It might be possible in ruby, by going into each group/component and applying the texture to the faces inside. I do not remember if or how ruby manages projected textures.

Just some observations:

I notice all the anti-Christian posts (not just here) and wonder that these are often the same people who claim to be tolerant and enlightened. Elsewhere in the Corner Bar, a politically-themed thread got temporarily locked down due to a "racist" image and some personal attacks. And I suspect that, had someone posted a video entitled "the farting negro", the outrage would likewise be flowing (and rightly so). But no mention of "hate-speech" when the game is Christian-bashing.

I also notice that no one has posted any anti-Muslim (or anti-Hindu, or anti-Buddhist, or anti-Semitic, etc, etc) content, so who will step up and be the first to engage in some equal-opportunity religion-bashing?

It's an interesting study in inconsistency - especially given the questions about love.

Message received.

Okay, here's the update:

1. added in the front-only option

2. added in the group/non-group option

3. added zero-width outside frame handling
   (with those two items, setting to front-only and non-group will create things just like Windowizer3 did, just with more capability [generally speaking]).
   My short-list for things remaining to do:

4. Add "Edit" capability, like in W3

5. Add "Inherit properties" capability, like in W3

6. Add "Delete" capability, like in W3 (this may be difficult, since W4 will cut openings in "walls" now)

7. Handle zero-width mullions for butt-glazing

8. Investigate using components
   If there's anything on the list you don't care about, I could put it off 'til the first update. If there's capabilities you want to see, let me know - I'll see what I can do.

@fletch said:

the applyto command sounds interesting, but if you have several similar groups that you have just turned into components and need to replace them with the 'good' component, you don't need another tool... when you have the other "bad" components selected, just right-click the 'good' component thumbnail in the components>in model dialog , and choose 'replace'.

That's true, but if things are on-screen already, IMO it's easier to have ApplyTo installed rather than try to find the component in the browser (which can be quite a challenge if you have a lot of components and several similar ones at that.

@plot-paris said:

I have two questions, that I always have been uncomfortable with and that could break lose some new discussions:

• my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
  (I allways refused this idea, because it is depressing. but I think to a certain extend he is right. on the other hand, when love goes beyond life, when someone is willing to take up punishment or pain to protect others (the "parents protecting children" thing again)... doesn't that go beyond selfish love?)

Selfish "love" isn't really love. So, what are the characteristics of true love? Love is patient and kind, not jealous or boastful or proud. Love is not self-seeking, nor easily angered, and it does not keep a record of wrongs. Love embraces truth. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. We sometimes put our trust in people, governments, economies, jobs, relationships, investments, speculations, and all kinds of things that will eventually let us down. But love remains. There may be pain in unrequited love, or love lost, but true love perseveres, conquering the selfish false-love that would become angry, bitter, or despondent.

(my paraphrase of the Apostle Paul's description of love)

@unknownuser said:

Rick - still tangled in symantics

Semantics? It's not semantics. People can't have a meaningful discussion on an issue if they're not discussing the same issue. Perhaps you thought I was being critical or derogatory - I assure you, that was not the case. I simply commented that we were not discussing the same point - no blame anywhere.

When you want to select all instances of a component you can see, use Instances. You simply right-click on the component and choose "Select all instances" from the context menu. All instances of the component will be selected (including nested instances).

If you have a lot of components, this can be faster than trying to find the component in the Component Browser and using right-click>Select instances.

@chango70 said:

I agree sure but my point was the alternative you posited are based on previous experience of the person which can be independently shared by any number of individuals who experienced rain before encountering this event.

How's that again?

@chango70 said:

It doesn't in anyway make God more likely.

Actually, I think God is inevitable (as in Alan's excellent post). All that really remains is discovering the mechanisms He used.

But it points out that you've been trying to argue the evidence does not prove the existence of God, while I've been arguing that the evidence does not prove a single conclusion. It's akin to a debate between two fellows:

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

I'm telling you, that wall is red!

@unknownuser said:

That doesn't prove that the window doesn't needs curtains! They absolutely need curtains!

@unknownuser said:

See, your last response fails to show that the wall could be any color but red!

@unknownuser said:

That dogmatic stance is exactly why you fail to see the need for curtains for the windows!

Ad nauseum...

@tomsdesk said:

Since that gym was filled with servicemen and women...

Obviously, we're talking about different events, making your statement "horse pucky".

Now, I also see I need to edit my statement: when she was in Iraq, she visited the troops; when he was in Germany, he cancelled his visit to meet with the troops though he had the time to hit the hotel gym for a workout (and yes, I'm aware of his excuse for that).

So, do you really mean to label "every little bit" of what I said as "horse pucky"? Okay, I'll hit them one at a time...

[Oct 7, 5:07 post] - I grew up in the '70s. I missed experiencing all of the racial tension of the '60s, and most of it in the '70s. I grew up having friends of many different races; today, I have friends of many different races. Race isn't a big deal to me. In the movie "Gettysburg", Sgt. Kilrain says, "you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." That's what I intend to do.

So, sure, you can believe I'm lying when I say I didn't read racial overtones into the image. But it means you've decided to believe something not true.

[Oct 7, 5:35 post] - Being hypersensitive to race will cause one to see racism where it does not exist. That was my point, and Michael Graham's point in his article. I remember the furor that erupted over a DC staffer using the term "niggardly" - a word that means "miserly", and has no racial connotations - because it was mistakenly thought to be a racial epithet. I also acknowledge the opposite extreme, that being insensitive to race may cause one to not see racism where it does exist. The challenge is to be pragmatically between the two. "NAACP Chairman Julian Bond...said that people should not have to 'censor' their language to meet other 'people's lack of understanding.'" ("D.C. Mayor Acted 'Hastily,' Will Rehire Aide"; Yolanda Woodlee, Washington Post Staff Writer; Thursday, February 4, 1999; Page A1)

By mentioning Palin's "superior" executive branch experience, I was speaking solely in relation to Obama, who has none. That being the case, one could say the mayor of Winfield has superior executive branch experience compared to Obama.

@tomsdesk said:

RickW...horse pucky.

Which part?

@tomsdesk said:

@rickw said:

You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?

No, it would have been a logical satire of a perceived outcome of the debate between the two. Using Obama has racist overtones far outweighing any comedic value...unless the intent was to satire the prejudices of Palin: still pushing the racist threshold considering all I know about her so far.

So just because Obama has darker skin, that precludes him from being portrayed in a subservient position because it would be "racist", whereas if his name was "Joe" and he had light skin, it would be considered "satire" and would be okay? Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. And the further we get from the 60s, the further it will be from the minds of people. If you grew up with that, sure, you can read that into it.

I saw it as portraying Palin's superior executive branch experience (as a mayor & governor, she has some, he doesn't) or superior connection with regular people (when they were in Iraq, she visited the troops, he went to the gym), considering that Obama had been trying to campaign against her by saying he's more qualified than she is, even though he's campaigning for the top spot and she's in the VP spot. To me, it was a comparison of individuals, and in no way did it imply as extending to whole races.

Michael Graham of the Boston Herald explains phantom racism.

@paris said:

@rickw said:

@paris said:

Sorry man, but if a racist photo of Obama, or any black person, shining shoes doesn't send a chill through you with respect to where Ron and his kinfolk fit on the food chain then I don't know what will.

You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?

OMG... The 'joke', as you call it, is intended to provoke the racial stereotype of black people knowing their place in society. This isn't Alabama in the 60's, or is it.

Wow, that didn't even cross my mind - I just saw the two candidates. Does that mean I'm "colorblind"? (or is that not a "politically correct" term any more, lest it offend the sensibilities of the chromatically challenged?)

Oh, so it's happened to you, too, eh?

@whaat said:

@pixero said:

Thanks for a great script.

Would it be possible to add an attribute to all the existing scenes in the model that they are "keyframes" and then add scenes for every frame in the animation with an attibute that they are "inbetweens" and add scene transition times according to your smoothstep script.
The script should then be able to delete all the "inbetweens" if you want to change the animation but leave the "keyframes" intact.
I believe this would make it work with external renderers.
What do you think, is it doable?

That's a cool idea and definitely doable! I'll do some experimenting.

Unfortunately, there's currently no way to delete pages/scenes in ruby...

@unknownuser said:

Awsome thanx Rick!!! and just to push my luck: did u do any "digging on Texture Corector"???

Sorry, not a lot (though I can report that I found one more thing that didn't work) - busy at work with big project, and at home with another big project (10-month-old baby)

@solo said:

RickW,

Regarding my example of the faith healing:

I was not trying to redicule you at all, I wanted to show that a situation like I explained would be a no-brainer for a 'believer' they would emediately say it's God's healing power and the faith of the recipient. However a fact based non believer would make other conclusions, like it being a scam (like so many), mind over matter as explained by Plot-paris, hypnosis, etc, and would need some serious convincing before accepting it being a supernatural result.

Nomeradona touched on something, what does Rick W stand for?, Rick warren? (joke)

I didn't really think you were - but just exploring the possibilities (however remote) for the sake of illustration. As it turns out, I suspected (but didn't know for sure) that the actual case was what you just explained; thus, I didn't (fully) understand your point - which was one of the possibilities.

Though I share a first name and last initial with the well-known pastor, we are definitely two different people -
he writes "inspirational" books , I write ruby plugins for SketchUp

Sometimes, I think the "W" stands for "Windowizer". I wonder how that would look on a driver's license..."Rick Windowizer". Hmmm...

Nah.

Cheers,

I'll look into modifying ApplyTo to include replacing multiple groups with a component.

I had that happen on a business trip. The CC company was trying to protect me (or itself?) from unauthorized purchases because, suddenly, the card was being used out-of-town. It took three calls to persuade them that I was the legitimate cardholder and to release the block on the card. Fortunately, I had alternate means of payment while waiting for the fiasco to be resolved...

@solo said:

Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:

A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.

Conclusion?

Primary Conclusion: There are three scenarios: either I don't understand why you posed this particular scenario, you didn't get the point of my story, or you're trying to ridicule me. The situation itself proves none of these possibilites, but accommodates all of them.

Secondary Conclusion: Your story does not contain any logical conclusion, so you can't legitimately claim "with the same logic." Or perhaps you meant you want me to show how your scenario would be analyzed using the same explanation as I gave for the wet road. In that case, two explanations would fit the scenario: fake healing or real healing. The situation in the story does not prove either explanation, but is accommodated by each.

What's this? Lower taxes for lower income earners? NO! Demand your right to be patriotic! How dare Biden dangle the carrot of patriotism through taxpaying, then Obama steal it away? Do they think lower income earners aren't (or shouldn't be) patriotic like the "rich" folks?

Just mocking the lunacy of Biden's statement, since the top 50% of earners pay 97% of all income taxes (the top 25% pays 86% of all income taxes). See this WSJ article for more info on who pays how much in taxes.