Need to try my hand at something like this - my own window dynamic is good for most standard housing, but nowhere near this flexible. Kudos to you sir.

Are the lines coming through as solid, or just not appearing?

There are BIM plugins for sketchup, but last I checked (admittedly a few years back), they weren't really worth the effort. Also, what you're describing takes literally five clicks (three if you have entity info open already).

Yeah shift now locks orientation AND plane, down locks orientation only

Nice, but I think you'd find it easier to posiiton the first five spheres if you placed one, then rotated it 72 degrees about the origin four times

for future reference, I think you were looking for a video editing software, like vegas or premiere, or one of various freeware alternatives

@ashscott said:

@utiler said:

What's a modular operator?

One of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation
(I still have no idea)

Doesn't Simfonia Animation Tools have a modulator function so you can create wave signals (possibly completely unrelated).

Sorry for the (incredibly) late reply. Were you ever taught about "remainders" as a kid, before you learned to divide into fractions/decimals? Modulus is that - so 15 mod 4 = 3

• that is, the remainder after you took away as many fours as you could. It's usually written as a percentage symbol. This is very useful when you're working with discrete numbers.

To be honest, I'm not sure why it's not already in DCs, since ruby does actually have support for it.

Rich, what was the plugin you used to model that sink? With the maya/max/blender/etc. style manipulator? I feel like I'm missing out on a massively useful tool here...

For .skm, the quickest way is to drop them into C:/Program Files/Sketchup/Sketchup 2016/Materials - but you may have to make it not "read only" first. wherever your materials folder hides on OSX. When adding stuff on-the-fly, say from images found online, I like to drag and drop the image into sketchup, explode to convert it to a texture, and then move it into another folder from "in model" if I feel like keeping it.

Yeah, should be. You should consider using the sketchucation warehouse for all your plugins, then you can autoinstall "bundles". Really useful when you do a lot of moving between computers.

Essentially, a copy of the Iron Rods group should be one 20' (or shorter) section right? And each 20' section has an overlap of 2' on each side (minus 4' for the two ends which do not overlap with anything). So I think this should work to calculate the correct number of groups of Iron Rods:

Copies = INT((Reinforcement!LenX-IF(Reinforcement!LenX>20, 4, 0))/16)

Then calculate the position in X of the groups:

X = COPY*18

And finally the size (bear in mind that the final rod will be less than 20'

LenX = IF(COPY=Copies, Reinforcement!LenX-Copies*20, 20)

I think this all should work anyways, I'm not testing this as I go. Feel free to correct me, anybody.

Then you just need to change the position of the rods in alternate Iron Rods groups. Here's a hint:

ISEVEN(Iron Rods!COPY)

This will return true or false depending on whether the Iron Rods group is even.

That should be all that's needed for the overlaps - I might come back and talk through the rest if nobody beats me to it.

I'm not aware of any such plugin. For a manual method, if your individual pieces are solid, you could try a subtracting them all from a cube. No idea how well this would work.

Modulus operator in Dynamic Components. Please. It would make some of my formulae infinitely less complicated.

Well you can make it not black in maya by reversing the normals (in 2016 I think it's mesh display -> reverse faces), if that actually matters. As for the triangles, they shouldn't make a difference to your end result. I suspect you just need to apply a material in cryengine and like... deselect the object to stop the edges from showing up?

The... whatever it's called... explorer shell sounds right? The save window. It needs updating - Layout has modernised already, but Sketchup seems stuck in the XP days in this regard. It irritates me that I can't get quick access to my favourites, libraries, etc. when I need it.

I think number 1 is thomthom's UV toolkit?
Number 2 is architect tools, again by thomthom.

You can use ruby scripting for this. For instance, if I make a cube of 1m by 1m, and group it, I can print the dimensions to the console by selecting it and using this:

grp = Sketchup.active_model.selection[0];
puts "Width; #{grp.local_bounds.width}\nDepth; #{grp.local_bounds.depth}\nHeight #{grp.local_bounds.height}";

The API can be found here: http://www.sketchup.com/intl/en/developer/index

I'm not sure I understood you entirely correctly, but I think you're saying that when you move components in the master file, it messes with the scenes? The only reason I could think for this happening would be if you were moving the geometry and containers inside the component context, instead of the component itself. This could leave behind hidden details that will become visible in the wrong place next time you switch scenes.

If I were you, however, I wouldn't use scenes in the component files (unless of course, you need to present those components individually). If you use layers with consistent naming, you can then set up scenes in the master file very easily and have them encompass all components involved.

Personally, I just explode and regroup anything that I need to un-dynamicise, but I believe there's a script hanging around somewhere, possibly by TIG?

edit: here it is http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15%26amp;t=40538 , but the iterative version (that kills more than one nested component) is broken, so you might have to beg TIG for a fix

@mike lucey said:

George, I was not trying to discredit Derei and definitely not being fallacious. As for 'one-upmanship', I'll leave that to you I was just sticking to facts, figures and on the ground reality as I see it.

Fair enough, my misinterpretation then.

@mike lucey said:

I disagree with your suggestion that Trimble should leave the price for SU Pro as is or drop it. It looks to me that they may have possibly inherited the 'free ethos' brought in by Google that, it seems, were not that interested in making money on SketchUp. It looks that Google were more interested in the bigger picture, pushing / developing Google Earth etc.

I wonder what kind of app SU would be and at what price level it would be at if still under @Last Software ownership. I doubt we would have a free version and I'd say they would not have been able to freeze the price for 15 years.

I don't think there's any doubt that Google kept the price fair. I just think that with Sketchup's particular userbase, a lower price would be beneficial - reason being the huge number of Make users (no doubt including many small businesses who should be on pro) can essentially be seen as potential buyers who can't afford pro. I'd be incredibly surprised if the gain in pro users wouldn't make up for the price drop involved.

Of course, this is all conjecture, really, since the decision is ultimately about what is least risky for the shareholders, but it's nice to dream. Personally, I'd like to see a blender-shaped initiative to develop an alternative, but that's wishful thinking at best