs you should get the magenta cord inference and the cyan for the arc.

Yes I can draw the arcs manually (I wish I understand you clearly), but it is really time and labor consuming when I have to do this say 30 times modeling a single piece of round-corner cabinet.

Agree with you. I was concerned my approach on verification was flawed because I was using the an arc I already drew( And it was) so stared over. If I draw a rectangle, offset and then draw the arcs making sure the correct magenta inference is used the results is correct. If one draws the arcs first the results is not correct. If you look closely at the rubber band with the offset tool it does not follow a radial line of the arc and I could not find a way to force that. Wo3dan did some test( back in the SU 5 or 6 time frame) and found if one wants to draw an accurate arc you have to use the rotate tool vs the protractor since the protractor did allow sufficient angular accuracy VCB input then .Don't know if that is germane now. Any way if you want the corners on the cabinets more accurate then going with the rect. first is a possibility ( more arc drawing unless you can reduce that by use of rotate and copy or mirroring ) If you need to ref the center then note the first arc still maintains that attribute ( the offset one is a curve)so you can use the point at center to find that ref.

Experiment. I took two sets of lines separated by 48" meeting at 90 degs ( lke a side walk corner), calculated what the two radii have to be to maintain the 48" separation throughout the arc, drew the two corresponding arcs, measured the distance at each seg and all checked at 48" and all met at the same center point. I then connected lines to the outside arc to form a rectangle with three 90 deg corners and the one corner arc, welded that and used the offset tool for the 48 " and get the same correct result again compared to the inside arc previously made. I also measured the separation through out the arcs and the center point again.
The only conclusion I can infer from this a possible error in using the arc tool and making sure you get the tangent inference ( magenta)at the tangent points
FYI the math
Form inside corner to tangent point is 2.41421 *d where d is the separation ( for 90 degs) and of course form the outside corner it is that value +48.When you draw the arcs you should get the magenta cord inference and the cyan for the arc.

@jasper.middelberg said:

Thank you Chris and Gullfo,

yet, starting point is the standard size of the plywood
and not having to make cuts before hand.

Making use of standard sized plywood,
bend it onto a desired shape,
with an overlap, to be able to determine the boltpositions
and finally know the cutpatterns for top & bottom

I really don't know how this can be modeled in a way it is easy to experiment.
in Sketchup or any 3d software.

yet I guess this workflow might be a bit too much to ask from your plugin,
anyway, I really appreciate your work,

thanks again,

Jasper

Reality vs Virtual Reality?
Having dealt with some issues with graphic epoxy structures some questions come to mind:

1. What is the max thickness can you bend;
2. What plans are in work to establish knock down factors for bolt holes and when / how will structural allowables be establish and how. (Building and say it does not fall down is not acceptable);
3. Plywood by spec has voids so what plans are in place to insure stress risers can be mitigated. Ultra sound is used some times and since the strength is so much processed controlled vs metal what would be done to insure each panel meets some type of spec. I would guess some plywood that is made from radial sheared layers would be very different. Some same questions about the adhesive interface stress, heat and cold flow.
4. How does one handle the changes in allowables with moisture content;
   You have a big hill to climb to get this concept accepted for general use. And then comes the question of analysis capability especially for stress. Have not done any search for plywood to see if any has well established allowables but with its use would hope so.
   10/1 23:57 update Note: Did a quick search for plywood allowable stress. One of the returns was a APA plywood spec. One item would have immediate application to your effort. That is the min bend radius for various thickness and they have differnt for the cross grain ( 4 ft) and with grain ( 8 ft) evn for small thickness like 5/32 the numbers are big. ~ 3ft for cross and 8 ft with

dsafety
Final Update

Trimmed eaves to 12, plum cut at ridge, mirrored roof

dsafety
FYI

Flat roof concept

@dsafety said:

Thanks again Mac1. I think I understand and agree that having a flat roof would be much easier to build and probably cost a lot less. If I raise the center post furthest from the fireplace, (or lower the hight of the post at the fireplace) to the point where the roof will all be on one plane, it should work out. I do not know how to do the math to figure out how much to raise or lower these posts. Could I use guidelines instead?

Bob

Take a look at the ref triangle I have drawn in the above post. The one point(A) of that at the top outside beam edge is the start of the birds mouth. The other is on the line at the plum cut(B) at the top beam. If you now take and move/copy the triangle down to the far end and set the one point(A) on to the out side beam edge the triangle will cut at the ratio you are looking for to keep the same slope. Opps I noticed I went high in my last post vs low Since you think this is a possible solution I'll see if I can do some more tomorrow ( PM it will be)

@dsafety said:

Thanks Mac1. Your solution appears to be flat while using Tig's method I ended up with several facits. How did you come up with your rendering?
My approach is not a rendering and as noted was meant to show you just a rough idea what your roof will look like. What I did was use the ridge and eave beam edges as a ref ( rafters follow that profile) connected at each end with a line one to the other then used the plugin Soap Skin and Bubble to create the surface. This is not acceptable for your final model. Using the first and last rafters could also be tried but have not looked at that. TIG's approach will work but it would take many facets ( maybe as many as 50 etc) for each space between the rafters. The reason is the double curved surface. Fredo's curviloft will do that work automatically and does not look bad. As I have been harping about I think you should reconsider your approach unless you want that type of double curved surface and are willing to spend the bucks. There is a solution which keeps the splayed beams and will result in a flat roof but I stopped working on that approach based on your previous comments about the OP approach was good enough. Attached is where I stopped. You can finish if you want. The concept is the splayed beams are raised in the back bringing their edges in plane with the center. The beams were corrected and made components because of the varying dimensions. A slope reference( 17.589 degs but needs verification) was measured then moved up by 6/cos( 17.589) to account for the rafter plum cut ( should have used 2x4) was made at the front and then copied to the back to establish how much the splayed beam must be raised. From there is it just a matter of laying in the rafters. You can trim the roof line by using a section plane. Note the clipped corner needs correction
Good Luck
Bob

Outdoor Room-5_mac1A.skp