I just replicated what you appear to show in your image, and this is the result
Maybe there is something different about the angle that the face used to create the profile was created relative to the X and Y axis?
Make sure the face sides are parallel to the X, Y axis before your select the option to make the profile.
I had a quick look at your model and report and it is not exactly clear what the problem is.
To make it quicker and easier for someone to see the problem can I suggest that you identify the cells of your report where the incorrect dimensions are showing and what you expect them to be - eg column_name/row_name is XX and should be YY.
@unknownuser said:
The only way to do it now is to name your custom attributes with intentionally alphabetical names. Hardly intuitive.
Particularly when you decide to add one and have not allowed for it in the previous naming 
@unknownuser said:
then perhaps you are on Vista without Admin rights and the system has shunted them into a compatibility sub-folder ?
I found this an unexpected Vista issue with SU for components and templates, but I think from his profile he is using XP which should not be an issue (providing he has not setup different user accounts with different permissions).
I wonder if he is using the 'save as' in the component browser to save it to his own directory outside of the SU Components folder (in program files), and is not then either moving the directory into the SU components directory, or not loading it as an external library.
It would also be a nice touch if it was possible to easily control the order of the input boxes in the 'Component Options' window.
OK, all my models have been adapted and work perfectly for sizing etc.
But I now have a question about textures.
The image below shows a typical configuration of 3 separate components.
All have the same texture applied, but the texture shows differently on the three parts.
I realise that the tiling in the grain direction could be an issue as the components have different lengths and the triangular piece is not a multiple of the texture image size, but I don't understand how the grain width is being shown extended differently on all three parts as if the texture image is being stretched instead of tiling.
Any suggestions?
I just bought and tried this, and I have a query.
I created a walls profile and it's great. It allows me to create a 2 layer wall with the correct dimensions for the walls and cavity quicker than anything else I have used.
However I have a problem with the texturing of the walls.
In the image below the walls were drawn in one operation from front left to back right, but when a texture is applied it orients it differently on the two walls.
What's the solution? Any ideas?
Thanks Guys.
I had another configuration that needed a solution and started to consider breaking that up into sections.
Before I had time to address it your replies came in thick and fast and now I can see a way of doing them both.
I just have to figure out the maths to make sure they work parametrically as they should.
Thanks again.
Thanks Guys.
I think now I know how to deal with my component/layer issue.
I have created a 'template' that has the layers already set up, and will select the 'cabinet' layer before placing the component from the library. As the subcomponents are all allocated to layers, this will not cause any problems/confusion regarding the various parts.
@unknownuser said:
but to be honest, I am not sure what you need the parent component to be on a layer for.
The answer is quite simple. I produce a cutting list, and prior to running it the components for which a cutting list is required have to be selected first - ie the cabinets only. So I use a 'Select by layer' script to select only the components in the 'cabinets' layer. However this does not work if the 'parent' is on layer0 as the select by layer ignores it and all sub-components of it, unless it is on 'cabinets' layer.
Thanks again.
Attached below are two images of a component.
The component is made up of 3 sub-components - a top and 2 sides.
One of the attributes options is to change the 'inset' which controls the position and size of the top (the sides remaining static).
Everything in the attached model works except the diagonal cut at the front (see second image) the ends of which need to always be in line with the ends of the sides.
Does anyone have any ideas about how this could be done, if indeed it is possible in Sketchup?
@unknownuser said:
Although one of my life-long dreams would be fulfilled if I could edge out both AutoCAD and Revit, a smaller dream will come closer if I am able to do something useful for SketchUp.
"From Small Acorns ....." 
Chalk and Cheese springs to mind when I follow this thread.
High end construction/architectural programmes such as Revit seem to have been mentioned a few times in this thread now, comparing Sketchup to them from an Arhitetural point of view.
I, personally, am not really concerned with taking models to that level - as I am sure is the case with a large number existing and potential Sketchup users.
I have no experience of Revit and can only compare Sketchup with other 3D programs that I have looked at in an effort to establish what is best suited to the market I operate in - interior design.
The main criteria in identifying a suitable program for the mass market of interior design that I have experience in (specifically the area of Kitchen, Bedroom, Bathroom design) are ;
Ease of use
Speed of design
Cost
Information output
Quality of presentation
(not necessarily in that order)
There are a number of programs aimed specifically at this market and, having had experience of most of them, IMHO Sketchup comes near (if not at) the top.
Having said that, Sketchup has a number of shortcomings which could be overcome with the development of additional tools, either as part of the program or the availability of external extensions, plug-ins or tools such as the one that Al started this thread to discuss.
When I first looked at Sketchup it took me very little time to get to grips with it due to its simplicity of operation. Within a very short space of time I was able to understand it well enough to pass on what I had learnt and teach someone who had no Design software experience how to design a Kitchen in Sketchup spending no more than half an hour doing so. There is no way I could have done that with other interior design programs I have experienced - apart from one which I shall not mention. And Sketchup is far more flexible than all of them for a number of reasons.
Having access to tools such as RPTools make the job even easier and access to additional tools, such as the Wall Tool Al is considering, would simply make the job even easier.
The introduction of Dynamic Components in SU7 also now enables us to produce not only cutting lists, but cost reports and other information to suit our market that previously were missing in Sketchup.
So ignoring full blown Construction/Architectural drawings (in the nicest possible way) I think that potentially Sketchup is more than capable of satisfying the needs of a vast market which could benefit from Sketchup in it's current form, and even more so with further development of both the program and external applications, extensions and plug-ins.
So keep up the good work AL.
@unknownuser said:
The phrase "inside face" is one of our problems - because we aren't sure what is the inside of an interior wall. we may have to place the single face in the center, which will sometimes be confusing.
I take your point AL. The problem with putting it in the center is that it would not make the placing of items on the real 'wall' very easy.
What about creating two single transparent faces - one on each side of the 'wall' - or is this not do-able?
@unknownuser said:
Another trick we have used in the past is to create short "stub walls" for temporary display, and place the stub walls in one layer, and the real walls in another layer, then you can turn on the short stub walls while placing furniture and use the real walls for interior renderings, etc.
What about a wall tool that creates 2 walls at the same time based on the input of the user.
The first is one on a layer called 'transparent walls' which is 'on' by default - this is the single thin wall like in RPtools which is transparent and is in the same position as the inside face of the 'Real Wall'.
The second is the real wall (or two walls for cavity type construction) set to the users required dimensions and placed on a layer 'Walls' which is turned off by default.
At any time, the state of the 2 layers could be changed at the same time using the layers dialogue, or two 'scenes' could be created for quick viewing, each with the opposite layers turned on/off. When the job is finished if it is not needed anymore the 'transparent' layer and its contents could be deleted.
Just a thought
Could someone please clarify a couple of queries I have about layers?
I have a component which is made up of 2 sub-components.
When I created the component I had 2 different layers in the scene. One was called 'Cabinet', the other called 'hidden'.
I made the component so that one of the sub-components is on the 'hidden' layer, the other on the 'cabinet' layer. (The final 'parent' component is also on the 'cabinet' layer.)
The idea was that when the 'Parent' component is placed in a new scene with only the default layer0, it creates the 2 new layers ('cabinets' and 'hidden') and puts the the parent and one sub-component on the 'cabinets' layer and the second sub-component on the 'hidden' layer.
Here is the issue I am having and a couple of questions:
When I place the component, the parent is placed on the default 'layer0', not as needed on the 'cabinets' layer. Why?
One solution is to create the layer 'cabinets' in the empty scene before placing the component, select that layer and then place the component. Question; I have seen various posts in which the recommendation is not to place components in a secondary layer, but to place them in the default layer0 then move them. Why? Is there a logic behind this?
Alternatively I could place the component on the default layer0, then while it is selected use the 'Entity Info' dialogue to move it, but this requires the Entity info to be opened each time a component is placed, or to be left open and take up screen space.
I could place the component on Layer0 then use the 'Move to Layer' ruby to move it. The problem is that this ruby moves the parent and ALL the sub-components to the cabinets layer - which I don't want.
Sorry to labour the topic, but I just wanted to clarify all the options as I understand them and to also ask if there is another alternative to those I mentioned that I am not aware of
Glad you got it sorted.
Odd that installing the plug-ins one by one did not create the same problem as putting them all in together 
Dik.
I managed to successfully mirror your model in all directions using the latest RPTools.
Possibly try removing your RPEdit and any other mirror tool then install the Trial RPtools and see if you have the same problem.
A nice example for woodworkers of the realistic visualisation of a proposed project that can be achieved using SU.
With the animation now available for Dynamic Components in SU7, the opening of the drawers and door could be even more impressive if this was for a customer.
If I may ask -
How long did it take to model it?
What settings did you use in Kerkythea for the render?