Here's a component that will save you a bit of time...
It consists of a sloped top (component), middle portion (component) and a bottom (group). Note that the edges are hidden where they join so it appears as a single entity (turn off hidden geometry to see this). The two sub-components are nested in a component called "Tee", the group is outside.
Just array the Tees, then array the bottoms (group) and scale them to line up the bottom edges.
Tom,
If my recollection is correct....
In the release notes for V5 and V4 (which I can no longer find) I seem to remember @Last listing non-compliant video cards or not recommended video cards --- amomg them was the ATI radeon mobility. Plus I seem to recall that V6 is more demanding of VCs with regard to OpenGL compliance (this might explain what you are seeing). Unfortunately the V6 release notes don't contain such info and I cannot, for the life of me, find where I stored the old notes. Maybe someone at Google can shed light on this or correct my recollection if I am wrong.
I would tend to agree with Anssi -- processor speed is of primary importance for large models. Note also that a 7 meg file size represents what is saved on disk only. If you have multiple component instances the actual file size when you are working in SU could be much larger since all the components are in memory. Check model info/statistics to see the true number of faces and edges. When you are working keep shadows and textures off - that is what taxes the VC.
Neither the intersecting plan method nor follow-me will give you equal heights (90 angles at the tops of the wall). You will need to construct it manually the hard way. Note that the top surface is a sloped ramp (see the hidden lines that triangulate the surface). Follow-me in SU will always result in a twist when you are changing directions in 2 axes at once (although you won't notice this is the follow-me section is a circle like a pipe rail). In any event it will be just as hard to build in real life as it is to make in SU.
@sketchy said:
...In short my suggestion is to realize that there are actual people you are trying to communicate with. They are not are servants or gods, they are employees at a software company. What happens to your creative process when clients talk to you this way?
Indeed! Have people forgotten the whole history of the extraordinary efforts of SU people over the years(not to mention their unmatched honesty)? Can you think of any other software company that even comes close?
Before taking any MAC plunge, you might want to read a different take on Leopard:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2223921,00.asp.
When you paint a whole group or component (ie. when not editing the group or component), then the edges take the same color or material as the faces (you have to have your display setting set to show edges by material to see this). If you want just to paint edges, set your display to wireframe, then select the edges (all, or drag selection rectangles, etc.) then paint any edge and the rest of the selection will take the color or material.
There are, in fact, "snapping" settings in SU (Model Info/Units) but they apply to length (of line) and angle increments. These can be turned off, but inferencing cannot. Which is just as well since SU would be unusable without it -- you would be lost in space.
While the flatten.rb will work it may take some time (depending on the complexity of the cad file). If all you want is a straight 2-d version of a cad file you could load the file separately, go to paraline plan view (i.e. perspective off) and export as 2D dwg file. Then import the dwg file -- probably will be very quick compared to flatten.
@unknownuser said:
There is a method whereby you can use a simple placemark-like for each of the different components you want to place, and then once you're done you replace them with the real deal.
The method is to right click on a component and then select "reload" on the context menu. Unfortunately, since Version 6 SU is very unreliable in this regard. Sometimes you will not get a broswer to select a component to replace it. A work-around is to "save as" the component (give it a different name), then try the reload again and you will get a browser to replace it. It's a most unfortunate bug that was introduced in V6 and the SU team has not seen fit to fix it.
A more reliable method of working is to put your entourage (trees, cars, people) on a layer and then hide the layer while you work. Make a scene that has these layers turned off for working. Also keep textures and shadows turned off until you are ready to render.
If you would post your .skp file here (it doesn't look too big) we could experiment with styles and shadows, light dark settings, textures, etc. and repost for you to study.
Indeed a rare occurance with SU. Suggest in the future you take advantage of the "save a copy as" feature of SU. It makes copy with a numerical extension (eg. 01) and keeps you working in the original file. Make a keyboard shortcut to save time.
I've done lots of higher ed buildings in SU along with complete campus models. Files are too large to post here but you can contact me by PM
With respect to your model size of 7 meg or so, be advised that the file size saved on disk is not a true index of your model complexitiy when you have multiple component instances. When you are actually working in sketchup all those trees are in memory -- a better index of true file size can be found under model info/statistics (with show nested components checked) -- namely the number of edges and faces. Some time back Alan Fraser posted a famous example of a model with 100 corinthian column components -- only 100 K or so "file size" but would bring the most powerful computer to a crawl or freeze.
That said, the advice to put your trees on a layer and hide that layer when working is sound, along with keeping shadows and textures turned off until you are ready to render.
Suggest you use the Aitop "circleslopes" ruby to make the ramp, then clone several copies vertically, intersect with an appropriately sized trucated cone, delete all the extraneous bits, then use didier's extrude lines vector 2 points to make the parapets. See image below. Both scripts should be on Didier's site. If you can't find them let me know and I will help out.
If you want to "regain" either a softened of a hidden line, go to View > Hidden geometry and go through the lines you want to unhide/unsoften with the Ctrl+Shift+Eraser tool.
CTL+Shift+eraser will unsoften a line, but it will NOT unhide a hidden line. For that you need to select and "unhide". Pity there is no key combo just to unhide a line..
Using layers for hiding gives you great flexibility for creating scenes that reveal different parts of the model. This is very useful while you working on complex models -- eg. hiding complex geometry that would slow down display update. But even better, layers permit you to show alternate designs in the model, even construction phasing, etc. and I find layers make easier to keep track of what's in a complex model.
Even though SU has no provisions for lighting it's possible to achieve some lighting effects that are quite suitable and in keeping with the sketchy style rendering:
For interiors it is better to adjust your light dark settings (in the shadow dialogue) -- increase the dark setting, slide it to the right to increase the ambient light. Try a setting of 50 for light, 80 or 90 for dark. You can set the sun position high and get fairly even lighting (if you turn shadows off make sure use sun for shading is checked).
Make your ceilings a separate group then turn off cast shadows in entity info. Or another way - paint the topside of the ceiling material with a transparent color -- desaturate the color and turn transparency all the way down to zero. This way (in conjunction with the light/dark settings) your ceilings won't go dark and you will not get shadows from the ceiling.
Use Photoshop to simulate pools of light or downlights by making an adjustment layer, then turning down the brightness. Next paint the adjusment layer mask with a black brush to restore the light values in areas where light would fall.
Photoshop's resolution setting is in ppi (pixels per inch) -- this is an arbitrary number which has nothing to do with how many pixels are in the image. It denotes the "size" of the pixel. DPI is a term that applies to printers, the dot pitch of the tiny nozzles -- they dither a mixture of primary colors -- typically 4, but up to 8 -- to fool the eye into seeing intermediate hues.
You can change the ppi in Pshop (remember to uncheck resample image) -- all this does is affect the size of the image printout. But you can over-ride the ppi setting in Pshop in the print preview diaglogue. Watch as you change the image printout size and you will see the ppi number change. The default 72 ppi or "screen resolution" in Pshop is an obsolute convention (dating from the original Macintosh small screen). If you have a screen that say measures 20 inches wide and your monitor resolution is 1920 by 1200, then you are looking at 96 pixels per inch. You can do the math for any other screen...
Since most printers dither or mix dots to make a color, you generally don't want to send an image that has a ppi resolution more than 1/3 the dpi pitch of the printer -- extra information will not help the printed output. I typically print out large format images (say 40" wide) at about 100 ppi, or 4000 pixels wide and they look fine. Of course if you get real close and use a magnifying glass you can see the individual pixels and even the dots. But generally large images are meant to be seen from a distance at least great enought to see the whole image. Billboards, for example, are typically printed at 9 pixels per inch up to a maximum 36 ppi.
Paul