@anssi said:

SU exports only vector PDFs, to get a raster PDF you will have to print using some PDF printer and with "Use High-accuracy HLR" DISabled.
Layout can export either vector or bitmap, and also a hybrid file (with vector lines on top of the bitmap textures and shadows).

Anssi

What do I have to specify in LO in order to export the vector type only? I'm making possibly a big assumption that LO's vector PDF exporter is different (bug-free) than SU's...

Wait... you're saying the "PDF" from LO is actually a PNG? Comparing the outputs it looks better than PNG, or maybe I'm imagining things.

I left it at medium just to see how it would turn out, and yes, I went back in and resized it successfully. Timewise I should probably leave all figures as PNGs just to get on with things, then when the manuscript is done, bite the bullet and convert all figures into PDFs.

Again, thanks a lot guys. It's good to know it can at least be done, warts and all.

[edit] Oh, and if anyone's interested, the figure is part of a tube-frame chassis of a sports car. If you ever considered building a car from scratch, check out http://www.midlana.com/

Okay, my bad, I didn't have a paper sheet in the LO workspace. Now File>Insert is active so I selected it and Inserted the .skb file. It did it but took a long time... anyhow, I then exported it, put it in the manuscript and printed it out. Looks better, though the picture is now about half-size... huh?

Well okay, so it is possible to make it work, squeeling like a pig bent over a barrel, but I digress. Thanks for all the help guys.

@gaieus said:

No. You don't "Open" an skp file in LO but "Insert" it from the same, main File menu (just lower). There you can select image files to insert as well. It's like importing in SU.

I don't follow. Is the above when I'm in LO? If so, "File>Insert" is grayed-out.

@gaieus said:

It must be some system problem then. The two apps work very fine (and interactively) together, really.

Understood, could be. However, it doesn't get Google off the hook since they claim it works with Vista.

@gaieus said:

Or you should be able to just drag the skp file onto the LO icon and it opens automatically.

I just tried that and while it does open LO, the workspace is blank.

I also made sure I'm running LO in Admin mode (which can cause trouble if not done) but it made no difference.

Oh no, I have no problem opening LayOut. However, once I'm in it, I can neither view nor load SU files. They simply don't appear in the directory because LO is looking for only .layout files. If I then switch to . file types I can then of course see them, but attempting to load a .skb, I get an expected message box, "Error reading LayOut file".

This is wierd; It's almost like I have a different version of code than you guys...

Regarding all the tricks that can be done to make it work, like I said before, I have dozens of drawings to deal with. I just don't have time to babysit a bugged application to make it work. If it was one file, sure, fine, but for all of them? No.

Please understand I appreciate the help and you guys are just trying to find a way to make it work for me. It's just too much work do do the same on every drawing.

Hmm, no. The .skp file is months old; I just open it in SU then immediatly select File>Send to LayOut and nothing happens. I don't see any rotating icon to indicate it's busy chewing on it, and don't hear any harddrive access going on.

I even tried selecting the figure first but that didn't matter.

Not that this should matter but I'm on a PC running Vista. SU seems to have the same worts that everyone else has so I think it's working okay.

I'm only halfway kidding when I say I feel like asking for my money back. If I can have the same non-functionality with the free version, why bother paying $$$ for it? I've seen similar issues with other software. Companies keep adding features yet users plead to just make it reliable and not keep changing it.

Doh, never saw that... okay, I pressed that button and... nothing. I found no file of .layout type.

@remus said:

Thats quite strange. Are the disappearing pieces groups/components?

Thanks for the input, guys. All the tubes are grouped and locked.

Mentioned was using Layout. While I have it I've been working excusively in SU7 for its 3D abilities. How do I use LayOut to export an SU figure? Keep in mind I have dozens of drawings to deal with - I don't have the strength to redraw everything in LayOut.

I'm guessing that I have to cut-and-paste from SU to LO, which I did (had to unlock all the tubes in SU first), and it comes into LO rather pixelated. I then exported it as a PDF and while it works "better" I'm not sure it's good enough. Note how the dimension lines are thin and washed out. Also, it converts the entire drawing, not just the portion I had on the screen; there may be a setting for that.

Since no one else has posted about this I'm hoping there's a simple fix. At this point I'll be happy to have my nose rubbed in my incompetence if someone can help.

I'm writing a book which has many vector-graphic type figures, so PDF drawings are best. I bought SU Pro specifically for the additional output file conversion types which include PDF, only to find it's leaving out portions of the figures, and even adding different shaded areas as a result. Below are a JPG, so you can see what I start with, and a PDF of the exact same figure. Note how parts of various tubes are missing and the different coloration.

JPEG print quality is inferior to PDF, but it isn't leaving parts out. PDF is really the right one to use, but right now I feel pretty stupid paying for the Pro version which, at least for PDF, is of zero worth right now.

It was suggested that I try shifting the camera angle slightly to see if it fixes it. I don't even want to go there, where any tiny change completely breaks it. If anyone knows what's going on I'll really appreciate it.

Thanks!

I've not (yet) written a Ruby script, but thinking the problem through I don't see an elegant solution. Well, if Ruby can take the derivative of an equation to find the zero slope points, looking for minimum distances, that would be the most elegant. Short of that it's probably down to a more knuckle-dragging method of cycling through every segment vs. the opposite element. Another way is a binary search, where you try going half way down one segment, check the distance, then try going half way in each other direction and see if the resulting distance is shorter. That actually can work pretty fast, ten interation can get you down to 0.001" accuracy. Just some ideas from a non-Ruby guy

BTW, my example was just that, but typical of what I'd use it for. I'm building a tube-frame chassis for a sports car (http://www.midlana.com) and knowing how close one tube is to another, or a wheel, or a tank, or whatever, is important. Obviously I can figure it out the hard way with the measuring tool, eyeballing it and gradually closing in on the minimum value, but a plugin would be a huge timesaver. Thanks for the comments, guys.

Kurt

Maybe I need to rephrase the question. Is there a plugin that displays the shortest distance between two elements? For example, a 1" radius circle is clicked, along with a line that passes 3" from the center of the circle, showing that the clearence (miminum distance between the elements) is 2". Once 3D is thrown into the mix it can be difficult to acertain clearances between objects.

I'd like to find a plugin that gives the closest distance between two selected elements. I've searched but not found anything.

Thanks!

Kurt

Doh!

You're right, that works fine, though it's too bad it doesn't make the top surface parallel to the red/green plane, but beggers can't be choosers; I can rotate it. Thanks!!

[edit] Well that's annoying. The way it draws a square, I have to put in the diagonal distance in order for the flat-side dimension come out right. That is, putting in a radius of 0.707 gives a 2" square tube. Oh well, it's still better than having to do it manually.

Is there a "Square Tube Along Path" like the "Pipe Along Path" plugin? I'm also willing to accept a plug in that does Polygon Along Path if I can spec the number of faces. Thanks!

I don't think I'm doing that, though. I draw two lines, then convert both to pipes with zero ID. I use the Intersect With Model to show where they touch, and that's where I run into trouble, when I try to back away one tube from the other for editing; the intersecting line says on the other tube.

I figured out that I can select the pipe - and must also include the intersecting line - in order to move it for editing. That works better though I was surprised that when I selected the intersecting area and hit Delete, it also deletes the entire tube, but I can deal with that.

Subject change:
Somewhat related, my chassis consists of a mix of square and round tubing. Is there a plugin to produce square tubes the same way that pipes are created? I realize there may be an issues with how to orient the flat sides but having a tool would be much better than placing a square normal to a line and projecting it. I found when I use the Extrude or Follow me tool, it doesn't act the way I want and a plugin would be a great time-saver.

Thanks again for the generous help and I hope to pass on the favor to others.

[edit] Found this: http://sketchup.engineeringtoolbox.com/section-steel-to_2.html
Don't know if it'll do what I want but I'll give it a try. Regardless, if anyone has a "Line-to-square-tube" plugin I'd like to try it.

@unknownuser said:

When you first make the tube with the ruby it becomes a group, thats why I said explode it in my first post...
Here's the procedure:
1.When making a tube with tube along path it will automatically become a group apart from the original line now inside, this can be deleted at any time.
2.Explode the tube you want to trim and intersect with model.
3.Triple click the exploded tube to select all of it and regroup it.
4.Now right click and select edit group, delete unecessary linework in wireframe mode.
Thats it all trimmed and in a group.

Ah, Explode the tube thenIntersect with Model thenregroup it! I was was doing it all out of order.

So regrouping causes the unwanted intersecting portion to become it's own "object"? I'm guessing that means that I should be able to delete it by clicking once to select it and deleting it, instead of having to delete every single exploded line segment separately, which was driving me nuts.

Okay <room gets brighter> I'll give that a try tonight, thank you!

I'm experimenting around with all the suggestions. One thing is that when I try to follow the advice to "make the intersection", that works. I copy the wanted part, that works, but when I paste it somewhere, it's the full tube without the intersecting lines. What are you guys doing that when you copy the tube it also copies the intersection? I'm guessing I must select the intersecting line too in addition to the tube I want, true?

Also, if I explode the tube in-place and try and delete the intersecting parts, sometimes when deleting one face, it grabs tube segment down its full length instead of just the overlapping portion.

I'm getting their slowly, but since I have so many tube intersections to deal with I need to have this down.

Thank again guys for all the help