oh I see! I completely misunderstood attribute_dictionaries.

		dict = c.attribute_dictionaries['dynamic_attributes']
	    inlist.push(c) if ((c.typename=="ComponentInstance") && (dict['report'] == 1))

This works great, thanks Tig.

Hi Tig, I'm trying to get this to work, reporting the components only if the dynamic attribute "report" is true. After a little experimentation, I think I should be changing line 135 to read

	    inlist.push(c) if ((c.typename=="ComponentInstance") && (c.attribute_dictionaries['report'] == 'TRUE'))

But that creates no results (I do have a DC in my model with the attribute 'report' set to 'TRUE')

Could you point out where I'm going wrong?

Wow, you can align to absolute coordinates? I did not know that, thanks ballbearing

Modulus in dynamics... and just more dynamic functions in general

I think it's just about usability - as far as I know, the game environment treats everything as tris.

SU doesn't export models in a nice, quadrilateralised form, since it was never made with quad-based modelling in mind. A face with some rounded corners, some holes cut, and maybe some arching edges may seem simple in SU, but actually translates to a lot of tris that export in whatever arbitrary way SU decides, making it difficult to edit in Maya, Max, Blender, etc. Quadrilateralising the mesh helps, as it arranges the tris nicely, but even so, they are still tris.

The main reasons I like quads:
-Easily editable. Dragging vertices around on a quad mesh creates predictable results. ngons act strangely in this situation.
-Edge loops. Edge loops are a huge part of most modeling applications, and allow for easier selection, division, and readability. tris and ngons do not produce good edge loops.
-Deformation. Quads deform predictably and smoothly, making them much more presentable in an animated mesh.

shift to lock inferences/directions/etc. was one that I found way too late x_x

I think it needs to be online for the initial registration, but I just disabled my connection to test, and it starts fine for me, once registered.

@lushi said:

The option to move objects without sticking together, as in AutoCAD, where the "Move" tool to differentiate the "stretch", and thus without a little more "groups" that accumulate in our models .

But Sketchup is not Autocad, and besides, the way the move tool functions can actually be used very effectively in the modeling process. Groups and components are there to allow exactly the kind of movement you are talking about.

I do think, however, that entering and exiting of groups and components could be much more streamlined.

@slbaumgartner said:

Pretty vague, sweeping, and in my experience (I use a Mac) unsubstantiated statement! There are some problems that occur only on Windows and some that occur only on Mac, but neither is "slightly problematic".

Ok ok you got me -holds hand in air- I used a vague and unsubstantiated statement in the hopes of convincing this kind man to avoid paying for overpriced hardware in a pretty box with a clunky OS

Seriously, not gonna go any further into this because I have a definite bias here, but I really don't think a Mac is worth the price you pay.

So since layout got a little discreet love with 2015, in the form of dynamic reporting, I'm getting quite interested in the ultimate possibilities it holds. So Imma put down my wish for layout plugin support, plus an API.

@msketcher said:

I'm really excited about the LayOut label tool AutoText features too. It can now read things like dynamic component attributes from your models. I'm trying to get it to be able to read dimension info from windows, so the label tool automatically shows the correct dimensions on windows from inside the layout document. A lot of hidden potential here...

Is that so? You're right on the hidden potential there, I will investigate further.

Video memory will definitely have an impact, but I'm not sure to what extent you will notice between a 2GB and 4GB card. Also, just a word of advice, go for a PC. Sketchup has had always been slightly problematic with Macs, if the accounts are to be believed.

Firstly, you should understand that software like LumenRT, Lumion, Twinmotion, etc. are not the same as renderers like VRay, Thea, Indigo, etc. The former are real-time, and offer a prettier and arguably simpler interface with the sacrifice of output quality. I don't rate them as highly as renderers, having used Lumion for a long time, but they are good nonetheless.

When it comes to which you choose, it mostly comes down to personal preference. Look at images that have been created with them, look at the pricing, look at the interface and ease of use. None are inherently bad or good, just find one that suits you.

I know the USGS have free terrain maps, I wonder if there might be something similar for europe?

the-blueprints.com might yield some results, have you checked there?

It would be great if the in-model category of the components window was organised in a more heirarchical way - so that the myriad of sub-components and such don't clutter the list. So to clarify, components in the root model would show up immediately, with little expansion buttons to show their sub-components

I was just complaining to a colleague about how it was supposed to have been released yesterday, and reopened twinmotion.com to point out that there was no download link anywhere. It seems that as of a few minutes ago, Twinmotion.com redirects to Bim3D.fr, where you can buy/trial Twinmotion. http://bim3d.fr/en/software-trial/

I have no idea if this will work, but have you made sure the materials are applied to the geometry, rather than the containing groups/components?

Sounds to me like the component might be glued to the mesh. Right click on the component, unglue.

I'd reccommend doing some tutorials first, so as you know your way around sketchup before you start breaking things. The official tutorials are decent, so I'd suggest you start with them.

In order to produce results like you found for Barranco, you need only model simple geometry, and apply photos/streetview as textures. You can absolutely just drop the exiting models into your own - as far as I know, all warehouse models are in the public domain.