@powel said:

Thanks.

But I have some questions.
Is it somehow possible to make the rim and the hoop rounder?

Powel

When you create a circle or arc, you can specify the number of segments. There is a way to do it in the Value Control Box, but I usually do it in the Entity Info box after the fact. Draw a circle, select it with the cursor "select" tool, right click, select Entity Info and you'll see "Segments" is a value that you can adjust. For a circle, the default is 24. Remember that it will never be a true circle, but just a loop of segments in a circular array.

Remember that a larger number of segments results in a larger file size, especially when/if it is copied or extruded, etc. There's a good tutorial, perhaps in the base camp videos, on excercising restraint in file size by using a small segment count when a small segement count will serve the purpose. Keep watching the tutorials. They are really good.

HTH,
Dean
just another newbie

@honoluludesktop said:

•   A surface always includes 4 edges.
  

nitpicking...
I would say a surface always includes at least three edges.
(Three points determine a plane.)

In some of my models I had a "Temporary" Layer, just so I could get something out of my way for a time and then put it back. Is that a good way to flow?

@gaieus said:

Take Chris' advice: never move lose ("raw, ungrouped" etc...) geometry away from Layer 0 (BTW you cannot rename it and it's also called the "default" layer). The reason (partly) is:

@halkun said:

I'm using layers in Sketchup like layers in Photoshop.

Bad. In PS ,layers are to separate different things (I cannot call them "geometry" but things that are equivalent to geometry in SU).

Layers do not separate geometry in SU - they only control visibility. Thus if you put some lose geometry on one layer and some neighbouring geometry onto another, they will still be interactive and if you modify something on layer 1, it will affect something else on layer 2.

Only groups and components separate geometry in SU. To see what I mean above, have a look at this video:

[flash=425,344:p8ryhd56]http://www.youtube.com/v/fBdP499iw0Y&hl=en&fs=1[/flash:p8ryhd56]

So the general workflow should look like this (some are redundant and only sem to repeat themselves from different points of view):

• Model everything on the default Layer 0
• Always leave and keep your lose geometry on Layer 0
• Never even change the active layer (the round "radio button") from Layer 0
• Never put anything apart from groups and components on any other layer than Layer 0
• If you want to put something on other layers, always group it first (or make component)
  Otherwise you will end up with a big mess, I promise.

I must say I've had a hard time coming around to this Layer 0 workflow, and need to improve my bad habits. <sizzling mental stew> I'm getting better, one layer at a time.

This begs the question though: Let's say there's a group or component on Layer X and I want to edit or modify it. Am I supposed to move it back to layer 0 before I work on it? Or will it behave properly now that it's not loose geometry any more? I guess you're saying put it back on Layer 0 if that's the only layer ever-ever-ever to be the active layer.
So, then why are we even able to make the other layers active? Is that for experts only? Emergency use only? Or is it just trouble waiting to happen?

Thanks
Dean

@remus said:

Attack of the Hover Dogs

For a series that includes these same dogs, go here and skip ahead to page 7 and 8. Start at the Flying Sharks and you'll see a series take shape through page 8. (warning: some unsavory language).
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318782

The first page of the thread shows a link for making your own motivational posters. Enjoy.

Here's a fairly simple idea. Maybe offered before now...

Often I've seen the advice to show lines colored by axis (or whatever the command is) to investigate coplanar issues or figure out which of two lines is the plumb one, etc. The problem is that the option is a few layers deep in the menus and even as I type this I'm not finding it quickly. I know it's there somewhere, but I'm still a newbie. Probably stumbling right over the top of it. Surely it's a useful function in ways I haven't even imagined yet. But perhaps the clicks could often be saved with the following idea:

As a supplement, it seems like it would be easy for axis color of a line or edge to appear somewhere in the entity info box when applicable. Maybe just a little square of the axis' color that's the size of one of the checkboxes. Seems like there's room there in the entity info window and I'd imagine pretty simple to program.

Just an idea... not sure if others would find it useful.

-Dean
back to the old mousepad, snow shovel, wood splitter...

Advice from another newbie, so be careful not to think this is the best way. But it might work. Let's see.
Draw a rectangle on the ground that's square to the current red and green axes. This rectangle will be for reference to return to the current axis alignment.
Now draw a rectangle on the ground that's square to the line which is your target. Right click on the "target rectangle" and select Align Axes.
This might make your move snap to the correct axis, or make moves to get it there easier. Playing around without seeing your situation, I see NO the copy does not snap to the new axis (probably a good thing now that I think about it). But if you go to plan or top view and use the rotate tool, you will see that now the protractor is ligned up with the target axes, making that spin easy to do. You will probably then only have the component parallel to the target line, so you'll probably need one more move to get it on top of your line.

Then if you wish, you can right click on the first rectangle and align axes back to the original orientation.

That Align Axes feature was a big find for this newbie durring some earlier designs for a house that isn't build square to the property lines. I was struggling trying to make an addition square to the existing structure and my axes were instead square to the property line. so I faced a frustration similar to yours. It pays to play around with all the menus a little.

Anyway, HTH. A cool script would be better if you need to do this often, but for occasional use this might be OK.

-Dean
*still on the steep part of the learning curve myself.
*drawing my future home, but increasingly very distracted by this whole Green Toaster situation...

Thanks to DE and JJ for their replies.

DE, yes I have done a few models with the stairs in a single stack, which is of course the most efficient use of space. The big vertical element was giving me too many bad ideas about expressing my feelings sculpturally to the neighbor who opposed my variance . After seeing many of those models I tried this staggered plan that looked fresh if nothing else. I sort of like the way it breaks up the monolithic face and might play with bays mocking it on other faces. Or I might end up back with a tower/silo thing. Convoluted rules apply and the tower can't extend all the way to the ground for this little loophole, which looks funny on a tower.

I found a nice tidbit yesterday at town hall that gets me two more feet of compliant height (now 30 feet maximum at midpoint of sloping roof). I may split that between some added roof pich and a framed first floor deck instead of the slab on grade (Crawlspace only here, water table is way too high for a full basement).
Either way, the widow's walk is a nice idea.
Thanks for your feedback.

JJ,
Thanks

1. Grouping vs layers - I need to go watch those basecamp videos again. There was one guy who worked one way and another guy promoting the other way. I think the difference is pretty subtle and I need to figure out which is best when and why. As you know from carpentry, there is often mre than one correct way to do things, so the key is to figure out which way is best when, and which time the other way is better. At my rookie level they seem like two tools that do almost the same thing. I think I should watch those basecamp vids again. perhaps there are big long threads about this her in the forum's past.
   In any case you are right that I have too many layers simply because it gets to be a PITA scrolling the list and trying to make it fit on the page,etc. Since you offered, I'd certainly be interested to see any changes you or anybody else wants to share.
2. Thanks for mentioning the face directions thing. I cleaned that up and was sort of amused and bewlidered waching what the "orient faces" did and didn't do to the various faces - wondering why some faces are associated with the command and others aren't. I guess it makes me wonder how I got the face directions backwards in the first place. There was plenty of tearing down and rebuilding as this model evolved, so maybe that explains. Simple enough to fix though. And now I'll keep my eye on it so I am not exposed in that fashion and I can make more sophisticated errors.
3. You are right that I need to remember it's only a virtual building. I think I sort of stick built a lot of stuff that I could have push/pulled more easily, especially in the beginning, for example.
   I should probaby just pull the walls out to represent the added thickness of the siding. I'm just trying to get the dimensions correct so no officials are surprised. Actually, the sheathing should be overhanging the foundation ... <mumbling noises>.

Anyway, thanks again for the input. No offense taken JJ. Quite the opposite. I did my time in art school so I view constructive criticism as a helpful benefit of being in a creative community. Thanks to everybody here who shares their knowledge and creativity.

Have a great day.
-Dean

Hello folks,

I've been lurking on and off as I slowly teach myself SketchUp. I'm a 47yo carpenter/craftsnut/artist/dirtbiker/eclectic. Found in the unfortunate position of being a creative control freak who yet must answer to others' desires and needs, I have turned to SU rather than continue purchasing the good intentions of architect friends. While this certainly hasn't added speed to the project, I'm enjoying some newfound skills thanks largely to you folks out there.

Anyway, as an offering with no specific question, here's the latest incomplete idea that I've been working on (after probably a hundred discarded models). Obviously there's lots of work to go. I am bound tightly by zoning regulations, so I'm designing from the outside in. In this compliant scenario I am bound to this very specific 20x40 footprint. I am allowed 28 feet height measured at the midpoint of each of the sloping roofs. The cupola/penthouse can not exceed 10% (80 sq.ft)and can not exceed 50 feet in height (!!). Roof overhangs, bay windows, etc may not protrude more than 24 inches. If I stick to those rules I will comply with zoning and will not need to try (again) for a variance. <insert flames regarding Zoning Board of Appeals>. I think I can get away with a railing on the roof deck without violating height rules. Seasonal/partial views of Long Island Sound to my south from the deck and hopefully from the master suite.

I have played with materials (undecided on siding) but keep trying to return to the basics of the design before I start having too much fun and cluttering up the file. Many elements are oversimplified as I keep catching myself getting caught up in the details and fixing rookie mistakes. Obviously, this needs to evolve and refine considerably. Anyway, any critique, advice (about my SU strategy or the design), ideas, rules for a design contest , etc are more than welcome.

Here's a question or three: The thickness of the siding will need to be added. In the real world, this comes after the windows are installed. But in SU would you side it first and then add windows? I know Kolbe windows provides much of their catalog for SU use. Any others, or caveats?

You can get a good laugh out of the tree.
Run the animation from scene 1 and that's sort of what it'll look like driving home through the neighborhood here.

I have not tried any Ruby tools or imported materials, etc. yet. Any tips for file management there might be helpful. I survive by keeping my machine clean of extra stuff when I can. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

I'm fumbling through but having fun.

Thanks for looking and best wishes for the new year.

-Dean
2001 GasGas xc300

Dean Hyman 2008