@kaas said:

This is actually quite a nice idea and could be useful / fun. Maybe I will give a try to make this when I find the time. Just to make it more easy for me (in case of cross platform differences)... what version SU and OS do you use?

If using 2017, you could abuse the new Notifications to pop a reminder every 5 minutes instead of actually saving. It might be less annoying than having SketchUp stop responding for a second while it automatically exports the image. Then the user could choose to export or ignore the Notification.

In versions 2016 and earlier, you could actually write this as a Tool and use on-screen OPEN_GL primitives for the notification.

Just use it to create a new one with a different name in the Materials editor.

I think there were plans but something happened to the image.

Which version of LayOut?

Why don't you complete your profile so that question doesn't need to be asked?

@tig said:

Look at http://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=SectionCutFace

Not really what I was looking for; however your flatten plane is; I will experiment 😛

I mean: http://sketchucation.com/forums/download/file.php?id=57217%26amp;t=1

Its exactly what I was looking for. Ill try running it.

Edit:

Well it seems nearly perfect; I'll take it as it is; its faster to erase unneeded ages then to draw your building again by hand.
Experiment.png

Its seems to also flatten smoothed/soft edges. So when you smoothed/softened a lot of faces; you sure get a lot of line deleting.

It also traces geometry that is hidden behind a face closer to the plane; however I can live with this, its not a big issue (it only takes a few secs. to delete).

@mac1 said:

masterpaul;
I did not do a very good job with alternate approach. Attached is top level concept. I removed some geo to give better view. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hk4wjofwv3fzuzk/Backup_1.skb

Don't worry this.. this method would had also worked. However I ended up doing it all by scratch.

@aerilius said:

So you want to paint on the current view (ie. paint the object as you see it, rather than in unwrapped mode).
Unwrapped meshes have often an unnatural shape, and what looks like a straight line on the model is not always a straight line in the uv map. That makes working with many uv-mapping tools challenging and requires to think in "uv space".

Once I felt this would more fit the intuitive "SketchUp way". I have some experiments with how painting directly on the model would work. However it's rather a hackish solution and there are latency/precision problems and limitations of SketchUp's API.

The procedure of editing screenshots of the current view works for faces that are faced to the viewer, but not for orthogonal faces (the texture on them would be stretched and low-resolution). I'm sure your workflow is easier to implement in an semi-automated plugin.

This is also pretty cool, with different brushes and airbrushing this could be pretty powerful. Yeah some issues do arise with extreme angles, but this could be fixed by selectively choosing faces to paint on etc or by having some fading options (textures fade out on extreme angles/mix with existing ones)

I unfortunately don't have the ability to create plugins etc but maybe one day... maybe.

@pgarmyn said:

@masterpaul
You have it if the view direction (line between camera and viewpoint) is perpendicular to the sectionplan, with camera switched 'on'.
Any face perpendicular to the view direction is represented without (perspective) deformation, and they will have the same scale if they are in the same perpendicular plan (= same distance).

Yeah, your right, I I didnt set my model to be aligned to the axes, it was slightly off.

Under document set up just check the boxes "show grid on top" and "print grid" easy!

@box said:

Sorry, it's beyond my tiny mind then.

I love that avatar.

So that was not a legend! Big Miss! 😮
A ruby can't make the trick ?

@tig said:

I'd split my DXF data for general CNC use 'by layer' - into welded curves forming 'outer-loops' and those forming 'inner-loops' [if there's a cutter bit and you need tolerances the bit goes on opposite sides of the cut for the two types], 'holes' [<~5mm diam for drilling rather than cutting], 'pockets' or 'engraving' or 'recesses', where the 'depth' is indicated in the layer-name itself - and finally 'reference tags' - where the ref can be engraved onto the top face if desired - which can be useful later on when you are trying to assemble complex similar looking multi-part...

I didnt quite get that. In lasercam u simply recolour the lines you want, to be cut and the ones that you want to be engraved. However Engraving an area (1cm x 1cm) requires you texture this area (apparently this can be done in autocad.

I could export a PDF as vector lines from sketchup, or I could save it as DWG. I havent thought about the idea of playing around with multiple layers as I don't know if lasercam reads layers as layers or if It just mashes everything into one (it would save a lot of time if it could read layers though)

Does someone have a solution to this now....

I have been looking for a answer to this problem also, the thing is I know my faces are co-planar because after it happens i can turn on hidden lines and delete the triangulations without losing my surface.

Triangulation does occur from the intersect faces command as mentioned above however in some situations if I try to create an opening in a surface by drawing on the face with a rectangle or lines (my usual preferred method) then it does not cut any hole and also creates more faces across the entire surface (usually 2 extra surfaces on top of the original) in the same plane.

My firm recently moved to 2013 from SU7 and it is definitely has more bugs and issues while being slower to run in general.

Very nice!

I haven't had anyone test it yet... I'll see what I can do for the free files. You'd still need an account set up on the back side. But sure, you can just give it away. send me a pm here with your desired login info.

Seems Thomthom makes that every days 😉

But maybe I don't know exactly what is a digimaps ?

Hmmm... I reviewed the stadium as it stands (according to a sketchup warehouse model that seems to be very close to the pictures I could find, the 2010 original poster's proposal, and the youtube video of the new design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bza_mEkYALg).

I do see some similarities. It especially seems that both the 2010 proposal and the new design seem to pull the end seats closer to the field, but there are significant differences, also. For instance, the 2010 proposal uses the existing building basically as is, replacing the roof over it. The new design significantly adds to the building. Also, some of the "design elements" highlighted in the original pictures are actually what the stadium looks like now, and both the 2010 proposal and the new design utilize them.

http://www.dcyale.com/s01.jpg

I would be surprised if the person or persons doing the schematic design didn't see the 2010 proposal, but there is a lot of work that was done. The roof lines are very similar, but that seems to be more a matter of form following function.

It looks like there has been some engineering for the new design roof, and the new design uses a different support system.

http://www.dcyale.com/s02.jpg

Most strikingly the interior has a much different look:

http://www.dcyale.com/s03.jpg

The pillar spacing seems to be the same, but I am not sure if that is a function of design or engineering.

So, in my opinion, while some areas seem to be inspired by the 2010 proposal that was in the warehouse, the new proposal has significant differences and seems to have a lot more engineering in the roof supports. I suspect that the similarities that do exist are functional, not design, and probably would not support a legal action. Of course, the laws in Europe may differ significantly from the laws in the US, and that might make a difference.

@masterpaul said:

@ely862me said:

replace the lines with components.

Is there a plugin that does that?

Not as far as I know; I copied, scaled and rotated them manually !

@richard said:

@bmike said:

If you still have slowdown - I would make Richard's idea even simpler - keep 2 folders, but instead of manually re-linking each image, as long as the file names are the same - simply copy-over the original small images that LayOut is reading with the higher resolution images.

Mate the reason for the third folder is to achieve the same thing but to not overwrite and lose either the lower res or higher res images. Again what I do is keep one folder with hi res, one with low res and then the third folder being the one LO reads and to here is where one alternates between high and low res images - again named commonly.

Sounded like you were manually re-linking all the images. But yes, 3 works just as well, just copy in the resolution you need, and update references in document settings. Wasn't clear when I read it earlier.