Okay. Thanks! It was a late night What a bizarre interface method though-- ugh!

Hello All,

Just availed myself of VisuHole plug-in by Fredo. Most impressive and useful. But how in the world can one create one's own shape (stencil) to punch through objects/walls?? I'd be happy with just a circle. I've watched the video, read all the documentation, have no problem understanding the various moves and options. But all I see/get is a the built-In stencil of RECTANGLE, HEXAGON AND CIRCLE grouped together in a line (quite annoying). Presumably for demo purposes-- but all I want is to be able to draw/create my OWN shape and punch with that.

Just my own little circle-- please-- anyone??

Goodness-- you go beyond the call of duty, Tig-- a big thank you! (donation on the way).

Both scripts work-- what a relief. And I did some house cleaning to boot. Got rid of offset.rb -- I can do without the stuff that requires it. Oddly, both crate.rb and hole.rb work, but the system is still looking for offset.rb. Curious. Thought hole.rb to be redundant given 'push-pull' but just now discover it will make holes from multiple circle selections on a surface-- whoa! Instant Swiss cheese!

cheers!

Error Loading File crate.rb
no such file to load -- ./offset.rbError Loading File holes.rb
no such file to load -- ./offset.rb

Okay. A small confession: I still use SKP 8 (and the way things are going with Trimble, will likely do so until the end of time)

Here is the start-up dialog with all the loading errors. Lazy as I am, I just live with it.
I think 'private method' refers to the short 'make unique' script you gave me previously which I had entered in Ruby console. For some reason I did it twice-- returned 'nil' but other time it was '41' or '43' ... forget. The script did work once. Hope I haven't screwed things up..

Error Loading File __loader.rb
uninitialized constant TraductorError Loading File attributes.rb
undefined method GetString' for nil:NilClassError Loading File crate.rb no such file to load -- ./offset.rbError Loading File holes(1).rb no such file to load -- ./offset.rbError Loading File holes.rb no such file to load -- ./offset.rbError Loading File ReAssign0.rb undefined local variable or method ' for main:ObjectError Loading File shapes.rb
no such file to load -- mesh_additions.rbError Loading File su2pov35Toolbar.rb
private method `split' called for nil:NilClass

Oops.. spoke too soon.. I get a loading error:

no such file to load -- ./offset.rb Error Loading File ReAssign0.rb

Terrific! Much appreciated. This has been a bother for years, much relieved and can now say that this just about makes my workflow near-perfect when drawing progressive movements using component instances and multiple scenes.

For those of you doing similar work, an invaluable plug-in is: CMD Auto-Invisible Layer (plugin store). In native mode, Skp includes and SHOWS all material placed on a newly created layer on all the UPSTREAM SCENES. You must then manually cycle through each scene and toggle OFF the 'down stream' layer to prevent multiple objects showing and clashing with each other. A huge pain! CMD Auto-Invisible Layer is a gem. Also, by CMD, Isolate/Reveal is such a nice touch.

I'm set to go for at least another five years!

PS. TIG, apologies if your 'MyLayerWatcher' does what CMD's does

@tig said:

If you had a custom tool to do this you still need to give it a name [unless you're happy with "compo#123"] and to assign it to a new layer [tag].
So the automated tool just skips the make-unique part, and perhaps also selecting it cleanly...
This one short code does it that for you...

m=Sketchup.active_model
> es=m.active_entities
> ss=m.selection
> if ss.length==1 && ss[0].is_a?(Sketchup;;ComponentInstance)
>   UI.add_context_menu_handler{|menu|
>     i=ss[0]
>     menu.add_item("Copy Unique Instance..."){
>       ii=es.add_instance(i.definition, i.transformation)
>       ii.make_unique
>       ss.clear
>       ss.add(ii)
>     }
>   }
> end

It adds an item to the context-menu, only if you have selected one component-instance.
When it's done only the new copy is selected and it is listed in Entity Info - where you can assign it a different layer and a new name as desired...

Many thanks! In retrospect, I see that the native tool method is not so bad after all. That is because OUTLINER makes it manageable. I tend to forget to use this tool a lot-- probably one of the most under-rated or least discussed in Skp.

While I'm at this. Is there a tool for PUT ALL ON LAYER..(XYZ), similar to MAKE ALL UNIQUE?

I do a lot of mechanical drawings with objects that contain multiple groupings of sub-components and need to show progression of movement. MAKE ALL UNIQUE is essential to make the progression of movement possible because without it the original component grouping/instance is compromised. Some of the sub-component assemblies are often nested deep into the main object. They need to be toggled onto different layers. This is problematic because each time you create a new INSTANCE to show the next progression, ALL the components within the main grouping MUST be on the same layer (Layer 0). Invariably, a tiny element in a deeply nested grouping can get stuck on an overlooked layer and that creates mayhem. A PUT ALL ON LAYER in combination with MAKE ALL UNIQUE would be a blessing.

Sorry for convoluted explanation. Perhaps this best discussed as a separate topic. (?)

I mourned the day Trimble took over SketchUp. To me, the writing was on the wall. Now, as this discussion illustrates, the chickens have come home to roost. The subscription model clearly the final nail in the coffin.

Oh, boy-- am I on a roll here.

And it took them only 7 years to destroy something so rare, so utterly beautiful.. (if I'm sentimental, forgive me-- SketchUp, like true art and love is transformative. Has no equal, Cannot be replaced. And we will never be the same.

Indeed, SketchUp is what it is today because of the brilliant, dedicated work of countless plug-in developers. Trimble was never interested in innovation (fair to say the record shows that) but was merely intent on capitalizing and exploiting the work of others, to set the stage to eventually exploit the 'ignorant masses' with a subscription model.

I understand that software companies need to earn money. I have no problem paying for good software. But, I will NOT be subjected to ransom! What's so sad is that in the Google days there was at least a semblance of a balance between a proprietary and 'open source' model, a delicate balance, but where 'community' still meant something, and that is now gone!

Like others, I'm going half-mad trying to find an alternative to SketchUp, but as mentioned, there's no equal in terms of intuitive interface and just plain fun. That said, I do have some ideas/solutions. Anyone interested in a collaboration, email me.

t.

@ecuadorian said:

A bit of speculation of what could happen...

IF YOU DECIDE TO KEEP YOUR CURRENT PERPETUAL LICENSE:

-You can wait until November 4th to update your M&S plan so you can have every new release until November 4th 2021... But I bet they'll release SketchUp 2022 AFTER November 2021, so you will be stuck with SketchUp 2021.

-The 3D Warehouse will keep updating the file formats of existing models for no other reason than to force people to upgrade SketchUp. Eventually you won't be able to download and open files from the 3D Warehouse. (EDIT: I see they offer a Collada file option, so I might be wrong on this one)

-Developers of plugins and integrated renderers will eventually stop supporting SketchUp 2021.

-Schools will start to think twice about teaching SketchUp, so it will start to lose market share a few years from now.

-The loss of market share means you will need to convert your SketchUp models to other formats before sending them to other professionals.

IF YOU DECIDE TO SWITCH TO A SUBSCRIPTION

-After the first year for $120, you'll find yourself paying $300 a year.

-If you don't use SketchUp every day, you might not the able to justify the expense, stop paying for the subscription, and thus you'll be locked out of decades of your own work.

HOW THIS MIGHT AFFECT ME

I design and sell house plans on my website, http://www.arqui3d.com. I sell both 2D files (PDF, DWG) and SKP files. I tell my buyers that they can open SKP files with the free viewer, but that they need to hire an architect if they want to make changes.

The change to subscription means SketchUp will be less popular in the future and I'll need to provide maybe Collada files together with SKP files. But what worries me is the possibility that renderers such as Lumion and TwinMotion might stop supporting old versions of SketchUp. If they're smart they will keep some way to import SketchUp 2021 files manually for the foreseeable future.

WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
Most users will keep their perpetual licenses. When they start to receive files in incompatible versions, they might eventually add a SketchUp Shop subscription on top of this so they can open newer files. That, or it will become standard practice to always save in older SketchUp versions before sending out files.

Another possibility is that the web-only SketchUp Shop might eventually become the "standard" version most professionals use. Kids these days do everything on the web, anyway, and having your models on the cloud would make it easier to collaborate. However, this would pretty much kill the business of plugin developers.

Yes. Of course! I understand all that. Have been doing it for years. I'm just looking for a more efficient way on how to make a new component instance without all those moves.

Hello All:

I need to be able to clone a component or grouped object so that the CLONE can be readily named, is UNIQUE, takes the precise position of its parent, and can subsequently be placed on a layer.

The function of: 'COPY --> PASTE IN PLACE' will create a clone in position, however, separating the two items is a JOB because the parent component remains stuck underneath. Accordingly, the parent component should just disappear, with only the CLONE showing on the screen.

Ideas anyone?

Just as I posted this, I solved the problem made an an outline of the shape, duplicated, placed them slightly offset to create the skewed effect and used Curviloft to join them..Where there's a will..

t.

@petropix said:

[attachment=1:2fi3n3nh]<!-- ia1 -->compounds 2.jpg<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:2fi3n3nh]Okay..hate to be a nag, especially on Sugar Bowl day..Scaling it up 100 x definitely helped. However, I'm still stuck on the 'angled step' detail. Please see pic. Need angle A at B. When I do a boolean subtract, the curved facets/faces/surfaces/geometry disappears. Damn tricky!

t.

Okay..hate to be a nag, especially on Sugar Bowl day..Scaling it up 100 x definitely helped. However, I'm still stuck on the 'angled step' detail. Please see pic. Need angle A at B. When I do a boolean subtract, the curved facets/faces/surfaces/geometry disappears. Damn tricky!

t.

Bingo! Very small indeed, 1.8 cm. It is in fact one of four anchor 'bits' that hold a watch strap. I suppose I should google that.. Many thanks!

t.

@tig said:

You haven't explained the size of the object...

I suspect it's actually quite small.
Sketchup can't cope with very tiny lines or facets [~0.5mm].
If you scale up the object by x10 [or x100 or more]... then do the operations, and finally scale down again... the missing facets should be made and continue to exists after the object is reverted to its original size.
Tiny edges and facets can't be created in situ, but they can 'exists'...

Hello All:

I'm having difficulty creating the object shown in attached pic.

In method one I drew the shape top view in 2D and used push-pull to create the two angular steps at the front. However, I need that front portion to taper, and tried a boolean subtract but that caused some surface geometry to disappear. Also, with method two I cannot angle the steps as show in method one.

Any suggestions on how I might approach this type of construction?

Thanks!

t.

Special thanks to Dave Richards for going beyond the call of duty to explode my rigidly grouped SU Mind.

As Donald Rumsfeld famously said, one can arrive at a perfectly logical conclusion from a wrong assumption. For me that assumption was to group, group, group (avoids the nastiness of merged geometry). While that served my purposes allowing me to accomplish certain things, in the end it was my downfall.

Making components of everything is a superior way of grouping and a much more efficient way of working in SU.

That, and avoiding the pitfalls of laziness by under-estimating the power and range of SU's native tools.

Thanks, Dave!

folding dolly.avi

Okay. For starters. I'm making a folding dolly as shown below. I create a rotated array of the grouped components/objects, as shown-- 7 positions on LAYER 0. I then assign a layer to each position. Next I want to create scenes for each respective layer/position. HOWEVER, position #7 is mysteriously LINKED to #1 and all the others. So if I toggle #7 OFF, then everything DISAPPEARS. With #7 on, I can toggle the others on and off, but I cannot create a proper scene sequence because #7 is either there when I don't it, or not at all.. and I need #7 to continue my model design..

@dave r said:

This really shouldn't be that difficult. What you want to do can be done with the native tools. Perhaps you could post your model so we can see how you have your components, layers and scenes set up.

I made this animation using nothing but components, layers and scenes. I didn't need to make components unique. I just placed copies at the required locations and made the appropriate layer associations. Then I created the scenes with the proper layers made visible. The needle is a single component copied multiple times, so is the hook that catches the thread, the fabric and the advancing dog.

[flash=400,318:2ikjm2rc]http://blip.tv/play/gYhbgsG_bwA[/flash:2ikjm2rc]

Thanks so much for chiming in. Your animation is most instructive! I agree completely, one ought to be able to do this with SU native tools, but for the life of me, the component 'instances' I create remain linked somehow and the changes I make 'migrate' to instances in previous scenes. My model is in complete disarray at the moment, but I'll cobble something together for show. It's really important I find a solution here because I'm losing tons of time doing work-arounds. Thanks for your help. More soon..

@pbacot said:

Sir, I am sure TIG has the explanation. But are you seeking along the same lines as this thread: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=46261&hilit=sdmitch&start=15#p414006 ?

YES, indeed! The ability to make objects/groupings UNIQUE is the key. Many thanks!

@tig said:

You must remember to update every scene-tab after all of the layers are made and assigned to objects, setting layer visibility independently for each tab AND updating the tab when done - otherwise you might get objects appearing unexpectedly.
It is fixable, but annoying...
All that a tool like Mover does is make some scene-tabs, assign layers etc to objects semi-automatically - the simple example you showed is relatively easily done manually for a few scene-tabs...

Okay. Still weeping. Floods. I understand the scene 'tabs' and 'update' functions. However, my three simple component instances remain linked, screwing up the sequencing. My actual model may contain up to 50 instances and a dozen or more components and/or object groupings. Also, placement is critical and I need move in very tight to achieve this, then pull back to the original global 'zero' camera position. It's unmanagable Seems to me a core deficiency in SU -- much as i love it. How does a mechanical engineer (I'm not) show the relationship and movements of parts in a progressive manner? How do you highlight a particular function or feature in a complex model, while retaining the context of the entire model, without clutter?

I've just discovered KeyFrame Animation 7.3 Looks like this will do what I want in terms of animation. However, I still need to know how to achieve this manually, in a 'poor man's approach.' That is, sometimes I just want to export a few 'stills' sequences to place on a page somewhere. Also, the manual approach would give me greater editing control of the final film using an editing suite.

@tig said:

Use components.
Ensure that their 'contents' are all on Layer0.
Place copies where they are needed in each image - for now keep them all on Layer0.
Make a set of Layers.
Assign these Layers to the component-instances, as they are to be in their different locations - all of these layers still 'on' initially.
Make the Scene tabs for the images.
Each one duplicated from the previous one, using its context-menu to 'Add'.
Edit the Scene tabs in turn - switch 'off' the layers you don't want visible in that tab and use the context-menu on the tab to 'Update' it so its layers are remembered.
Ensure that the settings for the tabs allow for the layers to be saved with the tab.
Now when you run a test animation you should find the change between Scenes tabs shows components seemingly moving as the layers switch on/off...

Thanks. I did try this previously but with no success. I create 3 component instances on Layer 0. Then place instance #1 on a layer named postion 1. Instance #2 on position 2, etc. The problem, when I toggle Position #3 off, all three instances disappear. I can render positions 1 and 2, but not #3 independently. Curious!