When Follow Me was just in beta, we all had to place the face perpendicular to the starting edge. It wouldn't work any other way. I show this excercisse to people with the very first model with the starting face flat to the red axis and therefore on an angle to the starting segment, because intuitively, they beleive that is the way to get a flat back. But SketchUp appears to rotate that face just the same way that we had to do it when it was in beta.

Thanks Daniel for that explanation. What you are saying, therefore, if I undestand correctly, is that any face that I start not perpendicular to the path will have some distortion, even if it isn't readily evident?

IN the attached skp I have 4 different Follow Me set ups. 2 start with the path on an axis direction and 2 start with the path on a diagonal. In all 4 I have intentional placed the face to be extruded at some angle to the starting path. That is, in none of the situations is the face perpendicular or normal to the start of the path. In 3 of the examples, SketchUp rotates the face and forces it to be perpendicular before it starts the follow-me extrusion. In the 4th situation it does not. In fact the circular shape ends up being distorted into an oval because it is extruding in an angle. Please explain to my poor brain what is different and why.

FollowMe.skp

Ahhhh. The female lead. I kept thinking about some male American which I simply could not recall in the film. Thanks much. No wonder you guys could remember the name.

Who's Andie Mcdowell?

Our kind of "kept" works really well.

What a hoot Mike. Love it.
I guess it doesn't really matter that Independence wasn't "conferred" it was snatched without permission

I read your post then and now. I gave you what I've got. If the information doesn't prove helpful in any way now or in the future, you won't have to use it.

You're really getting into this one aren't you Jackson?

Baz to be fair, he asked the question on Oct 5 and you answered on the 13th. He may be long gone and not aware that you answered.

You can use the section tool to create a cut. Place the section plane where you want to have your cut insdide the group. So you are editing the group, yes? Then right click on the plane and from the context menu click on "create group from slice". this will create vector lines where the section cut is. You can get rid of your section plane now by deleting it. Then select the grouped vector lines created by this action and "explode" them. You now have your cut lines in position.

SketchUp does do much of this for you. If you have a group and decide that you want to make it a component instead, all you need to do is select the group and "make component". The dialogue will not appear because all of the properties are already in place. However, if you go to the in model tab of your component browser, you will find that you have a component called "group#1" and you can edit and change its name and other properties.

If the group had been nested inside another component then all instances of the group would automatically be replaced. However, if a group is nested inside of a component, editing the group will change it in all of the nested components anyway.

Interesting, that warning is a default setting, I think. So it would have had to be turned off at some point.

If the reset doesn't do it, I once had a similar problem in an old version of SketchUp. At some point the axis turned upside down and there was nothing I could do to fix it. If you can't reset, copy the entire model to the clipboard, open a new instance of sketchup and paste it where you like it.

This may be even stupider but when I'm teaching SketchUp people keep forgetting to hit "enter" after they type in the numbers. I know that isn't likely here because, presumeably, you were doing this right on your previous computer, but... just in case.

All women could go to sleep wearing full makeup and wakeup with it perfectly in place the next morning.

Women could also lie down in bed and still have their boobies pointing skyward instead of separating and sliding down to either side. ( sorry guys)

No one ever has bad breath when they wake in the morning and are ready for passionate kissing with a loved one.

Love conquers all. All.

David, I have't the energy to engage in a long drawn out debate with you about your views and about your "leftist" fears. I don't disagree with you that just throwing money at people is counterproductive if they ever have a hope of being self reliant. The instant you have "government' you already concede some control for the sake of the greater good. If you think that we have anything that approaches a free market economy you had better think again. Our economy has been fiddled with in countless ways. The very concept of graduated taxation, or the enforcement of minimum wages, or tariffs etc etc. How exactly do you draw the line between one sort of interference and call that acceptable but another smacks of socialism? Never mind. Let's not get into it.

My thinking was far more rigid and more along the lines of your thinking when I was much younger. There is nothing like having children to cause you to re-examine your precepts. If your children are born healthy and brilliant, perhaps you never will. But if a child of yours is born deficient in any way, even fairly mildly, you begin to view the world in a completely different way. You become accutely aware of the children of others who have more serious deficiences. You begin to remember those individuals you went to school with and scoffed at for their lack of brains and ability, and you are inclined to be much more accepting. All those people you went to school with who were ..."not so smart". Their numbers are legion and they all grow up and they work and live all around you and they don't have a prayer of achieving what you do. So too bad, right? You won the brains and ability lottery and so be it.

Well when it is your own kid, you don't really want to leave it at "too bad" and you are apt to be much more sympathetic to all of the others. So really, what I was talking about was much more fundamental than politics or just the USA. If there is an intrinsic value to one's humanity, then a human who will never be capable of more than washing toilets for a living has the same right to creature comforts, time for fun, security in a future and no fear of what his golden years will bring as does a hockey player, or a corporate magnate. Yes, yes there are those who are just plain lazy, but I am not talking about them. I'm talking about the greater numbers whose work we, as a society, don't value because there are so many of them and the laws of economics makes them a cheap commodity.

Leaving things completely to market forces, even if such a pristine state could exist, is similar to the law of the Jungle. If that is acceptable then it follows that that there is no intrinsic value to being human. There is only value in being a capable human. And our very humanity is called in question.

Hazza, I looked at your template and the embeded style. The style was clearly updated with your changes at some point. If it had not been it would be clearly seen because the stye Icon would have had those arrows in a circle chasing one another. They weren't there so you did update and that is why you aren't getting the message.

Here is an example of a template saved without updating the style. Take a look at how the style icon looks in the style browser and also try to add a scene.

Anyway, you clearly did the deed, just forgot to mention it as a step.

test.skp

nope. Maybe you did update the style but didn't mention it as a step>
Can I see your template file?

Well David, that is quite a charming 12th post "We people here" are generally a very pleasant and reflective lot. Expressing that I care and am concerned about the state of the poor is generally indicative of a "nice" person. For your information, I am a single parent and have been since my children were 1 and 3 years old (15 years). I have recieved zero financial support from my ex husband in all those years and I work very long hard hours to try and make ends meet. I am toiling for a living and I am not in the league of Mcain by a very long shot. There are so many more who are in much more desperate straits than I am and I am concerned for them. I do give to charities to the best of my abilities but my first priority is to do the best I can for my children.

So for you to say to me:

@david. said:

@sorgesu said:

Why don't you liberal hypocrites give your work away for free? Strange that I don't see any free products or services available on your websites. That's because you need to make sure everyone else is forced to tow your line. You are pathetic.

.

Is exceptionally insulting. But also it is totally irrelevant to the point. It really doesn't address my points and is just plain inflamatory. ( my clever son interjected here and said quite rightly that even if I were a hypocrite, that in no way affects the rightness or wrongness of the arguement at hand) You don't know me or anything about me. You've made all sorts of assumptions and you are willing to pick a fight based on a total lack of knowledge about who you are insulting.
This is a very interesting topic and no one is intelligent enough to unravel the mess and know for sure which way to go. It must be comforting for you to know that you have all the answers

At the danger of veering off in another direction. I think we all need to rethink the "value" of an individual's work or contribution to society. Blaming , say, the middle class as the author of ills because they are spending beyond their means sounds reasonable on the face of it. But the structure of fiscal policies and commerce in general is enabling, no, promoting that sort of spending. It really is hollow when multi millionaire political figures preach conservative spending to comparitive "have nots". Why is the labour of one man worth millions while the labour of another, who through no fault or intent of his own, is not as gifted. How do you "blame" those who want what the next guy has. Why can't he have it too? It is difficult not to be avaricious when the carrot is dangled in front of our noses.

I don't suggest that we all earn the same. That would be contrary to the basics of human nature. We don't just strive for self satisfaction, we do strive for recognition in a monetary sense. However, there is a greater imbalance in wealth or "recognition" in my opinion, than the imbalance in the degree of abilities and talent. Is the contribution of a janitor millions of times less value to society than a McCain?

As long as we have consipicuous consumption by large numbers who can afford, those who can't will want some of the pie. You either tighten up credit to make that impossible so no one gets into trouble, or your spread the wealth around more liberally so that more can have more easily. I don't know how you do that. Taxing the heck out of the rich and subsidizing the poor and mid income to some degree has all kinds of negative ramifications as well.