I think it is possible to use "face.classify_point(pt)" method to find/select entities, that "touch" some face. For intersection I would recommend a method "intersect_line_plane" from Geom class. Face plane can be simply obtained like "face.plane", edge line like "edge.line", then it is possible to get intersection point like "Geom.intersect_line_plane". Finally it might be useful to make sure that intersection point lies inside of a face boundary using "face.classify_point".

I'm one of those people that try to push sketchup beyond what is meant to, but what I found when doing that, is Sketchup is able to stretch and I gain productivity. I ditched away CAD in exchange for SU and there is more people doing that each year. I believe that Sketchup will adjust in time and be even more competent for that. Revit is what it is, it's much more than Sketchup for certain architectural businesses, but Sketchup is fit for 90% of the other scenarios. What I like about Sketchup is that it isn't as streamlined as Revit and so allows for a multidisciplinar approach and a very flexible workflow that I couldn't find with Revit. I have quit using Revit long ago and adopted Sketchup instead. I didn't fully use Revit, but it seemed to me a standard architectural software that somehow forced us to work in a standard way. I don't know how Revit evolved since then but Sketchup, even limited as an Architectural software, allows for creative freedom. The downside is that it forces us to find convoluted methods to get standard output done. Even so, I rather keep using Sketchup as I cherish that design freedom. I find advantage on that freedom even in the latest stages of design and construction documentation. It's probably because of that that I also don't use your plugins Meedek. I admire your work but cannot think in standards nor work always on similar contexts. Your plugins represent standards so I have no great use for them, hence I thought Revit was fit for them. However, as you see with Plusspec, Sketchup is useful for people that deal with standards too. The problem with plusspec might be about Layout then, as it isn't yet as capable as Revit for documentation standard output.

For Sketchy Physics there are some models in 3D-Warehouse with approaches to AI.

@medeek said: Is there a simple way to draw a hexagon with the API, I'm not seeing it. I would like to specify a center point and radius similar to what you do to add a circle. entities.add_ngon(center,normal,radius,sides)

Or single object extension via mixin module (as shown above.) unless bb.extend(BB_Volume).volume == 0.0 # do code here end Or if only supporting Ruby 2.x+ SketchUp versions, you can use class refinements that are only active within your files. See: http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.0.0/doc/syntax/refinements_rdoc.html

My CabMaker rbz is quite large, just over 20 megabytes. I often get a Browser time out - however if I wait a bit and then reopen the portal the message that I can download the extension is there. I then check the rbz for rbe files and rb files. If only the 1 rb file and lots of rbe then I am satisfied. Finally I install the plugin and test it out. The reason for the large size is the manual is almost 8 megs (180 pages with lots of images) Also my context sensitive help folder has 360 png files and is now over 6 megs. I use a batch file that backs up my rb files into the proper version numbered folder and creates the rbz package for the portal. The batch file also moves my testing configuration out of the plugin and moves it back after the package is complete. I also simplify things by using a public area for my plugins. This area is accessible by all versions of Sketchup from SU 7 all the way to SU 2017. require 'sketchup.rb' require_all('c:/users/public/documents/sketchup')

@facer said: Therefore the work practices described in your observations will likely remain in the future but in a diminishing number of practices and industries. I'd like to disagree, though I cannot. Currently it seems limitations in Software, are leading to the most sophisticated architectural practices being almost standardized. For me the ideal solution is a mix between modelling and information: Standardized basic solutions modelled in an automatic or semi automatic way with the help of software; Leaving free time for the investigation of non standard solutions that humanize architecture; Both of them would be valid aproaches for BIM and sketchup seems to be a good platform for that. Information is key in BIM too, not only modeling, so the bridge between how a model is created in terms of geometry and what kind of information is needed to fully describe it and manage it is what stands out as hard to deal with in Sketchup.

@medeek said: What I would like to do is make it possible to hold down the control key or some other key while selecting the point to position the footing, thereby the allowing the user to select multiple points. (As said also in the other forum...) The convention for SketchUp is that the CTRL key acts as a toggle in and out of copy mode. (This is why the API defines the constants as COPY_MODIFIER_KEY and COPY_MODIFIER_MASK. Examine how the SelectionTool switches in and out of add or subtract mode, and the cursor changes to show + or - satellite icons. Or the MoveTool, ... etc. Also see this other thread here at SCF: http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=180%26amp;t=67837#p621579 You'll need to decide how to let the user tell the tool when they are done picking points. Another convention is that the ESC key resets the tool to it's initial state, or cancels the current state. (See the onCancel callback.) The ENTER is another way, detected via a onReturn or onKeyUp callback.

I'll use a html dialog menu for selecting the column configuration. [image: foundation_su44_800.jpg]

@medeek said: ... so I went back to my basic Windows Notepad, ... How do you know what encoding it saves the file it ? How do you know what type of line ending characters it uses ? These are things easily set with a real code editor. In addition code editors use color lexing to help you spell keywords correctly, match up the begins and ends of code blocks, etc. They also can use autocomplete features to help fillout method calls.

I'm still digging through the code you sent me. It may take a week but I will attempt to figure out how this actually works. Its amazing how much you are able to compress into such a small body of code.

The pushpull direction is still important. As you will always be going to push the face down, then all you need to do is to make all of your faces look upwards. Rather than worry about the loop ccw/cw-ness [which will fail at z=0 as a ccw face will swap to look downwards anyway !] - instead just add the flat face [its loop-direct unimportant], then face.reverse! if face.normal==Z_AXIS.reverse Again you need to do a -ve pushpull, so that the top face [now always looking upwards' is retained as the form extrudes downwards... You seem to be making this more convoluted than it needs to be...

You could have the three parts assembled into another SKP in your folder and then load that - bringing in the assembly and the three parts. However, if you want to add a new component into the model then use something like: model = Sketchup.active_model ### set up names of parts bolt = "MyBolt" washer = "MyWasher" nut = "MyNut" ### here I'm assuming they are already loaded [OR add then now]... ### get a reference to each from the name... defn_bolt = model.definitions[bolt] defn_washer = model.definitions[washer] defn_nut = model.definitions[nut] ### now combine them - add new empty definition name = "MyAssembly" path = Filejoin(path_to_folder, name+".skp") defn = model.definitions.add(path) name = defn.name ### in case name is preexisting, and it's now "MyAssembly#1" ### establish a suitable transformation of each component part - here I'll just call it 'tr_bolt' etc ### because the tr is within the definition's entities, center parts on the ORIGIN ### and move the nut/washer along the Z as needed ### a good idea would be to have the component parts with their insertion points ### at their ORIGINS and the bolt shaft facing down in the Z etc ? defn.entities.add_instance(defn_bolt, tr_bolt) defn.entities.add_instance(defn_washer, tr_washer) defn.entities.add_instance(defn_nut, tr_nut) ### you place the assembly 'defn' the same way, with another suitable transformation... some_entitites_collection.add_instance(defn, tr_defn)

Got it. Thank-you Sdmitch. As always your guidance with the syntax is impeccable. Even after a year I'm still feel like a bull in a china shop I'm still a bit of a ways away from a boolean subtraction but at least I have something to work with now.

Version 4.1.3 - 08.21.2025 Added a "Label Scaling" parameter for all wall types. [image: 1755792652832-wall_su1011_800.jpg] [image: 1755792652847-wall_su1012_800.jpg] Update per customer request.

Angle snapping works for rotational tools or tool states. Length snapping would work for linear tool states.

If any file is missing at the moment that there is an attempt to 'use' it - e.g. a texture image, a SKM material, or a SKP component - then the process will fail. However, once a texture image is used for a material for a model's material, or a SKM material is loaded into a model [v2017], or a SKP component is loaded into a model, then that data is bound into the model and its connectivity to the external reference is no longer needed - so if the file is subsequently deleted nothing bad happens. Unless a user goes into your extension's subfolder and removes [or renames] images, or SKMs or components, before the load attempt, then it will always [re]load. If you rely on 'shipped Materials', then if they are there they could load [v2017], but of course if they are removed by the user beforehand, it will fail...

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=323%26amp;t=40172

It's not much to look at but this is the beginning of the Medeek Structural Plugin: [image: ozJy_Structural-test1.jpg] The red panels on the wall indicate shear wall panels.