1. Select the surface and edges of the ramp and copy to clipboard
   2.Using push pull raise the height of the wall on the 2 straight ends to the desired height.
2. Use push pull to push the surface of the ramp DOWN and infenrece the bottom of the ramp to stop your push pull in line with the bottom edge
3. use the MOVE tool NOT push/pull to lift the surface of the walls of of the ramp. Make sure you move perfectly in the blue direction. tap the up arrow to lock in blue direction.
4. Lift the wall straigh up and inference the adjoining wall for the correct height.
5. paste in place from the clipboard to get your ramp back ( you push pulled it down so the original is not in the same place.

done.skp

well then I'm smiling for both of us. Glad to be of some help.

Okay, I see what's wrong. I took a look at your directory. Take everything OUT of the Patcopy folder and put it directly under the Plug Ins folder. the rb should not be in a folder, only the Icons should be in a folder but directly under the Plug Ins folder.

Edson, I'm sure that you know, but just in case, you did close SketchUp and open again AFTER you put the Ruby in the Plug Ins folder, right? It won't activate until you start up a fresh copy of SketchUp.

I got mine working.

Edson I think the secret is that you might be looking for "pathcopy" and what you should be looking for is copy along a path as stated above by juju

I get an error everytime I open SketchUp with this one in my Plug Ins directory. I really should have followed up but I just removed it.

It keeps looking for : vector.flat_angle.rb

Whicx it says it can't find, but it is alos in the PlugINs directory and it would appear named correctly as well. SO I just gave up.

There is a free Photoshop Plug In that does automatically pretty much what Tom does: that is scale down the image in Steps which results in a far less hazy image than a single resize. With very hi res images, sizing down in about 10 steps is optimum. For ones that are already smaller a fewer number of steps is required. It also can be set to size down in percentages rather than in number of steps:

IM Photography - Stairstep Image Size

photo,photography,picture,image,event,people,portrait,landscape,fashion,beautiful,digital photography

(www.imphotography.com)

Also in regard to resolution; I did a 7 foot wide billboard once and I also did 7 foot tall banners for my Expo Booth. When you are working with such large images ( 7000 pixels wide for the billboard and over 10000 pixels tall for the banner I had to add a bottom part in Photoshop, my SKP would go big enough) the best you can hope for as a print resolution to cover your output size is 100dpi and 150 dpi for the banner. 150dpi was much better. Can't go any lower than that. At 200dpi you get quite good quality. Graphic Artists all work in 300dpi. The problem with the 100dpi and 150dpi is that it spreads the available pixels over a great area so that, even though the picture is not fuzzy, it is not adequately saturated. Usually at lower dpi you need to adjust "autosaturate" the saturation before printing. Trying test swatches of little sections at the print resolution is a good idea.

I think if one other person has had a look and can't open, then your file is definitely corrupted.
If you don't have any older copies of it, I suggest your contact SketchUp support and they might be able to salvage your file for you.

okay, I found out what is happening with the zero offset. When I type in the zero, SketchUp appears to accept it, except if you zoom in on the selected offset, it is clear that it is not behaving as if it were zero. In fact it appears to create an offset of 1 despite the fact that the VCB shows 0.

If I type in .001 that is accepted and the offset might as well be zero.
Dylan, I wonder if you could test this on your machine. Is that the result that you were really getting?

That's what I'm saying Gaieus, I was never able to before. But today I could. How odd.

Funny, I've tried to use an offset of zero on countless different occasions and I couldn't. I just checked and I could.
On another thread someone asked about the maximume pixel size of an export and said he couldn't get it past 4000. I said it was 9999 and set out to prove it, and then I couldn't. I tried with 7000 and I couldn't. Tried it with 5000 and I couldn't. Then I tried it with a different model and I had no problem with 7000, didn't try 9999. I wonder what it is at work here, that sometimes an offset of zero works and others it does not?

You cannot create an offset that is less than 1. I've tried over and over again. It won't allow an offset of 0 just as it won't let you inference the height of the stamped surface with any of the surrounding geometry. Really a problem.
I would suggest instead to drop in a flat surface and use intersect with selected and remove unwanted geometry after the intersect process.

used to be 9999

I would also NOT recommned jpg format. Jpg is a lossy format. Each time you open and close a jpg you lose some small amount of detail. Most printing establishments ask you to send an uncommpressed tiff, because that is a lossless format, just a very large file size. You might also consider a png file type. Also lossless and more compact than a tiff.

Thanks so much Bob. But it would appear that the drive is black and uncompressed so thtat doesn't seem to be the reason.

Anssi, I think you are on to something. I created another user and signed on with that and when I selected a bunch of files and right clicked there was a marked difference in the hesitation time for the context menu to show up.
Now I don't really want to use the new user ID because I would have to set up all the program icons all over the palce all over again.
But now the question is, what is it in my user profile that is causing the slow down?

sounds like it is worth a try. Thanks Anssi.

Happy Belated Birthday Dyaln. Wish all your dreams come true.

right click on the texture and from the context menu select Texture>Positon.
This will show you a ghosted view of the extent of the texture. You will be able to use you mouse to drage it around and reposition it.

Well that's not very encouraging. How do I find it if Norton can't?
Would that be the only thing that such a virus would be interested in doing? In other words, do you really think it is likely to be a virus? Or something that I must have done??

Matte, sorry, I didn't get your e-mail until Monday morning and by then I was neck deep in brush fires. Didn't get a chance to look but I see you got it figured out. That's great and sorry about that.