@gaieus said:

There is a freee software however called Camstudio

nice tool, thanks for the link, Gaieus

works perfectly fine for me (Windows XP).

thanks a lot, Matt666. this one will come in quite handy

now we only need the reverse funktion - transform to component
if more than one group is selected SU could ask, whether you want to replace all by one component or create a seperate component for each group.

now I come to think of it SU could even compare the groups' shapes.

• if they are the same one they are automatically replaced by the same component.
• if they are the same shape but in different sizes, SU asks you which group shall resemble the original component scale and automatically replaces the other groups by scaled component instances
• if the groups are different in shape, seperate components will be created

sorry for drifting off into dreamland. I don't suspect, comparing geometry like this will be easy...

what a wonderful cloud.
I seriously consider printing it out and decorating my bedroom with it.
I like the idea of being reminded of the SCF every morning

wow, very impressive.

these look rahter than artistic paintings than architectural plans... wonderful!

well, watkins, the same happens to me.

my explanation ist the following:

if you pull up the outer face first, the lower circle (for better understanding henceforth called "rufus") is a necessary construction geometry for the inner as well as the outer cylinder.

if you pull up the inner face first, "rufus" is only necessary to define the outer face. it is however not necessary for the construction of the inner cylinder.
thus if you pull up the outer face as well, the inner and outer cylinder are seperated geometry.

if you, just to look inside the model, delete the outer face (labeled in the drawing above) and select the inner face(lower part), you will find that in the case where you drew up the outer circle first, the inner face(upper part) is not selected - meaning that lower and upper part are different faces (divided by "rufus").

if you pulled up the inner circle first you will (by clicking the inner face(lower part)) select the whole inner face - meaning that this is one single face. therefore the circle on top of the shape is necessary to define it; thus if you delete it, the whole inner face vanishes.

I hope this was understandable

@lapx said:

If you are going to use sketchup's power it's a must to read and understand how rubies imapct your process.

that is true. I spend several hours a day reading the scf forum. otherwise it is impossible to keep up with all the new information (of course it is because of the fun too!)

@unknownuser said:

the one guy Google has coding version 7 sits in the farthest, darkest corner of one of the warehouses like they had in the first Indiana Jones movie?

well that is the perfect scene for a nice moody interior render with one of the apps not written by Google guys, isn't it?

@unknownuser said:

The Dark Knight (even though I haven't seen it yet!)

oh yeah. I have been looking forward to this movie since "Batman Begins". the first time, batman was told in the right way (I like tim burton; but chris nolen is a hero to me!)
and christian bale is simply awesome!
and heath ledgers last movie!

and now to something completely different...

I know this is really malicious: I like when little children chase pidgeons, fall and start crying

indeed, a ruby would be great that does the following things:

when a component / several components are selected, the "create group" command in the right click context menue is exchanged with a "transform to group" command (the accordant shortcut changes it's function too)

and exactly the same the other way arround: with one ore more selected groups the "create component" command is exchanged with "transform to component" command, whereas only one component is created and the other groups are replaced by this component (does that make sense? )

and last but not least: it would be great to be able to apply the "replace with selected" (when some components in the model are highlighted and you right click on a different one in the component window) to groups as well. this would be helpful, if you for example created a set of columns and only later discover, that they all stayed the same proportion and can therefore be a component.

such a ruby would bring a great improvement to the workflow in SketchUp (and is definitely something that would be nice to be found in SU7 )

I think in that case it really doesn't matter wether to use , or .
important is only to establish a worldwide standard.

the same counts for adopting the metric system throughout the world and abandoning feet and inches. calculations are much simpler in the first one.

another such thing is degree centigrade and fahrenheit. there is literally no reason to ceep the latter system

Alan, that was really malicious! my heart skipped a beat, when I saw the red writing!

exactly kwistenbiebel. and he is aware of what he can create with his own hands - to create a universe isn't that much more after all.

there is a workaround. it requires messing with windows though
(discussed in this thread)

at least you get 2048 instead of 1024 then...

@kwistenbiebel said:

What happens when you try to find Chuck Norris with a Google search?

lets see how long Yahoo and eBay survive

@daniel said:

No one has successfully made a Chuck Norris component - there aren't any video cards that can handle the awesomeness.

a component wouldn't make sense anyway...
just imagine several Chuck Norris instances - that would bust every computer (even deep thought)

@kwistenbiebel said:

The Chuck Norris thread.

and Chuck knows that!

right you are, remus. I just tried again... indigo crashes after my use of ram rises beyond 2,5 Gb (and I have only 2Gb physical Ram).
I hoped to prevent this by enabling instances. but I am afraid my city has to wait until I got some money left

@remus said:

Gotta try out proxies again, your tests are pretty inspiring.

that was my intention!
kwistenbiebel, remus; I am looking forward to see what you come up with!

@remus said:

BBQs combined with copious quantities of cider.

enjoying cider (before I inevitably start vomiting, because I had too much )

oh yes, and the last look Frodo gives is fellow hobbits at the end of the last Lord of the Rings movie, just before he boards the elven vessel.
(the first time I saw this look in his eyes, I knew he thought: "I have the longest!")

@remus said:

Chuck norris can divide by 0.

definitely top 10

thanks for the idea, Whaat. I messed arround with tree proxies and was soon at 10 000 instances. took an awfully long time to export

I pushed the use of proxies a bit further and wanted to find out, if nested proxies are possible (proxies within proxies)

well, obviously they are - what a wonderful tool! so you can create immensly detailed and complicated models and still be able to work fluently in SU? Great!

I then created some simple buildings (based on the same component), assembled these to building blocks and created a nice city area.
unfortunately my pc (Core2Duo @ 3.0 Ghz, 2 Gb Ram) can't cope with it anymore.

indigo, as well as the skindigo exporter seem to break down, if it gets too complicated (I wouldn't have expected differently).
now I would very much like to know, if the possible complexity depends on the power of the machine or on indigo itself.
I did a short test of a reduced city model (1/20 of it's original size). still took a long time to export...

it would be great if one of you guys with the incredibly powerful monster computers (like Coen) had a try. thus we knew, if it solely depends on the machine - and I have to save a lot of money to buy a new one

here is the file (the whole city with 1920 buildings is only 200 kb):
city.skp

thanks,

Jakob